Self-Disclosure – Taming Wicked Problems

Starting Productive Conversations

Joseph Bentley — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 03:09:41 +0000

October 29, 2016

The lead story in Engineering News for October 24 begins with this headline: “Collaborative Thinking Needed to Tackle ‘Wicked’ Problems.” Kudos to the author, Martin Loosemore, for choosing “tackle” instead of the much more common “solve.” It’s a sign that at least some of those who talk about wicked problems are beginning to use language that makes sense.

In the article, Loosemore suggests that there are three approaches for dealing with wicked problems: authoritative, competitive, and collaborative. When the problems are wicked, he argues, then the most productive strategy is collaboration. And I couldn’t agree more. An authoritative approach – expecting that an authority will come up with a solution – is guaranteed to fail, since an authority – any authority – can only have a narrow and incomplete idea about the nature of the problem and even less knowledge about what to do about it. As I have said, wicked problems are not like apples waiting to be picked from trees and put into baskets. Rather, they begin as parts of “messes” – large, amorphous, dynamic, ever-changing combinations of many potential problems. Poverty is a “mess,” for example, as is adequate health care and quality education for all. Within the boundaries of poverty, health care, or quality education, there are hundreds of possible problems waiting to be identified. For a situation to become a problem, it must be created – extracted from the mess by human beings – then named and defined.

Setting up a competition to try and solve a wicked problem is little better that an authoritative approach. The nature of competition is that someone wins and someone loses. If this approach is chosen for working on wicked problems, then in the end everybody loses.

Collaboration is really the only effective style for working on wicked problems. Until people begin sharing their perceptions and observations about a situation or an event, no one is sure if there really is a problem, what the problem is, or what to do about it. And collaboration always begins with conversation. Loosemore’s suggestion that “thinking” is needed is obvious (it’s always a good thing to think about problems) and is a necessary first step. However, for progress to occur with wicked problems, people need to get beyond their thinking and begin talking and listening to others. At times, however, it is difficult to know how to begin a conversation about wicked problems.

Starting Helpful Conversations about Problems

There are three strategies that are helpful in starting conversations:

– A shared external event or experience;

– A diagnostic exercise;

– Appropriate and timely self-disclosure

A Shared Event: Google’s Michael Jackson Gambit

When the Michael Jackson concert movie, This is It, was first released in October , 2009, Jonathan Rosenberg, manager of design and development for Google’s consumer, advertiser, and partner products, got an idea. He bought a number of tickets for the premier and invited the product team members to attend. Hundreds of his Google colleagues took him up on the offer.

Rosenberg was criticized by some friends and coworkers. “Was it really worth the cost and lost production just so a bunch of Googlers could go see a movie?” In Google: How Google Works, authors Jonathan Rosenberg and Eric Schmidt gave their answer: “The answer was a resounding yes. The movie showed a world-class creative creature pushing his team and himself to be great by paying attention to every detail and always taking the concert audience’s point of view.”

But Rosenberg had another reason for wanting the members of his team to see the movie: The Jackson movie was a way to start conversations. “For months afterward,” wrote Rosenberg and Schmidt, “members of Rosenberg team, from senior leaders to associates right out of college, would stop him by the expresso machine or in the cafe to thank him for the movie. Jonathan usually asked them what they liked about it, and the conversation always took off from there.”

When people share events that are related in some way to the challenges that they are facing, especially if the events are powerful and meaningful, doors can open that lead to rich and relevant conversations that can lead to tackling the problems that they are facing.

Diagnostic Activities

No competent physician would give a patient medication or perform a surgical procedure without knowing as much as possible about the medical problem of the patient. Reputable physicians everywhere diagnose before they treat. They use multiple methods to locate the primary cause of the illness, and then they work to eliminate it.

While the same principle holds true for wicked problems – we need to understand the nature of the problem before taking action – a diagnostic process with wicked problems is very different from the one used in medicine. The most important difference is that for messy, complicated problems there is no “root cause” that, once found, can be eliminated to solve the problem. There is no “curing” wicked problems. Another difference is that in medicine, symptoms signal that there is an underlying problem that needs attention. With wicked problems, however, there may no underlying problem to be found It is the symptoms themselves that constitute the problem and they need to be addressed. A third difference is that in medicine, it is the “expert” who diagnoses the problem and then decide which treatment to use. With wicked problems, there are no “experts” beyond those who are living the problem. They are the ones who know what it is that is bothering them and causing them concern. And each one only knows one version of the dilemma. A full definition of a problem only emerges as people talk and listen to each other.

When Carter Murray was CEO of the advertising agency Foote, Cone, and Belding, because of a noncompete agreement, he had to wait six months before he took over. “So not surprising, people were pretty wound up about my arrival,” he told Adam Bryant of the New York Times. When I got this job, I was 38, and I could tell people were wondering. ‘Who is this guy? He’s probably going to come in and think he has all the answers.’ ”

But Murray was wise enough to know that he had no answers at all for the problems that the company was facing. Only those who were in the middle of it all at any idea. Before taking actions to “fix”any problems – the reason that he was hired – he needed to learn what they were. The first thing he did was invite the top 100 executives to meet with him – 25 at a time – for a series of diagnostic meetings. “We started with blank pieces of paper. What are our 10 biggest challenges?” he asked. One hundred executives, each writing down 10 problems, could potentially result in hundreds of possible problems. But the value of Murray’s exercise was that now the conversations could begin.

Timely and Appropriate Self-Disclosure

The most powerful stimulus – as well as the most risky – for meaningful and productive conversations about important problems is a sincere and honest expression of one’s personal concerns. One person disclosing to another, or to a team, or organization, his or her most deeply-held concerns, and then inviting the others to share their own perceptions of the situation or dilemma, can be the most effective way to begin crucial conversations about important problems.

In the process of self-disclosure, it is essential that the person who shares her or his concerns is experienced by others as sincere and open – no game playing or manipulation allowed.

For self-disclosure to be effective, the language used is important. What is most helpful is to use what psychologists call an I-message. An I-message begins with personal statement about one’s state of mind or emotion: I think… I feel… I believe…I am concerned… I am worried… and is followed with a clear invitation for the others to share their perceptions or experiences as they relates to the issue or situation.

Here are some examples:

“Is this a good time? I have something that’s bothering me that I want to share with you.”

“I am very concerned about what we learned from our recent diagnostic exercise that almost 15 percent of our key executives would leave if they had a chance;”

“I am very discouraged. Here we are arguing again about money. It seems that no matter how hard we try, we slip back into the same argument. How do you see it?”

“I am very concerned about what seems to me a loss of trust among members on our team. How do you see it?

“I have a problem and I need your help.”

There is a pattern that is important: Sincere self-disclosure is followed by an invitation to the others to share their views. These exchanges can become collaborations, characterized by openness and honesty and deep and non-judgmental listening.

Is creative self-disclosure possible? The answer is clearly yes. An example is when members of a work team made collages of themselves, then shared the meaning of the pictures and phrases with the other team members. Team members were then invited to add additional pictures to each collage as feedback to the creator of the work.

Urs Holzle, an engineering executive at Google, wrote and published a “user manual” about himself, and made it available to the two thousand members of his team. It was his idea of self-disclosure. The team members were encouraged to read it in order to understand more about Holzle and discover ways to approach and work with him. Among the information that Holzle included in his “user manual” was: “I didn’t grow up in the US, and I tend to be more direct when I talk about something…I tend to overstate points for clarity of argument…If you think I am wrong, you need to tell me. I’ll never blame anyone for speaking up…If you feel I’m beating you up and all you’re getting is negative feedback, then it’s very likely that this wasn’t intentional.”

Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg, who reported this story about Holzle’s “user manual” in , Google: How Google Works, didn’t mention whether the team members who reported to Holzle were encouraged to add their own observations about him to his manual, but if not, then Holzle missed a great opportunity to learn from his team members by means of a continuing conversation.

Conversations are Required for Collaboration

No wicked problem that involves other people can ever by addressed successfully by just one person. John cannot tell Mary what is the nature of their problem. He can only share his concerns and his perceptions of what isn’t working in their relationship, and then listen as she does the same. Then, working together, they can begin to give shape and structure to the emerging problem. Working together – constructive collaboration – is the sine qua non of moving forward. And collaboration is not possible unless the people who are concerned with the problem or affected by it, become active participants in serious, meaningful, and productive conversations. Getting these conversations started, and then keeping them going until they lead to an action plan that can be implemented, is the only way that wicked problems can be understood, defined, and then addressed.

Success Story: George Washington at Newburgh

Joseph Bentley — Sun, 17 May 2015 17:19:59 +0000

May 12, 2015

In Steve Martin’s play Picasso at the Lapin Agile, Pablo Picasso and Albert Einstein find themselves in a bar in Paris in 1904. One year later, Einstein published The Special Theory of Relativity, and Picasso painted Les Demoiselles d’ Avignon.

In this scene, Germaine, a waitress, is trying to be helpful to Einstein. The issue she is trying to help with is “How many people do you have to influence in order to be successful?”

Germaine: Einstein, I’m trying to help you here. You want your book to have impact, don’t you?

Einstein: Sure.

Germaine: And it you want it to have impact, you’ve got to have people read it, don’t you?

Einstein: Yes…

Germaine: Okay, in your field, how many people do you figure have to read your book to have some impact?

Einstein: One.

Germaine: No, no, no. In order for your book to have impact, you’ve got to get a lot of people to read it; every man in the street has got to have one.

Einstein: No, only one. Max

Germaine: Max?

Einstein: Max Planck, a German physicist, very influential. If he reads it, he makes my reputation.

Germaine: Well, you’re lucky. If your market is one person and you know his name, you can put a limit on what you’re going to spend on advertising…

We Are In the Influence Business

This issue – how many people do we need to influence in order to make progress toward our goals – is an important one, and, together with its counterpart, “How should we go about influencing these people,” make up a substantial part of our personal agendas. Whether we like it or not, we are all in the “influence business,” from trying to make a good impression, to attempting to persuade others to agree with us, to recruiting others to join us in our plans and projects. Once in a while, like Einstein, our focus is on one other person: A colleague, spouse, boss, child, or neighbor. Many times, however, we are faced with the more complicated challenge of influencing many people at the same time. Our efforts to convince and persuade others continue throughout our lives. We are never finished with our attempts to bring people over to our side.

While there are many issues about which we want to influence and persuade others, if we intend to make progress toward our goals there is one that is among the most important: Helping other people understand the differences between tame and wicked problems. When we are working with other people on problems, most of which will be wicked, understanding the nature of the problem on the table is a critical first step. After all, what we are facing is not a common, run-of-the-mill problem but an uncommon one, one with special characteristics and complicating elements.

Why Worry about Differences Between Tame and Wicked?

Why is it important that we persuade others that wicked problems are different? Among the many reasons there are three that stand out. First, Quantity: Most of our most important problems are wicked and not tame. There is and there will be an endless parade of wicked problems to be addressed and managed. Second, Quality: Wicked problems are qualitatively different than tame ones. The difference is not just apples and oranges, but more like apples and watermelons. And finally, Approach: Understanding the difference between tame and wicked helps reveal an important truth: We cannot treat wicked problems as if they were tame. If we do – a frequent mistake – we will make little progress, and the probability of making things worse rises precipitously. Wicked problems require an entirely different approach than do tame ones.

What we must be good at, then, is teaching and persuading others about the nature of the problems we face, then guiding them toward the most appropriate action steps to take . Unlike Einstein and his task of persuading Max Planck, we often find ourselves going beyond attempting to persuade one other person and instead, reach out to groups of people: Families, teams, organizations, and in the case of elected officials, communities and nations.

George Washington Saves the Nation

An example from our country’s history offers us a success story in how to persuade others and helps us identify the skills and abilities needed to do it successfully. As the Revolutionary War was drawing to a close, George Washington, in circumstances fraught with danger, faced up to a problem that was not only wicked, but one that threatened the very survival of the emerging nation of the United States.

In March, 1783, the Revolutionary Army, while waiting for a peace treaty with England to be signed in Paris, was wintering at Newburgh, New York. On March 10, an unsigned paper circulated among the senior officers of the army. It invited them to a meeting to be held the next day to consider measures to pressure the Continental Congress into meeting their demands for redress of their many grievances. Congress had been consistently delinquent in paying salaries and providing resources with which to wage the war against England, and the officers by then had had enough. Since the meeting had not been called by Washington, who was Commander of the Armies, it was contrary to regulations and bordered on mutiny. Even more ominously, the letter hinted that the only way forward was for the military to take over the government.

Alexander Hamilton, among others, told Washington not to be concerned. The officers would meet and discuss their complaints, he believed, but it was not serious and the matter would be quickly forgotten.

Washington thought otherwise. As the historian Alexander Flexner wrote in George Washington in the America Revolution (1775-1783), he was filled with ” ‘inexpressible concern.’ He had been prepared for nothing like this. He considered it a ‘storm which had gathered so suddenly and unexpectedly’….He saw that if the army were allowed to terrorize civilians for political ends, the whole future of the United States would have been turned into a new course.”

So Washington wrote to Hamilton that it was his duty to “arrest on the spot the foot that stood wavering on a tremendous precipice, to prevent the officers from being taken by surprise while the passions were all inflamed, and to rescue them from plunging themselves into a gulf of civil horror from which there might be no receding…”

Washington then took two preemptive steps: First he issued an order expressing “disapprobation of such disorderly proceedings;” and second, he called a meeting of his own to be held several days later on March 15. If the officers decided meet on March 15th, rather than participating in a possibly treasonous meeting they would be attending a legal one sponsored by Washington himself. Washington gave them cover. He wanted the officers to gather together where he could have a chance to confront them directly. When informing the senior officers of the meeting, Washington had indicated that he would not attend, and that the “senior officer in rank present will be pleased to preside and report the proceedings to the Commander in Chief.”

When the meeting was called to order by the second in command of the army, Horatio Gates, the “conspirators,” according to Flexner, “were pleased to see that Washington had adhered to his resolution:” He was not present. Suddenly, a door near the front of the hall opened. “Everyone turned their heads, and then His Excellency strode out into general view.” Washington appeared to be “sensibly agitated.” For the first time in his military career since he had won the hearts of the army in 1776 in Cambridge, “he saw in the faces of his officers not affection, not pleasure in his being present, but resentment, embarrassment, and in some cases anger.”

Washington came prepared. In a speech that lasted 15 or 20 minutes he told the officers that he not only sympathized with them, but he supported them in their efforts to find remedies for the many abuses that Congress had heaped upon them. What was of greatest concern, Washington added, was the way that they choose to express their dissatisfaction and unhappiness:

“Let me conjure you, in the name of our common country, as you value your sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity,…to express your utmost horror and detestation of the man who wishes..to overturn the liberties of our country, and who wickedly attempts to open the flood gates of civil discord and deluge our rising empire in blood.”

When Washington finished speaking, he looked at the men he had led in the past six years through so much sacrifice and realized that he had failed to move them. “…the chill in the Temple had not thawed,” writes Flexner. “The familiar faces looking up at him were uneasy, perplexed, sullen.” After pausing for a minute of two, seemingly unsure what to do next, Washington reached into his waistcoat pocket and pulled out a piece of paper. “This was a letter from a member of Congress” Washington said,”that would show the officers that that body was trying to deal with their problems. He would read it.”

The officers stirred impatiently in their seats, as if to say “You cannot convince us with more empty words.”

Then, in Flexner’s words, “suddenly every heart missed a beat. Something was wrong with His Excellency.” He seem confused and uncertain. “Then, fumbling in his waistcoat pocket he pulled out something that only his intimates had seen him wear. A pair of glasses. With infinite sweetness and melancholy, he explained, ‘Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country.’ ”

“This simple statement,” continues Flexner, “achieved all that Washington’s rhetoric and all his arguments had been unable to achieve. The officers were instantly in tears, and, from the behind the shining drops, their eyes looked with love at the commander who had led them all so far and so long.”

Washington then read the letter, turned and walked out of the hall, mounted his horse and rode away. The incipient revolution was over and everyone knew it. All except the most determined of the conspirators “returned to their quarters with a sense of happiness at their own noble behavior and with gratitude to their leader who had led them [back] into virtuous paths.”

The Newburgh Conspiracy was one of the greatest tests of Washington’s leadership, and it was resolved peacefully and respectfully.

What If He Had Failed?

If Washington had failed to persuade the officers to change course they were on “The result would have certainly been been..bloodshed,” writes Flexner. If the officers of the army had attempted to take over the government, the state’s governments would certainly have resisted with force, and the result would have been civil war. “Had expeditionary forces captured all thirteen capitals, even that would not necessarily have pacified the countryside.” And what would have followed? Flexner believed that eventually there would have emerged from the tumult and turmoil several small nations, each of which would have been susceptible to threats from the European powers, especially England.

“Americans can never be adequately grateful” writes Flexner, “that George Washington possessed the power and the will to intervene successfully in what may well have been the most dangerous hour the United States has ever known.”

Why Washington Succeeded

During the Revolutionary War Washington faced many crises that threatened to bring to an end the struggle for independence in the American colonies. The mutiny of the officers at Newburgh was without a doubt the most serious. When faced with this most “wicked” of wicked problems, Washington rose to meet the challenge and was able to exert his “power and will” upon the hundreds of angry and frustrated officers who had decided to take matters into their own hands.

How did he do it?

He perceived the difference between Signal and Noise: Throughout all of the years of the war, the soldiers and their officers were unhappy, restive and frustrated with the way they were treated by Congress and by the various states that had sent them to war. Yet when Washington learned of the scheduled meeting, he instinctively knew that this not the normal “noise” in the system, but an important “signal” that something serious was afoot.

Being able to separate out the “signals” from the “noise” is an important, even crucial ability.

He moved toward the problem: When confronted by a wicked problem, one can turn Away From the Problem – ignore it, leave the field, deny that it exists; or can turn Against the Problem – attack those who seem to be responsible; or move Toward It – ready to do whatever is required. Washington moved with alacrity and energy toward the festering problem that threatened to create such havoc.

He was prepared: In preparation for his appearance before the officers in the Temple, he spent the better part of a day preparing what he wanted to say to them. Did he also plan his gesture with the spectacles? No one knows. Whether planned or intuitive, however, it was a brilliant move.

He embraced the “mess”: Once Washington grasped the importance of what was about to happen, he made himself responsible for dealing with it. He “owned” it. He went to the meeting prepared to take whatever actions were required.

He took the initiative: There was nothing timid or half-hearted about Washington’s actions. They were robust and decisive. He let the officers know at once that their actions were unacceptable. He set up his own meeting, then strode into the very center of the “mess” and took control.

He showed understanding for their concerns: In addition to letting them know that what they were planning was unacceptable, even treasonous, he called his own meeting and made it possible for them to avoid getting involved in unlawful acts.

He identified with the officers: Washington shared the officer’s concerns and he let them know it. Throughout the war his most frequent communications with Congress were to plead for more support.

He did not attack nor blame: Rather than blame, accuse, or demean the officers, he reasoned with them. And when that did not work, he shared his own experiences with them

He possessed “political capital” and knew how and when to use it: Political capital is a non-monetary resource available to people to use when they set out to persuade or influence others. It consists primarily of three elements: One’s reputation in the eyes of important others; the positive quality of the relationships that have been built in the past; and one’s past track record in achieving success. When setting out to persuade others to come over to one’s position, those who have it can “call in their chips.” With the country at large, and especially with the soldiers and officers, Washington’s reputation was immense and unassailable. The history of the United States, and perhaps of the world, contains no example of a man so honored, so revered or so respected as was George Washington. At the same time, his relationships with his key officers, while not warm or intimate, were strong. When on March 15, 1783, he went to the meeting hall to meet with the officers, he possessed a reservoir of political capital and was ready to use it.

He was clear about the future consequences of their actions: When speaking to the officers, he reminded them that actions have consequences, and that drastic actions have drastic consequences. The officers were worried about their short-term privations and mistreatments. Washington focused upon the larger perspective and the long-term repercussions of the drastic act they were contemplating a revolt against the lawful government. He did what only he could do: Share the larger perspective of situations and events.

He reframed the event from treason to seeking common understanding and solving problems peacefully: Rather than accuse the men of treason – something that in a technical sense was true – Washington reframed what was happening from rebellion and treason to more positive ways of solving problems.

He did the unexpected: Having informed the leaders of the incipient revolution that he would not attend, he suddenly appeared and, catching them by surprise, changed the narrative from “let’s decide how to take over the government” to “let us reason together to find solutions.”

He was flexible: When he saw that the reasonable approach he had counted upon was not working, he changed his approach.

He made it personal: Among all of the ways to influence others, appropriate self-disclosure is among the most powerful. Sharing one’s personal feelings, worries and concerns in timely and appropriate ways can go beyond reason and logic and touch the emotions. This is tricky business, however, and must be done skillfully. When Washington, with “infinite sweetness and melancholy” explained that he could not read the letter without his spectacles because he had become ” almost blind in the service of my country,” he clearly touched the hearts of the officers, leading them to changing their purposes and goals.

His understood the power of a dramatic moment: Not only did Washington appear unexpectedly, but once he saw that his aim had been achieved, he knew it was time to leave. Without a word he left the hall, mounted his horse and rode away. His dramatic exit added to the emotional power of the moment.

Very few of us will ever be called upon to intervene in such a serious problem with such far reaching implications as Washington at Newburgh. But each of us will be offered many opportunities to convince others that what we are struggling with is not only a serious problem but is also a wicked one. Our ability to persuade others may make all of the difference.

Not If, But When

The reality is not if we will face a time when we must persuade others that the times are dire and require a different approach but when that challenge will present itself. The words of another great president are instructive. In the darkest days of the Civil Way, Abraham Lincoln wrote to the Congress, “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew…”

Being prepared and ready to persuade others to think and act differently is both a challenge and an opportunity. When the occasion is “piled high with difficulty,” do we possess, as did Washington at Newburgh, “the power and the will to intervene successfully?” If yes, then when our time comes to lead others to “think anew and act anew,” we will be prepared. If the answer is no, then our learning agenda is clear. We have a great deal of work to do!