Karen suspected that these conflicting styles had a lot to do with personality differences. She had once taken a survey that showed she was a “Feeler,” and she was pretty sure that Jenny was a “Thinker.” Knowing this, though, didn’t change the frustration she felt when problems arose.

Because the challenges with Jenny seemed so minor, Karen thought they should be easy to fix. It was obvious that Jenny shared Karen’s passion for their work. Plus, Jenny had brilliant ideas that often led to breakthroughs on tough issues. Karen only wished that Jenny weren’t so cold and distant.

Although they may seem trivial, the personal differences that Karen experienced in her relationship with Jenny had a significant impact on their working relationship. Fortunately, while these opposing styles may generate conflict, they also offer great richness in tackling complex issues. But in order to get out of counterproductive patterns of interaction that have created problems in the past, Karen needs a new way of viewing differences: one that enables her to live with the tensions differences generate, create a rich vision of what she wants to create, and be flexible in the pursuit of her vision. Otherwise, Karen’s current way of thinking will continue to limit her ability to respond constructively to Jenny and others.

No doubt you, too, are aware of differences between you and others in your organization. How can you deal with these differences in productive ways? And how can you use them to build your own self-knowledge and interpersonal skills? One promising approach stems from a school of thought known as “Dilemma Theory.”

A dilemma is a choice between two options, both of which are attractive but appear to be mutually exclusive: an “either/or” scenario.

Dilemma Theory

Differences have always been a basis for learning. When people travel, they find themselves stimulated by the cultural differences they encounter, often returning home with new understanding and appreciation of themselves and their communities. But differences can also serve as the basis for intractable conflict and struggle. When we encounter someone whose worldview is diametrically opposed to our own, we often fall into an “us” versus “them” and “good” versus “bad” dynamic.

Dilemma Theory, based on the work of researchers Charles Hampden-Turner and Fons Trompenaars, seeks to help us overcome these barriers and learn from differences. Hampden-Turner summarizes the philosophy as follows: “We can never grow to become great business leaders until we actively strive to embrace the behaviors and attitudes that feel most uncomfortable to us. The most effective management practices are those that gently force engineers, managers, and employees to embrace the unthinkable.” Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars focus primarily on cultural differences, but the concepts they developed can help to explain the dynamics associated with any kind of differences.

As they point out, a dilemma is a choice between two options, both of which are attractive but appear to be mutually exclusive: an “either/or” scenario. You face dilemmas every day: whether to work on a project alone or with others; whether to give attention to details or focus on the “big picture”; whether to confront someone’s inappropriate behavior or pass over it; whether to stay with what you know or try something new.

While such dilemmas may seem straightforward, they are rich with dynamic complexity. The dynamism stems not from the simple choice that a dilemma presents, but from the mechanisms that people and societies develop for making such decisions. How we become skilled at handling dilemmas has an enormous impact on the outcome. In this context, being skilled means competently performing a task without needing to consciously focus on it. When we repeatedly do something, we eventually reach the point when we no longer need to call to mind the steps it requires; we just do them. I have become skilled in the use of computer keyboards, so as I type, I do not have to deliberately hunt for the right keys to make words. I think of the word I want and my fingers make it happen without any apparent thought on my part.

Just as we become skilled at physical tasks such as typing, we gain mastery in handling dilemmas. If we repeatedly resolve dilemmas by choosing one option over the other, the option we choose becomes an unconscious preference. Over time, we stop being aware that we are making a choice — we simply assume it is the best course of action. These deeply internalized preferences become values that shape the decisions we make and the actions we take.

Many people believe that their way of dealing with something is obviously superior, even when they encounter others who routinely make the opposite choice. In this situation, it is easy to characterize different choices as absurd or based on ignorance. For Karen, the rightness of working collegially and expressing her emotions was something she felt from deep within and found hard to put into words. Little wonder she found it perplexing when Jenny worked in a contradictory way.

Personality differences also play an important role in the formation of values. We are each born with innate characteristics that shape our preferences and interests (Sandra Seagal and David Horne’s work on Human Dynamics is one framework for understanding variations). So both nature and nurture give rise to the differences we encounter.

Universal Dilemmas

Just as people develop a set of values based on the cumulative effect of the choices they make, so do communities. All communities encounter dilemmas, and some dilemmas are universal. Universal dilemmas include:

• Whether (a) rules should apply to everyone or (b) exceptions should be made depending on who is involved.
• Whether status should be awarded (a) on the basis of one’s position in the community or (b) on the basis of what one has achieved.
• Whether (a) the needs of the community should outweigh the rights of individual members or (b) vice versa.

While these dilemmas are universal, the ways in which communities resolve them are not. Each society will develop its own pattern of values, perhaps putting (a) ahead of (b) with one dilemma but (b) ahead of (a) with another.

What determines which values develop in a particular community? It depends on the conditions that exist when the community first encounters a dilemma. All manner of variables have an effect. The personality dynamics of influential community leaders — the “core group,” to use the term coined by Art Kleiner — play a key role. The history of the community and its present needs all shape how it resolves a dilemma. When a community repeatedly resolves an issue by giving priority to one option, what was once a conscious choice becomes an unconsciously held value.

We generally don’t examine taken-for-granted ways of doing things until we encounter someone who does things differently.

Values are self-perpetuating. For example, if we value achievement — rewarding people for what they accomplish rather than who they are — we are naturally interested in how we can measure it. Having established a way of measuring achievement, we start to do so. In this way, we create an infrastructure to support a value that started off as a preference for one way of acting over another. As we use the infrastructure, we reinforce the value and strengthen our preference for it.

On an individual level, when children grow up, they take for granted that the way their family operates is the norm — how they celebrate holidays, deal with money, resolve conflicts, and so on. In the same way, people do not usually question the values of the community in which they live. We generally don’t examine taken-for-granted ways of doing things until we encounter someone who does things differently, whether at an individual or group level.

Dynamics of Difference

What happens when people with opposite values — such as Jenny and Karen — interact? The outcome is typically not what we would hope. Because a dilemma involves options, both of which are advantageous, the values represented in the dilemma are also complementary. The more one of the values is expressed, the greater the need for the other becomes. Jenny and Karen have the potential to balance one another, making up for each other’s shortcomings and supporting each other’s strengths, and we might hope that they would find ways to capitalize on their complementary skills. But two phenomena often prevent that from happening: skilled incompetence and schismogenesis.

Skilled Incompetence. The reason a dilemma is challenging is that both options are attractive: Each provides real — though different — advantages. In our story, Karen benefits from being expressive, and Jenny benefits from keeping her emotions in check. But when one option becomes an unconscious preference, it is at the expense of the other. So the more that Karen pursues the value she derives from acting expressively, the more she misses out on the advantages of objectivity.

While Karen values subjectivity, she isn’t blind. She can see that Jenny benefits from her objectivity. She may think, “I wish I was more like Jenny,” and decide to change in that direction. But despite her determination, Karen may still operate off an unconscious preference for subjectivity. For this reason, she may say one thing while at the same time do the opposite and not be aware of the discrepancy. Chris Argyris coined the term “skilled incompetence” to describe the mismatch between what people say and what they do.

This pattern of behavior can also happen at an organizational level. Companies may publish lists of values, but these often express qualities that people think are needed rather than ones that the organization actually possesses. In all probability, a quality will make it onto the list of “corporate values” because it is something the organization does not value!

Schismogenesis. Another dynamic that occurs when opposites interact is what anthropologist Gregory Bateson termed “schismogenesis”: the splitting apart of complementary values. Schismogenesis happens when an initially small difference gets progressively bigger. Imagine that Karen has come up with a breakthrough on a project that she wants to share with Jenny. She goes to Jenny’s office and excitedly blurts out that she has news. Jenny is overwhelmed by Karen’s energy, thinks Karen should calm down, and tries to encourage her to do so by lowering her own voice and speaking slowly. Karen thinks Jenny doesn’t understand the importance of the message, so she ramps up her level of enthusiasm. Jenny gets quieter and calmer. Karen gets louder and more excited. What started off as a small difference has become enormous through the course of the interaction.

Something else has happened, too. Karen and Jenny have become polarized, with a distorted view of what their values represent. How so? When seen through the lens of Dilemma Theory, a value is a preference for acting one way rather than another. This difference also depends on who else is involved. Karen values expressiveness because this term describes the difference she sees between herself and others she interacts with. But in many communities throughout the world, Karen would be viewed as the least expressive person.

Nevertheless, Karen has come to consider expressiveness as something that defines who she is. She doesn’t think, “I have a stronger preference for expressing and acting on my feelings than Jenny.” Rather, she says to herself, “I am a Feeler.” Thinking of herself in this way makes a tremendous difference to the repertoire of actions that Karen allows herself to use. Viewing her own and Jenny’s values as permanent characteristics, Karen feels compelled to act in harmony with her values. She shuns the alternative way of acting.

How will this pattern of behavior affect Karen when it comes to learning and personal mastery? Our values influence what we are ready to learn. Karen is attracted to forms of learning that support her preference for emotional expressiveness. She may reject opportunities to learn what she does not value, such as the use of rigorous analytical decision-making tools. She is not naturally interested, and it just feels wrong somehow.

By bounding the scope of her inquiry, Karen limits her capacity to create what is really important to her. Her values push her to learn some things and neglect others. While she may be aware of her need to gain competency in those other areas, what she sees as personal characteristics play a crucial role in shaping how much effort she invests in her learning efforts. This process represents a “Success to the Successful” archetypal structure, in which Karen reinforces the values she already has and neglects areas in which she could benefit from growth (see “From Preference to Value”).

Reconciliation

To reap the benefits from diversity, Dilemma Theory encourages people to look for ways of reconciling the conflicting values they encounter. While the dynamics of culture and personality often lead people to value one option and neglect the other, a dilemma is a dilemma because both of the options are important and needed. Reconciliation involves understanding the circularity of the relationship between values. The two options involved in a dilemma — the potential values — are complementary. The more we do one, the more we need to do the other. We could diagram the relationship as shown in “Complementary Values”.

Schismogenesis is a process that disrupts the connection between the two values. Reconciliation does the opposite; it strengthens the connection. Rather than encouraging one or other of the values to be expressed, it encourages the flow of movement between the values so either or both can be expressed, depending on what the situation demands.

COMPLEMENTARY VALUES

The two options involved in a dilemma the potential values—are complementary. The more we do one, the more we need to do the other. Reconciliation involves understanding the circularity of the relationship between values.

Imagine what would happen to the relationship between Karen and Jenny if they reframed their values in ways that still indicated their individual preferences, but showed an appreciation for both parts of the dilemma. Karen might move from thinking “I’m a Feeler” to “Before making a decision, I like to test ideas by experiencing how they affect my emotions.” By reframing her image of herself in this way, Karen recognizes that if she exercises her capacity for feeling, she can improve the quality of her own and others’ thinking. And improving the quality of thinking has a positive impact on the emotional environment in which she works.

Jenny might move from the stance “I’m a Thinker” to “I prefer to articulate thoughts in ways that enable people to examine and express their feelings and opinions.” Jenny recognizes that her capacity for thinking enables her to invite others to express their feelings in productive ways. Doing so stimulates and challenges her to increase the quality of her thinking.

In this way, while Karen and Jenny retain their own preferences, they can design a way of working together that they both find satisfying. Imagine we were to watch them at work. While they were getting used to this new way of framing their values, we might see rather deliberate shifts between thinking and feeling. They might verbalize the need to move from one mode of operation to another:, “Perhaps we should generate some new thoughts based on what we’ve heard” or “Let’s take some time to check out our feelings about what’s been said.”

Over time, Jenny and Karen would likely become more skilled at managing the movement between thoughts and emotions. We would observe a fluidity in their work together, with each bringing feelings and thoughts into play as required. When they have truly reconciled the dilemma, we would be hard pressed to classify aspects of their work as expressions of one or other of the original values.

Many of the challenges we face are socially complex: The people affected are diverse and the array of values is wide. Each situation might involve several pairs of opposing values. As we learn to honor all the values pertinent to a dilemma, we increase our capacity for acting in ways that are sustainable within the system. But what behaviors help us to reconcile values?

Changing Patterns

A number of techniques can give you insight into the dynamics of the differences you encounter. These can prompt you to look at conflict in new ways.

Be Aware. A key to achieving reconciliation is awareness of one’s own thinking and behavior. Schismogenesis can seem normal in an environment in which people are rewarded for living at the extreme of one value. A community may reward those members who are “ideologically pure,” focused on one value to the exclusion of all others. But personal, organizational, and social health require the reconciliation of a range of values. If you concentrate your effort around just one value, you are likely going to mobilize people with other values to become more extreme in their opposition to you. Schismogenesis is fueled by unconscious actions; becoming aware of your actions is the basis for reconciliation.

Look for the Whole. People become polarized when they can see only the good in what they value and only the evil in the values of those who oppose them. As we have discussed, values arise because of dilemmas, and in a dilemma, both options offer something attractive. It follows that there will also be a downside to any value. If a person pursues a value in a single-minded way, then he or she is neglecting a complementary value, and undesirable consequences will likely follow. Practice seeing the whole picture by noticing the gains to be made by pursuing each value represented in a dilemma. Then list the disadvantages of each: what will be lost if you pursue each of the values to an extreme.

SEQUENCE OF ACTIONS

This causal loop diagram shows how you might move through a sequence of actions that give priority to one value and then another, and so on. In this case, reflection improves our actions, and actions provide new data for reflection.

Bring Values to the Surface.Values often lie hidden beneath the surface, making reconciliation difficult. In a meeting, participants may arrive ready to advocate for the action they believe needs to be taken, based on their underlying values. They will likely push for a variety of actions, and some will be diametrically opposed to others. By asking questions such as “What will we gain from that action?” and “What is it you are interested in?” the group begins to see the values behind the different activities. In addition, teams often make progress by (a) noticing the various actions being advocated, (b) noticing the interests behind each of the actions, (c) consciously scrapping the actions first suggested, and (d) asking “What new action could we design that would address the values that are important to us all?”

Practice Sequencing. Reconciliation involves seeing the relationships between complementary values. We want to create a fluid movement between different ways of acting. To see how this movement might take place, create causal loop diagrams that express how you might move through a sequence of actions that give priority to one value and then another, then back to the original and so on (see “Sequence of Actions”). Practice your sequencing skills on the common dilemmas shown in “Common Dilemmas.”

The Journey of Dilemmas

Imagine we could go forward in time to revisit Karen and Jenny, who have worked hard to reconcile the collision between different personal styles that was such a challenge to their working relationship. What will we find? Having dealt with this challenge, will they have freed themselves from all dilemmas? Will conflict be a thing of the past?

Hardly. A dilemma can arise around any difference. Karen and Jenny are unique individuals; they differ from one another in myriad ways. Expressiveness and objectivity were the most prominent differences at the time we became interested in their story. When they resolve that dilemma, new ones will surface. Their work is dynamic, too. It keeps changing, throwing up new situations that bring new dilemmas to the surface. We could say that Karen and Jenny —  both individually and in their relationship — are on a journey in which they regularly encounter opportunities to learn from dilemmas.

Does this mean that Dilemma Theory offers nothing but a legacy of ongoing conflict and frustration? No. It doesn’t produce a constant stream of challenges and problems; life does that. And for Karen and Jenny, the outcome is not bleak. Insight into the dynamics of dilemmas has enabled them to view their differences as opportunities to learn, both collectively and individually.

As a result, they no longer have to treat their differences as something to be feared. They have learned that, with careful attention, they can reconcile their dilemmas. They have developed a practice of “thoughtful sensitivity” (or “sensitive thoughtfulness”) that can help them face new challenges. And they appreciate each other’s contribution, knowing that they complement one another in important ways.

When you encounter differences, be resolved to seek ways in which you and others can reconcile apparently conflicting values.

At an individual level, both Jenny and Karen are now able to suspend their values, observing how these influence their reactions and attitudes. Each has gained a deep insight into who she is, an insight she can take with her into her relationships with other people. Each has a greater repertoire for thinking and acting, no longer limited by an unconscious preference. Both are thankful they have learned from the mutual relevance of difference.

When you encounter differences, be resolved to seek ways in which you and others can reconcile apparently conflicting values. Building your capacity in this vital area is the basis for both successful collaboration with others and ongoing development while on your own learning journey.

Phil Ramsey teaches organizational learning at Massey University in New Zealand. He is a regular presenter at Systems Thinking in Action® Conferences and is the author of the Billibonk series of systems stories, published by Pegasus Communications.

The post Learning Through Differences: Dilemma Theory in Action appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

The question that stands before us now is not who can take part in the cultural transformation needed to address these complex problems, but how shall we stand together to do so? Will we simply try to fix the problems we now face with the same mindsets that created them or will we learn to be together in new ways?

Fortunately, every person can participate in and contribute to the creation of a new global ethos of partnership and peace. In fact, we do so each time we choose:

• discernment instead of judgment
• appreciation over criticism
• generosity in place of self-interest
• reconciliation over retaliation

A culture of partnership is one that supports our full humanity and helps us reach our highest human potential. Whether we build this culture depends on the choices we make, from the seemingly insignificant to the most exalted. By understanding our options, we can make wise decisions.

Reframing the Conversation

Through two decades of research, Riane Eisler (one of the authors of this article) found a fundamental difference in how human societies evolved (for a detailed discussion, see The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future, Harper Collins Publishing, 1987). She documented that, from the beginning, some cultures oriented more to what she termed a dominator system and others to a partnership system — and that gender roles and relations are structured very differently in each (see “Dominator-Partnership Continuum” on p. 10). In dominator systems, social ranking begins with our most fundamental human difference—the difference between female and male. The male and what is stereotypically considered masculine is valued over the female and the stereotypically feminine. This foundational ranking of one gender over the other sets in place a pattern of social rankings based on other differences, such as ethnicity, race, religion, and so on.

In partnership systems, societies value both halves of humanity equally and recognize that humans are social animals with a unique wisdom and capacity to work and live together. Here, stereotypically feminine traits and activities such as caring, nonviolence, and caregiving are highly valued — whether they reside in women or men. This orientation profoundly affects the society’s guiding system of values in all institutions, including business, government, and economics. For example, using the lenses of these social categories makes it possible to see that caring for people, starting in childhood, and for the Earth are important in human and environmental terms.

Toward the dominator end of the spectrum, social systems organize relationships at all levels according to a hierarchy of control, status, and privilege. They routinely extend rights and freedoms to those on top and deny them to those on the bottom. Such rankings lead to thinking limited to two dimensions: superior or inferior; dominating or dominated. Since there is no awareness of the partnership alternative, both parties live in fear. Those on top fear loss of power and control while those on the bottom perpetually seek to gain it. This ranking structure then leads to conflicts — sometimes over trivial issues — that escalate, often leading to cycles of violence, resentment, and retaliation. Such conditions do not generally contribute to growth, learning, or peace.

Social systems toward the partnership end of the spectrum are characterized by more egalitarian organizational structures in which both genders are seen as equal yet different, each capable of unique manifestations of value. A hierarchy of roles may exist, but delegation tends to be based on competency, rather than rankings by gender or other arbitrary groupings. Each group is capable of appreciating the unique value of the other. Differences are seen as opportunities for learning, and both individuals and groups organize through mutual accountability and individual responsibility. Empowerment stems from one’s unique contributions, and connections are made at the level of values, rather than by gender, ethnicity, and other social categories.

In her most recent book, The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics (Berrett-Koehler, 2007), Riane provides extensive evidence of how caring business policies that result from partnership values are actually more profitable than those that stem from dominator values. Economists tell us that building “high-quality human capital” is essential for the postindustrial, knowledge economy. Nations that invest in caring for children are doing just that—while those that do not will dearly pay for this failure.

Learning Conversations

In a global society, we see all shades in the spectrum between dominator and partnership systems. But the necessity to make headway on our intractable challenges requires that we accelerate the movement toward the partnership side of the continuum. A simple way to contribute to designing the future we desire is conversation. Conversation costs nothing but time and can include everyone. Conversations are one of the cornerstones of civic engagement. For millennia, they have served as a means to explore, defend, persuade, connect, and heal. Conversations become the threads of the social fabric of our lives, contributing to communal beliefs, expectations, and judgments about the structures and relationships underlying our families, tribes, communities, institutions, and nations. Conversations are so powerful that in an effort to control their subjects, despots and dictators often limit what topics can be discussed and how or if conversations are allowed.

DOMINATOR-PARTNERSHIP CONTINUUM

The necessity to make headway on our intractable challenges requires that we accelerate the movement toward the partnership side of the continuum.

Modern social science and psychological research has found that the what and how of conversations often lead to defining moments. The what of conversations are the topics we choose to discuss, and the how includes ideas for holding conversations from which we can learn and grow, rather than persuade, coerce, or intimidate. The purpose of holding conversations about our fundamental differences is, therefore, not to blame or judge each other or ourselves. Conversations are held in order to learn what still binds us to the dominator dynamic and to allow us to see each other and our world more clearly.

To understand what divides us, we must look honestly and earnestly at our differences. We must make an effort to understand the other’s point of view and to share our own. The best way to have a powerful conversation about what separates us is to simply listen, become aware of the meaning we may be making for ourselves from what we hear, and recognize that what the other person is saying is true for her or him.

At first, it may be difficult to hold neutral conversations due to the learned meanings we draw from words, phrases, and even tone of voice. Even if you hold your heart for humanity deeply, you are likely to carry some biases based on the tacit meanings that come from your experiences in life related to your own gender. To truly understand the other, you will want to consider what it is like to be in the other’s shoes, to have their beliefs, points of view, and experiences. The “Learning Practice of Leadership” may serve as a helpful reminder for how we can lead ourselves through the controversial waters of gender conversations (see “Learning Practice of Leadership” on p. 11).

Tips for Partnership Conversations

Below are tips for holding partnership conversations and some sample questions to get you started. These tools will be particularly useful in dealing with emotionally charged issues.

1. Convene the conversation in circle so that everyone holds an equal position.
2. Take time to allow people to get settled and leave their work and other concerns behind. Prepare a question that allows people to get introduced and learn a little about why they have joined this conversation.
3. Allow each person to speak when they are ready. There is no need to pressure anyone to talk. People will learn both from listening and speaking.
4. Allow each person who wishes to speak adequate time to do so without interruption.
5. Select a question to start the gender conversation. Several are included in the bulleted list below.
6. As you explore the conversation more deeply, use open questions. Open questions are questions to which there is no “yes” or “no” answer. They are not intended to lead to a specific outcome. Open questions come from a genuine place of curiosity. They often begin with words like “how,”, “what,” “when,” and “why.”
7. Be mindful of your intention when asking any question. If you have a judgment behind your question, it will likely show through., “Why” questions are particularly tricky as they sometimes sound accusatory, such as “Why do you believe that?”
8. Be transparent by stating your personal experiences in relating a position or asking a question.
9. Listen and try to put your judgments aside.
10. Resist the temptation to voice either your own affirmation or your disagreement with another person’s point of view. Allow each speaker to be accountable for their own words.
11. If you find you are having a strong reaction to someone’s comment, good or bad, make a note for later reflection. Ask yourself, what is creating this reaction?
12. In these conversations, it is not important to convince or draw conclusions, but to listen and learn. Have something to write on. Jot down what you notice. And when time allows, journal about what you notice about what you notice. See where a deeper inquiry leads without trying to find the “right answer.”
13. When the conversation has concluded, take time to record notes about what you’ve learned.
14. Reflect on new questions you may have as result of the conversation and new options for relating with others.

Examples: Gender Topic Questions

• What is the first memory you recall in which gender played an important role?
• What happened?
• Do you recall any conclusions you may have drawn as a result of this experience?
• Did the experience make you feel more satisfied to be your gender or less? More empowered or less?
• How do people in your church, work, or community express gender equality and gender rankings?
• What evidence do you find that men are more valued than women?
• What evidence do you find that women are more valued than men?
• What do males and females have in common when it comes to personal values?
• What do you believe about the expression of gender in living species that influences your attitudes about gender differences in humans?
• Think of a major historical event in your lifetime. If you were a different gender, how would your interpretation of that event be changed?
• How do the perceptions we hold about gender influence our attitudes toward power and money?
• What would be different if you had been born a different sex?
• How would the sexes have to change to live more closely aligned with the partnership model?
• What would be the impact to government, business, and other social systems?

Not Just a “Women’s Issue”

Exploring the issues that divide us by examining how we are influenced by our experience of gender can be powerful. It may lead to further inquiry to uncover how gender differences impact your family, community, work, and institutional relationships. In turn, these explorations may give rise to questions about how culture and nations impact each other through our policies, markets, and impact on the planet.

Beginning with our most fundamental human difference, the difference between male and female, it is now time to understand deeply how our gender privileges, limitations, and experiences have shaped and continue to influence us, not only as individual women and men but as members of a world that has inherited a system of values that is heavily influenced by dominator valuations.

One of the most interesting, and important, outcomes of open-ended conversations about gender is a new understanding of what it means to be human for both women and men — and that gender is not “just a women’s issue” but is a key issue for whether we move to a more peaceful and equitable world. As more of us talk openly about these matters, we become participants in the cultural transformation from domination to partnership — not only in gender relations but in all relations. We also help create more effective, humane, and sustainable business practices and government policies when we bring these unconscious impediments out into the open.

Note: References to behavior resulting from the ranking and hierarchy of roles in dominator and partnership systems were adapted from the work of Virginia Satir and the Satir Institute of the Pacific.

Riane Eisler is a social scientist, attorney, consultant, and author best known for her bestseller The Chalice and The Blade: Our History, Our Future, now published in 23 languages. Her newest book, The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics, hailed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu as “a template for the better world we have been so urgently seeking” and by Peter Senge as “desperately needed,” proposes a new paradigm for economic systems. Riane keynotes at conferences worldwide, teaches transformative leadership at the California Institute of Integral Studies, and is president of the Center for Partnership Studies (www.partnershipway.org).

Lucy E. Garrick is an organizational leadership consultant, speaker, artist, and founder of Million Ideas for Peace, a public project designed to help individuals connect their personal and social passions to peacemaking (www.millionideas4peace.com). Lucy consults with corporations, nonprofits, government agencies, and public groups to improve individual and group leadership and performance. She holds a masters degree in Whole Systems Design, is chair of the OSR Alumni Association board of directors, and is principle consultant at NorthShore Consulting Group in Seattle, WA (www.northshoregroup.net).

The post Leading the Shift from a Dominator to a Partnership Culture appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

What we may not realize is that the best way to get our point across is often counterintuitive. To be successful, we have to try less and listen more.

Understanding As a Goal

Have you ever been in a restaurant that has a swinging door in and out of the kitchen? Ever pushed (or watched someone push) on that door when another body is trying to get through from the other direction? What happens? You push, they push, and nobody gets through, right?

The same push-push back phenomenon occurs when two people want to get their differing viewpoints across at the same time. It usually sounds something like: “Yes, but you’re wrong because . . .” or “No, you weren’t listening. What I’m trying to say is . . .” and so on. If you want to get through to the other side and they’re not creating an opening, you either let them talk first or push hard enough to get them to hear you. If we extend the metaphor, they’re probably not listening. The more you force, the more they resist.

When you push for your way, you virtually guarantee failure, because the harder you try to persuade, the harder the opposition will do the same. He wants to be heard, too — just like you.

If you want to get your point across, don’t make getting your point across the goal. Make understanding the goal. When you try to understand your conflict partner’s view, you create an opening for him to do the same. The door swings toward you as you receive his energy, beliefs, and vision, and benefit from a peek at an alternate reality. You’re able to see both views simultaneously while you reflect on how differently this person perceives the world from his side of the door.

Giving Way to Get Your Way

Don’t give in; give way. There’s a difference. Giving someone the freedom to deliver his message is a gift and a model. You’re not saying you agree with the message; you’re saying you’re willing to entertain an alternative view to facilitate solving the problem.

Sensing a receptive audience, the speaker relaxes. His energy and ideas have an outlet. He worries less whether you agree with him, simply because you’re willing to let him talk. His need for you to understand him is less critical than your willingness to try.

Eventually he has nothing left to say, and now he is opening the door for you. In fact, he’s eager to hear your reflections. He’s thinking, “Wow, I just made some great points. I can’t wait to hear what she has to say about them!”

Offer Information That May Be of Value

So don’t start with, “You are really out of line, you don’t know what you’re talking about” or “Your reasoning is full of holes!”

If you want to get your point across, start by acknowledging his argument and appreciating his position. Specifically:

• Summarize his thoughts for him.
• Compliment his reasoning.
• Speak first to his positive intentions.
• Look for one thing you can agree with.

For example:, “John, you’ve obviously put a lot of thought into this and care a great deal about the outcome. I liked what you said about . . .” You must be sincere. We’re not talking about manipulation, but rather a willingness to step into another human being’s shoes.

By listening and acknowledging, you’ve let your partner come through the door, and it’s starting to swing in the other direction. Here’s the place where you might get your point across. But one more admonition: change your thinking from getting your point across to offering information that might be of value to him. He may take advantage and he may not. He’s more likely to receive your offer favorably if it helps him achieve his goals, look good, or save face.

For example, “John, from what you’re saying, you believe you’re doing a good job and living up to the requirements of the job description. I have a slightly different take on it. Would you like to hear it? As I see it, you put a lot of thought into preparing our meetings and organizing staff, and I think you want to do a good job. I have some ideas about how you can go further in your career, if you chose to, by making a few simple changes.” The door is swinging back. It’s your turn to walk purposefully through it.

Six Steps for Creating a Willing Listener

In the end, you may find that “getting your point across” is language that presumes a contest of wills and that there are more efficient ways to achieve your objective. You are less likely to create defensiveness in the listener when you disclose your thinking, acknowledge his, maintain respect and safety, and establish consequences.

Keep in mind there’s a problem on the table to be solved. He’s offered his view. And now you will present yours. As you do this, keep the door open. The following steps will help you:

1. Understand Your Story and Their Story. Rashomon is a 1950 Japanese movie involving four people, each of whom tells a story about how a specific event unfolded. Each story is a little movie that looks completely different from the others. Rashomon reminds me that my story may vary widely from my partner’s, even when we’re looking at the same facts. It helps me exercise caution about how much I think I know about someone else’s motives. I try not to presume. How could I? It’s not my movie. My goal is to see his movie through his lens.
2. Educate, Don’t Sell, Blame, or Accuse. When it’s time to tell my story, I have to teach the listener what things look like from my perspective. I don’t assume he can see my movie either; in fact, I know he can’t. When an employee, student, or loved one acts contrary to expectations, I respectfully describe the feelings that ensued or the resulting impact on the environment or on our relationship. I assume the person has positive intent, and I try to help him to live up to that assumption.For example, “I think you were trying to help the customer as best you could, given the complexity of the request. However, from my experience, when I put the customer on hold for more than a minute, he usually becomes frustrated and hangs up. Let’s talk about how to get answers without putting the customer on hold.”
3. Communicate Your Hopes and Goals. If I’m disappointed, it helps to let others in on my hopes (for the relationship, the workplace, or the task at hand). For example, “When you said you would have the spreadsheet ready Tuesday, I took you at your word. My hope is that we all recognize the importance of deadlines on a project that’s as time sensitive as this one. Can you tell me what happened and what we can do to remedy the situation?”
4. Stay Interested. Remain curious and childlike. Look at each situation with new eyes. Don’t forget that everything you experience is filtered through your perception, your lens. As Stephen Covey says, “Seek first to understand.”
5. Center Yourself and Extend Positive Energy. I practice and teach the martial art aikido, often translated from the Japanese as “the way of blending with energy.” In aikido, as the attack comes, we center ourselves and extend our life energy (ki) to meet the attacker, align with him, and redirect his energy. We lead without force. In life and business, you do the same thing when your language and manner are poised and focused, when you exercise both power and compassion, and when you make your adversary a partner by honoring his energy and positive intent.
6. There Are No Guarantees. What if you’ve tried to find a creative solution through joint problem solving and the situation doesn’t improve? For example, after several conversations and promises to improve, a direct report continues to be disrespectful. Or after your numerous requests to be prompt, an important member of the team continues to show up late or not at all.

Did I forget to mention there are no guarantees? You may not get your point across, ever. You can, however, remain respectful, interested, and purposeful. In the final analysis, this is where your power lies. You can also employ your company’s performance management system as early in the process as possible and hold your staff accountable to its guidelines. At this stage, the point you want to get across changes. You are no longer asking for behavior change. Instead you’re making sure the employee understands the consequences of the road he is traveling.

At home, if getting your point across with your teenager means gaining agreement, you will almost never succeed. However, you can set limits and expectations. For example, “I hear you when you say that your friends can stay out until midnight. Nevertheless, you have to be home by 11:00.”

“But, Mom!”

“I realize this seems hard to you. But I expect you to be home by 11:00.”

Establishing limits and consequences is usually a more practical and effective way to be heard than attempting to gain agreement.

In any case, remember that winning a contest and solving a problem are usually two different things. When you find yourself pushing through that metaphorical door, stop and ask yourself whether it’s the winning or the solving you’re most interested in.

© 2006 Judy Ringer, Power & Presence Training

Judy Ringer is the author of Unlikely Teachers: Finding the Hidden Gifts in Daily Conflict, containing stories and practices on the connection between aikido and conflict. As the founder of Power & Presence Training, Judy specializes in unique workshops on conflict, communication, and creating a more positive work environment. She is a black belt in aikido and chief instructor of Portsmouth Aikido, Portsmouth, NH. Subscribe to Judy’s free e-newsletter, Ki Moments, at http://www. JudyRinger.com.

For Further Reading

Unlikely Teachers: Finding the Hidden Gifts in Daily Conflict, by Judy Ringer How to Get Your Point Across in 30 Seconds or Less, by Milo O. Frank The Magic of Conflict, by Thomas F. Crum Difficult Conversations, by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen) Crucial Conversations, by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and l Switzler FAQs about Conflict, by Judy Ringer (www.JudyRinger.com)

The post Being Heard: Strategies for Getting Your Point Across appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

We all have good reasons for not speaking up. Why would we want to bring up problems when doing so makes us uncomfortable and could potentially create tension? The answer lies in a vicious cycle—what we might call the “Love, Love, Love, Hate Syndrome”—that produces damaging consequences to both the results and relationships we’re trying to create. Let’s look at some of the invisible outcomes of conflict avoidance and how to begin to overcome them.

Love, Love . . .

In the short term, we prefer the apparent harmony and good feelings to the discomfort and possible reactions of others if we bring up our concern. We believe that not openly sharing our concerns with another party and not hearing his or her side of the story will have fewer, if any, consequences than if we actually talk about the problem. The reality is quite different, however. Not only does avoiding conflict make us feel powerless to affect the situation, but as we witness the problem growing along with our discomfort—we silently build up resentment.

. . . Love, Hate!

If we continue to pretend that everything is fine, the problem eventually becomes too large or the failure too imminent, and suddenly we can no longer side-step the issue. The situation shifts dramatically, and all of the emotions we have accumulated over time come out with a disproportionate level of animosity toward the person with whom we feel in conflict. We then take drastic measures that can deeply scar the relationship we were trying to preserve.

The costs of this type of love-hate dynamic are significant not only to our interpersonal relationships but to the larger organization. A corporate culture steeped in conflict avoidance becomes an environment of insecurity. Everything seems fine on the surface, but is it really? What’s not being said? What do they really think? And when will the other shoe drop?

With any dysfunction, there are also benefits or we wouldn’t engage in the behavior. With conflict avoidance, when we pretend that everything is great, we look like a real team player, a boss people want to work for, and a loving parent. Who wouldn’t want to be regarded in that way? We all want to be liked and acknowledged.

The problem comes, however, when our desire to feel acknowledged becomes more important to us than our real goals. As such, conflict avoidance is less about our fear of hurting others than it is about protecting our own image. In the long run, though, by suppressing our true feelings until they explode, we actually create the opposite of what we want—for ourselves and others.

Beyond Conflict Avoidance

Here are some tips to move beyond conflict avoidance—knowing that true change begins only once we have deeply and unconditionally decided to transform ourselves:

1. Do Not Flip from Conflict Avoidance to Conflict Creation. When we become aware of a behavior that doesn’t serve our needs and decide to change it, we often fall into the trap of doing the opposite. For example, if we have been avoiding conflict, we may suddenly think we should say everything that is on our mind. However, if we start to speak without a clear goal for the relationship and the situation, then we usually wind up exacerbating the conflict.

2. Use DECC. To successfully handle difficult situations, we need to overcome our fear of engaging in challenging conversations. One powerful approach to accomplishing this goal is called “Direct Emotional Constructive Conversations DECC).” In these conversations:

• Be direct—express your thoughts and feelings clearly to avoid confusing or misleading the other person.
• Be emotionally involved—accept that half of the message you convey will be infused with the feelings you experience, whether sadness or frustration.
• Be constructive—use the conversation as a starting point for improving the situation and the relationship.

When we practice DECC, we create an opportunity to overcome both our personal fears and the conflict we’re dealing with. By deciding to change the paradigm and taking steps to do so, we can break through many situations in which we previously felt powerless or dissatisfied, prevent tomorrow’s crises, and develop deep and trusting relationships.

The post The Love, Love, Love, Hate Syndrome appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Unchecked and unmanaged, conflict can be negative and corrosive. But when the competition of ideas is suppressed, conformity stifles creativity. The challenge is to reduce the corrosion while stimulating the creativity.

Conflict has many sources:

• Disputes about inequities, broken promises, preferential treatment
• Competition for diminishing resources
• Fault lines of age, gender, race, craft, status, authority
• Expectations, especially when they are unclear or unmet

Fear sustains conflict, often the fear of failure. Employees who lack the competence or confidence to take on a challenging assignment will resist in order to avoid potential failure. Newly appointed managers with high potential but limited management experience will often precipitate conflict as a way of diverting attention from their own deficiencies.

Resolving conflict is seldom easy, but the failure to confront it is often more damaging than the conflict itself. The problem will persist, and the reluctant leader will be seen as timid or inept. This also holds true when we send the problem up the ladder of authority. Not only do we clog the ladder, we miss opportunities to learn how to manage effectively.

Every workplace should have a “conflict-management plan,” a prescribed and widely understood method for dealing with conflict. Most don’t; they depend on the experience and intuition of individual leaders. In the absence of a plan, here are some ideas that will help managers resolve conflict:

Stop Blaming. Pinpointing responsibility for past actions can lead to learning, but doing so can easily cross the boundary to blame, where accepting responsibility becomes difficult. Marilyn Paul, writing in The Systems ThinkerV8N1 (February 1997), reminds us, “Blaming leads to fear, which increases cover-ups and reduces the flow of information by stopping productive conversation.”

Manage Your Emotions and Ego. In Adversity Quotient: Turning Obstacles into Opportunities (John Wiley & Sons, 1999), Paul Stoltz suggests that the emotional “noise” of conflict interferes with its resolution:

“Filter out the internal static caused by anger and worry. These emotions cloud your judgment. Detach, in the Buddhist way. Acknowledge the emotion; it was appropriate for a few moments, so don’t fight it. But you need to put it away ‘on the shelf. You can still see it, but you control it rather than having it control you. Focus on the things that can really help you.”

When you’re steamed, conflict resolution tends to be more conflict than resolution. Turn the “noise” down as you try to hear what’s really going on.

And don’t let your ego get in the way. Bosses hate to admit when they’re not skilled at something; they think they look weak and ineffective. In coping with conflict, however, admitting a difficulty may be the smartest strategy, a sign of perceptive self-evaluation and, ironically, authentic confidence.

Deal with the Impact, not the Intentions.You may think you know why someone did something you didn’t like, but you may be wrong, so don’t attribute motives. Instead, deal with the impact and consequences of the actions.

Focus on Interests, not Staked Out Positions. People in conflict will come to you declaring their positions (, “I was only exercising my authority as team leader”) or (, “She doesn’t know what she’s doing”). Acknowledge those positions, but understand that they are not the path toward resolution.

Instead, get people to talk about underlying interests—their needs, desires, concerns, and fears. The positions people take in a conflict are driven by these interests. If an employee is not confident about his skills in a certain realm, his abiding interest in not making a fool of himself will lead to a public position to avoid taking on assignments in that area.

Repeat, Rephrase, Reflect. When someone would rather continue the conflict than resolve it, you need to be patient. One way to hold on is to repeat what they are saying, rephrase it in your own words to show you have heard and understood, and then invite the other person to join you as you reflect on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Here are five tactics for that conversation:

1. Explain the consequences and benefits of his actions.
2. Explain how his actions conflict with your values.
3. Explain how the long-term disadvantages outweigh short-term convenience.
4. Explain how his actions are hurting others.
5. Explain how he is eroding his professional reputation.

Skilled leaders can follow these guidelines to prevent conflict from damaging the relationships in the workplace.

Edward D. Miller is the managing director of The Newsroom Leadership Group, a coaching and consulting consortium that produces the popular APME Leadership Development Workshops. This article is adapted from “Managing Conflict,” part of Edward’s “Reflections on Leadership” series on newsroom management. Learn more at www.newsroomleadership.com /Reflections/s-redesign.html.

The post Creating a Conflict-Management Plan appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

However, if addressed effectively, identity based conflict can surface people’s most profound thoughts and feelings about what gives their work—and their lives—meaning and engender vitality and dynamism in organizations. In this way, addressing identity conflict can be a source of ongoing learning and lasting change.

Engaging Conflict

Some everyday interpersonal conflict should be avoided or preempted, such as when coworkers have continued personality differences. In this case, reassigning one of the parties to another department can make sense.

THE 'ARIA' PROCESS

The ultimate goal of the ARIA process is to foster harmony and resonance from adversaries’ full andhonest expression of the deeply felt human motivations that lie beneath their conflict.

However, deeper conflicts often can’t be dismissed with minor adjustments or settled with a handshake. Instead, leaders must learn how to engage these instances of ongoing strife, that is, surface, study, and generally view them as opportunities for learning. This is particularly the case with identity based conflicts, such as when two companies merge and experience a clash of cultures. In these instances, learning itself may be all that is initially necessary or advisable. In other words, engaging conflict provides an opportunity for self study, which will eventually enable the business to design and implement change.

Rethinking Conflict

But how can organizations ensure that deep conflict becomes constructive, and that it promotes real learning and change? The first step is to look at conflict itself with new eyes, changing the common perception of it from a destructive burden to a creative possibility. Thinking differently about conflict is a prerequisite for acting differently when it occurs.

For example, stop for a moment and reflect on an interpersonal conflict that you were involved in that ended badly. Now replay it with a positive ending. Instead of slamming the door and rushing away in anger, imagine how different it would have been had you said, “I’m really upset; I want to take a few minutes to calm down and then come back and talk with you about what is bothering me.” Or had your antagonist said, “I’m sorry I’ve made you so angry. Let’s talk; I’d like to understand why.”

In this way, the engagement can serve as a catalyst for new insights. This same approach holds true when groups are locked in identity conflict. If group members can stop and learn from their difficulties, organizational transformation can follow.

Developing effective conflict engagement skills should begin with careful consideration of several questions, such as, What is conflict in general (e.g., a bad thing, a good thing, or something that is neutral and dependent on how we respond to it)? At what level of depth and complexity does it present itself in particular instances? Why has it occurred in this case? Only after individuals gain insight into the nature of conflict and how it manifests itself can they learn new ways for effectively engaging it. One such way is the ROI-ARIA diagnostic and intervention process described below.

Step One: Diagnosis

The first step in effective conflict engagement is developing the art of going slow to go fast. When people in conflict rush to solutions before fully understanding the parameters and causes of the conflicts they seek to address, they often end up solving the wrong problems. Instead, conflicting parties need to learn new frameworks for fully defining and analyzing their conflict before selecting an intervention strategy.

Given that we have all been “burned” by conflict, we need new ways to think about its light rather than its heat.

I use a diagnostic tool called “ROI”—Resources, Objectives, Identity that helps people do a full but relatively quick diagnosis about the level of a given conflict. The example of a merger between companies illustrates the differences among these three levels. In a merger, two formerly separate entities may be forced to compete for the same scarce funds. This is a conflict around “Resources.” At a deeper level, conflict may result when the management team in the acquiring company threatens or rejects the core goals of a department in the acquired company. This is a conflict at the “Objectives” level. At the deepest level, mergers often cause people to feel that their “way of working,” including their values and accepted norms, is threatened, jeopardizing their fundamental sense of who they are both as workers and as individuals. This is an “Identity” conflict.

Step Two: Intervening

Once the level of the conflict has been ascertained, the appropriate intervention strategy must be selected. The four level ARIA framework can help transform the dissonance of conflict into the resonance of creativity and cooperation as it gradually becomes a vehicle for inquiry, learning, and planned change (see “TheARIA Process”). The framework consists of four phases:

• Surfacing Antagonism (What caused the conflict between the parties in the first place? What are the main symptoms of the problem?)
• Fostering Resonance (What does each side care about most and why? Where is there an overlap of underlying concerns?)
• Generating Inventions (What solutions can the parties apply to convert the negative dynamics of conflict to an opportunity for addressing underlying and often shared concerns?)
• Planning Action (How can the parties design a specific action plan for clarifying who will do what, why, when, and how?)

The level of the conflict determines the appropriate phase in which to start the ARIA process (see “The‘ARIA’ Steps”). For instance, in an identity-level conflict, Antagonism between the parties to the conflict must first be safely surfaced (, “We didn’t ask to be bought by you!” or, “Why do you resist our every step?”)before Resonance can be fostered and solutions designed (, “We are in this together now, so how can we pull in the same direction?”). In an objective level conflict, cultivating Resonance helps clarify what people care about and thus what goals any solution must seek to advance. In are source level conflict, Inventing creative solutions for mutual gains can begin immediately. No matter where the process begins, planning Action should be the final step.

Given that we have all been “burned” by conflict, we need new ways to think about its light rather than its heat. The ROI ARIA diagnosis and intervention process provides an effective way to promote positive engagement with conflict and transform it from an obstacle to an opportunity for creating ongoing organizational learning.

The post The “Aria” Approach to Conflict Resolution appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

But being aware of the need for strong connections does not bring them about. If anything, despite our best intentions, we seem to be losing the capacity to build and maintain productive relationships: Marriages are breaking down, teams are falling apart, departments are stuck in conflict, and business partners are spending more time covering their flanks than generating value. Despite the best intentions, time and again, friends become enemies—a dynamic known as “Accidental Adversaries.”

The Dynamics of Breakdown

In any relationship, each party has his or her own purpose. Some of the things you do contribute to my achieving my objectives and others get in my way. Often the “getting in the way” occurs when you inadvertently make my life more difficult while pursuing your own goals. In response, I might set up safeguards for future interactions.

These safeguards end up making your life more difficult. You then take action to protect your interests, unintentionally obstructing me in turn.

In this case, we have fallen into the “Accidental Adversaries” structure—a reinforcing cycle in which we act in our own self-interest and impede one another. But why is it so easy to lose sight of our mutual goals? Writing in The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge suggests that learning is often disabled by a pattern of thinking he calls “the enemy is out there.” For instance, I can usually find evidence that you are to blame for problems in our relationship. In a work situation, if you miss an agreed-upon deadline for completing your end of a project, I may reproach you for your lack of accountability. Casting the blame on you absolves me of any responsibility for the delay and reduces the possibility that I might act to put things right.

At the same time, because of my reprimand, you may become defensive. Just as I can find ways to blame you for the delay, you can always find ways to blame me—you may believe that my poor instructions made your task more time-consuming than it needed to be. This kind of “tit-for-tat” blaming plays an important role in making relationships go wrong.

Another element that often undermines partnerships is “either/or” thinking. Depending on whether I most often notice the things you do that please me or those that annoy me, I classify you as “good” or “bad,” “trustworthy” or “untrustworthy.” The combination of “tit-for-tat” blaming and “either-or” thinking can undermine even the best-intentioned alliance. We may sense that we should be working together, but we feel that we have little choice but to protect ourselves. After all, we each think that the other is to blame for any difficulties, and our “either/or” thinking prevents us from noticing the good thatwe are also doing for one another.

Bumps in the Road

What lessons can we take from these dynamics? Although it is tempting to think that we can sort out our disagreements by finding out “who started it,” this approach is unlikely to help us break out of the vicious cycle in which we’ve become trapped. The answer to that query is likely shrouded in the mists of time and a perplexing lack of bad motive on anyone’s part. And posing the question merely reinforces the blaming activity.

If we are to resist the tendency to fall into adversarial relationships, we need to accept that, from time to time, we will inadvertently obstruct one another. The good news is that we can choose to focus attention on the benefits that we offer one another, and we can cultivate our capacity to act in selfless rather than self-interested ways. For this to happen, we need to form relationships with those whom we trust to be like-minded. Then, if we do encounter bumps in the road, we can work together to get to our destination without undermining the quality of our relationship or the pleasure we take in the journey.

Philip Ramsey teaches organizational learning and training and development at Massey University in New Zealand. He is the author of several books, including the Billibonk series (Pegasus Communications). Rachel Wells is currently completing her master’s degree in human resource management at Massey University. She is particularly interested in research into the creation of learning environments at work.

The post How Am I Supposed to Work with Her?”: The “Accidental Adversaries” Storyline appeared first on The Systems Thinker.