Comments

Without bringing up my overall views for or against George W. Bush, I have often considered the question of certainty and adherence to a singular point of view in terms of the President. To his credit, I see Mr. Bush as someone who will stick to his guns and take a hard stand for his beliefs. With his team of advisors, he develops a game plan and works diligently to execute it. I often associate this hard stand with the high rollers in the business world who will do whatever it takes to meet their objectives. On the other hand, I also see Mr. Bush as obstinate and seemingly unwilling to include or sometimes even acknowledge other points of view. He can craft an entire world built on various strong convictions, and dig himself into a hole if his beliefs don't bear fruit in the real world or aren't in line with public (consumer) desires.

It seems to me (at the tender age of 29 and not entirely 'corporate' in nature) that in business, those who draw a hard line and are less flexible are often revered for their quick decision-making and aggressive pursuit of the bottom line. It would be rare for a company to start the millions of wheels in motion on a new initiative and then reign everything in if there is a change due to inconsistent, new or updated data and feedback.

Personally, I am far more motivated by a leader's character and ability to acknowledge the whole picture, whether or not he or she makes mistakes along the way. I see flexibility as a strength, as it indicates a willingness to consider a possiblity that another viewpoint has merits. Still, it would make sense that a large corporate structure doesn't share this confidence in flexible ideology because being flexible and changing procedures midstream takes a lot of time and resources.

Posted by Dante at August 1, 2005 10:47 AM

cathy,

nicely put.

seems like we have a built in or installed "i'm right" mechanism or filter which kicks in, when our individual "paradigm" or expectations get crossed.

this happens on blogs, newsgroups, and political circles. oh talk shoooo hosts... aya yahhhhh.

people arguing from agenda, either emotionally or philosophically argue much differently than those who approach situations or conflicts logically, disassemble them and reach decisions
accordingly.

grab your "logical falacies chart"... and your hat...

I think rightly, things seem to polarize, and get conflicted before a "paradigm" shift or "breakthrough".... so we're in for some "interesting times".

Posted by khwebster at August 1, 2005 11:03 AM

Great insights Dante!

Not unlike stress, which can be good or bad depending on whether it is fuelling high performance or inhibiting it; tunnel vision can be effective or ineffective.

People espousing a certain belief (the religious conviction of a priest, the anti-smoking stance of a doctor, etc.) will often "stick to their guns" rather diligently as they are attempting to persuade others to see the "right path". There are instances where deviation from such beliefs would undermine cultural or societal efforts to improve.

Other times, people choose to not deviate from their beliefs simply because they have a problem with not being right. It is an ego-fuelled position that escalates at times into a very aggressive and un-objective crusade. This happens often during arguments in personal relationships. Normally, when one person's belief is challenged, they become defensive and cling even tighter to their position.

In Iraq, for example, might we consider that a democracy like we enjoy in the US isn't the best system for governing the region? There are countries in the world successfully run without such a system. Our leadership believes that this is what is best for Iraq, and so this is what we're force feeding them. Flexibility requires more than just listening carefully to other people's views and beliefs. It requires understanding them so that we can be open to them intelligently rather than politely.

It is difficult to put all of our paradigms to the side when we make choices; but opening our minds to other possibilities is crucial to our innovation and evolution.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 1, 2005 11:22 AM

Margaret Wheatley has a wonderful short article on this topic called "Disturb Me Please." It's available on her web site at: http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/pleasedisturb.html

Posted by Jeffrey at August 1, 2005 11:43 AM

A sign of genius is the ability to hold two divergent thoughts in your mind at the same time, and to consider the validity of each. I heard it somewhere. Probably Einstein.

Posted by Gary Fox at August 1, 2005 11:59 AM

I have obeserved my reactions and thoughts to data/opinions that do not fit my theories/beliefs.

My "reaction" is to immediately trash the other person's view or the data. After all, accepting that I might have been wrong is an impossibility - atleast immediately. Once I read more, get to the details, then I tend to think and agree that I might have been wrong or might have been basing my "thought-decision" on incomplete information.

Having the ability to "learn" is something that will serve you well in professional and personal life.

The attitude of not being able to accept the other person's opinion for what it is - an individual/personal opinion - is a hindrance to personal/professional growth. Of course in the case of my receiving information about hard facts that are different from what I had, it should be obvious that I was wrong!

I too have been reading threads of various forums that I am a part of. It is easy to understand that someone would like to defend their view/opinion - atleast when the subject being discusses is debatable/intangible. But the fact that people who handle senior management positions and / or are business owners, beat a dead horse just to defend their point of view - is quite frankly quite silly.

Change is the only constant and the sooner we accept the possibility that someone else might have a credible point of view and turn that into something we can use to our advantage, the more efficient and effective we will be.

Posted by Naina Redhu at August 1, 2005 1:30 PM

I think the mark of a good leader is in what she will or won't change.

A big curiosity is a great asset in this world. Personally I am more than happy to have my views changed by others (I actually enjoy making the connections between different views and ideas). I believe a good leader remains resolute in Values though.

I have a French colleague who when challenged about the French culture and arguing in meetings told me that when he is arguing it is a good sign because he is interested and engaged in what you are saying.

Posted by PaulH at August 1, 2005 2:26 PM

Great post! But I think there's clearly an alternate condition when anomalies escalate to "crises." In those cases, when we can't make anomalies conform to our current mindset, instead of leading "us to the 'reconstruction of prior theory,' they lead to a kind of selective brain fade. I call it the theology of wishful thinking.

Posted by Mark Howell at August 1, 2005 3:08 PM

Tom O' - totally disagree on "force feeding them" - the Iraqis have plenty of time to get their act together - and their republic will be unique to their needs. Once Hussein is dead then they'll be more confident that his palace driven fascism shall never return. I'm amazed that there aren't 100 times the number of insurgents in Iraq given the mid east penchant for civil war and genocide of opposing Islam sects.

Jason Fried, recent 'cool friend' interview:
"We're not much into planning or writing a lot of things down that are concrete. My personal opinion is that every decision you make should be temporary. So when you start writing things down, you start putting signatures to things, and you start being locked into your past actions. You're letting your past determine the future. So I prefer to just start designing and see where things go."

I like that idea of "going with the flow". And Tom O' - please try to be all things USA/Coalition constructively supportive or maybe pass on the return [to Bellingham]. Why return if you feel so strongly that the Coalition isn't correct in this important matter?

Posted by Sean at August 1, 2005 4:18 PM

I had the fantastic opportunity to grow up in a corporation which adhered to team-based management and put its money where its mouth was (Landmark Communications, Norfolk, VA). At times our meetings were brutal, with passionate disagreements - sometimes to the point of having to take a 'breather' to calm down.

It accomplished a few major things:
1) It gave everyone a voice and usually provided the best means of moving forward (they also insisted on facts so that people were not swayed by salesmanship alone).
2) It blew away the narcissists. They couldn't survive in that environment and left the company.
3) It developed employees personally and professionally well beyond their years.
3) It ruined my career! I found every other company I worked for since incapable of internal criticism or dissent.

I’ve begun working for a new organization now and it appears they appreciate the same kind of passion by their employees. Once bitten, twice shy, though. After many years of being beaten down for my commitment to continuous improvement, I find myself watching many other people ‘walk the plank’ before I choose to. I pick my battles carefully now… my goal is not to win every scrap, but to come out of the war alive.

From a personal standpoint, I suppose that means that I've personally grown over the years to accept viewpoints that I may not agree with. I find corporations a lot less forgiving of this, though.

Posted by Doug Karr at August 1, 2005 5:31 PM

Jeffrey, thank you for the gift- the article by Margaret Wheatley. It provides delightfully disturbing food-for-thought.

Posted by Pam Brill at August 1, 2005 7:37 PM

How to deal with anomalies is a very different question depending on who answers it, and also who is asking.

As we've seen from your article and the comments, it's a very personal thing. Some people like to have their ideas, beliefs and behaviours improved, changed or even challenged. Others take any comment as a direct personal attack and respond accordingly.

As an agent of change, the real challenge (at least for me) lies is how to best approach the individual with the anomaly. Some people can take the direct approach, most need to be 'warmed up' to it, and a few need a covert approach. Here:
http://www.toach.net/tales/john.htm
is an example of a covert approach.

Because of who we are, our view will always be limited. And it takes real skill in knowing what and when to accept a "reconstruct prior theory" event. If you do it too soon, the company flips from one idea to the next, not soon enough and the company flounders. In business the skill comes mainly from two areas; knowing what you want and being willing to do what it takes to get it. Then you can focus on what is important, and also measure and test if you are getting what you want or not and alter your actions accordingly.

Posted by Michael Vanderdonk at August 1, 2005 9:53 PM

Now Sean, of all places to staunchly reject alternative ideas about something! lol I suppose that this is a perfect example of what John (no relation by the way!) is writing about in this post: "...I get a kick out of how attached we humans can get to our own viewpoints—which often have us in a kind of death grip when challenged!..."

This debate has been stirring in the US for years now. Surely you know that not everyone in the US is supportive of our presence in Iraq.

My return to the US, as a veteran of the US Air Force, is happening because I love my country and miss it after being away for 9 years. But loving my country doesn't mean blindly supporting every decision that our leaders make (wouldn't you have stood up against our leadership when slavery was sactioned?). That's false pride. That's geocentric plasticity. That's pack mentality. The beauty of the United States is the diversity of opinions and the freedom to express them.

If there is one thing that I have learned while living outside of the States for the last 9 years, it is that there are so many different, interesting, and worthwhile perspectives in and of the world, often contrasting those of the current US leadership (I say leadership, because I detest generalizations of a people...i.e. "The French are...", "The Irish are..."). Most often, these contrasts are in relation to foreign policy and environmental issues.

Change occurs when people stop accepting the present condition. I think it was Albert Eistein who said that a good definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

By the way, I may change my mind later. It happens alot!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 1, 2005 10:01 PM

I think a lot of the blame for this problem lies with the media, certainly here in the UK. If we look at how they treat politicians, it's pretty shocking. They look for the slightest difference of opinion or emphasis between, say, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Whatever and then highlight it as a "Government split" or "PM at odds with so and so" or "Government in confusion over such and such an issue..."

Look at what happens during general elections or leadership contests etc. The media will dig up something a politician said 20 years to compare and contrast it with what he said yesterday - like he has no right to change his mind or modify his opinion.

And heaven help the polician who actually admits he was wrong about something or that his position has about-turned: the media will usually crucify him. All the above is usually portrayed by the media as weakness, vacillation and inconsistency rather than (per Paul H's great story above) proof that they've engaged in the debate.

I think the irony is that Joe Public can easily deal with people holding slightly divergent thoughts or modifying their opinions in the light of debate. Unfortunately, our media is challenging that ability as they push us further and further down the road of seeing only black and white, while being blind to the several shades of grey in between.

Posted by Mark JF at August 2, 2005 3:09 AM

Along the same lines, I have recently encountered people who are VERY quick to get angry. If they feel challenges, pushed, put out, ignored, or any other emotion....their first reaction is to explode and attack. These people have such an over inflated view of their own importance (I am not talking about when someone is really screwed over...I am talking about minor stuff).

I see this when people's opinions are challenged as well. I have LOTS of opinions (just ask my wife), but my dad taught me early on that just cuz I believe something does not mean it is right. He said that I very well could be correct on any number of things, but that I had to be willing to explore other options, view and opinions or I was being small minded.

A good example is religion. I have beliefs that are important to me. However, part of having faith is believing in what you cannot see or touch. Since I have no solid proof that my beliefs are the only TRUTH, I cannot condem others. Yet so many are so positive that their view of religion is so correct. And to challenge them makes them NUTS.

I listen to a comedian, Bill Maher, the other night and he was professing his "non-belief in God".....and he was so sure of himself in his distain for the Church. How does he know? What made him so much smarter than everyone else? He claims to be libertairian....(live and let live)...but he spun a lot of hateful judgement on others. An athiest who puts down those who are religious is just as pig headed as a fundementalist who berates a non-believer.

viagra price australia

If people would realize that the opinions of others are valuable, not threatening, the world would be a much better place!!!

Posted by Thom Singer at August 2, 2005 6:57 AM

Thom, very well put. I have difficulty in swallowing any absolutes, and grow tired of self-confessed key-holders of ultimate knowledge. Taking an historical view, through our evolution, widely held "certainties" have often been disproven over time. The world used to be flat, the thought of flying insane, slavery was acceptable, Pergatory was a reality, etc.

I find the wisest of all men to be those who profess that they are certain of very little.

I believe that all truth is perception. I also feel that the only path towards harmony is if we live our own truth and be tolerant of others' truths. Understanding that there are no absolutes...what might seem concrete today eventually crumbles over time.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 2, 2005 7:35 AM

Tom, I have to disagree - do we not want to say, to declare, that (for example) slavery, persecution, child abuse and cannibalism are unacceptable and wrong? And that they are and were unacceptable and wrong wherever and whenever they occur? Whatever cultural or ethical arguments that were or are deployed to justify such things, the response is that those arguments were wrong. Otherwiae, we fall into the trap of moral and cultural relativism where the worst offence of all is the causing of offence.

On anomalies and damage resulting from the human desire to maintain patterns of behaviour consistent with previous actions and decisions - I recommend Prof. Robert Cialdini's fantastic book "Influence". (Highly rated by Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway, anmong many others.)

Posted by Michael from UK at August 2, 2005 8:37 AM

Michael, but that is partly the point that I was, apparently unsuccessfully, making...these values, beliefs, behaviours, decisions WERE wrong (the world wasn't flat afterall); and yet so many people believed feverently in them at the time.

I was trying to illustrate that even widely accepted beliefs in our history, beliefs that people fought to defend, were eventually found to be "wrong", "misinformed", etc.

That historical glimpse of the recurring follies and failures through our evolution causes me to be cautious when I think that I am 100% certain of something at any given time. I am certain (at the moment!) that 100 years from now, people of this world will be rolling on the floor laughing at some of our beliefs, processes, products and concepts.

Always leave room for reconsideration, and never apologize for changing your mind!

Nobody is 100% right 100% of the time.

Thanks for the Cialdini recommendation...sounds interesting!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 2, 2005 10:46 AM

Thomas Kuhn--amen!

If we don't challenge our own ego then it gets challenged for us. Business, personal, social, whatever. And the world is moving too fast to just be "strong", or "nice" or any one thing. Time to get radically flexible or get ripped to shreds. I believe the vernacular is "get real"!

What TK also says is that paradigm shifts--change--doesn't happen in a token, incremental, cute way. They explode, flip, come out of nowhere, are the least expected, etc. I would suggest that this is why Level 5 leaders' distinguishing feature is often humility. They aren't attached to the outcome but believe in the integrity of the process of growth. And have a vast foundation of strength--can we say faith on a buisiness board--that allows discussion, dissent, retraction, and all the other mess of making the perfect hotdog. No wonder this attirbute is a little rare at the top of corporate ladders--who ever gets promoted by enjoying the process instead of fearing the outcome?

In my estimation it's nothing less than a worldwide switch from putting the "what" first to putting the "how" first. It's gonna be radical but, in the final estimation, what we've all wanted all along. And beautiful.

That's what I think this morning.

Lots of love.

Posted by Eben at August 2, 2005 10:57 AM

Michaels point of "slavery, persecution, child abuse and cannibalism are unacceptable and wrong" is correct. YES....There are SOME absolute truths in this world. But these are not intangible beliefs or things that cannot be proven. These are all bad (yet I bet there are some who would agrue with us just for sport).

However, my point is just because you are 100% right about these views does not mean that you are 100% about every opinion you have. I get tired when discussing "opinions" when people use these absolute topic as their justification. It is like my mother saying "if all your friends were jumping off a bridge would you?" as her retort when I was 16 and wanting a 1 AM curfew.

Within society there are some things that are just not tolerated. However, most of the topics that people dig their feet in about are not as absolute. Slavery is wrong....no arguement from any sane person. But marketing philosphy or the best football team in the NFL are a bit more up in the air. Yet, some people will argue those topics just as strongly. That is the type of pig headedness we are discussing

Posted by Thom Singer at August 2, 2005 3:37 PM

We must in public though support the optimal outcome in Iraq and that is the Coalition design with rapid movement toward a functional republic - just a consideration, Tom O'.

Rapid because your anti-USA NYTimes is eager to betray again their civic trust as they did when supporting the Third Reich in the 1930's and communism in the 1950's.

The Coalition must move fast because the liberal press public sentiment is relentless to sway opinion toward chaos, bigger news stories, and radically violent events - all from which they profit.

The most mundane features to the NYTimes are those of elections, freedoms, prosperity, hope, faith and peace on a broad scale. The NYTimes is disgraced with shrinking readership. Meanwhile, the USA and much of the free world has never been so prosperous and eager for peace, despite 2 wars, 9/11, 7/7 and countless other Islamfascism cowardly acts against innocent women, children, men and soldiers.

There is certainly a place to diplomatically pursue changes in Coalition policy and procedures, and also room for a balanced dialog in public provided it doesn't undermine efforts, while aiding and abetting the terrorist enemies.

viagra 100mg pfizer

The soldiers on the ground, in the air are the heroes and should be thought of 1st before declaring their battlefields as likely failures in matters of Iraqi governance. The Iraqi's are eager to fend for themselves and guide their own destiny.

Posted by VacationMan at August 2, 2005 5:20 PM

Great post, John. I think it's a challenge to find that balance between being steadfast and true to your convictions (a quality most people admire) and being closed minded/opinionated (another way of looking at it) on one hand & being open to new ideas vs. easily swayed and non-committal, on the other. I recently read an article from the Stanford Graduate School of Business: Untested Assumptions May Have a Big Effect. Great leaders challenge their own assumptions. According to Jeffrey Pfeffer, Professor Stanford GSB, Change your assumptions and you mightfind your company-and your profitability-improving.

Posted by Darci at August 2, 2005 6:22 PM

Companies should embrace "anomolies" with open arms. When one embraces the tide of uncertainity, will the innovations and sustainablity paradigm become translucent. We cannot say, just by looking at the results of the process, whether the process that created those results is capable of generating predictable outputs, thus we must understand the process first.
Therefore,The situation is that company's need capability to change, when they can’t even see what innovations are needed, let alone decide which one merits investment.
The primer for "change" is "uncertainity" - this is the sweet spot all companies should strive to grasp, else your company's pulse, within the market is flatline, just like someone on a heartmonitor, one breath away from a very sad demise !!!

Posted by /pd at August 2, 2005 6:33 PM

Following up on your comments, Tom O, I remember hearing a lecture by science historian James Burke in which he said something to the effect of, “A scientific truth at one point in time often turns out to be superstition later. Half of what science teaches us today will be repudiated in a few hundred years. The only problem is we don’t know which half.” Burke hosted “Connections” on PBS for years, and wrote the classic, "The Day the Universe Changed." www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316117048/qid=1123

But I also love your point, Thom, that if we were to agree that certain practices are “absolutely” unacceptable (slavery, child abuse, etc.) that doesn’t account for most of what we human beings squabble about (especially in the political arena). Having to be “right” about our beliefs (and to make others “wrong” about their beliefs) is a kind of addiction that appears to be at the root of a lot of misery in the world. I believe (though can’t prove) that our ability to stay “cognitively flexible” supports our physical, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing—and helps us run smarter businesses.

Posted by John O'Leary at August 2, 2005 10:50 PM

Funny vacationman, I always thought that debate on this scale required that it be public, not private. Those suggesting that the campaign in Iraq was mismanaged, unfocused and non-responsive to the orignial objectives of effectively bringing the murderers from 9/11 to justice have been speaking publically about it for a couple of years now. Action of this magnitude require accountability, not blind support. The debate must be objective and constructive if it is to, in any way, improve the situation.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 3, 2005 6:00 AM

purchase generic viagra on line without a prescription

By the way...I have no stake in advocating the NY Times. I read it (and I used to love spending Sundays in Manhattan with Van Morrison playing and reading the Sunday edition and magazine!), but I also read the Irish Times, the Irish Independent, the Cork Examiner, The Times (UK), and many other newspapers (I also watched Fox News on SKY digital here in Ireland). I don't think that anyone is doing themselves good service if they expose themselves to ONLY liberal or conservative views.

To get the most objective stance on US foreign policy, I suggest that you read non-US publications, as they are less likely to package their news to the US markets. To see objectively, you have to step outside and look in.

By the way, how is the blue/red divide in the US at the moment? And can anyone tell me which Washington State is?

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 3, 2005 6:47 AM