There’s a paradox that in order to change something, we need to first appreciate and accept it exactly as it is. This is true at all scales, whether we are trying to change ourselves, someone else or the global community.
We experience the personal level of this paradox whenever we are of two minds about an objective. One side of the inner conflict usually represents a comfortable identity and the other side a disowned self. We prefer to operate out of the side that has ensured our success up to now, and judge the counterbalancing behavior as endangering that success.
The catch is that if you want to make a much bigger impact in the world, you will need to integrate and utilize all parts of yourself. When you are fully living your purpose, nothing gets wasted. We cannot push the undesired behavior out of existence. Not only will the disowned part simply retreat into unconscious behavior such as we see all too often in hypocritical leaders, you’ll be left with split attention and less energy available to make the difference you’re meant to make.
In another article I wrote about the conflict between a client’s taskmaster and inner rebel. When he tried to use brute force to get things done, the rebel merely dug its heels in deeper and refused. However, when this client learned to respect the fact that his rebel represented undeveloped resources and unappreciated talents and worked to integrate these aspects of himself, a whole new era of creative productivity resulted.
This principal is exactly the same for organizations, where the conflicting parts are played out by individuals or groups.
I worked with a company where a member of the leadership team (who I’ll call Jack) regularly clashed with the founder (I’ll call him Tom). Jack didn’t like to follow company procedure and wanted to do things his own way. Personality conflicts between Jack and Tom had gotten serious enough that Tom was considering letting him go due to “authority issues” when I was called in.
After discussing the situation objectively, Tom realized that he couldn’t afford to lose Jack, but also that pulling rank to change behavior in Jack was making the problem worse. We mapped out a strategy that assumed Jack really did want to contribute his best, which included some innovative ideas.
Once Tom approached Jack with appreciation and the desire to collaborate on some new ideas, everything changed. Jack opened up and the supposed authority issues were nowhere to be seen. One of Jack’s proposals has added a new communication channel, leading to much greater engagement and cross-fertilization of ideas.
On a larger scale, the political clashes in the US government are perfect examples of how polarization brings everything to a standstill. Imagine instead what could happen if it were common practice in that setting to look for what there is to appreciate when there’s an opposing point of view.
Where has polarizing rather than appreciating and collaborating impeded you in your goals?
