· High quality vs Low cost
· Complexity vs Simplicity
· Free enterprise vs Socialism
· Risk vs Safety
· Western vs Eastern
· Corporate vs Grassroots
· Business vs Social Sector
Gaps exist between all polarities to be sure. However I think many of us have concluded that those gaps cannot realistically be reconciled. As a result, businesses tend to choose one of 2 strategies: Provide their product/service at a low cost and complete to edge out the competition, OR develop a high-end product/service that very few others are providing. Non-profits frequently face the gap between projects that will be appealing to donors, OR engagements that are less appealing publically but more productive socially.
Should leaders Mind the Polarity Gap by only choosing to execute at one end or the other, OR is there a way to reconnect the polarities? And if we do, what benefit is there? I am not taking about a simple ‘let’s find the middle’ approach. Somewhere between those polarities is a tremendously creative, innovative solution influenced by the realities of both poles. The solutions found ‘in between’ can make a monumental difference in a world that is desperate for answers that cannot be provided at either end of the poles.
If you are listed on a stock exchange, you deal with the polarities of returning dividends and social/environmental responsibility. What can accomplish both? If you are a pastor with a conviction about your church’s engagement with it’s world, you may be dealing with a polarity of faithfulness to your conviction and upsetting the status-quo of a congregation. What can move you both?
There is a way to re
connect the polarities. Our choices and solutions are not limited to one end or the other.
1. Commit to open up organizational conversations where creative thoughts and even dissent are given permission to emerge. You can be sure that your people, when given permission, will identify the polarities. If the leader sees no gaps, it’s a sure sign they are comfortable with the status quo, and/or their ego is too tightly tied to the product or service rather than the future effectiveness of the organization. It may seem counter-intuitive, but sow the seeds of discontent! Informally begin to ask questions that tell others you are ‘thinking out loud’ about some issues. Provide forums and various feedback loops where people are asked for their ideas. It may take a while to establish the trust that leads to openness if you have been a closed leader or organization. But remember that it all begins with you, the leader. If you are willing to be open and seek alternatives, and your team hears you doing it, the first step has begun.
2. Ensure diversity exists on your team. Research consistently shows that for a team to be innovative along the continuum between the polarities, diversity is crucial. When I use the term ‘diversity’, I am not exclusively referring to visible differences such as ethnicity, gender or age. In fact, in their publication “Diverse Teams in Organizations” (Mannix, E. and Lean, M., 2005) the authors concluded after reviewing 50 years of research that visible differences are more likely to have a negative effect on a groups’ effectiveness! By contract, it’s the diversity of underlying differences such as conviction, point of view, education or personality, which tend to lead to greater creativity and performance! Create teams with a wide range of knowledge, expertise and perspectives if you want to mine the polarity gap for innovations.
3. Develop a learning organization. Possessing creative and diverse teams with permission to explore solutions is not sufficient. The structure of the whole organization needs to be supportive so that solutions arising from conversations can be organized into knowledge and strategies. Likely every reader of this blog has had the experience of being participant in a ‘think tank’ or other context devised to elicit creative input, only to see the input go nowhere. That experience in itself creates a polarity between leadership and employees, not to mention cynicism for the next process. How does an organization configure themselves for innovation? All organizations are structured and shaped uniquely by the work they have to do. However, what kind of structure will enable you to mind the polarity gaps and allow for innovative thinking and solutions?
To become a learning organization, Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner in their book “Riding the Waves of Innovation” suggest organizations must deal with 12 value-dilemmas if innovation is to be achieved. They represent polarities in themselves. I have revised the language of their list but the essence remains the same:
Centralizing knowledge---------------------Decentralizing activity
Functional & Technical ‘silos’--------------Project teams with social & matrix processes
Top-down instruction------------------------Bottom-up participation
Leaders provide answers-------------------- Leaders pose questions
Right the ‘first-time’------------------------Right in the shortest possible time
Explicit, codified knowledge----------------Tacit, inquiring knowledge
Authority of leaders--------------------------Delegation to creators/teams
Designed strategy & business model-------Emerging strategy & business model
Rational, internal order---------------------Focus: unpredictable external customer needs
Past financial performance-----------------Future learning goals
Internal innovation--------------------------Innovation external to the organization
Building a profitable venture--------------Building an innovative network
The Nomadic Leader seeks to travel the continuum between polarities. He/she isn’t content to settle down on one end or the other. But you can’t cover the entire landscape all at once. Where will you begin? I suggest you choose one of the 12 value-dilemmas and begin to Mind the Polarity Gap.
Don’t just Mind the Polarity Gaps you encounter; mine them for the innovations that lie there.
Harv Matchullis - info@visiontracks.ca - www.visiontracks.ca
