Every dynamic organization contains some polarization. Organizational leaders need to be aware of polarized views. The best leaders can step “up and out” of their perspective to assess the larger picture and decide how to work with this reality.
The pattern is easy to see in contemporary US politics:
People on the right and left are unaware they have the same behaviors, even as they tell themselves completely different stories. A centrist politician struggles to gain traction because all the money and attention goes to the extremes. Though the combine extremes are a minority of the population they overwhelm all the communication channels. The people in the middle aren’t heard. They find it safest not to care, and not to publicly participate.
This polarization persists and tends to become stronger. Technology options created an environment of a million channels so it’s easy to pick your preferred echo chamber and never hear a contradictory word for years. Our collective and voluntary choices got us into this situation. There are relatively few incentives to listening to different perspectives. I’m skeptical that people will come together again, short of an external existential threat.
(Sidebar: The printing press expanded information flow, but it didn’t unify masses of people. The Internet connected a billion people but accelerated fragmented perspectives and worldviews. Proliferating communication channels has never automatically resulted in greater peace and cooperation.)
This is a general pattern that occurs in many organizational settings, not limited to politics:
I’ve seen this pattern in these instances, and I’m sure there are more:
- Mission strategy and adjustments
- Structuring a support team
- Building budgets (e.g., baseline vs. bottom-up reset)
- Which customers to favor and why
- Product development, “stage gate” decisions
- Defining metrics for a business process
- Deciding how to allocate an unexpected windfall, or blame
The middle view may not be the correct view. The polarization pattern does not inherently identify the correct view of the past or present situation, nor automatically help you decide on the best path forward. You’ll need information outside of the polarized paradigm.
Leaders have choices when they recognize this pattern. Willfully ignoring polarization does not help. You may choose to
- Exploit the power available by aligning with one polar view.
- Help people recognize an alternative to the current state polarization.
- Selectively elevate “middle” perspectives to keep the polar ends in check.
- Pit the polarized views against one another as a distraction or to buy time while developing alternative scenarios.
No easy answers, no formula, but the first step is always recognizing the polarization pattern.
