PDF Summary:Polarity Management, by Barry Johnson

Many of the challenges you face at work and in life aren't problems with clear solutions—they're ongoing tensions between two opposing but equally important needs. In Polarity Management, Barry Johnson explains how to recognize and navigate these "polarities," or interdependent opposites that require continuous balancing rather than one-time decisions.

Johnson introduces polarity mapping, a visual tool that helps you understand the benefits and drawbacks of each opposing pole. He explains how systems naturally oscillate between poles in a predictable pattern, and how recognizing this dynamic can help you avoid getting stuck in counterproductive extremes. The guide also covers practical strategies for facilitating shifts between poles and using collaborative processes to resolve conflicts that arise from competing perspectives.

(continued)...

To effectively manage a polarity, these forces rely on each other. When one force becomes dominant and overlooks the other force's value, unnecessary time is spent on the preferred pole's negatives of the "winner." To become unstuck, you should disrupt the usual course.

(Shortform note: While Johnson suggests disrupting the usual course when a system is stuck in a pole's drawbacks, this approach can backfire. According to Barry M. Staw, L. E. Sandelands, and J. E. Dutton, when organizations face threats, they often become more rigid and resistant to change. This means that if you try to disrupt the status quo while one group is advocating for change and another is clinging to tradition, you might actually make things worse by triggering defensive reactions that entrench both sides further.)

Facilitating Healthy Polarity Shifts

Johnson emphasizes the importance of recognizing whether an issue is solvable or involves a polarity to be handled. Problems are resolvable, offering closure within a process. In contrast, you can't resolve polarities. They are ongoing, requiring an unending alternation of emphasis or focus between poles.

(Shortform note: One risk of treating issues as unresolvable polarities is that it can lead to the acceptance of harmful trade-offs. For example, in Doughnut Economics, Kate Raworth criticizes mainstream economics for treating the trade-off between economic growth and ecological health as an unresolvable polarity.)

Collaborative Polarity Resolution

Perceptual Foundations of Resolution

Recognizing the validity of different perspectives can help resolve conflicts. Johnson explains that when you acknowledge the accuracy of someone else's perspective, they may become more receptive to your perspective. This facilitated shifting between perspectives and identifying shared perspectives. To recognize the validity of someone else’s perspective, you must temporarily release your prioritization of your own perspective.

(Shortform note: Research on motivational interviewing supports Johnson’s claim that recognizing the validity of someone else’s perspective increases their openness to your perspective. In Motivational Interviewing, William R. Miller and Stephen Rollnick explain that when therapists accurately reflect clients’ viewpoints, clients subsequently voice more of their own reasons for change.)

Structured Collaborative Processes

Polarity Management involves structured collaborative processes to address conflicting issues. It can aid in resolving disputes if consensus is achieved on a small number of the major dilemmas causing the conflict. Johnson explains that the model and its basic principles can be introduced clearly enough in a short amount of time to be helpful for a group right away. Moving from problem-solving to polarity management can allow participants to be gentler with themselves about the absence of "solutions" and give them a new viewpoint. Nobody is required to question their own reality, but everyone is urged to broaden their understanding of it.

(Shortform note: Structured collaborative processes like those described by Johnson may not be effective in resolving disputes when the conflict is identity-based, involves significant power imbalances, or is rooted in collective trauma. In such cases, the parties may not be able to reach consensus on the major dilemmas causing the conflict, and the process may not be able to address the underlying issues. Additionally, the emphasis on not questioning one's own reality may not be sufficient to address the deep-seated beliefs and emotions that often drive intractable conflicts.)

It’s a notable change in perspective from addressing multiple problems to handling several important dilemmas. To implement Polarity Management, Johnson recommends first recognizing the polarity and agreeing on a polarity you'd like to improve. Next, depict the complete polarity, ensuring agreement on the quadrants at minimum.

(Shortform note: This shift from addressing multiple problems to handling several important dilemmas reflects the broader “paradox” lens in organization studies. Scholars like Marianne W. Lewis argue that organizational tensions are not simply problems to be solved but persistent, interwoven contradictions. They emphasize that how leaders think about dilemmas shapes the range of responses they can see.)

Choose unbiased terms for the poles, which may help reconcile the positives and negatives if you're struggling to complete a section. Then, diagnose the key components. Where is the system situated currently in terms of quadrants? Who is campaigning? (Name individuals or groups.) What do they criticize? (The response is in the section below.) What recommendations do they offer? (The solution lies in the opposite top quadrant from your previous response.) Who holds onto traditions? (Name individuals or groups.) What loss are they worried about? The answer lies in the remaining upper quadrant that hasn't been referenced yet. What do they fear the crusade will result in?

(Shortform note: In some cases, choosing unbiased terms for the poles and mapping who is campaigning versus who holds onto traditions may not be helpful. For example, in situations where there is a significant power imbalance or systemic injustice, using neutral language can obscure the reality of ongoing harm. In Justice and the Politics of Difference, Iris Marion Young argues that oppression is often embedded in everyday interactions and institutional structures, making it difficult to address through neutral frameworks. In such cases, mapping the system honestly may require acknowledging the presence of ongoing harm and the need for more fundamental change.)

The response can be found in the remaining unreferenced lower quadrant. Next, forecast the problem. What sources will oppose those advocating for transformation? (Note those you identified as tradition bearing and the quadrants on which they will be focused.) What are the consequences if those advocating for change are successful and disregard the worries of those holding to tradition? See the area underneath where the crusaders aim to go. What occurs if the traditionalists prevail, disregarding the crusaders' concerns? Check the bottom section of what people preserving traditions wish to maintain. After you create a comprehensive visual, diagnosing and predicting becomes fairly straightforward.

(Shortform note: In addition to forecasting what happens if either side prevails, you might also forecast what happens if neither side prevails. In other words, what happens if the struggle between advocates of change and tradition bearers congeals into a long-term stalemate? This is a common outcome in many organizations, and it can be just as problematic as one side or the other prevailing. For example, if a company is stuck in a stalemate between those who want to innovate and those who want to maintain the status quo, it may struggle to adapt to changing market conditions and lose its competitive edge.)

Finally, recommend action steps. For people advocating for change, recognize the worries of tradition-upholders. Make it clear what you value and wish to retain from the aspect the tradition bearers seek to preserve. Let those holding traditional views know you're mindful of the negative aspects of your desired direction and that you wish to mitigate them. Consider how you might reassure those committed to traditional values that nothing essential will be discarded while making changes.

(Shortform note: In 1981, Fisher, Ury, and Patton’s Getting to Yes outlined a similar approach to engaging resistant stakeholders. They advised separating people from the problem, focusing on interests rather than positions, and inventing options for mutual gain. This directly anticipates asking change advocates to recognize the worries of tradition-upholders, clarify what they themselves value and wish to retain, and frame proposals in ways that reassure others their core interests will not be sacrificed while changes are made.)

For people upholding traditions, recognize the worries of those advocating change. Tell the crusaders you're conscious of the drawbacks of the recently emphasized option, and you'd also like to lessen them. Specify the values and desired benefits of the position those advocating for change aim to achieve. Consider reassurances you can offer those pushing for change that you want to “change the bath water.” Effectively handle this challenge with your system’s guidelines and methods. Which methods of communication should be established to notify the system if it shifts toward a disadvantage? Which additional practices would you implement if this duality were effectively managed, allowing for relatively easy transitions and maintaining a focus on the top two quadrants? How would you move forward in this manner?

Create a “Learning Laboratory”

One way to establish a method of communication is to create a “learning laboratory” where people upholding traditions and those advocating change can test out scenarios and communicate any disadvantages that arise. For example, if a company is considering implementing a new software system, they could create a learning laboratory where employees from different departments can test out the software and provide feedback on any issues or challenges they encounter. This feedback can then be communicated back to the system to help identify and address any potential disadvantages before the software is fully implemented.