It sounds strange but we do need resistance if we want to change. Resistance is that force which pushes against moving ahead. Yet without resistance we will unlikely go forward. Positive resistance to change uses force to propel us forward, negative resistance to change uses force to push us back or hold us in a place where we don't move forward or backward. During the change process there is always force to push us forward and counter force to push us backward or to remain in a static position.
Whenever we problem solve we also experience force and counter force, because solving problems is all about change. A problem is usually something that gets us stuck in time and somehow we need to resolve it in order to move forward. When we attempt to resolve problems we often use "push" force to move forward and when there is resistance, a counter force or push back, we attempt to remove the resistance by more push force. This pushing may erupt into physical clashes or angry outbursts. Great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, based on Gandhi's example, changed the resistant dynamic by countering physical push force with peaceful "pull" force. Our sphere of influence isn’t like that of Gandhi or King, but it is important none the less. Most of us are wrapped up in small to medium size businesses or organizations where people often resist change. Resistance to change plays out when a new leader enters an organization with a different vision for its success than the prevailing one; or when there is a slump in the marketplace and drastic change strategies are needed for the business to survive; or when an organization's Board gives direction to shake up the organization because in its view the organization is stagnant, atrophied or no longer meets current market place realities. One approach to resistance is the use of "dictatorial" push force. In such instances we hear statements, often based on fear tactics, that go something like this: "you better change or you no longer work here," or, "let's move resisters to innocuous positions," or, "let's make things as uncomfortable as possible so that people leave." This method is based on dual thinking: it's "my way or the highway." In essence it's an either-or proposition. There's no third way - there's no breakthrough thinking about alternative ways to deal with resistance. It appears from a distance that this type of dictatorial force is emerging within in the Trump administration. The same "push" force is experienced in smaller organizations where employees are displaced or moved out in an undignified manner. In these situations I have even heard language similar to that used in war such as, "they are casualties" or "we have a lot of collateral damage." There may be times, however, when the force of "push" is necessary. In these circumstances "push" methods should maintain the dignity and respect of those being pushed while at the same time maintain the integrity and ethical standards of those doing the pushing. One CEO I know calls this "benevolent" force. In a previous article I suggested that the skills for breakthrough thinking as it pertains to problem solving include empathetic listening, patience and dialogue. These same skill sets are also key to implementing "pull" strategies. My preferred approach views resistance as an opportunity to find a third path arising not as an either/or choice, but as a way to resolve the problem using a balanced push-pull force. A balanced approach suggests combining the "benevolent push" force with the "pull" force ,or, using them in "tandem." However, there are situations when it's best to use the forces separately. In other words, I mostly "pull", other times I benevolently "push" and still others I use "push-pull" forces in tandem. Moving through resistance in this way isn't easy but it does generate positive engagement and buy-in from those affected with far fewer "casualties," while at the same time supports the dignity, respect and integrity of everyone involved. Questions to ponder: Do you understand "push" and "pull" as methods of "force" when dealing with resistance? What is your experience regarding "push" and "pull" forces when you encounter resistance in resolving organizational or personal problems? Should we use "push" and "pull" methods deferentially? Are there times when "push" should be the preferred method of force? If so, how should we use it? Let me know what you think.
0 Comments
Many years ago, I learned that we solve problems not by focusing on opposites but by finding opportunities for breakthrough solutions. We often think in two-way or duality terms such as an "I'm right, your wrong mentality." One solution to this dual thinking is to pose a win-win solution. That somewhere between the two positions there must be a middle. The result usually means each gives up something to obtain a resolution, and in finding that resolution each loses something in the transaction. The other solution to the win-win scenario is win-lose, or lose-lose. I win, you lose or we both lose. In these situations, we go head to head and negotiate a middle ground, lose, win or walk away.
Win-win, win-lose, lose-lose are strategies where people often leave the situation feeling unsettled. They give up something to gain something, or don't give up at all. In a breakthrough resolution approach, we are not thinking with a win-win mentality, we are thinking opportunity, something new, a third dimension or a new creative outcome. For breakthrough solutions to reach full fruition dialogue, collaboration, empathetic listening and transparency of thought are necessary. Finding breakthrough solutions belies the more conventional approach of individual competitiveness. Rather than competing, a breakthrough approach relies on mutuality and collaborative effort. The process of coming to a solution each empowers the other. In this way, a solution benefits both while at the same time expresses something new. A new entity arises from the two positions but different from them. If we can resolve problems using this method perhaps we can begin to transform injustices in our workplaces, engender greater respect for each other, strengthen mutual high regard, and in the end, find more enduring solutions. To become "breakthrough" champions we need to learn how to become less selfish and egotistical, or another way of putting it, we will need to learn how to become more adult in our approach and less of the righteous and petulant adolescent. One of the keys to breakthrough thinking is to blank out the way we usually solve problems. Rather than framing a situation from one's point of view as a position to defend we suspend all judgement and approach it with new set of lenses. We look for mutual opportunity without the resistance of personal positioning. Does this mean we suspend our experience? After all, we are who we are based on our experience - it forms our world view about how we approach others and our problems. The short answer is no. It is how we frame the situation and our response that becomes the basis of our breakthrough. An example of this often occurs in meetings when people say such things as 'this is the way we handled this issue in the past," or "we tried that back in 2002, and it didn't work." This is not breakthrough thinking, this is rear view mirror thinking. Breakthrough thinking draws on our experience without specific reference to the past and looks for new opportunities in the present that will lead to a better outcome in the future. Too many good solutions get shelved because people shut off the flow of creative thinking by dwelling on the past rather than using that experience to explore opportunities which lead to solving today's problems. When we seek a breakthrough solution we don't think in dualistic terms such as right and wrong, black and white, this way or that way, but rather in triangular or ternary terms. What flows from this and that, black and white, right and wrong, past and future, produces a third opportunity. What flows from black and white is gray, neither black nor white; what flows from right and wrong is situational choice based on conscientious discernment, and what flows from past and leads to the future is the wisdom of the present. Each is a distinct entity different and unique from the other, but flows from the energy of the two to make a third opportunity or result. At times breakthrough thinking seems to come from a force outside ourselves. It is one of those "ah, ah moments," where a bolt of creativity strikes, and we ask, "where did that come from?" It presents itself not in dualistic terms but as something new and fresh. It may be a result of our subconscious working on the issue, or may be a force beyond ourselves, which many refer to as their Spiritual Source. It is Archimedes in the bathtub or Mary in the last meeting who said, " I just had a unique idea that I think will break our log jam." It is not easy to arrive at a breakthrough because we seem to be wired to think in opposites and defend our positions rather than seek a third, different course. It takes discipline, energy, collaborative effort and a mutual commitment to go beyond our present world view. Let's take a couple of typical examples from my own consulting practice:
One of the challenges with breakthrough solutions is that it leads to change because the solution is different from what exists; and this is the rub, because people are often resistant to change (see articles on change). However, if they are engaged in finding a breakthrough the change is embraced as a natural flow from the solution; if they are not engaged then preparatory work is necessary. An edict will not work but a process of open communication, encouragement, empathetic listening and engagement from the ground up will. What to do: Breakthrough solutions are not always easy, nor are they always possible. However, if we strive in good faith to seek solutions outside of our constricted thinking we may discover better solutions, or at least be clearer about the problem at hand and possible opportunities they present. In any event when approaching breakthrough solutions: Be calm. Remain neutral. Keep ego in check. Suspend judgement. Be open to all possibilities. Listen deeply and empathetically Communicate and collaborate openly. Wait for, and discover together, the "Ah!Ah!" moment. Prepare self through meditation and work with others unselfishly. Think opportunity, not in dualistic terms but in third-way and creative terms. |
Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|