by Tom Hoobyar
Get comfortable and think of a time when it was easy for you to come up with new ideas—a time when you were able to imagine things you wanted—a time when you were able to dream up lots of possibilities.
Now perhaps in your mind’s eye, you see an empty chair and perhaps in a moment, the Dreamer will appear. When it does, invite it to run wild with ideas about the opportunity you’ve identified.
Notice and remember what the Dreamer wanted . . .
Now think of a time when you were great at planning something—you were able to anticipate and arrange everything—all kinds of details—a time when it was easy to take all the necessary steps to accomplish what you wanted.
Now perhaps in your mind’s eye you see a different empty chair and perhaps in a moment, the Realist will appear. When it does, invite it to consider the Dreamer’s fantasies and imagine how it would all be possible—what steps you could take to make these things happen.
Notice and remember what the Realist recommended . . .
Now perhaps in your mind’s eye you see another empty chair and perhaps in a moment, the Critic will appear. When it does, invite it to consider the Realist’s recommendations and identify what concerns you have—and would need to be addressed before you could be fully satisfied with the plans/solution. What additional questions do you have for the Dreamer or the Realist?
Notice and remember what questions or concerns the Critic raised . . .
For additional demonstrations and/or examples, go to http://eg.nlpco.com/8-1.
Creativity can be applied to any situation, right? So you could try this approach when you’re imagining . . . a party you want to have . . . a new approach with your boss . . . a specific conversation with your kids . . . how to invite someone on a date . . . whatever! There are countless situations where you can use this three-chair process on your own. Just by assuming the roles of the Dreamer, the Realist, and the Critic, in rotation, you can strengthen your creative muscles and expand your choices.
Up Against the Wall: How the “Conflict Integration
Process” Supports Creative Problem Solving
Albert Einstein really nailed it when he said, “Problems cannot be solved by the same thinking that created them.” Although most of us have heard this wisdom, we still get stuck in our patterns when problems arise and then we feel like we’re up against a wall—unable to move. When we’re in conflict—with ourselves, someone else, an idea, a process, technology, or even a machine—curiosity and creativity are the keys to finding alternatives that make our experiences of being in the world better.
When you think of conflict and creativity, you may see them as very different things. But a lot of what we’ve talked about in terms of creativity applies to conflict, too—and here’s why. Remember what I told you about that towel dispenser? I was on autopilot and assumed I knew how the damn thing worked, but my expectation was wrong and my strategy didn’t work. I limited myself.
As I started thinking about conflict, I realized that when I’m interacting with somebody—if I walk in with preconceived notions of who that person is and what they’re likely to think, do, or say—I limit my options for connecting and dealing with them.
Loosening Up Positions
When there’s a conflict, it’s generally because people are locked into their positions. To make communication possible, the first step is always to help folks get unlocked. We can help people release their defensive posture by stepping back, taking a deep breath, and letting go of expectations.
Imagine that someone is wrestling with some sort of a problem. They’re stuck. When they’re stuck, they’re actually feeling physically stuck, like they’re frozen in place. Our language actually frames it that way, but it’s not really them that’s stuck, is it? It’s some kind of issue—something they have to work through—something that’s getting larger and larger in their mind’s eye and probably taking over.
The trick here is to disassociate them from the issue by literally setting the issue aside and sometimes physically putting the issue “over there” on a flip chart or whiteboard so we can look at it together. That allows us both to be on the same side, facing the issue that’s “over there,” together.
Now how does that work when you’re dealing with people who are at each other’s throats? As a senior executive, I’ve had this happen a number of times, so let me illustrate this process by describing a specific situation—and then highlighting the critical action steps.
A Case in Point: Conflict Resolution
Normally, the office in my Silicon Valley manufacturing company was a pretty happy place, but not on the morning in question. As soon as I arrived, first cup of coffee in hand, the receptionist looked a little nervous and said, “Glenn and Susan are waiting for you in the conference room.”
I thought, “Oh, this isn’t going to be much fun.” These were two of my vice presidents and they were always hassling each other—probably for reasons that stemmed from their different roles. Because Susan was a marketing person, she wanted the company to be the hero for the customer every time—and she was constantly trying to get the prices down and speed up delivery times. As the operations guy, Glenn was always trying to perfect our processes and increase consistency, and as you might imagine, he didn’t like exceptions or surprises.
They were waiting for me in the conference room—scowling and sitting across from each other. After taking a deep breath and letting out a big sigh, I sat down where I could easily see both of them. Their heads were down, pretending to be studying their papers.
I reached out and I put my hands down on their respective papers. Then I said, “Stop for a minute. I’m here to help. Let me ask you a question.” They both looked up and I said to Susan, “Ladies first. What’s up?”
She said, “Well, you want me to make these marketing goals, right? So, we’re out there making promises to our customers, and every time I turn around, he stops me.”
I said, “Oh. Okay, so I get that you’re feeling pretty unhappy about that.”
She said, “Yeah, I’m feeling betrayed. I don’t know how we can succeed as long as he’s in charge.”
Now things are getting really hot, so I said, “Okay, Glenn, what’s the deal?”
He said, “Well, I’m the operations manager. I’m supposed to be the protector of the company, right? That means overseeing production, that means cost control, and that means reasonable delivery times. But Susan constantly comes in here with orders at the last minute. She goes right past my office, walks right back to the shop foreman, and tells him to stick these in the line and get it done ahead of time—and she doesn’t even charge for it. She’s going to bankrupt us.”
My attitude was “This is going to be fun!”
So I said, “Okay, I’ve got it. Let me ask you a question, Glenn. If Susan backed off and we handled things exactly the way you want, what would be good about that? What would that do for the company?”
He immediately started listing the benefits. “Well, we’d be on a firm economic basis. We’d be profitable. Our people wouldn’t have to work overtime. We wouldn’t buy more than we needed because I could stock exactly what was ordered. There wouldn’t be these damn rushes.”
So I said, “Okay, in spite of what there wouldn’t be, what would there be?”
He thought for a minute and said, “Well, we’d have increased profits, a better margin on our profits, a lower inventory, more turns on the inventory, and less overtime.”
Then I said, “Okay. Susan, if those things were possible, would that be good for us?” and she said, “Of course it would. I’m not arguing that. All of that would be good. The thing is, we won’t get the sales that way.”
I said, “Okay, now I want to know if we did it entirely your way, did everything that you want—kept every promise that our representatives made and that we encouraged them to make to get orders—what would that do for the company?”
She said, “Well, we’d beat all the competitors. We’d be
known as heroes. We’d not only have the best product in the world, we’d also be getting into more places—so we’d have more testimonials. The company would grow faster.”
So I said to Glenn, “Is there anything about what Susan said that you disagree with?” and he said, “Well, of course there is. We can’t do it that way.”
I said, “Okay. I’m not talking about the way she wanted to go about it. I’m talking about her goals. Was there anything wrong with her goals?” and he said, “No, we all want that. We’ve got the best product. We want more users—and we want to be heroes—that’s what we all want.”
I said, “Okay, so you both agree that we want decent profit margins, that we want less overhead in terms of overtime for the shop guys, that we want as much inventory as we need, but not a lot more, and we want to be heroes to our customers. You’ve both agreed with that, right?”
They seemed to be sitting there thinking, “How’s he going to pull this rabbit out of the hat?” So they’re smiling at each other and at me as they share this joke that somehow I just walked into the trap and now it’s my problem to solve.
But instead I said, “Okay, here’s the deal. I’ve got some calls I have to make. Let’s do this. Let’s spend a half day on this. While I make my calls, I’d like you guys to come around here on the same side of the table and put your notepads over here facing that whiteboard.”
Once they were settled facing the whiteboard, I said, “Now take turns putting up on the whiteboard three or four ways we might be able to do all of this. See what’s possible here. Just write as many things as you can and I’ll be back in half an hour. Then, over lunch, we’ll look them over together. We’ll solve this so that we get as much as we can of what each of you wants for the company because I think you’re both right. We need to accomplish the objectives you’ve both identified for the company.”
When I left, they were no longer arguing. They were comparing notes to find out what they could do that wasn’t mutually exclusive—which got them on the same side of the table behaviorally, not just physically. At first they were on the same side of the table against me, because they thought that I had trapped myself and I was going to have to solve the problem. Yet the truth is that the crux of the issue goes back to Einstein’s wisdom—you can’t solve a problem at the level of thinking that created it.
How does that translate into our behavior? The level of thinking that created this problem was that Glenn was trying to protect his process, his inventory levels, and his responsibility for shop overtime. Susan was trying to protect her personal goals and her departmental goals of increased sales, better service, and enhanced reputation among our customers. Unfortunately, because each of them was trying to accomplish their objectives at the expense of the other, it wasn’t going to happen.
I’ve seen this hundreds of times. The level at which the people were arguing was not going to have any resolution at all. In companies, there’s often conflict between scorekeepers, like accountants and operations people, who have to keep track of things, and the score makers, like the marketing and sales staff.
Because of the kinds of personalities that it takes to succeed in these different areas, these groups often have some unkind stereotypes of each other. Yet the truth is this—no business survives without excellent talent and disciplines in both areas. You have to have growth and aggression, and you have to have control. Every organization needs muscle and brains, and you need these inside yourself, too.
A Review Outline of the “Conflict Integration Process”
So here’s an interesting thing. This process that I used with Glenn and Susan is a classic “Conflict Integration Process.” Let’s break it into pieces. I looked at the situation and saw that their horns were locked. They were absolutely head-to-head with no give. There was no real interest in resolution, and no possibility of one, because they were in complete and perfect balance in terms of their conflict.
Then I turned to one of them and said, “And if that worked out, if we did it your way, what would that do that would be even better or more important? What would that do that would be good for us, for the business?”
So Susan told me, “Well, if we do that then we’re going to get growth and we’re going to get a good reputation and we’re going to get more sales and enthusiastic testimonials—all good stuff.”
Then I turned to Glenn and said, “And if we did it your way, what would that get us?”
He said, “We’d get higher profit margins and lower overtime costs and better inventory controls and a smoother operation. All good stuff.”
By “chunking up” to find the goal-behind-the-goal (meta-outcome), I was able to get each of them then to approve of the other person’s outcome. Remember how far apart Glenn and Susan were at the beginning of the meeting? His initial goal was to beat Susan into submission and make her stop handing in rush orders. Her original goal was to beat Glenn into submission and make his whole process and procedure more flexible and responsive to her demands. Those initial outcomes were in absolute opposition.
But when I asked Susan for the goal-behind-her-goal, she gave me a very positive outcome for the company—and Glenn could understand that. When I asked Glenn for his goal-behind-the-goal, his meta-outcomes were smoother operations, lower cost, better inventory control—and Susan could appreciate these. What you do, by asking the right questions, is take the goals up to a level where both, or all, people can agree. Typically, this approach produces objectives that anyone with their head on straight would think were a good idea.
However, you can’t even begin to explore meta-outcomes until people get unlocked. Because when people are in conflict, they’re stuck. They have a foxhole mentality that says, “This is the only way to go. Everything else is idiotic.”
So, you might be wondering what happened after Susan and Glenn were left to come up with solutions. When I came back from making my calls, they said, “We need a little more time. We’re not ready for you yet”—which, of course, I was thrilled to hear.
Around eleven thirty I came back in and said, “How we doing?” and they said, “We still need a little more time.” So I ordered lunch for us all. When the sandwiches arrived, I came back in and ate with them and listened to their process as they had worked it through. What they came up with was a strategy where we could actually make an even more extraordinary promise and charge for it.
Because we made offering such service extraordinary, what Glenn did was to hold out a certain part of our process and resources so we could accommodate that. He was happy because there was a strategy for it and we were being paid extra for it. Plus, offering this option made us really heroic to our customers because they realized they could get extra service if they were willing to pay for it (which is a reasonable and proven tradition). So they resolved it brilliantly and supported both sets of objectives.
This conflict was between two experienced and passionate professionals, who even though they were often at each other’s throats, had a deep respect for one another. This exact strategy of exploring and agreeing upon meta-outcomes can work well when several people are involved—or when there’s just one.
Discovery Activity:
Identifying One of Your Conflicts
To increase your understanding and mastery of these concepts, let’s apply them to your life. So, think of a recent conflict or misunderstanding that you had with someone. It might have been about a situation at work, dinner with a friend, or a family matter.
Take a moment now and go back to that point in time—thinking what you were thinking, noticing what you were noticing. When you have access to those pictures, sounds, and feelings, answer the questions below.
Who were you talking with?
What was the focus of the discussion?
What was your point of view? What did you want?
What would having or doing what you want get you that was even more important? (As a reminder, this meta-outcome might be something that’s good for you,
or for a specific relationship, or for your team or family, or for your company.)
In retrospect, what feelings or point of view inhibited your ability to express the positive aspects of your meta-outcome?
As you think about it now, consider if there have been other occasions when you’ve had these same limiting feelings or thoughts. If so, identify at least two steps you could take in the future if similar feelings and thoughts come up for you.
For additional demonstrations and/or examples, go to http://eg.nlpco.com/8-4.
Internal Battles: How to Apply the
“Conflict Integration Process” to Inner Conflicts
Most of the conflicts we have with other people contain some aspect of an inner conflict, don’t they? But not all conflicts involve interacting with someone else. So, let’s say you have a conflict that’s just with yourself—or you know somebody who has one. It often sounds like “On the one hand, I want to do this—but on the other hand, I want to do this.”
Here’s one I really wrestled with: “On the one hand, I want to spend more time with my family because time passes so quickly and the kids are growing up. On the other hand, I want to excel in my career, which means I need to put in extra hours. So how do I move forward?”
This was my conflict, but for now, as I describe the Conflict Integration Process, imagine it was yours. First, we’ll explore this process together using my example and then you’ll have an opportunity to apply it to an inner conflict you want to resolve.
Start by focusing on one side—just like I took Susan’s issues first. I would start with the hand whose objectives were mentioned first—in my case, that was spending more time with the family. So, imagine you’re me. Where is this feeling or part in your body? Where does that feeling come from?