As polarization—the division of opposites into extremes—increasingly disrupts business and society, organizational scholars seek approaches to bridge the divides it engenders. Paradox theory, with its tradition of integrating competing perspectives, offers promising pathways for navigating polarization. However, its underpinning raises critical questions: Can paradox theory address the deep interactional, positional, and affective roots of polarization, or does it risk reducing the complex interplay of rationality, emotion, and action to overly simplistic—or even naïve— frameworks? Amid rising conflict and polarization, paradox theory’s call to embrace opposing viewpoints warrants re-evaluation. By bridging insights from conflict management and paradox scholarship, this PDW aims to examine avenues to manage polarization within organizations. Targeted at OMT, CM, MOC and related divisions, this PDW fosters productive discussions on paradox and polarization. Part 1 of the session will feature expert panelists in paradox and conflict management who will share theoretical and practical insights and explore key questions, such as: What are the implications of paradox research for addressing societal polarization? What are its limitation in balancing rationality and empathy, and how do these limitations affect individuals and society in polarizing contexts? How are current efforts to address polarization creating more divides than bridges? In Part 2, participants will engage in interactive workshops in round tables, applying their own research, brainstorming solutions and future research directions while fostering safe, empathy-driven dialogue. The interdisciplinarity of this PDW appeals to a broader audience interested in tensions, contradictions, and polarization in organizational settings.

As calls for research with practical impact intensify, Action Research (AR) promises to combine scholarly inquiry and organizational change. Yet it faces two key criticisms: limited theoretical generalizability and overly optimistic assumptions about its effects. Drawing on a multi-year AR project, we argue that AR’s deep engagement with organizational life surfaces paradoxes—persistent, interrelated tensions central to organizing. These paradoxes offer a double-edged potential: they can yield rich, theory-extending insights or, if mismanaged, produce harmful consequences. We propose a paradox-aware approach to AR, positioning paradox management as a critical methodological practice for generating responsible impact and advancing theoretically meaningful contributions.