opinion

Growing polarisation

Is it just me, or are we seeing – and living – increasing polarisation and splitting in our world? More individuals, leaders, teams and groupings of all kinds clearly and definitively taking one position or another. Inherent in that position-taking seems to be a total, blanket exclusion of anything that’s not that position, and – worse – some sort of implicit or explicit condemnation of the excluded position.

How it shows up – and what it leads to

A polarised position is characterised by a certainty. Boundaries are created (perhaps social, perhaps psychological, perhaps philosophical, perhaps political) which become increasingly strong, rigid and immovable with the passage of time and the reinforcement of the conviction of being right. In these contexts I notice a lack of critical, objective thinking and of curious enquiry, which includes a tendency to swallow certain messages whole and unquestioningly, and a parallel tendency to dismiss reality when it presents unpalatable truths or even incontrovertible facts. One ‘side’ is split off from the other by a stubborn blindness. The pressure to conform to the stance and behaviour of the ‘right’ group is so great that there is a threat of being excluded if one fails to comply – and exclusion can be an existential threat.

Connected to that, the whole picture may be interwoven with a sense of vulnerability and the urge to do whatever it takes to overcome that.

Difference from ‘the other’ is reinforced too: the sense of ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ morphs gradually (or maybe not so gradually) into ‘I’m good and you’re bad’, which in turn morphs into ‘I’m acceptable and you’re unacceptable’. This can also move into the idealisation of one’s own leader and the demonisation of the other’s leader.

Stock phrases and social media memes are a feature of polarised behaviour. Questions, especially incisive questions, aren’t answered directly in order to keep being able to articulate one’s own cherished truth.

Those who take a polarised stance usually don’t recognise it. Neither are they open to rationalisation, compromise, or any nuancing of belief, so no amount or persuasiveness of data makes any impact.

The impact of polarisation can mean that thinking is rigidified, creativity and innovation are inhibited, reality is obscured, forward momentum is slowed or halted, and relationships are damaged. On a personal level, this isn’t good news, as the psychological and emotional effects can be deeply felt and very long-lasting. On a team or at an organisational level it can seriously inhibit effectiveness and flourishing: it can lead to low retention rates, a disincentive to collaborate, a lack of innovation, friction within teams, and low levels of motivation. On a political level it can lead to movements and groupings which – especially when nourished by the iterations inherent in social media – can be powerful and even ultimately dangerous.

Where does polarisation come from?

Is it to do with a sense of belonging – wanting to be seen to align unequivocally with a particular stance, and thus acquire a comforting sense of belonging, even if it means having to conform with things you don’t really believe in? Is it about fear of being powerless in the face of a threat or perceived threat, including a threat to one’s own power? Is it a working out of previous frustrations in an unrelated situation?

The adoption of a polarised position may come from an attempt to recreate the past and thus achieve a different outcome – a past which may well not be evident to those involved in the polarised behaviour: maybe a regret about having complied or colluded with a stance on an unrelated subject which one now experiences as a cause for shame, maybe a sense of alienation or long-held resentment about a completely separate matter such as a badly-handled team restructuring, maybe a single disappointing but key relationship in the past.

Equally, a polarised stance may come from profound differences in life philosophy and a visceral unwillingness to consider or empathise with other viewpoints.

What can be done?

My natural inclination in contexts of polarisation is to seek dialogue. Bill Isaacs, in his book ‘Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together’[1] defines dialogue as ‘a shared enquiry, a way of thinking and reflecting together…. a conversation in which people think together in relationship’, in a way which stimulates insight.

It can be very difficult for a person taking a polarised position to engage in dialogue because they come from a conviction of already being right rather than seeking collaborative thinking which can offer them learning if they are willing to open their minds to unfamiliar and unwanted perspectives.

Two tripwires (and there are others) in the quest to engage with polarisation are the very human conviction that one is oneself not polarised, and the uncomfortable necessity to examine one’s own thinking and behaviour, and thus deepen one’s own self awareness, honestly and courageously.

[1] ‘Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together’ 1999, Doubleday

Photo by Hal Cooks on Unsplash

I am indebted to Keri Phillips for insights which have informed some of the above. Keri sadly passed away in 2023. See an obituary here

Either-or, us or them: the perils of polarisation

A polarised position is characterised by a certainty. Boundaries are created which become increasingly strong, rigid and immovable with the passage of time and the reinforcement of the conviction of being right. In these contexts I notice a lack of critical, objective thinking and of curious enquiry. One ‘side’ is split off from the other by a stubborn blindness. Difference from ‘the other’ is reinforced too: the sense of ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ morphs into ‘I’m good and you’re bad’, which in turn morphs into ‘I’m acceptable and you’re unacceptable’. This can also move into the idealisation of one’s own leader and the demonisation of the other’s leader. Those who take a polarised stance usually don’t recognise it. Neither are they open to rationalisation, compromise, or any nuancing of belief, so no amount or persuasiveness of data makes any impact. On a team or at an organisational level it can seriously inhibit effectiveness and flourishing. It can be very difficult for a person taking a polarised position to engage in dialogue because they come from a conviction of already being right rather than seeking collaborative thinking which can offer them learning if they are willing to open their minds to unfamiliar and unwanted perspectives.

Creating psychological safety for yourself

Feeling psychologically unsafe evokes a range of emotions and behaviours: anxiety, lack of trust, loss of motivation, indecisiveness, reticence, withdrawal and loss of engagement, to name but a few. It’s bad news for a team or an organisation. Professor Amy Edmondson’s globally-recognised and ground-breaking work in The Fearless Organization brings insight to the experience and realisation of psychological safety, and allows it to be measured. That measurement in a team can be debriefed, and the behavioural and attitudinal sources of the scores explored through facilitation that supports teams to capitalise on it and/or improve it. A different challenge arises when a team member experiences a lack of psychological safety, and when that very lack makes it impossible to share honestly with anyone, least of all with the leader, who may themselves be the source of the lack of safety. There are a number of possible approaches that can help.

Being before doing

It’s so easy to get sucked down the rabbit hole of ‘doing’ in order just to get through every day, forgetting engagement with the bigger picture - what it’s about, where we’re really going, what our guiding principles are, and – so importantly – the interconnecting, systemic and interdependent factors and features that underpin any given situation and that circumscribe inevitable complexity. Coaching clients have ended their programmes realising that they have been able to become more of who they really were, and, as part of the journey, to discover how important ‘being’ was to them. Executive coaching has at its heart the relationship between the client and myself: a relational process. A central part of this relational process is the expansion of awareness beyond thinking alone: moving into a space where both client and I let go of knowing, and experience the emergence of different types of awareness that can bring deep insights on which they can then act. They relate to their situations, their possibilities and their options from new, expanded perspectives. That’s real change – real transformation.

Being different - and vertical development

We are living in times of unprecedented, and growing, complexity, which it is the leader’s role to manage, negotiate and enable their people to flourish in. Vertical development recognises that adults develop, from childhood onwards, through stages of cognitive, attitudinal and emotional development which research over decades has shown to be definable and predictable. As leaders move through the stages they can develop their capacities to deal with complexity, ambiguity, uncertainty and volatility. Children mature, and, as adults, they become capable of doing more complex tasks through further stages of development and new capabilities and perspectives. When leaders have a sense of not fitting in, the reason can be a dislocation between their individual stage of development and the stage of development of their peers, their seniors or the organisational culture as a whole. The leader at a later stage can feel lonely and isolated, but they may find that they can relate more easily by, on the one hand using concepts and language that will be meaningful to their colleagues at the stage those colleagues are at, and by finding or creating outlets for themselves – new, interesting activities, especially with others at a similar developmental stage.

The leader's profile

There’s a common perception that the effective leader is the leader with an imposing presence. It can be easy to assume that the expressive, obvious character in the room is also the most obvious leader. Introverts have a particular challenge when they need to raise their profiles, especially when it comes to developing their careers and strengthening their network connections of stakeholders. Introverts can find engaging with others in meetings tiring and costly in terms of energy. There are endless practical tips on raising profile. However, this ignores an important – and arguably more powerful - area: how to ‘just be’. To find comfort and safety in the authenticity, ease and truth of being yourself without trying to match anyone else, and without trying to match the imagined expectations or assumptions of other people. That comfort with being yourself – being happy in your own skin - conveys natural confidence and gravitas.

Conflict

Conflict is usually costly, painful and damaging. What are the alternatives? Some might say compassion. Others might say community, cohesion, or connection. Others might opt for peace or safety or kindness. Or collaboration or cooperation. Conflicts can pass in a moment and leave no apparent trace, or they can leave deep and long-lasting physical, emotional, mental, social, or economic wounds – and at its worst, individual or collective trauma. Not being in conflict brings a greater chance of wellbeing, of efficiency, of a sense of safety and of organisational or societal health. Besides needing emotional intelligence, not being in conflict, or defusing conflict, can take humility, a willingness to be vulnerable, and psychological safety. We can do worse than be guided by Marshal Rosenberg’s principles of non-violent communication, and a shift in thinking and conceptualisation from ‘you and I’ to ‘we’.

Time as gift or tyranny?

The author of ‘Time Shelter’, Georgi Gospodinov, treats time as a gift to the sufferer of memory loss, rather than the enemy it so often seems to be as a factor in our working lives. This perception of time as something we can have power over contrasts strikingly with the relationship that many leaders and managers – and indeed organisational cultures – seem to have with it: a perception that treats time almost as a ‘thing’, and that sees us as victims of it. Our relationship with time enshrines an intimate connection with achievement. In turn, achievement is connected to a sense of self-worth. We can feel like we are at the mercy of time, in contrast to a sense of emergence, but there is a richness in the emergence, enabling the capacity to perceive, accommodate and integrate a broader perspective. This is important for the task of leadership: to step back and see more interdependencies and more viewpoints.

Responsibility - and hedgehogs

Imbalance in the way responsibility is used (and not used) in systems of all sorts, including organisations, is large-scale and widespread. Too much responsibility may be assumed (albeit unconsciously). This shows up with leaders who work hard to make sure that everything that needs doing is done, typically to a high standard, no matter whose responsibility it actually is. Inappropriate responsibility may be imposed in childhood, and taken on into work, via an expectation from one or other parent. When leaders fail to take on responsibility that is theirs, it may be that they feel inadequate to the task or may fear failing, and may persuade themselves that by not acting they don’t risk failure. Like the hedgehog who freezes in the middle of the road, they are likely to incur failure rather than avoid it. One of the classic situations in which appropriate responsibility is not given is represented by the micromanaging boss. In all these scenarios, both the team and the leader are weakened and become brittle: they lack resilience and the capacity to learn, develop and change as much as they could, and/or as much as they need to.

The Right Kind of Wrong

Amy Edmondson's new book 'Right Kind of Wrong: Why Learning to Fail Can Teach Us to Thrive' explains how we get failure (a potentially invaluable learning opportunity) wrong, and how to get it right, highlighting that the most successful organisational cultures are those in which you can fail openly, without your mistakes being held against you. We're living in turbulent times, and, as Amy Edmondson points out, failure is both more likely than ever – but if it’s the right kind of failure, it’s also more valuable than ever. While most failures in organisations are treated as blameworthy – and there are failures we should definitely work hard to prevent – there are others we should welcome. The latter are the intelligent failures.

David Hockney, painting, and coaching

I recently had the opportunity to visit the stunning David Hockney exhibition in London (‘David Hockney: Bigger & Closer (not smaller & further away)’. It prompted reflection for me both on what it offers to my conceptualisation of coaching and what I can learn that might enhance my clients’ experience of coaching with me. I found the exhibition nourishing, exciting, inspiring, refreshing, perspective-opening and deeply calming. It stimulated my thinking on how I might raise my awareness and challenge myself to look in more depth, and call on more perspectives and insights, with clients. Is there any sense in which I currently satisfy myself with looking partially, on a relatively small scale, or only in one perspective? Besides widening our perspective, the artist also highlights the rewards of looking in every direction at the same time, all the time. He characterises water as illusive, because all the patterns you see are on the surface. If, as coach, I take those patterns as the only patterns, then I’m only seeing part of the person I’m working with, and only some of the influences they’re subject to.

opinion

Recent Posts