A Simple Tool for Creative Decision Making

Executive summary

• Polarity mapping is a valuable way of managing either/or leadership questions.
• It can lead to more creative decisions that are not a prisoner of the past.
• It changes the language from either/or to and, forcing individuals to view the situation holistically.
• Polarity mapping also warns leaders about the opportunity costs of veering too far in any direction.
• It is an essential tool in helping leaders advance to a stage of adult development called the self-transforming mind.
• In this final phase of adult development, leaders recognize they are part of an interdependent network of relationships.
• They are collaborative and question their assumptions and those of others.
• Only around 1% of adults reach this stage of development.

Stephen's Odyssey

Stephen Greenfield is the CEO of a medium-sized pharmaceutical company. In his early fifties, he has built a formidable reputation as a no-nonsense bottom-line-driven leader.

He attained his first CEO position in his mid-thirties and led his previous employer successfully through the nightmare of the Great Recession in 2008/9.

In one memorable management meeting in early 2008, he had argued successfully against a major acquisition and expansion project- reasoning that a significant economic downturn was imminent and that "cash would be king. "

His C-suite executives barely demurred. Awed by his "flawless track record" and charismatic leadership, they took his forecast as gospel and eagerly scanned the news flow for "facts" that would bolster his case. Besides, he did not encourage psychological safety. Behaviors that aligned with the corporate culture were mandatory.

The response of Stephen's management team was classic groupthink. The team members slavishly followed a charismatic leader in an endeavor without critical thought.

For the following 18-months Stephen could do no wrong in the eyes of his shareholders and leadership colleagues. As the recession unfolded, his conservatism seemed increasingly prescient despite the obvious emphasis on the short term, the confirmation bias of his colleagues, and an over-conservative approach towards investment. Moreover, the company constantly beat quarterly-earnings guidance.

By 2012 though, the stock price began to underperform the broad index and the sector. Steven-a hero in tough times- was now seen as too conservative for a robustly growing economy. Furthermore, as the patents on several drugs expired, the pipeline of new products started to dry up, hurt by the earlier conservative investment plans.

The Board of Directors reluctantly decided to replace Stephen in 2013 and looked for a more aggressive growth-driven leader to align with their new strategy.

Fortunately, Stephen's long-term track record was sufficient to land him a job with a competitor quickly. Fast forward to 2020, and Stephen faces another uncertain economic backdrop- this time amid a pandemic. Moreover, the question is almost identical. Should his new organization invest in a future pipeline of drugs?

A Polarity Mapping Exercise

His response this time was very different. He could have just decided to cast caution to the wind and do the opposite to the 2008/9 reaction. However, his approach was nuanced and holistic.

He asked each colleague separately to draw up a list of the pros and cons of their position on the investment decision and their recommendations before the meeting.

Initially, the group was divided on the decision. But Stephen was encouraged. After a quick vote on the issue, he asked the group to collectively reconstruct their pros and cons.

This time the instructions were subtly different. They should consider the cons of their perspective as the opportunity cost of missing out on the pros of the alternative view. (Table 1).

The uncertain economic environment meant that the unconstrained full-steam-ahead approach was inappropriate. Diminishing their cash pile would likely create a more nervous environment that would inhibit creativity and productivity.

By contrast, a policy of aggressively cutting back on investment would threaten their brand and make them less attractive to the talent on which their reputation depended.

Accordingly, they proceeded with a more modest rollout- which would be adjusted as the macro environment became less opaque.

In the event, the dire economic forecasts were unfounded. Policy stimulus quickly revived the economy, and the group accelerated the investment. The approach was conservative but nimble. They might not have solved the problem, but they did manage it.

With his new approach, Stephen showed that not only had he learned from his earlier errors, but how he made sense of the world had changed. He was now more collaborative and saw himself as part of a series of complex interrelated systems.

In cooperating with others, he was better able to see alternative perspectives, recognizing that those with different skills might have a more nuanced and accurate view of the world. And the tool he used to make the change apparent to his management team was polarity mapping.

Adult Development Models

Polarity mapping forces you to consider the whole and not rely on anyone's perspective. It does not mean you won't have defaults, but the exercise requires you to consider the benefits from a different perspective and the downfalls of veering too far in any direction. Moreover, as Jennifer Garvey Berger observes, polarity mapping is essential in arriving at the final stage of adult development- the self-transforming mind- a state where less than 1% of people reside.

Stephen’s story is fictitious. But it could represent the dilemmas faced by many leaders over the past few decades, torn between the short-term requirements of equity holders and other stakeholders.

Moreover, developmental theorists have modeled Stephen's increasing sophistication in how he sees the world. Their approach is hierarchical and measured in step functions. Individuals can get stuck at a particular stage for a considerable time, and can sometimes go backwards. But when their mental model of the world ceases to make sense, it provides an incentive for them to open new vistas by which they make meaning.

As individuals advance, what they are subject to becomes the object. Eventually, there is a dual awareness of the self and the situation. In the first phase- the socialized mind- their identity is fused with the group. In the second phase, the self-authoring mind- the individual creates an independent identity. At the self-transforming mind stage, the identity is interdependent.

In 2008, for example, Stephen encouraged others to find their identity with the group. They depended on the group's values and norms, while he was notionally independent of the group but dependent on his identity and the story, he told himself.

His initial group of C-suite executives modeled the first stage of adult development- the socialized mind. (Table 2)

The socialized mind is invariably part of a hierarchical structure, delegates responsibility to the group, is resistant to change, and finds fulfillment in how it contributes to group needs. It works well in primitive manufacturing-based industries but is seldom successful in knowledge-based or service-oriented economies. Those who have encountered a call service agent who reads from a manuscript will know the feeling! Moreover, nearly two-thirds of adults get stuck at this stage.

If individuals accept responsibility and are comfortable with failure, they can advance to Stephen's 2008 mindset- the self-authoring mind. Barely 34% of humans reach this stage. This mindset, though, also has limitations. Stephen was the author of his identity, but in seeing things through his prism, he invariably privileged some things while leaving others out. It makes no sense in an increasingly complex world where the half-life of knowledge is rapidly diminishing that anyone in isolation can see the totality of the situation.

The self-authoring mind casts aside tribal passions, but in the words of Robert Kegan, assumes ‘a prideful sovereignty of thought’ that cuts off other potential perspectives.

By 2020 in contrast, Stephen has not only acquired more knowledge, but his underlying logic has become more complex and based on collaboration. The way he sees the world is independent of his earlier image of the hard-nosed no- nonsense CEO, and he does not waste time protecting his identity. He has a self-transforming mind and sees the world holistically, embracing polarity mapping to manage contradictions.

References

Berger, J. G. (2003). A summary of the constructive-developmental theory of Robert Kegan. Retrieved July, 1, 2011.

Berger J.G. (2019) Unlocking leadership mind traps: How to thrive in complexity. Stanford University Press

Emerson, B., & Lewis, K. (2019). Navigating polarities: Using both/and thinking to lead transformation (Vol. 1). Paradoxical Press.

Johnson, B. (1993). Polarity management. Executive Development, 6, 28-28.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press.