Written by Taylere Markewich, PhD and Neil Jacobs, CPsychol, AFBPsS
Tibetan-Buddhism promotes a mindset of “not too tight, not too loose” for living one’s life[1]. That is, not to be so rigid in engaging the world that you cut yourself off from surrounding people and events, but not so loose that you embrace every experience without discernment and attention to real threats in the environment. Instead, the goal is to find a balanced approach through cultivating self-awareness, taking wise action, and navigating the world effectively to foster connection and community. This concept of a balance mindset can be applied to understanding the ways we construct communities.
Historically in the United States, community building has struggled to find the balance between not too tight, not too loose. The 1960s and 70s saw the rise of communes, or intentional communities as they are better known today. They were formed for a range of specific purposes, including sexual freedom, avoiding the draft into the Vietnam War, or living outside other societal norms. People were responsible to one another in supporting day-to-day activities, including raising children. Yet these communities commonly failed over time, mainly due to a lack of leadership but also because people prioritized their individual interests over establishing processes for living together effectively. Pursuing personal freedom while resisting structured leadership or processes led to a nebulous social experience for many. Some were left feeling unmoored, traumatized, and/or unable to sustain relationships[2]. This experience of openness without order can be termed a “too loose” approach to community building.
Following the popularity of intentional communities came the rise of gated communities in the 80s, stemming from what some termed a fortress mentality. Gated communities are housing developments defined by surrounding walls, gates, and 24/7 security. They gained popularity due to increasing politicized fears that crime, violence, and social degradation were spreading from cities into the suburbs, risking safety and quality of life. While these fears were unsubstantiated, the consequences of the fortress mentality were substantial. Those residing in gated communities were fortified in their sense of the world being unsafe and reported feeling less of a sense of community with their neighbors than those living outside of gated communities. Those outside lost economic opportunities and access to public spaces[3]. The gated approach to community building can be considered too tight due to the resulting increase in isolation and decreased opportunities for community involvement.
The struggle to find the just right sense of community continues today. The too tight solutions are exemplified in residential developments such as the California Freedom project in Solano County[4], or City Campus[5] in San Francisco, whose tag line is “life belonging, emotional resonance, and safety.” These community solutions create borders between neighbors without any solution for sustaining connection with outsiders. Included in the too loose category are for-profit community centers focused on solving the isolation epidemic by creating environments where people can gather and focus on self-development and wellness[6]. These services fall short on how to connect one’s sense of growth with the collective interests of the group or outside communities.
Businesses are also struggling to find the balance of attending to individual and collective interest, especially when it comes to constructing a hybrid workplace. Attempting to sustain teamwork while also providing individuals the freedom to work remotely has been unsuccessful and has inhibited costs efficiencies, productivity, and employee loyalty and well-being. For example, employees given remote work flexibility tend to be more productive than their in-office colleagues. At the same time, these same individuals tend to struggle more with feelings of anger and stress than their non-remote coworkers. Also, employees’ engagement levels and quitting risks are dependent on the degree their preferences align (or do not align) with the hybrid policy of the company they work for[7]. Lastly, coordinating with colleagues in a hybrid workplace have increased costs and decreased experiences of impactful collaboration across business, known as the coordination tax[8]. Connecting people in this new era of the workplace requires a not too tight, not too loose solution, as it seems that fostering a collective community of dispersed workers does not happen organically over time via processes of trial and error[9].
The same can be said for leaders and their professional development. Today, many business leaders are under the pressures of performing for today and transforming organizations for tomorrow. To address this need, numerous businesses invest in leadership development programs to increase the capabilities of senior managers and leaders[10]. Yet many individuals struggle to connect what they learn in these programs to their day-to-day activities as a leader. Additionally, companies do not take enough action to ensure that the new skills and capabilities are aligned with the values and reward systems within their organizations. As a result, leaders can be somewhat apprehensive to try new behaviors for fear of acting counter to the culture of their work climate.[11]
In a critique of the City Campus project one person noted that you do not build communities by putting up walls or focusing solely on individual needs, but instead, “You build communities by creating conditions that foster them. [12]” So how are these conditions created? From the examples described here, we can conclude a balanced approach is needed. We need to foster individual growth while providing guidance on leveraging self-understanding to navigate and contribute to the surrounding larger community with wise discernment.
The Collective is a group learning program that has been designed with this understanding in mind. The Collective helps executives cultivate self-awareness through reflection, professional guidance, and peer interactions, and fortifies participants’ capacity to navigate and thrive wisely in professional, personal, and local communities alike. That is, cultivate and utilize a not too tight, not too loose mindset in their professional and interpersonal pursuits. If you want to learn and thrive as a leader in your community with like-minded professionals, email info@thecollectivesessions.com to receive a FAQ brochure about The Collective and to register for a free information session about our upcoming program.
[1] Wisdom of Not Escape (1991), by Pema Chodron. Shambhala Press.
[2] Utopian Struggle: Preconceptions and Realities of Intentional Communities (2012) by Bill Metcalf, RCC Perspectives, No.8
[3] Members Only: Gated Communities and Residential Segregation in the Metropolitan United States (2008) by Elena Vesselinov, Sociol Forum, 23(3), pp536-555
[4] Tech-billionaires Promise of a New City (2024) by Levi Sumagaysay and Ben Christopher, Cal Matters (2.22.24)
[5] These Tech Workers Want to Build a Co-Living ‘Campus’…(2024) by Laura Waxmann, SF Chronical (5.3.24)
[6] Can You Solve Loneliness? These Startups Are Betting On It (2024) by Chavie Lieber, WSJ Magazine (2.20.24)
[7] Research: Flexible Work Is Having a Mixed Impact on Employee Well-Being and Productivity (2023) by Jeremie Brecheisen, Harvard Business Review (10.16.23)
[8] The ‘Coordination Tax’ at Work Is Wearing Us Down (2024) by Ray A. Smith & Anne Marie Chaker, WSJ (6.16.24)
[9] Research: Flexible Work Is Having a Mixed Impact on Employee Well-Being and Productivity (2023) by Jeremie Brecheisen, Harvard Business Review (10.16.23)
[10] How Leaders Can Balance the Needs to Perform and to Transform (2022) by Bill Taylor, Harvard Business Review (1.10.22)
[11] Don’t Let Your Company’s Culture Stifle Leadership Development (2023) by Joel Constable, Harvard Business Review (8.3.23).
[12] These Tech Workers Want to Build a Co-Living ‘Campus’…(2024) by Laura Waxmann, SF Chronical (5.3.24)
