Conversation 7: What to Do About Change

Would you like to summarize our last discussion?

Sure.

Change is constant.

Problems emerge because of change.

To solve problems caused by change we need to decide what to and implement our decisions.

You said we need all the (PAEI) code roles performed in order to make good decisions.

If one or more of the (PAEI) roles is missing, a predictable mismanagement style will emerge.

We have already discussed the four extreme mismanagement styles: the (P- - -), (-A- -), (- -E-), and (- - -I). We also touched on managerial styles and leadership styles.

Now, what about a person who has zero (P), zero (A), zero (E), and zero (I)?

What type of style would four blanks indicate?

(---): Deadwood

I refer to a manager with none of those roles as Deadwood.

Deadwood mismanagers are not interested in what, how, why, or who, but only in survival. Low managerial metabolism and low energy are their trademarks. They say “uhm hm” and “yes, yes” a lot, but never actually do much.

Deadwood does not show resistance to change either. Remember how the other mismanagers resist change? If Lone Rangers are told to change something, they’ll say, “How can I do it? My desk is full,” or “I’ll get to it when I have time.”

Bureaucrats resist change, because they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. They dwell on the repercussions of change, so they say it can’t be done. “It’s too risky,” or “It’s too costly.” They think from an implementation point of view and perceive opportunities as problems.

Deadwood does not show resistance to change.

Arsonists resist change when the idea is not their own. Super Followers oppose new ideas, because those ideas could be politically risky: “People aren’t ready for it yet. This is not the right time.” The “right time” for them is not when the market demands it, but when the internal political climate will allow it.

Bureaucrats resist change, because they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Deadwood has a different attitude about change. If you tell a Deadwood manager, “Let’s move Paris to the Sahara,” he’ll say, “Sure.” No up-front resistance. But a year later when you ask, “Where are we with the project to move Paris to the Sahara?” he’ll say, “We’ve been studying it. Here’s a preliminary report. We’re still working on it.” You see, he didn’t move one pebble to the Sahara. However, the Deadwood spent plenty of his time just protecting himself for not moving one pebble anywhere.

It’s very difficult to get rid of Deadwood, because they always agree with you and accept any assignment. They always say, “Everything’s okay! Whatever you say! Sure!” But they don’t do anything and feel perfectly all right about it. When someone gets fired, the Deadwood might say, “I don’t know why they fired Lisa. She didn’t do anything.”

Another characteristic that distinguishes the various types of mismanagers is their typical complaint.

For instance, what do Lone Rangers say?

“Too much work to do. I’m not catching up.”

Right. And Bureaucrats?

“It’s not being done the way it should be. It’s not properly organized or under control.” They emphasize the word should.

You got it. How about Arsonists?

“People are not following the priorities. They’re working on the wrong tasks.” Arsonists complain even though they constantly change the priorities so that nobody knows what the latest priorities are.

Beautiful. What about Super Followers?

“We don’t communicate well. You must have misunderstood me. What I really meant to say was...”

In contrast, the Deadwood doesn’t complain. When you ask how it is going, they say: “Fine.” Any problems? “No.”

Look again at the characteristics of the Deadwood style: no resistance to change and no complaints. Deadwood looks like the perfect subordinate. He never says “no.” He has no problems. All is fine. We love the guy.

Now notice, what makes Deadwood really dangerous is that the Deadwood phenomenon spreads. Deadwood multiplies.

What do you mean?

Every one of these mismanagers has a typical subordinate, and who do you think works for Deadwood?

More Deadwood.

Yes. My greatest fear when diagnosing an organization is when I ask how it’s going, and everyone answers, “Everything is fine. No problems.” Remember, the quietest place in town is the graveyard; nothing happens there; no one has any problems because there is no change. That’s death. Being alive means change, and change means working on problems, and growing means working on larger problems.

But why does Deadwood multiply?

Deadwood doesn’t grow in managerial capabilities. He doesn’t move on or delegate. This keeps the people under Deadwood from growing as well. When Deadwood dies managerially, the people below will eventually die as managers as well. Efficiency and effectiveness disappear and no one knows why, because no one is complaining. When managers tell you everything is okay, and when no one is trying to improve or change anything, the organization has too much Deadwood.

But why does Deadwood appear? What can we do about it?

If you look at the previous four mismanagement styles—Lone Ranger, Bureaucrat, Arsonist, and Super Follower—you can see that the difference between those styles and the Deadwood is the number of blanks they have in their (PAEI) codes. The former styles have three blanks; Deadwood has four blanks. Thus, the first four styles are three-quarters Deadwood already.

Lone Rangers become Deadwood when they lose their exclusive capability, which is to (P)roduce results.

How does that happen?

Lone Rangers work very hard and claim they have no time to train subordinates, but who else do they not have time to train?

Themselves.

So, what happens after twenty years? They are not people with twenty years of experience, but rather people with one year of experience repeated twenty times. They still work hard, but they are obsolete. The world has changed and they haven’t adapted.

How do Bureaucrats become Deadwood?

They manage by the book. If you want to “kill” them managerially, change the “book,” for instance, computerize systems that were previously done manually, or install new budgetary systems—in other words, change. If the Bureaucrat can’t adapt, a major change could transform him into Deadwood. They do not learn the new “book.”

How about Arsonists?

They burn out when they start one fire too many and can’t control the fires anymore. Soon they lose the trust and respect of the people who work for them. The organization eventually stops listening to the Arsonist, who still has ideas but no followers. Eventually Arsonists lose faith in themselves and stop trying.

And Super Followers?

They become Deadwood when a crisis demanding immediate resolution arises and they cannot solve it the (I) way, because (I)ntegration of people requires time and there is no time. What usually happens since the situation calls for action, not negotiation, a small revolution erupts from below and they are pushed aside. They still might try to (I)ntegrate, but nobody will listen to them anymore.

Do you see the common denominator in all four cases?

Let me think. Lone Rangers becomes Deadwood when there is change and they don’t adapt. Bureaucrats become Deadwood when the system of implementation changes and they can’t handle it. Arsonists become Deadwood when they spur too much change and lose control. Super Followers become Deadwood when a crisis requires immediate action and they lose control of the political process.

The common denominator is change!

Exactly. Show me an organization with a high rate of change and I will show you a growing heap of Deadwood. While the situation changes, they do not change. The faster the situation changes externally, the faster Deadwood develops internally.

But that’s not a typical bureaucracy where change is slow, although I would expect to find Deadwood mostly in bureaucracies.

Bureaucracies have latent Deadwood. In their case Deadwood becomes apparent when the organization experiences change. In a regulated environment everything appears to be under control. The Deadwood beneath the surface bursts forth when regulation is removed and change is introduced rapidly.

Actually, the type of organization that is subject to the highest degree of Deadwood is rather a young company going through tremendous change, a high-tech company, for example. Unless it invests heavily in retraining, it will have either a high turnover or growing Deadwood. It changes so fast that some people cannot keep up. They die managerially.

On the macro level the same phenomenon might occur. Show me a society with a high rate of change, and I will show you a society with many homeless people. Their plight is not due to unavailable employment. When a society changes rapidly, many people cannot keep up. They cannot work effectively and gainfully in such an environment. They simply give up.

Why are there so many homeless people in the United States, the richest country in the world? Because the USA is undergoing tremendous change. The same is true of developing nations. Countries that are industrializing rapidly have streets full of beggars.

But the USA is already industrialized.

The USA is moving into the post-industrial age, the information age. There is a change from manufacturing and service industries to knowledge-based industries. These fields require more brainpower than muscle, and some people cannot link up with those changes.

Do you suggest we stop change?

No one can stop change, although many individuals, political parties, and religious movements have tried, and are still trying, and will try forever. The way to handle change is not by slowing change down, but by learning how to solve the problems of change faster.

Any suggestions?

That is what this book is about, as an introduction.

I have found that change follows a predictable pattern, which means that problems have a predictable pattern too. Change follows a lifecycle, and certain problems are indigenous to each phase of the lifecycle.

Some of these indigenous problems are normal and some are not. The role of management is to remove the problems inherent to the phase of the lifecycle the organization is in, and prepare the organization to deal with the problems that will come with the next stage. What is clear for our discussion now is that decisions need to be made for solving the problems that emerge with change. Those decisions must provide solutions that will make the organization effective and efficient in the short and long term. This means we need a (PAEI) decision.

The styles we have been discussing constitute mismanagement because they are missing one or more of the (PAEI) roles. What do we need in order to make good decisions that will make organizations effective and efficient in the short and the long term?

To get a (PAEI) decision we need the (PAEI) roles to be performed, which means we need a (PAEI) style.

Ready to gain a deeper understanding of your company's current stage of development? Take our Lifecycle Test and discover where your organization stands on its journey.

We need someone who is task-oriented, who performs the (P) role, and is organized, systematic, and thorough to perform the (A) role. He must have also have a global view and be creative and willing to take risks, thus performing the (E) role. Further, he must be sensitive to other people’s needs, a person who is a team builder, who makes himself dispensable, thus performing the (I) role. In other words a (PAEI) person who can perform all roles simultaneously, at the same time, forever, on every decision, and on every problem.

But such a person doesn’t exist.

To really be professional in leading change for exceptional, sustainable results using this methodology, I invite you to study at the Adizes Graduate School for the Study of Change and Collaborative Leadership, or at affiliated universities that offer the Adizes program. AGS grants a doctorate in Organizational Therapy with the Adizes Methodology.

Exactly! This (PAEI) person exists only in textbooks. By the same reasoning, there is no perfect parent, manager, or leader, and for that matter, no perfect follower. Nothing is ever perfect in itself when it is subject to change. Perfection occurs only when time is irrelevant. That’s why we say that art is timeless, but business and life are subject to change. None of us is perfect. Now you can relax. You and I, and all of us, are imperfect. So what’s new?

People have been chasing this myth of the perfect manager for years by raising salaries, increasing stock options, and giving all kinds of special rewards to CEOs, all in a quest to find this incredible faultless genius.

The managerial process is far too complicated for any single individual to perform alone.

This utopian expectation gives rise to the errant direction of much management education in the United States. The exist- ing programs describe what managers should do, although in reality they cannot do it. Open any textbook on manage- ment theory, and you will find that the most repeated word is should. The manager should plan, should organize, should communicate, should discipline, should lead. The fact is no one can excel in everything. The managerial process is far too complicated for any single individual to perform alone.

Because the (PAEI) roles are incompatible, no one can be (P), (A), (E), and (I) at any one time, let alone forever. That makes sense.

If the (PAEI) executive exists only in textbooks, does that mean every organization will be mismanaged?

No. Although no individual can be the perfect manager, leader, or executive, we can have a team.

But watch out; not just any team.

It must be a complementary team.

Right. What is necessary is not a single omnipotent genius, but a complementary team. I emphasize the word complementary. Often, when I use the word team, people say, “Right. I need a team of people like me.” That’s not team building. That’s cloning.

Look at your hand again. A hand is five different fingers, which together act like a hand. If all the fingers were alike, you wouldn’t have a hand.

In management, we need a complementary team with a sense of united differences. If all the components were the same, the organization would be vulnerable. If they were different, the organization would still be vulnerable because the differences would work at cross purposes. Strength comes from united differences, different fingers with different distinct capabilities that work together.

The same holds true for a society. The society that is going to handle change best is one that has complementary cultures. I’m not talking about complementary abilities and knowledge, but complementary styles and judgments. This is what has made the USA so successful: Not its resources—other countries have no less, if not more. Not size—other countries are as big, if not larger. It is a culture that nourishes diversity and a population that is diverse, very diverse.

In management, we need a complementary team with a sense of united differences. Strength comes from united differences.

But don’t these differences create miscommunication and conflict?

There are many reasons for miscommunication. This is one of them. When people’s styles are different, they can miscommunicate easily.

So how can united differences give strength? Differences lead to conflict, and conflict is a weakness.

On the contrary, differences can give strength.

Please explain that one.

Differences are a strength if, when united, they compensate for individual weaknesses.

I understand: I compensate for your weaknesses with my strengths and vice versa. Now, jointly, we have all strengths, but how do you handle the conflict that diversity generates?

Let us slowly deal with this important question, because you are right, diversity can be a strength and it can be a weakness. It can be a disaster. It can generate destructive conflict, breakdown of nations, marriages, and partnerships.

Although people will tell you no one is perfect, they do not walk their talk. They still try to be perfect, and they expect others to improve and overcome their weaknesses. People work on their own weaknesses and get frustrated when others do not change. You are born with a personality style, and when people criticize you on your weaknesses, you get hurt and upset. This is because you have this hidden assumption that you could be perfect if only you could fix your weaknesses.

This is a common mistake. You are what you are. You have strengths and you have weaknesses. Normal stuff. So, focus, capitalize on your strengths, and for your weaknesses, find someone you trust to complement you and work as a team.

But if I hire someone to complement my weaknesses it means that a person working for me is better than I am.

In some style characteristics, true.

Assume I am the (A) type and I need to hire someone to complement me who is creative, visionary, willing to take risks. That person will scare the daylights out of me; I won’t hire her. Or the reverse, I am the (E) type and to complement myself I should hire an (A), who will frustrate the hell out of me.

Right. People want to believe they are better than the people working for them. This assump- tion that managers must be better than their subordinates is the source of the hierarchy and elitism that characterizes managerial behavior. Think differently.

How?

You must adopt the attitude that they do not work for you but with you.

How do I keep this working together stuff from creating a conflict that will make me frustrated and make me lose sleep? This is the sort of problem married people face all the time. Marriage is a complementary team, but, boy oh boy, is it hard work. How do you prevent the conflict from being destructive?

Let us think about what makes conflict constructive.

This is paradigm shift I would love to understand.

Constructive vs. Destructive Conflict

There is change, and change means disintegration, and disintegration means problems.

So far, so good. Got that.

Problems need to be solved.

And in order to solve them we need to decide, and not deciding also constitutes a decision.

A good decision is one where all (PAEI) roles are performed.

And there is no individual who can perform all (PAEI) roles simultaneously, on every problem, forever.

Thus we need. . .

We need a complementary team. A complementary team, however, will necessarily entail conflict, because it is composed of differences of styles.

So conflict is necessary and inevitable in the management of change, and change is inevitable and constant.

Any time we try to eliminate conflict, we’re not managing well. We’re like the would-be sailor who says, “I would like to cross the ocean and visit foreign lands, but I don’t like big waves.” So this “adventurer” stays at home, sits in the bathtub, and reads travel magazines.

Conflict is necessary and inevitable in the management of change.

It’s the same phenomenon when managers or political leaders say, “I love to manage or lead. It’s people I can’t stand.” They are sitting in their managerial bathtub, avoiding the real task of management or leadership, which is?

The harnessing of conflict.

The higher the rate of change is, the higher the rate of conflict.

And if we try to stop conflicts, we will be stopping change. Got it.

One thinker missed this point, which cost millions of people their lives and many more mil- lions their quality of life.

Who is that?

I am referring to Karl Marx. He lived during the Industrial Revolution, a time of rapid change in Europe. He witnessed the conflict it created, the pain the working classes were experiencing, and developed an economic philosophy to stop conflict. How? He preached what he called the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the absolute rule of the workers. That meant one political party, the Communist party. With only one party, there would be no more discussion, and thus no more conflict.

Another source of conflict is a lack of common interests. (We will cover that in future con- versations.) Marx preached to stop that source of conflict too, with what he called a classless society. Everyone gives according to his capabilities and gets according to his needs. Thus, there is no more conflict.

This philosophy, called the Communist philosophy, attracted millions of people who were ready to die or kill for it. Why? Because it promised heaven on earth. No conflict. Absolute justice and truth, words that people associate with lack of conflict.

“If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” —PRESIDENT TRUMAN

What happened when the Communist system was applied? It stopped change. The Soviet Union began to fall behind technologically, socially, economically, and even artistically. Mikhail Gorbachev led the process of change and the moment he did, what else had to occur?

Conflict.

Right. There is no change without conflict, and if you try to stop one, the other will stop too.

This is very interesting.

If you don’t like managing conflict, don’t try to be a leader. If you don’t like people or handling differences of opinion, then get out of the manager’s hot seat. As Harry Truman, the President of the United States during World War II, said, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Leading is, in large part, dealing with people who have different styles, people that who have different opinions and interests that must be united. But that will cause conflict.

We can now add this element to our master diagram.

DIAGRAMA

I understand that conflict is necessary, but I am still waiting to learn how to make it constructive!

What does the word “constructive” mean to you?

Constructive means to create something new that was not there before.

That happens when we learn something new. When do we learn? When confronted with an opinion different from ours. We learn from differences.

Imagine you come to someone to tell her of your decision and ask her opinion, and she agrees with everything you say, 100 percent. What did you learn? Nothing new. Maybe you learned that someone agrees with you, but no new knowledge content wise has been created.

Now assume you go to someone else with the same decision and ask his opinion, except this person has a different style from yours. Let us say you are an (E) and he is an (A). You see the big picture. He, on the other hand, notes the details you missed and he starts criticizing your idea, your decision. It is conflict all right, and it is often painful, but if you are open-minded and listen, and willing to listen, you learn something you did not think of or already know. Thus the conflict was. . .

Constructive. But to learn from someone who disagrees with you, you must be open-minded. It is respect that causes you to be open-minded.

Yes, there must be mutual respect. Without respect for differences of opinion, you do not learn. Respect needs to be mutual so both parties learn. What makes conflicts of style constructive is the existence of mutual respect between the parties involved. It means both parties cherish each other’s differences.

It is respect that causes you to be open-minded.

You mean they tolerate diversity?

Mercy, no! Do you want to have a marriage where you tolerate each other’s differences?

That is the way to suffer, no? You should appreciate each other’s differences, because you learn from each other. You enrich each other with your differences. The word respect should not be interpreted as how nicely you talk, and look at the other per- son, and nod your head. Respect means to value the other, appreciate the other for teaching you and enriching you.

In your previous example where you were an (E) and you hired an (A) to work with you, this (A) can save you a lot of money, right? He can tell you what the barriers are to implementing your dream, helping you avoid having a nightmare instead of a dream. Or if you are an (A) complementing yourself with an (E), this person can make you a lot of money you would not make by yourself.

Now I understand what it means to be a colleague. The word comes from Latin: colegum, to arrive together. They started from different points of view, and through respectful interaction, learned from each other and came to joint conclusion.

That is why when true colleagues have a discussion, one might say: “May I respectfully dis- agree with my learned colleague?” Notice the word respect, the open-mindedness, and the willingness to learn.

What you are saying is that every leader, manager, or executive should compose her team of people who are colleagues. People whose styles are different, but whom she respects, because she learns from their disagreement.

Beautifully said. Notice that how we arrive at a conclusion, in a climate of mutual respect, is an asset that can be reapplied. The conclusion or solution can change with time. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “Plans are useless. Planning is priceless.”

Mutual respect is a foundation. The topic can change, the conclusions, and the solutions can change, but the foundation must remain intact.

In Hebrew, the root consonants of the words colleague and confrontation are the same: amit and imut. Therefore, a colleague is someone with whom you are necessarily in disagreement. Colleagues teach each other by disagreeing respectfully. The relationship is synergistic, full of growth, and constructive when learning happens and when you learn from someone who disagrees with you.

That happens only when I respect what that person has to say?

A colleague is someone with whom you are necessarily in disagreement.

Right. You must be willing to hear and learn from disagreements. Any time you are grappling with a complicated subject—regard- ing your career, business, or personal life—you consult someone for an opinion. However, you cannot learn from just anyone. Would you consult with someone who is just like you, who always agrees with you, or look for someone you respect who has something different to say, something you did not think about?

Obviously the latter.

If you find someone who is different from you, but you don’t respect that person, again you will not learn. When seeking advice, you should look for someone who disagrees with you, but whom you respect, because from experience you know you can learn from them.

We have here a chicken-and-egg problem: You say I should find someone whom I respect, because I learn from them. But in order to learn from them, I have to first respect them. What comes first?

You must start with respect first. Give them a chance. If you repetitively, repeatedly, do not learn anything from them, or their judgment is wrong, disconnect. I did not say respect everyone. Choose your colleagues.

The same applies to choosing your spouse. Carefully choose your complementary team to compose your marriage. Chose someone who is different from you, whom you respect be- cause they teach you.

Interesting. In the Jewish tradition every Friday evening, at the start of the Sabbath dinner, the husband will sing a song of praise for his wife. It is called the “Valiant Woman,”(Eshet Hayil). In this song, there is one sentence that always bothered me. It says that a valiant woman is “Ezer ke neged,” which in literal translation means “helpful against.”

I always wondered how she could be helpful if she is against. Now I get it. It depends on how she is against.

If she starts criticizing and putting her husband down for his decisions, she is not helpful, is she? But if she says, “Honey, have you thought about this or that?” etc., and points to the holes in his argument, and complements his style respectfully, it is helpful.

The husband learns from his colleague wife.

Usually (E)s marry (A)s; differences attract, as they complement each other. However this marriage will only be growth-full if there is mutual respect between them and if they are open-minded about each other’s point of view, so that they learn from each other. And thus, they will make better decisions together.

You want a partner, a spouse, or a colleague who knows how to disagree without being disagreeable.

Conflicts are synergistic when they are growth-full, when they are constructive. They are growth-full only when learning occurs, and that happens only when there is mutual respect.

Respect is not how nicely you speak or pay attention to the other person. It is necessary to be civilized, but that is only how not to be disagreeable. Respect is a question of values and attitude. To paraphrase Voltaire, I disagree with you but I am willing to sacrifice my life for you to have the right to disagree with me. That is respect, to me.

Let’s go over this one more time. When you have a problem you cannot solve alone, you should consult someone whose decision-making style is different from yours. But would you go to just anyone who disagrees with you?

Obviously not, I would consult only someone whose opinion I respect, when I believe I can benefit from their disagreement because there is something for me to learn from their differences. I read somewhere that when two people agree on everything, one of them is dispensable.

There’s a similar Zen saying: “If everyone in a meeting agrees on everything, none of them is thinking too hard.”

Interesting. Now I understand why the Jewish people are considered to be very smart. It is because they never agree with each other. Talmudic scholars are taught never to take anything for granted, to challenge everything.

Being Jewish means constantly having to argue and defend your position. “Three Jews, five opinions” is an expression you will often hear.

That is why Jewish people are sometime a pain to deal with, because they never agree with you? They always challenge you and seem to claim to be superior to you. Honestly, it pisses me off.

You are not alone—this is one source of anti-Semitism, in my opinion.

Nevertheless, you learn from difference of opinion. If you go to someone who has a different opinion, but find you haven’t learned anything that changed your position, then you will feel you wasted your time.

What makes you a leader is not what you know. . . it is what you are.

There are those who have something to say. Seek them. There are others who have to say something. Avoid them. This discussion brings me to the subject of management training or, what is now in vogue, leadership training. Management training should teach people how to handle the pain of harnessing conflict.

I notice you are not saying “resolving conflict,” but rather you say “harnessing conflict.”

Yes, I do not want to delegitimize conflict, I want to make it constructive. To be a better leader you have to learn how to live with conflict and use conflict constructively. What makes you a leader is not what you know or how much, it is what you are. It is your style, your attitude, and your way of relating to others.

Got it.

Now, I’d like to broaden the focus of the discussion by examining the importance of respect in modern society.

I believe the world stands at a major intersection on the path of history. Because of change, the problems facing society and individuals are increasingly complex. Differences between styles and cultures, and different opinions on how to solve society’s problems, cause conflict between countries, between groups, and within individuals.

Whether a person or a society—our global society—will emerge stronger or weaker because of change depends on how we handle our differences. If we build a society of colleagues who respect and capitalize on each other’s differences through democracy, we will emerge stronger.

Democracy cannot function without mutual respect. The decisions a democracy makes are not as important as the method used to make them. If a decision turns out to be a mistake, a democratic system that encourages criticism and debate can rectify it. The system enables change, and what it means to be a democratic society has to change democratically too. The higher the rate of change, the more democratic the system must be at every level.

Unfortunately, companies are not run democratically, and as they become bigger, more bureaucratic, and increasingly disempower individuals, I see them as a danger to democracy on macro level.

Why?

Democracy cannot function without mutual respect.

Because if people are disempowered in their work- ing environment, where they spend most of their waking time, why would they feel empowered to impact the decisions made by their political leaders? Democracy has to be all encompassing.

This is a very ambitious goal.

I agree, but what is the alternative? Growing bureaucratization. An increasingly disempow- ered population. Democracy is very vulnerable. It faces threats from increased regulation, increased government intervention—increased (A). It can become democracy in name only, where citizens vote every so often, but feel impotent to effect change via regular channels. Citizens in the US and France already feel they have to occupy Wall Street or to burn tires instead.

This is depressing enough, but how does respect apply at the individual level? You mentioned the internal conflict change causes within a person. What is that?

Individuals should have respect for their own internal differences of opinion. They have to recognize and accept the fact that no personal decision is permanent. Keeping an open mind with oneself and with others is essential to making good decisions. Being one’s own col- league is the essence of personal success. For that you must have self-respect. We all have a “parliament” inside our head, both conservative thinking and liberal thinking. We should honor and respect these different voices when making a decision. We should respect our own indecision and see if we can learn anything from it.

Let me ask a question please. I understand we need a complementary team in which the team members respect each other’s differences and make decisions based on mutual respect. But does the team need to have four people representing each of the four (PAEI) roles?

Not necessarily. You can have as few as two people. For example, one person who is (PaEi) and another who is (pAeI) can make an effective complementary team. By the way, this combination is of- ten called a Mom and Pop store. Traditionally, the “Pop” is the (PaEi) in a small family business, the one who opens new stores, brings in new products, and decides on new prices. The “Mom” traditionally keeps the books, an (A) function, and performs the (I) function. She might warn someone who needs something from Pop, “Come tomorrow. He’s a little bit crazy today.”

Being one’s own colleague is the essence of personal success.

There are times, however, when the Mom and Pop roles overlap, or they even exchange roles. Remember, men are not inherently (P)erformers and (E)ntrepreneurs, and women are not inherently (A)dministrators and (I)ntegrators. Mom can be the (PaEi) and Pop the (pAeI).

It takes a complementary team to build a store or to build a family. Show me a successful company, and I’ll show you a complementary team. Show me a successful society and I’ll show you different cultures working together in a climate of mutual respect.

I suggest that the United States is successful, not just because of its vast physical resources, there are countries with just as many resources, but because it benefits from its socio- political culture of mutual respect and trust. It recognizes and respects cultural differences. Have you ever seen a street celebration of America’s heritage? Every nationality that makes up the American population is represented, including nations with which America has been at war.

Equal opportunity is the law. Oppressed people from around the world come to the United States for opportunity. In order for equal opportunity to succeed, discrimination on the basis of race, creed, or sex is prohibited by law. If discrimination should increase in the United States, its strength would diminish.

We have to legitimize differences and unite them through a system of mutual respect. We are then enriched because of these differences, not in spite of them. Learning is nurtured because mutual respect encourages the cross-pollination of ideas.

When will differences be constructive and synergistic? When will they produce a learning environment? When there is mutual respect. Without it there is no learning, and with no learning, conflict is dysfunctional.

Without mutual respect, disagreements are pain with no gain.

Let us repeat the whole argument from the beginning to be sure you understood me. To recap: Conflict is inevitable because a complementary team is needed for making (PAEI) decisions.

(PAEI) decisions are necessary for any system to be effective and efficient in the short and long term, whether it’s an organization or a society.

There is no textbook manager who can perform all the (PAEI) roles simultaneously, just as there is no perfect political party, religion, or culture. A complementary team, or society, or a political system, by definition, comprises individuals or cultures who think and behave differently. That creates conflict, which is desirable when it is constructive, and it is constructive when it is based on mutual respect.

Good decisions, therefore, are a function of a complementary (PAEI) team working with mutual respect.

DIAGRAMA

I think I’ve got it. In our earlier exercise we imagined a group wrote down the problem and the solution and sealed it inside an envelope. The first two questions I should ask before opening the envelope from this exercise are: Who worked on the problem and how did they work on it?

Right, and if you don’t have a (PAEI) complementary team, or they did not work with mutual respect?

Don’t open the envelope. You have the wrong problem and the wrong solution.

If the team was made up of four (A)s, you could predict they would see the problem as a lack of control systems, and their solution would be to institute more standard operating procedures.

If there were four (I)s, they probably decided to appoint a subcommittee to study the issue further. They would wait to see which way the wind was blowing.

Or they will make a decision that is acceptable to those in power in the organization, but not necessarily the right decision for the situation. They will compromise.

If they were four (P)s, the meeting was very short. The solution would also be simple: fire, sell, or something like that.

And if they were four (E)s?

Don’t even go near the envelope!

Right. Their solution would probably create twelve more problems. Arsonists’ solutions cre- ate side effects.

But if you had a complementary team of two or more, in which all four roles were performed, what would the next question be?

How did the team work together?

Right. If they say they disagreed a lot, but compromised to meet a deadline?

Don’t open the envelope. There was no mutual respect.

If they say they disagreed, but learned from each other, so that by the end they came up with a solution they all supported?

Then, great, open the envelope. But do they vote or must they have a consensus?

We’ll discuss this later.

The important thing to note, for now, is that we can predict the quality of decisions based on the styles of the people making them and the quality of their interactions. To produce good decisions, we need a complementary (PAEI) team that works with mutual respect.