Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems

Barry Johnson

HRD Press, Amherst, MA, 1992

"Many of the current trends in business and industry are polarities to manage, not problems to solve." In Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. a 1992 book from HRD Press, Barry Johnson uses this provocative statement to introduce a very different way of thinking about business "problems." We are used to thinking about one concept at a time. For example, it is presently popular to move toward team-based work designs. A lack of collective effort is seen as the problem resulting in uncoordinated work, a lack of mentoring of inexperienced workers by experienced ones, and some people advancing their personal agendas at the expense of the group. To solve this "problem" organizations move toward team-based work design.

Johnson contends, however, that most business situations have mirror opposites which both need to be considered in any "solution." Continuing with the example of team effort, the opposite end of the polarity is individual effort. A primary focus on either individual effort or team effort will result in suboptimal performance. The two sides of this polarity are interdependent and cannot be effectively managed independently.

Johnson suggests that many other typical organizational dynamics are also polarities. For example, autocratic management and participative management. Both need to be included in an effective management style. Innovation/standardization form a third example of a polarity. Organizations need to focus on both the increasing standardization of developed work processes and products and the innovation of new work processes and products. Other common polarities in organizations include rigid/flexible, centralized/decentralized, self/other, doing/being, planning/action, generic/customized, whole/parts, top-down/bottom-up, and transformational/incremental.

Figure 1. Shows a visual representation of a polarity. What we in Western society have typically done is to traverse a "figure 8" around this polarity. For example, let's say that we've started a new business, which almost by definition is centralized. We experience the positive benefits of centralization which include: efficient use of limited resources, promotion of general skills, and uniform standards. While the business is enjoying these benefits it is in the L+ (upper left quadrant). Next, our little business experiences some growth and we experience problems, such as, customers wanting more individualized attention, general expertise not adequate for some specialized circumstances, and slow response to rapidly changing business conditions. The business has moved into the L- (lower left quadrant) region. Our American mind set is to identify "centralization" as the problem, and advocate "decentralization" as the solution. In implementing the solution, businesses will often offset the disadvantages of centralization, but will inadvertently lose the advantages of centralization.

As the organization experiences some renewal and enjoys the benefits of some decentralization, it moves to the R+ (upper right quadrant) area. In time, an emphasis on decentralization can result in uneven corporate standards, underutilization of resources, and competing responsibilities. The organization has completed the "figure 8" with a visit to R- (lower right quadrant).

In a polarity, the downside role (disadvantages of centralization) is often identified as the "problem" and the upside of the opposite role (advantages of decentralization) becomes the "solution." The paradox is that in order to gain and maintain the benefits of one role, you must also pursue the benefits of the other.

Change management is itself a polarity. Effective change management requires the ability to be both a crusader and a tradition-bearer. In most situations of change, some people exclusively advocate, or heavily emphasize, the crusade - the change. Other people exclusively advocate, or heavily emphasize, tradition-bearing - maintaining the benefits of the status quo. There is also a paradox implicit in change management. The easiest way to get the benefits of decentralization, for example, when encountering resistance is to identify the benefits of centralization and acknowledge the limits of decentralization.

So, how do you know whether you have on your hands a polarity to manage or a problem to solve? Two characteristics provide strong evidence for a polarity.

1. Is the difficulty being experienced ongoing?

2. Can you identify two poles which are interdependent?

The hardest part about framing a polarity is distinguishing between the poles and the advantage and disadvantages of the poles. The pole ends should be as neutral as possible (such as "individual" and "team"). Advantages or disadvantages of each belong in the respective upper or lower quadrants.

Managing a polarity consists of a few simple steps:

1. Identify the polarity

2. Describe the polarity in terms of the two pole ends and the advantages and disadvantages of each

3. Support a healthy balance of crusading and tradition-bearing activities

4. Take actions to encourage the advantages of both poles while avoiding the limits of each

Many organizations to date have lived the "one pole reality," over emphasizing a single pole. The outcome is that if you over emphasize one pole, you get its downside. If you over emphasize one pole for a long time, you get the downside of both poles. Ironically you get what you are afraid of by clinging to its apparent opposite.

Johnson concludes by suggesting that the widely held mental model of "resistance to change" is accurate, but incomplete. People what people resist is the disadvantages of change and the loss of the advantages of the status quo.