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 welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrendbTtLLSVlUPPCNkAner@ChacthFxWKdRwnLylOCDoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Organizational Change:
- The Ties that Bind
- Changing anything in an organization reveals how it's connected to its people, to its processes, to
its facilities, and to the overall context. Usually, these connections reach out much further into the
organization than we imagine.
- Training Bounceback
- Within a week after we've learned some new tool or technique, sometimes even less, we're back to doing
things the old way. It's as if the training never even happened. Why? And what can we do to change this?
- Definitions of Insanity
- When leaders try to motivate organizational change, they often resort to clever sloganeering. One of
the most commonly used slogans is a definition of insanity. Unfortunately, that definition doesn't pass
the sanity test.
- When Change Is Hard: II
- When organizational change is difficult, we sometimes blame poor leadership or "resistance."
But even when we believe we have good leadership and the most cooperative populations, we can still
encounter trouble. Why is change so hard so often?
- What Keeps Things the Way They Are
- Changing processes can be challenging. Sometimes the difficulty arises from our tendency to overlook
other processes that work to keep things the way they are. If we begin by changing those "regulator
processes" the difficulty can sometimes vanish.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 5: Downscoping Under Pressure: I
- When projects overrun their budgets and/or schedules, we sometimes "downscope" to save time and money. The tactic can succeed — and fail. Three common anti-patterns involve politics, the sunk cost effect, and cognitive biases that distort estimates. Available here and by RSS on October 5.
- And on October 12: Downscoping Under Pressure: II
- We sometimes "downscope" projects to bring them back on budget and schedule when they're headed for overruns. Downscoping doesn't always work. Cognitive biases like the sunk cost effect and confirmation bias can distort decisions about how to downscope. Available here and by RSS on October 12.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendbTtLLSVlUPPCNkAner@ChacthFxWKdRwnLylOCDoCanyon.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