Content uploaded by Ian Randall
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ian Randall on Feb 11, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
- Prepublication -
Dynamics of innovation : The paradoxical nature of innovation as revealed by
an investigation into the sport of rowing.
Ian Randall
School of Business, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Oct 2023
email : lladnarnai@gmail.com
1. The Assumptions of Innovation 2.
2. Paradoxes - The dynamics of innovation 16.
3. Paradoxa - considering a meta theory 27.
4. The Paradox of Organisation 36.
5. Paradoxa of Innovation - The dynamics of innovation in Sport 44.
6. Historical Lens of Innovation - Looking Back 66.
7. Paradoxa, citius and para bellum and the dynamics of innovation in rowing 85.
8. Conclusion 111.
9. Bibliography 112.
Abstract
There continues to be a disconnect between innovation and adoption within sporting contexts.
Assumptions concerning innovation may continue to guide decision making yet the realities of innovation
adoption have a more profound impact on the development of contemporary sports. This study explores
the paradoxical nature of innovation and how inherent paradoxes have affected the sport of rowing, a
sport long recognised as inherently conservative and change resistant. Yet, Sports scientists, researchers
and designers continue to work on the assumption that their efforts will be positively received and
conclusions acted upon by the rowing community. This study demonstrates how the paradoxes of
innovation within rowing hamper innovation adoption and have impacted the development of the sport.
For example, the tensions between the traditional, conservative ethos of rowing, deeply rooted in its
historical ties to the Royal Navy and the progressive ideals of modern sports encapsulated by the Olympic
movement. This historical linkage results in a sport characterised by a reluctance and pervasive
scepticism to adopt new technologies and scientific research despite potential performance advantages.
Rowing’s organisational resistance to innovation reflects the larger dynamics of organisations struggling
to balance tradition and innovation. The study concludes by citing various historical examples, including
the reluctance to adopt new boat designs and rowing techniques to demonstrate the paradoxical nature of
innovation in the sport. It is argued that having an understanding of how historical and cultural legacies
can shape, constrain and direct the innovation of sporting communities. This study demonstrates the
paradoxical interplay of history, culture, organisation and individual factors in the innovation process,
underlining the importance of engaging with these complexities for effective change management in sport.
This study presents an examination of the dynamics of innovation, using rowing as a key example, to
challenge the established views of innovation adoption and diffusion, advocating for a more detailed
understanding of the paradoxical nature of innovation in both sports and broader organisational contexts.
1
- Prepublication -
1. The Assumptions of Innovation
“Build a better mousetrap,
and though you live in the woods,
the world will beat a path to your door”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
(Lienhard, John H. Inventing Modern:
Growing Up with X-Rays, Skyscrapers, and Tailfins. p. 204.
Attributed to, 2003)
This sentiment is attributed to American philosopher R.W. Emerson and refers to a prevailing
and enduring belief in the nature of innovations and innovator as the hero genius; it represents an
almost universally accepted belief that the market is positively and actively seeking out
innovations. It is a belief that the enduring success of any innovation will depend solely upon its
efficacy and that any innovation is valued and will be welcomed as a positive force in this world.
It is a view of innovation that is grossly misleading, fanciful and an utterly false assumption
about the world, the treatment of the innovator and the product of their labours. Emerson’s
statement fails on the most simplistic level for it refuses to recognise that there are more
incentives to use an existing mousetrap stored in our cupboard rather than to adopt a new one,
regardless of its proclaimed advantages. Even when the prevailing winds appear to favour
innovation, the desire for market profit or some altruistic universal good, the reality could not be
further from the truth as innovations are commonly met with indifference, mistrust and
scepticism. For an organisation invested in delivering performance outcomes in line with the
status quo, there is no incentive to change and to adopt a novel innovation, especially when there
is no perceived threat or motivation to change. Their motivation is solely concerned with
delivering and conforming to the status quo. (Christensen, 2012) What interest or benefit is there
in innovation adoption? It is one thing for a designer to propose a new innovation to the market
and another for those belonging to an organisational structure to be able to adopt it.
2
- Prepublication -
Contemporary organisations are unable to be innovative and those within organisations appear
unable to adopt innovations resulting in a world where good designs fail and poor designs endure
and where only the smallest fraction of a percentage of patents are ever commercialised. (Fisher,
D, 2014) It has long been assumed that product innovations are typically developed by product
manufacturers. Because this assumption deals with the basic matter of who the innovator is, it
has inevitably had a major impact on innovation-related research, on firms' management of
research and development, and on government innovation policy.
American Sociologist Everett Rogers (1962) was the first to conduct a major study into
innovation adoption and he recognised that there was more to it than the efficacy of the
innovation itself and directed the blame, so to speak, towards the end user. Rogers surmised that
each person has a particular attitude towards innovation and this will influence how quickly they
would be open to adopting an innovation, if at all. He recognised that there were particular types
of people who would adopt an innovation and he investigated when and why they would do so,
categorising their attitudes. Rogers’ theory of innovation broadened to include not only the
efficacy of a particular innovation but also an understanding of various sociological groups as
innovation diffuses into the world. His study formed popular thinking and terms like “early
adopters” and “laggards” which are still prevalent in today’s literature. Rogers identifies the
behaviour of individuals and models their behaviour towards innovation thus presenting a very
linear presentation of diffusion. First, an innovation will be adopted by a group of forward
thinking innovators then proceed to early adopters, the majority and so forth. Yet the world is
nonlinear and the path of innovation involves multiple interactions with modern organisations
and sociological structures (Mintzberg, H. 2005). The diffusion of an innovation is a complex
3
- Prepublication -
path of engagement with groups of people within organisational structures, which in itself
determines an individual's ability to act independently or conform to Rogers five groupings.
Modern society has formed organisational structures which dominate most areas of our lives
from employment to entertainment, communication to commerce. Within such organisations,
innovations present a cacophony of disruptions, unforeseen roadblocks, loss of productivity,
required changes in business plans, loss of supply, available materials and infrastructure
(McAfee, A. 2002). Yet, at the same time, innovations are popularly understood to offer
organisations immense promise and opportunity (Garud, R.; Karne, P. 2003). Understanding
innovation adoption and diffusion is vital for organisations when making difficult decisions,
especially in the face of uncertain times, like our own. Developing a rigorous concept of
innovation and understanding the path of diffusion from the hand of the innovator into the hands
of the “world” is important for both the success of future innovation and the progression of any
organisation. A failure to recognise the significant consequences of either adopting or rejecting
an innovation could have a lasting impact on any organisation. It is critical for organisations to
have an appreciation of the potential that innovations offer and to be meaningfully engaged in the
dynamic and ongoing adoption process (Garud, R.; Gehman, J.; Kumaraswamy, A. 2011).
The American economist Clay Christensen taught the importance of developing a critical theory
to help managers make decisions in the face of innovation. Clayton Christensen in his seminal
work on disruptive innovations (1997) shows how it was in the unquestionably safe hands of the
sound, conservative and status-quo oriented managers that caused countless businesses to fail
and entire industries to vanish. Importantly, he stresses that it was not a case of mismanagement
but prevailing assumptions about innovations and the impossibility of managers to deal with an
4
- Prepublication -
unknown future. The future gives us no data to guide decision making, so Christensen stresses
the importance of managers having a theory of innovation and recognise the precarious situation
that all organisations are in. (Christensen, 2012) The American economist Clay Christianson
teaches the importance of developing a critical theory to help managers make decisions in the
face of innovation.
When we teach people that they need to be fact-driven and data-based and
analytical as they look into the future in many ways we condemn them to take
action when the game is over. The only way you can look into the future, there is
no data, so you have to have a good theory. Every time we take an action it is
predicated on a theory. By teaching managers “coaches” to look through the lens
of theory into the future you can actually see the future very clearly.
(Clay Christensen - Clay Christensen, Harvard Business School, Harvard
Business Review 2012 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDrMAzCHFUU)
Rogers sought to understand the nature of innovations by looking at the market and the attitudes
that shape people's attitudes to adopt or reject any innovation. Diffusionism, as inspired by
Rogers, focuses on the properties of an innovation, in order to highlight its relative qualities (to a
context) and thus explain its propagation. (Boutroy, et al., 2015, p.386)
Diffusionism, as inspired by Rogers, focuses on the properties of an innovation, in
order to highlight its relative qualities (to a context) and thus explain its
propagation.(Boutroy, Vignal & Soule, Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure,
2015 Vol. 38, No. 3, p.386)
Rogers’ theory of diffusion attributes the success of an innovation by recognising the advantages
of one solution (a.) over another solution (b.) in addressing a determined problem and appealing
to just the right sociological group to adopt it. Rogers considers the success of one innovation
over another, one solution that is better than another, as being in binary opposition to one
5
- Prepublication -
another. Christensen, on the other hand, popularised the concept of innovation where new
innovations would focus not on a better solution but disrupt the existing marketplace by
producing cheaper, not better, solutions (Christensen 1997).
The application of foundational innovation theories, like Roger’s (1962) theory of Diffusion or
Christensen’s (1997) theory of Disruption, seem insufficient to describe the progression of
successful innovations in the sports sector and is especially true of my own experience in rowing.
Paradoxically, the diffusion of any said sporting innovation appears discordant with qualities
attributed to the innovation itself. Yet, recent design innovations within the sport of rowing have
been met with resistance by the rowing community, exemplifying the inadequacies of both
Emerson’s and Rogers’ theories. Likewise, Christensen’s model of disruption, concerning legacy
companies producing stoic products created with antiquated manufacturing processes, are
white-anted by alternative cheaply produced lower quality products, also falls short.
Christensen’s model does not differentiate between a better performing mousetrap, or rowing oar,
or a more cheaply produced product of an existing design. Within the context of rowing, a
cheaper innovation may not bring about greater adoption.
Roberto Verganti also presents in Design-driven Innovation (2019) that the mainstream
understanding of successful innovations is nothing but mythology. Innovation seems caught
between representations of the mythology of the hero genius individual with a spark of
inspiration, the bolt from the blue, and that of the on trend market-research consumer centric
design by committee. Such popular myths of innovation which oscillate between the effortless
moment of inspiration and that of the strategy of tapping the fickle demands of the market hold
6
- Prepublication -
little validity for Verganti in understanding how lasting and meaningful innovation takes place.
Counter to what is popularised about innovation and to that which has been presented in
mainstream managerial consensus - innovation lies in neither of these places. (P.7) In contrast,
Verganti's research presented that successful design concepts are derived from multiple and
deliberate interactions between key interpreters and decision makers within the company. This is
in contrast to the market determining the form of the next innovation, whereas Verganti describes
that ‘design’ innovation should lead and direct the market and not the other way around. The
definition of ‘design’ that Verganti proposes is closely associated with ‘concept’ or ‘meaning’
and the innovator is to present a new meaning for that design to the market.
What emerges from these investigations is the twofold nature of products. The
utilitarian dimension deals with function and performance, and an equally
important dimension concerns symbols, identity, and emotions - in other words,
meanings. The dialectic therefore is not between function and form, but between
function and meaning. (p. 28)
Simply, innovations are purposeful and strategic decisions to present new meanings to the world.
(p.10) Vergant’s understanding represents an anomaly in popular management theory as the
market is propositioned by the designer to accept a new meaning for that product or service as
opposed to fulfilling an expectation of the market. This leads us to a host of questions that face
the innovator and are fundamental to this study. So, why does the path of a simple innovation
look deceptively straightforward, when it is anything but? Why are the expectations of designers,
that their innovation will be widely adopted, so commonly wrong? Why are the strategies
entrepreneurs adopt to progress innovation so often misguided? These questions revolve around
the paradox that all innovators face; Why do good designs fail and poor designs endure? The
study of design innovation is fundamentally a study of paradox, where innovators, managers and
7
- Prepublication -
entrepreneurs look blindfolded into the future with false hope, unrealistic expectations and make
decisions based on groundless assumptions. It is now not enough, nor ever has been, to have
developed an innovation and wait for the world to beat a path to your door. We now must
understand the dynamics of innovation diffusion itself. The assumption that an innovation would
be welcomed by the market can no longer endure as we are left with a myriad of factors that
undermine this belief and it is imperative that those involved with progressing or adopting
innovations develop an approach that recognises this.
“Why do consumers fail to buy innovative products even when they offer distinct
improvements over existing ones? Few would question the objective advantages
of many innovations over existing alternatives, but that’s often not enough for
them to succeed.” (Gourville, J. (June 2006) Harvard Business Review)
Boutroy, Vignal & Soul propose that Lead-User Theory can describe the progress of successful
innovations and looks to the sports sector. Lead-User Theory concerns the actions of a single
‘ordinary’ participant and not a ‘magic triangle’ of large existing companies, research
laboratories and professional practitioners (Chantelat, P., 1992). However, it now appears that
this basic assumption is often wrong. (Von Hippel, Eric 1988, p.3) The actions of such ordinary
individuals are motivated by a host of factors, not necessarily monetary, to invent for their own
use out of “DIY” ingenuity and personal curiosity. For example, Lead-Users may freely make
modifications to their road bicycle by installing thicker tyres, allowing it to be used ‘off-road’.
This simple low-tech modification, or ‘hack’, by an ‘ordinary’ everyday cyclist was instigated
for a host of personal non-economic reasons. Now a multi-million dollar global product, the
development of the mountain bike is arguably a testament to what Lead-User Theory can deliver
for other sports, including rowing. It is the limited non-specialist, non-scientific and uneconomic
8
- Prepublication -
nature of the Lead-User who creates ‘free’ innovation which sees successful adoption in some
sporting contexts. Von Hippel recognised the potential that the multitude of everyday innovations
holds for the market and for society. He calls for a new age when common people have the
personal liberty to innovate, and which bestows dignity on those who enrich us with their useful
new ideas (von Hippel, Eric, 2017, p.262). Von Hippel wants to restore dignity to the creators of
innovations who may never see their design be adopted, let alone diffused to any extent. This is
not simply a nice platitude but an immense economic opportunity as 24.4 million people had
developed or modified products for their own use in just six countries surveyed to date (von
Hippel, Eric, 2017, p.263).
Although the consequences of an innovation are ultimately unknowable, the Lead-User designer
has a known concept which they are acting upon, makes changes to an existing product and
brings that design concept into reality for themselves. The magnitude and scope of the disruption
or design change are dependent upon the extent of diffusion that has occurred and in the case of a
Lead-Users Free innovation, they rarely exist beyond a singularity. Yet, when such an innovation
diffuses within the context of sporting equipment, there is great potential for positive change,
beyond the singularity. As has been previously stated, at the centre of design innovation theory is
the perplexing paradox of why good designs fail and poor designs endure and in relation to this
study, the reluctance of leading manufacturers and individual rowers to consider my novel design
can be attributed to a host of unavoidable paradoxical dynamics. Why is there resistance, in
general, to design innovations to the extent that it is common for poor designs to become the
status quo when better alternatives are available - the classic example of this is the endurance of
the QWERTY keyboard (J. Noyes 1998). Acknowledging this paradox represents a challenge to
9
- Prepublication -
the assumption of an established organisation, like World Rowing, that the status quo represents
best practice, and are in a state of order and control. However, for any innovation to be
successfully diffused in this context, it must go below the surface and utilise the disruptive
dynamic nature of organisations and start rocking the boat (Lewis & Smith 2014).
We need to consider that the vast range of outdoor sporting and leisure activities has created a
fertile landscape for fierce innovation and associated research into products, services, practice,
production, evolving markets, organisational hybridisation, differentiation and diversification.
(Andreff, W. (1985). Le muscle et la machine. Le dialogue entre le sport et l’innovation. Culture
technique, 13, 38; Hillairet, D. (1999). L’innovation sportive. Paris : L’Harmattan.) Sporting
markets have been characterised as innovation-led with an endless supply of new products with
shorter and shorter life cycles. (Gaglio, G. (2011). Sociologie de l’innovation. Paris : Presses
universitaires de France.) Thus, the high demand for sporting goods has created a wealth of
successful innovative sporting products, and has added to popular assumptions about innovation
has spawned the creation of many ‘hero myths’ and cliche narratives. (Hillairet, D. (2005). Sport
et innovation. Paris : Hermès)
“Innovation is generally considered to be the result of acts by daring individuals
and avant-gardist entrepreneurs” (Boutroy, Vignal & Soule, Loisir et Société /
Society and Leisure, 2015 Vol. 38, No. 3, p.385)
Yet, the appetite for sporting innovation and pursuit of ever finer marginal gains has not negated
the original Emerson fallacy in believing that building a better "mousetrap" will guarantee user
adoption. As sporting markets are highly specialised, finite and with high barriers to entry,
identifying appropriate theories which best model innovation diffusion will offer the most value
10
- Prepublication -
to inform future strategies and create ideal conditions to see sporting innovations flourish.
Whereas, the application of foundational innovation theories, like Roger’s (1962) theory of
Diffusion or Christianson’s (1997) theory of Disruption, seem insufficient to describe the
progression of successful innovations in the sports sector. The barriers of entry to any sporting
community are not necessarily predicated on more efficiently produced products as barriers of
entry are the same for both the more cheaply produced equipment or a design with the promise
of higher performance attributes.
The consumer’s decision to adopt this product is contingent upon the consumer’s
two predispositions: the need for assimilation and the need for distinctiveness.
(Timmor and Katz-Navon, (2008) Journal of Consumer Behavior. P.250)
An innovation may provide performance enhancement however if the potential user feels their
choices may isolate them from the team they will be reluctant to adopt it. An even greater
perceived risk is to adopt an innovation which would provide an unfair advantage (to cheat) or
one which potentially would be deemed ‘illegal’ by a governing sporting body. The diffusion of
an innovation not only needs to be socialised but also legalised, a process which may take
considerable time, money and lobbying efforts. The adoption of an innovation within a sporting
community is to turn a very big ship around. Boutroy, Vignal & Soule (2015) identified the
uniqueness of sporting innovation when they investigated a broad range of established theories
of innovation applied to the outdoor sports and leisure sector and argued that most established
theories are inadequate in describing how innovation takes place in this sector. (Boutroy, Vignal
& Soule, (2015) Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure, Vol. 38, No. 3, p383–398) My broader
study will explore the barrier to entry for design innovation in general, the barriers within a
sporting context. Within this publication, I will identify the transition into rowing as a sporting
11
- Prepublication -
context into what I will deem its modern era, for through design innovation the sport moved
away from adopting existing equipment, boats and oars of the Royal Navy and Thames
Watermen to developing specific innovations for sporting purposes. This transition occurred in
1845 with the creation of the first outrigger by Cambridge University and the barriers this design
encountered. I will present the first design innovations within modern rowing and the dynamics,
tensions and organisational responses to these first adoptions, which will cover roughly the first
100 years of the sport. This historical investigation will be part of the first stage of my
investigation into the dynamics of rowing and will represent a look back, the first loop of an
inward review that is acting through Centripetal theoretical forces. In subsequent publications, I
will explore innovations from within the contemporary era, living history from 1992 with the
first postmodern rowing innovation that signifies a total separation from pre-modern rowing
which I will mark with the first full carbon-fibre A-symmetrical oar design that was first used in
the Barcelona Olympics in 1992. This will act as a second loop, looking forward through the
centrifugal theoretical forces that are propelling innovation theory to investigate the dynamics of
rowing in the contemporary era. Within the contemporary era of rowing, there has been a range
of innovations that will be investigated, those that have been universally adopted without
challenge created by leading manufacturers, like the bow mounted rigger and compared with
other innovations that have been developed by Lead-Users. As an introduction, there has been a
recent design change in the sport of rowing that appears to have been widely accepted, the
bow-mounted outrigger and this further study will compare the dynamics of this innovation
created by an established Italian boat building company. The ease of the diffusion of the
bow-mounted rigger reinforces the expectations of the market and demonstrates who has been
sanctioned by the market to progress design in the sport of rowing. The diffusion of the
12
- Prepublication -
bow-mounted rigger reinforces the general assumptions of innovation meeting the market's
expectation of a legacy manufacturer. From the outset, it would appear that boat manufacturers
are now utilising the material capabilities of carbon fibre, coupled with a change in the blueprint
design of the rigger, unlike the material application of carbon fibre to the oar. However, for
Lead-Users, or those non-establishment non-legacy companies the dynamics of innovation are in
stark contrast and their designs have had only limited and sporadic adoption. The barriers of
entry to any sporting community are not necessarily predicated on more efficiently produced
products as barriers of entry are the same for both the more cheaply produced equipment or a
design with the promise of higher performance attributes. Successful innovations in sports seem
to be born in obscurity, do not address identifiable problems, may have no marketplace
equivalent and are progressed (or are rejected) in a more socialised, cooperative and communal
manner (Boutroy, et al., 2015, p.386). The first one hundred years of modern rowing is a
wonderful exposition of the dynamics of innovation within a sporting community but also
highlights the particular characteristics of rowing as a consequence of its foundations within the
Royal Navy. Sporting communities are governed by the need to belong to a social group and
conform to vigorously defended “rules of the game” and at the same time look for opportunities
to exploit performance advantage through differentiated game tactics, training methods and
equipment. The consumer’s decision to adopt this product is contingent upon the consumer’s two
predispositions: the need for assimilation and the need for distinctiveness. (Timmor and
Katz-Navon, 2008, p. 250) An innovation may provide performance enhancement however if the
potential user feels their choices may isolate them from the team they will be reluctant to adopt
it. An even greater perceived risk is to adopt an innovation which would provide an unfair
advantage (to cheat) or one which potentially would be deemed ‘illegal’ by a governing sporting
13
- Prepublication -
body. Such bodies rigorously oversee the conditions in which their sport is conducted and the
equipment used for competition. Not only are rigid rules set in various sporting rule books to
establish an orthodoxy of equipment but in the spirit of sporting fairness, a level playing field is
created by placing limits on innovation. The use of standardised equipment is seen to promote
fairness of competition and such values are written in sporting law. The sports of cycling and
rowing have very similar laws surrounding innovation and both governing bodies funnel any
innovation through an equipment oversight committee. In cycling, the opening paragraph of the
UCI rule book states that; “The UCI Regulations assert the primacy of man over machine” (UCI,
2021) and sets clear laws around any deviations to the rules set out. “[...] no technical innovation
regarding anything used, worn or carried by any rider or licence holder during a competition
(bicycles, equipment mounted on them, accessories, helmets, clothing, means of communication,
etc.) may be used until approved by the UCI.” (UCI, (2021) CLARIFICATION GUIDE OF THE
UCI TECHNICAL REGULATION § 2 Technical innovations ARTICLE 1.3.004). In the sport of
rowing a similar law exists, The Executive Committee has the sole authority to decide all matters
under this Rule including what constitutes an innovation, whether an innovation is significant,
whether it is readily available, whether the costs are reasonable, whether it is safe and consistent
with the principles of sustainable development and whether it is a positive development for the
sport of rowing and maintains the principles of the sport. (World Rowing, (2021) Rules of
Racing, Rule 29) Although innovation code violation carries harsh penalties, it is the pursuit of
innovations within and despite these codes that creates exciting opportunities for designers. In
the sport of cycling, innovation may be seen to flourish as rarely two teams of professional
cyclists are riding the same bicycle. In contrast, it is not uncommon for crews at a World Rowing
race to be all rowing the very same boats and using the same American oars. Perhaps an undue
14
- Prepublication -
comparison given the difference in market size, the global bicycle industry is estimated at close
to 60 billion US dollars in 2021 (Grand View Research, 2021), whereas rowing is less than 10
billion (Maximize Market Research, 2021). Nevertheless, in rowing, there are rarely any
attempts to differentiate equipment let alone innovate. Lead-User sporting equipment innovation
has been explored in individual sports like kayaking (Hienerth, Hippel et al. 2011; Hyysalo 2009;
Hienerth 2006), kite surfing (Schreier, Prügl 2008; Schreier, Oberhauser et al. 2007; Franke, von
Hippel et al. 2006) and mountain biking (Lüthje, Herstatt et al. 2005; Lüthje 2004) yet there has
not been a similar study into rowing and appears to be an anomaly in modern sports (Pieper et
al., 2012, p.3). Boutroy, Vignal & Soule (2015) identified the uniqueness of sporting innovation
when they investigated a broad range of established theories of innovation applied to the outdoor
sports and leisure sector and argued that most established theories are inadequate in describing
how innovation takes place in this sector. Innovation in sports is inhibited by many factors and
Boutroy, Vignal & Soule identify the hurdles of status quo bias, cost of obsolescence,
commercial impatience and perception differential between innovators and potential users, which
may prove to be the case in rowing (Boutroy et al., 2015 p.384). Rowing presents a particular
interest to research into the dynamics of innovation as the sport presents as acutely resistant,
even hostile, to innovation especially when new meanings are proposed by designers who create
products outside of established market structures.
2.
15
- Prepublication -
3. Paradoxes - The dynamics of innovation
Life, disconcertingly and reassuringly, is bigger than straight-line logic, it
conforms with a kind of curved logic which turns things around and often, before
you become aware of it, turns them into their opposites. Pacifists become
militants. Freedom fighters become tyrants. Blessings become curses. Labor
saving devices become intolerable burdens. Help becomes a hindrance. More
becomes less. (Vander Broek, quoted in Thompson, 1988)
Not understanding the dynamics of innovation can limit, frustrate or inhibit any innovation if
they are not effectively managed; be that the creation, adoption or diffusion. The paradoxes of
innovation are ever present and unavoidable and any attempt to ‘solve’ the paradox does not
make them disappear as they are merely hidden and become uncontrollable. Understanding and
in many cases harnessing the conditions that paradoxes create can help design innovators and
adopters of innovations flourish. How do we go about understanding the world when our
fundamental assumptions are wrong? The assumption is that innovations will be welcomed by
the world where in fact the world presents us with paradoxes and mystery and yet we are called
to make decisions based on our assumptions and our inability to navigate today, let alone an
unknown future. Yet, observable by the theorist, though not necessarily by those who are
paralysed within its disorientating dizzying spin who have become blind to its existence. (Ford
& Ford, 1994) Furthermore, those captives of the paradox do not have the means to escape by
resorting to reason or logic to find solutions and fail to recognise the fundamental unsolvable
nature of paradoxes. (Lewis 2000, p.762) Such is the importance of continued studies into this
topic area.
From the Ancients through to modern Existentialists, philosophers have presented an
all-encompassing paradoxical view of life, existence and knowledge. (Schneider, 1990) Life is
16
- Prepublication -
but a paradox and our collective human condition is held captive between life and death, good
and evil, self and others. (Lewis, 2000 p.761) All attempts to define and categorise paradoxes
may have only led us to conclude anything that is complex, unexpected, surprising or
unintended, indeed all of life is a paradox. (Davis et al., 1997) We shall see that holding such a
broad position may not be as meaningless as it may initially seem, nor that our position is not as
hopeless as it may initially appear. Paradoxes have been with us for some time and are widely
recognised. What generally follows is an obligatory definition stating that paradoxes are
‘persistent contradictions between interdependent elements.’ (Schad et al., 2016, p. 10) What is
sadly missing from many introductions to paradox theory is the real human grief of living with,
being frustrated by and having to make impossible real-world decisions within paradoxical
organisational frameworks. It would appear all too easy to continue to theorise and to consider
that paradoxes are mere disassociated hypothetical rhetorical phenomena with little relevance to
our daily lives. Yet, in today’s highly systematised and hyper-organised world, paradoxes are all
too real and present, affecting us all and are most relevant to the study of innovation. (Lewis,
2000)
Marianne W. Lewis wrote in her article Exploring Paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide
(2000) that attempts to understand the effects and impact of paradoxes on organisational life
have been inadequate. It is time for researchers to move beyond a theoretical, overly simplistic
understanding of paradoxes and investigate their complex natures, variations in kind and the
consequences for those living under all too real ambiguous circumstances. In saying that, she
acknowledges that there has been a growing body of work citing that paradoxes appear to be an
unavoidable consequence when humans organise. (Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Handy, 1994; Kets
17
- Prepublication -
de Vries, 1995; Koot, Sabelis, & Ybema, 1996; Hatch & Ehrlich, 1993; Murnighan & Conlon,
1991; Vince & Broussine, 1996) Lewis emphasises that this growing body of work
acknowledges, that the presence of paradoxes in our day-to-day lives, is a shift from thinking of
paradoxes as only existing in theoretical treatises, works of literature, religion or philosophy.
Paradox studies is now an ever growing field as we are so immersed in a multiplicity of
paradoxes that we can no longer ignore or escape them. It is so apparent that there has been a
shift in our understanding that paradoxes are no longer abstract phenomena to be studied within
hypothetical realms and that they have a growing impact on our organisational lives; be that
domestic, social or commercial. The increasing interest in paradox theory has come about by a
multiplicity of technological, economic and social changes, which managers have clearly
identified, though with little understanding. (Handy, 1994) Lewis asks,
“What is paradox? How might paradox serve as a framework, fostering insights
into contradictions and complex interrelationships? And how might researchers
actively seek out paradox and building concepts and theories that reflect the
intricacies of organizational life? (Lewis 2000, p.761)
In other words, due to the ever-growing complexities and the multitude of interactions within our
contemporary organisations, many of which present as paradoxes, we need to create strategies
for identifying and building a framework of understanding. Creating a framework of
understanding will also allow for more guided future research. Lewis strived to find such a
meta-theory that encapsulates the defining features of the paradox and has looked to cultural and
religious symbolism but also to science to provide such a model. Lewis sets out, much like a
botanist, to build a Linnaean system of Paradoxes. [Unfortunately, the many types, forms and
characteristics of various paradoxes cannot adequately be presented here] Her identification
18
- Prepublication -
system places paradoxes into three categories; narrative, psychodynamic and multiparadigm.
These divisions allow more than a categorisation but a guide for Paradox as a field of enquiry.
The analogy of a guidebook was also used by Marco Berti (2021) indicating that work in
charting this expansive field is required but also implying without such a guide, we continue to
be lost in paradoxical worlds. Hatch and Ehrlch (1993) also offer a locating and bracketing
approach, much like a safari, hunt and kill. Paradoxes are well camouflaged in the jungle of our
daily lives and living off our abundant cultural and social lives. (Hatch and Ehrlich, 1993, p. 521)
Theorists need to be able to study the subject of paradoxes by firstly locating, then defining,
mapping, categorising and exploring this vast field. Yet the very act of ever more detailed
mapping, sophisticated categorising and the construction of complex conceptual frameworks
may be stopping us from seeing the forest for the trees. In other words, theorists may be losing
sight of how a meta-theory could be providing elegant solutions to real world organisational
problems.
Lewis presents that there are direct “Cognitively and/or socially constructed polarities that
obscure the interrelatedness of the contradictions; for example; Self-referential loops, mixed
messages and system contradictions.” (Lewis 2000, p.762) This duality of opposing entities
caught in an inseparable embrace is symbolised by the Taoist Yin-Yang symbol which Lewis
uses as the first stage in her framework. The Ying-Yang represents the paradoxes in their pure
forms which are able to be defined, characterised and categorised. As within botany, the
categorisation of species and subspecies are unending, so too are paradoxes in their various
forms. The role of the theorist is not necessarily to engage in such scientific classification but to
understand their fundamental nature, habitation and impact. This leads to Lewis’ Second Stage
19
- Prepublication -
of the framework where the contextual cyclical outworking of paradoxes in the world and where
the eventual tensions of the paradox become observable. Within the cyclical spin, actors seek to
resolve their own paradoxes, ease or mitigate its effects and ultimately leading to a state of
repression, regression in autonomous actions or feelings of ambivalence. (Lewis 2000, p.276)
Yet, if the energy, power and impact of the paradox, like the atom, could be somehow harnessed,
redirected and utilised, its potential could be profound. For business managers, it exists within
the realms of paradox where tensions can be translated into creativity and ultimately profiting
from the existing paradoxes, as for "the contribution of paradox to management thinking is the
recognition of its power to generate creative insight and change." (Eisenhardt & Westcott, 1988:
170) Lewis presents this possibility in the third stage of her diagram where philosophical cyclical
forms of the Ying-yang (i) or mechanical motion of rotating arrows spin (ii) are now redirected
into a forward parallel motion (iii). Here we are introduced to three possible conditions which
could be achieved through acceptance, confrontation and transcendence. Again, profit and
advantage of the innovation could be attained through these conditions if only they could be
utilised to empower creativity and change. (Eisenhardt & Westcott, 1988)
Lewis considers the major ways human organisation experiences paradoxes and the possibilities
to apply attitudes of acceptance, confrontation and transcendence. Through learning humans
critique, assume new knowledge and create more complex frames of reference, however, the
paradoxical consequence of learning is the oversimplification of knowledge which is
disconnected from greater contexts. Through organising humans are able to create efficiencies
and establish predictability through control over others, however, the paradoxical consequence of
organisation creates tensions, mistrust and alienation of individuals. Furthermore, the creation of
20
- Prepublication -
diverse communities of belonging, even disparate groups can in turn become cohesive resulting
in the paradoxical consequence of tribalism, polarisation and the loss of individual identity.
(Lewis, 2000, p.765) Lewis concludes by circling back to the premise that our historical moment
has given rise to the overwhelming conflict between our daily lives and the paradoxes of a hyper
organised, hyper-modernised and hyper-technological organisational world. For Lewis, the only
way to survive is;
to live and even thrive within the plurality and changes of organizational life and
help practitioners do likewise. Building this capacity requires confronting our
own defences— the desire to over rationalize and oversimplify the complications
of organizational life—and learning to explore the natural ebb and flow of
tensions. (Lewis 2000, p.774)
Lewis calls for the need to engage in the vital study of paradox theory and in particular to
consider the dynamics of the paradox over a period of time. It is through this longitudinal study
that the dynamics of change can be studied and the way agents of change come to terms with the
paradoxical conditions of change. So this investigation into the broad context, actor network,
sport of rowing will pay particular attention to an historical perspective. The antithesis of the
dynamics of change is the perception that actors are caught within closed cycles of self-fulfilling
propositions. (Smith & Lewis, 2011) Cycles are a defining aspect of Rowing given, especially in
the Northern Hemisphere, the dramatic seasonal and environmental changes, which dictate the
timing of annual races. Longer Olympic cycles affect the dynamics of change and when review
and revision is possible. There are also longer term cycles of a coach's tenure or an athlete's
growth, peak performance and maturation. All effecting when an innovation or change may or
may not occur. These rhythms and cycle interactions intersect at different times like orbiting
planets are in no way linear, predictable or straightforward. These cycles cannot be ignored if
change is desired. (p.32) Lewis revisits the philosophy of Derrida, Hagel and Jeng to consider the
21
- Prepublication -
concept of dialects and the unity of opposites. That good cannot exist without evil, conscious
without unconsciousness and within paradox theory what brings the interdependent elements to
the fore so that they may be revealed? Through such revelation comes understanding and
research. (p.34) Where there is any attempt to keep in balance these tensions we see the
dynamics of the paradox in perpetuity, hence the importance of historical investigations in order
to circumvent these dynamics. Alternatively, Socratic and Kantian approaches to dialectics are to
transcend the thesis/antithesis through seeking a synthesis of the oppositional forces. (p.35)
Managing the constant shifting of the dialectical forces and the dynamics of keeping these is
some form of balance is the only way to survive being caught in a paradox. A balance may be
found or the competing forces are kept in check, however, this can only be temporary. Lewis
recommends that research needs to be conducted on those who are attempting such a feat. (p.36)
Free Innovation and User lead innovation are ways that designers have sought to overcome this
aspect of innovation paradox. Within rowing the innovation paradox is so pronounced, that
innovation is so stifled that little to no innovation exists outside of mainstream established
manufacturing companies. Studies have shown that many rowers have ideas for design
innovations but cannot act on them due to the lack of private equipment ownership which is the
consequence of historical conditions within the sport. (Pieper, Thorsten and Tietze, Frank and
Herstatt, Cornelius, To Own or Not to Own: How Ownership Affects User Innovation? - An
Empirical Study in the Rowing Sport Market, July 2, 2012). Hagel's principle of holism provides
another approach where the entire system is considered, including the physical material world
and the surrounding discourse. This may even include multiple paradoxes that exist within or are
'nested' within one another. Could the insight into one paradox in the sport of rowing be applied
to other interconnecting paradoxes? It is critical to appreciate that the nature of one paradox due
22
- Prepublication -
to its foundation (micro-foundation) exists within another. Conversely, correcting the negative
effects of one paradox can have an effect on another.
It is here we must consider the multitudes who are caught within a vast landscape of
organisational paradoxes. Lewis cites Besharov & Smith (2014) who introduced the importance
of considering the ability of individuals within organisations to positively and meaningfully
respond, navigate and engage with the paradox they are caught within.
"A paradox lens could aid investigations into how individual, organizational, and
field-level factors interact and impact competing institutional logics." (p.43)
For Lewis, a meta-theory is not so much a singularity or a defined entity but that of an entire
event or a process unfolding and where cyclical dynamics can be studied. This understanding of
meta-theory takes a two-dimensional model or conceptual framework and places it within a
four-dimensional realm where time, cycles, rhythms and repetitions become visible. The cyclical
dynamics of a paradox recognise its place within an organisational context, locating it within
history and exposing its ongoing and enduring processes of reflection. (p.16) Furthermore, by
looking from this perspective, paradoxes are understood to have longevity, perpetuity and to
exist within a time period. A meta-theory of paradoxes should be able to take into account that
paradoxes always exist within a plurality of relationships, never in isolation, and are the result of
both intentionally constructed human organisation and at one and the same time inherently
infused within organisational life. (p.23) The very activity of human organisation involves the
creation of inescapable paradoxes that see a tug-a-war between organisational structures that are
both contrary and complimentary, for example, the ideals of stability vs change and efficiency vs
23
- Prepublication -
innovation. A meta-theory must be able to take into account such overarching themes but also
accommodate a micro-level perspective, the individual worker; their attitudes, responses, and
even psychology, as they navigate paradoxical organisational life. (p.28)
In the dogged pursuit of a meta-theory robust enough to engage in ever expanding contemporary
organisational fields, Lewis, together with Wendy Smith and Jonathan Schad, proposed in 2019
Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development, an elegant theory
that utilises the clarity of the paradox yet enables a multi dimensional perspective. Their
meta-theory enables us to see how the paradox and paradoxical interdependent elements are in an
oscillating balance and yet perpetually shifting. Through this theoretical lens, we are better
equipped to conduct research into how individuals meaningfully exist within such paradoxical
frameworks. Lewis and Smith et al., propose the conceptual model of paradoxical rotational
forces which have the effect on interconnected bodies to both pull them into or push them out
from the centre of rotation. The paradox of centripetal and centrifugal forces involves both the
pulling out and the pushing in of an object in a circular motion. At the centre of this model
established theories about paradoxes are able to be challenged but also the model can extend out
into new fields of research and contexts in which paradox studies are intersecting. The model
enables exciting new research to shed new insights and new understandings without the danger
that conceptual centripetal forces insulate prior understandings of the paradox even though our
work creates centrifugal forces which extend our understanding. (p.107) As our understanding
grows and expands we appear to be carried further from a central concept at the same time
creating pressure on our central understandings. This can be seen in the many theorists in
paradox studies joining together from diverse fields working together in the development of
24
- Prepublication -
theory and work with a unified purpose: understanding. (p.107) This approach has been
instrumental in progressing the field of paradox studies within perplexing contemporary contexts
where the paradoxical demands on individuals are exponentially increasing yet at the same time
ever looking back into the origins of our theory and refining our shared understanding.
Centripetal forces drew Lewis and Smith et al., to again look back to more recent history to write
a review of paradox studies from the 1980’s when management theorists began to recognise the
significance of the paradox as a way to describe, understand and to study the tensions within
contemporary organisations. Paradox theory has come to challenge the dominant management
theories and become popularised. Smith acknowledges Lewis’s (2000) early contributions and
the significance of their own 2011 collaboration in advancing the development of a theoretical
framework. They understood that it was the paradox that best described the tensions of modern
organisation and proposed the adoption of a meta-theoretical approach to organisational paradox
theory. Such a meta-theory needs to take into account not only the theoretical paradox itself but
also the who, what and where within a broader historical perspective. A meta-theory that can be
used to understand the persistent and enduring nature of paradoxes and their existence within
time and place - and not within some theoretical realm! Recognising that paradoxes have a
plurality, omnipresence, a time and place, rhythms and life cycles and intersect with all contexts,
fields and disciplines, affecting all human activity. It is this perspective that will provide an
approach to investigating the dynamics of innovation in the sport of rowing as the past has had a
profound impact on how the sport is practised today and the way rowing as an organisation is
responding to the challenges and opportunities of innovations. The centrifugal forces are what
are driving paradox studies forward into new domains, and Lewis and Smith et al., state that
25
- Prepublication -
theoretical paradoxes have now become a normalised management tool. Again, as paradox
theory pushes into new areas it threatens and challenges what is considered established. We see
this in the endless debates that circle around the application of the theory, where paradox
scholars embrace the “paradoxes of paradoxes” developing new theories that then span out into
ever widening spheres of influence, which in turn is creating an even more diverse theoretical
field. The centripetal/centrifugal meta-theory model accommodates the new fields of influence
which turn in upon the discipline to challenge the established central foundational beliefs. Lewis
and Smith et al., present that for paradox studies to progress there needs to enable expansion into
new areas and able to critically look back into itself and “open remaining ‘black boxes.’” (p.110)
It is critical that both centripetal and centrifugal forces are present for the development of any
robust meta-theory, as “these efforts are vital for paradox theory; for if everything is a paradox,
nothing is a paradox.” (p.110) As within a paradox there must contain two interdependent
elements, so to a robust meta-theory must contain two interdependent forces which provide the
mechanisms and strategy for its development and self analysis. As more scholars from varying
fields contribute to our theory they threaten to undermine core understanding, yet by doing so
they ensure its very strength. (p.114) Thus an exploration into the dynamics of innovation in the
sport of rowing can help in the development of Paradox theory as a whole.
26
- Prepublication -
4. Paradoxa - considering a meta theory
Paradoxes are deeply rooted, surrounded and manifested in innovation and designers who seek
adoption through to managers who are confronted by new designs must develop a theory of
innovation to help them in making decisions today for what they will face tomorrow. The
efficacy of such a meta-theory can be seen when applied to innovation theory. The following
aims to establish the theoretical context of this study by tracing the development of paradox
theory and the search for a meta-theory that can help understand and navigate paradoxes as they
present in a multitude of forms. The search for a meta-theory of paradox which can be applied to
organisational theory but also to design innovation, both contexts essential to this study. The
following review highlights the profound effects that paradoxes have on innovation and the
ability of users within organisations to adopt novel designs. Paradoxes, we are told, are
unsolvable. Commonly, they involve rhetorical puzzles of two contradictory and interdependent
elements. To clarify; dependence may imply a one-sided relationship where one party can exist
without any relevance, inference or relation to the other. Whereas, interdependence implies a
deep two-way connection, relationship and relevance - one to the other and to one another - by
both parties and to both parties. Paradoxes present us with some options; firstly seek to solve the
unsolvable paradox, secondly, accept that paradoxes cannot be solved and get on with it, or
thirdly, somehow harness the energy generated by the paradox for some new outcome and
possibility. (Lewis, 2000)
Here we follow Marianne Lewis into a previous exploration of Innovation Paradox theory and to
reflect on her original analysis. It would appear that the nuances of the later meta-theories of
paradoxa and centripetal/centrifugal were present, lurking in the shadows. In her 2010 study,
27
- Prepublication -
Managing Innovation Paradoxes: Ambidexterity Lessons from Leading Product Design
Companies, Lewis investigates how seven design companies navigate these tensions of the
innovation paradox. By looking at innovation we can directly see the interconnected nature
paradoxes which hold many in a state of perplexity as organisations, managers and workers are
caught between the pull of centrifugal forces that promise future transformation through
innovation whilst being crushed by the centripetal force of the status quo. Lewis sets out the
common or popular opinion ‘doxa’ concerning innovation from which the ‘para’ can be
understood. As has been presented, innovation is seen as the norm in our ‘creative age’ where
consumers experience an ever abundance of novel products and technologies. Successful
innovative companies are able to “spark the imagination, invention and experimentation to
create future opportunities, and enhance current skills, specialisation and experimentation to
create future opportunities and enhance current skills, specialisation and capacity to meet
today’s business demands.” (p.105) In other words, it is the expectation of both consumers and
companies that they will receive and deliver incrementally innovative products and services,
even further, to be able to deliver radical changes. In reality, there are incredible tensions created
by an organisation's need for routines, structures and existing products and technologies that
need to be fully exploited. However, organisations that operate within the innovation and
creative fields have a unique set of tensions that need to be overcome as the innovation “paradox
can fuel, as well as frustrate.” (p.117) Lewis identifies the elements needed to be present for
these paradoxical tensions to be utilized as a positive force. There needs to be a structural
separation of those managing the existing logistics and those concerned with innovation. Also,
management needs to have an awareness and appreciation of the conflicts and thirdly, this also
needs to be infused in the context of the entire company's workforce. What is remarkable about
28
- Prepublication -
Lewis’s findings is that it is the very paradoxical nature of innovation that enables and energises
these organisations to be ambidextrous rather than to be inhibited by innovation. The leaders of
these organisations have recognised the paradoxical management approach they have needed to
adopt, which includes; synergy & splitting, action & material, long term adaptability &
short-term survival, possibilities & constraints, diversity & cohesiveness, and passion &
discipline. (p.105) There is ambiguity around the innovation paradox and ambidextrous
approaches to navigating paradoxes in general with the added complexity when researching
organisations that utilise the ambidextrous to successfully navigate the paradoxes of organisation
whilst working in the very paradoxical field of design innovation. This complexity can be seen in
“the of this fiercely competitive industry is innovation.” (P.106) The study found that managers
within these organisations recognised the paradoxical situations they were in and that the
innovation paradoxes were unresolvable and enduring. It is not difficult to reflect on the demands
of a high performance sporting organisation and the pressures to deliver results through the
implementation of innovations. Having a recognition of the paradoxical nature of innovation
within organisational frameworks will help not only navigate the complexities of decision
making but also help to recognise the tensions inherent in the appropriation of innovations. As
innovation paradoxes are so established within organisations that they are described as being
‘nested’ implying the presence of the paradox as an organisational reality, everybody knows it's
there yet work carries on regardless. It is organisations that are able to understand that this aspect
of their workplace can be a positive asset however there needs to be a framework or conceptual
model in which it can be understood by those within the organisation. Such a framework will
bring to light the interdependence of the paradoxical elements and enable managers to make
meaningful decisions. For example, an innovative organisation must be able to manage the short
29
- Prepublication -
term needs whilst ensuring that the structures are in place that enable experimentation,
risk-taking and creativity. (p.108) Within the sport of rowing, such an understanding will enable
an athlete to forgo a winning effort in a minor regatta, use the race to test a new crew selection or
test an equipment innovation, so as to be victorious the following week or following where the
stakes are higher. Not recognising this paradox results in the need to be in first place at every
opportunity, working within an established framework and the forgoing of an innovative
opportunity, in order to achieve a string of successive victories. Successful companies understand
that they are not mutually exclusive, one must not dominate the other nor that the paradoxes are
to be resolved in some way. Recognise the paradox, acknowledge the paradox, form a conceptual
model and create the internal structures to capitalise from it. Lewis recognised that creating a
splitting off of the interconnected paradoxical elements is simply not possible in the creative
design fields where the tensions fuel innovation and where existing boundaries and structures
foster improvisation and new iterations. (p.112) Furthermore, the process of finding novel
solutions often creates internal paradoxes that are unable to be quarantined through structural
means. For example, where ideas derive from individuals working in collaboration with others it
is not possible to remove the disruptive nature of groups without impacting the final work. It is
the diversity of thought and methodology of the individuals within a group that create successful
design projects, though there may be a point in the project where the originator of the novel idea
needs to be structurally removed from the project so the design may progress. At some point, the
creative passion needs to give way to order and the design needs to be absorbed within the
structure of the organisation. (p.115) Lewis concludes that it is the practices, processes, and
conceptual frameworks that enable successful design companies to navigate the tensions of the
innovation paradox.
30
- Prepublication -
Yet these ambidextrous companies thrive, embracing the tensions to illustrate a
shift in managerial thinking from one of executive control over either/or decisions
toward paradoxical thinking and managing by all. The result is a potentially
powerful, reinforcing cycle that fuels exploration and exploitation throughout the
company. (p.118)
Some sixteen years later, Lewis updated her review of Organisational Paradox Theory in a
publication Looking Back to Move Forward (Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K.
2016). The title is delightfully playful and paradoxically suggestive that we stop looking in the
direction of travel, and try walking backwards, perhaps a rower is a better analogy, who is
always progress facing backwards. As is dictated by the traditions of Paradox Theory, Lewis
begins with a nod to the works of the philosophical giants of our field Aristotle, Confucius,
Freud, Hegel, Jung, Kierkegaard, and Lao Tsu followed by an obligatory definition of a paradox.
Looking back to the ancients we can see that they gave us the language to articulate the nature of
our paradoxical existence, much like giving fish the language of wetness. Though, unlike her
2000 publication, Lewis takes us even further back, even before the ancients to the very first
principles, to the original meaning of the paradox. The root of the word doxa refers to a popular
or common opinion or understanding, and the prefix para is that which is counter to. In other
words, the term paradoxa refers broadly to whatever is not commonly believed, understood or
expected. This starting point establishes Paradox studies as a vast field of enquiry, as the limited
scope of human understanding would indeed make life but a paradox. Perhaps, by looking back
to this early broader definition theorists are better able to see the bigger picture and enable the
creation of a more refined map, guidebook and framework of understanding. As both Eastern and
Western traditions further refined and cultivated the paradox into a rich mental playground of
contradictions, where mind games present problems to challenge the very nature of reason and
31
- Prepublication -
rationality, it is no wonder that as our understanding moved further and further away from
paradoxa towards the paradox that the complexity and effect of the paradox grows. I propose
that there is an elegance in the broad definition and is better able to be applied in a range of
organisational contexts. It is this definition that will enable an investigation into the dynamics of
innovation in the sport of rowing and help those within the organisation firstly recognise the
paradoxes that are inhibiting their ability to capitalise on innovations that may provide them with
performance advantages.
Lewis’s proposition is that there is a need for us to look back in search of a meta-theory that will
help us progress forward and paradoxa may provide a key. It became apparent that if there is to
be any advancement in the establishment of a meta-theory or research lens to enable the field of
Paradox Studies we must look back into what would be considered established theoretical
domains in search for what may have been missed, opening boxes that were shut long ago. This
conclusion was reached after a review of a vast collection of contemporary explorations into
paradox theory across a vast range of organisational domains, only to reveal the very
hopelessness of our situation - all suffering the effects of the paradox. Yes, we have the ancients
and now our contemporaries who have popularisation of referencing paradoxes within such
domains as management, governance, leadership and collaboration. (p.9) In Lewis’s review of a
total of 133 articles which contain inclusions and references to the paradox by contemporary
theorists over the past twenty-five years of management science, it is apparent that they too have
been unable to escape its entanglement. Lewis reviews a plethora of studies looking at individual
workers and middle management to find the inadequacy of contemporary theories to equate to
the causes and consequences of paradoxes. As a result, organisational paradoxes continue to lead
32
- Prepublication -
to mismanagement, chaos, individual workers being defensive, intensifying tensions, triggering,
lack of creativity, avoidance, ambivalence and conflict. (p.31) Her review of articles which refer
directly or indirectly to paradoxes found that Three of the themes – types, collective approaches,
and outcomes – have been studied extensively, while the remaining three – relationships,
individual approaches, and dynamics – have received considerably less emphasis. (p.6)
Furthermore, contemporary theorists have been inadequately able to contend with the challenge
of paradoxes and lazily continued to spruik the paths to an established cannon of ancient
philosophy creating a simplification, reductionist or incomplete theories. It is of critical
importance that a meta-theory be established and used to revisit what we think we know of the
ancients and in doing so consider what may have been overlooked, perhaps in the intricacies or
subtleties.
Paradox as a meta-theory offers a powerful lens for management science,
providing deeper understandings of constructs, relationships, and dynamics
surrounding organizational tensions, while also enriching extant theories
and processes of theorizing. (Schad, J., Lewis, et al., 2016, p.5)
Such a meta-theory must accommodate varied contexts, applications and methodologies and
build links to other management theories regarding governance, leadership and change. (p.14)
The efficacy of a meta-theory can be seen when applied to innovation theory. Lewis adopts the
term ‘ambidextrous’ to best describe the structures, processes and behaviours that a successful
innovation organisation must exhibit. The literature concerning ambidextrous approaches to
innovation will not be further explored other than to cite it as an example of how innovation
paradoxes can be transformative but require managers to make critical decisions at key moments
in the life cycle of a project. (p.105) Often these qualities are seen only to concern upper
33
- Prepublication -
management, rather than the organisation as a whole. The nature of being ambidextrous is to
manage the tensions of exploring future possibilities while exploiting the present by connecting
the future with the present. Such themes continue to emerge that express this conflict involved
with design projects and the contrasting qualities that need to be managed, for example,
autonomy vs. supervision, radical vs. evolutionary change, depth vs. breadth of knowledge.
(p.105) Thus the question is posed “How do highly innovative companies manage tensions
across levels, from top management through projects and groups, down to individual creative
workers?” What is remarkable about Lewis’s findings is that it is the very paradoxical nature of
innovation that enables and energises these organisations to be ambidextrous rather than to be
inhibited by innovation. The leaders of these organisations have recognised the paradoxical
management approach they have needed to adopt, which includes; synergy & splitting, action &
material, long term adaptability & short-term survival, possibilities & constraints, diversity &
cohesiveness, and passion & discipline. (p.105) There is ambiguity around the innovation
paradox and ambidextrous approaches to navigating paradoxes in general with the added
complexity when researching organisations that utilise the ambidextrous to successfully navigate
the paradoxes of organisation whilst working in the very paradoxical field of design innovation.
This complexity can be seen in “the fiercely competitive industry is innovation.” (P.106) The
study found that managers within these organisations recognised the paradoxical situations they
were in and that the innovation paradoxes were unresolvable and enduring. Lewis concludes that
it is the ambidextrous practices, processes and conceptual frameworks that enable successful
design companies to navigate the tensions of the innovation paradox.
34
- Prepublication -
Likewise, Roberto Verganti’s Design-driven innovation is the presentation of a paradoxa to the
market and Verganti shows that these strategies have proven to deliver radical innovation with
lasting and meaningful influence. (p.11) Here we can see that our meta-theory can also be
applied to describe the tension between the centripetal forces to maintain the status quo and give
to the market what it wants and understands or by contrast harness centrifugal forces that drive
innovation by deliberately challenging meaning and understanding. Innovation paradoxes and
tensions exist between change and stability, meaning and understanding, and between the status
quo or radical redefining from within the design company itself and what it eventually pushes
out into the world. Verganti acknowledges that radical innovation is dependent on companies
having established networks with vital interpreters of meaning and where CEOs take leadership
in establishing relationships within and beyond their organisations, where centripetal and
centrifugal forces interact. Verganti stresses that incumbent companies are commonly incapable
of creating disruptive innovations as they are so focused on chasing the needs of their existing
customers resulting in design stagnation and the total loss of sight in what their products could
mean. (p.51) In the field of Innovation, Vergati also presents that collective meaning is at the
heart of innovation and is evident when radical designs present a paradoxa to the market, as the
centripetal and centrifugal forces push and pull in competing directions - the push of the new
and the pull of conservation. The successful diffusion of an innovation, is therefore where the
market is able to accept the paradoxa and inevitably will change the common meaning of that
innovation.
35
- Prepublication -
5. The Paradox of Organisation
The field of Organisational Paradox Theory has risen in recognition of the profound tensions that
the Postmodern contemporary world presents to managers and workers within all forms of
organisations. The nature of organisation is one of a multitude of paradoxes which managers and
workers must navigate and in particular innovation presents such optimism, hope and promise
yet at the same time is full of doubt, confusion and inherent risk. (Berti 2022) Paradoxes are
commonly defined as ‘persistent contradictions between interdependent elements’ (Schad et al.,
2016, p. 10) and are generally accepted in the literature.In the field of Organisational Paradox
Theory, Berti shows that the diffusion of an innovation is also dependent on the ability or agency
of the individual within an organisation to navigate the tensions which exist around the adoption
of an innovation. In other words, any adoption of an innovation is dependent on the individual
within an organisation being able to change an organisation's meaning with a changing collective
meaning or to be able to navigate contrary meanings.
“In practical terms, several new avenues for future research can be outlined by
building on the new theorizing frames that have been proposed to expand the
reach and impact of paradox theory.” (Berti and Cunha, 2022, p.21)
Marco Berti and Miguel Pina e Cunhab (2022) conceded that many of our misunderstandings
about Organisational Paradox Theory primarily stem from not having a practicable
understanding of paradox and our quick-fix solutions are not providing resolve to our
contemporary organisational problems. They cite a handful of examples which although are
clearly paradoxes, do not fit our current definition which could be put down to the growing pains
of our relatively new field of study, never-the-less it is causing unnecessary confusion and
contradictions amongst scholars. Rightly so, Berti and Cunhab assert that this is simply not good
36
- Prepublication -
enough as the consequences of not having our house in order are affecting our ability to address
some of the things that really matter, like prevailing historical injustices or even our ability to
critique the status quo. (p.2) The consequences of not dealing with this conceptual fuzziness is
problematic as there is every reason to dismiss Paradox theory as a credible conceptual toolbox.
(p.6) Berti and Cunhab (2022) show that there are larger dialectical issues which are currently
falling outside the scope of organisational paradox theory and concern the role that power and/or
agency play. They highlight that the well-meaning sentiment that the paradox represents an
energising force for positive outcomes is in light of our contemporary context naive. In relation
to my study, considering the dialectics of oppressive power and the strength of the status quo will
help us to determine the ability of athletes to make meaningful decisions to adopt design
innovations in the face of the paradoxes that are present. Are the dynamics of innovation in
rowing such that they are enhanced by paradoxes or do they illustrate the workings of an
unnavigable dialectical power imbalance? Berti and Cunha (2022) argue that our current ‘fuzzy’
definition has us tripping over our own feet and stumbling as well as other defined terms like
trade-offs and strategy. (p.7) That it is important to create a distinct and divergence theory and
conceptual model which eases tensions and generates new meanings. (p.8) It is critical for
theorists to reconsider our definition and work towards a more mature understanding where even
the fundamental pillars of interdependence may need to be toppled. (p.13) Likewise they argue
that Paradox theory must embrace multiple viewpoints to have greater relevance and potential,
and this can only be achieved by ‘rediscovering’ our first love and engaging in an ever
expanding universe. This is where an exploration of the dynamics of innovation into the broad
context, actor network of the sport of rowing can aid in the building of this grand vision.
37
- Prepublication -
Marco Berti and Ace V. Simpson (2021), in a treatise on Organisational Paradox Theory, begin
with a journey through 20th Century art and literature to show that what may be new to
contemporary organisational theorists is something that authors and artists have been crowing
about for well over 50 years. The familiar works from the likes of Escher, Heller and Kafka are
presented by Berti and Simpson as having non-fictional realities within contemporary
organisations and workers continually suffer the consequences of having to live, work and
navigate a host of paradoxes, and in relation to this study, read the lone individual rower who is
consumed by a crew or national squad. Adopting the role of a guide, they offer a way to navigate
the writhing nature of organisational paradox theory, rather than rolling out a definitive map
showing the way for designers to reach their destination (Berti et al., 2021, p.3). Organisational
Paradox theorists present through research, what novelists and artists pen and paint with
experience, unless organisations engage with paradoxes rather than being stuck in routine,
repetitions and cycles, they respond in ruts. (Berti et al., 2021, p.4) It is by looking at paradoxes
and the way individuals within organisations navigate their way through the tensions,
contradictions and even absurdities that design innovators can find solutions, understandings and
surprising creativity. Paradoxes themselves offer a lens through which to view given situations
and why one thing often leads to another, solutions become problems and success degenerates
into failure (Berti et al., 2021, p.7). All organisations are so rich with paradoxes that we should
not presume that the observed mechanics, processes and methods are by design or that the end
products are the result of coherent logic but rather the result of individuals navigating a host of
paradoxes. Organisational outcomes are achieved not despite but because of the paradoxes that
are present. Berti and Simpson focus on the individual within an organisation and consider their
agency and their ability to make legitimate decisions within the scope of their employment. They
38
- Prepublication -
recognise that an individual's actions may not be the result of any perceived action but simply the
result of obedience, paranoia or disengagement. Any positive action may only be achieved
through the avoidance of negative consequences rather than through an individual's agency. The
organisation asserts its control by dissolving the agency of the individual to be able to
meaningfully respond to calls to evaluate results, show initiative, reform and respond. This is in
contrast to organisations like Toyota in the 1990s that developed purposeful manufacturing
structures by encouraging its workers to identify flaws, suggest improvements and show
initiative. Understanding such paradoxical conditions will help managers understand their
organisation and when faced with the challenge of innovation adoption they can better
understand the tensions, risks and opportunities at stake. Organisation is full of paradoxes:
change vs. stability, planning vs. emergence, exploration vs. exploitation. (Berti et al., 2021, p.8)
Thus, a double cyclical model is created where the first loop is an interrogation with an
introspective focus and the second loop is a looking out to embrace a larger dialectical context.
The first loop draws us into our paradoxical understandings and the second pulls us out into a
larger world. In this way, we can interrogate one definition over another and validate multiple
propositions. (p.11) For example, Buridan’s ass, although initially presented with a paradox
never-the-less survives by eating from one of the piles, regardless of the initial paradox. The first
loop determined the presence of the paradox and the second loop brought resolution where the
undecidability of the observer did not result in paralysis. (p.13) The end result does not remove
the initial paradox but enables us to see it in a larger context. The original purpose of formal
organisation was to mitigate uncertainty and to control the outcomes of production. Yet
Organisational Paradox Theory presents that any such attempt is merely a facade for managers
are constantly moving from one state of uncertainty and disorganisation to another, vainly trying
39
- Prepublication -
to control the unexpected and understand the ambiguity for they realise just how vulnerable
organisations truly are. When organisations relinquish this exterior and adopt the art of the
paradox, Berti and Simpson suggest they are better able to manage change, innovate and adapt.
They cite a number of examples of successful companies and governments that have done just
that (Berti et al., 2021, p.8). Berti and Cunha (2022) consider how theorists working with current
definitions can better differentiate between a paradox and other theoretical models. Using a
double-loop model a theorist can determine if what they are observing can be firstly considered a
paradox and then to test how it relates to other disciplines. This approach is critical to determine
whether we are actually dealing with a paradox or are we embarrassingly describing something
else. Such a model can initially solve a set of yes/no, either/or and then once satisfied a
secondary loop allows for a new perspective or reframing. Can we initially satisfy that what we
are observing is a paradox and secondly can it be informed by other perspectives like
socio-material conditions, power relationships, and power structures which enter into conflict
through challenging the status quo? Could we look to history to understand present tensions and
reconsider default structures and standard practices? The central pillar of a paradox containing
two interdependent propositions is challenged by Berti and Cunha (2022) who present examples
which initially appear as a duality only to demonstrate how actors are able to explore,
accommodate and even be invigorated by mindsets that exist outside our standard definition.
(p,14) Berti and Cunhab (2022) show that there are larger dialectical issues which are currently
falling outside the scope of organisational paradox theory and concern the role that power and/or
agency play. They highlight that the well-meaning sentiment that the paradox represents an
energising force for positive outcomes is in light of our contemporary context naive. In relation
to my study, considering the dialectics of oppressive power in high performance rowing and
40
- Prepublication -
revealing the strength of the status quo and its effect on the dynamics of innovation will help us
to determine the ability of athletes to make meaningful decisions to adopt design innovations in
the face of the paradoxes that present. Are the dynamics of innovation in rowing such that they
are enhanced by paradoxes or do they illustrate the workings of an unnavigable dialectical power
imbalance? All evidence points to the latter.
In the field of Organisational Paradox Theory, Lewis invites theorists to reflect on where we
have been, what has been established and revisit what is considered well trodden territory but we
do so in order to consider where we are going, the new fields that are emerging. In doing so we
discover that we are not alone and newcomers to paradox theory and in turn are challenging once
established ground. To best describe this Janus face approach, Lewis uses the metaphor of
rotational or cyclical forces that elegantly illustrate the paradox of circular motion where the
contradictory and opposing forces of centripetal and centrifugal movement interact. As has been
stated, we are asked to look back in order for paradox theory to progress forward. By looking
back, Lewis draws our attention to the very origins of the term paradox or Paradoxa and its first
use as associated with that which is contrary to common opinion, belief or understanding. At the
heart of the paradoxa we are confronted with an anomaly or a point of tension that is at odds
with common meaning and collective understanding. Looking back to the origins of paradox
theory enables the term of paradoxa to inform our understanding of innovation theory today.
Thus, within contemporary organisations, what are the underlying assumptions or the common
opinions regarding the dynamics of innovation that present a challenge to the status quo? It is
only through a recognition of the dynamics of innovation, its paradoxical nature, that a
41
- Prepublication -
contemporary organisation can utilise the creative or performance potential that innovations
offer.
The innovation paradox has many layers and lifting the lid and peering into the workings of
successful creative design organisations is important but represents only one side of the
multi-faceted innovation coin. For we understand that the creation of an innovation poses a
myriad of paradoxes in itself let alone see the successful diffusion of the innovation into the
world. Such organisations who operate in the design innovation space face particular paradoxes
as being creative agents of innovation and also being agents of change who champion
innovations out into other contexts. We best understand this through Lewis’ centripetal and
centrifugal forces of innovation as they come spiralling inwards we can explore the paradoxes
faced by organisations who create innovative products caught in the centrifugal forces and are
also spinning outwards to carry the innovation out into the world. In other words, the paradoxes
can be best represented as spiralling forces associated with the creation of innovation and another
of seeing that innovation is successfully diffused into the world. We glimpse at the outworkings
of these meta-theories of paradoxa and centripetal/centrifugal spiralling of contemporary
innovation theories in the works of Roberto Verganti (2019) and Marco Berti (2021). Vergati also
presents that collective meaning is at the heart of innovation and is evident when radical designs
present a paradoxa to the market, as the centripetal and centrifugal forces push and pull in
competing directions - the push of the new and the pull of conservation. The successful diffusion
of an innovation, is therefore where the market is able to accept the paradoxa and inevitably will
change the common meaning of that product. Berti shows that the diffusion of an innovation is
also dependent on the ability or agency of the individual within an organisation to navigate the
42
- Prepublication -
tensions which exist around the adoption of an innovation. In other words, any adoption of an
innovation is dependent on the individual within an organisation being able to change an
organisation's meaning with a changing collective meaning or to be able to navigate contrary
meanings. Yet, innovation continues to be a paradox for it presents both a paralysing
consternation but is also an unrestrained creative drive. (Berti 2020) “In practical terms, several
new avenues for future research can be outlined by building on the new theorising frames that
have been proposed to expand the reach and impact of paradox theory.” (Berti and Cunha, 2022,
p.21) So, we look into the perplexing world of high performance rowing in order to add a new
perspective on the paradoxes associated with innovation creation and adoption.
43
- Prepublication -
6. Paradoxa of Innovation - The dynamics of innovation in Sport
‘I define “Lead-Users” of a novel or enhanced product, process or service as
those who;
- Face needs that will be general in a marketplace, but face them months or
years before the bulk of that marketplace encounters them, and,
- Are positioned to benefit significantly by obtaining a solution to those
needs.
Von Hipple
(Von Hippel, Research Technology Management, Vol. 32, No. 3
(May-June 1989), pp. 24-27 (4 pages), Published by: Taylor & Francis,
Ltd)
Contrary to the common assumptions about sporting innovations, the development and adoption
of innovations is a paradoxa. These assumptions create a fierce orthodoxy within sporting
communities where innovations are held in check by these assumptions and legacy companies
have no incentive to innovate as the market is geared to the status quo, which is particularly the
case within rowing. It is commonly thought that sporting innovations are progressed by
incumbent manufacturers, and optimised by scientific institutions or universities, yet a
paradoxical phenomenon of Lead-User, Free Innovation and Actor Network theory, presents a
key to understanding what is actually taking place. Paradox, Lead-User and Free Innovation
theories will provide the lens through which to view the Actor Network which we will define as
the sport of rowing. It has been shown that many of the innovations within the sporting context,
derive from the actions of ordinary individuals and are motivated by a host of factors, not
necessarily monetary, to invent for their own use out of “DIY” ingenuity and personal curiosity.
Which is particularly the case in the development of modern rowing. To use an example common
in the literature, a Lead-Users free innovation may make modifications to their road bicycle by
installing thicker tyres, allowing it to be used ‘off-road’. This simple low-tech modification, or
‘hack’, by an ‘ordinary’ everyday cyclist was instigated for a host of personal non-economic
44
- Prepublication -
reasons. It is the limited non-specialist, non-scientific and uneconomic nature of the Lead-User
where the Actor-Networks are essential for the success of innovations in Sport. Actor-Network
Theory is when a Lead-User's free innovation ‘hack’ is socialised and the actions of the
Lead-User are propagated, copied and refined by an interested, engaged and active sporting
community. It is subsequently through Actor-Networks where such inventions are progressed,
refined and through socialisation, thus transforming into an innovation on a wider scale
becoming socialised, progressed by and adopted within a community, marketplace, or ‘adopted
at least by and within one social milieu.’(Gaglio, G. (2011). Sociologie de l’innovation. Paris :
Presses universitaires de France, p.4) Where the actions of one or more Lead-Users, together
with a User-Network, may even create an entirely new sporting endeavour, as was seen with the
creation and popularisation of Mountain Biking in the 1970’s. (Boutroy, Vignal & Soule,
Boutroy, Vignal & Soule, (2015) Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure, Vol. 38, No. 3, p.38)
However, it is also within Actor-Networks where Lead-Users meet fierce opposition from the
orthodoxy and dogma of gatekeepers within, demonstrating that a simple problem/solution
dichotomy is insufficient in describing sporting innovation. (Boutroy, Vignal & Soule, Boutroy,
Vignal & Soule, (2015) Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure, Vol. 38, No. 3, p.386) The
diffusion of a sporting innovation may be inhibited or rejected for social rather than efficacy
reasons. Boutroy, Vignal & Soule recognised that much of innovation research focuses solely on
proven success stories and that there is little attention paid to failed cases or longitudinal
monitoring of potential innovations ‘in progress’. Chantelat also noted that there is often an
extensive time period from the invention of a new sporting innovation through to adoption by the
sporting community, thus allowing for an in-depth study on a Lead-User and the diffusion of
their innovation. (Chantelat, P. (1992). L’innovation sur le marché. Le corps surnaturé; les sports
45
- Prepublication -
entre sciences et conscience. Revue Autrement, 4, 157–166.) Within the broad context, actor
network of the sport of rowing, we are able to see the progression of a range of innovations to
study the dynamics of innovation, including those that derive from within accepted innovation
frameworks and those from unorthodox Lead-Users.
Free Innovation is said to be ‘free’ when it is created by the everyday consumer whose
innovation is totally self-funded and uses their discretionary time. Most significantly, they do so
without protecting their design and do not receive any financial reward but instead are open to
sharing it (von Hippel, Eric, 2017, p.1). The household consumers' free innovation is of little
value to the manufacture of the original product. In the household, we have the autonomy to be
free innovators and to adopt free innovations, but in rowing, we are faced with the paradox that
although there are benefits to be gained within reach, due to the culture, history and governance
of the sport, rowers are not free to adopt the innovation. What appears to be occurring when
User-Led free innovation butts up against the established organisation of rowing is a clash of
paradigms. This clash was identified by Thorsten Pieper, Frank Tietze and Cornelius Herstatt
(2012) who recognised the lack of innovation in rowing and conducted a study on the capacity
for rowers to realise design innovation concepts. For a host of cultural factors only a very small
percentage of contemporary rowing innovation concepts were ever acted upon and Pieper, Tietze
and Herstatt considered if this was due to the nature of equipment ownership, as the majority of
rowers belong to clubs and do not own private boats and oars. In contemporary rowing there is
little room for the rower to innovate, ‘free’ or otherwise, by making modifications to their
equipment, especially if they do not have property rights. It would seem that free innovation is
diffuse and ephemeral in nature and could never have the power to overcome the inertia of the
46
- Prepublication -
historically entrenched culture of rowing. Von Hippel recognises that it does not necessarily
require a contest of one paradigm over another, but that free innovation could complement the
existing paradigms of innovation diffusion. In the first one hundred years of modern rowing
Lead-User free innovations introduced the majority of design changes in the sport, though
organisations struggle with the paradoxa it created. The free innovation paradigm can serve to
complement the producer innovation paradigm rather than as a replacement. I am proposing that
each usefully frames a portion of extant innovation activity. (von Hippel, Eric, 2017, p.12) Not
all contexts, sporting or otherwise, are open to the Lead-User or see free innovation as a
legitimate source. For a sport like rowing, steeped in historical traditions coupled with stringent
equipment oversight, innovation is ever so glacial (Pieper et al. 2012). Progressing innovation
within a marketplace governed by anaesthetised product developers creates paradoxical
questions for Lead-Users and free innovation; Is it presumptuous to believe that a free innovation
could actually be taken seriously in a high-performance sport like Rowing? Of course not!
However, the treatment of Lead-Users by the rowing community and rowing governing bodies in
recent years have dampened the enthusiasm of Lead-Users to pursue the development of
innovations. I will later in this paper address the 1983 FISA1banning the sliding rigger had the
effect of ending Lead-users' greater influence in contemporary rowing design innovation. The
pursuit of marginal gains is the currency of modern sport and the origin of any said innovation is
inconsequential as performance gains will speak for themselves. The potential of Lead-User free
innovations still remains regardless of the attitudes and assumptions of a sporting community
and such free innovations hold great rewards for those who invest in such opportunities. Gaining
a winning edge over your competition advantages longer lead times and if high-performance
1FISA, Fédération internationale des sociétés d'aviron, International Rowing Federation was founded 25
June 1892. The organisation became World Rowing in 2001
47
- Prepublication -
sports were to look like to Lead-Users, they would be rewarded. Von Hipple presents a twofold
advantage for Lead-User innovation, … Lead-Users of a novel or enhanced product, process, or
service [...] display two characteristics with respect to it: 1. Lead-Users face needs that will be
general in a marketplace, but they face them months or years before the bulk of that marketplace
encounters them, and 2. Lead-Users are positioned to benefit significantly by obtaining a
solution to those needs. (von Hippel, Eric, 1988, p.107) In sports there is an appreciation of the
potential innovation and what marginal gains can offer and that the ‘current needs of this special
group (Lead-Users) can foreshadow the future needs of the broader marketplace’ (von Hippel,
Eric, 1989). A small handful of recent rowing inventions are examples of solving problems not
previously recognised by the rowing community, such as the Magik Gate which aids oar stability
and the AxioR oar pitch adjustment mechanism, the Carl Douglas winged fin or the author's
Randall foil offering faster boat speed. Furthermore, these innovations undermine the perceived
strengths of the established design principles, thus representing a challenge to accepted standards
of technique and training programs. If an innovation has any benefit to the sport of rowing, boat
speed, equipment functionality, or unforeseen positive outcomes, surely the general rowing
marketplace would be interested. Von Hippel writes, Because free innovators, by definition, are
unconcerned about the diffusion of their new designs, fewer users will adopt the designs of free
innovators than would be the case if the free innovators actively made their designs known to the
world. Therefore, the social benefits from free innovation will be less than they would be if the
designs were somehow diffused more widely. (von Hippel, Eric, 2017, p.263) Rowing as a social
organisation is made of a number of paradigms including; historical, high performance,
professional, high school, college, and masters, extending to government sports policy and
funding. An attempt to progress a free innovation with rowing has highlighted the barriers,
48
- Prepublication -
tensions and paradoxes within the sport. When a Lead-Users free innovation is socialised and the
actions of the Lead-Users are propagated, copied and refined by an interested, engaged and
active sporting community then the innovation is progressed and diffused. For this diffusion to
occur, individual rowers must in turn navigate significant tensions between the orthodoxy of
high-performance sport and then transform the social dynamics of their coach, club, crew or
squad if they have any hope of receiving the potential rewards of any free innovation. Thus an
innovation paradox exists between paradigms of the free innovator Lead-User and elite
high-performance sport, complicated further by multiple paradigms that dislocate the adoption
and diffusion of innovation. Why do consumers fail to buy innovative products even when they
offer distinct improvements over existing ones? Few would question the objective advantages of
many innovations over existing alternatives, but that’s often not enough for them to succeed
(Gourville, J., 2006). The act of progressing a free innovation in the sport of rowing is like
prying open the lid on a box neatly shut to find inside a mass of festering worms (K. Knorr et A.
Cicourel, 1981 p.300). It was my assumption, like many within the general sporting community,
that design innovation would be highly valued and sought by both manufacturers and
high-performance directors alike. Yet, to illustrate the point, “It appears that you cannot convince
the oar makers, otherwise they would be doing the work for you,” said one frequent contributor
to a rowing internet forum as to why the my design should be discredited; “if it worked, they’d
be already using it.” Any new innovation outside established rowing orthodoxy is met with such
cynicism by the rowing community. Rowing, in its pure competitive form, symbolises an almost
single cellular organism with a simple and measurable purpose: speed. The goal of a rowing race
is to row the boat from the Start to the Finish in the shortest time and the entire high-performance
49
- Prepublication -
organisation is purposed for this. Suggesting otherwise is to open the paradoxical box, to release
the swarming leviathan within and to see the network of actors writhing in torture.
Sport exalts the athlete as the hero and assumes their triumph is the result of their will,
self-determination and agency, yet in most cases, individual athletes are strictly managed by
high-performance coaches. Not only do they need to comply with the rules of the game, work as
part of a team but also adopt technologies handed to them, adhere to unwritten cultural norms,
and navigate the power dynamics of coaches and administrators. For the individual rower to
adopt an innovation as it would appear that they have minimal agency within World Rowing.
The rower is unable to make the decision to adopt an innovation for they are prevented from
stepping outside the frameset (Watzlawick, Jackson, & Bavelas 1967, p. 212), which could be
due to their allocated equipment or the demands of the coach, yet they are told to outperform the
competition and win medals. The individual rower is caught in a double-bind unable to act for if
they were to adopt an innovation they would be stepping outside orthodoxy and would quickly
find themselves out of the crew. (Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland 1956, 1963). If we
consider the high performance elite rowers are required to make critical decisions during
competition, yet they live in a world of restrictions and conformity, disempowering them to make
any decision in relation to equipment innovation. (Alvesson & Willmott 1992, p. 432). In World
Rowing, is there a generative or pathological view of paradox where the ‘mainstream’ paradox
theory of accepting or embracing paradox can ‘unleash’ a multitude of potential innovations or
are some paradoxes caused by a lack of agency will always be problematic and can never be
removed? Alcadipani, R., & Hassard, J. (2010), highlight that actors within an Actor-Network
are in fact locked into that network and also have external forces limiting their behaviour which
50
- Prepublication -
are external to an organisation they belong to. Alcadipani et al (2010) make the distinction that
such an analysis of the dynamics of agency is not intended to become knowledge for
management to exert more control but rather enable the emancipation of agents within
Actor-Networks. The point is made that resistance to ideologies, institutions, and identities tends
to fix individuals into unreflectively reproduced ideas, intentions, and practices (Alcadipana et al
2010 p.421), which is suggestive of what is limiting innovation in World Rowing. Bednarek et
al., (2021) propose that innovation needs to be embedded in our understanding rather than being
mutually exclusive (Bednarek et al., 2021 p.84). Paradoxically, embeddedness entails polar
opposites being held in tension but also residing within one another. In other words, within any
existing design resides the potential for innovation which is complementary to the existing
design and not in opposition to it. Furthermore, World Rowing needs to overcome its adherence
to dogma and beliefs that transcend data and scientific knowledge. As briefly stated in the
introduction, the established World Rowing theory is that the oar must be deeply buried by the
rower and my hypothesis was that the opposite is true. Rebecca Bednarek, Miguel Pina e Cunha,
Jonathan Schad, and Wendy K. Smith (2021) Interdisciplinary Dialogues on Organisational
Paradox: Learning from Belief and Science explore the paradoxes that exist between belief and
science and the tensions, dynamics and paradoxes within formal organisations. Within a belief
system, the notion of doubt is seen as a negative force and has the potential to undermine faith, a
challenge to the organisation. This is often expressed in stark contrast or binary notions of
good/evil, right/wrong but if doubt and faith are held in juxtaposition, one can inform and enrich
the other (Bednarek et al 2021 p.77). Considering doubt as a positive force within an
organisation can lead to scepticism, enquiry and discovery. Bednarek et al consider the
unquestioned acceptance of dogma within an organisation and when doubt is viewed positively,
51
- Prepublication -
in juxtaposition or as an accepted paradox, two contradictory truths may lead to growth and
development (Bednarek et al., 2021p.77). Yet, paradoxes proliferate and intertwine through the
organisation that ostensibly exists to reduce or resolve it (Bednarek et al 2021 p.77).
The dynamics of innovation within the sport of rowing exist within a broad context, which
includes rowers, coaches, and stakeholders extending to inanimate objects like boats,
equipment and raw materials through to intangible attitudes, beliefs and values. We will
call this broad context of the sport of rowing an Actor-Network. We look to Bruno Latour
and his study of Actor-Network Theory for a conceptual model to help us consider that
which we call rowing. Actor-Network Theory began as a study of the relationship between
science and sociology, technology and methodology. The field has grown far beyond any
capacity to be conceptually contained for the theory has been applied broadly to reconcile
such disparate fields of culture and nature, society and technology. ANT when applied
seeks to understand the structure of knowledge and the actors which make up any field
understanding at micro, meso and macro levels. (Routledge, 2020, p.xx) ANT allows the
consideration of the role of material actants in addition to humans and helps distinguish
between the dynamics that led to the constitution of paradoxes of innovation, and to the
formulation of responses to such paradoxes. The significance of Actor-Network theory
demands the acknowledgement of both human and non-human actors which must be
considered as determining the result of any situation. Given the sheer potential breadth of
ANT, theorists can be considered little more than ‘amateurs of reality’ seeking to
understand their own chosen area containing the objects, ideas, places and spaces in which
they dwell. My own area just happens to be the sport of rowing and the scope of ANT will
consider the presence of a well-placed G2 stainless steel screw to be just as critical as the
52
- Prepublication -
decision from a sports director concerning equipment selection. ANT will provide a
framework to study the significant actors, human or otherwise, that have affected the
adoption of a design innovation within rowing. The challenges experienced by the
Lead-User of this study to engage the rowing community were heightened by a
particularly closed Actor-Network to innovation. It could be argued that within the rowing
community, there were very few ‘actors’ who meaningfully engaged with concepts of
innovation. Paradoxically, due to an established rowing orthodoxy, any attempt to consider
improving speed through design innovation appears to be discouraged by many agents
within the Actor-Networks, showing that there are a multiplicity of factors which affect the
adoption of innovation. In rowing, any new design is a challenge to those using or
associated with existing equipment, rather than seeing it as an opportunity to improve the
essential goals of the equipment, to create faster boat speeds. Opposition to design
innovation stems from established orthodoxy deeply invested in scientific dogma,
equipment conventions and coaching programs. From the anonymous blog poster to the
Australian rowing coach, they all seem to act as one, joined by a memorandum of
understanding dictated by a supreme sovereign, the leviathan, who controls all their
opinions and judgments (K. Knorr et A. Cicourel, 1981, p.267). Recognising that we are
dealing with the Leviathan as described by Latour, one which cannot be tamed by a
simplistic model or clever metaphor but is represented by a complex network of
uncontrollable interactions (K. Knorr et A. Cicourel, 1981, p.294). The study of such a
monster as high-performance rowing takes a particular approach and I will model my
methodology on Latour’s (1986) investigation into Science. Latour took his vantage place
within a scientific laboratory and I have donned the disguise of a rowing equipment
53
- Prepublication -
designer. Latour entered the laboratory seeking to understand the scientist, who in turn, is
seeking to discover the truths, governing laws and patterns out of a seemingly chaotic
universe. Latour says, “Our interest in the way in which scientific order is constructed out
of chaos,” likewise, I am seeking to understand innovation and design by entering its
world of high-performance rowing as an equipment designer, free innovator and Latourian
observer (Latour 1986 p.33). And fundamentally, I am seeking a way in which design
innovation and adoption can be torn out of the leviathan’s controlling hand, to free
innovation from orthodoxy and to empower the Lead-User. During his time in the
laboratory, Latour observed that science was going through a significant change. As
expressed by the scientists he was observing, science was moving from “the field had been
characterised by artefacts, unfounded claims, and elegant hypotheses rather than by facts”
(Latour 1986 p.121). From a time when science conformed to orthodoxy and dogma to a
new revaluing of evidence and results. Yet, the scientists being studied had an awareness
of a tension in which they existed, a duality between the technical and the social, between
evidence and culture (Latour 1986 p.127). Regardless of any newfound prioritising of
evidence, the scientists were still bound by the social laws, orthodoxies and dogmas in
which they operated. Likewise, as we will see later in the chapter, rowing is also adopting
telemetry and using data for training and racing, which provides a wealth of information to
assess the efficacy of innovations. In a similar way, rowing equipment manufacturers and
sports research bodies can give a nod to evidence-based research but they too are bound by
the social values of the rowing community. Latour closely observed the way a hypothesis
moved from conjecture through to the construction of a fact, a process that is very much a
social phenomenon, a social process of discussion, debate, scepticism, repetition,
54
- Prepublication -
replication and only then becoming broadly acknowledged. Latour concluded that the
“logic of deduction cannot be isolated from its sociological grounds” (Latour 1986 p.135).
In a similar way, my own rowing design could not be removed from the cultural realms of
the rowing community despite any publication of improved performance results. All truths
must be socialised before becoming accepted by any community. The transition from a
hypothesis to the construction of scientific truth is a subtle shift in language rather than a
sudden eureka moment. In a similar way, I have witnessed the debate around my own
design shift from “I doubt it works” to “a better solution would be to have a re-attachable
fitting.” The paradox of the establishment of facts concerns the very understanding of
evidence and truth itself. Is truth something that is created through a social process or is it
something that is completely external? On the one hand, our quasi-anthropological
perspective stresses its etymological significance: a fact is derived from the root word
factum (to make or to do). On the other hand, fact is taken to refer to some objectively
independent entity which, by reason of its "out there-ness" cannot be modified at will and
is not susceptible to change under any circumstances. The tension between the existence of
knowledge as pregiven and its creation by actors has long been a theme which sociologists
of knowledge. (Latour 1986 p.174) The importance of this philosophical paradox to the
study of design revolves around the nature of innovation diffusion. The efficacy of any
given design is only one side of a spinning paradoxical coin, for if the truth of any
innovation is to be constructed as a fact it must be socialised and a design must be diffused
and adopted. Socialisation has such an effect on the establishment of fact that Latour
concluded that scientists need to constantly ask themselves whether the results of their
current research are dependent on what is “out there” or simply a social construction of the
55
- Prepublication -
activity they are engaged in. Similarly, for high-performance sports are the results of any
objective test accurately showing positive design innovation or the result of a negative
social construct? We can clearly say that the efficacy of any given piece of
high-performance sports equipment design is compromised by an enduring culture hostile
to design change. Latour concludes that “Our argument is not that facts are not real, nor
that they are merely artificial. Our argument is not just that facts are socially
constructed.” (Latour 1986 p.176) It is through Actor-Networks where such designs are
progressed, socialised and transformed into innovations on a wider scale. So the
transformative power of the design innovator should not be underestimated. However, it is
also within Actor-Networks where Lead-Users meet fierce opposition from the orthodoxy
and dogma of gatekeepers within, demonstrating that a simple problem/solution dichotomy
is insufficient in describing sporting innovation (Boutroy et al, 2015, p.386). The diffusion
of a sporting innovation may be inhibited or rejected due to paradoxical organisational or
irrational social factors rather than by factual objective efficacy reasons. Boutroy, Vignal
& Soule recognised that much of innovation research focuses solely on proven success
stories and that there is little attention paid to failed cases or longitudinal monitoring of
potential innovations ‘in progress’. There is often an extensive time period from the
invention of a new sporting innovation through to adoption by the sporting community,
thus allowing for an in-depth study on a Lead-User and the diffusion of their innovation
(Chantelat, P., 1992). Investigating rowing innovations offers this very opportunity to
conduct such a longitudinal study of a specific case from invention through to success at
an international level. With few design changes from season to season, the sport of rowing
offers a unique opportunity to trace innovation diffusion and to model the potential for a
56
- Prepublication -
design to become more broadly adopted. Even if the eventual ‘failure’ of my design to be
adopted by the rowing community it would serve as a case study or point of reference for
future researchers. Are Lead-User and Actor-Network Theories adequate for
understanding the diffusion of innovation with rowing? This would help us to understand
why sports people in the rowing community did or did not make the decision to utilise any
given innovation. Using Lead-User, Organisation Paradox Theory and Actor-Network
Theories may provide insights into design diffusion in sport in general but other factors
come to light when interrogating the sport of rowing. The sport of rowing offers a unique
opportunity to study the adoption of innovation as its goals are simple, innovation is
sequential and laws are rigorously governed. Entering the world of rowing is like Latour
entering his laboratory. By researching the sport of rowing as an actor network it is my
intention to help build on the body of knowledge for researchers, managers and other
Lead-Users both in rowing and other sporting communities. So this study enters the
domain of the leviathan and becomes enveloped in a writhing paradoxical Actor-Network
otherwise known as rowing.
57
- Prepublication -
7. The Paradoxa of innovation in the sport of rowing
As any innovation exists within a broad cultural and historical context, its capacity, rate and
extent of change is governed by a myriad of factors, many of which form a great leviathan called
paradoxa. The sport of rowing, in its contemporary manifestation, has its origins in one of the
most significant historical global developments from the 17th to the 19th Centuries, which to this
day, greatly affects the dynamics of innovation and its ability to create or adopt innovations. So
to understand the nature of any organisation and its ability to innovate, it is important to consider
this broader historical, cultural and social contexts. Within any organisation, be that social,
cultural or commercial, will exist the conditions which determine its capacity to change or to
adopt an innovation. For some organisations, there is the ability to change and adapt, to respond
and to innovate but for many, innovation is hamstrung by risk and change is only possible
through gunboat diplomacy, where only the fear of destruction leads to necessary innovation
adoption. The conditions of innovation adoption are shaped by many factors, powerful actors,
recent history, what has occurred in the past, decisions made, experiences had and consequences
felt. This is a form of innovation by threat rather than by choice.
We can learn much by exploring the dynamics of innovation in sports as the realities frequently
challenge our assumptions about innovation, the inertia of the status quo that must be overcome
and adoption is only achieved against all odds. As an example, I will introduce here the
culturally charged and nationally defining 1986 America’s Cup campaign. This event was
frequently represented as the hero genius designer with their radical innovation triumphing over
conventional design. (Fishman, Joanne A. (4 September 1983). "LIBERTY SEES NO NEED
FOR WINGED KEEL". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 September 2018) Yet what was not
understood was that this innovation was nearly scuttled, not by its efficacy, but rather by the
58
- Prepublication -
innovation paradox itself. It has only recently been revealed that after successful tank testing, the
crew were not willing to use the boat. The radical design created different performance
characteristics which the crew were unfamiliar with and they found the boat difficult to master. It
was only a threat to “find another crew” from the financial principal of the team, entrepreneur
Alan Bond, that secured its use. (Untold: The Race of the Century is a 2022 American Netflix
original documentary film directed by Chapman Way and Maclain Way. September 6, 2022.) The
successful adoption of the wing-keel, or that of any innovation, is determined by far more than
the efficacy of the innovation. It was the intervention of a powerful actor that enabled the
adoption of the innovation, for given the alternative, the status quo would have prevailed.
The assumption that innovations are a positive force is clearly wrong. There are many factors
that act against a positivist theory of innovation. Innovations are fraught, complex and anyone
who, like the author, sets out to progress an innovation is met with anything but a beaten path
instead is met with frustrated entanglement of paradoxes and barriers. It would seem paradoxical
that even in the face of clear advantage the dynamics of innovation are such where innovations
are set to fail.
I am under no illusion of the questionable status of rowing culturally and was recently reminded
of such, when my father-in-law handed to me a birthday gift with an apology“I tried to get you a
book on rowing. I can tell you that there is not one book in any bookshop in all of Sydney!” If
you are seeking a measure of the popularity of rowing, the lack of a popular and current body of
literature is telling. Rowing holds little interest or relevance to modern day sport and World
Rowing is under significant pressure by the International Olympic Committee to increase its
participation and representation. In reality, the sport of rowing is inconsequential to this larger
59
- Prepublication -
question of innovation paradox but serves as a case to clearly illustrate the various aspects and
the complexity of meaningfully navigating paradoxical tensions within organisations.
In equipment-based contemporary sport, Rowing presents an anomaly in relation to innovation
adoption as there appears to be an even greater reluctance, even resistance, to adopt novel
designs regardless of perceived or actual potential performance advantage. In the year 2000, the
men’s VIII for Great Britain adopted the motto “Will it make the boat faster?” as the driving
principle guiding decision making for the Sydney Olympics. In any other context it would seem
rather straightforward and rather obvious, but in the sport of rowing it was considered a
revolutionary idea for they recognised the innovation resistance of rowing as an opportunity as
something that could be capitalised on. Subsequently, following their gold medal achievement,
members of the crew have gone on to hold leadership positions in major companies. Yet, for the
rowing community, little changed and most of the innovations they adopted have not been seen
in competition since; including the Carl Douglas fin and the application of 3M dots for
aerodynamics. (Hunt-Davis, B., & Beveridge, H. (2012). Will it Make the Boat Go Faster?
Troubador.) In the contemporary era of sport science, there is a focus on the marginal gains that
design innovations can bring. (Hall, 2012) Yet, in the sport of rowing the dynamics of innovation
are held in check by a myriad of organisational tensions that will be explored. The investigation
of rowing, as an extreme case study, may highlight the dynamics of innovation and provide
insight into navigating the paradoxes that all innovators face. (Flyvbjerg, 2006) It appears
paradoxical that the very people who may benefit most from a design innovation are unable to do
so due to the culture, practices and structure of their organisation. The central issue is the effect
of the innovation paradox and the way individuals navigate the tensions, questions, and
60
- Prepublication -
anomalies that are present in the highly organised sport of rowing. The broader research will
explore not only the paradoxes surrounding the adoption of innovation but also the dynamics of
innovation on the agency of individuals within such organisations.
Innovation is a contrary voice, the paradoxa to the status quo. The sport of rowing would appear
to represent a community that when confronted with innovations, participants do not have the
agency to adopt them. The dynamics of innovation appear to be stifled by power dialectics where
the individual athlete is not able to adopt potentially beneficial innovations. As existing
meanings within the rowing community are bound up by legacy products created by established
manufacturers, and used by coaches, participants and associates working within well-established
boundaries of meaning. Understanding the dynamics of innovation in rowing is seeing effects,
costs, opportunities and potential of successfully navigating the innovation paradox in order to
gain a performance advantage. The expectations of the rowing community continue to be met
which in turn reinforces meaning and returns the power of meaning back to those who created it
in the first place. The dynamics of rowing are such where incumbent design and manufacturing
are unable to create radical innovation through new meanings as they have created the
established meanings or they themselves are the product of an orthodoxy kept in check by a
self-fulfilling cycle of acceptance at every level of participation. Rowing represents an
opportunity to explore the pressures of conservation by looking into a very small sample of
innovations and the dynamics of those who have been able to adopt and create a new meaning.
The dynamics of innovation in the rowing and how organisational paradox theory can shed light
on the workings of this cultural petri dish which may in turn provide an insight into the workings
of similar innovation resistant institutions, The gap in the literature exists in the application of a
61
- Prepublication -
meta-theory to such a distinct and defined case study. My own design represents a paradoxa of
what a rowing oar looks like, how it operates, how it performs, is measured, integrates with
existing contexts and changes in rowing technique. For new meanings to be accepted it requires
the rower, the coach and the entire squad to change this meaning. The point of origin of the
innovation from a Lead-User via Free-innovation and not represented by an incumbent
manufacturer, sporting institute or national research facility. It is important for the sport to
recognise these foundations as it will assist in understanding the dynamics of innovation and why
particular innovations have succeeded where others have failed. In rowing, it would be wrong to
assume that the failure of the sport to adopt an innovation was the fault of the efficacy of the
innovation itself, rather than caused by the capacity of the organisation to adopt the innovation.
In the modern era of sport, it is all too easy to forget that radical design innovation is the
exception, not the rule and that sporting organisations are also caught in innovation paradoxes
which they are unable to escape. It is one thing to propose a new meaning to the market and
another for those caught within an organisational structure to be able to adopt it. This is
especially the case for the sport of rowing. Contemporary organisations are unable to be
innovative and those within organisations appear unable to adopt innovations resulting in a world
where good designs fail and poor designs endure where only the smallest fraction of a percentage
of patents are ever commercialised. (Fisher, D, 2014) The tension between innovation and
conservation needs to endure, if not, the adoption of unfettered innovation could see the
inappropriate adoption of the combustion engine to assist greater boat speeds, not giving
competitors a sporting chance. Cases of adoption and rejection of innovation in the sport show
how the tensions of conservation and progression are essential to keep rowing as rowing. But
equally the restriction of appropriate evolutionary innovations, like the sliding rigger for
62
- Prepublication -
example, could see all competitors using identical equipment. Which is exactly the current
situation within rowing. To make a comparison with cycling, it would be unthinkable for two
teams to be riding identical machines at the startline of the Tour de France, yet at the startline of
any World Rowing regatta it is common for all teams to be using the exact Italian Filippi boats
with US Concept II oars. The latter, where all competitors are using the same equipment, is
actually the current situation in the sport of rowing. The observer may conclude that the presence
of multiple designs and manufacturers give athletes many piles to choose from and that athletes
are engaging in some form of rational choice and selection process, as to which hay bale is the
largest or which oar is the fastest. However, by using a double loop critical model we can see that
the rower like the ass will make a selection never-the-less without any ration selection process
actually taking place. The dynamics of innovation in rowing will seek to explore how design
innovation challenges established meanings and how individual athletes are able to navigate the
tensions, the push of innovation adoption, with all of its hope and promise, and the pull of
conservation, the status quo and the need to be part of a team. Looking at the dynamics of
innovation in rowing reflects that of innovation as in other organisational spheres. The paradox
of innovation dictates the dynamics of innovation in rowing. What is the doxa - of innovation in
the sport of rowing - that innovation is a positive force and is seen by major manufacturers and
companies. Innovation however can come from individuals but is met with a force of
institutional resistance. All organisations are part of world history and are subject to the
paradoxes of organisation. What can history teach us about organisation when considering the
current state of organisation? Organisations, managers and workers operate in assumptions
however the reality is paradoxa - especially in terms of innovation development and adoption.
63
- Prepublication -
It is often acknowledged in studies, almost with an air of defeatism, that Rowing is an enigma in
the era of contemporary sport. It is well understood and widely recognised that rowing is a
highly conservative sport, where equipment is costly, corporately owned, communally used, with
a long shelf-life, together with equipment laws and limits strictly governed by the world
governing body FISA, stifling innovation and developing a culture of demonising innovation and
those seeking change. Regrettably, Rowing also has been a bastion of elitism, racism, sexism and
cronyism with damning criticism by those investigating its sociology, which only entrenches any
form of status quo.
“[Rowing] subconsciously confirms and reinforces a conservative, culture
specific and hegemonic form of masculinity” (Light, 2003, p. 103).
“I chose rowing for two reasons. First, it is considered to be one of the most
conservative and oldest sports. This is important because of the connection
between conservative sports and hegemonic masculinity.” (p.428 Sociology of
Sport Journal, 2009, 26, 425-442, 2009 Human Kinetics, Inc. Learning
Masculinity Through Japanese University Rowing Brent Douglas McDonald
Victoria University)
“the ideological conflict within the conservative Amateur Rowing Association”
('What an absurdity': Penny Chuter and the polemics of progress in British rowing
during the early 1970s Taylor, Lisa, Sport in history, 2020, Vol.40 (1), p.56-77)
And further,
“[Rowing is] conservative, exclusionary and solely populated by the middle and
upper classes.” (The Women’s Amateur Rowing Association 1923–1963: a
prosopographical approach Lisa Taylor Pages 307-330 | Published online: 25 June
2018)
As such, even though there are many obstacles to bring social change, structural reform or design
innovation in rowing. Yet these very conditions provide extraordinary opportunities for managers
who are seeking performance gains through social reform and design innovation by providing
opportunities for greater social representation and to bring novel equipment to the market. The
sport of rowing, even within the modern world of high performance sport and part of the modern
64
- Prepublication -
Olympic movement since its inception in 1896, continues to have a tumultuous relationship with
innovation, for though the rewards of innovation and all that is available through modern
material, aero and hydrodynamic science, designers are straining against the inertia of
convention and an entrenched concervation bias. But for those who embrace such innovations,
there are huge advantages given the current latency of rowing communities, the long lead time
and the current slow rates of adoption which would present early adopters with little challenge or
opposition from competitors.
65
- Prepublication -
8. Historical Lens of Innovation - Looking Back
“Can’t you see? We are in a dialogue with the universe” - Charles Jencks
(Christine Manby, Friday 01 November 2019, The Independent)
The postmodern architect and theorist Charles Jencks understood that designers facilitate a
conversation between ourselves and the built and natural environments, greatly influencing our
sense of wellbeing. Designers contribute to how we relate to the world around us, the tools we
utilise and the places and spaces we inhabit and their work has significant consequences to not
only our material existence but also our individual feelings of happiness and fulfilment. Our
participation in sports and games is an arena where designers play a central role in the
effectiveness of that dialogue, for good design contributes to positive experiences and outcomes
on the sporting field. Within sports and games, we construct and willingly conform to various
environments of play, that is on one level an artifice, formed with arbitrary lines marked on a
field and yet on another, participants work against the natural laws from which we cannot escape.
Participants in sports submit themselves to training so as to overcome physical conditions and
employ designers to create better equipment to assist them in their efforts. Within the context of
sports and games, the constructed rules of artifice are accepted by designers and participants
alike but omnipresent universal laws like that of gravity, inertia, displacement and friction are
fought against by those seeking performance gains from their equipment through the processes
of innovation. Within the context of gameplay and sports, equipment designers apply their skills
to overcome universal laws for advantage and are facilitators of this dialogue between the natural
world and the sporting participant, making a positive contribution to the sporting context. As in
all areas of design, we see the incremental, evolutionary and radical development, progression
66
- Prepublication -
and innovation of equipment and the processes within sports and games mirror that of other
fields of human endeavour and as such is an ideal setting for research into the nature of
innovation and design. Good design in the context of sports and games is not about primaeval
survival but well-being and provides a wonderful context in which to study innovation, this
Jencksian dialogue with our world and our relationships with one another. Sport has become a
safe and expedient context to explore human behaviour, organisation and research findings can
be applied to other tumultuous and fraught contexts of human endeavour. The sport of rowing is
one such activity where design innovation has played a central role historically given the
significance of essential equipment to the activity - any change in the equipment creates
fundamental changes to the sport today. It is because of this, it is important that sporting
governing bodies carefully consider the effects of stifling, inhibiting or banning design
innovations for this will have future consequences on the sports ability to innovate, as can be
seen in the sport of rowing. The dynamics of innovation in the sport of rowing present
opportunities to explore the nature of innovation on a larger scale. We will explore the
significance of innovation in rowing from an historical perspective, considering the foundations,
events and shifts that have formed its modern manifestation. By considering the past we can gain
a better understanding of the nature of innovation today, which is true in rowing and in all fields
of organisation.
In order to present some historical perspective on the role of design innovation in rowing, allow
me to begin far more broadly, by taking a rather broad brush to this rather small painting. The
modern human, in existence for a mere one hundred thousand years has been profoundly shaped
by our ability to not only utilise the tools of the natural world, as do many other species, but to
innovate upon these tools, to further develop processes and communicate knowledge. The ability
67
- Prepublication -
to innovate is profoundly human and as such innovation enables us to dialogue with the universe
beyond individualistic advantage for survival. To innovate is to iterate through experimentation,
evaluation and research but above all, to be able to share innovations within communities and to
see innovation adoption and diffusion through cooperation, communication and dialogue with
one another. Historical evidence of rowing, boats and oars are in step with the development of
civilization and artefacts of rowing are benign records of our early ability to use tools and to
innovate. Human civilizations have been shaped by innovations and our fortunes and failures
have been shaped by our capacity to adopt innovation for advantage. From agriculture,
commerce, transportation and communication to adaptations within extreme environmental
conditions, warfare and artistic expression, all have been possible by our ability to innovate and
for innovations to be diffused amongst various communities. Humanities legacy is our ability to
innovate and this has been long and hard fought. Marshal Berman (1982) defines modernity as
the experience of living in a modern transformative world where everything we have, know and
are melts into air … Modernity is a unifying experience that connects all of humanity and cuts
across time, culture, ethnicity, race - a unity of disunity (Berman, M. (1983). All that is solid
melts into air: The experience of modernity. Verso. P.16) Berman pinpoints a five hundred year
period which began in the Renaissance, leading us to incredible breakthroughs in technological
science but also to the tremendous destruction wrought in the trenches of the Great War. At the
heart of modernity are the consequences that innovations have had on society and the great
power they have to sweep everything away. As identified by Berman, every aspect of human
existence has been unrecognisably altered during this Modern period. Subsequently, Jencks
(1986) understood that the current Post-modern historical period is both intimately connected to
the Modern and in a negative sense, not warranting its own distinct name and defined only to be
68
- Prepublication -
prefixed by the term ‘post’. Yet this period is profoundly different in significant ways, for within
this postmodern period, the rate of change has only increased and the industrial, technological
and information and social landscapes continue to unrecognisably reshape human organisation.
Thus, as in all modern periods, it is essentially understood that the world today is being
transformed by technological innovations and their disruptive power has the potential to sweep
everything away. The great innovation, it would seem, is humanity's survival during the modern
and post-modern time periods where disintegration is the norm and our very survival is not
guaranteed. Paradoxically, our survival it would seem, was despite our capacity to innovate and
not because of it. The paradox of innovation is a curious case of human progress that has
occurred despite, again, it would seem, our incapacity to adopt innovations. There are a
multitude of conditions which inhibit the adoption of an innovation even though it would have a
profound benefit to realise such.
The development of the sport of rowing is commonly traced back to the leisure time activities of
the youth of the rising middle classes of England who took to picnicking and pond punting
parties or simply “messing about in boats.” (Saint Sing, S. (2013). The Wonder Crew: The
Untold Story of a Coach, Navy Rowing, and Olympic Immortality. United States: St. Martin's
Publishing Group. P.61 ) Within this narrative we see the establishment of rowing at universities
and the famed first boat race between Oxford and Cambridge Universities in 1829.
[Wigglesworth, N. (2013). The Social History of English Rowing. United Kingdom: Taylor &
Francis.] It continues that Rowing is the oldest organised modern sport with the first
international sporting body Fédération internationale des sociétés d'aviron founded in 1892 and
has been represented at every modern Olympics since 1896. This historical link has some
credibility, as many leisure activities were on the rise and the popularity of rowing as a pastime
69
- Prepublication -
was also increasing. However, this does not serve to explain the much greater global rise of
rowing as an established sport for the wealthy elite, its development as a sport represented in the
Modern Olympics nor the nature of its approach to innovation, even to this day. Nor does this
narrative connect the vast history of rowing from the antiquities, to the notorious Viking raids or
the role of rowing in the establishment of England as a global colonial power. Rowing as a
leisure activity holds little interest or relevance to this investigation whereas, if we were to take a
more careful look at rowing as a broader human activity we can find a more significant and
meaningful origin story, a more credible account for its rise in popularity and offer a clue to
some of the problems that rowing faces in relation to innovation today. Whereas, rowing as
leisure does not provide a critical lens to understand its organisational tensions, its cultural
significance nor its capacity to innovate. Rowing as leisure has not driven innovation nor shaped
the pursuit of boat speed within a particular cultural context nor placed limits on the nature of
innovation or affected attitudes in rowing to such an extent. On the other hand, within the greater
historical context of global history we see how rowing, as a military technology, has profoundly
shaped the sport and the consequences of its origins are still being felt to this day. The historical
context of rowing needs to be appreciated in relation to the Royal Navy, professional watermen
on the Thames and the rise of steam and iron industrial technologies in naval and merchant
shipping. (Subic, Aleksandar. 2019, Materials in Sports Equipment. Elsevier. P.375)
Rowing is profoundly conservative, institutionally organised, hierarchically governed, is
top-down structured and steeped in centuries of traditions. Yes, the rise of rowing as leisure
surely took place, but this was only due to the fundamental establishment of the sport's place in
world history as a universal maritime skill associated with the rise of the Royal Navy. Rowing is
a maritime skill that all sailors needed to perform as a most basic rudimentary requirement was
70
- Prepublication -
to be able to row out to their ships. (Fuller, H.J., Empire, Technology and Seapower: Royal Navy
crisis in the age of Palmerston. Routledge.) The technology of levering an oar against the gunnel
of a boat separates the technology from the paddle and has been cited to have been used in the
fifth century BCE in Egypt, notwithstanding vast ships employing hundreds of oarsmen by
Greek and Roman leading to the first recorded regatta was held by Emperors Augustus and
Claudius. There are historical references to extraordinary rowing military innovations with the
employment in rowing galleys with up to five oarsmen on the one oar and even racking banks of
oars three tiers high. (Pearman, W.D. 1879. Some Observations on the Philebus of Plato, the
Positions of the Rowers in the War-Ships of the Ancients & Co. Canada, (n.p) It must be
understood that from the very start, there is a fundamental connection with rowing as a military
technology and as a sport. The former shapes the latter. (Kleshnev, 2006) It was the place of
rowing as a military technology that propelled the activity to become a modern sport but this has
also shaped the sport as a microcosm of the military, for good and ill. In the case of innovation,
its military foundations have affected its capacity to adapt and change, even when it is in the
interests of individual athletes to do so.
Modern rowing as a sport was established by Thames boatmen and the Royal Navy commonly
connected with Naval academies. The culture, traditions, language, iconography and practices of
rowing were established by these founding maritime and Naval men. Rowing as a sport is
fundamentally connected with the Royal Navy and its organisational structures have infused all
rowing institutions. It is those who will recognise this, understand the effects of such
foundations, who can see the limitations and the effects on innovation can make calculated
decisions that will have immediate effects on performance and results. Furthermore, if rowing
was founded in the leisure activities of a Sunday afternoon, it may have developed a distinctly
71
- Prepublication -
different feel, whereas, the sport of rowing has distinctly militaristic values, overtones,
structures, languages, attitudes and practices and subsequently, attitudes towards innovation. And
this can be directly traced back to its foundations within the Royal Navy and to maritime
wartime concerns. The very structure of the sport can be directly traced to the Royal Navy and
from the sport’s very foundations the Royal Navy has had a lasting impact on the way the sport is
organised, sporting events are held, and how individuals are appropriated within a boat club and
within a crew. Boat clubs are organised along lines of authority and hierarchy and the decisions
of an individual are differed to higher echelons of command, even down to the equipment that is
used is rarely privately owned and a kit is issued to those selected to form a crew. The individual
athlete is consumed within their crew and their crew is consumed by their club. This can be
markedly contrasted to the rise of the cyclist as the representation of the modern individualist
and sporting hero. I will not linger on the sport of cycling other than to stress the rise of the Tour
of France and to make a comparison with the dynamics of innovation in the development of the
modern bicycle.
One unexplored factor is the legacy of rowing's historical foundations and the formation of its
equipment, culture, values and practices. Rowing has inherited a particular anxiety in relation to
innovation which goes beyond the recognised complexities that surround other equipment based
sports, for all sports are governed by a particular degree of tension and anxiety about innovation.
There would appear to be a number of characteristics, unique to the sport of rowing that make it
particularly resistant to innovation, which has much to do with its origin and founding culture
and history. It would appear that the sport of rowing's conservative attitude to equipment
innovation has something to do with those who founded the sport. The history, culture, traditions,
language, iconography and practices of its founders have had and are continuing to have a lasting
72
- Prepublication -
impact on the sport today and its capacity to adopt innovation. Further, such attitudes beg the
question if rowing is masquerading as a sport within the Olympic community but its members
are committed to a very different set of ideals. The innovation anxiety that exists within the sport
of rowing today reflects the attitudes, values and conditions of those who founded the sport of
the Royal Navy. Subsequently, the sport of rowing is out of step with the innovative adaptations
that can be seen in other Modern sports, and it will be argued, is at odds with the larger goals of
the Modern Olympic movement.
“We have no means of knowing at what precise date the crew were mustered who
first [...] to introduce a system of practical and successful boat rowing in crews.