In this episode, Bill and Ralph discuss the value of changing our thinking about the way we solve problems. When we think of problem-solving as polarity management – that is, managing two forces that are interdependent but seemingly opposite of one another, we can reap tremendous benefits for ourselves personally, and for our teams and organizations. Listen to learn more about the concept and get ideas about how you can introduce polarity management to your leadership.
Prefer to read the transcript?
*Note: The following text is the output of transcribing from an audio recording. Although the transcription is largely accurate, in some cases may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors
Bill Berthel:
Welcome to the Get Emergent podcast where we discuss leadership team and organizational topics and best practices. We like to provide ideas, concepts, and pragmatic experiments to help you develop your potential in your work and leadership. I’m Bill Berthel.
Ralph Simone:
And I’m Ralph Simone.
Bill Berthel:
So we have a, I think a really important topic today of not solving problems, Ralph.
Ralph Simone:
Wait a minute, problem. What am I going to do?
Bill Berthel:
I think that is going to be the reaction to reading that title. I think that’s why people are tuning today because, and it’s really normal. It’s really, really normal. It makes sense. Most of us were educated and were conditioned to solve problems. Every test you took in school was to solve a problem, whether that was solving an equation in math or writing an essay, or basically solving a problem to make that condition even more sticky. Most of us are rewarded for our problem-solving abilities, and we’re proud to be problem-solvers. I can’t tell you how many leaders I talk to that say I’m an excellent problem solver and that’s wonderful. There are problems to be solved.
Ralph Simone:
Perhaps I was ahead of my time. I don’t think I did a lot of problem-solving in my early academic career.
Bill Berthel:
I think our listeners happen to have two guys talking to him that are good at this polarity management space, not solving problems, but really identifying when it’s not a problem to solve, but a set of polls to manage.
Ralph Simone:
What I’m surprised at, a couple things. One is, the terminology people are unfamiliar with most people we talk to, and secondly, can we give some examples? Because I think once we provide some examples of not solving a problem, but managing polarity, I think it comes to light for people and then I think they’re able to start to see some of their organizational challenges through a different lens.
Bill Berthel:
Absolutely. Absolutely. So this polarity management model is managing two forces that are interdependent, yet seemingly opposite of one another. A basic example, one of my favorite examples is breathing. So breathing consists of many biological activities, right? But let’s simplify breathing by focusing on inhaling and exhaling, right? Two interdependent forces, right? But very two opposite forces, right? Inhaling and exhaling. One way to test if they’re polar or opposite enough to fit this structure is attempt to do both at the same time. Go ahead, try it. Listeners, while you’re listening, try to inhale and exhale at the same time.
Ralph Simone:
Yeah, you can’t do that.
Bill Berthel:
You’re not doing it. No matter how you think you might be doing it, you’re not doing it, you can’t do it. Our body doesn’t do it right?
Ralph Simone:
And what I love about the example is you need to do both. Optimize one without optimizing the other would be detrimental to your health.
Bill Berthel:
So this little test can then be validated by changing the conjunction we use when we talk and think about the two interrelated opposites. We change or it’s not inhaling or exhaling, we change it to and what do you think is comprised of inhaling and exhaling? They’re two interdependent energies or systems, two poles that are required for the process of breathing.
Ralph Simone:
So I can hear some people grumbling a little bit, but yes, I get that. But there are problems to be solved in my organization. So could you give me some more organizational examples that might help me understand this distinction more clearly?
Bill Berthel:
An organizational example of a problem not to be solved or a leadership example could be the polls of being highly structured and rigorous as compared to being flexible and agile in your leadership style.
Ralph Simone:
I love that example. I was having lunch with a senior leader of one of our clients yesterday, and he used language that really spoke to this and this polarity management, he said that we need to take a look at when the pendulum has swung too far. He was actually talking about, let’s call it centralized and decentralized organizational structures. And when does the pendulum swing too far? Where we’re overly centralized, we’re becoming bureaucratic and less agile. When does it swing too far? When decentralized is chaotic? I thought it was brilliant language.
Bill Berthel:
I love that language. I love the analogy of the pendulum swinging too far. Ultimately, that’s what we want to be able to do to better manage a set of poles in this polarity management space. So let’s think about these two seemingly opposite leadership qualities of rigor and flexibility. Let’s just call it that for now. Rigor and flexibility. So immediately with these descriptions, these titles, I think most of us can see the benefits. There are obvious benefits to having both of these qualities of rigor and flexibility as a leader. And notice I said, and not, or Ralph, what are the benefits of rigor?
Ralph Simone:
Scale, repeatability, consistency, alignment, discipline.
Bill Berthel:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Love it.
Ralph Simone:
Performance.
Bill Berthel:
You can immediately start making a list of the benefits. How about flexibility? What are the benefits of flexibility,
Ralph Simone:
Engagement, agility, nimbleness, ability to manage, change, all of those. I
Bill Berthel:
Love it. I love it. Now, I bet you can think of drawbacks of both. What are the drawbacks of being too rigorous, right? Get the pendulum swinging too far into one of those spaces, being too rigorous. What happens? What are the drawbacks?
Ralph Simone:
Well, the organization is slow to move. It sticks to things that no longer work. It causes people to feel like they don’t have an opportunity to express themselves.
Bill Berthel:
Yes,
Ralph Simone:
I think it could diminish engagement.
Bill Berthel:
Diminish engagement might diminish employee satisfaction, maybe even innovation, some would say, now how about too flexible? What does that look like?
Ralph Simone:
Well, it could be chaos. I mean, we talked about this a little bit yesterday on a training session. I think the flexibility gate needs to swing both ways, and if it’s too flexible, people just do whatever they want, then there’s no consistency, there’s no scale, and it could be almost anarchy or chaos.
Bill Berthel:
So I love it. We just conducted two steps in using the polarity management model in our leadership. First, leaders use questioning. They used critical questioning. Am I solving a problem or am I looking at two interdependent energies, right? So the breathing example, interdependent energies, the rigor and flexibility. Example, two interdependent energies, right? Lemme give you a silly example of a problem to solve. Ralph. Whatcha having for dinner tonight?
Ralph Simone:
Well, it’s either going to be core life or fried fish.
Bill Berthel:
Alright? Either going to be you just went or it’s a beautiful problem-solving, you’re going to have two or more choices and you’re going to solve the problem because you’re going to choose and have dinner.
Ralph Simone:
Yeah, my mother’s actually going to solve the problem. She’s going
Bill Berthel:
Cool
Ralph Simone:
Decide what she wants and then I’m going to go get it for all of us.
Bill Berthel:
Yeah, beautiful. You’re dining with others, right? You’re dining with others. Yeah. That’s awesome. That’s awesome. So that first step is that critical questioning. Am I really solving a problem or do I have a set of interdependent energies to manage? Second step, we started Ralph together is what’s called mapping. We identified those two polls. We used the examples of rigor and flexibility, and we started identifying the benefits or the positives of both polls and then the negatives or the drawbacks or I like to think of ’em as warning signs because if the pendulum starts swinging too far into that space of rigor or flexibility, in our example, it’s a warning sign. What do we do with a warning sign? If we’re in traffic, we see a warning sign.
Ralph Simone:
Well, we start to slow down. We pump the brakes, we take a look around.
Bill Berthel:
Exactly. At least wise, intelligent folks like yourself do, right? You take that warning sign, you slow down and you react to the information that’s around you so you can navigate it better. So the third step is watching those warning signs. Watching those warning signs. Am I being too rigorous? I can consult the list of negatives in the rigor. Is my organization not being innovative or are people not quite approaching me any longer? Do things seem so structured that there isn’t opportunity for new possibilities or new business coming in?
Ralph Simone:
I love these examples and I think another way to frame that is what are the indicators or signposts that we have swung too far one way or the other, or are swinging, because I think you want to get out ahead of this right before it becomes more difficult to manage.
Bill Berthel:
That’s exactly it, and we’re just talking to the mapping, but you can actually think about, just have a sheet of paper and directly in the middle of the piece of paper, write the word and to the left of that and write the name of the one pole. Perhaps it’s rigor to the right. Write the name of the other pole. Perhaps that’s flexibility. Underneath those words, write down a list of those warning signs, those drawbacks above those words. Write the positive benefits. And you’ve just mapped those two polls. Here’s the beauty of this model. It’s super simple. It’s like a mirror image con list. You have the pros on the top, the cons on the bottom of that pole, and you have the two columns on the sheet. Here’s the beauty of the use of this model, is that if I sense I’m being too rigorous, the antidote to that is on the upside of flexibility. I can consult the benefits or the positive attributes of flexibility and choose a new behavior
Ralph Simone:
Bill, in addition to the examples you shared, I’m wondering what other examples we might provide to our listeners as to candidates for this polarity mapping.
Bill Berthel:
I think a hot one still, I’m not going to say right now, I think it’s still is remote versus in-office, and I said versus because it’s still pretty controversial. But if I change that to and what shows up.
Ralph Simone:
So I think we need to change it to and because this is where going back through other podcasts, the task needs to be the boss. If we treat that as a problem to be solved, we will make the wrong decision.
Bill Berthel:
Absolutely. Absolutely. We’ll, not only make the wrong decision and that’s bad enough, we’ll keep wasting energy and resources supporting that bad decision in our organization, which is just continued waste.
Ralph Simone:
But I think looking at it as an and proposition and looking at the upsides and looking the downsides, map it out, but then let the context drive. How do you optimize both of those interdependent values? This is not new, it just became more prevalent as a result of the pandemic, but people have been working physically in spaces and geographically distanced for decades.
Bill Berthel:
Absolutely. I think another set of polls that will always be relevant for leaders is being supportive and directive in their leadership style with their people. Leaders benefit from, it’s a both / and style of supportive and directive, but there are times where we need to be more supportive than directive and more directive than supportive.
Ralph Simone:
It’s interesting because when leaders often refer to themselves, they think they have to identify with one or the other, or they tend to identify when they really need both, and they really have both.
Bill Berthel:
They do. That brings up a final one that I’ll share is logical and emotional. I think leaders are both logical and emotional and many times we’ll attach to a preference, and that’s okay knowing that’s a strength. That doesn’t give us permission to not craft our skills in the other space. If we see ourselves as a very logical individual, there’s an opportunity for emotional and social development and vice versa.
Ralph Simone:
So it’s interesting to me when people start to argue for their limitations or their preference or their identity, that is an indicator or signpost that the pendulum has swung too far towards one of the polls.
Bill Berthel:
I love it. And if you’re a trusted advisor of that person, maybe you can let them know. We don’t always see it ourselves. We just don’t always see it ourselves.
Ralph Simone:
So where to start, Bill?
Bill Berthel:
Yeah, so I think first that critical questioning, identify some polar relationships that might benefit you. We gave you a few examples. Think about some of your own, perhaps start by watching your conjunctions. Is it really a problem to solve? Are you using “and” or “or”? A problem truly goes away when it’s solved, at least for a while. You’ll get to choose dinner the next day and the next day. It’s a repeating problem, but it goes away at least for a while, truly goes away. So use that essential question. Is it a problem to be solved or polarity to be managed? Next, start mapping out some of those interrelated polls that you’re identifying. Identify the benefits, the positive sides of the poll and the drawbacks or the warning signs, the negative sides of the poll. And then third practice in reflection and in real time. You have two opportunities to practice, I think here. How can you increase the use of the positive, the benefits list, while reducing or relying less on the warning signs, the negative in each poll? What different activity would you choose to apply and manage? And I think we can do this in reflection after we’ve had an interaction with someone, we’ve been in a meeting, we delegated whatever the activity was, we can reflect. But I think the more we practice this, it becomes real-time skillset, real-time practice.
Ralph Simone:
What just occurred to me is that planning and doing could be a polarity to be managed, right? We need to do both. And what are the indicators that we may be doing more and not planning enough or vice versa.
Bill Berthel:
Love it. Thanks for listening. You can listen to a new podcast two times every month here at Get Emergent or wherever you listen to podcasts, where we bring you contemporary leadership topics and ideas, balanced with what we hope you find are better practices that you can apply to your work and your leadership. Thank you.
This Post Has 0 Comments