For some people, however, striving for outstanding performance is not a healthy pursuit of excellence. On the surface, their behavior may look healthy, but their efforts are driven by fear of failure and worthlessness. Rigid thinking, self-deception, and image maintenance all contribute to what is, essentially, a learning disability. “Perfectionism” is the term used to describe this pattern of self-defeating attitudes.

The nature of perfectionism, along with the learning challenges it presents, can be charted using a causal loop diagram (see “Striving for Consistency”). This diagram can give us clues about what drives perfectionism and offers ideas for ways to break the cycle of negativity that it can lead to.

Achieving Cognitive Consistency

People strive to establish consistency in their lives. Each of us seeks to align our behavior (what we see ourselves harder and harder to achieve this alignment or consistency.

By worldview, we mean a set of beliefs that are typically held at a tacit, or unspoken, level. While people might find it difficult to put into words the underlying assumptions and beliefs that make up their worldview, these beliefs shape the way they react to situations that arise in their lives. Perfectionists generally hold a similar set of attitudes that, were they expressed, might include the following:

• It is important to be a worthwhile person.
• To be worthwhile, a person must do everything perfectly.
• Worthwhile people never lower their standards.

STRIVING FOR CONSISTENCY

When a perfectionist falls short of her impossibly high expectations, the results are inconsistent with her worldview and self-concept, leading to self-destructive behavior and poor self-image. She can regain a sense of consistency by changing her behavior to again achieve perfection (B1), changing her self-concept (B2), or changing her worldview (B3)

This score, while acceptable for most people, is inconsistent with the perfectionist’s worldview and self-concept. As the CLD shows, the cognitive inconsistency could be brought back into balance in one of three ways: by changing one’s behavior to again achieve perfection (Loop B1), by changing one’s self-concept to “I am not worthwhile” (Loop B2), or by changing one’s worldview (Loop B3). If you were a six-year-old, you would not give much thought to your worldview; most likely, you would decide to work harder at being perfect, thereby activating Loop B1. And because many six-year-olds have the potential to achieve perfect performance on tests, the effort most likely will be rewarded.

As a child gets older, perfect” performance becomes more difficult—and eventually unattainable—as tests get harder and competition becomes tougher. Efforts to change or improve behavior do not always deliver the desired outcome; they just leave the perfectionist exhausted. With growing exhaustion, perfectionists seek alignment of their beliefs in a different way: by reassessing their self-worth, coming to the conclusion that “I am not worthwhile.” So instead of cycling around Loop B1, the perfectionist flips over to Loop B2 and adopts a negative self-concept.

Time spent in Loop B2 is time off from the rigors of B1, so after a while the exhaustion will subside. However, even with the new negative self-concept, the perfectionist still feels a sense of inconsistency, since part of the perfectionist worldview is that it is important to be worthwhile. A new pattern emerges: striving for perfect performance (B1) until reaching a state of exhaustion, flipping into B2 and a more negative self-concept, then as one’s energy allows, returning to the grind of B1.

Others often give perfectionists advice like “Don’t be so hard on yourself,”, “Lighten up,” and “Be happy with 90 percent.” Such input would be fine for someone who was not a perfectionist. Perfectionists, though, hear this advice as “Lower your standards,” which directly conflicts with their worldview. If they could lower their standards, they wouldn’t be perfectionists! So they continue to fall into a pattern of negative self-concept and efforts to change their behavior.

Some perfectionists find low-energy ways to change their behavior so that it looks perfect—for example, by procrastinating on completing their assignments so they don’t have to deal with performance stress—but these quick-fixes cannot last. Because of their worldview, perfectionists become rigid and unwilling to address deeply held beliefs, even when they are clearly destructive.

Leverage

By focusing on the need to give attention to learning and experience in addition to performance, perfectionists may be able to frame the change as a raising rather than a lowering of standards.

Perfectionism is often associated with self-destructive behavior and poor self-image, conditions that can become serious if not addressed. Unless perfectionists get help in changing their worldview, the solutions they try to put into place will only be symptomatic. Leverage lies in finding a way past the rigidity that prevents people from exploring and changing their deeply held beliefs.

One way to do so is by proposing changes to the perfectionist worldview in terms that do not attack an individual’s underlying beliefs. As mentioned above, encouraging perfectionists to lower their standards is self-defeating. But perfectionists are usually eager to raise their standards; that is, to believe that they are not doing enough.

In his book The Inner Game of Work: Focus, Learning, Pleasure, and Mobility in the Workplace (Random House, 2001), Tim Gallwey suggests that in order to make work sustainable, people need to pay attention to Performance, Learning, and Experience. Perfectionists focus their attention almost entirely in the area of performance. They sacrifice opportunities to learn and the quality of their experience in a vain attempt to attain perfect levels of performance. By focusing on the need to give attention to learning and experience in addition to performance, perfectionists may be able to frame the change as a raising rather than a lowering of standards.

You might try this three-pronged approach when coaching perfectionists in the workplace. Encourage them to assess their work in terms of performance, learning, and experience. Make the point that achieving at a high level requires experimentation and failure. In this context, failure is something to be celebrated; it is proof that effort is going into the learning aspect of work.

Some people may find a simple tool useful. Encourage them to draw three lines on a piece of paper, each with 0 at one end and 100 at the other. Have them label them “Learning,”, “Experience,” and “Performance.” After the completion of a significant task, have them determine a score for each of these elements. By doing so, the individual will come to understand achievement from a broader perspective than merely focusing on what performance can offer.

Perfectionism, with its emphasis on hard work and excellence, can appear to be highly desirable. Don’t be fooled. The dynamics revealed in “Striving for Consistency” take a heavy toll on the people involved, their colleagues, friends, and families. And this behavior cannot be sustained indefinitely; it ultimately leads to burnout in one form or another. Look for ways to help perfectionists understand these dynamics and address the worldview behind them.

The post Charting the Challenge of Perfectionism appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

One of the characteristics of a reinforcing loop is that, if left unchecked, it leads to powerful exponential growth. As any banker will gladly tell you, a dollar invested each week for 60 years will make you amazingly rich! But for situations that are less rosy, one of the problems is that escalation is very hard to stop once it gets going. A domestic squabble over a small thing can quickly grow to the point of destructive words and maybe even actions. Aware of the damage being wreaked, the partners may try to scale back their responses, but things can still spin out of control, as though the conflict has taken on a life of its own. When this same dynamic comes into play in the international arena between nations with nuclear weapons, it can have potentially catastrophic consequences.

Why is stopping escalation so hard? I think the problem is that small concessions aren’t enough; breaking the cycle takes big steps that go overboard in being generous to other side. Because of lack of trust or the desire to protect ourselves, we tend to tone down our rhetoric slightly—but not go too far. We seek to be conciliatory—but not to be seen as groveling. We make tentative moves toward finding a middle ground—but only as we define it.

Unfortunately, with the very real possibilities of miscommunication or misinterpretation, what one side considers to be a dramatic compromise may be viewed by the other as a hollow gesture. This kind of miscue can launch the reinforcing process all over again, often in a flash. Because people take away the impression that compromise isn’t possible, they aren’t as conciliatory in the future. Stress levels rise even further. These are reinforcing and amplifying elements. This is how wars that nobody wants can start and then gain their own momentum.

Big, Generous Actions

So how can we break free from this vicious cycle? As system dynamicist It is important to note that “generous actions” need not reflect a truly “generous spirit,” but can merely stem from the knowledge of the kind of response that is critical to averting disaster.

Embarking on this step requires trust, risk-taking, and courage. These are difficult requirements in a world with substantial complexity, time and perception delays, and communication problems. Further, if you don’t receive the desired response from the other side, then trust often decays, risk-taking becomes less aggressive, and courage turns to caution.

Real-World Examples

Having just returned from a peace delegation to Israel and Palestine, I have seen with my own eyes the damaging effects of decades of escalation. There have been a number of cycles of hurtful activity on both sides involving Palestinian protests and terrorism in response to repression, and Israeli repression and military action in response to Palestinian actions. This situation is clearly in a downward spiral, as exemplified by Israel’s recent construction of a “security fence”—as high as 8 meters in many places—that extends more than 700 kilometers within the West Bank. The sad irony is that, while this barrier and numerous security checkpoints may create the illusion of safety, by fueling anger and despair among the Palestinians, they may be boosting the escalation dynamic to a new, more deadly level— and increasing danger.

ESCALATION TEMPLATE

The basic causal loop structure of escalation has two balancing loops, as each party takes action to achieve its goal and move a bit ahead of its opponent. As the momentum swings back and forth between the two sides, the interaction of these balancing loops creates a figure-8 reinforcing loop.

“I would humbly suggest the Saudi king make four stops. His first stop should be to Al Aksa Mosque in East Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam. There, he, the custodian of Mecca and Medina, could reaffirm the Muslim claim to Arab East Jerusalem by praying at Al Aksa.

From there, he could travel to Ramallah and address the Palestinian parliament, making clear that the Abdullah initiative aims to give Palestinians the leverage to offer Israel peace with the whole Arab world in return for full withdrawal [from the occupied territories].

From there, King Abdullah could helicopter to Yad Vashem, the memorial to the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust. A visit there would seal the deal with Israelis and affirm that the Muslim world rejects the Holocaust denialism of Iran. Then he could go to the Israeli parliament and formally deliver his peace initiative.

Of course, I have no illusions about this. But is it any more illusory than thinking that the incrementalism of the last seven years is going to get anywhere? Now that’s a fantasy.”

This is perhaps an extreme example, but Freidman knows that something of this nature needs to happen. I am not a historian, but I suspect that examination of the underlying dynamics leading to the end of apartheid in South Africa or peace in Northern Ireland or the fall of the Berlin Wall, all of which occurred with surprising suddenness, would yield additional insight into the nature of big actions that reverse long-term escalation. It’s like washing the windows on a global scale!

Because the reinforcing process can so quickly transform a small, even unintentional gap between two parties into a wide chasm, understanding the dynamics can make us more sensitive to risks and more anxious to nip a situation in the bud when it is manageable. Likewise, when we are caught up in this powerful structure, knowing about the leverage in big, generous actions can make our perceptions more focused and deliberate and our responses more confident and effective. From the kitchen to the world of nations, such insight can be priceless in saving relationships and preventing wars.

David W. Packer is a founding member of the Systems Thinking Collaborative (www.stcollab.com). He holds a master’s degree from MIT, where he worked in the system dynamics group at the Sloan School, and is also a graduate of the Executive Program at the University of Virginia. David participated for many years in the growth of Digital Equipment Corporation and has served on the board of directors of the Home for Little Wanderers, Domestic Violence Services, Policy Council of the System Dynamics Society, and Pegasus Communications. His broad interest in bringing systems understanding to diverse issues is reflected in this article.

The post Overcoming Escalation with Big, Generous Actions appeared first on The Systems Thinker.