Managing competing logics is a challenging task with significant risks if not done properly. Current research presents conflicting views, suggesting that contradictions between competing logics must either be resolved or tolerated. To bridge these conflicting perspectives, this study enhances a relational paradox view to understand how competing logics can coexist without paralyzing organizations. Our study extends existing literature by demonstrating that competing logics can coexist under specific conditions, including time and innovation pressures. When these conditions are present, individuals can reach temporary agreements to move forward, without fundamentally resolving the underlying contradiction. These findings elucidate why competing logics do not paralyze organizations. This research suggests new avenues for studying practices to manage competing logics from a relational paradox perspective.