We learn from our mistakes

Why do we like to divide the world in two? Strategies for managing complexity in organisations

Binary thinking no longer works in complex organisations

20 August 2025

3' min read

We have grown up with the idea that, when faced with a crossroads, one must choose: either one side or the other. Our way of thinking adores extremes, finds them reassuring - and so we machete our view of the world. We want to distinguish, always and everywhere: the good from the bad, the right from the wrong. We label what is white and what is black, missing nuances and nuances.

And when we move from the individual to the organisational sphere, the refrain is very similar: either grow or protect who you are. Either decentralise or maintain control. Either chase profit or choose sustainability.

This way of thinking - simple, linear, reassuring - has accompanied us for a long time. But today, as we often remind ourselves in this column, organisations face not only complicated problems, but complex challenges. The difference is not only semantic: in the 'complex' there are variables that influence each other, tensions that cannot be resolved but must be crossed. And when reality is made up of ambivalences and paradoxes, 'either-or' thinking becomes a trap.

Wendy Smith and Marianne Lewis, in their excellent book Both/And Thinking, propose a different approach: do not choose between A or B, but try to keep A and B together. Look for solutions that do not exclude, but integrate. Integrative thinking - defined by Roger Martin and further explored by Smith and Lewis - is the ability to hold seemingly opposing elements together, without forcing them into a compromise, but seeking something new that embraces them both.

It is not about cutting the cake in two, but about inventing a different cake. It is a sophisticated skill, mixing self-management and leadership: it requires tolerance of ambiguity, the ability to see from multiple perspectives and the courage to decide even without having all the certainties.

As we said, organisations today are faced with an increasing and changing number of paradoxes. Smith and Lewis identify four main types:

1. Belonging

How do we stay true to who we are, without closing ourselves off to change?

We all want to feel included, but at the same time unique and not standardised.

2. Learning

How can we value what we know, while opening ourselves to what we do not yet know?

It is the paradox of the expert: the more I know, the less I can discover. As an organisation, should I focus on deepening my area of expertise or invest in exploring new frontiers?

3. Organisation

How to create solid structures that remain flexible?

We want security of processes, procedures and rules, but we need agility, adaptability and flexibility.

4. Performance

How can we perform in the short term without compromising the long-term future?

We are asked to deliver results on an almost daily basis, we are measured every quarterly, but at the same time we have to build 10-year (and beyond) development plans.

How can we navigate these paradoxes? There are no certain routes, but four good directions:

1. Naming the paradox

Recognising it is the first step. Discomfort often arises from not understanding what is happening to us. Naming it helps to make it visible, to get to the bottom of the two poles in tension and to create a shared language within the team or organisation.

2. Connecting tensions to a greater purpose

When the paradox is connected to a meaningful vision - one that goes beyond the immediate - it becomes easier to accept its ambivalence. It is not a sterile contradiction, but a creative tension that drives us towards an important goal.

3. Building flexible frameworks, but with clear boundaries

We do not need anarchy to accommodate complexity. We need spaces where we can experiment, confront ourselves, question certainties - but within well-defined guardrails that offer direction and security.

4. Cultivating a culture of constructive confrontation

The quality of thought comes from the quality of dialogue. When people feel free to bring different points of view, without the fear of having to take sides immediately, then paradox does not divide: it enriches. Inclusion to stimulate creativity.

Training integrative thinking means changing perspective. Moving from looking for the right answer to exploring better, generative and powerful questions. Accepting that coherence, in a complex world, is not rigidity but conscious flexibility.

The future of management does not belong to those who can only choose between A and B, but to those who can imagine a third way. Richer, more inclusive, more sustainable. And has the courage to walk it and support others in doing the same.

*Consultant Newton Spa