Moving forward without resolution: Managing competing logics through a temporary agreement

Managing competing logics is a challenging task with significant risks if not done properly. Current research presents conflicting views, suggesting that contradictions between competing logics must either be resolved or tolerated. To bridge these conflicting perspectives, this study enhances a relational paradox view to understand how competing logics can coexist without paralyzing organizations. Our study extends existing literature by demonstrating that competing logics can coexist under specific conditions, including time and innovation pressures. When these conditions are present, individuals can reach temporary agreements to move forward, without fundamentally resolving the underlying contradiction. These findings elucidate why competing logics do not paralyze organizations. This research suggests new avenues for studying practices to manage competing logics from a relational paradox perspective. • In a rapidly evolving digital landscape, competing outside-in and inside-out innovation logics create tensions within organizations. • Competing innovation logics can paralyze firms, with existing research suggesting that they should either be resolved or lived with. • In contrast, we find that temporary agreements allow the organization to move forward while both logics continue to coexist. • Temporary agreements thereby function as a temporal relational synthesis between both competing logics.