Polarity Management

We live in a polarized world. Every organization I am involved with seems to be confronted with polarity issues. Many embrace one pole of a polarity and doggedly work to make their pole prevail. Others grab the other pole and fight back. Still others wish those who agitate for one pole or the other would be quiet so we could all live in blissful denial that tension exists.

A few years ago, I read a wonderful book by Dr. Barry Johnson called Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. His thesis is that a great many (not all) of the issues we define as problems to be solved are actually polarities to be managed.

To illustrate the point, ask yourself: Which is more important to breathing, inhaling or exhaling? The question is absurd because breathing oscillates between these two polar activities.

Johnson uses the idea of a matrix with four boxes. The boxes in the left column are one pole, and the boxes in the right column are the other pole. The boxes on the top row are the positive aspects of the two poles, and the bottom row are the negative aspects.

Poles_1 

With the breathing analogy, call "inhaling" Pole 1 and "exhaling" Pole 2. The positive side of inhaling is that the body receives oxygen (Quadrant A). However, if we stop there, carbon dioxide builds up and we die (Quadrant B). This pushes us to the positive aspect of exhaling, which is that we expel carbon dioxide (Quadrant C). However, if we stop there, we will be deprived of oxygen and die (Quadrant D). This pushes back to Quadrant A, and the cycle repeats itself.

Polesa

The idea is that this same dynamic applies to many polarities in human relationships. For example, take a church board divided between those who want a rigidly scheduled and tightly controlled church and those who want a spontaneous, adaptive, and free-flowing style of ministry. Call Pole 1 "Planned" and Pole 2 "Free-Flow."

Quadrant A -  The positive side of a planned environment is that everyone knows their responsibility. Lines of accountability are clear. People know what to expect and how to plan. Resources can be effectively and efficiently marshaled for a given task.

Quadrant B – Life together becomes stale. Activities are done by rote. Creativity is stifled. Opportunities are missed because the focus is on keeping the "machine" running. New people with new gifts and passions have no way to plug in.

Quadrant C – The move is toward the free-form. The possibility of new dreams and visions is embraced. New opportunities are identified and pursued. Creativity is unleashed. People begin to find new ways to minister they had never thought of before.

Quadrant D – Eventually, chaos ensues. Overlapping activities happen while other concerns drop through the cracks. Creativity is stifled because there is no way to engage the community effectively. Opportunities are missed because there is insufficient structure to mobilize people to action. This pushes the group to Quadrant A, and the whole thing starts over.

In most polarities, most of us tend to lean toward one pole or the other. We tend to be overly (if not exclusively) focused on the positive aspects of our preference and the negative aspects of the polar opposite. Throw together people leaning toward opposite poles, and what too often happens is a power struggle to make one pole or the other prevail. The irony is that should either win, they will kill the organization, just like valuing inhaling over exhaling.

Tremendous breakthroughs can occur when everyone comes to see the polarity for what it is. Understanding begins when I openly acknowledge the potential downside to my polar preference and express appreciation for the positive aspects of what the polar opposite brings. That lessens the defensive stance of my polar counterpart to do the same, hopefully allowing us to appreciate each other's contribution to a healthy polarity.

Johnson uses the human function of breathing. The Apostle Paul used the analogy of "the body" to illustrate his perspective on how the various gifts should function in the church. The body is a myriad of managed polarities like breathing. As the body of Christ, we need to learn better how to breathe.


Comments

10 responses to “Polarity Management”

  1. This serves as a great reminder to me of the tension in my own life between the “poles” of law/obedience and grace/forgiveness and the need to keep them in balance. Keep up the good commentary. Always a joy to read.
    Rev. Glen Hallead, Coordinator
    Christian Volunteers in Thailand
    PC(USA) Mission Co-Worker
    http://www.hallead.org

  2. Doesn’t your idea of polarity management break down if the polarity is between revealed truth and falsehood? As Christians, do we not believe that that Jesus Christ is the Truth?
    I have just discovered your blog, and really appreciate your thoughts.
    Dave, Presbyterian Elder

  3. Thank you Glen. Blessings on you and your family in Thailand.

  4. I agree Dave. Polarity management does not answer every problem (thus my qualifier of “not all”) Still, most heresies seem to be attachment to one pole of a polarity while excluding the other.
    Jesus is fully human but not divine.
    One God but no trinity.
    God is loving to the exclusion of holiness.
    God is holy to the exclusion of love.
    The answer for over attachment to one pole is not rigid attachment to the other pole.
    **ascends soapbox**
    We have a long history of division over personal piety and social justice in our church culture. Social justice folks see the emphasis on personal piety as an expression of fundamentalist who sat quietly by while a host of justice issues went unaddressed, and were even aided and abetted by pious folks. Personal piety folks see social justice emphasis as a distant concern that too often leads to “liberal” agendas and cultural accommodation that undercut the foundations of civil society. Each sees only the virtues of their own pole and the potential negatives of the other pole. In reality, my read of scripture is that you can’t have piety without social justice and you can’t achieve social justice without piety.
    I believe that scripture is the revealed word of God. However, I believe it is not an instruction manual or a collection of propositions for building a systematic theology. It is revealed documentary evidence of God’s work in the world. The initial revelation was to particular people in a particular context. Our context is ever changing which means grasping the original context of the revealed Word and applying that to our present context is a never ending project. (Fortunately, we have the author along with us for the ride.) I reject a pole that sees only revelation without context and its opposite that sees only context without true revelation. Revelation and context are a polarity to be managed.
    **steps off soapbox**
    I really think polarities, which many times are paradoxes, are more common than we think.

  5. I like your matrix. It provides a useful way in which to visualize the sources of division.
    Many of the potential axes are continuums, and I have a gut feeling that very few people are at the edges. If one could look at the distribution, say, horizontally, I suspect it would resemble a bell-shaped curve. And this would probably hold true however you chose to slice it.

  6. I suspect something of a bell shaped curve if you look at a polarity over time but I suspect that if you could measure a polarity at any given moment you would see the curve skew one way and at a latter point skew the other. I think most polarities seek an equilibrium.
    As helpful as this matrix is, I think that the reality is that there are countless polarities push and pulling with an impact on each other all at the same time. Equilibrium is a theoretical possibility but I doubt it is ever fully realized. I see the polarity matrix as useful tool to get a handle on an massively complex and dynamic reality.
    Also, thinking in terms of polarity management shows why an action taken at one time may be right, while an opposite action may be appropriate later. That is part of the dynamic of embracing two poles.

  7. I think this is a helpful framework to view many of the issues with which we are dealing.
    I come to a couple of problems that this does not address.
    One has been mentioned — specifically those issues that are revealed truth, and therefore not really negotiable.
    (Personally I find there to be relatively few of these, but they are very important, and they tend to get overlooked or minimized in pushes to find balance — i.e. there is an assumption that the truth will be in the middle. This might be correct in many disputes. It fails on revealed truth. It also fails when someone grasps that that assumption is operative. Then people begin to think incrementally — one pole wants things to stay the same. The other wants a radical change. They reach a compromise. The compromise then becomes the pole wanting to stay the same, and so the agenda can progress.)
    Another issue I see is when one pole or the other advocates something that is unjust. You rightly mention (in your illustration) the tendency of the personal piety uberalles crowd to ignore injustices that they have the power to address. However, many times, “social justice” or “justice” is code language for a marxist philosophy or liberation theology that is anything but just — in any true sense of the word. Here we could manage this by agreeing to disagree and working as individuals, led by our consciences . . . IF THE CHURCH does not take a stand on the particular “justice” issue in dispute. However, this whole matrix/framework falls apart when the church takes a stand that violates the consciences of sometimes the majority of its members.

  8. You bring up one point I did not mention in my post that I feel is critical. The is the idea that the truth is in the middle. Or said another way, we need to stay away from the poles.
    Actually, I believe the truth is in a passionate embrace of both poles at the same time. I love Romans 12 where Paul says if you have the gift of teaching, TEACH! If you have the gift of service, SERVE! etc. I think we shold each boldly embrace the gifts and passions we have but always within the context of being part of the body Christ. To use the breathing analogy the goal is not to inhale and exhale to the minimal degree possible. I want to be able to inhale and exhale vigorously! Therefore, if I inhale for the body of Chirst I need to do so boldly, but all the time realizing the polarity of breathing and the gift the exhaler brings to the body.

  9. good point.

  10. I share the concerns of those who feel that revealed Truth is not to be negotiated away.
    There are issues that do represent poles that may be right or wrong depending on other circumstances.
    I chair my congregation’s Mission Committee and we submitted a fairly extravagant budget for next year. The Finance Committee took our 6% increase request and whittled it down to a 3% increase. Mission Committee attracts the “spendthrifts” while the fiscal conservatives gravitate toward Finance Committee. Who is right? Mission, of course. Well, maybe we were a bit unrealistic, but there is no harm in asking.
    When the current building loan is paid off, maybe we can get Mission increased.

Leave a Reply to Denis HancockCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading