Johan Berglund

In this paper, we examine the role of paradoxes as narrative devices in organizational contexts. A merger between two banks is used to illustrate managers employing paradoxes to construct meaning and to influence future actions of organizational members. We argue that when paradoxes are reshaped as hybrids, they provide a buffer between conflicting arguments. By employing hybrids, organizational storytellers facilitate links between existing and desired mental frameworks, thus potentially rendering transitions and changes less friction-prone. A convincing story told under these forms - Striking the right balance between potentially incommensurable but both in their own way appealing ideas - Has the potentiality to create an inclusive vision in which diverse groups can find "their" place.

As experts and fashion setters of the business community, management consultants have a strong position in modern society. We argue that the basis of this position is the size of the rhetorical space of legitimate arguments open to consultants. In legitimating their activities, consultants produce a great array of arguments based on two contradictory myths or master-ideas recurrent in the business discourse—the normative/pragmatic myth and the rationalistic myth. These two myths are in turn viewed as a variation of the deeply institutionalized western dichotomy of nature vs. culture. Although these myths officially are incommensurable, management consultants freely mix arguments based on both myths when translating organizational change. Herein lies the potential invincibility of the consultants' rhetoric—the possibility of transforming that which earlier was treated as `objective' and given into something negotiable and changeable, and vice versa, thereby increasing the possibility of satisfying ever-changing and contradicting needs.