© Dr Kelvyn Youngman, Nov 20141 A Simpler Way Session One From Conflict To Dilemma

© Dr Kelvyn Youngman, Nov 2014 1

A Simpler WaySession One

From Conflict To Dilemma



Conflict Dilemma Transcendence

Exacerbate/Stagnate/Alleviate Oscillate Eliminate

DidacticDialectic

• Welcome today, the 22nd of November, and the first of two webinars on clouds and their matrices

• The second webinar will follow in two weeks’ time on the 6th of December





DidacticDialectic

• Today we are going to journey through “conflict” and examine the ways that we exacerbate, stagnate, and alleviate these issues

• Then we will progress through to 3rd person dilemma and introduce the concept of oscillation





DidacticDialectic

• In today’s presentation I also want to answer a question that was raised last year about where the mermaids and the alligators were hiding in the matrix in my treatment of the Harvard Negotiation Project’s approach to Difficult Conversations

• We will end up in about the same place again today, but with much better clarity and simplicity, and in a much better position to deal with the content of the second webinar





DidacticDialectic

• On the 6th of December, in part two, we will further expand our knowledge of 3rd person dilemma, how to transcend that dilemma, and how to eliminate the oscillation with a unique and systemic solution built around a senior organizing principle

• We will work through part two using the dieter’s dilemma from Robert Fritz and the batch sizing dilemma from Eli Goldratt





DidacticDialectic

• First, however, let’s look at a brief outline of today’s content• Then we will work through a primer of sorts, just to make sure that we are all on the

same page as to the structure of clouds and of matrices• So, let’s start





DidacticDialectic

• First, however, let’s look at a brief outline of today’s content• Then we will work through a primer of sorts, just to make sure that we are all on the

same page as to the structure of clouds and of matrices• So, let’s start• No, one more thing: your job is to watch the screen, things will change there when you

least expect. My job is to read the script, please don’t distract yourself with that



Outline

• Primer: the cloud, the matrix, the combination of a conflict cloud and two matrices, layers of resistance, satisfaction and security

• Exacerbate The Conflict: miscommunication, confirmation bias, schismogenesis, feedback loops

• Stagnate The Conflict: the area of tolerable conflict

• Alleviate The Conflict: difficult conversations

• Dilemma: 3rd person view, transformation matrix, cloud and transformation matrix



Outline

• Primer: the cloud, the matrix, the combination of a conflict cloud and two matrices, layers of resistance, satisfaction and security

• Exacerbate The Conflict: miscommunication, confirmation bias, schismogenesis, feedback loops

• Stagnate The Conflict: the area of tolerable conflict

• Alleviate The Conflict: difficult conversations

• Dilemma: 3rd person view, transformation matrix, cloud and transformation matrix

And this is to remind me that conceptually things will basically break into about 1/3rd each


PrimerThe Cloud



Here is the basic structure of a cloud – 5 boxes and 5 arrows more or less

Needs Wants

Our Want



And in a conflict structure perhaps the most important box from our point of view is this one, where we place the thing that we want to occur

Needs Wants

Their Want

Our Want



Most important that is, relative to the box on the other side, where we place the thing that they want to occur

Needs Wants

Their Want

Our Want



These two entities are in conflict with one another for a number of possible reasons

Needs Wants

Conflict

Their Want

Our Want



For instance they may represent opposites – such as night and day, or good and evil

Needs Wants

Conflict

Their Want

Our Want



The may represent a continuum where more of one means less of the other, such as trust and distrust

Needs Wants

Conflict

Their Want

Our Want



Or they might represent an admixture where more of one precludes more of the other – such as oil and water

Needs Wants

Conflict

Their Want

Our Want Our Need



Our want arises because it meets a need that we have

Needs Wants

Conflict

Their Want Their Need

Our Want Our Need



And of course their want arises because it too meets a need, their need

Needs Wants

Conflict


Our Want Our Need



These two entities, these two needs, are not in conflict with one another

Needs Wants

Conflict


Our Want Our Need



They are not in conflict with one another because they both meet, in fact are necessary for, the existence of the common objective that binds us together

Needs Wants

Common Objective Conflict


Our Want Our Need



And let’s state it loud and clear, that if there was no common objective, then there would be no conflict!

Needs Wants



Our Want Our Need



Although these entities are most commonly referred to as “needs” and “wants” you will also find them referred to as “requirements” and “pre-requisites”

Requirements Pre-Requisites



Our Want Our Need



And that brings us to an interesting point: there is a hierarchy here …

Requirements Pre-Requisites



Our Want Our Need



… the “wants” are like the section headings in the chapter of a book

Requirements Section Heading



Our Want Our Need



… the “needs” are like the chapter itself – each need being a different but necessary chapter

Chapter Section Heading



Our Want Our Need



… and of course the common objective is the book that binds all of these entities together into one whole

Chapter Section Heading

Common Objective

Book

Conflict


Our Want Our Need



This hierarchy is reflected in the way that we read this cloud back, so let’s do that right now

Common Objective


Our Want Our Need



In order to meet the common objective we must meet their need

Common Objective

We must …

In order to …


Our Want Our Need



There is no “maybe” here, if the need is not met, if it is missing, then the objective too will be unmet

Common Objective

We must …

In order to …


Our Want Our Need



Moreover, in order to meet their need, we must meet their want

Common Objective

We must …

In order to …

In order to … We must …


Our Want Our Need



Looking at our side now, in order to meet the common objective, we must meet our need …

Common Objective

We must …

We must …

In order to …



Our Want Our Need



And in order to meet our need, we must meet our want

Common Objective

We must …

We must …

In order to …

In order to …


We must …


Our Want Our Need



Once again, it is the two wants which are in conflict



Our Want Our Need



If it is the commonality that brings us together, it is differences in our understanding, and sometimes differences in our values, that drive us apart



Our Want Our Need



One last thing: you may often see the convention where the objective is referred to as “A,” the needs as “B” and “C,” and the wants as “D” and “D′ ” – D prime

Common Objective

A

C D′

B D

Conflict


Our Want Our Need



People frequently use this shorthand so it is useful to be aware of it

Common Objective

A

C D′

B D

Conflict


Our Want Our Need



Now, with that brief introduction, I would like to turn our attention to the change matrix, it provides us with something that is currently missing. Let’s have a look

Common Objective

A

C D′

B D

Conflict


PrimerThe Matrix



OK, this is a very small matrix, however it is sufficient to do the job, and I need to be able to place two of these alongside of a single cloud

Our Proposal

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



It consists of two rows and two columns, the bottom row is the current reality, it records the state as it is, and as it will remain if there is no change

Our Proposal

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



The top row is the future reality, it records the state as it could be, or maybe as it should be, and how it will unfold if there is change

Our Proposal

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



The left-hand column contains the positive aspects of both the current state and the planned future state

Our Proposal

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



And the right-hand column contains the negative aspects of both the current state and the planned future state

Our Proposal

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Now I am going to name the negative of the current state as “issues” and I will explain the reasoning for that in a moment

Issues

Our Proposal

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



I am going to name the positive of the future state as “outcomes,” and these two: issues and outcomes, pair as a diagonal

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



The positive of the current state is best described as the “benefits”

Benefits Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



And the negative of the future state is best described as the “detriments”

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



The benefits and the detriments also pair as a diagonal

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



These entities are not the problem, nor are they the solution, however they are the symptomatic effects of these …

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



… the underlying causal problem or causal solution is of a higher logical type and “lives” within the D or the D′ of the cloud …

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



The entities here are, if you like, the “sentences” that go under the “section heading” of the D and the D′ of the cloud. The matrix is the closest that we get to a narrative

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Now let me do one more thing, I am going to number these quadrants with the normal convention of rows and columns as an easy reference

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



And OK, this is where the alligator, the mermaid, the pot of gold, and the crutches are

Mermaid

Crutches

Alligator

Pot of Gold

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



If you are familiar with these, you will have already mapped this through in your mind. If you are unfamiliar with these, then just place them to one side

Mermaid

Crutches

Alligator

Pot of Gold

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Now, just a few more basics for us to establish right at the very start

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



A change matrix, and this is a change matrix, is “crossed.” It is about both “them” and it is about “us” even though it is for our proposal

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Think this through. Would we resist our own change? Well, not unless we are psychotic, and I don’t know about you, but I’m fairly sure that I’m not

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Would anyone else resist our proposed change? Oh yes, others would, in about a micro-second – or even less if they can see it coming

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



And that brings us to a very important point: this diagonal, our change, in the first and fourth quadrants, is about the technical or mechanical issues

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change

Issues



It is about the symptomatic undesirable effects that we observe and that we wish to remove or to overcome with more positive outcomes

Benefits

DetrimentsOutcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Once again, it is not the solution and it is not the problem, but it is the symptomatic expression of these

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



This diagonal, in the third and second quadrant, is about the personal issues

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



It is about the preservation of the personal status quo and the avoidance of future harm, or even the perception of future harm

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



These two aspects: the mechanical or technical, and the personal, are so well described by Professor Jerry Harvey in The Abilene Paradox

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



I urge you to get a copy of that – it is a very readable paperback – and the original article was first published in 1974

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Seeing that we have gotten this far, let’s examine a few of the subtleties and the richnesses of these two concepts – the technical and the personal

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



And with apologies to Eric Trist and Fred Emery, let’s call this an encapsulation of a socio-technical system

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Once again this diagonal is the “-technical” part …

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



… and this diagonal is the “socio-” part

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Socio-

Socio-

-Technical

-Technical

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change

And if you look at just this side, the current reality, you can see these two components: socio- to the left and -technical to the right



Socio-

Socio-

-Technical

-Technical

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change

And on this side as well, the proposed future, we can once again see these two components: -technical to the left and -socio to the right



Continuing with this side, if this is our proposal, then surely the outcomes are “our” outcomes – right?

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

OurOutcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



And if this is so, then whose are the detriments? Ours? Well let’s leave that open for a moment

Benefits

Our Detriments?

Issues

OurOutcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Looking at the other side, it is clear that the benefits are certainly “theirs” – right?

TheirBenefits

Our Detriments?

Issues

Our Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



But what of the issues? Are the issues theirs?

TheirBenefits

Our Detriments?

TheirIssues?

OurOutcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Well, here is a solution to this little problem that has dogged me for quite a while

TheirBenefits

Our Detriments?

TheirIssues?

OurOutcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



The fourth quadrant is actually about their issues for us. They are the unintended negative consequences of their side which impacts upon us

TheirBenefits

Our Detriments?

Their IssuesFor Us

OurOutcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



They might not even know, let alone care, about these negative issues to us, but they will certainly know and care about the positive benefits to themselves

TheirBenefits

Our Detriments?

Their IssuesFor Us

OurOutcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Likewise, the second quadrant is actually about our detriments to them. They are the unintended negative consequences of our side which impacts upon them

TheirBenefits

Our DetrimentsTo Them

Their IssuesFor Us

OurOutcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



We might not even know, let alone care, about these negative issues to them, but we will certainly know and care about the positive outcomes for ourselves

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

OurOutcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Now does this make more sense?

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



It follows then, that even though this is our proposal, this side, the current side, is their side …

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



… and therefore this side, the future side, is our side – that is, after all, the purpose of our proposal

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Now let’s return to the diagonals once more

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



This diagonal, this view as I like to call it, is also about us: it is about their negative issues which impact upon us, and it is about our positive intent to overcome this

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



It has its head in the future and its tail in the past

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



We can replace it with an arrow of positive intent. Intent is always towards the positive and away from the negative and I will colour-code it green

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change

Our Proposal



If you like this side is “theirs,” and the diagonal or the view is “ours,” while the 4th quadrant shares common aspects of both

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change

Our Proposal



This diagonal, this view, is all about them: it is about maintaining their positive benefits and negating our negative detriments which may impact upon them

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Again, it has its head in the future and its tail in the past

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



And we can replace it with an arrow of negative impact. Impact is always towards the negative and away from the positive and I will colour-code it red

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change

Our Proposal



TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change

Our Proposal

This time the side is “ours,” and the diagonal or the view is “theirs,” while the 2nd quadrant shares common aspects of both



If we now superimpose these two arrows, then that fairly much winds-up this little exploration of the matrix. Please come back and re-explore this later

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change



Let’s now combine this matrix with the cloud and see what happens

TheirBenefits


Their IssuesFor Us

Our Outcomes

Our Proposal

1 2

3 4

Positive Negative

Don’tChange

Change


PrimerConflict Cloud And Two Matrices

Their WantTheir Need

Our WantOur Need



Now we have a cloud and two matrices, in combination

Common Objective

And to avoid our negative impact upon them

Because of their positive intent

Because of our positive intent

And to avoid their negative impact upon us

Their Outcomes

TheirBenefits

Our DetrimentsFor Them

OurBenefits

Their DetrimentsFor Us

Our IssuesFor Them

Their IssuesFor Us

OurOutcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Their Outcomes

TheirBenefits


OurBenefits




The cloud is exactly as we had before and the lower matrix is exactly the matrix that we have just discussed

Common Objective



Our IssuesFor Them

Their IssuesFor Us

OurOutcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Their Outcomes

TheirBenefits


OurBenefits




The upper matrix is the same, but it is now reworded for the other side – they have exactly the same issues with us as we have with them; that is why there is a conflict

Common Objective



Our IssuesFor Them

Their IssuesFor Us

OurOutcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Their Outcomes

TheirBenefits

DetrimentsFor Them

OurBenefits

DetrimentsFor Us



Let’s clean this up a little …

Common Objective



IssuesFor Them

IssuesFor Us

OurOutcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… and then once more. You can always come back to the fuller wording if you wish, but I hope that these concepts are now sufficiently embedded

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



And, nobody teaches birds to fly, and I suspect that if you follow what I am about to show, and practice it on a conflict of your own, then you will take to the air with this

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Let’s begin with our own proposal; the traditional starting place is with the current and negative issues that abound and that we wish to remove or to replace …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… and also the future and positive outcomes where we list our replacements, or in fact, our completely new entities that we wish to gain

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Losing a negative or gaining a positive are both positive intent, and these two entities feed into the assumptions on our side of the cloud

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Outcomes


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Benefits

Issues

Looking at their proposal; we have our own current and positive benefits that we do not wish to lose or have removed or replaced …

Outcomes


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Benefits

Issues

… and we have future and negative detriments which contain completely new entities for us that we do not wish to gain

Outcomes


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Benefits

Issues

Avoiding the impact of the loss of a positive or the gain of a negative are both positive intent, and these two entities also feed into the assumptions on our side of the cloud

Outcomes


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Benefits

Issues

Let me reiterate that although the impact of their proposal upon us is negative, our intent to avoid this is positive

Outcomes


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Benefits

Issues

What then of the other side of the cloud? What of their side?

Outcomes


Our WantOur Need

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Issues

Looking at their proposal; they start with the current and negative issues that abound and that they wish to remove or to replace …

Outcomes


Our WantOur Need

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Issues

… and also the future and positive outcomes that they desire either as replacements or in fact completely new entities that they wish to gain

Outcomes


Our WantOur Need

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Issues

Losing a negative or gaining a positive are both positive intent, and these two entities feed into the assumptions on their side of the cloud


Our WantOur Need

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Outcomes

Looking at our proposal; they have current and positive benefits that they don’t wish to lose or have removed or replaced …


Our WantOur Need

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Outcomes

… and they have future and negative detriments which contain completely new entities for them that they do not wish to gain


Our WantOur Need

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Outcomes

Avoiding the impact of the loss of a positive or the gain of a negative are both positive intent, and these two entities also feed into the assumptions on their side of the cloud


Our WantOur Need

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Outcomes

Again, although the impact of our proposal upon them is negative, their intent to avoid this is positive


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



So, we have eight entities within the matrices, four are assigned to each side of the cloud, and they are expressed in two basic forms …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… and those two basic forms come with one simple rule …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… the assumptions on any one side of a cloud consist of the positives of that side and the negatives of the other side – and that’s all there is to it

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Each side wishes to enact their positive intent and to avoid the negative impact of the other side. The cloud and the matrices are profoundly positive devices

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



We can see why a conflict can become so embedded: not because of people’s negativity, but because of their positivity!

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Now, let’s be clear, I am not suggesting that we have to put the matrices along with the cloud – you might like to simply have the assumptions written out as is …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… but I suspect that you will write very much better assumptions with this structure in place and that is the real point

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Making all of these things explicit in this graphical form, presented on one page, in open dialogue, leads to making this a much simpler way

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Now that we have this structure in place, let’s next examine how the layers of resistance relate to this

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


PrimerLayers of Resistance


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Let’s map in the layers of resistance, the layers of understanding, starting with our side …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… well, actually, this is my bad habit to start on our side with their resistance to us, so let’s whoa-up a bit, and restart again on their side, and build some rapport first

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

1


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



The first layer of resistance is about our lack of understanding of the problem as seen from their point of view …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

1


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… even though, maybe even more so, if it is about the interpretation of a common set of data or observations or experiences …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

1


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… we may well agree on the symptomatic expressions, the issues, but fail to agree on the underlying cause

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

1


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



The second layer of resistance is about our lack of understanding of their solution, again from their point of view …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

1

2


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… and once again, the more so that the solution has elements of paradigm or change of mind-set, we simply might not have the experience yet to grasp that

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

1

2


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



However, once we do have that grasp, the third and fourth layers are about our reservations to their solution and the obstacles that we can see that they cannot

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

1

2 3-4


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



And finally the fifth layer – our own unverbalized fear – is the one place we ought not to reach if, in fact, we do understand the process that we are carrying out

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

1

2 3-4

5


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



OK, let’s now go back to our side. Our interpretation of the problem from our point of view will give rise to resistance in them and we need to be aware of this …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

1

2 3-4

5

1


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… and we ought not to race ahead of them until we are sure that they are with us

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

1

2 3-4

5

1


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Our apparent insistence upon our preferred solution will also give rise to resistance and we need to be aware of this too …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

1

2 3-4

5

2

1


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… especially if our solution has elements of a different way of thinking embedded within it; if it is “counterintuitive” we need to use trials and build their tacit experience

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

1

2 3-4

5

2

1


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… and so through the other three layers as well

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

1

2 3-4

5

1

2 3-4

5


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



One more thought …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



The fifth layer is also the “first.” It is about people’s sense of identity, everyone’s expertise and past experience, everyone’s standing amongst their peers …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

5

5


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… and also their standing amongst strangers too

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

5

5


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



It is much better to acknowledge this up-front and to bring it into the discussion early on, the sooner the better – that way the fifth layer will lose its silence

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

5

5


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



The dynamics of why and how it is that the fifth layer can also be the first, will become clear in the second webinar when we look at oscillation within a dilemma

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

5

5


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Let’s now look at a closely related issue; satisfaction and security

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

5

5


PrimerSatisfaction And Security


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



I just want to touch, in passing, on the relationship between security and satisfaction; it follows on naturally enough from the layers of resistance …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… and we will return to this aspect more fully in the second webinar as we discuss dilemmas and oscillation

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Looking at the lower matrix first, our issues with the current state of affairs represents our dissatisfaction …

Common Objective



Issues

Our Dissatisfaction

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… and our intended outcomes in the near future represent our satisfaction

Common Objective



Issues

Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

TheirInsecurity

Benefits

Detriments



On the other hand, the detriments in our proposal represent the insecurity that the other side perceives from our proposed change …

Common Objective



Issues

Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

Benefits

Detriments



… and the benefits represent the current security that the other side obtains from the status quo

Common Objective



Issues

Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

Benefits

Detriments



Our proposal is about our dissatisfaction and satisfaction and it is about their insecurity and security

Common Objective



Issues

Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

Benefits

Detriments



And for their proposal it is simply reversed …

Common Objective



Issues

Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Their Satisfaction

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

Benefits

Detriments



The issues are about their dissatisfaction with not changing and the outcomes are about their satisfaction with changing

Common Objective



Their Dissatisfaction

Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Their Satisfaction

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

OurSecurity

OurInsecurity



The detriments from their change are now our insecurity and the benefits of not changing are, of course, our security

Common Objective




Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Their Satisfaction

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

OurSecurity

OurInsecurity



It is from the dynamics of these four quadrants within these two matrices that determines whether we can exacerbate, stagnate, or alleviate the conflict …

Common Objective




Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

TheirSatisfaction

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

OurSecurity

OurInsecurity



… and also how we can raise it from a conflict to a dilemma and thereafter transcend it as a systemic cloud

Common Objective




Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

TheirSatisfaction

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

OurSecurity

OurInsecurity



Let’s now look at these, starting with how we might exacerbate a conflict

Common Objective




Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Exacerbating The Conflict

Miscommunication



In the Satellite Series first broadcast in 2001, Eli Goldratt used an emotion to illustrate that the Thinking Processes, and logical cause and effect, could be used to map such an intangible thing.

The emotion that he used was pride of the inventor and the miscommunication that arises from such a state. I have often referred back to this sequence and used the video. Except that he did it as a one-sided argument, didactically, as maybe a teacher or a student would experience. This sequence has always intrigued me and we can encapsulate it here.

Moreover, we can do it for both sides and show how much more difficult it can be to effectively communicate when we are both enamoured with our own side and blind to some of the aspects of the other side.

(See TOC on Managing People – Self Learning Program 7 pp 159-160 for detailed CCRT)


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Miscommunication arises from pride of the inventor. We are justifiably enamoured with our idea, with our invention, with our way forward …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… so much so, that in our proposal we do not see the possible negative ramifications. In fact, we are blind to them

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



But of course the other side, being more sceptical is not so blind, and instead of receiving the praise that we expected, we get heart-felt criticism!

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Equally, we are slow to praise the other side for their suggestion …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… and we are quick to criticise the perceived shortcomings!

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



And so, each side is easily at loggerheads with the other – simply over each side’s positive intent

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



To paraphrase Eli Goldratt: what beautiful human relationships

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



In the miscommunication, we are slow to praise and we are quick to criticise, because our attention is on our own positives and on their negatives

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Moreover, as if that were not enough, there is also a powerful confirmation bias afoot which intensifies this situation, let’s have a look

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge



Confirmation Bias


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Not only do we recognise their negative impact upon us, the impact’s existence also reconfirms in our own mind …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… the necessity of the positive solution that we wish to embark upon

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… the assumptions of the lower arm of the cloud are self-referential – they have a self-serving confirmation bias

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Ask yourself: how can we be sceptical of the thing that we have a passion for?

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



And vice versa …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… their perception of our negative impact upon them …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… only reconfirms in their mind the positive solution that they wish to embark upon

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… the assumptions of the upper arm of the cloud are also self-referential – they too have a self-serving confirmation bias

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



This is simply a restatement of our initial exploration of the assumptions, but here the presence of the other side’s impact redoubles our own intent

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Miscommunication and confirmation bias, together, form a powerful combination. Let’s now turn our attention to this

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge



Schismogenesis


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Gregory Bateson coined a term – “schismogenesis”

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



A schism is “a division between strongly opposed parties, caused by difference in opinion or belief” …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



I always think that a schism must be like a physical chasm, two sides separated by a precipitous drop, with a bottom somewhere near infinity

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



(1) When we propose something or say something or do something we may cause harm or even just the perception of harm to the other side …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



(2) We might be blind to this, but they will not be …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



(3) And they may respond and modify their own intent accordingly …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge Their Proposal


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



(4) Which may do nothing more than exacerbate our own perceptions of their negative impact upon us …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



(5) Leading us back in a “figure-of-8” to the first step for the second time! This is exactly how things go schismogenic

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Now, Karl Buckridge has often said to me that there is “a kind of a thing” where if you fail to address the issues on one side of the cloud …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… then it “sort of loops over the back” and comes around to the other side to bite you on the derriere

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



I can now draw this looping structure into the cloud, and it is very powerful

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Let’s have a look at this underlying feedback structure

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge



Feedback Loops


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



(1) This is our intent once again – and the associated loop is now drawn within the assumptions to the right

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



(2) And our intent feeds in as a negative impact which creates a new loop over to the other side of the cloud

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



(3) Which leads them to modify their own intent accordingly

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge Their Proposal


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



(4) Which in-turn feeds back into our own perception of their negative impact upon us and loops back over to our side of the cloud

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



(5) And that leads us back into where we started and a new modification of our original intent

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



I think that I have found Karl’s loop, I think that this is exactly the “kind of a thing” that he meant

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Around and around we can go, in a beautiful positive or amplifying feedback or reinforcement loop, worse and worse, the conflict intensifies and the gap widens

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



This is how a conflict can go schismogenic!

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

When one side can “up the ante” the conflict will exacerbate …


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

… however, when the other side can increase their resistance the conflict will stagnate, and it is to this that we must now turn our attention


Conflict Stagnation

The Area of Tolerable Conflict


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



In 1981, Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton wrote about Getting To Yes, and this is the “yes” that they were trying to get to

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Yes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

No

Benefits

Detriments



But there was a bit of problem, and it is called No, so a decade later William Ury wrote about Getting Past No, and this is the “no” that he was trying to get past

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Yes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Yes

Benefits

No

Benefits

No



And don’t worry it can happen to both matrices …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Yes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No



… and to both sides of each matrix as well

Common Objective



No

No

Yes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No



When either side embarks upon positive intent, moving away from the “no” of their own diagonal towards the “yes” …

Common Objective



No

No

Yes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No



… then there is often a perceived negative impact within the other diagonal and “No!” is a very likely to be the first response …

Common Objective



No

No

Yes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No



… followed by active intent back towards the status quo

Common Objective



No

No

Yes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No



Consequently, we limit the extent of the interaction to something that Robert Fritz calls “an area of tolerable conflict” ...

Common Objective



No

No

Yes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No



… and the conflict stagnates there – in fact that is the whole point of the matter – ensuring stagnation

Common Objective



No

No

Yes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Their Satisfaction

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

OurSecurity

OurInsecurity



If we substitute our satisfaction and security model into this, it will become even more clear

Common Objective




Our Dissatisfaction

OurSatisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Their Satisfaction

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

OurSecurity

OurInsecurity



Robert Fritz describes each diagonal as a tension-resolution pair; and we have a pair of pairs in each matrix here

Common Objective




Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Their Satisfaction

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

OurSecurity

OurInsecurity



As you can guess, they are intimately related to the feedback loop that we have just seen, and they mirror the jeopardies in the cloud

Common Objective




Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Their Satisfaction

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

OurSecurity

OurInsecurity



Moreover, we can actively manipulate this structure, and most often we do, often automatically, and therefore without conscious thought

Common Objective




Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Their Satisfaction

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

OurSecurity

OurInsecurity



Having now exposed these tension-resolution pairs, I want to put them to one side. To be aware of them is sufficient for the moment …

Common Objective




Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Their Satisfaction

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

OurSecurity

OurInsecurity



… however they underlie all conflict, dilemma, and transcendent structures and we will examine them and their impact in much greater detail in the following webinar

Common Objective




Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Their Satisfaction

TheirSecurity

TheirInsecurity

OurSecurity

OurInsecurity



Let’s now turn our attention to de-escalating this conflict, let’s turn our attention to alleviating this conflict using the methodology of Difficult Conversations

Common Objective




Our Dissatisfaction

Our Satisfaction

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Alleviating The Conflict

Difficult Conversations


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



In 1999 Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen wrote Difficult Conversations, a lineal descendent of Getting To Yes and Getting Past No

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



We addressed this in detail in last year’s webinar, but I want to recapitulate on how it enables us to identify and address erroneous assumptions

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

??????

Our WantOur Need

???

???

???

Benefits

Detriments



Remember that there is a great deal that we may think that we know about the other side, but in fact we may not really know at all …

Common Objective

???

???

???

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

??????

Our WantOur Need

???

???

???

Benefits

Detriments



… we may not know their want …

Common Objective

???

???

???

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

??????

Our WantOur Need

???

???

???

Benefits

Detriments



… we may not know their need …

Common Objective

???

???

???

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

??????

Our WantOur Need

???

???

???

Benefits

Detriments



… we may not know their issues and outcomes as they see them, in other words their intent …

Common Objective

???

???

???

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

??????

Our WantOur Need

???

???

???

Benefits

Detriments



… and we almost certainly won’t understand the impact of our own intent upon them

Common Objective

???

???

???

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

BlameBlame

Our WantOur Need

Blame

Blame

Blame

Benefits

Detriments



And you know what we will do about it, don’t you, we will assign blame towards them for many of these things

Common Objective

Blame - And to avoid our negative impact upon them

Blame - Because of their positive intent

Blame

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

BlameBlame

Our WantOur Need

Blame

Blame

Blame

Benefits

Detriments



Without much, if any, consideration for our own contribution to this situation

Common Objective



Blame

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

BlameBlame

ContributionOur Need

Blame

Blame

Blame

Benefits

Detriments



We won’t consider the contribution from our own want …

Common Objective



Blame

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

BlameBlame

ContributionContribution

Blame

Blame

Blame

Benefits

Detriments



… we won’t consider the contribution from our own need …

Common Objective



Blame

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

BlameBlame


Blame

Blame

Blame

Benefits

Detriments



… we won’t consider the contribution from our own assumptions …

Common Objective



Blame

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal

Contribution - Because of our positive intent

Contribution - And to avoid their negative impact upon us

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

BlameBlame


Blame

Blame

Blame

Contribution

Contribution



… nor the intent and the impact from which these are derived

Common Objective



Blame

Contribution

Contribution

Our Proposal

Their Proposal

Contribution - Because of our positive intent

Contribution - And to avoid their negative impact upon us

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


BlameBlame

Contribution

Contribution

Contribution

Blame

Blame



Just about the only consolation in this whole affair is that we could swap all of these entities around for the other side as well

Common Objective

Contribution - And to avoid our negative impact upon them

Contribution - Because of their positive intent

Contribution

Blame

Blame

Our Proposal

Their Proposal

Blame - Because of our positive intent

Blame - And to avoid their negative impact upon us

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Facts

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



You may recall that in Difficult Conversations we need to address the facts, and these are predominantly found within the issues and the outcomes – of both sides

Common Objective



Facts

Facts

Facts

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Feelings

Feelings

Feelings

Feelings



We also need to address feelings, and these are predominantly found within the benefits and potential detriments – and once again, of both sides

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



This is very much a part of the narrative that we must seek to extract, to verbalize, and to understand

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



And as I have suggested before, our sense of identity which underlies this narrative is in the “A,” the common objective because, in fact, it is everywhere

Sense of Identity



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

More money manpower machinery

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Sense of Identity



Issues

Issues


Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

And most often our sense of identity will revolve around wanting more: more money, more manpower, more machinery, in order to do the job at hand …


Our WantOur Need


Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Sense of Identity



Issues

Issues


Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

… and as no one has ever argued for less, then probably more management as well!


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Remember that whenever the conversation goes negative, use contrasting …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… point out that it is not the negative impact that we intend …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… but rather it is the positive intent that we seek

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Sure, their solution is indeed our problem, and so too our solution is indeed their problem, but the intent on both sides is for that of a positive solution

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



However, when we are stuck as a 1st or 2nd person participant in a conflict, it is still sometimes extremely difficult to extract ourselves from this position …

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



… and that brings us to the next step in Difficult Conversations and indeed also the next step in our overall process

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Moving to a 3rd person view is often the next step to resolution because the 3rd person can see beyond the immediate participants

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Let’s now turn our attention to the 3rd person and dilemma

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


Dilemma3rd Person View



Here are two books that I didn’t read in February 2008 and in August 2009. I did get to read both of them earlier this year and regret having put them aside for so long. Read the second one first, it’s easier that way.

There are several very important themes in these two books, and a great deal of hope; we shouldn’t judge the future by our past …



In particular, it was the role of 3rd parties in avoiding conflict that was an unexpected, and for me, a timely finding.

“When no third party exists to adjudicate disputes over marriage arrangements, personal injuries, trade, territory, and other economic concerns, or when the mediators that do exist cannot enforce their decisions on the recalcitrant, disputants regularly resort to violent self-help. Peace is unavoidably rare in settings where no institutions have the moral authority and physical power to maintain it by compelling restitution or retribution for injuries, imposing resolutions to disputes, and ensuring the survival of component social units. Any peace lacking powerful institutions to uphold it usually amounts to little more than a prolonged truce. As anthropologist Marvin Harris put it: ‘Primitive peoples go to war because they lack alternative solutions to certain problems - alternative solutions that would involve less suffering and fewer premature deaths.’”

Keeley, pp 160-161


Our WantOur Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Even though our situation isn’t nearly so dire, sometimes without a 3rd person view we too are trapped, so how does a 3rd person, an “outsider,” see things?

Common Objective



Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge

Second Side’s WantSecond Side’s Need

First Side’s WantFirst Side’s Need

Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments



Well, first, I need to change the labels a little, and let’s do the cloud first, let’s change “our” side and “their” side to the “first” side and the “second” side …

Common Objective

And to avoid the negative impact of the other side

Because of this side’s positive intent

Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge



Second Side’sOutcomes

Second Side’s Benefits

First Side’s DetrimentsTo Second

First Side’sBenefits

Second Side’sDetriments

To First



… and the matrix second, except that this is a little bit busy, so let’s clean it up a bit

Common Objective



First Side’sIssues

For Second

Second Side’s Issues

For First

First Side’sOutcomes

A Proposal

Another Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge



OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second

DetrimentsFor Second

BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First



Now it should look a little more familiar, you can always come back and do a reality check on it later on

Common Objective



IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge



OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First



And now let’s examine these matrices in a little more detail in isolation and then we will recombine the outcome with the dilemma cloud

Common Objective



IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another Proposal



Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge


DilemmaTransformation Matrix

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge



Another State’s

Positives

One State’s Negatives

Another State’s

Negatives

One State’sPositives

One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

Here we have our two change matrices on the left and a new “transformation” matrix on the right, and I’m hinting that this new entity is going to be a dilemma

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge



Another State’s

Positives


Another State’s

Negatives


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

I want to now “fold-up” – step by step – the two change matrices on the left into the one “transformation” matrix on the right

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge



Another State’s

Positives


Another State’s

Negatives


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

And, trust me, there is method in my madness

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge



Another State’s

Positives


Another State’s

Negatives


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

Let’s start with the lower matrix and the first side’s positive intent: the loss of the negative issues and gain of the positive outcomes …

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge



Another State’s

Positives


Another State’s

Negatives


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

… this is kind of my “navigational home base” …

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge



Another State’s

Positives

One State’sNegatives

Another State’s

Negatives

First Side’s Intent

One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

… and I am going to place this in the upper-left positive quadrant of the new transformation matrix

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge



Another State’s

Positives

One State’sNegatives

Another State’s

Negatives


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

Next we look at the potential loss of positive benefits and the gain of negative detriments, both of which are a negative impact to be avoided …

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge



Another State’s

Positives

First Side’s Impact On

Second Side

Another State’s

Negatives


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

… and I am going to place these in the upper-right negative quadrant of the new transformation matrix

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge



Another State’s

Positives


Second Side

Another State’s

Negatives


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

Changing over to the upper matrix, let’s look at the second side’s positive intent: the loss of the negative issues and gain of the positive outcomes …

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge



Second Side’s Intent


Second Side

Another State’s

Negatives


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

… and I am going to place this in the lower-left positive quadrant of the new transformation matrix

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge





Second Side

Another State’s

Negatives


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

Finally, we look at the potential loss of positive benefits and gain of the negative detriments, both of which are a negative impact to be avoided …

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge





Second Side

Second Side’s Impact OnFirst Side


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

… and we place this in the lower-right negative quadrant of the new transformation matrix

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge





Second Side

Second Side’s Impact OnFirst Side


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

Now we have a completed transformation matrix

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge




Impact On Second Side

Impact OnFirst Side


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

And let’s clean it up a little, and hopefully those same old diagonals will be apparent to you in this new “folded” structure

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge





Impact OnFirst Side


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

These structures are nothing, if not recursive!

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge





Impact OnFirst Side


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

Now, this is the matrix that people asked where the mermaids and the alligators were in last year’s webinar …

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge





One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

… except that I had split this transformation matrix out into two halves to get an “arrowhead” shape and this is exactly how it was presented

Impact OnFirst Side


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge





One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

Go back and check, you will see that it is totally consistent

Impact OnFirst Side


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge





One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

Maybe you can see now that the mermaids, the alligators, and our other friends are folded up, two to a quadrant, eight in all

Impact OnFirst Side


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge





One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

Impact OnFirst Side


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

And let me reiterate here; that Harvard Negotiation Project’s Difficult Conversations, and Theory of Constraints, our layers of resistance, our security and satisfaction …

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge





One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

Impact OnFirst Side


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

… and Professor Jerry Harvey’s The Abilene Paradox, and Robert Fritz’ The Path of Least Resistance all have a magnificent consistency between them

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge





Impact OnFirst Side


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

Now let’s fold things back again into one matrix; we have two change matrices for a conflict on the left, and we have one transformation matrix for a dilemma on the right



Now, in the words of the cartoonist Sydney Harris …

OutcomesFor Second

BenefitsFor Second


BenefitsFor First

DetrimentsFor First

IssuesFor Second

IssuesFor First

OutcomesFor First

A Proposal

Another ProposalC

hang

eC

hang

eD

on’t

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

ge





Impact OnFirst Side


One

Sta

te

Dilemma

Ano

the

r S

tate

Well, sorry, not true, it is of practical use. In fact it must be used, if we are to depict a cloud and a matrix as a dilemma. Let’s have a look


DilemmaCloud & Transformation Matrix





Here we have our new transformation matrix and our old dilemma cloud

Common Objective








Impact OnFirst Side

Dilemma

One

Sta

teA

noth

er

Sta

te





We have a tension-resolution system that moves from the negatives: the impact of the second side, towards the positives: the intent of the first side

Common Objective






Impact OnFirst Side

Dilemma

One

Sta

teA

noth

er

Sta

te







And we have a tension-resolution system that moves from the negatives: the impact of the first side, towards the positives: the intent of the second side

Common Objective








Impact OnFirst Side

Dilemma

One

Sta

teA

noth

er

Sta

te





And this is the critical difference …

Common Objective








Impact OnFirst Side

Dilemma

One

Sta

teA

noth

er

Sta

te





… in a dilemma we oscillate backwards and forwards, seeking to secure the positives from both sides while wishing to avoid the negatives of either side

Common Objective








Impact OnFirst Side

Dilemma

One

Sta

teA

noth

er

Sta

te





Common Objective








Impact OnFirst Side

Dilemma

One

Sta

teA

noth

er

Sta

te

And do you see it? For an outsider, for a 3rd person, one who has not bought into either side, a dilemma is a logical “AND” argument …





Common Objective








Impact OnFirst Side

Dilemma

One

Sta

teA

noth

er

Sta

te

… we want one side AND we want the other side too





It is not a conflict, it is not a logical “OR” argument, where each side is interested only in maintaining their own side and not in maintaining both sides

Common Objective





Outcomes

Benefits

Detriments

Benefits

Detriments

Issues

Issues

Outcomes

Our Proposal

Their Proposal

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

Don

’t C

han

geD

on’t

Cha

nge





A dilemma is of a higher logical type than a conflict, and that is why we can, indeed why we must, fold the two change matrices into one transformation matrix

Common Objective








Impact OnFirst Side

Dilemma

One

Sta

teA

noth

er

Sta

te





So, let us ask once again, is there a way out?

Common Objective








Impact OnFirst Side

Dilemma

One

Sta

teA

noth

er

Sta

te





Sure there is, we are much more likely to identify and remove erroneous assumptions in 3rd person than we ever were as 1st or 2nd person …

Common Objective








Impact OnFirst Side

Dilemma

One

Sta

teA

noth

er

Sta

te





… but if we can’t, then ultimately we may have to transcend this current structure, and that is the subject of the second webinar

Common Objective








Impact OnFirst Side

Dilemma

One

Sta

teA

noth

er

Sta

te





Raising a conflict to a dilemma and knowing the mechanics of how to do so is a very important step forward in our quest

Common Objective








Impact OnFirst Side

Dilemma

One

Sta

teA

noth

er

Sta

te





Let’s summarize

Common Objective








Impact On First Side

Dilemma

One

Sta

teA

noth

er

Sta

te




• We have journeyed from an examination of the cloud and of the matrix to a combination that represents a conflict

• We have shown where the layers of resistance are and also where satisfaction and security ought to be found in this two-matrix layout


DidacticDialectic




• We have shown how we can exacerbate such a conflict through miscommunication and confirmation bias which leads through to schismogenesis, and an understanding of the underlying feedback loops

• We have shown how a conflict stagnates to within an area of tolerable conflict• We have shown how to alleviate a conflict through the examination of erroneous assumptions

principally through the concept of Difficult Conversations


DidacticDialectic





DidacticDialectic

• Finally, we have shown how to move from the logical “OR” of a conflict to the logical “AND” of a dilemma

• We have shown that a different and necessary transformation matrix is required for this higher logical type and where the mermaids and other entities are located





DidacticDialectic

• In the next webinar we will continue this journey and more fully examine the role of oscillation in dilemmas, and then learn how to transcend the dilemma and eliminate the oscillation with a unique and systemic solution built around a senior organizing principle

• Thank you very much and please join me again on the 6th December


End

Website: www.dbrmfg.co.nz

E mail: youngman “at” dbrmfg.co.nz

Documents

© Dr Kelvyn Youngman, Nov 20141 A Simpler Way Session One From Conflict To Dilemma