Published July 5, 2010

What I know from my professional work in managing complexity and conflict in organizations is that when people get polarized on big, on-going issues, eventually all involved will suffer. It might not be today or tomorrow, but I can predict with great certainty that it will happen.

Recently, I had the honor and privilege of serving as faculty for the National League of Cities’ Leadership Training Institute in Washington, D.C. I facilitated a workshop for a group of 50 local elected officials from across the country as they learned about a set of principles and tool to guide them as they navigate our representative democracy. These folks hailed from places like Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada and California.

Margaret Seidler

First, we looked at the stark consequences for a society whose citizens get polarized to the point of deadlock. Here we get winners and losers; lose sight of the big picture; stop listening to the other “side”; get defensive; limit possibilities for solutions because we are so focused on being “right”; bring about anger, resentment — even hatred. Just bear witness to the threats that Congress has received in the wake of the passage of health care reform legislation.

Many of these local elected officials expressed their concern about citizens becoming polarized to the point of deadlock, weakening our democracy and our ultimate success as a country of free people.

With these consequences in mind, we explored the phenomenon of polarity — (interdependent pairs that need each other over time). To demonstrate that we all know and experience polarity, I used the example of one pair we manage every day: inhale and exhale. It is easy to recognize the each part of this polarity pair gives us something vital and needed. And although each is very different, we must get the best of both in order to live, not die. This polarity is readily understandable because the need to gain the best from each becomes apparent in a matter of seconds.

Next, we explored a different set of polarities: leadership polarities. These pairs are much less obvious, and the need to have both pieces might take years, not seconds. Tension quickly emerged among the group over which of the two poles in the pair was the “right” choice. They got really divided (almost polarized) about one leadership polarity, the need for control and empowerment. Most viewed control as “oppressive,” taking away citizen freedoms. Here the heated debate began. While the majority of the group extolled the virtues of their own choice, empowerment, they refused to hear anything positive about the other part of the pair, control. They could not imagine how control could possibly contribute to effective local elected leadership.

As the facilitator, I witnessed the group dive into its first real opportunity to experience what it’s like to be in the “either-or thinking” mindset — the very mindset for polarizing forces to thrive. That’s the time when you are convinced that your way is best or “right” leaving any other way as less than, and in all likelihood “wrong.” Voices raised, fingers pointed against the opposing side. Debriefing the exercise, I explained that magnifying the tension is part of the journey toward recognizing that values come in pairs.

With that understanding in hand, the group was more than ready to move on to the work of identifying polarities that exist in their everyday world as mayors, city council members and aldermen. We explored challenges that require an appreciation of different — even opposing — perspectives to get something better at the end of the day. They learned how to tap the natural tension to attain a defined higher purpose to which opposing parties could agree and be unified.

From their long list of chronic, ongoing challenges, they chose to apply the polarity approach to the challenge of keeping our cities safe — a higher purpose all sought. So we explored the polarity of focus on cost and focus on level of police services, which revealed that both poles, though very different, are needed in some way over time. No matter how much cost is seen as the “answer,” especially in today’s difficult economic times, local elected officials must also maintain a certain level of police service. They found that this dilemma is worth managing more completely and purposefully using opposing points of view at the same time.

Some comments from the session evaluation speak for themselves.

“We are about to begin an urban planning process and engage the entire community. I will use this.”

“Expect flexibility in our actions and thinking. See other viewpoints. See the ‘higher purpose.’ ”

“Way to resolve gridlock.”

“How to bring competing perspectives to a common solution.”

“I plan to implement these strategies of managing polarity with controversial issues.”

“Learning to see all sides of an issue.”

“Easy-to-remember problem-solving technique. Technique can be used in many different situations.”

“I was interested in the subject because it promised a specific ‘challenging economic times’ tie-in. That was assured.”

I launched a personal mission in recent years to share what I’ve learned. That mission calls me to introduce this set of polarity principles and methods to as many people as I can across our great country. My belief is that we can use these principles to release us from the downward spiral of today’s polarizing forces. One way to reverse this trend is to support a human being’s capacity to see and manage complex, ongoing problems from multiple perspectives. Without this capacity, I am afraid we are destined to become a country that “has had its time in the sun.”

Margaret Seidler is a consultant, master trainer and author based in Charleston. Reach her at www.mypowersurge.com or leadership@mypowersurge.com.