|
A Fear of Ambiguity Article by Andrew Grant (C) |
|||||
|
THE
RHETORIC OF WAR
In
response to the tragic terrorist attacks (Sept 11 2001) in the world, there has
been a lot of talk about war. Many people feel rightly upset and angry
about what has happened, and many want to see justice metered out.
Enemies are being identified, and a feeling of the need for revenge is
taking root.
Now
is a good time, though, to step back and really think about what it is
we’re fighting against (not whom), and what it is we’re fighting for
(again – not whom). Before getting caught up in the wake of strong
jargon and rhetoric, let’s consider our language and how that shapes
our intent, and let’s ensure these don’t become the driving force.
Unfortunately,
the limitations of language too often curb our ability to deal with
important issues and solve them creatively. Many people find it
difficult to embrace ambiguity, and yet learning to deal with the two
sides of the coin will be a key to genuine progress.
Leaders
are saying that this is the time for “strong, decisive, clear and
immediate decisions”, but while this response may help foster a
temporary feeling of security, it may not in fact be the best long-term
solution – especially if left undefined.
Before
good decisions can be made all options need to be carefully considered.
This requires creative lateral thinking, possibly outside of current
language norms. Tirian associate and creative consultant Bruce Haddon
believes we need to be asking why things are the way they are. This
question can link you to the cause, he says, not just the event or outcome.
“Causes are fertile fields for creative ideas, because once
you discover them it’s easy to imagine what else might have happened
from the same cause. Asking ‘why not’ after first asking ‘why’
will give you more ideas, because you are working with the tools of
creation, not just the finished creations themselves.” DESTROYING
EVIL NEEDS THE RIGHT ARSENAL
The
desire to destroy evil is at an all-time high. But working towards
solving a problem this complex doesn’t just require clear distinct
immediate decisions, but also careful creative thinking. Dualism can be
destructive when creative thinking is required.
Until
we can identify dualism as one of the major contributing factors in the
current situation and in daily life in general, it will be hard to move
forward in a healthy direction.
Just
before trading opened for the first time after the WTC terrorist attack, a
CNN poll asked what people were planning to do with their stocks on Monday
morning. They provided boxes for three simple responses: “Buy”,
“Sell”, and “Hold”. That just about covered all the
possibilities!
In
another poll, however, the question was asked, “Should America go to
war?” This time there were only provisions made for two simple
responses: “Yes” and “No”. The huge range of possibilities was
not even alluded to in this oversimplified response to an incredibly
complex problem.
There
is enormous domestic pressure on the US Government to put a face to the
enemy and defeat it, but the last thing we need is to polarize the world
through a “good” and “bad”, “for” and “against”, or
“us” and “them” mentality. Talk of “war” has saturated media
reports, but we need to ask again. Exactly who are we at war with? Is it
an ideology? A person? A country? A concept?…
or a religion? Pure reactivity is predictably weak: it
intensifies conflict, builds resistance and leads to control.
LANGUAGE
: A GREAT ALLY OR SUBVERSIVE ENEMY?
Words
direct our attention, our perceptions, and consequently our behaviour.
They shape the ways we think and act.
Peter
Senge says the greatest liability of management teams is that they can
tend to confront complex, dynamic realities with a language designed for
simple problems. Many individuals and groups are prone to taking a
problem that is multi-faceted and trying to solve it with a linear
approach.
Charles
Kiefer clearly describes this tendency. “Reality is composed of
multiple-simultaneous, interdependent cause-effect relationships,” he
explains. “From this reality, normal verbal language extracts simple,
linear cause effect chains.”
Black
and white thinking is dangerous in any situation. It should not take a
world crisis to consider the effects of dualism. Weekly tabloids
encourage it in their gossip columns. ”Whose fault was the break up:
Tom or Nicole?” As if any relationship break-up can be viewed in such
simplistic terms. (As if it’s any of our business, anyway!) IMPORTANT QUESTIONS DESERVE WELL THOUGHT OUT ANSWERS
Before
we jump to answer questions, we need to ask about the validity of the
issues being raised. We need to ask whether we are in a position to make
a decision at all. And most importantly, we need to see if the questions
asked deserve more time and better answers than the limited few choices
put in front of us. It’s great to have an opinion, but perhaps we need
to start to see boxes marked: “Too complex”, “Insufficient
information” OR “Unqualified to answer” – even,"Not my
business”! Many
organizations are desperate to have their staff learn to come up with
creative problem solving ideas, but as long as we live in a world that
encourages dualism it will be hard for individuals and groups to break
into new and unlimited creative alternatives. Creative thinking can only
happen when people learn to think outside given parameters, when there
is a linguistic environment that allows creative ideas to flow.
BOYS
WILL BE BOYS
So
why are we constantly drawn back to dealing with complex problems
through searching for such simple solutions?
Dr
Thompson, famous author of the book on the emotional life of boys
“Raising Cain”, was concerned to discover that by the age of 12 most
boys can only still think and act in terms of two basic concepts:
“strong” and “weak”. He says that the biggest insult you can
give to a 12-year-old boy is that he is weak, a sissy, or even a
“girl”. While girls are able to see a wide range of emotions and
solutions to problems, boys tend to polarize everything into 2
categories.
The
question that immediately comes to my mind when I consider this finding
is, do these boys ever grow up? It doesn’t take much to see the
evidence that many haven’t.
Complex
questions require complex answers. No, it’s not as easy as ridding the
world of aggressive male leaders. But perhaps it is time for individual
leaders to make a courageous decision that would require real strength
never seen before – to take the time to look at all alternatives,
embrace ambiguity, and move forward with a complementary team approach. The
wise leader will need to learn to entertain different ideas and emotions
at the same time.
Is
it not possible to be both strong and sensitive? To use brains and
brawn? To be hard and soft, driven and empathetic… yielding and
controlled?
Perhaps
many people’s biggest fears at the moment are of ambiguity – the unknown –
but it can be a great teacher. Embracing ambiguity is the first step
towards being creative. If ever there was a time for individuals,
companies and world leaders to be creative it is now. Doing this in the
current environment will require real strength, decisiveness and
immediate but careful action. Andrew
Grant is the Managing Director of Tirian. Tirian works throughout
Australia and Asia with companies developing
people & processes to improve organizational effectiveness
www.tirian.com
This article can be found at www.tirian.com/writing/corporate/ambiguity.htm |
Jump to ... |
||||
|
- THE
RHETORIC OF WAR What
is the difference between bin Laden’s view and Bush’s? They are
mirror opposites. What bin Laden sees as good - an Islamic jihad against
an impious and materialistic imperialism - Bush sees as evil. What Bush
sees as good - America the defender of freedom - bin Laden sees as evil.
They are two different versions of the same
holy-war-between-good-and-evil. Why
do I emphasize this dualism? The basic problem with this way of
understanding conflict is that it tends to preclude thought, because it
is so simplistic. It keeps us from looking deeper, from trying to
discover causes. Once something has been identified as evil, there is no
more need to explain it; it is time to focus on fighting against it. But
widespread violence is not the only possibility. If this time of crisis
encourages us to see through the rhetoric of a war to exterminate evil,
and if we begin to understand the intertwined roots of this evil,
including our own responsibility, then perhaps something good may yet
come out of this catastrophic tragedy.
|
|||||
Dimension 1: Justified Fun Program - On Thin ICE Dimension 2: Keynote Talk and Seminar - The Creation of Cliques: Stopping Resisters from Hijacking your Team, Dynamic Interaction Dimension 3: Consultation Article-
|
|||||
