Paradoxical leadership—enduring, integrating, and addressing tensions: the TENSE leadership model

Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für angewandte Organisationspsychologie (2026) 57:41–61 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-025-00857-6 HAUPTBEITRÄGE – THEMENTEIL Paradoxical leadership—enduring, integrating, and addressing tensions: the TENSE leadership model Simone Kauffeld1 · Lena Behrens1 · Hannah Büchner1 · Eva-Maria Schulte-Seitz1 Received: 10 November 2025 / Accepted: 30 December 2025 / Published online: 3 March 2026 © The Author(s) 2026 Abstract This article in “Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. (GIO)” introduces the TENSE leadership model. It starts from the premise that managers are increasingly confronted with paradoxical tensions in a dynamic and contradictory world of work. Drawing on a qualitative study with three expert groups, the paper confirms established paradoxical tensions and identifies new ones, including control vs. empowerment, harmony vs. conflict, structure vs. flexibility, and internal vs. external focus. Together with five competence areas for dealing with paradoxes, these tensions form the TENSE leadership model. The model integrates structural and personal requirements and thus provides a practice-oriented framework for leadership development, training, and organizational interventions. It advances paradox research by expanding existing models and simultaneously offers concrete approaches to fostering key competencies such as ambiguity tolerance, reflection, emotion regulation, and situational navigation in leadership practice. Keywords Paradoxical leadership · Leadership tensions · Leadership competencies · Ambiguity tolerance 1 Introduction Managers in organizations are increasingly confronted with contradictory demands that cannot be easily resolved but coexist permanently. These paradoxes are now considered a constitutive feature of modern leadership (cf. Batool et al. 2023)—especially in a world characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA; Taskan et al. 2022) as well as newer descriptive frameworks such as the BANI world (Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, Incomprehensible) (Cascio and Montealegre 2016). This describes an environment that is increasingly fragile, less predictable, and significantly more difficult to control than previous contexts (Bennett and Lemoine 2014; Sailer 2024). In such environments, linear leadership logic is increasingly inadequate—what is needed are dynamic and robust frameworks for thought and action leverage ambivalence productively. Leadership research has responded to this with the concept of paradoxical leadership (Schad et al. 2016;  Prof. Dr. Simone Kauffeld 1 Work, Organizational and Social Psychology, TU Braunschweig, Spielmannstr. 19, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany W. K. Smith and Lewis 2011), which describes the ability to treat contradictory yet interrelated requirements not as either/or choices, but as opportunities for both/and solutions—or, more ambitiously, a more-than approach (Putnam et al. 2016; Sailer 2024). Typical areas of tension that managers have to deal with on a daily basis include short-term problem solving vs. long-term strategy development or providing clear guidance vs. creating individual freedom (Lewis et al. 2014; Waldman and Bowen 2016). These tensions often become particularly virulent under conditions of resource scarcity, rapid change, or diverse stakeholder expectations—they are thus not only structurally inherent but also socially constructed (Schad et al. 2016; W. K. Smith and Lewis 2011). German-language research also pointed out such tensions early on, for example with the concept of leadership dilemmas (Gebert 2002; Neuberger 2002). Building on this tradition, the Balance Model of Leadership (BALI-F; Grote and Kauffeld 2007) systematized key polar requirements in eight dimensions that need to be balanced. In light of new profound challenges such as digitalization, decarbonization, demographics, and deglobalization—the so-called “4 D’s” (Demary et al. 2021)—and other trending topics in leadership research (such as health-oeriented leadership or empowerment), the question arises as to whether the paradoxical tensions identified to date (Grote and Kauffeld 2007; K 42 Neuberger 2002; W. K. Smith and Lewis 2011) continue to be central or need to be supplemented by new ones. This concerns, for example, tensions in dealing with artificial intelligence, the climate crisis, or ever-faster change processes (cf. Schaper et al. 2023). Furthermore, the question arises as to whether balancing the paradoxical tensions is sufficient or whether further strategies are needed to deal with them. The aim of this article is to reassess paradoxical key tensions against the backdrop of international research on paradoxical leadership and current trends in the world of work, and to develop an expanded, practical model of paradoxical leadership. As part of a qualitative study with three groups of experts, we analyze which paradoxical tensions are currently perceived as key, which have been newly added, and how managers deal with them in their everyday work. The identified paradoxical tensions are assigned to an overarching meta-model of leadership (cf. Grille and Kauffeld 2015; Grote and Kauffeld 2007), which serves as an orientation framework for leadership under tension. In addition, we examine strategies for dealing with paradoxical demands in practice. These results culminate in the TENSE model, which systematizes paradoxical key tensions and coping patterns and offers starting points for leadership development and organizational interventions. S. Kauffeld et al. agers are tasked with managing paradoxes in organizations (Cunha et al. 2019). Paradoxical leadership thus involves the continuous and reflective handling of permanently existing tensions (Angress-Pletsch and Gergs 2024; Ortmann 2024). 2.2 Effects of paradoxical leadership Paradoxical tensions can potentially cause negative effects such as stress, uncertainty, and defensive behavior in managers if they do not deal with them adequately (MironSpektor et al. 2018; Schad et al. 2016). At the same time, studies show that managers who can think and act paradoxically not only manage these tensions constructively, but also foster innovation and adaptability at both teams and organizational levels (Lewis and Smith 2022; Zhang et al. 2015). The decisive factor is therefore how managers deal with paradoxical demands in their everyday management activities. Managers who address tensions in a targeted and integrative manner often develop more effective and sustainable solutions by combining different requirements and perspectives. Successful leadership in dealing with paradoxes therefore requires not only tolerating ambiguities, but also navigating them in a targeted manner and using them productively (Angress-Pletsch and Gergs 2024; Miron-Spektor et al. 2018). The Table 1 lists some research findings on the effects of paradoxical leadership. 2 Current state of research 2.1 Paradoxes 2 (...truncated)