Both/and not Either/or

The power comes from holding dynamic tensions, not ignoring them

I had two interesting conversations yesterday. Both were with intelligent, left-leaning professionals who are deeply committed to making real positive change happen. One of them has recently discovered the power of building strong personal relationships by doing a lot of “get to know you” coffee meetings with no real agenda. The other was recently turned off by an organization that seemed overly concerned with “building strong personal relationships.”

For my community building friend, the recent discovery has been how the extra time at the beginning yields so many unpredictable benefits later in the relationship. After initially “going through the motions” without a lot of conviction, she has recently seen the fruits of her efforts pay off. Based on her new experience, she is singing the praises like a new convert, offering great advice on how it could improve a project I’m working on.

A few hours later I was talking with a different colleague who was describing her experience with a potential partner. The organization had been recommended by a friend, but when she went to check it out the elaborate contortions to try to create an “inclusive environment” and build community – hyper-PC language, a sliding scale, references to First Nations rituals – raised red flags for her. She was concerned that so much energy would be spent tiptoeing around perceived landmines and fragile identities that no energy would be left to do anything of real value.

I like this juxtaposition. I respect both of my colleagues immensely. They’re both intelligent, experienced and highly skilled. And though they travel in very similar circles and probably look identical using a few key demographics, they seem to be coming from different worlds – one firmly committed to “building community” and “making deep connections,” the other suspicious not of community and connection but of the potential pitfalls of investing so much energy in purposefully trying to create community.

So how do we learn from these conversations? Most people would be tempted to pick a side, usually disparaging the other side in the process. They might claim that my friend who is suspicious of efforts to build community “just doesn't understand” or “needs to be more open to the possibilities.” (She is, by the way, very open-minded with broad experience in community efforts.) Or they might argue that my community building friend needs to be more realistic and more focused on productivity.(She would, by the way, argue that her efforts are more productive because of the community building.) Others would wave the postmodern wand and say they’re both right – different strokes for different folks, que sera sera, etc. I think all these approaches miss the mark. They fail to respect the paradox – that they can both be partially true and contradictory. The trick is to dive deeper to develop a deeper understanding.

Ultimately, the key lies in identifying the dynamic tensions that underlie these experiences then exploring the strengths, weaknesses and potential balance points that the tensions make possible. In this case, we might describe the dynamics as the classic “process vs. product” question or the “task vs. socio-emotional management” issue. The mistake we make too often is to think of dynamic tensions as either/or choices that we have to make: which one is the “right” one and there can only be one.

The reality is that at either extreme, both choices are dysfunctional. Groups that focus only on simplistic productivity tend to have a short half-life. All the interpersonal pressures and problems that are ignored can only be pushed down for so long before they eventually erupt, destroying the group or at the very least undoing most short-term progress. But likewise, overemphasis on process and accommodation can suck up all of the available energy and, ironically, alienate many people who care passionately about making real change happen.

And this is true of every dynamic tension: planning vs. action, big picture vs. detail, short-term vs. long-term, individual vs. group, structure vs. creativity. If you treat any of these dynamic pairs as binary choices, you will pick the wrong one because it’s not either/or, it’s both/and - a matter of degree and balance.

So what’s the solution? First, understand that there is no perfect enduring balance between any two dynamic tensions. The appropriate balance will shift from project to project and even within a given project from time to time. Likewise, it’s unlikely that you will find perfect agreement within the group at any given moment as to the correct balance. There’s bound to be disagreement and if there isn't it means you've probably driven away a bunch of people already.

The most effective thing you can do is simply make the tensions explicit. Recognize them as part and parcel of the work and allow the different perspectives within the group to become part of the conversation. Stop asking either/or questions like “are intentional community building efforts valuable” and start asking balancing questions like “when are community building efforts most useful and when is our energy better spent in other activities?”

Then make the best provisional decision you can for the moment, implement it and include conscious feedback loops and check-in points to learn from experience, revisit the decision, and refine the balance for the next phase.