“There's an old joke: … two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort and one of 'em says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know, and such small portions.” ….Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) in Annie Hall (1977).
Funny perhaps, paradoxical definitely, familiar absolutely. Having studied organizational paradoxes in global organizations for many years, it is perhaps not surprising that at least one of my columns would address paradoxes of organizing at ICA. And this seems an especially appropriate time. Between Hurricane Sandy and the record number of submissions for our forthcoming London conference, as well as developing award criteria and creating award committees, hard decisions are being made by the ICA board that bring to the fore paradoxical tensions that are grounded in our mission, our identity, and our continuing growth as the premier global academic communication association.
Most scholars agree that organizational paradoxes are comprised of concurrent contradictory elements that endure over time. These elements may seem logical when considered in isolation, but when taken together they become illogical, irrational, and even absurd. Often tensions among these elements give rise to actions that are in direct opposition to the very goal(s) an organization is trying to accomplish. But as the literature also suggests, paradoxes are neither unusual nor necessarily destructive. They often arise during times of institutional growth and change and can be beneficial. Approaching paradoxical tensions with an acute sense of discovery and a “both/and” mindset fosters more effective organizations, enables greater organizational participation, increases members’ understanding of their organization, and facilitates transcendence of the paradoxes themselves. It is in that spirit that I address two issues we have recently confronted. I choose these as illustrative of the paradoxical tensions associated with our organizational imperative: as a global membership association it is our responsibility to be sensitive to and take into account the diverse sensibilities of our members.
1. The Responsivity Paradox
Effective organizations need rules that are consistently, equally, and fairly applied to all its members. For ICA, one of the most important rules is our conference submission deadline. Yet, in the last 2 years, within days of the deadline, we extended the submission timeline. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, some of our members wondered why we waited so long to make the decision and thereby caused unnecessary stress on people who were already going through a difficult time. Some have asked why accommodation was made for our North American members when disruptions are part of daily life in others parts of the world and we haven’t changed the rules for them. Others have questioned the fairness of a delay for those who waited until the very last minute when those who heeded organizational warnings to submit early to avoid problems were not able to use the extra time to polish and re-edit their submissions.
The decision to extend the deadline took so long because 1) we weren’t sure how widespread and how long the problem would last and 2) we faced a set of paradoxical tensions surrounding organizational sensitivity and flexibility. On the one hand, if this had happened in any other region at that precise time and affected such a large proportion of the membership, postponing the submission deadline could have been seen as illustrative of our international sensitivity and sensibility. On the other hand, given that ICA is striving to become a less American-centric association (both in actions and perceptions) we were concerned that postponing the deadline for a second year in a row because of a natural disaster in the eastern part of North America would be interpreted as empirical evidence that we remain a U.S.-centric organization. Would sensitivity to the plight of some members demonstrate insensibility to others’ concerns? After much discussion we agreed it was in the best interests of all our members to postpone the submission deadline. To not act in accordance with our values of flexibility and sensitivity because the affected members came from the Northeastern parts of Canada and the U.S. seemed counter to ICA goals of inclusion and responsiveness. Nonetheless we were aware of the tension and considered the ramifications of our decision. We are pleased that ICA received over 4,400 submissions, a new record that included 1,400 submissions in the days after the extension was granted. We also hope that our motivations and actions engender trust and reassure our members throughout the world that ICA consciously and reflectively strives for what the classical organizational theorist Henri Fayol defines as equity: fairness, kindness and justice.
2. The Recognition Paradox
Part of the ICA mission is “to promote a wider public interest in, and visibility of, the theories, methods, findings and applications generated by research in communication.“ One way we do this is to publicly recognize and celebrate the very best research, mentoring and engagement in our discipline at our annual conference and in news releases throughout the world. These association-wide awards are open to all members of the association regardless of region, research methodology, or division. Yet over the last several years, both the ICA board and individual members have voiced concern that nominations (and subsequent winners) are overwhelmingly from the United States. In response we have tried to encourage a broad range of nominations but for some of the awards we have not been very successful. Thus, as President I created an ad hoc committee to look at our award structure and see if there was anything we could do to better reflect our mission and broaden nominations across ICA divisions and regions. The committee has come up with a set of suggestions, some of which we have already implemented in our latest call for award nominations (due 31 January 2013). More than ever before, the makeup of our award committees reflect the international, theoretical, and methodological diversity of our membership and each committee is being urged to solicit and encourage nominations across a wide range of scholars. But as I read one of the committee members’ comments I was struck by the paradoxical nature of this endeavor.
“I looked over the awards criteria and requirements, but I did not see anything that is particularly U.S.-centric in the wording, except the notion of giving awards itself.”
Is trying to make a process that is perceived by some as American-centric less U.S. centric what we should be doing, or is this just another example of American values of competitiveness and individualism riding roughshod over others’ collective and collaborative norms? Having spent a great deal of time in Denmark I am quite familiar with the culturally pervasive Jante Law, a set of 10 fictional laws from the fictional town which caution each person ‘‘not to think you are anything special.’’ Many cultures discourage the expectation that one should intentionally stand out from the crowd. To be inclusive and respectful of all our members what mechanisms do or should we have in place to encourage nominations, even when we know some members are uncomfortable with the idea of giving so many awards, some are concerned with losing face if the person they nominate doesn’t win, and others may experience real discomfort if they win an award. I do not know what the answers are, but bringing these tensions into view is a first step in ICA being able to address the concerns voiced about our award process. I hope by reading this you may have some ideas to share with the board for consideration.
There are many other paradoxical tensions we face and I plan on addressing some of these in future columns. These include paradoxes of size: no one liking big conferences but everyone wanting to be able to come, while the discipline we represent is expanding globally at an ever increasing rate, yet we do not want to lose the intimacy of ICA. Globalization is fraught with paradox and opportunity, and I look forward to our continued efforts to engage our field and maximize the potential of our scholarly community. Your insights and suggestions of other ICA paradoxes, organizational challenges, and responses are welcomed. In the meantime I wish us all good food and large portions.
