Microstructure of “Both/And”: SMART Strategies for Simultaneously Engaging Paradoxical Opposites

The literature on organizational paradoxes emphasizes the importance of both/and thinking and action. Yet, while often treated as a unitary concept, both/and has been interpreted and operationalized in diverse ways—such as ambidexterity, transcendence, Yin-Yang balancing, and Zhong-Yong middle way. To enhance conceptual clarity and coherence, this paper decomposes the notion of both/and and identifies generic strategies for simultaneously engaging paradoxical opposites. I begin by reviewing individual responses and prior classifications of responses to paradoxical tensions, which reveals five distinct responses beyond either/or logics. Building on these, I develop a typology that specifies and relates five variants of both/and thinking. These are organized into five ideal types—superficial Either-And, multiversal Both-Or, ambivalent Both-And, reconciliatory Both-Nor, and transcendent Neither-And—collectively forming the acronym SMART. I illustrate the application of the SMART framework by analyzing how organizations navigate the profitability versus responsibility tension, a paradox central to modern business practice. I conclude the paper by identifying the limitations of the present study and avenues for future research.