From Game-Playing to Collaboration

Here is the second part of my summary of Virginia Satir's model of interpersonal decision making:

The three options we identified before--Disagree, Agree, or Change the Subject--are inherently based on game-like assumptions about winning and losing:

When I use disagreement, I'm trying to win, and to make you lose.

When I use agreement, I'm letting you win, and am willing to lose (while hoping for approval from you, etc.)

When I change the subject away from a decision, I'm willing to make us both lose, as long as we avoid conflict and unpleasantness.

Sometimes people think of compromise as a better alternative. We settle for half of what we want, but neither you nor I get what we want, or need. This is also a lose-lose option. We can see too many examples of this approach in political and legislative processes. Compromise, and its inevitable ineffectiveness for solving human or social problems, only makes people decide to fight harder next time. In this sense, compromise has a polarizing effect.

So what are we to do?

Satir pointed out that it's possible to shift from win-lose, game-playing approches, to win-win authentic interactions. This is not the same as compromise. Instead of working out how we'll split a small pie, we work together to bake a bigger one. The effect is to transform a limiting decision-making interaction into a constructive problem-solving conversation. Instead of competing for limited resources, we collaborate on creating new options that effectively respond to our respective or shared needs.

But how the heck do we actually do this? For most of us, it calls for new and unfamiliar behaviors. Satir found that it's important to be willing to put one's cards on the table, and to be the first to do so. Instead of "What would you like to do, dear?" (which is an agreement ploy), one has to be the first to take a chance and state one's preferences, needs, priorities, etc. And one has to disclose the underlying values, needs, or personal considerations. "Let me say what I've been thinking about this, and what about it is important to me."

One then has to inquire about the other's preferences, needs, and priorities, giving them equal importance and attention. Honest, active listening is crucial here, to understand the other's experience and point of view.

And one has to continually affirm the relationship in the conversation, by stating how the integrity of the relationship is more important than whatever gets decided.

This approach makes for a very different kind of interaction. Instead of game-like positioning to achieve one-sided goals, there is open, explicit consideration of both persons' perspectives. Given the superordinate goal to protect and affirm the relationship, it's possible to shift away from either/or decision-making. Instead, we can engage in creative problem-solving, no longer limited by initially-defined options, but working together to generate new options that increasingly respond to both persons' needs and priorities.

How often do you see or engage in this kind of win-win interaction? It is certainly not what we generally see in politics, or in schools, or organizations. It is thus counter-cultural. So engaging in win-win interaction requires continual learning, as well as perseverance, and courage.

I look forward to your comments!

Competition or Collaboration?

It’s useful to know the game we’re playing, and the rules that govern play. Sometimes we can be playing several games with the same people at the same time. We may be winning at one game, but we're losing at a more important one.

I remember being in a pick-up basketball game in high school, and having a good time, until I got an elbow hit to the nose. I had to walk around with a bandage over it for the next couple of months. I was surprised to discover an unanticipated benefit, though. The school’s star quarterback had gotten his nose broken about the same time, and suddenly girls started to notice me, probably thinking I was him, or at least associating my injury with his.

I wouldn’t want to get my nose broken again, though, just to get girls’ attention. But looking back at the incident, I had been a problematic opposing player, and the elbow to my nose had taken me out of the game, and out of the way.

So there were two games going on--competitive basketball between two teams was one. Getting rid of problematic opposing players was another game. This wasn’t part of the rules of the first game, though winning at the second game improved the first game for their side. Becoming attractive to the opposite sex was a third, mostly unspoken game, at which I had a painful but lucky break.

We human beings enjoy playing games--all sorts of games. In the US, as in many countries, we enjoy playing or watching games like football, basketball, tennis, soccer, hockey, etc. These are competitive games; if one side wins, the other side loses. The play brings together opposing individuals or groups, playing within the physical boundaries of the court or field, as well as the behavioral boundaries of agreed-upon rules. Each side has a goal, which it tries to achieve, while preventing players on the other side from achieving theirs. Eventually, one side wins and the other loses.

Virginia Satir, who trained family therapists and whose work influenced many OD practitioners, described patterns of decision-making using a simple model of a two-person interaction. Here is what I learned from her:

In the first example, I might want to get my way, even if it’s at your expense. In this case I would argue for my wants, needs, rights, etc. and discount your arguments or preferences, even if it means being particularly disagreeable: “We’ve always gone to mountains for our summer vacation; we end up traveling a long time to get there and back. We should go to the beach near our house!” I argue for what I want, and try to undermine or discount what you want. My behavior pattern is to disagree:

Under different circumstances the opposite might be true: When I interact with you around a decision we need to make, I might act as if I want to please you, so I’ll discount my preference and agree to yours. My behavior strategy is to be very agreeable. Typically, I would make believe there is only one party to the decision--you: “Where do you want to go for our vacation this year, Dear?” Of course, the catch is that I will expect some kind of goodies in return--maybe that you make believe I’m a really good person, but I never say so.

A third pattern emerges when this kind of decision-making and its potential for conflict raise so much anxiety for me that I’ve learned to avoid engaging in it at all. So when such circumstances emerge, I will neither agree nor disagree--I will do everything I can to get away from the situation. Most typically I will deal with it by changing the subject--sometimes in very creative ways: “You were asking about our vacation--oh, by the way, your mother called. She seemed upset about something and wants to talk with you right away.” Neither you nor I get what we want, but we avoid dreaded conflict.

Another version of this mode appears more positive, though it really isn't: Each of us gives up some of what we want until we can agree on what’s left. We call it compromising. It avoids conflict by the expedient that neither of us gets what we want.

Thus, Satir described these three modal patterns of decision-making behavior: agree, disagree, or change the subject--undermining, capitulating, or avoiding. She then pointed out an implicit aspect of these patterns--the underlying assumption that either I will get my way or you will get yours. It’s the win-lose assumption. When I argue with you I try to win by making you lose. When I offer to do whatever you want, I lose and you win (though I’m covertly hoping to win something else by losing in this situation). And when I change the subject or push for compromise, neither of us gets what we want and we both lose.

Most of us develop a habitual preference for one of these three strategies, though none of them is really satisfying. Do you recognize yourself in one of them? What can you tell me about your experiences with your own pattern?

I’m interested in seeing your thoughts and experience on this. And then I’ll share more about Satir’s perspective about it in the next post.

Is it Resistance or Incubation? The Exponential Shape of Change

I was talking with a good friend today about her struggle to initiate positive changes in the organization she works in. She described the tendency of most people there to avoid talking about certain crucial subjects. This is not unusual--most organizations have certain "unspeakable" topics. There is a tacit agreement to not talk about the elephant in the room, or the emperor's transparent new clothes.

I was reminded of a novelty toy years ago that looked like a black metal box with a little red lever along the top front edge. If one pushed the lever, the box would start whirring and the lid on top would slowly open. A little metallic hand would come out of the box, moving toward the lever. It would push the lever back to "off" and then dart back into the box, the lid snapping shut behind it. I realized this is a metaphor for many organizations, whose unacknowledged culture cancels out any initiatives for improvement, because people think they're not supposed to go that way, or talk about it.

This pattern of automatic self-stopping can discourage managers and consultants from implementing improvements. Their constructive initiatives are non-verbally spurned, and they come to the conclusion that there is great "resistance to change." I think this is a misunderstanding of the way human systems change. While there are some events that result in apparently quick and transformative change, such as a change in the top leadership, or major disruptive changes in technology, most real change has the shape of an exponential curve, or a hockey stick. Nothing seems to be happening for a long while, then suddenly it becomes apparent that there has been slow quiet development over a period of time, and big changes begin to emerge spontaneously. The caterpillar in the cocoon has been invisibly transforming, and it emerges as a butterfly.

For change agents, patience and perseverance is a wise strategy. Years ago, I was invited to Herb Shepard's house, which he called "Fort Courage," to celebrate his 60th birthday, along with many fellow alumni of the Case-Western Reserve U. doctoral program in OD. I was excited to see fellow alumni from many cohorts talking with great animation in small clusters, sitting at couches or standing around, holding drinks. My thought was, what an amazing repository of knowledge and experience about OD practice was assembled in the room! I imagined that soon, Herb would convene us, and the socializing would give way to serious exploration and discussion among the group as a whole. But after some time, that shift did not happen, and people just continued to chat, mill around in small clusters, and drink. Nobody was convening the conversation.

Finally, losing patience, I walked over to Herb and asked him, "Don't you think it would be good for us all to sit down and talk as a whole group about what we're doing and learning?" His response was a classic Herb Shepard intervention: He looked me in the eye and said, "So what are you going to do about it?"

I gulped quietly as I got the message. So I started to circulate from cluster to cluster, non-verbally and then verbally joining each conversation, and then asking, "Don't you think it would be good for us all to talk together about what we're doing and what we're learning?" They would usually agree, and then go on with what they were talking about with their two or three friends. I would shrug and go on to another group, etc. My initiative was not catching on. I kept going, though, until I got to the last group, standing in the kitchen, talking with great animation and energy about whatever. I began to do my routine of non-verbally joining the group and conversation, waiting for the first opening to speak my proposal. But this was a group of very experienced, first-cohort alumni. They were implicitly aware I was up to something and did not want to be interrupted. They were non-verbally keeping me out of the group.

I was feeling greatly discouraged. My change initiative had failed. At that moment, someone came in from the living room and said loudly, "Hey! We're all sitting down together to talk about what we're doing and learning! Come into the living room!" And we did.

What stories can you tell here about your own change initiatives?

(If you received this post via email, go to

http://human-systems.blogspot.com/ and click on Comments at the bottom of this item.)

Scanning the Future, While Acting in the Present

Being an OD Practitioner in the 21st century is becoming more challenging, and perhaps more important.

Our global and local environments are less predictable and stable. Carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere continue to increase. Petroleum reserves may be peaking Forests are decreasing. World energy usage is increasing. Global population is increasing, though not evenly--European countries are facing a shortfall in their labor force. iPads may become the new novel or newspaper to read on the train. The proportion of college-educated and -employed women world-wide is increasing. Jobs and knowledge are being exported across national borders. Undocumented workers are being imported. Research and technology is improving health care but making it more expensive. Project teams in multi-national corporations work across time-zones, and seldom meet face-to-face. Managers make decisions, but outcomes are hard to assess because the variables are so complex; they get promoted for appearing to be decisive, rather than for making the right decisions. Short-term solutions turn out to lead to unanticipated disasters. Are you confused and overwhelmed? Guess how your clients feel?

We are increasingly aware that our world is changing, and that we need to be intentional about evolving our ways of practicing Organization Development in the years ahead. As the global and organizational environments in which we work continue to change, OD practitioners are called on to be clear about the core values and principles that guide us, while adapting our intervention strategies and developing the appropriate competencies to carry them out effectively.

The growing need is for ways to guide change in the present, while keeping the future in mind. Consider what you are noticing about how our world is changing. What trends are you aware of in your own work experience, reading, media reports, travels? We can put our individual perspectives together like a mosaic, and become more aware of the changing contextual patterns in which we are doing our work. Post your own observations and questions by clicking on Comments.

As Shel Davis, one of my mentors, used to say, "Correct me if I'm right." ; )

And you may be interested in the results of a Delphi study about OD and the future that is speeding toward us.

Creating A New Context--The Way of OD

How we behave moment by moment is determined in large part by the context in which we perceive events around us. In a comedy club I expect to be entertained and am prepared to laugh. At a drugstore counter as I pick up a medication, I remember being treated officiously last time, and I protect myself from being treated as the clerk's problem again.

At the comedy club almost anything the entertainer says is funny, or at least interesting, as long as it is consistent with the behavior of a comedian. Some jokes are funnier than others, but I do expect jokes, not tragic news. At the drug counter the new kid serving as clerk mumbles his questions and gets my name wrong. Then I notice his plastic bracelet and ask what cause he's supporting. It's some kind of tragic disease that needs more research funding; my behavior softens and I help him understand my name and find my order. We part wishing each other a great day. The context shifted.

In a staff meeting I expect to talk about work issues and to state relevant views about decisions we need to make. In one particular group I expect some off-topic comments from certain staff members, and weak, unfocused leadership from the manager running the meeting. I'm resigned to frustration for an hour and a half, but look for opportunities to interject sanity--or at least a smart aleck remark to break the tension.

All interaction, in this sense, has both content and context. We focus on content but are implicitly aware of context for guiding our understanding and response choices. These are the figure-ground combinations described so well by Gestalt psychology: we assign meaning to experiences in terms of the interplay between the figure and the ground--in my terms, between content and context. Changing either one changes the meaning of the whole.

We tend in most circumstances to accept context as it is--even to be unconscious of it, and engage in content-focused exchanges. The meeting is the way it is; my focus is on what people talk about, and my choices are about what I say. One way of understanding Organization Development practice is to view our work as paying attention to the context in which people say and do things; to notice the way that context supports or limits their awareness and choice; and to intervene at the level of context as much as content.

In the role of consultant or facilitator in a staff meeting I can say something about the topic we're discussing--content--and I can also say or do something about how we're talking and interacting--context (or as some refer to this, process).

In a rambling conversation at a meeting, I might say, "Ah... I just want to check; what agenda topic are we on?" and the context pops out of tacit background and into explicit focus in everyone's awareness. Group members come out of trance. It's like watching an overly dramatic play and turning to the next person saying, "what do you think this stage setting is doing to the action of the characters?"

This is always experienced as a break in the flow in some way. Pulses quicken; color returns to faces. Tension shifts, up or down--either experiencing defensiveness and conflict, or relief from frustration and powerlessness. It's a high-risk, high-power move. In that moment our professional behavior is counter-cultural--outside the norm. Done well, it releases group members' creative energy for constructive change. Done slightly wrong--in timing, tone, or wording, it can evoke aggressive coordinated group reaction in protection of the group and its formal leader from this hostile outsider.

We do this all the time in our work, in small or large interventions. Whether we are doing a role-play in a training session, or recording the agenda on a flip-chart or guiding the redesign of work structures, we're changing the context.

And we--anyone--can do this every day in any interaction. We are always each other's context as we talk, work, play, or are silent together. We are actors on the stage and also stage designers for ourselves and each other. As co-authors of our lives we can re-write the plot flow as we go along, creating the quality of our dramas, our tragedies, and our comedies.

The OD practitioner's job is to take these creative risks appropriately and effectively, moment by moment, in each intervention, training session and client engagement. It can't be done well as a technique or a manipulation, because it won't work, or it will backfire. When we consistently do it well, authentically, we truly earn our high fee, and we get the satisfaction of catalyzing constructive change and making a difference.

Do you have a recent experience with changing the context in an interaction? I hope you'll post a comment about it.

And enter your email on the right, to receive notification of new entries as they are posted.

Selling OD by Doing OD

Getting top management support for OD efforts in an organization is absolutely crucial. Because OD works on whole organizations, significant change needs to be understood and fully supported by senior management. Sometimes we learn this the hard way: I know of a very successful plant redesign project that used the conference-based model developed by Dick and Emily Axelrod. It was highly participative, with large cross-section groups from all plant functions meeting for three days at a time, integrating the outcomes of the session, then meeting again for three days--five cycles of conferences. The focus for each one was built on the outcomes of the previous one. They worked on generating a shared vision for a better, more effective way to operate, followed by an analysis of the plant's technical production system, then an analysis of the social system, then a redesign of key aspect of the plant to optimize both technical and social system goals, and finally an implementation planning conference.

This all worked very successfully and generated creative new approaches for organizing the work and also great enthusiasm for implementing the changes. And then they hit a catastrophic glitch: The internal consultants and plant manager had made an early decision to not include a key vice-president in planning the project. He had a reputation of not supporting participative work methods, so they thought they would demonstrate the success of the project to him after it was completed and thus get his approval. Instead, the VP walked in on the implementation planning session, having missed all the previous ones, and was outraged. He declared the new design totally inappropriate: "This is communism--we're not doing it." And that was that. The whole project was canceled and everyone went back to the old way of doing things, though with great disappointment and frustration.

So what should one do when the needed support at the top is not there? For one thing, it depends on the role of the OD practitioner. External OD consultants learn to focus on the clients who are genuinely interested and ready to work in this different way. Rather than convincing or "selling" managers that this would be good for their organizations, the strategy is to work only with those organizations that have a demonstrated readiness, understanding and interest in an OD project. Since these projects are much more likely to succeed, they will create the track record of effective change projects, and word of these successes will quickly get around to other organizations that were almost ready, often leading them to consider the OD approach themselves. I learned this perspective from Herb Shepard, who was my mentor at Case Institute of Technology, and one of the founders of OD. One of his rules of thumb for change agents was "Never work uphill."

But what about internal OD consultants or managers who see the potential for OD in their organization, but don't have the support of higher managers? Shepard also said, "Start where the system is." He meant by this that one must assess the situation and propose projects that the organization and its leaders understand as relevant and appropriate. These may be less ambitious than the consultant can envision, but they are much more likely to be accepted and to succeed--thus laying the foundation for more comprehensive projects. This way of working requires great patience, and great empathy. One must see the world through the managers' eyes, and design and propose projects that are relevant to their current view of the organization.

This is a tough discipline and requires patience, self-acceptance, and a focus on the long view--even if that key manager is being driven by this quarter's business numbers. Shepard also used to say, "Think globally and act locally." The corollary of that statement might be, "Think about the future and act in the present."

I invite further comments and questions.

Creating Benign Cycles in Organizations

Here's my elevator speech about what Organization Development is (OK, it's a long elevator ride, but a good one):

Just like individuals need to make a living by doing something useful, every organization does something useful to make its living. This means producing something people want to buy, or providing a service that is worth paying for. Organizations need to make that product or provide that service in ways that are effective in terms of the cost to the consumer and with satisfactory quality and reliability, compared to competitors. OD practitioners help people to make their own organizations more effective in producing whatever they produce. This is an important part of OD, but not all there is.

In order for an organization to function effectively, the people in it need to communicate in sane and constructive ways. Without that kind of communication organizations devolve into environments that look like the Dilbert comic strip (which, by the way, is based on letters about real events in organizations, continually sent to the cartoonist). As new technologies are introduced, or new competitors enter the market, or new needs emerge from customers, people in organizations need to talk and work together sanely, effectively, creatively, to adapt and innovate. Otherwise the organization soon goes out of business, or loses its funding.

As a consultant, I generally find dysfunctional task processing arrangements that are caused or maintained by dysfunctional interaction patterns among its people. Over the years, new employees are taught the dysfunctional procedures, which may have originally been temporary work-arounds, as the right way to do things ("Don't ask--that's the way it's done here.")

OK, it keeps getting interesting: Much of the reason for dysfunctional patterns of interaction among people in organizations is that the task procedures, technologies, work structures and hierarchies, tend to isolate people, pit them against each other, and limit their ability to engage their full intelligence and creativity in the work setting. So dysfunctional task structures create or maintain dysfunctional interaction patterns, which prevent people for making sensible changes to the task structures. It's a vicious cycle.

The good news is that when you find a vicious cycle you can reverse it by reversing any of its elements. When we bring people together in a collaborative creative context they spontaneously generate significant design improvements to the task structure. As new task structures are implemented, these tend to reduce the crazy-making qualities of the task arrangements, and interaction patterns continue to improve. It becomes a benign cycle. This is true OD.

People who claim to do OD and work only on "bottom line" improvements, or only on touchy-feely "team-building" experiences are not doing real OD. Those partial approaches tend not to work, or to actually make things worse. OD is about working with people to improve their own task structures and interaction patterns by improving both.

I'm looking for examples of what I'm describing here. I welcome your short stories.