I read and took notes on chapter 9 of _The Choice (Revised Edition)_ by Goldratt.
CHAPTER 9: Win-Win
Before reading it, I was absolutely sure that the contractors would resent the demand of BigBrand—the demand to switch from the tradition of getting large orders enough time in advance, to the much more demanding mode of quick response to small orders. I blamed the brand for demanding something that is unfair. I was convinced that this demand would be bad for the contractors. I hadn't taken the time to examine how it would affect the contractors' operations, and nevertheless I assumed that it was bad. Why did I jump to this conclusion?
You didn't even imagine a win/win solution was possible. You didn't imagine that the contractors could be persuaded to prefer BigBrand's idea.
I assumed that it would be bad because this demand stemmed from a selfish analysis—an analysis aimed at increasing the benefits of BigBrand— and did not consider the needs and interests of the contractors. In other words, I took for granted that if one party concentrates on its selfish benefits (especially when that party is strong and dominant) the result must be a change that is bad for the other parties.
Yep. You have a win/lose mindset. You assume, on principle, that any self-benefiting initiative can't be beneficial to the other parties involved.
What I had just read woke me up to the possibility that this preconceived notion might not be right. Not only is the change not necessarily bad for the other party, it might be good. Good to the extent that when the contractor does its own selfish analysis it might come up with, basically, the same change that Big-Brand would propose.
Yep.
Now I begin to realize what Father means when he claims that harmony exists in any relationship. Certainly he doesn't fool himself by thinking that every relationship is harmonious, but what he claims is that for every relationship there is a change that will cause the parties to each achieve what they need from the relationship. And when all parties want the same change, "compatibility in opinion and action exists." Harmony exists by definition. When Father says that harmony exists, he means that it is possible to construct such a change now, even though the change might not have been recognized yet and therefore the current relationship is far from being harmonious.
Yeah for any interaction there's always a win/win way forward.
The key is this: "A change that will bring the parties to each achieve what they need from the relationship." Introducing such a change to a situation that is currently a mess will open exciting opportunities. And once the parties realize that this change enables each of them to achieve what they want, it will not be too difficult to implement it. If Father is right, that such changes can exist for any relationship, it is not just helpful, it is the key for reaching a full life.
I like the idea that this concept is "the key" for reaching a full life. The fact that win/win solutions always exist implies that people should use rationality to find those solutions. The fact that contradictions never exist in reality implies that people should use rationality to find and correct contradictions in our ideas.
He claims that the real problem is not lack of intuition and brainpower, but that we block ourselves from using what we have by our tendency to blame others. Isn't that what he demonstrated with this report? Here I am giving him the most difficult scenario I could think of—a scenario where I was convinced that nobody would be able to find even a trace of harmony—and what did he force me to realize? In that scenario my problem was not to find the change; the "magnificent" change was known to me—to switch from the tradition of large orders based on forecast to the mode of quick response based on actual consumption. I knew the required change, but it didn't cross my mind that it would enable both parties to get what each wants. I was blocked by the fact that, a priori, I blamed the brand company for demanding an unfair change.
Oh so by "blaming others", Goldratt meant *blaming others for wanting win/lose compromises in cases when they weren't seeking win/lose compromises*.
Now I see why Father insisted that I acknowledge the third obstacle: the tendency to blame. As long as I do not overcome this tendency, even when the change is presented to me on a golden platter, I'll ignore it. What a lesson. Father said, "Sweetheart, prepare yourself for a major surprise," and I am surprised. I'm surprised that my tendency to blame people is that strong and that devastating.
Definitely don't rush to blame people for wanting win/lose compromises.
I'm trying to better understand my current tendency to blame. As I already concluded, at the base of our tendency to blame others is the common way in which we deal with conflicts; we seek compromises. Compromise is the attempt to share a finite cake. When do we find an acceptable compromise? When the perception is that the cake is not very important, or that it's not too small to start with. But when the cake seems too small, seeking a compromise is a situation in which the more you win, the more I lose; then seeking a compromise is, by definition, a win-lose approach. As human beings we always have our own win in mind; we are "programmed" for self-interest. Therefore, when we are involved in a conflict, in a situation that is handled as a win-lose situation, we will be more protective than generous. And when we are not satisfied with the end result, we'll naturally blame the one that pushed us into that unsatisfactory situation; we'll blame the other side. No wonder that as a result of our life experience we develop the tendency to blame the other party whenever we encounter a conflict situation.
Yeah. So Goldratt recognizes that children are routinely presented with win/lose situations by their parents/society such that they grow up to be adults that expect win/lose situations. So they get accustomed to blaming others for interactions that resulted as win/lose. (It's weird though. Why not blame yourself first? How do you know that you're not the one whose pressuring the other person to do a win/lose result? I guess the idea is that when they are hurt, they blame others, but if others are hurt, do they blame themselves? They probably do.)
Instead we should adopt the belief in Inherent Simplicity. Our approach to conflicts should be based on trying to remove an underlying assumption so that the conflict will vanish. Removing the conflict paves the way to find the desired change. We'll then be focused on expanding the existing cake rather than fighting over our share of a finite, too-limited cake. It's what we call seeking a win-win solution. What Father is actually claiming by saying "harmony exists in any relationship between people" is that a win-win solution always exists. Good. I feel much more comfortable with this terminology.
Yeah that's what I was saying above.
If we allow ourselves to reach the stage where we blame the other party, our emotions will start to blind us.
He must be talking about a category of cases where people blame others. We can blame without emotions. Blaming someone just means pointing out a flaw. One can point out flaws without being emotional about it.
Father's approach is not philosophical; it is pragmatic! I feel much better.
I'm not exactly sure I understand this, but if I do, it's wrong. Pragmatic means wanting the practical even if its immoral. That's wrong because the moral is always the practical -- the moral never contradicts the practical. So pragmatism is wrong. Goldratt's approach is both moral (philosophical) and practical.
Harmony: "the quality of forming a pleasing and consistent whole." I think that I now understand what Father meant when he talked about scientists commenting with awe on that harmony.
It is awe-inspiring.
---------------------------------------
Note: To make the block quotes above, I used the "indent" feature plus the "text background color" feature.
No comments:
Post a Comment