« A Reader Commented... BPM Business Case... | Main | The Dark Side of Performance Management »
January 25, 2007
Dealing With Dilemmas, Part I
In my previous post on Kobayashi Maru I talked about dilemmas. Many strategic decisions, when you look at them carefully, do not address a problem, but a dilemma, a difficult choice of some sort. Its only when you see the dilemma, and not the solution, when the decision that needs to be made becomes more clear. How to make the right decision?
Dilemmas are often ignored, or if they cant be ignored anymore, people are trapped in them, feel pressured to make a choice and live with the consequences”. If you are lucky, the dilemma turns out to be false; one of the choices is not valid, or there are other alternatives that do not conflict.
In any case, it is strange that people consider dealing with dilemmas so difficult, as it is hardly a new subject. Thinking in terms of dilemmas is well grounded in philosophy, with the concept of dialectics. According to the old Greek philosophers, by understanding opposite viewpoints, truth can be found, for instance in the middle, words we often still live by today.
Philosophers Hegel and Kant did breathe new life into dialectic thinking. They revealed how many disciplines, including philosophy, evolve. First there is a thesis, an accepted situation. At one point there will be a reaction, stating the opposite and rejecting the thesis. This is called the antithesis. Both thesis and antithesis are extremes and tend to be mutually exclusive. Then over time a synthesis develops, which is a reconciliation between the thesis and antithesis, bridging the opposites. The synthesis becomes the new norm in which both the supporters of the thesis and the supporters of the antithesis recognize themselves. At that moment, the synthesis becomes the new thesis, starting a new cycle.
More recently, one of the foremost authorities in intercultural management, Fons Trompenaars, researches cultural differences in terms of dilemmas. For instance, he has asked people all over the world if they would testify for a friend that injured a pedestrian while driving too fast. Integrity is the key issue in this dilemma. In some cultures showing integrity means not testifying for a friend, as it involves lying in court. However, in other cultures displaying integrity means testifying, because if you cant even count on your friends, who can you count on?
Jim Collins, well known from his studies Built to Last” and Good to Great”, speaks of the Genius of the AND” as opposed to the Tyranny of the OR”. He points out that many managers think they need to choose between A and B, stability or progress, growth or compliance, strong cultures or individual autonomy. Collins says that visionaries find ways of doing both at the same time, lifting themselves to a new level. Bridging opposites is not about compromise, or balance, its about going the full way. We find ways to grow by embracing compliance, we progress through stability, we create a strong culture stresses autonomy.
In a previous post, on Strategy Leadership, I did discuss what Collins is talking about. I describe how to synthesize the core strategies we all know; operational excellence, product innovation and customer intimacy. I showed how innovating an operational excellence model by adopting mass customization principles leads to new forms of customer intimacy.
But not all dillemas have to be big and strategic of nature. Dealing with contradictory points of view is a very common theme in counseling and mediation, where two parties cant see eye to eye. A common technique is to ask both parties to switch roles, and defend the opposite position. This technique brings reconciliation near.
At Hyperion.com, you can find a series of articles on CIO Dilemmas, I hope you enjoy them. In future posts I will discuss more ways of dealing with dilemmas.
Posted by Frank Buytenkijk at January 25, 2007 3:46 AM
