I similarly have suggested that we must engage Charles Osgood’s triad of threat when reviewing our process of anticipation. Building on Osgood, we determine if specific elements in our environment are working against (blocking) our best interest (a negative valence), are strong, and are active. Moving beyond Osgood, we also identify specific elements that are working on behalf of our best interest (positive valence), are strong and active. Mixed together and interacting, these positive and negative elements comprise our immediate systematic portrayal (“topological map”). Most of this appraisal process aligns with Lewin’s force field analysis; however, I add the level of activity to the analysis alongside strength. I would suggest that one of Lewin’s forces has an impact on our movement toward a goal, not only because they are strong, but also because they are actively involved in the field (rather than remaining passive or inert).
I also consider another factor regarding the elements in an anticipated environment. We must take into account not only valence, strength, and activity, but also the expected duration of each element. Returning to Lewin’s force field analysis, this would mean that consideration is given to the “staying power” of each force. Lewin does take this factor partially into account when he considers the amiability (or vulnerability of each force to being changed. How stable are the positive forces, and can they readily be eliminated or reduced in strength?
How resistant are the negative forces to being eliminated or reduced in strength? In the case of a polystatic analysis, one looks not just at the ‘staying power” of a specific element if subjected to changing conditions, but also more simply to the probability that this element will “hang around” for a while, whether or not pressures of change are impinging on this element. When we are anticipating the environment that we face in the coming moment, we might not have time to assess its “changeability” but we do want to know if it is likely to still be present for some time.
As a coach, we can be of value to our client in helping them engage in a polystatic force field analysis that begins with the identification of an upcoming challenging situation and a desired outcome when facing this challenge. The analysis then turns to identifying positive and negative elements, levels of strength and activity, and, finally, the anticipated duration of each major element. With this cognitively based analysis in hand (and mind), one’s client is prepared to make appropriate and accurate appraisals of the actual environment in which they are about to operate. Their anticipations are likely to be reliant on these appraisals rather than the inevitable emotional biases the client holds when preparing to face the challenge.
Let me offer a brief example, based on a real coaching engagement I had with a religious client (with some of the facts being slightly modified to preserve anonymity). This client was a liberal Rabbi who was about to make a presentation at a meeting with other leaders of his particular Judaic persuasion. He was going to propose some modifications in Jewish dietary restrictions—a big deal! He anticipated major opposition to his proposal and knew that he would be entering this meeting with a heart filled with both conviction and fear.
Download Article
