Triads and Change
In my own consulting and teaching, I often portray a triad, when considering the potential for change in a system (be it a marriage, organization or nation). There are two or more entities struggling for acceptance or power. The wife wishes to spend more time at work (to increase income for the family) while the husband wishes to spend more “quality time” with his wife. The Vice President for Production is primary concerned with the quality of the table she is manufacturing, while the Vice President for Sales and Marketing is primarily concerned with the volume of tables being manufactured (to meet the growing demand for this table based on its quality). The president of a country is vitally interested in national security (pouring money into her country’s weaponry), while the citizens she is serving are crying for bread and housing.
In each of these cases, a polarity has been created. As Barry Johson (1996) has often noted, our world is filled with these polarities. For Johnson, there must first be recognition that both sides of the polarity hold a valid position, as well as shortcomings. To avoid a nonproductive swinging back and forth between the two poles, there must be this “appreciation” of both sides. Ultimately, there must be resolution of the differences or a sequencing of attention to each polarity. Emergence might also take place: a third position is identified or created that enables all (or most) interests to be addressed in a successful manner.
For instance, the husband and wife might find a way to reduce their expenditures (reducing the wife’s work-related pressures) or consider new job opportunities (with higher pay levels) for either or both the husband and wife. The Production and Marketing Vice Presidents might discover (emergence) that their organization could produce two tables—with one being much less expensive, mor rapidly produced, but still with some quality control. Emergence for the national leader might come with a new recognition that national security requires not only protection from external enemies, but also the internal enemies that emerge when citizens feel underserved.
In each case, the refocusing of action requires slow, thoughtful thinking (Kahneman, 2011), a capacity to be reflective about current practices (Schön, 1983), and a willingness to consider the issue at hand from a new (higher order) perspective (Argyris and Schön, 1978). In my own work with clients and students, I often provide two or more circles to identify the current (usually polarized) positions and draw a line with arrows pointing to each position (signifying tension between the position). In keeping with Barry Johnson’s model of polarity management, I might identify several of the strengths and weaknesses associated with each position and draw an arrow that swings between the strengths of one position to its weaknesses. The arrow moves to the strengths of the other position, then to its weaknesses, and once again to the strengths of the first position. This swinging back and forth can go on forever. Some form of emergence is required.
