Way Over Their Heads

When we say that something is "way over their heads," we mean that the people referenced lack the ability to understand the issue at hand. That conclusion is usually based on observations of their behavior. We observe that explaining it to them is futile. We observe that persuading them of the importance of grasping it is futile. And we observe that providing them information that could form the basis of understanding the issue is futile. We use these observations to conclude that the issue itself is way over their heads.

The observations might be valid. But often the conclusion is not. The people who "don't get it" are not stupid. But for some reason they don't see things as others do.

In such cases, what we're observing is each person's response to change. Understanding the issue at hand — the "something" that seems to be "way over their heads" — requires more than just new information, or training in logical thinking. It requires a change in perspective that has implications for how people make sense of the world. Changes like that are extraordinarily difficult. For us all.

From the To make progress in resolving a
crisis, everyone must make changesperspective of the people who do understand the issue at hand (by a coin flip I'll call them the Blues), dealing with those who do not (the Greens) can be extraordinarily frustrating. It can tear asunder long-standing productive relationships, whole teams, or even entire organizations. In the most severe cases, Blue and Green must collaborate for the good of the organization, and in some instances, Blue and Green must collaborate for the very survival of the organization. When the Blues can't secure the Greens' assistance or support no matter what they try, frustration can erupt into toxic conflict.

Natural questions then arise. If the issue is important and urgent, how can the stalemate persist? In some cases, the stalemate is stable not because the Greens don't understand the problem, but because the Greens and Blues have different perspectives. To make progress, both Blues and Greens must make changes.

[Reminder: the Blues are the folks who understand the problem and who are ready to address it; the Greens are the folks who don't see a need to address the problem.]

Breaking the stalemate requires two changes on the part of the Blues.

Blues must understand what's sticky about the Old Status Quo

The Old Status Quo is the current way of understanding the world — the Greens' perspective. Greens want to continue to see the world in this way. They do so because the Old Status Quo provides them with something they value.

What they value need not be money or property, though it can be. It might be something as abstract as security or familiarity or social identity or social status. Whatever it is that Greens value, the Blues must appreciate that the change they're proposing might seem to the Greens to threaten that thing that the Greens value. Until the Blues can devise a means of making the New Status Quo more attractive than the Old Status Quo, the Greens are unlikely to welcome the perspective of the Blues.

The required change might be similar to past experiences Greens lament

Just as the Blues must find a way to attract Greens from the Old Status Quo to the New Status Quo, they must also find a way to reduce any perceived threats Greens associate with the New Status Quo. The difficulty in accomplishing this is that Blues might be unaware of any threats Greens perceive. For example, the required change might be similar to some unpleasant past events, either in this organization, or in other organizations Greens might imagine, remember, or otherwise know about.

Blues can try to guess what those unpleasant events might be, but a better method involves listening. Listening is more effective because what worries Greens might not be in the public record. Asking a Green might be the only way to learn what the Greens' concerns actually are.

What makes the stalemate stable is the Blues' assumption that changing the Greens' perspective about the issue is the only way to make progress. In most cases, that isn't a good starting place for change. The place to start is changing Blues' perspective about what Greens want and don't want.  Top    Next Issue

Is your organization embroiled in Change? Are you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or maybe even outright revolt? Read 101 Tips for Managing Change to learn how to survive, how to plan and how to execute change efforts to inspire real, passionate support. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Organizational Change:

On Beginnings

A new year has begun, and I'm contemplating beginnings. Beginnings can inspire, and sometimes lead to letdown when our hopes or expectations aren't met. How can we handle beginnings more powerfully?

Piling Change Upon Change: Management Credibility

When leaders want to change organizational directions, processes, or structures, some questions arise: How much change is too much change? Here's a look at one constraint: the risk to management credibility.

When Fear Takes Hold

Leading an organization through a rough patch, we sometimes devise solutions that are elegant, but counterintuitive or difficult to explain. Even when they would almost certainly work, a simpler fix might be more effective.

Power, Authority, and Influence: A Systems View

Power, Authority, and Influence are often understood as personal attributes. To fully grasp how they function in organizations, we must adopt a systems view.

How to Find Lessons to Learn

When we conduct Lessons Learned sessions, how can we ensure that we find all the important lessons to be learned? Here's one method.

See also Organizational Change and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming April 24: Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: 1

Knowing how to recognize just a few patterns that can lead to miscommunication can be helpful in reducing the incidence of problems. Here is Part 1 of a collection of communication antipatterns that arise in technical communication under time pressure. Available here and by RSS on April 24.

And on May 1: Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: 2

Recognizing just a few patterns that can lead to miscommunication can reduce the incidence of problems. Here is Part 2 of a collection of antipatterns that arise in technical communication under time pressure, emphasizing those that depend on content. Available here and by RSS on May 1.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info