• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 3087 0

give the impression that we are blaming them for the problem. This can easily become the case if we just have an intuitive discussion about it and are not careful about what we say and how we say it. Now imagine what might happen if we approach them with a well prepared, logical analysis that shows how they are not only responsible for their own undesirable effects but are also responsible for the core problem that is causing everyone else grief and agony. We might be—unintentionally, of course—forcing them into a corner, making them feel blamed or even attacked. And if they get defensive, what are the odds of all of us sailing smoothly toward a happy buy-in for our proposed change? Whether or not they should be blamed is irrelevant at this point. If we are serious about implementing the change, we have to put the issue of blame behind us. Instead, we must concentrate on how the other party is going to perceive our motives for approaching them. They must not feel blamed. Ideally, we want to put them at ease so that they are receptive and positive about our initiative. Being careful about the words we use is the key! If we could also demonstrate that we understand what kept them from solving this problem before, all the better. TOC recommends verbalizing the problem in a conflict format (i.e., a cloud). We want to show the other side not only that we are not here to blame them, but also that we actually understand the conflict in which they are trapped.

When we sense that all sides are on the same page as far as what the problem is, it usually means it’s time to move on to discuss the solution. Except, however, for rare cases in which we bump against Layer 2.

Layer 2. The problem is out of my control

Thank goodness this Layer is rare because when it occurs it is very hard to overcome. Layer 2 describes those cases in which the other side insists that the problem is beyond their control and expects us to drop the whole thing. Wary Will tells us firmly, “My hands are tied. There is nothing I can do to help you,” and refuses to hear another word on the matter. When we encounter responses such as these, we had better listen carefully to what the other party has to say. Sometimes the other party is right and the problem is indeed beyond their span of authority. In order to solve the problem, therefore, we may have to speak to whoever has the power to solve that problem. However, we do not always have the option of approaching someone’s superiors, which means we might be stuck.

What if they just say it and the problem is in fact under their control? Here we have a serious problem because they usually refuse to continue the discussion. But if we find a way to open a dialog, we can try to uncover their erroneous assumptions and get them to see the problem is solvable within the boundaries of their control. Or, we can try to convince them, despite their unwillingness, to listen to our solution and then reconsider whether they have the power to implement it.

Disagreement on the Solution

Layer 3. Disagreeing on the direction for the solution

There is often more than one way, more than one “direction” to solve the same problem. Wary Will will probably not help us climb the cliff if he prefers to stay and fight the alligator. Once we agree on the problem, we often bump into Layer 3 (see Fig. 20-3). What happens in Layer 3 is that each party tries to convince everyone else to go their way. Each party insists that their direction for the solution is better than everyone else’s and stubbornly refuses to hear anyone else out. If no one agrees on the direction, there is no point in detailing any of them.

FIGURE 20-3 The TOC layers of resistance to change.

If we anticipate such trouble, we had better come prepared. We need to invest in putting together a list of criteria for what would be considered a good solution. This list may include items such as achieving the opposite of some of the main undesirable effects, meeting the important needs of the involved parties, and avoiding significant negative ramifications.