Despite their business relevance, creative professional service firms are under-researched, in particular with regard to how they compete for work. Competing for work is key to survival, but also extremely challenging due to the complexity of the services offered. In this paper we use a paradox framework to investigate the opposing demands that creative professional service firms experience when competing for work. Based on a set of semi-structured interviews in the context of architectural competitions, we show that creative professional service firms face two interwoven paradoxes which relate to the strategic intent (why to compete) and the design intent (what to propose) of client propositions. We describe these paradoxes and explain how organizations manage and cope with them through both synthesis and separation management approaches. Contributions of this study can be found in theorizing paradoxes of competing for work from the professional service provider's perspective, and in fostering the firms’ paradoxical mind-set, which facilitates the acceptance and resolution of complexity and different competing demands.@en

dDespite being one of the most important means to obtain commissions, to explore in design terms and to develop design quality, architectural competitions are an extremely controversial procedure, in both research and in practice. Competitions present contradictory features and competing demands. Nevertheless, they are increasingly used within the European procurement law, to the point that exploring and understanding these debated elements is essential to improve their effectiveness. In this paper we use a paradox lens to reveal managerial insights from competitions. A paradox is a set of contradictory elements that are logical when considered separately but become illogical when considered together. We identify four paradoxes and propose accompanying managerial implications for architects, clients and their juries with regard to each competition phase: programming, shortlisting and selecting, designing a proposal, making a decision. We suggest that embracing and managing paradoxes means dealing with the open yet prescriptive character of the brief in the programming phase, ensuring an open competition while shortlisting and selecting the relevant competitors, confirming the brief but also instructing the client on the better options in the design phase, and balancing emotions and rational thinking in the jury decision-making process. With regard to each paradox we provide examples from international competitions held in The Netherlands, Italy, Sweden and UK. @en