Should I Stay or Should I go – The Power of Either/Or Thinking

By: Omar Saldana

The Clash’s 1981 song, Should I Stay or Should I Go, presents a dilemma - opposing alternatives where one has to choose between one of them. Either/or thinking is essential for learning and solving problems; it is also our default, natural, or instinctive. Research by Barry Johnson, Wendy Smith, Marianne Lewis, and others propose that there is a better way to think about dilemmas and, in turn, come up with more effective solutions.

Dilemmas are situations where alternative options and demands are in opposition, causing tensions that can feel like an internal tug of war between two poles, where both sides of the polarity are important. A helpful way to think about dilemmas is to understand the paradoxes that underlie them. Paradoxes are interdependent, persistent contradictions where opposing forces are locked in a circular ebb and flow. There are also holistic synergies of competing demands. Opposing forces of paradoxes define and reinforce each other. A ying yang symbol represents the idea that opposite forces can exist in harmony and be interconnected. The small dot of the opposite color in each half symbolizes that each force contains the seed of the other.

While tensions can create defensiveness and destruction, they can also drive creativity and sustainability. Research indicates that to live and thrive, we must embrace the interactions between stability and change, a paradox. Embracing paradoxes is important to solving today’s problems, and once you begin to understand paradoxes, you will start to see them everywhere.

A natural tendency toward Either/Or Thinking

Either/or thinking is essential for learning and solving problems – it is also our default. When we are faced with decisions, think about how often our natural response is an either/or solution. Not only do we feel good about that, but society, our work, friends, and family may admire the speed at which we get to that point. That approach is rewarded. When we experience dilemmas, situations where alternative options and demands cause tensions that feel like an internal tug of war, we default to our either/or approach.

Uncertainty about options and competing demands cause tensions that trigger anxiety. Anxiety is often associated with the body's fight or flight response. This response by our limbic brain is an evolutionary adaptation that prepares the body to react to perceived threats – very useful when our ancestors lived in the wild. When we experience anxiety, our brains and bodies undergo a series of rapid changes – adrenaline and cortisone are released, and blood flow is directed to essential areas like muscles.

With anxiety, we seek stable ground, consistency, and to remove the uncertainty. One way to remove the discomfort of the internal tug of war is to apply binary either/or thinking. Stay or go. We make a decision, remove the uncertainty, and minimize anxiety in the short term. We’ve made our choice. We feel better now, immediate gratification. Cognitively and emotionally, we are more stable for the time being. Isn’t that a good thing?

It may be “good” in the moment - and - you may be giving up things you could have had, so you are missing out. You see, the ways we tend to think (cognition), feel (emotions), and act (behaviors) are self-reinforcing, intensifying our favored side. Our emotional defenses can lead us to reject or reinterpret experiences and information. While we believe we are being objective in considering a dilemma, assumptions inform how we frame problems and responses.

Either/Or thinking and Vicious Cycles

Focusing on one side of a paradox oversimplifies and narrows our options and can trigger “vicious cycles” – the underlying tug of war remains. Smith and Lewis describe three patterns that lead to “vicious cycles” when navigating paradoxes: rabbit holes (intensification), wrecking balls (overcorrection), and trench warfare (polarization).

• Rabbit holes – We get stuck in a rut with our favored side(s) and double down when we feel uncomfortable. Favored and overused ways of responding keep us going back.

  
  

• Wrecking balls – We make an overcorrection from our neglected side of a paradox. Pressure builds – we swing too far to the neglected side and enter a new rabbit hole.

  
  

• Trench warfare – Groups emphasize opposing sides of a paradox and the more we feel challenged by the other side, the more we defend our position, dig in.

  
  

Be aware of mindsets, emotional states, and behaviors that spur these patterns.

Both/And Thinking – A Better Way

Both/and thinking is a supplement to either/or thinking, not a replacement. Some problems can be solved by either/or thinking, but most dilemmas require more. Both/And thinking begins by starting to notice the paradoxes beneath the dilemmas and problems we face. We must then understand the nature of the paradox while also identifying the traps that pull us back to either/or thinking. As an example of a paradox, our company needs to invest in the future while it invests in the products that bring profits today. Those leaning toward profit today may see that we must focus on today; otherwise, there will be no future. Those who believe in investing in the future may feel we have to be planning ahead and not get caught with yesterday’s products or services. The paradox is of exploring new opportunities and exploiting old certainties.

Three conditions increase the visibility of paradoxes: change, scarcity, plurality – a multitude of perspectives. It is better to engage with paradoxes because ignoring them will serve to have them come back stronger. Barry Johnson believes, “Coping with our most challenging problems depends on understanding the messy complex paradoxes.” Roger Martin, author of The Opposable Mind, suggests that humans’ ability to hold opposing ideas in our minds is an evolutionary advantage. With an opposable mind, we can hold two conflicting ideas in constructive tension and “use that tension to think our way through to a new superior idea.” We have seen how vicious cycles can develop. Let’s turn to creating “virtuous cycles.”

Virtuous Cycles

What if, instead of choosing between alternative poles of paradox, we ask ourselves, how can I engage both poles simultaneously? Rather than oppositional, this involves thinking of our options as paradoxical, opposing, and interdependent. Through integrative thinking, we can make more features of a problem evident to increase the potential connections or relationships across competing demands. Critical to integrative thinking is for both sides to be clear on what they need. With a clear understanding of what is truly needed, the problem can be explored further to find an integration. Is it truly the point of initial focus, or is it something else? The possibility with integrative thinking is a synergistic option that accommodates opposing sides simultaneously rather than settling for tradeoffs.

A second way to address dilemmas is to be consistently inconsistent across dilemmas over time, like tacking on a sailboat. These are small either/or choices that constantly move us back and forth between alternative poles, not big either/or choices that risk us getting into a rut. We consider a decision in a broader context rather than limit our thinking to the instant at hand. This may mean that one day you make a decision toward home life, and later in the week you make a decision toward work life, and you leave yourself open to deciding either way the next time you face this dilemma. Over time, this approach makes room for both options. In practice, this second approach, consistent inconsistency, is more commonly used by leaders who may then opportunistically find an instance for integrative thinking.

Dilemmas and navigating paradoxes are not easy. It takes intention of thought, feelings, and behaviors, and it takes time. I imagine some of you saying: “But I don’t have time!” Paradoxes are everywhere, and so the sooner we learn to effectively deal with them, the more time we will have, the more effective and satisfying our decisions will be. How much time will we spend on a similar paradox again and again? Approaches like integrative thinking and micro-shifting become easier and more natural with practice. Using them in combination facilitates coming up with creative approaches to dilemmas. We can find approaches to our dilemmas, and we will still feel tensions of paradoxes. The underlying paradoxes are not solvable.

Tools to Support Both/And Thinking

Being open to more integrative thinking and micro-shifts is easier said than done. Researchers Smith and Lewis have identified four sets of tools that, together, support both/and thinking.

1. Assumptions - beliefs and mindset that allow us to cognitively hold opposing paradoxes at the same time.

   
   

2. Boundaries - structures, practices and people we put in place to support our ability to navigate paradoxes.

   
   

3. Comfort – focus to honor our feelings of discomfort and finding ways to be “comfortable with the discomfort.”

   
   

4. Dynamism – actions that enable continuous learning and change and encourage shifts between competing demands.

   
   

Assumptions are beliefs and a mindset that allow us to cognitively hold opposing paradoxes at the same time. Changing the question from either/or to how can I engage both polarities shifts our view – how we think, influences how we act, and, in time, how we feel about it.

“Both/and thinking assumes the world is contradictory, circular, and dynamic” – 1) there are multiple truths. With a paradox mindset, we are more ready to engage in interdependent contradictions and reexamine our underlying views of knowledge, resources, and problem solving.

A paradox mindset involves 2) assumption of abundance regarding resources. You consider ways to expand the value of resources.

An either/or mindset views problem solving as a search for control. As shared above, paradoxes cannot be resolved – the opposing forces continue. With a paradox mindset, we 3) shift our approach from control to coping. We accept and honor the ambiguity and move forward knowing that we will reconsider our decision. Marianne Lewis speaks of finding a “workable certainty,” having enough clarity to make a decision and continuously learn and adjust. You accept the tensions.

Boundaries are structures, practices, and people we put in place to support our ability to navigate paradoxes.

Linking to 1) Higher purpose, an overarching statement of vision that captures why we do something, can motivate us to embrace tension, connect opposite poles, and align short-term decisions as we focus on the longer term to minimize the short-term pull toward certainty.

To help in 2) Separating and Connecting, structures, roles, and goals help us pull apart opposing demands, appreciate each demand independently, and bring them together to value their interdependence and synergies. Personal goals, times, and locations for each pole help us appreciate each side while looking for valuable synergy.

3) Guardrails help us not veer too far to one of the poles and create constraints. Be consistently inconsistent between opposing demands. Often, at the personal level, guardrails are processes and people that help us see how the poles are separate and connected.

Finding Comfort in Discomfort focuses on honoring our feelings of discomfort and finding ways to be comfortable with the discomfort. Above, I shared that tensions spark anxiety, which can start either/or thinking.

Building in a 1) pause before responding prevents us from moving to either/or thinking (flight) or defending our favored pole (fight), leading us to trench warfare.

2) Accepting the Discomfort. Our natural response to negative emotions is to reject or deny them; however, doing so encourages them to come back even stronger. Accepting and honoring negative emotions allows them to fade. Admitting our struggles can be easier to do with others.

Reaching for positive emotions such as energy, wonder, joy, gratitude, and excitement of uncertainty leads us to 3) broaden our perspective – expand thinking, ideas, and options. This leads us to be more creative in our thinking and generous in our behaviors. Over time, positive emotions can create a virtuous cycle. Awareness of when our negative emotions are taking control and knowing how to access our underlying positive emotions helps us stay on a path to broaden our perspective.

Dynamism includes actions that enable continuous learning and change and encourage shifts between competing demands. It makes us open to new information, allows us to be in ambiguity, and willing to rethink assumptions and decisions. Tools that foster dynamism include:

1) Experimenting with Measured Steps. These are small, frequent, and low-cost steps to test new ideas, learn from feedback, and move forward in uncertainty. You are looking for quick feedback to uncover possible synergies.

2) Enabling Serendipity by putting ourselves in positions to experience or create opportunities. This can be with what, how, where, and with whom we choose to engage.

3) Learning to unlearn by constantly rethinking and changing what we know and be prepared to let go of certainties, the core assumptions that inform the way we think.

Successful people engage all four tools and find that they reinforce each other.

Polarity Partnerships – SMALL model to analyzing Paradoxes

Polarity Partnerships’ SMALL model to analyze paradoxes is similar to the approaches above. Elements that supplement the approaches above include:

• Defining the values of each pole (M - Mapping)

  
  

• Identify the deeper fear and the specific fears associated with each pole (M - Mapping)

  
  

• Unpack the upsides and downsides of each pole (M - Mapping)

  
  

• Evaluate how the upsides and downsides of each pole show up in the current dilemma (E – Evaluate)

  
  

• Ask: What can we do to ensure the upsides of each pole? What can we do to reduce the downsides of each pole? (L - Leverage)

  
  

Specifically identifying values, fears, upsides, and downsides gets to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the poles, facilitating a discussion with well-thought-out perspectives.

Why it Matters

Leaders are working in more ambiguous and demanding environments with what seems like competing agendas. Their education, training, and work experience help solve technical problems – those that have known, perhaps extremely complicated, solutions. There is a roadmap. For technical problems, diagnosis is critical to implementing the right solution. More and more, leaders find themselves in adaptive challenges where there is no roadmap, where challenges are messy and filled with competing demands. Today’s leaders must be able to hold and appreciate multiple, often conflicting, truths and demands. Understanding the paradoxes lurking below these challenges/dilemmas helps individuals lead and take steps more effectively.

For all us, understanding paradoxes can increase our effectiveness, help us address chronic conflict and polarization, and address complex issues without being overwhelmed.

Table 1: Examples of Paradoxes

Candor and Diplomacy	Mission and Money
Centralized and Decentralized	Our Needs and Other People’s Needs
Challenge and Support	Past and Future
Constrictive and Expansive	Planning and Spontaneity
Differentiate and Integrate	Profits and Passion
Core Business and Innovation	Self and Others
Decisive and Considered	Short-term and Long-term
Do Good and Do Well	Separate and Connect
Either/Or and Both/And	Stability and Change
Exploring new opportunities and exploiting old certainties	Task and Relationship
Idealism and Pragmatism	Today and Tomorrow
Individual and Group	Want and Need
Learning and Performing	Work and Life

SZH Consulting: Thinking Beyond the Binary

Navigating dilemmas, paradoxes, and competing demands is no longer optional for today’s leaders and organizations. It requires intention, practice, and the right support to move beyond either or thinking and create sustainable, integrated solutions.

At SZH Consulting, we help leaders and teams apply both and thinking through structured workshops, polarity mapping, leadership coaching, and small scale experiments that turn ongoing tensions into productive, sustainable outcomes. If your organization is navigating complex challenges or repeated tradeoffs, now is the time to act.

Contact SZH Consulting today or reach out to us to start a conversation about how we can help you think differently, decide more effectively, and lead with clarity in complexity.