How do I decide when both options seem right? (Managing polarities)

IDENTIFY AND NAME THE POLARITY

Once the challenge is named, the next step is to look closely at what sits on each side of it and to find language that helps people see both without judgement. A polarity always holds two interdependent values that the system needs to stay whole. The aim here is not to choose, but to see clearly what each side contributes.

Take the example of whether to insource or outsource HR services. Both options make genuine sense. Insourcing offers closeness, cultural understanding, and the ability to tailor decisions to the people they affect. Outsourcing brings expertise, scale, and efficiency that few organisations can maintain internally. You cannot sustain one without eventually needing the other. They define, correct, and renew each other.

When identifying the poles, describe them in neutral, human terms. Avoid words that imply one side is a problem to fix or a cost to reduce. Instead of framing the choice as “Control versus Cost,” name it as “Internal Partnership” and “External Expertise.” Each phrase carries an implicit strength and respects the perspective of those who prefer it.

As you settle on names, test them with those most invested in each side. Ask whether they can see something valuable in both. If they can, the naming works; if not, soften the language until it invites participation. The moment people can recognise themselves positively in both sides, the conversation begins to shift from debate to shared stewardship.

It is also helpful to give the whole polarity a name that expresses its purpose. In this case, the question might become, How can we combine intimacy with efficiency in how we care for people? That title points toward the aspiration that makes the tension worthwhile. It reframes the issue from a contest between methods to a search for integration.

Identifying and naming the polarity well is more than semantics. It shapes how people think, speak, and act. When the language of the map honours both sides, teams stop defending their ground and begin exploring the space between. From that moment, the work of polarity mapping becomes a practice of stewardship rather than control , an act of caring for the relationship that keeps the whole system alive.

EXPLORE EACH SIDE FULLY

Once the poles are named with care, the next task is to explore them in depth. This is where a polarity map becomes more than a diagram; it becomes a conversation that restores balance to how people think and speak about the issue. The aim is to see both sides clearly enough that no one feels the need to defend theirs.

Begin by working on one pole at a time. Ask, When this side is at its best, what does it make possible? What happens in our organisation, for our people, and for our customers when this side is strong and healthy? Stay with the positives long enough for people to appreciate the value that side brings. Only then move to, What happens when we overdo it? What does it look like when this strength starts to turn against us?

For our example, start with Insourced HR. When insourcing is healthy, HR professionals know the people personally. They understand the nuances of the culture, the informal networks, and the stories that shape trust. Problems surface early because relationships are close. Decisions can be made quickly and contextually. In a time of change, the HR team feels like part of the organisation’s fabric, translating policies into practices that fit.

Yet over time, this closeness can narrow perspective. Insourced HR may begin to speak the same language as the rest of the organisation, losing the ability to challenge its assumptions. Familiarity can make it harder to introduce external standards or new thinking. Costs rise quietly because loyalty outweighs benchmarking. The team becomes good at solving immediate problems but slower at recognising systemic ones.

Now turn to Outsourced HR. When outsourcing is healthy, the organisation gains access to expertise and scale it could never afford alone. Specialist providers bring tested processes, up-to-date legal knowledge, and technology that automates the routine. Internal managers can focus on strategy while compliance, payroll, and benefits run smoothly in the background. Costs are predictable, and benchmarking keeps performance honest.

But when outsourcing dominates, relationships thin out. HR becomes a service rather than a presence. People start saying, “I do not know who to talk to anymore.” Cultural understanding fades, and decisions feel procedural rather than human. Problems that need empathy are handled through tickets and scripts. Leaders begin to sense that what was once a living connection has become a contract.

As you explore each side, stay descriptive rather than judgmental. Write examples that people can recognise from experience. Encourage stories. When people hear their own reality reflected on both sides, the room shifts from defence to curiosity.

At this point, the map begins to reveal its pattern. The upsides of one side often correct the downsides of the other. Outsourcing brings scale where insourcing brings intimacy. Insourcing brings context where outsourcing brings discipline. The health of the system depends on both.

Before moving on, check that each column feels balanced. If one side reads like a list of virtues and the other like a list of faults, keep working. The map will only help if both poles are treated as necessary partners. This is the moment when the group begins to see that the challenge is not to choose between them but to care for both.

SPOT EARLY WARNING SIGNALS

Every polarity carries its own signs of imbalance. These signals often appear quietly, long before a crisis or visible failure. Learning to notice them is what distinguishes reactive leadership from stewardship. Early warning signals are the subtle indicators that one pole is starting to dominate and the system is drifting away from wholeness.

The first task is to slow down enough to observe. In most organisations, early warnings are not data points but feelings. People say things like, “We are starting to lose touch,” or “Everything takes longer than it used to.” They sense the change in tone before it appears in metrics. These murmurs are the first invitations to look again at balance.

For our example, consider Insourced HR. When this side is healthy, relationships are strong and the HR team is close to the reality of the business. But if the organisation begins to rely too heavily on this closeness, the signs of overuse appear gradually. HR meetings start to revolve around personalities rather than principles. Time spent on day-to-day issues grows while strategic projects slip. Managers describe HR as “supportive but stretched.” External advisors find it difficult to gain traction because internal expertise feels self-sufficient. Turnover in the HR team drops, which looks positive, yet the absence of fresh thinking becomes noticeable. These are signals that the system is holding its breath, too much insourcing and too little outside air.

Now consider Outsourced HR. At its best, outsourcing brings clarity, speed, and professional rigour. Yet when the pendulum swings too far, people begin to feel the distance. Complaints about “the process” increase. Staff say they do not know who to call about a sensitive issue. Leaders sense that HR advice has become technically correct but emotionally tone deaf. The external partner’s reports are immaculate, but managers spend more time interpreting them than acting on them. Conversations about culture give way to conversations about service levels. These are the signals that the human connection is thinning.

The art of spotting early warnings lies in listening to both the formal and informal. Data matters, but so do stories. When hallway conversations or exit interviews echo with the same phrases, pay attention. They often describe the shadow side of your preferred pole.

Once you have named the early warnings, bring them into regular discussion. Place them in your reviews or leadership meetings alongside key performance indicators. Ask, “What do our early signals say this month? Are we breathing in or breathing out too long?” This habit trains the organisation to self-correct.

Leaders who learn this kind of listening develop a quieter form of confidence. They no longer need to wait for crisis or complaint. They sense imbalance early enough to act with care. Over time, this attentiveness builds trust. People notice that leadership is responsive, not reactive. The system begins to stabilise because it knows it will be heard before being forced to shout.

AGREE ON BALANCING ACTIONS

If early warning signals tell you when balance is slipping, balancing actions are how you restore rhythm. Every pole has its own way of staying healthy, and each also needs the other to prevent excess. The mistake many teams make is to look for a compromise halfway between the poles. Polarity work is not about compromise; it is about consciously nurturing the benefits of both sides so that neither has to dominate.

Begin by returning to the upsides you identified earlier. Ask, What must we keep doing to sustain this strength? Then turn to the downsides and ask, What small, deliberate actions can keep this from taking over? These balancing actions are not policies or projects; they are habits of attention. They are the disciplines that allow a living system to breathe.

For Insourced HR, the balancing actions are those that keep closeness from becoming insularity. Invite external perspective once or twice a year by bringing in an independent HR consultant to review practices and compare them with industry standards. Encourage HR team members to spend time in other organisations or on short external projects. Exposure keeps thinking flexible. Dedicate time to ask, “What are we not seeing because we are so close to our own culture?” Stay transparent about costs by using external benchmarks to review efficiency.

For Outsourced HR, the balancing actions are those that protect connection and humanity when efficiency begins to take over. Create internal relationship anchors by assigning a small internal liaison group that acts as a bridge between the provider and staff. Invite the external team to hear directly from employees or managers about their experiences. Build flexibility into contracts so that local adaptation is possible. Keep sensitive conversations, such as grievances or restructures, partly in-house to show that leadership remains present even when partners are involved.

Balancing actions are most powerful when they are visible and collective. Publish them, review them, and celebrate them when they work. Encourage teams to notice when an opposite action is due. Over time, this language of rhythm becomes part of the culture.

The deeper work here is ownership. Polarity cannot be managed by policy alone; it needs awareness distributed throughout the system. Everyone should be able to name what healthy balance looks like in their sphere and what small act would restore it. That is the heart of stewardship, not control but collective attentiveness to what keeps the whole alive.

CLARIFY THE HIGHER PURPOSE AND DEEPER FEAR

When a polarity map comes to life, its centre becomes the place of truth. This is where the two poles meet in service of something greater than either on its own. Every polarity has a higher purpose, the benefit of keeping both sides strong, and a deeper fear, the harm that follows when both sides weaken at once.

These two statements transform the map from a technical tool into a leadership compass. They name not only what you are managing, but why it matters. They also bring compassion into the work because they show that the people advocating each side are often trying, in their own way, to serve the same larger good.

Begin by asking two questions:

• If we sustain the best of both poles, what becomes possible for us?
• If we lose balance and both poles fall into their downsides, what becomes at risk?

These questions move the conversation from competition to stewardship.

In the case: When both poles are healthy and balanced, the higher purpose might be described as: To provide HR services that are deeply connected and culturally attuned while also being efficient, expert, and scalable, creating a workplace that is both human and high performing. This captures the aspiration of holding the best of both. Internal HR sustains trust and belonging. External HR brings knowledge, innovation, and rigour. Together they make the organisation stronger, more adaptable, and more caring.

When both poles collapse into their downsides, the deeper fear becomes clear: If we overuse one and neglect the other, we risk having HR that is both disconnected and ineffective, bureaucratic where it should be relational, and improvised where it should be disciplined. That is the shadow side of imbalance: losing both human connection and operational excellence. The very strengths that were meant to support each other begin to cancel each other out.

When the higher purpose and deeper fear are written clearly in the centre of the map, they act as a shared reminder of what is at stake. In moments of disagreement, you can return to them and ask, “Are our choices right now moving us toward our higher purpose or toward our deeper fear?” The higher purpose and deeper fear are not decorations for the middle of the map; they are its heart. They hold the story of what this system is trying to become and what it most dreads becoming. Leaders who keep that story visible give everyone a reason to care about balance that goes beyond process. They make it a matter of identity and possibility.

KEEPINT THE MAP ALIVE

A polarity map is not a document to be filed away after a workshop. It is a living mirror of how your organisation stays healthy over time. Once created, it becomes most valuable when it shapes habits of reflection, dialogue, and review. The goal is not to perfect the map but to use it as a guide for paying attention.

Start by building regular check-ins around it. Choose a rhythm that suits your context, whether quarterly, monthly, or aligned to planning cycles. Begin each review by asking three questions:

1. Which pole have we been leaning toward recently?
2. What early warning signals are appearing?
3. What small balancing actions would restore the rhythm?

In the Insource versus Outsource HR example, imagine that after a quarter focused on outsourcing efficiency, the team begins to hear staff concerns about losing personal touch. The next review could then focus on small adjustments that rebuild connection, such as involving internal HR partners in onboarding or recognition processes.

When the map is used this way, it becomes a shared conversation rather than a checklist. It helps teams notice patterns before they become problems and encourages curiosity instead of blame. People begin to speak the language of balance naturally. Someone might say, “We seem to be leaning heavily on the external side; what can we do to bring back some internal connection?”

It is helpful to revisit the higher purpose and deeper fear during these reviews. They remind everyone why the polarity matters and what is at stake if it is ignored. Over time, this practice builds collective memory. Teams start to anticipate imbalance before it arrives and respond with care rather than reaction.

Keeping the map alive also means sharing it widely. Display it where conversations about strategy, people, or resources happen. Use it to orient new team members. When decisions are made, refer back to it explicitly: “This choice supports our higher purpose by strengthening both sides.” The map is most powerful when treated as a living part of organisational language rather than a static tool.

Finally, allow the map itself to evolve. Contexts change, and so do polarities. As your organisation grows, some poles may shift or need renaming. Return to the map not only when tension arises but also when the system changes shape. In doing so, you keep the practice of balance alive, not just the picture of it.