Get your own Free Home Page|
I. Introduction I’ve been an IBM employee for the past 17 years and am considered, by many managers, a double-edged sword. I am respected for my technical, leadership, organizational, communication, teaming, and problem solving skills. I am passionate about creating success and building an enriching, enjoyable environment. However, over the past several years I average being "counseled" (i.e., scolded) by managers once or twice a year for reasons I didn’t fully understand (and hence "learn" from)—until now. This understanding, though it took years to reach, is not difficult to grasp. One of the goals of this paper is to help others achieve this understanding and thereby improve interplanetary communication. Interplanetary communication? What my well-intentioned management counselors and I had was a failure to communicate. The primary reason for the failure was that we were approaching these situations from different paradigms and different paradigms make different conceptual worlds. An example will help illustrate. Assume you live in a neighborhood in which the houses all have yards without fences. One of your neighbors has a large dog which, while not dangerous, can frighten small children or people who have phobias about large dogs. The dog also deposits droppings in all the yards. You are personally bothered by having dog doo-doos in your yard and you don’t like having your children afraid to play in the yard. What would you do? You may seek to invoke an outside authority and call the cops. Let’s say you live in a dog-friendly area and there are no leash-laws or poopy-scooping laws. You may ask other neighbors their thoughts about the situation. You may ask the dog’s owners why they let their dog roam so freely. At some point you (or someone else on your behalf) will likely approach the dog’s owners and tell them about the problem (for it is a problem at least from your perspective) and threaten or ask them to limit their dog’s roaming. You may propose a way to do so that allows the dog limited freedom (no leash) without the cost or eyesore of building a fence (e.g., use of an invisible electric fence that sends a shock to the dog’s collar if he seeks to wander beyond the borders of the yard). You may even offer to contribute to the cost of the electric fence and solicit other neighbors to do so as well. If you tried all these things you may have found a solution with which everyone is happy, a win/win. When I have gotten into trouble in the work environment, it was because I was acting as the neighbor who saw a problem, solicited the thoughts of others to understand the scope of the problem, approached the people best positioned to resolve the problem, articulated the problem to them, and identified or offered possible solutions. I presented the example problem in such a way that you would be more likely to think about it within a particular paradigm; the paradigm in which most of us operate most of the time in our relationships with others. We see others as fellow human beings with the same needs, at least somewhat similar wants, and (if we were to think about it in these terms) as the center of their own universe. In a universe-objective way, we are all equal; each is the center of a single universe. If we have a problem to solve or a goal to reach, we understand that the best solution or approach to achievement is one that honors and respects all involved people. I’ll refer to this perspective from which human interactions flow as the "people centered universes" paradigm. Now I’ll shift gears and you may find yourself shifting paradigms. Let’s move the example into the work environment. I identify what I believe to be a problem with personnel, a project, or a product (a problem that may be as obvious as a large doo-doo), I collect data and opinions about the problem, I develop one or more solutions for addressing the problem (perhaps with the help of others), and I communicate all of this to the people who are affected by the problem or its solution and to those who can implement a solution. In the first example these actions resulted in a happy neighborhood, in the second I earn a management counseling session. What’s the difference? The paradigms. The manager who sees the errors in my ways does not approach the situation from the same paradigm as the neighbor did—or as I do. Even though I thought I was helping out in a fundamentally important and appropriate manner, I have been scolded in the work environment (as will be explained later, "scolded" is a more accurate description of the communication experience then "counseled") for allegedly doing one or more of the following:
It is not my intent to make people "look bad" or to unnecessarily disturb them, but I cannot control how people respond to me or my actions. It is my intent—I consider it a responsibility of each of us—to challenge decisions that seem wrong, to offer solutions to problems, to ask for help when others can provide it, to be open and honest in all matters, and to strive to stir people from their fur-lined grooves when they and others may benefit from rethinking and taking a new perspective. To me, these are critical elements of respect and caring. If those are my intentions (and they seem right and noble) and my actions
are aligned with those intentions (and no one has ever claimed they were
otherwise), why have I had serious disagreements with various managers
regarding the appropriateness of my actions? Conflicting paradigms.
II. A Breakthrough Idea The paradigm within which most managers typically relate to others in the work environment is not peculiar to managers in that environment. As a generalization, I claim it is commonly lived in by those in politics, the military, serious sports, and those who consider themselves business people whether or not they are managers. In this paradigm, rank matters. Hierarchies are key. Victory over others is a goal as it facilitates moving up the hierarchy. I’ll refer to this as the "everyone is a competitor" paradigm. Think about people in politics, the military, sports, or business. Think about how they see "the enemy;" the other party, the other side, the other team, the other company. Their goal is to win at the expense of the other; to impose on other human beings what they would hate to have imposed on themselves. This mental outlook breeds distrust and competition even within the same side among one’s teammates. (Players vie for starting positions or more game time, officers and managers seek promotions or glory over those in the same military or company.) This paradigm, to me, is an anathema. It stands in stark contrast to all I hold dear about relating to others. (For a fuller description of my thoughts on competition, see Cultural Heresy: The Case Against Competition). The table below conveys some of the different work practices and orientations
one will have arising from one’s paradigm. There are generalizations made
in this table. People embrace a paradigm to varying degrees so their practices
and orientations will vary as well. If one is familiar with a factory work
environment in which nearly everyone strongly embraces the "everyone is
a competitor" paradigm, the rightmost column will ring most true. In a
more professional environment, that paradigm is less universally embraced
but it is still very widely and strongly held by those in management. I
believe that generally the higher the person is in the management hierarchy,
the stronger their conviction in the paradigm (but even then it may be
a subconscious conviction).
With only minor terminology changes, the above table can be applied more broadly then the work environment. People can operate from either paradigm in their home life. It’s clear which paradigm is held by those in the military. I think it is clear which is a healthier paradigm from which to operate at home. Under normal daily circumstances, it may be difficult to distinguish a difference in attitudes and behavior arising from a difference in paradigms. People working on the same project have common overarching goals for that project and their company’s success. This can, under many conditions, cloud the fact that some people believe "everyone is a competitor." However, under duress there is a marked difference in attitude and behavior between those coming from the two paradigms. If one thinks the above table is too radical in its descriptions of differences, read it again under relatively extreme conditions. Consider the differences in relating to a person who is very low or very high in the hierarchy, assume there is information about the project that is very uncomplimentary and consider the differences in how that is handled, assume the problem to be resolved is particularly nasty and that there are strong differences of opinions about how to address it. One’s behavior under these conditions will reveal one’s paradigm. It is when I act under the more extreme conditions, operating from my paradigm, that I am often counseled by those using a different paradigm. My breakthrough idea, that now seems so obvious, is that I come from a different world than most managers. Paradigms define worlds and we operate from different paradigms. When others find themselves distressed by something I do, say, or write and try to unburden themselves by pointing out the errors of my actions as well as what is wrong about me; they are not being untruthful or disrespectful to me, they are being more devoted to their paradigm. This was difficult for me to appreciate because, from my paradigm, they were being secretive (if not untruthful) and disrespectful to me. When I’ve been "counseled" by my managers, it was only in a very weak sense of that word. It was "counseling" as an act-on verb; something one does to another. The best (the most effective and appreciated) counselors learn at least as much from those they are counseling as the counseled learn. The best teachers learn from their students. The best doctors from their patients. The best product or service providers learn from their Customers. Effective counseling is a human inter-action that is necessarily bi-directional. In all my counseling sessions with a manager (and there have been more than a dozen), I’ve not had one manager tell me they learned something from me during the session and only on a couple of occasions did I see something in their eyes or hear something in their voice that indicated they heard something worthy of more reflection. The word "counseling" is used in these unidirectional, "I’m going to tell you what you did wrong and what you could have done better and what not to do again" sessions as a euphemism for "reprimand" or "scolding." (The manager is usually frustrated if not angry with me and that comes across. I don’t have a problem with someone being angry or frustrated with me. But a problem is created when the attempt at resolving the difficulty between us is to counsel me in a unidirectional sense.) As these people in management positions conveyed my failure to do my job to their expectations, they failed to do theirs; to counsel effectively. If they had, the difference in paradigms would have been uncovered years ago. Looking back on these sessions, every one of them put my perceived failure in the context of the manager’s paradigm, in terms of roles and hierarchies. During these sessions the manager would invariably include phrases such as; "as a team leader you should (or shouldn’t)", "don’t involve a manager not in our management chain", "don’t share that with non-managers", "don’t share that with others not in this organization", etc. These admonitions were meaningless to me. I see people not positions. I seek to have people help with a problem based on their abilities to solve it, not on their titles or specified responsibilities. I seek to raise awareness in others about issues that might affect them, without concern that this attempt to help educate them might be used against me. (If it is, I consider that a separate problem to be addressed; not one to avoid by being secretive.) Neither my managers nor I ever caught onto this during our sessions. I think a reason the "counseling" my managers did with me was ineffective is training. Counseling is not easy to do well and I suspect that the counseling training that occurs in IBM’s Management School is poorly done because that school is what nurtures if not infuses the "everyone is a competitor" paradigm. Recognizing this paradigm difference has helped me understand what seems to be IBM’s unrealistic fear of unions. (It seems to me there is no threat of unionizing in this industry in the U.S., but IBM often seems paranoid about it.) Unions generally operate from the same "everyone is a competitor" paradigm as IBM upper management, and they operate there in a hardball manner. Without a union, the only people with significant power in this paradigm in IBM are those in management. This paradigm includes a desire against power sharing. The possibility of a union (as of a nuclear war), though it may be low risk, is devastating to the status quo so keepers of the status quo fear it. Those who operate from the "people centered universes" paradigm have a sense of their own personal power. They feel empowered without unions and see no need to turn to them; which would mean embracing the "everyone is a competitor" paradigm. That would effectively cede their personal power. This breakthrough has also helped me understand why co-workers, who
would support a position I was taking, would not necessarily endorse my
actions. They’d say I was either courageous or stupid. They would caution
me about repercussions to advancing ideas we both thought were important
to advance. I don’t think I was courageous or stupid. I think I was ignorant.
Apparently these co-workers, perhaps from their own personal experience,
had a sense of the schism between the paradigms that I lacked.
III. Examples Demonstrating these Conflicting Paradigms Let us consider three examples from my work experience and see how the conflicting paradigms resulted in problems between myself and my management. Example 1: [Aftermath: Within a month this person was hired by IBM as a regular employee]. [Aftermath: The product shipped, didn’t sell a license and was withdrawn from the market a few months later.] [Aftermath: Our team got moved to the hardware division. I left after six months for another job in IBM (in the software division). The project was moved six months later to India and the people who had been working on it were given other jobs in the hardware division, though several had left the company in the interim—an unusually high attrition rate for a project in IBM.] IV. Drawbacks of the "Everyone is a Competitor" Paradigm Managers are people who generally have responsibility for higher level decisions, setting larger goals, conveying visions, and having a greater dependency on others. It is not necessary that they operate from a particular paradigm as they meet their responsibility, however if they don’t consciously choose one they will by default assume (and be expected to assume) the "everyone is a competitor" paradigm. There are good reasons to make a conscious choice in this area—and to choose otherwise. In my opinion, the "everyone is a competitor" paradigm is less healthy, less effective, and less efficient than the "people centered universes" paradigm. It persists mainly because of its pervasiveness and through unthinking habit. It is a paradigm that was ensconced long ago in less enlightened times in strongly hierarchical cultures. Because it is widespread does not mean it serves us well. Parasites are widespread but only self-serving. A second goal of this paper, in addition to improving interplanetary communication, is to improve the world by helping people move to a healthier, more effective, and more efficient paradigm. In this section I hope to show some of the deficiencies of the "everyone is a competitor" paradigm. The "people centered universes" paradigm suffers from none of these shortcomings. a) Health Drawbacks
b) Limitations in Effectiveness Being a less healthy paradigm to operate from makes the "everyone is a competitor" paradigm less effective than a "people centered universes" paradigm. There are other reasons why this is a less effective paradigm:
c) Limitations in Efficiency The control structure associated with this paradigm overlaid on its hierarchical personnel structure feeds bureaucracy which creates inefficiencies. Minimizing bureaucracy and localizing control maximizes efficiency. An example will help illustrate the inefficiencies inherent in this paradigm. A software company has two products that have significant interdependencies, but for a host of reasons are being developed in different organizations (e.g., business units, divisions) with different reporting structures. Assume an executive in one of those organizations thought it was important to have a greater awareness of some aspect of the other organization’s product, and that she knew the names of the people who were regularly working with that feature of the product. If she operates from a "people centered universes" paradigm, she would contact one of those people and ask for a brief demo or report. Her intent for doing so is for the betterment of both products. Coming from an "everyone’s a competitor" paradigm, this approach would cause great unease because there is a sense of distrust and suspicion and a perceived violation of political protocol. The expected behavior from this paradigm is for executive A to contact a "peer" (same level) executive B in the other organization and to request a demo/meeting with an appropriate technical person (it would likely be taken as a breach of protocol if executive A requested a specific technical person for the meeting; choosing the person is the responsibility of B and their reporting chain). B would send a request down his reporting chain until it bottomed out with the lowest level manager likely making the choice of who would do the presenting. Information would flow back up to B who would convey it to A. In addition to the technical person and executive A, the meeting would include managers from B’s organization; complicating setting up the meeting. The managers from B’s organization will want to see what A sees and try to ensure that what is said or shown is appropriate; they don’t want executive A to have information that they may not have or that can be used against them. Other managers from A’s organization, if they learned about the meeting, would want to attend as well. (Some out of seeking opportunities to be in meetings with their "higher-ups", some who think "if it’s important for A to see, it must be important for me too.") If one can be paradigm independent in this example, it’s not hard to see which is the more efficient and effective method for executive A to learn what she wants to learn. Note that Thomas Watson Sr. and Thomas Watson Jr., two former Chairmen
and CEOs of IBM, would routinely leave their offices and appear unannounced
on factory floors or in hallways and offices to chat with non-managers.
They saw this as important for them to understand, from a different perspective,
how things were functioning in IBM and to promote what they held us a guiding
principle within IBM, "Respect for the Individual." Contrast this with
the way a more recent IBM CEO operated. When John Akers visited IBM locations,
it was announced well in advance. The places he would see and the people
he would meet were selected and prepared (sometimes halls and offices were
painted and new carpeting laid down on the planned path and people were
schooled on what to say and what not to say). Site executives would necessarily
escort Akers wherever he went. What they wanted Akers to see and hear was
that everything was going great—implying that they were doing great. Anything
that seemed problematic, they "had their arms around" and were "moving
in the right direction." Akers was puzzled when IBM stock fell from over
$170 a share to the low $40s. All he ever heard was good news. Because
he and his reporting chains were firmly entrenched in the "everyone is
a competitor" paradigm, he didn’t get or accept enough help seeing the
shift in technology paradigms; e.g., the shift away from host-centric to
network-centric Customer environments. In my opinion, it wasn’t so much
Akers that needed to be sacked but the paradigm that needed and still needs
to be replaced.
V. Changing from an "everyone is a competitor" paradigm Changing paradigms can be traumatic, especially changing from a paradigm embraced by those around you. If you currently operate from an "everyone is a competitor" paradigm, you can reduce the influence of that paradigm without completely rejecting it. You can test the waters of change. You can choose to behave in the following ways:
VI. Impact of breakthrough on me This has been a watershed event for me in my professional life. I now realize that there are at least two distinct worlds in my work environment, and that the times there was a deep disagreement about the appropriateness of an action I took arises from perspectives grounded in different paradigms. I pride myself on my ability to communicate, but would sometimes find myself apparently unable to communicate about important matters with intelligent and reasonable people. That troubled me. It no longer does because now I understand the source of our communication failure. I believe the "people centered universes" paradigm from which I operate,
is a better choice of paradigms. Though I believe the "everyone is a competitor"
paradigm from which others operate is less healthy, less effective, and
less efficient than other approaches for problem solving or interacting
with people, it doesn’t mean I don’t like or don’t wish to work with the
people who embrace that paradigm. Indeed I married an IBM manager (though
Missy never fully embraced the "others are competitors" paradigm). I feel
for people who don’t like to view others as competitors but who are in
an environment in which that is the dominant and expected paradigm. I don’t
expect them to fully change their environment, but I expect them to be
true to themselves and others and hope that they act to humanize that environment.
Though those are my hopes and expectations, I will not assume others want
them as well. Now that I better understand our differences, I can better
honor and respect those who act from a different paradigm. That is part
of their universe and I see them as the center of their universe. When
interacting with people who I believe operate from the "everyone is a competitor"
paradigm, I intend to operate by that paradigm’s constraints. I intend
to meet them in their world. I will also
seek to have us both better understand our paradigms and gently invite
growth as I understand it and welcome growth as they understand it, for
that is caring of others and self.
© 2001 frantzml@juno.com
|
Get your own Free Home Page