Managing Polarities: An Interview With Barry Johnson, PH.D
Managing Polarities: An Interview With Barry Johnson, PH.D
Managing Polarities: An Interview With Barry Johnson, PH.D
R I C K M A U R E R, M.A.
Rick: Barry, tell us a little about your background and how you came
to focus on polarities.
Barry: It began when I was working as a seminarian in opposition to
the war in Vietnam. I wrote an article as a graduate student at Union
Theological Seminary about the tension between what I called the
Bondage of Action and the Bondage of Inaction. I was struck by how
simplistic my colleagues and I in the peace movement had become in
order to support our actions. At the same time, I was concerned about
those unable to act at all because the situation was too complicated and
they didnt want to make a mistake. Grace was what freed us to act
without pretending to have all the answers or being too simplistic, in-
cluding dehumanizing our opposition. It was a way to talk about the
paradox of grace and law. We are loved unconditionally (grace frees us
to act), and were also accountable for our actions (law holds us ac-
countable for our actions). So that tension between those opposites was
something I was aware of in the mid-1960s. It was called a polarity
when I got into Gestalt therapy. Identifying and addressing these op-
posites became figural in my Gestalt training.
Rick: You begin your book, Polarity Management, by saying youve got
some bad news and some good news.
1
Barry Johnson, Ph.D., is an organizational consultant who has been trained in Ge-
stalt theory and practice. Barry wrote Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing
Unsolvable Problems in 1992 and founded Polarity Management Associates in 1995. You
can learn more about his work by visiting www.polaritymanagement.com.
Rick Maurer, M.A., is on the Organization and Systems Development faculty at the
Gestalt Institute of Cleveland and author of Why Dont You Want What I Want? (Bard
Press 2002).
210 RICK MAURER
Barry: The bad side of the news is that there are a whole host of issues
we face in our organizational lives that are completely unavoidable and
unsolvable. The good news is that we can identify these particular
issues that I have called polarities. They also have been called para-
doxes, or dilemmas. By addressing these sets of interdependent oppo-
sites, we can manage them and actually create a synergy for the benefit
of the individual parts of the system as a whole.
Rick: Can you give an example how that might play out in an
organization?
Barry: One of the central issues in organizations is, do we centralize or
do we decentralize? Do we centralize to coordinate for system integra-
tion, or do we decentralize in order to get close to the customer and
empower people to be decisive on the front line? That is a polarity to
manage. We need to be effective in our centralized coordinationand
we need to be effective in our decentralized decision making. If we can
do both of those wellwhich are inherently in tension with each other
it will be beneficial for everyone involved in the system. It will be ben-
eficial to those who are interested in the centralized coordination
(usually the administration), and it will be beneficial to people who are
on the front line because they feel like theyve got an ability to be re-
sponsive to the customer and to use their own ingenuity and creativity.
Rick: But are you suggesting that these dilemmas or polarities often
get treated like problems that can be solved?
Barry: Yes. If it gets seen as a problem to solve, especially by people in
power, an either/or mindset gets triggered. Either were going to be
centralized, or were going to be decentralized. A strong advocate for
centralization may have the power to get the system to focus on that
one pole. And over time, that system will experience the limits of cen-
tralized coordination.
On a polarity map you would find yourself in the downsides of that
pole. And this downside is predictable. Whenever you focus on one
pole to the neglect of the other, you get its downside. Whenever you
have a polarity to manage, by focusing on one pole to the neglect of the
other, you will first get the downside of the pole where you focused,
and then you will get the downside of the neglected pole. You end up
over time getting the downside of both poles. Paradoxically, if you try
to get the best of centralization by focusing on centralization to the
neglect of decentralization, you first lose the benefits of decentraliza-
tion and then you lose the benefits of centralization. The change becomes
dysfunctional because youre getting the downside of both poles.
AN INTERVIEW WITH BARRY JOHNSON 211
Rick: Lets get specific and apply the polarity map to a real
organization.
Barry: I was working with the advanced engineering staff at a major
automotive company. An information technology (IT) company was just
moving in to handle all their information technology. As with all infor-
mation technology systems, youre dealing with tension between (com-
mon) centralized coordination and integration of the system on one
hand and (custom) the very specific needs of individuals and units on
the other.
They were discovering that there were managers in various parts of
the auto company who were going to the local Tandy shop (a computer
retailer) and buying their own little computers to do the kind of cus-
tom needs they needed because the central IT organization was not
being responsive to their unique needs for information and for data
among themselves. So the system was overfocused on the common pole
or centralized coordination pole and not adequately paying attention
to the custom pole or decentralized needs within parts of the system.
They could buy a computer and programs and set up their own in-
dependent action much cheaper than it would be to get a day or two of
consulting with the IT internal consultants. And central IT couldnt help
them anyway because the system was overly focused on the central-
ized common database coordination. This issue came up in the midst
of my working with the advanced engineering staff and introducing
polarity management. They said, Might there be a polarity here? And
I said, Definitely.
The very next day they were going into a meeting that they antici-
pated was going to be a shouting match over the insensitivity and
nonresponsiveness of IT, with people trying to defend their managers
who were going out and buying independent computers. They put it
together as a polarity map and brought it to the meeting. They realized
that they had to manage both poles. The whole conversation shifted
when they changed from seeing the issue as a problem to solve to see-
ing it as a polarity to manage. They began to ask, How do we get both?
The polarity map principles and action steps provided a user-friendly
way to differentiate and then to proactively address the paradox or
polarity.
Rick: Would you agree that these polarities could occur at any level of
system from organizational to groups to interpersonal?
Barry: Yes. Another significant generic polarity is part and whole, and
one way to talk about systems theory is about how parts relate to parts
and parts relate to wholes over time. An example of this in the part
212 RICK MAURER
Rick: Fairness.
Barry: How would that be demonstrated?
Rick: In my family, my parents spent about the same amount of money
and gave the same amount of attention to our respective gifts.
Barry: What else?
Rick: Uniqueness. It was clear that our parents thought about us as
individuals.
Barry: Exactly, those two thoughts come up very early and they show
up in different forms. People talk about the equality (whole) and unique-
ness (part) polarity. They want each child to experience his or her
uniqueness in the gift, and somehow you need to simultaneously pay
attention to the fact that it needs to be equalized. This tension between
equality and the reasons you need it to be equal comes from knowing
at some level that, if it were too unequal, youd create friction between
the kids. Why are we doing that? Connectedness gets spoiled by
overfocusing on the uniqueness of the children.
Working with polarities is something you are doing all the time. Im
just helping you get a handle on it rather than letting it be driven by
some intuitive hunches so it can be much more explicitly addressed
strategically and tactically addressed with other people and tapping
their intuitive wisdom. The shift is from tacit knowledge to explicit
knowledge.
Rick: How can we tell the difference between a dilemma and a prob-
lem to be solved before it comes up and bites us?
Barry: First, how do you know if youve got a problem to solve? And
what is the value and potential of the problem to solve? And then lets
distinguish it from polarities to manage. The problem-solving mindset
is a natural, unavoidable and important by-product of one generation
passing its culture on to the next generation. You need to understand
where the problem-solving mindset comes from and appreciate its
power and its value. When we ask our granddaughter, Carly, How do
you spell cat? She says, c a t. Weve given her a problem to solve.
What shes learned in that process is that, if you solve it, you get re-
warded. The name of the game through all our formal education is solv-
ing problems quickly, and if you solve a high percentage of problems
accurately, then you get an A grade. Poor problem solving leads to a
poor grade, and it can determine your whole financial future. The SATs
214 RICK MAURER
are all either/or problems to solve. When we ask Carly whats four
plus four and she says eight, or who was first president of the United
States and she says Washington, we have created questions for our chil-
dren as a way to see if they understand what we want them to under-
stand. Are they learning our language, our history, our math?
There are two by-products from that whole process. We learn it is
good to be a problem solver. You get a lot of credit for solving a lot of
problems and doing it quickly. The second by-product is subtle and
very powerful. We learn indirectly that when we are right, those who
disagree with us are wrong. Theres no way around this, and I dont
think there should be a way around it, but we need to appreciate its
power. If you and I disagree on who was the first presidentyou say
its Washington and I say its Franklinthen this is a problem to solve.
There is an answer to this question. You might bring a history book to
me and say, Barry, notice the list of presidents. The first one is Wash-
ington. In formal education, when given a problem, we go inside and
ask ourselveswe tap our own wisdom if you willI remember this
history lesson; Washington is the first president. To the degree that
you think youre right is the degree to which you believe Im wrong. So
this is what we all learn through solving hundreds of thousands of prob-
lems that have one right answer.
Rick: Would you apply that to the centralized/decentralized example
weve been exploring?
Barry: Lets say that Im interested in decentralized initiatives and
youre interested in a centralized way of working. You go inside and
ask yourself the question, Is there a necessity for centralized coordi-
nation? You have all sorts of arguments why centralized coordination
is essential. These arguments are the upside of centralization. You also
have an equally long list of potential downside of overfocusing on de-
centralization. So your point of view has two of the dimensions of a
polarity map: the upside of one pole and the downside of the other. If
you believe youre right, I must be wrong. So you now gently or very
powerfully, depending on your disposition, try to help me see the error
of my ways. You are half right. The point is that I am also half right. We
cant tap our combined wisdom from an either/or perspective in which
either you are right or I am.
Rick: How do you know if the issue facing you is a polarity?
Barry: When you shift into polarities, you now shift into the world of
interdependence. The primary criterion to tell if you have a problem to
solve or a polarity to manage is the interdependence of the parts you
AN INTERVIEW WITH BARRY JOHNSON 215
are looking at. Here are some criteria questions. Is it necessary over
time to engage both of these opposites that are in contention? And the
time dimension is very important because its possible to focus on one
pole for a brief period of time and say, This is really terrific. This is it.
But if its a polarity, that pole is not sustainable because its dependent
on the other pole for its sustainability over time.
The model I use for that is breathing. Inhaling is great, and exhaling
is great; however, if you just focus on inhaling, its not sustainable. And
it has nothing to do with inhaling being bad. It has to do with inhaling
being a part of interdependent whole, and it needs its opposite for it to
be viable over time. Thats how you determine if youve got a polarity
or not. Do the two parts need each other over time?
The choice whether we should merge or not merge is a problem to
solve. There is nothing inherent in merging that says we have to not
merge later. However, in the merging of two entities, it would be very
helpful for those about to engage in the merger to pay attention to the
key polarities in their two systems. They will either be on the same
pole or on opposite poles. And if theyre on the same pole, it looks like
a marriage made in heaven, but theyre vulnerable to the downside of
the pole they both choose.
Rick: They both miss the same things?
Barry: Exactly. But imagine that their history is one of opposite pole
preference. A Swedish company and a U.S. company merged. They
fought for 3 years over decision making. The U.S. company was much
more directive in its decision making; the Swedish company was much
more participative. Both of them thought they were right, and 3 years
later they decided to end their merger. Because they both were seeing it
from an either/or perspective, it got to be a power struggle. They agreed
to disagree, and neither tapped the potential of the other and so the
company unmerged.
The complaints were quite clear. The complaints about the U.S. man-
agers were that they were cowboys who shoot from the hip. They
would make decisions without including key stakeholders and then
have a terrible time selling the decisions to the stakeholders left out
of the decision-making process. This is the downside of the directive
pole. The complaint about the Swedes was that they took forever to
make decisions. They were seen as indecisive and slow. So you can
readily put that on a polarity map when you see it as a polarity to man-
age. You can say, How do we synergize between the strengths of the
Swedish culture around inclusion and involving people in decisions
the more participatory orientation. How do we combine that with a
more directive kind of style that the United States brings? And the
216 RICK MAURER
synergy between that could have been a net result that could have been
what in systems theory is called a virtuous circle. But between the two,
it became a vicious circle, and both of them blamed the other one for it
not working. And they were both right.
Rick: When did the polarity map come into the picture and how?
Barry: It was in 1975 when I was seeing a client for the first time. Lets
call her Ann. She began the session by saying she wanted to be more
like me. When I asked her what she meant, she described me as what I
would now call the upside of the aggressive pole: You are making a
contribution, know what you want, and go after it. She then described
herself as the downside of the passive pole: Dont know what I want
and dont have the gumption to go after it.
I knew there was more to the picture so we created four quadrants
on the floor representing the upside and downside of passivity and the
upside and downside of aggression. We then moved through the four
quadrants to identify and experience the content of each.
We started in the downside of passivity, which she knew well, and
then went to the upside of passivity and she didnt have a clue about
its content. We worked on it until we identified the benefits of being a
receiver and willingness to learn from others, etc. Then we attempted
to walk to the downside of the aggressive pole, and Ann stopped right
at the imaginary boundary between the upside of being passive and
the downside of being aggressive.
When I asked Ann what was going on, she said, Im not going there!
I asked her what was there and she said, Thats being a bitch. I
asked her what that meant, and she said it was being a dictator or know-
it-all, and she didnt want to go there. After some discussion in which I
agreed to go with her and that she didnt have to stay, we did go to that
quadrant, and she acted out what it meant to her to be bitchy. We
then went to the upside of the aggressive pole and explored ways in
which that was already a part of her life and how she might experi-
ment with holding on to the upsides of passivity while adding the
upsides of aggression. The original polarity map was born.
We have learned a lot since then, but none of the learning has been
inconsistent with the learning from that 1-hour session in 1975 when I
was working as a Gestalt therapist. I was just completing my 2-year
training program with the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland at the time.
Rick: You mentioned your training in Gestalt. I am struck by how well
your polarity work fits into a Gestalt framework. What direct connec-
tions do you see between your model and Gestalt theory and practice?
AN INTERVIEW WITH BARRY JOHNSON 217