فصل دهم بخش دوم

One of my very first experiences took place when our firm needed to film a genuine, real-life, spontaneous experience that taught synergy for a product we were creating. So I decided to use one of my live seminars. I chose a highly charged subject, the environment, and invited two people in the audience to come up and join me on the stage: a woman who was a strong, convinced, passionate environmentalist (a real Greener), and a strong, convinced, passionate businessman who uses natural resources for economic purposes in his business. They never shook hands. (Even professional boxers touch gloves.) She even attacked him on her way up to the stage, saying, “It is your ilk that has messed up our air, our water, and our kids’ futures.” Then he looked at her shoes and said, “Nice shoes. Are they leather?” She looked down and then back at him and responded, “What’s that got to do with it?” He retorted, “I just wonder what animal you killed.” She answered, “I don’t kill animals!” He responded, “Oh, you had others do the killing for you?!” That was the beginning of the communication.

Forty-five minutes later, after going through the two steps, they both were arguing for sustainable development policies at the corporate and government levels. The audience was totally amazed.

Whenever you teach the first step would you be willing to search for a solution that is better than what either one of you have brought to the table? people inevitably say, as did these two, “I don’t know what it would be” or “I’ve spent years on this matter, and I have strong convictions. ” So you acknowledge, “That’s right. No one knows what it will be; it has to be created together. The question is, would you be willing to search for such a solution?”

They usually respond, “I will not compromise!”

You answer, “Of course not. Synergy is not compromise. It must be a better solution—you must know it, the other must know it, and you both must know that you both know it no compromise.”

“Oh, I don’t know where we go from here.”

“You go to step two. But no one can make their point until they restate the other person’s point to his or her satisfaction.” Now that is the test. It is tremendously challenging for people who have endlessly argued for one position to genuinely listen to another person, because unless they listen to another person and restate to his or her satisfaction, they can’t make their point. It’s the ticket of admission.

I did this once in a university setting on the subject of abortion, bringing a pro-life person and a pro-choice person up front. Both felt morally committed to their positions. I took them through the two steps in front of over four hundred people, including an entire MBA class, and many faculty and invited guests. Again, after about forty minutes of going through the two steps slowly, they both began to talk about prevention, adoption and education. The whole nature of the discussion had changed. The audience was mesmerized. Tears filled the two participants’ eyes.

I asked them why this was so emotional. It wasn’t because of the issue at all. It was simply because they were ashamed of the way they had categorically judged and condemned and stereotyped, even demonized, everyone who thought differently on this issue. By listening genuinely and deeply they came to realize, “This is a good person. I like this person; I respect this person. I don’t agree with this person’s opinions, but I am willing to listen; I am open.” To watch minds become open and hearts become softened and positions melt into a higher, synergistic Third Alternative is a thrilling experience.

These two steps don’t always work simply because people won’t always apply them. I was once in Washington with the Young Presidents Organization teaching this material, and I invited the president of the National Education Association (NEA) and the head person behind the voucher movement in California to come up and go through the two steps. Begrudgingly, they went through the first one, both saying they had no idea what they would find in the search and that they would not compromise.

When it came to the second step of having to restate to the other’s satisfaction, they attempted, then caved in. They were very defensive and then even became hostile, calling one another names, including describing each other’s parents. The audience literally dismissed them. They were their invited guests, and they were dismissed because they failed to serve the purpose of the conference. Then the audience became synergistic. These were parents who genuinely cared, who were aware that it was a very complex issue, that you couldn’t make sweeping generalizations and that you needed to have deeper understanding. The audience became more and more creative about how to strengthen the education system including the degree to which the market could be brought into education in some settings and what to do in those settings where it would be very difficult and even counterproductive.

I have done this many, many times on business issues. I ask my clients, “What issue seems to divide your culture one that’s almost a non-discussible?” Usually they are hesitant, but eventually they come forth with it. I ask them, “Well, could we use that as an example in producing synergy, a third alternative?” They usually say, “Oh, it’s too tender, too difficult I don’t know how it could be done.” I explain the process and the two steps. Then I assure them that if there is enough sincerity and moral authority in the group, which expects sincerity and genuine effort toward practicing the two points, it would give them one of the most powerful experiences their organization could ever have not only in solving the issue but also, more importantly, in developing an immune system inside the culture that would enable them to do the same thing on any issue that comes along.

I WAS WITH a group of health care professionals once that included trustees, executives, administrators and many of the physicians. The issue to be debated one that had been fought over for many months was the use of outside physicians. The medical director was the spokesman for one side, the CEO for the other. In front of about a hundred people, I took them slowly through the two steps. They produced a Third Alternative that both were absolutely enthusiastic about not just because they liked it better than the present arrangement or what either had proposed but also because it was so healing and bonding to their relationship.

I was working with a group of insurance people in Cancun, Mexico, at one of their big international conferences. I was asked to speak on cultural transformation through principle-centered leadership. After sensing the mood of the groups how artificial their communication on substantive issues was, how polarized the front office was from the general managers in the field and the general managers were from the producing agents, I decided to bag my prepared speech. Instead, I decided to help them see how serious this cultural malaise was and the impact it was having on their business and their customers.

So I took the one question, Who owns the customer? and had two people from each of the three groups—headquarters people, general managers and producing agents—come up in front of the entire assembly. Each in turn gave the reasons why they own the customer. The producing agents claimed that they found the customer, had the relationship, and sold the customer. The general managers looked with disdain on that reasoning and said, “We are the ones that have to service these people over time. You can walk. We can’t. We have to stay and represent our products and the fulfillment of our promises.” The headquarters executives looked with disdain upon both groups, saying essentially, “You people are clueless. Who developed the products? Who fulfills on the products? Who has set up the whole institutionalized system to make our business run?” Thereafter it became obvious to everybody how sick the culture had become no one group owned the customer but the customer owned himself or herself and that unless they got their act together, they would not be able to get and keep customers. The experience was humbling to them and made them very open to going through the two steps of producing a synergistic Third Alternative.

One time I received a phone call from the president of a company to ask if I would help resolve a very costly, protracted lawsuit with a major client customer. The client was suing the company for lack of performance against their understanding of agreed-upon criteria. I knew this president well. He had been trained in the material I teach but felt a lack of confidence in his ability to apply it. I told him he didn’t need me; he could do it by himself. So I retaught the material to him over the phone and got him to read the material I had given him earlier. He was very hesitant and fearful. But after my reaffirming him very strongly, he agreed to do it on his own.

He called up the president of the suing company and suggested they meet for lunch. The other president said, “There’s no need. Let’s let the legal process carry itself out,” probably thinking that the calling president was ready to settle, compromise or play softball. He decided to stick to his hardball tactics and turned down the luncheon invitation.

So my friend told him what he was trying to do and why. He told him about the two steps and also told him that, though he would not have his own attorney come, he, the other president, could bring his attorney and say nothing if the attorney counseled him not to. This way he would avoid the risk of compromising himself in some way in the court of law. He again said, “What have you got to lose an hour or two? It has already cost our two companies many tens of thousands of dollars, and we’re just beginning the process.” On that basis, the other president agreed to meet and to bring his attorney.

With the three of them in the room and two flipcharts, my friend said, “First I want to see if I understand your position in this suit,” and he restated it as completely and fully as he possibly could. After a few minutes he said, “Do you feel I have a correct understanding? Has this been correct and fair?” The other president said, “Yes, except for two points.” His attorney interrupted him and suggested he say no more. But this president, sensing there was genuine movement here and true sincerity in the effort, basically told his attorney to shut up, and he opened up those two points. My friend wrote them down on the flipchart. And again he asked, “Do you feel like I understand? Is there anything else you want me to understand? Has anything been omitted?” The other president said, “No, I feel you understand.” And then my friend said, “Could I ask you to listen to me as I have attempted to listen to you? Would that be fair?” What essentially happened was that the first point that is, searching for the Third Alternative emerged through their attempting to understand each other. The motivation to solve the problem emerged. And not only did they settle in a way that deeply satisfied both of them but they also continued their relationship. Their remaining struggle was to figure out how they were going to communicate their desire to continue this business relationship to two cultures that had coalesced around their fight and opposition with one another.

The main point is that people can do this on their own; they don’t need a third-party facilitator. It takes the ability to be a participant and an observer or third-party facilitator at the same time. This takes a lot of mental and emotional discipline, but if you have faith in the principles and sufficient internal courage and integrity, you can do it.

Sometimes the nature of a Third Alternative may appear to be a compromise that one or both gave in a little. But this isn’t necessarily so. It could be that the key thing had not been the issue at all: what became the most important element was the quality of the relationship, the depth of the understanding, or the alteration of the motivation. I remember a colleague once sharing with me the story of his father and mother. It beautifully illustrates this point: My father had been a superb dentist for thirty years when he was diagnosed with amyloidosis, a rare disease similar to cancer. The doctors gave him six months to live. Because of the effects of the disease, he had to give up his practice. So, here sits this man who had always been extremely active, with nothing to do all day except think about his fatal disease.

He decided he wanted to take his mind off things by putting a greenhouse in the backyard, where he could grow his favorite plants. This wouldn’t be a fancy glass greenhouse that you see behind Victorian mansions. This would be one of those kit greenhouses complete with corrugated plastic for a roof and black plastic sides. My mother didn’t want that monstrosity in her yard. She said she would die if the neighbors saw it. The g-word topic got to the point where they couldn’t speak civilly to each other about it. I think the issue became the site of all their redirected anger about the disease.

One day my mom told me she was thinking about really trying to understand my father’s point of view. She wanted to resolve this situation so that both could be happy. She knew she didn’t want a greenhouse in her backyard. She’d rather have morning glory in all her perennial flowerbeds than that greenhouse. But she also knew she wanted my father to be happy and productive. She decided to step back and let him do it. She decided that my dad’s happiness meant more to her than either the backyard or the neighbors.

As it turns out, that greenhouse kept my dad going long after the doctors had given up on him. He lived for two and a half more years. At night, when he couldn’t sleep because of the chemotherapy, he went out to the greenhouse to see how his plants were doing. In the morning, watering those plants gave him a reason to get up. His greenhouse gave him work to do, something else to concentrate on while his body collapsed on him. I remember my mom commenting that supporting my dad’s desire to build the greenhouse was one of the wisest things she had ever done.

Initially, the greenhouse was a “lose” to my colleague’s mother until she subordinated her initial desires to her greater desire for her husband’s happiness and welfare. This teaches that when you understand someone, you redefine what win-win is. Nevertheless, had she not initially felt enough respect to want to understand what was important to her husband, she wouldn’t have made the shift.

Interestingly, the synergy that resulted was not a Third Alternative solution, it was a Third Alternative attitude. The first alternative was to not have the greenhouse. The second alternative was to let him have the greenhouse grudgingly. The Third Alternative was to truly understand him, to cheerfully and lovingly find her happiness in his satisfaction at having the greenhouse. This is often the way synergy works. An outside observer might say it was a compromise, but if you were to talk to this woman she would surely deny that she was compromising herself. She fulfilled herself in her husband’s happiness and well-being. Such attitudinal synergy is a magnificent expression of mature love.

Most transactions between people end in compromise, win-lose, or lose-win. But Third Alternative solutions whether they be in substance, in spirit, or in simply achieving mutual respect and understanding without any agreement at all are illustrations of transformation. That is, people have been changed, they have become more open in their hearts and minds, they have learned and listened, they see things in new, fresh ways they have been transformed. The following diagram illustrates the contrast between transactional and transformational solutions.

I am convinced that most disputes could be prevented and solved through synergistic Third Alternative communication. Suing and “the law” should be used as the court of last resort, not the first. A litigious culture is unhealthy for society, destroys trust, gives terrible modeling, and at best results in compromise. I hope someday to join with a corporate general counsel and a federal judge, both of whom practice these ideas with astounding results, in writing a book for attorneys and those who educate and hire attorneys, and also for those who want to solve seemingly intractable problems without hiring attorneys. The title would be Blessed Are the Peacemakers, subtitled Synergy in the Prevention and Settlement of Disputes.

BUILDING A COMPLEMENTARY TEAM THROUGH THIRD ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION

Modeling open, Third Alternative communication is also absolutely necessary in efforts to build the complementary teams we’ve discussed. Of all the places this kind of modeling should take place, it’s with the executive team. Because formal leaders have formal authority, they, above all, need to manifest the moral authority inherent in this kind of communication. A second reason is that executives are so visible, constantly building complementary teams between departments, inside departments, and throughout the entire organization.

This kind of Third Alternative communication that produces complementary teams can, however, begin at any level. The pragmatic results produced by those at lower levels will convert the cynics at higher levels of the organization again illustrating that leadership, not just by an individual but by an entire team, is a choice, not a position.

Where do you start? Begin by having open communication between everyone on your team, in your department, and between interdependent teams and departments. As you practice the skills of Third Alternative communication, people will gradually get to know and like one another and will become more open, authentic and real. Mutual respect will develop, and people will increasingly seek to acknowledge the strengths of others and will actively strive to compensate for their weaknesses to make their strengths productive. This produces harmony, like in a musical group or an athletic team.

When we look through the lens of each other’s weaknesses, we make others’ strengths irrelevant and their weaknesses more evident.

FILM: Street Hawkers

Several years ago, a South African company was opening up a brand-new retail-clothing store in an old part of town. The day they opened the store, the fruit and vegetable vendors, commonly called street hawkers, flooded back to that central location. They used to occupy that land before the store was built, and they had been selling there for years. Psychologically they felt that they owned it. They came right back in front of the store on the very day of opening and set up their fruit and vegetable stands. It made a mess, and made it slightly difficult for people to even get into the store.

What would you do if fruit vendors crowded around, messed up the sidewalk, and partially blocked your doorway on the day you opened your new store? What would you do?

You have two options: You can try to control the street hawkers like “things” call the police, make them move, enforce your position as the legal owners of the property. Or you can treat them like people. You can synergize and come up with a better solution for both of you.

The manager of the store could have called the police on these hawkers. Instead, he decided to seek a Third Alternative. He first listened to their objectives and needs, then he talked about the store’s needs. Together this most unlikely team of retail managers and street hawkers developed a synergistic plan that worked for both of them.

We produced a film on this experience between the new retail store and the fruit and vegetable street vendors. It’s called Street Hawkers. I invite you now to watch this video. You will find it on the Films menu at www.The8thHabit.com/offers. In it you will see the kind of synergistic solutions that are developed by people who are empowered.

YOU CAN SEE from this film how the key to their creative solution was first achieving mutual understanding. You’ll also notice the serendipitous benefit that came from this creativity. Serendipity means “happy accident.” Something happened that no one initially anticipated. It emerged from trust and relationship: The street hawkers essentially became the security force for the store. Street people know who the thieves are, and the thieves know this. Because pilferage of inventory is a major problem in South Africa, this became a huge benefit. You literally see the building of trust and communication. Trust is turned into a verb by entrusting a group of people, and then those people live true to that trust and reciprocate it. This is always bonding. It also creates an immune system that has the power to deal with issues or problems that may come down the pike in the future.

QUESTION & ANSWER

Q: How important are the life cycles of organizations, and is there a Third Alternative to their eventual decay and death?

A: I suggest there are four “Bermuda Triangles” which lead to decay, disaster and death. The first occurs at the idea stage, where a good idea is simply squelched by negative energy, self-doubt and fear. The second occurs at the production stage, where the great idea is not properly executed. This is where most new organizations fail—upwards of 90 percent within two years. There is just so much slip between cup and lip—between the great idea and making it happen. The third occurs at the management stage. Production with scalability has been institutionalized so that one can replicate or duplicate the enterprise, such as expanding to build another good restaurant, but the producer either tries to do it all or he or she tries to clone himself or herself. Formal systems are never established to keep things, especially cash flow, in control. The fourth occurs at the change stage, where the organization needs to reinvent itself to adapt to changing market conditions or new opportunities but gets so bogged down in its own bureaucratic life, rules and regulations that it can no longer meet and anticipate the needs of targeted customers.

Good management teams should have people with qualities that match the needs at all four stages. Most importantly, the team must have a spirit of mutual respect so that the strengths of each are acknowledged and utilized, and the weaknesses are made irrelevant by the strengths of the others. You need an entrepreneur (the idea person), a producer, a manager, and a teambuilder-leader, who helps create the norm of mutual respect and who creates a complementary team with the power to reinvent itself and take it into new life cycles.

Q: What do you do when you are involved in merger and acquisition work and trying to bring together people from different companies and different cultures? Is there some magic Third Alternative button to push to achieve interdependence in a global company?

My answer is, the reason why most mergers and acquisitions don’t work is that they are forcing the process. It’s like bringing about a merger of different DNAs. Have you ever seen a blended family? How hard is it to see that work successfully? It takes time, persistence, patience and Indian Talking Stick communication toward Third Alternative solutions. In the meantime you’ll see the five metastasizing cancers manifest themselves (contending, comparing, competing, criticizing and complaining). Remember with people and cultures, fast is slow and slow is fast. With things this isn’t the case fast is fast. But with people, efficiency or speed is ineffective. I have learned this personally the hard way, but it has powerfully reinforced what I’m sharing with you now: There must be an open, mutual, respectful communication of the value of the different approaches if you are to produce a Third Alternative culture. This often requires new formal leadership. Once I was working with a big company up in Canada with a very mature empowered culture. Because leaders in the headquarters of the company in the States were opening up operations in all kinds of other countries, they wanted to establish some central policies. But these policies assumed cultures far less developed and mature than the Canadian one. Canadian management asked me if I could help them maintain their relative independence and empowerment and not get sucked into roles and policies that were geared to immature cultures and the weakest links in the value chain. I was happy to help. Once the American executives came to realize that they were not interdependent with Canada, that they could use Canada as a model of what was possible, that Canada’s mature culture was more productive, leaner and more profitable with greater empowerment, less bureaucracy, and less red tape, they started pointing to the Canadian operation as a model organization which the less-developed cultures could emulate.

The key is, don’t artificially force interdependency it has to come naturally through people’s getting to know and understand and trust each other. Then they can become creative. Until this happens, people see interdependency as dependency.