Explain horizontal coordination through the Human Resource Management Paradox Model

Document Type : Research Article (with mixed approaches)


1 PHD in HRM, The Center for Army Strategic Studies.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Commerce, Faculty of Economics, Management and Administrative Sciences, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran.

3 Associate Prof., Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management, Shahid Sattari Aeronautical University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.


Objective: The purpose of this study is to design a model for managing HR paradoxes in order to coordinate the HR processes.
Approach: The present research is based on purpose, descriptive-explanatory and, based on the result, applied and in terms of quantitative-qualitative (mixed) data. The statistical population of the study is the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force and the external paradoxes of human resources were analyzed to explain coordination in the description of assigned tasks. After identifying the main research question, an attempt was made to examine the research literature. The conceptual model framework was developed and exploratory interviews were conducted with 4 experts to confirm the initial pattern ratio and finally the research process was followed using Delphi method in three stages to develop and test the designed model.The samples were selected purposefully and by snowball method from experts and human resources experts.
Results: According to the initial model of the study, 20 outer paradoxes were identified which were finally confirmed after deletions and additions and correction of 21 outer paradoxes, 10 paradoxes through the Synthesis strategy, 2 through the Temporal differentiation strategy, 2 through the Accept (Working through) strategy, 7 through the Spatial differentiation strategy, and 3 through the two strategies can be managed simultaneously.
Constraints and Consequences: The most important limitation of the present study is the lack of applied research in the field of HR paradoxes. In addition, the proximity of the concepts of conflict, dilemma and paradox, and repeated need to explain the philosophical concepts has been holding each round of the Delphi panel.
Practical implications: According to the research findings, resolving the human resource paradoxes and managing them will lead to human resource sustainability and internal and external coordination.
Article Value: The present paper has led to an understanding of the external paradoxes of human resources in the Air Force, which leads to the discourse and improvement of paradox management conditions through defensive strategies and the generalization of its results to other organizations.


  1. Alidosti, Sirus (2006), Delphi Method: Basics, Steps and Examples of Application. Management and Development Quarterly, No. 31: 23-8. (in Persian)
  2. Andriopoulos C and Lewis MW (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science 20(4): 696-717.
  3. Bastan, Mehdi, Sara, Akbarpour and Ahmadvand, Ali Mohammad (2019). Simulation of the profitability paradox of Iranian commercial banks: a model based on the system dynamics approach. Monetary and Financial Economics Research Quarterly, No. 26 (17). (in Persian)
  4. Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. (2010), Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1419–1440.
  5. Bleason, A.T. (1998), Paradoxes and leadership roles, management development forum, 1(2): 1-14.
  6. Boselie P (2014). Strategic Human Resource Management: A Balanced Approach, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
  7. Boselie P, Brewster C and Paauwe J (2009). In search of balance – managing the dualities of HRM: An overview of the issues. Personnel Review 38(5): 461–471.
  8. Cheal, J. (2008), Exploring the role of NLP in the management of organisational paradox. Current Research in NLP: Vol. 1 - Proceedings of Conference.
  9. Creswell, J.W. (2017), Research design (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodos). Tehran: ketabemehraban. (in persion).
  10. Dargi, Parviz (2011), Pathology of work teams; Introduction of organizational syndromes. Retrieved on 20/08/1396, http://dargi.ir. (in Persian)
  11. De Vita, G. & Case, P. (2016), ‘The smell of the place’: Managerialist culture in contemporary UK business schools. Culture and Organisation, 22 (4): 348-364.
  12. Dehghan, Nabiollah (2010), Presenting a model for improving export performance: Emphasizing the effect of strategic fit between international marketing strategy with the environmental dimensions of the organization and international marketing subsystems on export performance, PhD thesis, Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University. (in Persian)
  13. Doty, D.H., Glick, W.H and Huber, G.P. (1993),”Fit, equifinality and organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 1196-1250.
  14. Ehnert, I. (2009), "Sustainable Human Resource Management, Contributions to Management Science". Springle Dordrechet Heidelberg London, New York, NY.
  15. Eisenhardt K. M, & B. J. Westcott. (1988), “Paradoxical Demands and the Creation of Excellence.” InParadox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management. Eds. R. E. Quinn and K. S. Cameron. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger: 169–194.
  16. Etemadi, Hossein, Tari, Ghaffar and Rasaeian, Amir (2011), The paradoxes of total quality management and their strategies. Development Strategy Quarterly, No. 27: 42-18. (in Persian)
  17. Fairhurst GT, Smith WK, Banghart SG, Lewis MW, Putnam LL, Raisch S and Schad J (2016). Diverging and converging: Integrative insights on a paradox meta-perspective. Academy of Management Annals 10(1): 173-180.
  18. Francis H and Keegan A (2018). The ethics of engagement in an age of austerity: A paradox perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. Epub ahead of print 13. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-018-3976-1.
  19. Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209-226. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573.
  20. Goyandeh: Najafabadi, Kobra (2013), Presenting the Management Model of Organizational Paradoxes Based on Logical Adaptation Strategy (Case Study of Isfahan Petrochemical Company). Master Thesis, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch, Department of Humanities. (in Persian)
  21. Guilmot, Nathalie. And Ehnert, Ina (2015). 27 years of research on organizational paradox and coping strategies: A review. XXIVe Conference International de Management Strategique.
  22. Halffman, W. & Radder, H. (2015). The Academic Manifesto: From an occupied to a public university. Minerva, 53, 165-187.
  23. Handi, Charles (1997), The Age of Contradiction and Conflict, translated by Mahmoud Tolo Mechanic. Tehran: Rasa Cultural Services Institute. (in Persian)
  24. Jarzabkowski, P. Lê, J. K. & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013), Responding to competingstrategicdemands: how organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxescoevolve. Strategic organization, 11(3): 245–280.
  25. Jarzabkowski, Paula. Bednarek, Rebecca. Chalkias, Konstantinos. & Cacciatori, Eugenia. (2018), Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge. sagepub.com/journals-permissions.
  26. Kamali Pour, N., Shojaei, S., Samiei, R., & Azma, F. (2019). Investigating the Factors Affecting Knowledge Hiding With Emphasis on Exclusion. Journal of Public Administration Perspective, 10(2), 216-237.
  27. Kaplan, Robert., & Norton, David (2000). The Strategy Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Harvard business school press, 1 edition (September 2000).
  28. Karimi, Sedigheh and Nasr, Ahmad Reza (2013), Methods of analyzing interview data. Journal of Humanities Research, 4th year, first issue: 71-94. (in Persian)
  29. Keegan, A. Bitterling, I. Sylva, H. & Hoeksema L. (2017), Organising the HRM function: Responses to paradoxes, variety, and dynamism. Human Resource Management, 57(5): 1111–1126.
  30. Keegan, A. Bitterling, I. Sylva, H. & Hoeksema L. (2017), Organising the HRM function: Responses to paradoxes, variety, and dynamism. Human Resource Management, 57(5): 1111–1126.
  31. Leung, A. K.-y.  Liou, Shyhnan. Miron-Spektor. Ella, Koh, Brandon. Chan, David. Eisenberg, Roni. & Schneider, Iris K. (2019), Middle Ground Approach to Paradox: Within- and Between-Culture Examination of the Creative Benefits of Paradoxical Frames. International Journal of Management Reviews 21(2):143-16.
  32. Lewis, M. W. (2000), Exploring Paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 82(4):760-776.
  33. Luscher, L. S. & Lewis, M. (2008). Organizational Change and Managerial Sense making: Working through Paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 21(8).
  34. Martin, B. (2016), what is happening to our universities? SPRU Working Paper Series, January, University of Sussex.
  35. Naderi, Abolghasem (2006), The paradox of lack of specialized manpower and unemployment of university graduates. Journal of Labor and Society, No. 75 and 76: 39-4. (in Persian)
  36. Nonaka, I. and R. Toyama (2002). Firm as a dialectic being: toward the dynamic theory of the firm, Industrial and Corporate Change, 11.
  37. O’Brien E & Linehan, C. (2014). A balancing act: Emotional challenges in the HR role. Journal of Management Studies 51(8): 1257–1285.
  38. Poole, M. S. & van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4).
  39. Putnam LL, Fairhurst, GT & Banghart, S. (2016), Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organisations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals 10(1):65–171.
  40. Qaraati, Mohsen (2004), Tafsir Noor. Tehran: Cultural Center for Lessons from the Quran, 11th edition. (in Persian)
  41. Rezaeian, Alireza (2015). The great challenges of the future development of information and communication technology, Journal of Public Administration Perspective 21(1):25-19. (in Persian)
  42. Schad, J. (2016), Diverging and converging: Integrative insights on a paradox meta-perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 173-180.
  43. Skulmoski, G.  and Hartman,  F. and Krahn  (2007).  Delphi method for GraduateResearch, Journal of Information Technology Education, Vol6.
  44. Soltani, Iraj and Goyandeh Najafabadi, Kobra, (2014). The Role of Paradox Management in Sustainability of Human Resource Management, International Conference on Management in the 21st Century, Tehran, Vira Capital Institute of Managers. (in Persian)
  45. Soltani, Iraj, Goyandeh Najafabadi, Kobra and Karbasian, Mehdi (2013), Paradox and its management in organizations: An analysis of the paradoxes of the main activities of the organization. Second International Conference on Management, Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. (in Persian)
  46. Terry, Bryab D. (2009), Fundamental Dimensions and Essentiai of Exemplary County Extension Offices: A Delphi Study. A Disertation Persented for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy, University Of Florida.
  47. Tsoukas H and Cunha MP (2017). On organizational circularity: Vicious and virtuous circles in organizing. In: Smith WK, Lewis MW, Jarzabkowski P and Langley A (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 393-412.