Imagine you’re on a committee tasked with leading a reorganization. After some initial progress, you sense that things are starting to stall. Key decisions keep being delayed, the pros and cons list feels endless, and some team leaders seem to be digging in their heels. In response, the sponsor has asked a facilitator to support your next meeting, hoping to help everyone get unstuck and move forward.

The facilitator’s approach is to create a dialogue between two groups with seemingly different priorities. You’ll listen deeply to each group’s concerns and needs, then brainstorm options that aim to accommodate everyone’s interests. So far, this sounds promising.

To keep things organized, the facilitator names one group “Big Picture” and the other “In The Weeds.”

What do you notice when you read this?

When I first heard this story, I felt that something was off. Perhaps you noticed, too, that the names for the two groups aren’t equally positive or neutral. The framing can imply “visionaries” (+) versus “hair-splitters” (-). This setup risks frustrating or alienating those in the “In The Weeds” group. In practice, the conversation did indeed start on the wrong foot, deepening the existing tension rather than transforming it into something productive. Some participants even resisted moving forward.

What Happened?

The facilitator accurately sensed that there was tension between two perspectives that ultimately needed each other for success. In situations like this, each side often frames its preference positively and views the “other side” through a negative lens. We might hear terms like “Big Picture” versus “Nit-picky” from one group, and “Grounded in Reality” versus “In the Clouds” from the other. This framing reinforces the feeling of being stuck rather than creating a bridge between the perspectives.

Often, what’s at play are opposing yet interdependent values—perhaps even more than one pair of these at the same time. When a facilitator narrows the options too quickly or unilaterally selects which one to explore, it can lead to resistance. People may feel unrepresented or that they lack influence in the process.

Another factor is the neutrality of the facilitator. Whether they’re an internal or external facilitator, they might unconsciously align with one perspective, especially if it reflects their own values. This bias can further complicate the dynamics.

There’s likely more going on than we’re unpacking here. For example, what role is the sponsor playing in convening the group? How might past experiences be influencing the current dynamics? And in what ways might participants’ sense of identity be bound up in this feeling of being stuck?

Improving the Odds

If you want to work productively with team tensions, it’s important to ensure that the “poles” are framed in positive or neutral terms. Avoid setting up a “versus” dynamic; consider using “AND” or the “&” symbol instead.

In this story, the facilitator could have invited the group to create positive labels for both poles by asking questions like:

• What’s the positive opposite of “Big Picture”?
• When someone is “In the Weeds,” what valuable quality might they be expressing?

It’s also helpful to surface several possible polarities that may be at play and allow the group to prioritize which ones to explore through a few rounds of voting. In our example, these might include:

• Focus on Big Picture AND Ensure a Robust Process
• Move Fast AND Be Inclusive
• Get it Right AND Try it Out
• Direct AND Empower
• Have Structure AND Remain Flexible

Seeing initial polarization isn’t necessarily a bad thing, per se. In fact, it can help the whole group observe how this polarization occurs and understand its impact on how people respond to one another.

Going it alone as a facilitator can be tricky, especially with larger groups. Having a colleague with “trained ears” to test out ideas and proposals with—sometimes even in front of the group—can be invaluable.

Another way to improve the odds of success is to explore inherent tensions from the beginning of an initiative. Practices like Polarity Mapping (see video) can help normalize and even embrace the energy in these polarities. This practice gives teams a shared language and a visual reference to recognize when they’re getting stuck (they will!) and to make small adjustments that rebalance their collaboration.

Next Steps

While polarity management may not be THE solution to every complex challenge, applying some of these principles could have helped the committee in our story remain focused, avoid blame, and work together on a more productive both-and approach.

Polarity management is a powerful systemic practice that leaders and facilitators can learn quickly. Let us know if you’d like some support to introduce it to your team or organization.