Translator Needed
To add further complexity to the issue, each of the four (PAEI) styles attaches a different meaning to the words is, want and should – based on his own idiosyncratic world view.
The (E)ntrepreneur typically perceives events – and makes his decisions – through the prism of want. He confuses want with is: “Since I want it, it is.”
In contrast, the (A)dministrator’s style comes from the should direction: “Since it should be, it is.” If you ask an (A)dministrator, “Do we have a solution to this problem?” he might say, “Of course we do. We spent a million dollars on it, didn’t we?” Well, perhaps it’s true that we should have a solution because we spent a million dollars. But that’s not the question. The question is: “Do we have a solution?”
Now, which style’s perspective is: “What is, is. Never mind the want and the should.” That’s the (P)roducer. The (P) is very reality-oriented; he understands what is, and that’s all that interests him. He is not concerned with what should be or what somebody might want. If this is the way it is, then this is how he wants it, and this is how it should be. Is equals want equals should – period: They are all the same. He is proud of the fact that his feet are planted solidly on the ground, and that his decisions are practical, based on what is and not on what isn’t.
And finally, who continually moves around from one perception to the other? The (I)ntegrator. The (I) is capable of understanding the differences; because he doesn’t have any single avenue through which he comes to reality. Is, want, and should are irrelevant to the (I)ntegrator. His views and his decision-making are determined by his concern for other people’s opinions, not his own.
These huge differences in the use of language create a lot of unnecessary confusion, anger, and conflict. For instance, in a meeting, an (E) might say, “We sold a million dollar contract.”
“Where is it?” the (P) asks.
“The clients are meeting next week to sign it,” says the (E).
“Then we really don’t have the contract,” says (P).
“But we will! They like it!” The (E), feeling that (P) is challenging his credibility, is getting angry.
“But in reality, they might not,” (P) retorts. The (P), is from Missouri. Show me the state. He believes it when he has it in his hand. Nothing less.
“But they will, because it makes perfect sense for them!” (E) almost screams. What is really happening? The (E) has confused what he wants and should be with what is: “Since I want it and should be, it is.” But the fact is, it isn’t; It isn’t signed.
The (P) in this meeting is totally frustrated and disgusted. All he wants is to get to the bottom line, the decision, so that the meeting will end and he can get back to work. “Listen, guys, do we have the contract or not?” he asks. “What the hell is going on here?”
More Conflicts
Of course, conflicts will also occur between managers whose styles are not diagonal on the chart. For example, conflicts may arise between the (P)roducer and the (E)ntrepreneur if the (E)ntrepreneur is the manager and the (P)roducer is the subordinate. Under those circumstances, the (E)ntrepreneur will typically give instructions to the (P) in generalities, or “big-picture” ideas. Since the (P)roducer is extremely literal and has difficulty translating the general into specifics, there is the danger that he might misinterpret and make a big mess out of the (E)’s vague directions. As I said in Chapter 5, that may explain Watergate and other political scandals in this country’s history.
On the other hand, if the (P)roducer is at the top and the (E)ntrepreneur is the subordinate, very little will get done. Why? The (P)roducer won’t delegate and the (E)ntrepreneur will wander off to do his own thing. The (P)roducer will try to do all the work himself, thus limiting the company’s production and growth.
Now let’s take the other side: The (A)dministrator and the (I)ntegrator. The conflict there is about implementation, but again, little gets done. The (A)dministrator occupies himself creating all kinds of regulations and rules. The (I) protests: “Cool it! Not everything conforms to rules. You don’t have to be so mechanistic. You don’t have to make a million laws and put every single thing in writing. You can just talk to people. If you just convince them to make something work, it will work.”
But the (A) doesn’t trust people. He wants everything in writing so that it can be organized and enforced and so that those who deviate can be punished.
What it Means
The diagram and anecdotes mentioned add up to two conclusions: First, in order to know what is actually being communicated – what is really meant by words like “yes” and “no,” “we are” and “we need to” – we cannot rely on the definitions in our own dictionary. We must look at who is speaking.
And second: In decision-making, there must be a complementary team. The (P) will naturally focus on reality: What is, is. The (E) will provide the want elements of the discussion, the ambition; while the (A) will keep reminding everyone of what should be done. (I)ntegrated and motivated by the (I), and properly managed, a complementary team will be able to reach a strategy that is based on reality (is), reflects the company’s goals (want), and also takes into account its obligations and responsibilities (should).
Thus, our analysis of the different styles shows not only how difficult it is for a team of dissimilar managers to communicate with each other; it also demonstrates why it is essential that they do so. All three perspectives are necessary for decision-making, yet any single manager alone does not possess them in equal measure.
Conflicts on the Implementation Side
We’ve seen that in the decision-making process, different styles have different priorities, are focused either on the long-range or the short-range; move at different speeds, and deal with the process differently. All of this causes miscommunication, which causes conflict, which causes further miscommunication, and so on.
On the implementation side (remember: “To manage” means both “to decide” and “to implement”), any team of managers may simply lack a commonality of interests. In other words, I might agree with your logic, I might fully understand what you’re saying; but I am not going to cooperate. Why not? Because I believe the course of action you are suggesting will benefit you at my expense.
You often hear talk in managerial training and seminars about fostering a “win-win climate.” It’s a wonderful idea, but let’s face it: It’s utopian to expect to have a win-win climate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It doesn’t always happen between parents and children, or between spouses, so why would it happen in an organization?
In the absence of a win-win climate, those with the power can undermine those with the authority; they can “pocket-veto” decisions by simply not implementing them, later claiming that they misunderstood the decision. This can make implementation very inefficient.
Summing it up
Conflict is inevitable and necessary because of change. Whenever there is change we need to decide what to do and implement those decisions. To make decisions, we need a complementary team which by definition means miscommunication from time to time. To implement, we need a commonality of interest, which is often too much to ask for.
Now what?
When it is appropriately managed, conflict can be useful and productive. But if it is mismanaged or not managed at all, conflict can be destructive, sapping the organization’s energy and causing us to make bad decisions, or implement our decisions badly or inefficiently.
The challenge is to harness conflict and turn it into a positive force. The question is: How does one prevent the inevitable conflict from becoming destructive?
It’s not the differences in personality between two people, but how each couple handles those differences.
In other studies, they also found that the reasons people get married are the same reasons they get divorced. People are fascinated by each other’s differences. When we fall in love, we become infatuated with the other person’s strengths, which are very often our own weaknesses. We love seeing our weaknesses reappear as a strength in the other person. And that is wonderful – until we get married. Then what happens? On a day-to-day level, what was so fascinating – the differences between us – becomes a source of irritation. How do you handle them? It is always stressful to manage differences, and many couples eventually find it unbearable and split up.
So, why do some style differences make for stronger relations and others for a breakdown?
Let us see.
Last updated
Was this helpful?