weLEAD Online Magazine
Copyright 2001 ă weLEAD,
Inc.
A number of years ago I was
lecturing to a college class on the subject of paradigms. The word paradigm comes from the Greek, and means a model,
theory, perception, assumption, or frame of reference. Thomas Kuhn, in his
landmark book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, revealed how
most breakthroughs come from breaks with old ways of thinking.
While I
was lecturing to my class I explained how each of us sees the world
through our own paradigms or mental models. Kuhn suggested that a paradigm is
prerequisite to perception itself. Stephen Covey says that our paradigms are
like a pair of glasses. We get so used to our paradigms that we forget that we
are interpreting everything we see through them all the time. We think we see
things the way they really are. If someone sees the world differently,
we automatically assume that person is wrong!
Assumptions are an important part of the way we see the world.
The “I’m right” assumption is one of the most frequently encountered
assumptions in leadership positions. While I was discussing the importance of
our assumptions with my class, one young man raised his hand to make a comment.
The student was an international student from a small, tropical nation. He told
the class his story about banana peeling—which I have never forgotten!
When he was a small boy his grandmother taught him the right way
to peel a banana—by holding the banana by the part that attaches to the plant.
She explained that this is the handle of the banana. “You are then to
peel the banana from the tip, holding the banana by the handle.” He continued
his story by explaining that this was not just a suggestion from his
grandmother. He was told that this was the correct way to
peel a banana, and that if he was ever caught peeling a banana from the other
end, he would be punished. He grew up knowing the right way to
peel a banana.
When this student came to the United States, he was amazed to see so
many people peeling a banana the wrong way. Suddenly he was
experiencing a banana-peeling paradigm shift! His old assumption about
how to peel a banana was being challenged. What he had been taught was the handle
of the banana, others regarded as a kind of pop-top—like on a soft drink
can. He soon realized that there might be more than one way to correctly peel a
banana!
When I asked the class how many peeled their bananas from the tip, as
the international student had described, only one other student raised his hand!
The rest of my students had never even considered peeling a banana the way he
had been taught.

I then
asked the class which way was the correct way to peel a banana. At first
some insisted that their way was the right way, but after discussing what
was meant by right and wrong, most decided that it didn’t really
matter which way you peeled a banana—unless you were peeling it near the
grandmother of the international student! A good point!
Both
methods of peeling a banana were equally right. Both got the job done
and each way only represented a preference. Then I asked the class if
there could be another way—a way that we had not yet examined—that could also
be a legitimate way to peel a banana. They agreed that there could be. I
explained that such a way might represent a third alternative. I
explained that sometimes there is a third alternative that may represent a
better way than either my way or your way. However, if we both
suffer from the “I’m right” assumption, we will never discover that better
alternative.
Life does not always present us with either/or choices. Sometimes two
people can disagree and both be right. Sometimes they can both be right
but also incomplete. Sometimes there is a better way than either party has
seen, and if they put their heads together, they might discover it.
The fact that there could be more than one right way was in
itself a paradigm shift for many of my students. Most of them had grown up with
what I call closed system thinking. In a closed
system—such as a jigsaw puzzle—there is one right way to do something—for
instance, to solve a jigsaw puzzle. For most of their school years my students
had been given exams where each question had only one right answer.
There was only one source for that one right answer—the
teacher. However, most complex situations that leaders and managers face are
not in closed systems. Most of the situations faced in real world organizations
are open-ended situations with no single correct answer. In such situations
there must be room for multiple legitimate perspectives.
How do you currently view the possibility of multiple legitimate
perspectives? Are people, such as your mate, children, or employees, trying to
send you signals that you need to rethink your “I’m right” assumption?
We rarely examine or question our own paradigms. When others see or do
things differently, the tendency is often to immediately think they are
wrong. Then we invoke the “I must teach them the right way” assumption. From
your worldview, do you believe you are right and all others are inferior or
wrong? Do you assume that in order to be an effective leader or manager you
must always have the correct answer? Do you believe not having
all the answers is a sign of weakness? Do you feel that your answers are the right
answers because you are above others in a hierarchy? Do you regard your
perspective as the truth?
Unfortunately, those with the “I’m
right” assumption usually allow the assumption to remain unchallenged. Such an
assumption can maintain a powerful stranglehold on one’s mind. That is because
when we hold to this assumption we see no need to challenge the assumption
since we already know we are right! If a leader assumes he or she
is right, that person is likely to hold tightly to the “I’m right” assumption.
What we need to break this assumption
stranglehold is a paradigm shift. If we don’t make the effort to
proactively examine and challenge our paradigms, our neglect may ultimately
precipitate a crisis. A crisis sometimes loosens our theoretical stereotypes
and provides the incremental data necessary for a fundamental paradigm shift.
However, not all crises result in a paradigm shift. Sometimes we just
temporarily adjust our behavior to weather the crisis and then revert back to
our old behavior based on the same old paradigm.
One way to be proactive and start
the ball rolling is for each of us to periodically step back and examine our
assumptions. We need to explore the validity of our assumptions, including the
“I’m right” assumption and the “I must teach you” assumption. When we are not
aware of our assumptions they control us, but when we become aware of them we
can take control by examining and altering them on a regular basis.
We all know it is a good idea to
regularly perform physical self-examinations and periodically have a
physician perform a thorough physical exam. We also should have periodic eye
examinations, not just to see if we need vision correction, but also to make
sure we do not have the symptoms of eye disease. The goal is to maintain good
physical health. If physical problems are present, early diagnosis and
treatment can avoid more serious and costly health problems.
If our paradigms ultimately determine how we view and treat others—and how we establish and
maintain relationships—doesn’t it make sense to perform regular
self-examinations and undergo periodic examinations by others of our paradigms?
Don’t we want to detect and correct problems in our paradigms and assumptions
before they lead to serious problems?
Some people don’t perform physical self-examinations or receive periodic
examinations by a physician because deep down in their psyche they are afraid
something bad might be detected. They, like the proverbial ostrich,
figuratively bury their head in the sand, hoping the problem will magically
disappear on its own. Unfortunately, most of the time the undetected problem
just grows worse and silently becomes an even greater health problem. There are certain things in life
that are such big deals that we don’t care to face them. We cling to the false
security that comes from intentional ignorance. However, this is never a
long-term solution.
Do you regularly examine and
challenge your paradigms? How do you go about examining your paradigms? How do
you unearth your underlying assumptions?
The
steps to better “paradigm health” are the same as for better physical health:
1.
Early
detection of the problem
2.
Complete
and accurate diagnosis of the problem
3.
Correct
prescription to correct the problem
What I just listed is not rocket
science. Most of us are very familiar with these three steps. However, we also
know that we can know something intellectually but have a very difficult
time putting what we know into practice. We often desire to remain blind to our
own assumptions.
You can gain great insight about
yourself from frequent, regular, and ongoing feedback from others. Accountable
people constantly seek feedback. The perception of reality offered by other
people—whether you agree with them or not—always adds important nuances to your
own perception of reality.
We need help from others to unearth
and examine our assumptions, just as we need a physician to perform a physical
exam. Why not start seeking feedback from your spouse, your children, or one or
two close friends? Don’t just ask them for feedback once, but on a regular
basis. This may sound dangerous, but if it is done in humility and with the
attitude of wanting to serve others, it can result in closer relationships.
I know that many will react to this
suggestion like the proverbial ostrich! That is why this second suggestion is
critical. Seek the right kind of feedback. We are all familiar with the
concepts of constructive feedback and destructive feedback. Constructive
feedback is specific, supportive, timely, and gets to the heart of the problem.
On the other hand, destructive feedback is vague, threatening, pessimistic, and
makes you feel like you have been attacked.
Now, let us return to the
banana-peeling story. We can think of constructive criticism and destructive
criticism as two ways to peel a banana. You peel it from the tip and I peel it
from the stalk. I think that if we have a choice, most of us would prefer
constructive criticism to destructive criticism. However, down deep inside we
know that even constructive criticism can wound us, so we avoid it.
It has been said that most people
would rather drink Clorox than receive feedback. This is partly due to
the fact that they are not used to receiving feedback, and partly
because they usually do not receive the best kind of feedback. In
their new book, How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work: Seven
Languages for Transformation (Jossey-Bass, 2000), Kegan and Lahey state:
“…many a relationship has been damaged and a work setting poisoned by perfectly
delivered constructive feedback…’The helping hand strikes again!’”
All of us have experienced failure
trying to change the attitude and behavior of another through constructive
feedback. Could it be that we have been working from an incorrect feedback
paradigm?
Recall that I asked my class whether there could be another way—a way that
we had not yet examined—that could also be a legitimate way to peel a banana. They
had all agreed that there could be. Such a way, a third alternative,
might represent a better way of accomplishing our purpose.
Kegan and Lahey present a third
alternative to constructive and destructive feedback called deconstructive
criticism. It is based on a learning paradigm rather than a teaching
paradigm. In The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring
the Character Ethic (Simon & Schuster, 1989), Stephen Covey’s Habit 5 says,
“seek first to understand, then to be understood”. Rather than trying to
control or straighten out the other person, using this third alternative we
seek first to disassemble, to learn and to understand. We truly want to see the
situation from the other person’s perspective. We avoid the “I’m right” and “I
must teach” assumptions.
Covey emphasizes the fact that
creating a frame for learning is under our control—our circle of influence. As
we create this genuine frame for learning, we are influenceable. Covey
says that “being influenceable is the key to influencing others.”
Seeking to understand the assumptions and meaning that the other person has
created internally will eventually open up the opportunity to address
assumption problems.
Before you seek or give feedback,
establish deconstructive feedback as the paradigm for interaction.
This paradigm is based on mutual respect. Using such a paradigm, each
participant in the interaction recognizes that perceptions can be vastly
different. The parties will interact by exploring each other’s assumptions from
the perspective of I-could-be-wrong or I-could-be-incomplete. As
Blaine Lee says, “pride asks Who is right? while humility asks, What
is right?
We all have our to-do
checklists. What we need to create is a to-be checklist! We address the
items on such a checklist through self-assessment and seeking deconstructive
feedback. Through a combination of courage and consideration we will come to
the place where we realize that there are other right ways to peel a
banana—ways that might be very different from our current thoughts!
Comments
to: jhb001@juno.com
BACK TO weLEAD HOME PAGE
About the author:
Dr. J. Howard Baker is Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems
at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Dr. Baker has been a Franklin Covey 7
Habits of Highly Effective People certified facilitator for eight years,
and has served the University of Texas at Tyler as their facilitator for four
years. During the summer he offers a graduate and undergraduate course at U. T.
Tyler in personal and organizational leadership. He holds a B.S. in
Management from Samford University, a Master of Accounting (MAcc) from the
University of Southern California, and a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the
University of Texas at Arlington.
References:
Barker,
Joel. Paradigms: The Business of Discovering the Future. New York:
HarperCollins, 1992.
Covey,
Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character
Ethic. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989.
Covey,
Stephen R. Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991.
Dahle,
Cheryl. “What Are Your Complaining About?” Fast Company Vol. 46, May
2001: 66,68
Kegan,
Robert and Lahey, Lisa. How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work:
Seven Languages for Transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Kuhn,
Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1970.
Lee,
Blaine. The Power Principle: Influence with Honor. New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1997.