Reflections in Excellence

When we approach a competitive situation it is usually desirable to know how to win. By knowing the game play and being practiced in the skills required - winning then becomes easy. However, some games are not about win-lose scenarios. When the best outcome is unknown and must be discovered, a different approach may be required.

If you have ever played a social game of tennis with the ultra-keen competitor you know what unproductive winning is all about. The purpose of the afternoon may have been to have some healthy outdoor exercise and convivial conversation around a few sets of tennis. So was it really necessary for your opponent to begin by hitting three aces in a row and a point winning net volley aimed directly at your body? "It's just good tennis. That's how I play," is your opponent's response to your look of disdain.

The competitive spirit is easily acquired and "One game all! " is your reply. Five heated sets and a tortuous tie-breaker later, the only result is the gloating pride of one player at the expense of the other. With the whole point of the game being the most important one missed; no-one is really a winner - and you won't be playing again.

This feeling that we get from playing in an unsatisfying game, with bad winners and poor losers, may often be how it is in our workplaces. Hundreds of conversations occur each day that can seem like endless point scoring in an on-court marathon. Exhausted, we are allowed to have a break - but only until someone calls 'time' and then we must change ends and begin again. While we may choose competitive sports as our recreation, is it really productive to game-play like this in our work?

The answer is provided by Chris Argyris and Donald Schon, two organisational psychologists. Their research provided the foundations for working out how to create learning organizations, those that learn, innovate and grow continuously. Finding the answer to this management grand slam prize also led them to ask the question: "But why doesn't this type of learning happen more?".

Part of their answer is that we derive our sense of competence, independence and self-esteem from both our theory of how the world works and what actually happens. When our theory of how the world works is the same as the one we actually use, we are operating in alignment with our values and beliefs. In finding this alignment our world makes sense. However, in their research they noticed that many people in organizations sometimes say one thing and do another.

While it is no surprise that people don't always do as they say - what is interesting is that they don't always know they are doing this. Argyris and Schon identified that one of the reasons for this is an unconscious protective behaviour which comes into play. They described this as using 'defensive routines'(1.). Why this happens is a bit of a mystery, but it is easily explained.

When we feel that we may not be able to achieve a result, or may look bad, we will usually revert to our most familiar routine. We all do this. It's a way of playing it safe. We know what we should do and can describe this when asked, but in the heat of the moment something else happens. This is particularly true of situations that may be threatening or potentially embarrassing to us or someone else. These situations include conversations that deal with something new, or where difficult questions need to be asked; the ones that usually come up when learning occurs.

Learning situations in organizations are therefore often met head-on by this 'safe-game-play'. When very skillfully used, all the players are actually unaware of the counter-productive features built into their 'defensive' roles. Once this becomes a routine approach (often because of the culture or previous personal dynamics) learning becomes impossible. Being unsure how to get what everyone wants, we make sure at least we get what we need. The results are usually unproductive: Game, set and mis-match.

An example of this you may have experienced in the workplace is the work colleague that demands first and requests second. While they may say they are open and collaborative, the theory they unconsciously use is to always control the situation. They may be using attack as the best form of defense, seeing it as best to start their conversations 'one game up' with an un-answerable advantage, taking you always to a 'break-point'. Staying unconsciously within this theory works for them.

This often happens when someone is not generally confident about their ability to achieve successful outcomes in new situations. They may believe themselves to be reasonable, but when threatened, their behaviour is seen by us as 'unreasonable'. This use of 'one-up-manship', while a sound and rational approach in competition, it is one of the key dynamics preventing learning and productivity in organizations. When used as the main way of interacting with other people each learning conversation becomes only about winning.

While this particular defensive routine is similar to the process we may consciously use to negotiate in adversarial situations, it is different here. The difference is that the main player doesn't know they are doing it. So it becomes a real problem if brought unconsciously into play when both players are meant to be playing for the same side. When this happens the collaborative generation of solutions becomes very unlikely. If what is wanted is a collaborative and productive workplace, it becomes worthwhile to change these routines. But first we have to recognize when they are present.

Unproductive defensive routines are easily (and deeply) felt but often hard to see. We can recognize an unproductive 'one-up-manship' approach when we see four strategies being unconsciously used in a sequence. These are: 1. Approach every conversation with a fixed outcome in mind. 2. Maximize winning and minimize losing. 3. Avoid surfacing or discussing feelings. 4. Rationalize and be objective. When used together like this they create a self-defeating, self-reinforcing loop. Looking at the game play in slow motion we can see the technique in detail.

The first element of this defensive strategy, to approach every conversation with a fixed outcome in mind, arises if someone is uncomfortable about possible scenarios that may come up. Unconsciously, it is seen as best just to control the agenda. Examples of this are to design and manipulate the environment and content of discussions unilaterally - dictating the place, time and topic for discussion so that there is no room for anything else - and not knowing you are doing this. It's like playing to win quickly in straight sets and leave - even if the purpose of getting together was for some social game play and conversation to fill in a pleasant afternoon.

The second element, to look for the single win-lose option, is a defense against the uncertainty in discerning a fair bargain, and being unsure about knowing when to trust the other person. To win on their own terms is seen as the best bet. This is indicated by an unwillingness to compromise or even explore alternatives. It's like if you were to break a string in your racquet, but your opponent won't let you change racquets until the end of that game. They may win, but what's the point?

The third common element of this defensive routine is based on the theory that allowing negative feelings or opposition to surface shows ineptness (mostly because, requiring emotional skills, these things are seen as hard to deal with). As we know, good conflict is good - it gives rise to wider perspectives. However, the inability to handle conflicting viewpoints leads to a one-eyed debate, with politeness being the weapon used to prevent objections being raised. It's like saying "Shall we just make it best of three sets" when leading 5-3 up in the second set and then making it impolite to decline.

The fourth element closes the loop using self-referential logic. By using limited or selective facts to support a purely personal and subjective opinion, and refusing to disclose the reasoning, the other person is left with no where to go. It is like arguing the line call with someone who 'knows' they are right.

Conversations using this 'defensive reasoning' limit the possibility of successful outcomes. They are rarely productive. The alternative to the defensive approach is a conversation that promotes 'productive reasoning'. The steps are to consciously: 1. Come with no agenda. 2. Look for the win-win solution. 3. Express underlying concerns. 4. Be truthful. Once we experience the effect of these productive conversations and become confident in their use, the difference in the quality of the outcomes achieved is dramatic.

But the question is: How is it possible to use the second set of rules if the other person will only play the game using their rules? It is like playing tennis when your opponent has their racquet but you don't. It only takes a few aces before you are dashing to the sidelines to grab your own racquet to begin smashing back-handed returns.

So how do we change the rules of the game? The secret is to not get drawn into the game in the first place. By not agreeing to play the combative approach, which is ultimately unfulfilling for both players, the usual game-play becomes unproductive - opening the door to other possibilities. By doing this we begin changing the routine, which changes the rules of the game, and sometimes the game itself.

So the next time someone wanders up to you at work wielding an oversized metaphorical racket asking 'Anyone for tennis?' you may want to check their intentions for inviting you to join their game.

If they want someone to hit an idea back and forth with, encouraging you to play at your best - that's great - but if all they seem to want to do is practice their serve, it might be time to get the local tennis coach in to help everyone play a better and more enjoyable game.

1. Chris Argyris and Donald Schon (1996) Organisational Learning II, Addison Wesley, Mass. USA