Both/And Rather Than Either/Or
Many of those involved in reflecting on the nature of Trust, tend to focus on only one of the two polarities. They can be “homers” who wax poetic and nostalgic about the establishment of Trust in a home. We should remember what it is like to be wanted and to care for others. We should “try to remember” those precious moments – “and follow, follow, follow . . .” Instead, those who focus on Trust can be “questers.” They encourage us to get up off our couch and embark on a journey. We should follow our bliss or reply on the “force” to guide and propel us through extraordinary ventures into the unknown. The tension between these polarities is great. As I have noted, the embrace of both polarities yields the vibrance to be found in the Essence of Trust (as well as other forms of Essence).
We will frame our analysis around these two polar-opposite stances and begin by identifying some of the benefits and disadvantages associated with each of these images of Trust. These benefits and disadvantages lead us away from the horizontal dimension of a polarity to a vertical dimension.
Both Positive and Negative Valence Rather Than Only Positive or Negative Valence
There is a strong tendency for all of us (especially under conditions of stress) to focus only on the positive side of the ledger—and usually on the positive aspects of only one option (polarity). We might turn to the negative side of the opposing option but are unlikely to give much consideration to the negative side of our favored option. We over-praise, over-sell and over-commit to our favored option. This often leads to surprise, disappointment and abandonment of our favored option once it is actually enacted—see my own essay on the Change Curve (Bergquist, 2014).
Barry Johnson is pushing us to look both left and right when not only crossing a busy intersection but also when seeking to manage a specific polarity. It seems that there are “goodies” to be discovered on both sides of a polarity. Many years ago, the architects of Synectics and spectrum analysis (Gordon, 1961) proposed that there are good ideas buried in any proposal being made in a Synectics group. I suspect that Johnson would offer a similar proposal regarding both sides of a polarity.
Furthermore, any idea that is at all specific will have its own downside. Not even “apple pie” is all good. We may find bits of an apple’s core in our “apple pie” and our pie is inclined to rot a bit when sitting out for too long a period of time. Statements regarding those things or events that are all good often end up being nothing more than tautologies. They reside only a short distance from: “Goodness is a good thing!” Or “Great ideas are inevitably great!” We don’t have to be eternal pessimists or grumbling curmudgeons to recognize that there are always concerning matters to be addressed when considering any idea. This perspective relates to what behavior scientists have described as the premortem assessment of what might go wrong in the implementation of any initiative (Kahneman, 2011; Bergquist, 2014).
Download Article 1K Club
