To respond to this changing paradigm, what is needed may not be a change of action, but a change in perception. How we think, act, and value are all associated with our particular view of reality. In order to create a new “reality,” we must discover how our current worldview affects the way we perceive and respond to problems. The leverage lies in going to a more fundamental level — to look beyond the problems themselves and re-examine the paradigm that gave rise to them.

The Problem-Solving Model of Managing

The prevailing model of management can be described as a “problem-solution” model: we encounter problems, and as managers, we are expected to solve them as quickly as possible (see “Problem-Solution Model”). In this model, we attack each problem individually, apply an appropriate solution, and then move on to the next one. The problems rarely remain “solved,” however. From a systems thinking perspective, we can see how solutions often feedback to create other problems, or even a repeat of the same problem. By the time this happens, it often appears to be a brand new problem because we either have forgotten about the previous round of solutions, or the same person is no longer in that position (the average tenure in a position is 18 months or less in some companies). This creates a series of problem-solution cycles that can keep an organization continually busy fighting fires instead of taking more fundamental action.

How we think, act, and value are all associated with our particular view of reality. In order to adapt to and create a new “reality,” we must discover how our current worldview affects the way we perceive and respond to problems.

At its worst, the problem-solution paradigm leads us to see problems in terms of pre-determined solutions. Statements such as, “The problem is we need a better information system,” or “The problem is we need the latest flexible manufacturing system,” are examples of solution statements at work. The danger of this habit is that once we begin to frame problems in terms of solution statements, we exclude other possibilities — including the possibility that our original statement of the problem may be wrong.

Even when we don’t resort to our favorite solution, we often don’t challenge the problem statement itself. Problems are nothing more than a formal statement of a set of assumptions about the world. Those assumptions, however, are often not made explicit. By conversing and making decisions at the level of tacit assumptions, we can get very good at defending our point of view at the expense of learning. This can lead to what Chris Argyris of Harvard University calls “skilled incompetence.” Rather than looking at the real data and real issues — which may prompt a re-articulation of the problem — we become very skilled at dancing around the issues.

Problem Articulation

To re-examine the way we think about problems and solutions, we need to understand more fundamentally what a problem is. In reality, there are no problems “out there” in the world — nature just is. Whether we see an event or situation as a problem depends on our view of the world. For example, if oil prices double, is that a problem? Our response would be a resounding “Yes!” since our economy is heavily dependent on petroleum products. If we lived in an OPEC nation, however, we would not see it as a problem at all. If we lived in an undeveloped country with no dependence on oil, we probably would not even be interested.

PROBLEM ARTICULATION

To an extent, we create the problems we see by the way we view reality, and how we articulate those problems can determine the future direction of our reality. To break out of the “problem-solution” model of reality, we need to go back one step further to re-examine the question,“How did we distill out of this vast pool of life a particular problem which led us to act a certain way?”

Problems do not exist independently of the person who sees them Out of the pool of life we “construct” problems in our minds (or in our organizations) by the way we view reality (see “Problem Articulation”). Fred Kofman of the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management suggests that deconstructing a problem and finding a way to re-articulate it can provide much more leverage than trying to just double our efforts to solve the problem as it is currently stated. One of the clear challenges is to explore more explicitly how we articulate problems. Why do we consider something a problem? The “why” is what leads us to surface the deeper set of assumptions that may give insight into reformulating an entirely different problem.

Paradigm-Creating Loops

How can we break out of the problem-solving straitjacket and begin reframing issues in new ways? One tool that can help is the “Ladder of Inference,” developed by Chris Argyris. The “Ladder of Inference” provides a framework for exploring mental models. It graphically depicts the process we use to draw conclusive opinions and judgments from data, showing that individual evaluations are, in reality, highly abstract and inferential.

At the bottom of the “Ladder of Inference” is directly observable data: those things that can be objectively observed (see “The Reflexive Loop”). From that data, we add culturally shared meaning — that is, we interpret and make sense of an event by the norms of our culture. For example, suppose Bob, a colleague, walked into a 9:00 meeting at 9:15. The directly observable data is that Bob physically entered the room 15 minutes after the scheduled start time. What do we say to ourselves when we notice this?

When managers are asked this question, typical responses are:

“He’s late.” “He doesn’t care.” “His previous meeting ran late.” “He’s not a team player.” “He’s disorganized.”

If we locate the responses on the “Ladder of Inference,” we see that most of them are on the higher rungs of the ladder, reflecting judgments and values based on the observable data.

There is nothing inherently wrong about drawing inferences and conclusions from the events we observe. In fact, the ability to move quickly up the ladder is what enables us to make sense of the incredibly complex, infinitely detailed world in which we live. It is impossible for us to see and absorb everything — we are constantly selecting out a narrow slice of life to focus on and understand. What we don’t often realize, however, is that our set of beliefs and assumptions directly affect the selection process by which we receive new observable data. Argyris calls this process the reflexive loop because it happens subconsciously and involuntarily.

For example, if we have concluded that Bob doesn’t really care about meetings and is not a team player, what do we begin to notice about Bob? We take note of all the times he shows up late and we ignore or aren’t aware of all the times he is on time. We notice that Bob does not say much at meetings, but don’t register the fact that a few people always dominate the conversation and that there are others who say even less than Bob. We continually filter out any information that doesn’t fit in with the mental model we have created about Bob. In fact, all the data we see confirm our beliefs and assumptions about Bob. We have leaped from data up to beliefs and assumptions, and then operated as if the assumptions are the reality.

The reflexive loop can also be called the paradigm-creating loop, because it is the process through which, over time, we develop a shared set of corporate assumptions and beliefs about reality. In The Machine That Changed The World (New York: Rawson Associates), there is a striking example of how this paradigm-creating process literally affects our ability to see. The book describes a new system of manufacturing invented by Toyota called “lean production” that uses less material, requires smaller inventories, has a shorter design time, and produces fewer defects than the traditional mass production system (See “Lean Production: From the Machine Age to the Systems Age,” August 1991). The authors tell the story of a General Motors plant manager’s reaction after seeing a lean production plant in Japan: He “reported that secret repair areas and secret inventories had to exist behind the plant, because he hadn’t seen enough of either for a ‘real’ plant.” In actuality, there is no rework area in that plant — they drive the cars right off the assembly line and onto the ships. The GM manager’s paradigm of a “real” plant kept him from seeing that there might be an alternative way to produce cars.

Mistaking the Map for the Territory

Comedian Steven Wright tells this joke: “Last summer my wife and I were planning our summer vacation. We bought a map of the United States. It was life-sized. One mile equals one mile. We never went on the vacation because it took the whole summer to fold the map.”

Of course, buying a life-sized map is ridiculous — it would be no more useful than reality itself. A map is useful precisely because it is a simplification of reality. We would never mistake the map for the territory and plan a trip as if California is only three feet away from New York. And yet we are prone to make such errors of perception whenever we mistake our mental models for the real world.

Marcel Proust once said,“The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.” Becoming aware of how our view of the world is continually being constructed through the reflexive loop can prevent us from mistaking the map for the territory. Seeing problems as a product of our own thinking and not a product of nature can open our eyes to a whole new world of possibilities.

THE REFLEXIVE LOOP

The reflexive loop illustrates how our mental models can influence the way we view reality. We make leaps up the “Ladder of Inference” from data to values and assumptions, and then operate based on those assumptions as if they are reality. It can also be called the paradigm-creating loop, because it is the process through which, over time, we develop a shared set of cultural assumptions and values about how we view reality.

The post Paradigm-Creating Loops: How Perceptions Shape Reality appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

There are dozens of books on the topic of difficult, crucial, challenging, important (you get the idea) kinds of conversations (at the end of the articles, I list several). Those times when you know you should talk to someone, but you don’t. Maybe you’ve tried before and it went badly. Or maybe you fear that talking will only make the situation worse. Still, there’s a feeling of being stuck, and you’d like to free up that stuck energy for more useful purposes.

What you have here is a brief synopsis of best-practice strategies: a checklist of action items to think about before going into the conversation; some useful concepts to practice during the conversation; and some tips and suggestions to help your energy stay focused and flowing, including possible conversational openings.

You’ll notice one key theme throughout: You have more power than you think.

Preparing for the Conversation

Before going into the conversation, ask yourself some questions:

1. What is your purpose for having the conversation? What do you hope to accomplish? What would be an ideal outcome? Watch for hidden purposes. You may think you have honorable goals, like educating an employee or increasing connection with your teen, only to notice that your language is excessively critical or condescending. You think you want to support, but you end up punishing. Some purposes are more useful than others. Work on yourself so that you enter the conversation with a supportive purpose.
2. What assumptions are you making about this person’s intentions?You may feel intimidated, belittled, ignored, disrespected, or marginalized, but be cautious about assuming that that was the other person’s intention. Impact does not necessarily equal intent.

.

3. What “buttons” of yours are being pushed? Are you more emotional than the situation warrants? Take a look at your “backstory,” as they say in the movies. What personal history is being triggered? You may still have the conversation, but you’ll go into it knowing that some of the heightened emotional state has to do with you.
4. How is your attitude toward the conversation influencing your perception of it? If you think it is going to be horribly difficult, it probably will be. If you truly believe that whatever happens, some good will come of it, that will likely be the case. Try to adjust your attitude for maximum effectiveness.
5. Who is the “opponent”? What might he be thinking about this situation? Is he aware of the problem? If so, how do you think he perceives it? What are his needs and fears? What solution do you think he would suggest? Begin to reframe the opponent as a partner.
6. What are your needs and fears? Are there any common concerns? Could there be?
7. How have you contributed to the problem? How has the other person?

Four Steps to a Successful Outcome

The majority of the work in any conflict conversation is work you do on yourself. No matter how well the conversation begins, you’ll need to stay in charge of yourself, your purpose, and your emotional energy. Breathe, center, and continue to notice when you become off-center—and choose to return again. This is where your power lies. By choosing the calm, centered state, you’ll help your opponent/partner to be more centered, too. Centering is not a step; centering is how you are as you take the steps. (For more on centering, see The Magic of Conflict and the “FAQs About Conflict” listed at the end of the article.)

Step #1: Inquiry

Cultivate an attitude of discovery and curiosity. Pretend you don’t know anything (you really don’t), and try to learn as much as possible about your opponent/partner and her point of view. Pretend you’re entertaining a visitor from another planet, and find out how things look on that planet, how certain events affect the other person, and what the values and priorities are there.

If your partner really was from another planet, you’d be watching her body language and listening for the unspoken energy as well. Do that here. What does she really want? What is she not saying?

Let her talk until she is finished. Don’t interrupt except to acknowledge. Whatever you hear, don’t take it personally. It’s not really about you. Try to learn as much as you can in this phase of the conversation. You’ll get your turn, but don’t rush it.

Step #2: Acknowledgment

Acknowledgment means showing that you’ve heard and understood. Try to understand the other person so well you can make his argument for him. Then do it. Explain back to him what you think he’s really going for. Guess at his hopes and honor his position. He won’t change unless he sees that you see where he stands. Then he might. No guarantees.

Acknowledge whatever you can, including your own defensiveness if it comes up. It’s fine; it just is. You can decide later how to address it. For example, in an argument with a friend, I said: “I notice I’m becoming defensive, and I think it’s because your voice just got louder and sounded angry. I just want to talk about this topic. I’m not trying to persuade you in either direction.” The acknowledgment helped him (and me) to recenter.

Acknowledgment can be difficult if we associate it with agreement. Keep them separate. My saying, “This sounds really important to you” doesn’t mean I’m going to go along with your decision.

Step #3: Advocacy

When you sense that your opponent has expressed all her energy on the topic, it’s your turn. What can you see from your perspective that she has missed? Help clarify your position without minimizing hers. For example, “From what you’ve told me, I can see how you came to the conclusion that I’m not a team player. And I think I am. When I introduce problems with a project, I’m thinking about its long-term success. I don’t mean to be a critic, though perhaps I sound like one. Maybe we can talk about how to address these issues so that my intention is clear.”

Step #4: Problem-Solving

Now you’re ready to begin building solutions. Brainstorming and continued inquiry are useful. Ask your opponent/partner what he thinks would work. Whatever he says, find something that you like and build on it. If the conversation becomes adversarial, go back to inquiry. Asking for the other’s point of view usually creates safety, and he’ll be more willing to engage. If you’ve been successful in centering, adjusting your attitude, and engaging with inquiry and useful purpose, building sustainable solutions will be easy.

Practice, Practice, Practice

The art of conversation is like any art—with continued practice, you acquire skill and ease. Here are some additional hints:

• A successful outcome will depend on two things: how you are and what you say. How you are (centered, supportive, curious, problem-solving) will greatly influence what you say.
• Acknowledge emotional energy— yours and your opponent/partner’s— and direct it toward a useful purpose.
• Know and return to your purpose at difficult moments.
• Don’t take verbal attacks personally. Help your opponent/partner come back to center.
• Don’t assume your opponent/partner can see things from your point of view.
• Practice the conversation with a friend before holding the real one.
• Mentally rehearse the conversation.

See various possibilities and visualize yourself handling them with ease. Envision the outcome you’re hoping for.

How Do I Begin?

In my workshops, a common question is “How do I begin the conversation?” Here are a few conversation openers I’ve picked up over the years—and used many times!

• I have something I’d like to discuss with you that I think will help us work together more effectively.
• I’d like to talk about ___________ with you, but first I’d like to get your point of view.
• I need your help with what just happened. Do you have a few minutes to talk?
• I need your help with something. Can we talk about it (soon)? If the person says, “Sure, let me get back to you,” follow up.
• I think we have different perceptions about ___________. I’d like to hear your thinking on this.
• I’d like to talk about ___________. I think we may have different ideas on how to ___________.
• I’d like to see if we might reach a better understanding about ________. I really want to hear your feelings about this and share my perspective as well.

Write a possible opening for your conversation here: ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________

Good luck!

Judy Ringer is a conflict and communication skills trainer, black belt in aikido, and sole owner of Power & Presence Training and Portsmouth Aikido. To sign up for free tips and articles, visit http://www. JudyRinger.com.

The post We Have to Talk: A Checklist for Difficult Conversations appeared first on The Systems Thinker.