Mistake 19: Ignoring Contradictions and Tensions in the Matrix

SWOT matrices often feel like a simple checklist, but they rarely tell the whole story. When a team writes down “innovative” as a strength and “slow to deliver” as a weakness, they’re not just listing items—they’re revealing a contradiction that points to a deeper structural issue.

These tensions aren’t flaws. They’re signals. They suggest that the organization is operating with conflicting priorities or inconsistent processes. Ignoring them means accepting a facade of clarity while the real challenges remain buried.

I’ve seen this play out in multiple organizations—from tech startups to government agencies—where teams filled out SWOTs with confidence, only to realize later that their so-called strengths were undermining their ability to execute. The fix wasn’t in adding more data. It was in confronting the contradiction.

By recognizing contradictions in SWOT as diagnostic tools, you transform a passive analysis into an active investigation. This chapter walks you through how to surface tensions, analyze what’s really happening beneath the surface, and turn those insights into targeted improvement initiatives.

Why Contradictions Are Not Errors—They’re Clues

Contradictions in SWOT aren’t mistakes. They’re symptoms of a system under strain. When innovation is praised but delivery lags, something is broken in the process.

These contradictions reveal misalignment between culture, structure, and execution. They expose the gap between stated values and how work actually gets done.

Consider a software team that lists “agile mindset” as a strength and “poor sprint completion rate” as a weakness. These aren’t opposing facts. They’re signs of process friction—where agility is declared but not practiced.

Common Forms of SWOT Tensions

• “Innovative” and “slow to deliver” – A culture that rewards creativity but penalizes execution speed.
• “Strong brand” and “low customer retention” – Perception doesn’t match experience.
• “Highly skilled team” and “frequent turnover” – Talent exists, but retention is failing.
• “Customer-centric” and “slow to adapt to feedback” – The values are stated, but the systems aren’t aligned.

These are not just inconsistencies. They are red flags. They mean the organization is not operating coherently.

Step-by-Step: How to Surface and Explore SWOT Contradictions

Ignoring contradictions means missing the real story. Here’s how to uncover and understand them.

Step 1: Map Your SWOT Entries for Tension

Go through each strength and weakness, and ask: Does this contradict another item? Do a side-by-side comparison.

Use a simple checklist to flag potential tensions:

• Strength implies speed, but weakness implies delay.
• Opportunity depends on innovation, but a key threat is from new entrants.
• Brand strength is cited, but customer satisfaction scores are low.

Step 2: Ask “Why?” Until You Hit a Systemic Cause

Once a contradiction is identified, drill down with the “five whys” technique.

Example:

• Problem: “We’re innovative” (strength) vs. “We’re slow to deliver” (weakness).
• Why? Because teams are not aligned on delivery timelines.
• Why? Because product and engineering don’t share the same roadmap.
• Why? Because there’s no cross-functional planning process.
• Why? Because leadership hasn’t enforced collaboration.
• Why? Because performance reviews are individual, not team-based.

You’re no longer analyzing SWOT data. You’re diagnosing a cultural and structural issue.

Step 3: Reconstruct the Contradiction as a Hypothesis

Turn the contradiction into a testable hypothesis.

Example:

Hypothesis: The organization values innovation but lacks a structured process for translating ideas into delivery, leading to missed market windows and stakeholder frustration.

This hypothesis can now guide research, process audits, or pilot improvements.

Step 4: Turn into a Targeted Investigation or Initiative

Don’t just list the contradiction. Act on it.

Use the contradiction as the basis for a focused initiative:

• Launch a cross-functional sprint planning pilot.
• Implement a delivery scorecard for innovation projects.
• Run a 30-day experiment to test faster feedback loops.

By treating contradictions as opportunities, you move from passive analysis to active transformation.

Resolving Conflicting SWOT Data: A Framework

Not all contradictions are equal. Some are surface-level, others are systemic. Use this framework to assess and act.

Level	Type of Contradiction	How to Handle
Surface	Verbal or stylistic mismatch (e.g., “innovative” vs. “risk-averse”)	Clarify definitions. Reconcile with data.
Process	Conflicting behaviors (e.g., “agile” vs. “slow to ship”)	Investigate workflow bottlenecks and decision delays.
Structural	Conflicting incentives (e.g., innovation rewarded, but delivery metrics dominate)	Realign KPIs and performance frameworks.
Strategic	Values vs. outcomes (e.g., “customer-first” but high churn)	Conduct a customer journey audit to identify disconnects.

Use this to categorize contradictions and prioritize actions accordingly.

How to Avoid the Pitfall of “I See Two Sides” Syndrome

Some teams say: “We’re innovative, but we’re also slow.” That’s not insight. That’s a flat observation.

The danger is treating this as a balanced view, when in reality, it’s a signal that something is broken.

Instead of accepting duality as normal, ask:

• Which direction is stronger? What evidence supports that?
• Is the delay due to process, people, or resources?
• Can we improve delivery without sacrificing innovation?

These questions force you beyond description into diagnosis.

Integrating Contradictions into Strategic Planning

Contradictions are not just for analysis—they should inform strategy.

When a strength and a weakness conflict, the solution isn’t to pick one. It’s to design a strategy that resolves the tension.

Example:

• Strength: High innovation capacity
• Weakness: Slow time-to-market
• Strategic Response: Implement a “fast-fail” innovation track with a 6-week timebox for prototype delivery.

This turns the contradiction into a competitive advantage: innovation, but with measurable delivery speed.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I know if a contradiction in SWOT is significant?

Ask: Does this contradiction affect execution, customer experience, or strategic direction? If yes, it’s significant. Prioritize contradictions that impact key performance areas like delivery speed, retention, or innovation velocity.

Can contradictory SWOT entries be a sign of healthy debate?

Only if they’re acknowledged and resolved. Unresolved contradictions reflect inconsistency, not debate. Healthy teams surface tensions and act on them—not just acknowledge them.

What if the team resists exploring contradictions?

They may fear exposing dysfunction or being blamed. Use anonymous input, frame questions as “what’s preventing us from doing X?”, and emphasize that contradiction analysis is about improvement, not blame. Focus on process fixes, not people.

Should I remove contradictory entries from the SWOT matrix?

No. Contradictions are valuable. Remove the *misunderstanding*, not the data. Keep both entries and label them as “conflicting” to highlight the need for investigation.

How often should I revisit contradictions in SWOT?

Revisit during every SWOT refresh. Contradictions often evolve. A resolved tension may reappear in a new form. Make this part of your continuous improvement loop.

Can SWOT tension analysis be used in startups?

Absolutely. Startups often face the most acute contradictions—entrepreneurial passion vs. execution delays, rapid pivoting vs. customer retention. SWOT tension analysis helps expose early signals of burnout, market misalignment, or team friction.