فصل دهم بخش اول

Chapter 10

BLENDING VOICES—SEARCHING FOR THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE

Warren Bennis wisely said: Leaders do not avoid, repress, or deny conflict, but rather see it as an opportunity.

I am personally convinced that one of the most difficult and challenging problems of life, whether at home, at work, or elsewhere, is how you deal with conflict how you deal with human differences. Think about your challenges is this not so? What if you had the character and the SKILL to resolve differences synergistically that is, to find solutions that are better than those anyone has proposed? The capacity and ability to produce such synergistic solutions, such creative cooperation, is built upon the foundation of moral authority at the personal level and trust in relationships.

I once heard Gandhi’s grandson, Arun Gandhi, share this penetrating insight about her grandfather. All in attendance at his speech were both humbled and electrified: Ironically, if it hadn’t been for racism and prejudice, we may not have had a Gandhi. He may have been just another successful lawyer who had made a lot of money. But because of prejudice in South Africa, he was subjected to humiliation within a week of his arrival. He was thrown off a train because of the color of his skin, and it humiliated him so much that he sat on the platform of the station all night wondering what he could do to gain justice. His first response was one of anger. He was so angry that he wanted eye-for-eye justice. He wanted to respond violently to the people who humiliated him. But he stopped himself and said, “That’s not right.” It was not going to get him justice. It might have made him feel good for the moment, but it wasn’t going to get him any justice.

The second response was to want to go back to India and live among his own people in dignity. He ruled that out also. He said, “You can’t run away from problems. You’ve got to stay and face the problems.” And that’s when the third response dawned on him the response of nonviolent action. From that point onwards, he developed the philosophy of nonviolence and practiced it in his life as well as in his search for justice in South Africa. He ended up staying in that country for twenty-two years, and then he went and led the movement of India. The Third Alternative isn’t my way, it isn’t your way it’s our way. It’s not a compromise halfway between your way and my way; it’s better than a compromise. A third alternative is what the Buddhists call the middle way a higher middle position that is better than either of the other two ways, like the tip of a triangle.

The Third Alternative is a better alternative than any that have been proposed. It is a product of sheer creative effort. It emerges from the overlapping vulnerabilities of two or more people from their openness, their willingness to really listen, their desire to search. You simply don’t know where it’s going to end up. All you know is that it’s going to end up better than where it is now. The content may change, the spirit may change, the motive may change, even two or three of these may change and always at least one.

As with Gandhi, the Third Alternative usually starts within oneself. But it often takes the force of circumstance like some person opposing you before it really begins to take place within you. Did you notice from the quote by Gandhi’s grandson the interplay between his personal inward struggle and his interpersonal relationships? Gandhi had to do considerable personal work before he could deal with relationship challenges.

New heading.

IT ONLY TAKES ONE: THE MIND-SET OF SEARCHING FOR THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE

Just as doing twenty push-ups is a physical analogy or metaphor for personal success, I like to use the metaphor of an arm wrestle in my teaching to illustrate both the mind-set and the skill-set of searching for and achieving a true Third Alternative. I ask the audience to send a “volunteer” who is very strong and over six feet three to come up and take me on in an arm wrestle at the front of the room. As the person is being coaxed and then is walking up, I start arrogantly telling the person to prepare to lose. I brag about my prowess, skill, strength and black belt ranking. When they finally arrive up front, I tell them to repeat after me, “I am a loser,” which most cooperate in doing. I tell this monster of a person that it’s not a matter of size, it’s a matter of technique, and that I have it, and he doesn’t. I become caustic and cutting. As intended, the audience’s sympathies turn to my opponent.

We get in the arm wrestle position with right foot against right foot and grab each other’s hands in the middle. I then ask the table of people who “volunteered” my opponent if they would be willing to fund the contest. In other words, if he puts my arm down to the same level as our elbows, they would pay him one dollar, and if I put him down, then I would receive a dollar. They always agree. Then I ask someone nearby to be the timer. They are to tell us when to start, give us about a minute to wrestle, count the number of times he puts me down or I put him down, and then get the people at the table from which the volunteer came to fund the whole deal ($1 for each put-down). I then make sure the funding group feels their pockets are sufficiently deep to sustain this contest. They always agree.

The timer tells us to begin. I immediately go limp, and he puts me down. And usually he’s very surprised and puzzled that I didn’t resist. He wonders what’s going on. So we go back up to the top position, and I let him put me down again. And perhaps again. And again. All of the time he’s expecting resistance. He usually starts feeling a little guilty, like he’s being unfair.

And then I simply say to him, “You know what would really make you feel good would be for both of us to win as much as possible.” He’s usually intrigued, but because I so attacked him, he doesn’t know if he can trust me. Perhaps those are just nice words—what if my real plan is to flip or manipulate him in some way to my own advantage? But as I continue to let him win with no resistance, his conscience usually becomes my advocate, and he becomes open to my suggestion that if we both win, we’ll both win more. Though begrudgingly, hesitatingly, and with some struggle, he is usually finally willing to let me win one.

Then we go back to the center position. And then I let him win without any resistance. And within a few more seconds, he starts going back and forth without any resistance. Occasionally some volunteers still are puzzled and wonder what’s going on. They continue to resist, but eventually it becomes free-flowing, easy, and effortless for us both. Next I say, “Now why don’t we really get efficient?” Then we start just moving our wrists back and forth, which is about five times faster than moving the whole arm. Then we use both arms and double the result. Finally I say, “Now let’s go over to your table and do it in front of their faces so that they can count the number of dollars they’ll owe us.” By this time everyone is roaring and getting the message.

I then explain to the audience that Think Win-Win the mind-set of Searching for the Third Alternative is the idea or principle of mutual respect and mutual benefit. In the arm wrestle, even though I was pretending to be stronger, better, and more aggressive in order to get my opponent into a win-lose mind-set, I actually brought a win-win intention and mind-set to the arm wrestle.

Then right away I began seeking his interest, his win, without resistance. Once he was then sufficiently humbled, open or guilt-tripped, he then became receptive to the idea that we could both win more if we cooperated together.

Then we became creative by first moving our wrists back and forth very rapidly, and then by bringing the other two hands together, moving them back and forth as well. The end result was truly a synergistic one, where both of us won a great deal. As for the table that had to fork up the reward money, they too won a great deal . . . of learning. Of course, no real money was exchanged. But it’s a very powerful, fun and physical illustration of searching for and producing a Third Alternative.

Can you see how I had to bring the inner strength and security of a “twenty-push-up” capacity at the personal level to sustain my efforts to build trust and search for a Third Alternative? Because I had created within the other person’s mind a deep competitive sense of win-lose even to the point that he was inwardly saying, “There’s no way this little bald pipsqueak is going to put me down” I had to patiently persist in the face of my opponent’s understandably fierce response to my initial fake arrogance and personal attacks.

Many people believe both people have to think win-win. Not so. Only one has to think it. Most people also believe that the other person must cooperate, but creative cooperation that produces Third Alternatives doesn’t come until later, when you synergize. One simply has to first prepare the other for it by practicing empathy or deep listening, seeking his or her interest and consistently staying with it until the other person feels trust.

I did this on the Oprah show one time and had to go to great lengths to persuade the producer of the show that day to let me do it. The problem was that it had to be spontaneous, and no one would know the outcome least of all, Oprah herself. Between the loss of control and the reality of how each show has to stand up against rating standards, the producer felt very vulnerable and skeptical. But I continued to reassure her, and Oprah and I eventually went for it.

While on the air, I similarly attacked and criticized her, told her of her weakness and my strength, and that she was going down. It really engaged her spirit, and she made her mind up to give it all she had. So she put me down fast and held me there. I said to her, “Oprah, why don’t we both win?” She said, “No way!” I said, “Why not?” She said, “I was raised on the street; anyone talk to me that way, no way I’d give in to them.” “Fair enough, Oprah, let’s let you win again.” Again she said, “No way!” There was no trust. I said, “Look, what we’ll do is gradually come up to the center; then we’ll go back on your side, and you’ll win another dollar . . . and I know how bad you need that.” We had fun with it, and eventually, as did she, almost everyone learns the lesson.

As the Far Eastern expression goes, “one picture is worth a thousand words.” I believe that one experience is worth a thousand pictures. The audience’s picture of that arm wrestle is truly worth ten thousand words, and the participant’s experience is worth a thousand pictures. Perhaps you, as the reader, can envision it in your own mind, and if you want to see its power, just try it with one of your children, your spouse, or one of your associates.

You see, most people won’t go through the tough work of Thinking Win-Win and Seeking First to Understand to get to the Third Alternative. It does, in fact, require a private victory; it requires considerable success at the personal level to get to the point where your security lies within you rather than in people’s opinions of you or in being right. The power lies in your ability to be vulnerable, because deep down, your integrity to your value system based on principles makes you invulnerable and secure. You can afford to be open to influence and flexible. You can afford to search, not knowing where you’re going to end up knowing only that it will be better than where you and the other person are starting from.

New heading.

THE SKILL-SET OF SEARCHING FOR THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE

Communication is without question the most important skill in life. There are basically four modes of communication: reading, writing, speaking and listening. And most people spend two-thirds to three-fourths of their waking hours doing those four things. Of those four communication modes, the one that represents 40 to 50 percent of our communication time is listening the one mode we have had the least training in. Most of us have had years and years of training in reading, writing and speaking. But no more than about 5 percent of us have had more than two weeks of formal training in how to listen.

Most people think they know how to listen because they’re doing it all the time. But really they’re listening from within their own frame of reference. Of the five levels of listening you see in the Listening Continuum below ignoring, pretend listening, selective listening, attentive listening and empathic listening only the highest, empathic listening, is done within the frame of reference of the other person. To truly listen means to transcend your own autobiography, to get out of your frame of reference, out of your own value system, out of your own history and judging tendencies, and to get deeply into the frame of reference or viewpoint of another person. This is called empathic listening. It is a very, very rare skill. But it is more than a skill. Much more.

On Listening (an excerpt)

When I ask you to listen and you start giving advice, you have not done what I have asked. When I ask you to listen to me and you begin to tell me why I shouldn’t feel that way, you are trampling on my feelings. When I ask you to listen and you feel you have to do something to solve my problem, you have failed me, strange as it may seem.

Listen! All I asked was that you listen; not talk or do just hear me. I can do for myself. I’m not helpless. Maybe discouraged and faltering, but not helpless. When you do something for me that I can and need to do for myself, you contribute to my fear and feeling of inadequacy. But when you accept as fact that I do feel what I feel, no matter how irrational, then I can quit trying to convince you and can get about the business of understanding what’s behind this irrational feeling. And when that’s clear, the answers are obvious and I don’t need advice.

THE INDIAN TALKING STICK

After I trained Indian chiefs who head up Indian nations in the United States and Canada, the chiefs gave me a beautiful gift—an intricately carved, five-foot-tall Talking Stick with the name Bald Eagle inscribed on it. The Talking Stick has played an integral part in Native American government for centuries. In fact, some of the Founding Fathers of the American Republic (particularly Benjamin Franklin) were educated in the ideas behind the Talking Stick by Indian chiefs of the Iroquois Federation. It is one of the most powerful communication tools I’ve ever seen, because, while it is tangible and physical, it embodies a concept that is powerfully synergistic. This Talking Stick represents how people with differences can come to understand one another through mutual respect, which then enables them to solve their differences and problems synergistically, or at the very least through compromise.

Here’s the theory behind it. Whenever people meet together, the Talking Stick is present. Only the person holding the Talking Stick is permitted to speak. As long as you have the Talking Stick, you alone may speak, until you are satisfied that you are understood. Others are not permitted to make their own points, argue, agree or disagree. All they may do is attempt to understand you and then articulate that understanding. They may need to restate your point to make sure you feel understood, or you may just simply feel that they understand.

As soon as you feel understood, it is your obligation to pass the Talking Stick to the next person and then to work to make him feel understood. As he makes his points, you have to listen, restate and empathize until he feels truly understood. This way, all of the parties involved take responsibility for one hundred percent of the communication, both speaking and listening. Once each of the parties feels understood, an amazing thing usually happens. Negative energy dissipates, contention evaporates, mutual respect grows, and people become creative. New ideas emerge. Third alternatives appear.

Remember, to understand does not mean to agree with. It just means to be able to see with the other person’s eyes, heart, mind and spirit. One of the deepest needs of the human soul is to be understood. Once that need is met, the personal focus can shift to interdependent problem solving. But if that very intense need for understanding is not met, ego battles take place. Turf issues arise. Defensive and protective communication is the order of the day. Sometimes contention, even violence, can erupt.

The human need to feel understood is like the lungs’ need for air. If all the air were suddenly sucked out of the room you are in, how motivated would you be to get air? Would you be interested in having a discussion or working out some difference between you and everyone else? Of course not. You’d want just one thing. You’d be open to other things only after you got air. Feeling understood is the equivalent of psychological air.

THIS SAME PROCESS we’ve been discussing can take place in people’s minds without a Talking Stick, though it doesn’t provide the same tangible discipline of clearly transferring the responsibility to speak with courage and then listening with empathy. There’s a tremendous focus of attention and personal interest when you actually have a physical stick. You don’t need an actual Talking Stick. You could use a pencil, a spoon or a piece of chalk—any tangible thing that physically places the responsibility upon the speaker to pass it only when he feels understood, and not until he does.

Haven’t you ever sat in a meeting where you could just feel the hidden agendas operating? Think of the power of inserting the idea of the Talking Stick into such a meeting. If using the actual stick or pencil seems inappropriate, then express the basic underlying concept or idea. Simply speak up at the beginning of the meeting before people become emotionally invested in the jugular issues, and even if you’re not the chair of the meeting, say something like this: “We’re going to be talking about a lot of important things today that people have strong feelings about. To help us in our communication, why don’t we agree that no one can make their point until they restate the last person’s point to his or her satisfaction.” (Even though this statement doesn’t introduce the physical Talking Stick, it does introduce the essence of the idea, because no one can make his or her point until the other can say, “I feel understood.”) Many may hesitate to buy into this process because it seems a little pedestrian, even childish and inefficient, but I’ll guarantee you, it’s just the opposite. It requires such self-control and draws such maturity into the communication that even though it may seem inefficient at first, it becomes highly effective that is, it achieves the desired results in terms of both synergistic decisions and synergistic relationships, bonding and trust.

Here’s how a meeting might go with you as the facilitator of the Indian Talking Stick concept:

Sylvia and Roger are in a meeting. Right in the middle of Sylvia’s effort to explain her point, Roger says something like, “I disagree with Sylvia. I think what we should do is ” You interrupt and say, “Excuse me, Roger, remember what we agreed upon to help us in our communication?”

Roger replies, “Oh, yeah, I’m supposed to make Sylvia’s point first, then I can make mine.”

You answer, “No, Roger. You don’t make Sylvia’s point. You make Sylvia’s point to her satisfaction. Then you can make your own.”

“Oh, yeah, that’s right,” he responds.

“What was Sylvia’s point, Roger?”

He attempts to make it.

“Is that correct, Sylvia?”

“No, not at all. What I’m trying to say is—”

Roger interrupts again.

“Again, what’s our ground rule, Roger?”

“Oh, yeah, I’m supposed to make Sylvia’s point to her satisfaction.”

So for the first time he struggles to listen more deeply and essentially mimics her.

“How was that, Sylvia?” you ask.

She responds, “Well, he mimicked me, but he didn’t get the spirit of my point at all.”

“Sorry, Roger, try again.”

“When’s it my time? When’s it my turn? I’ve been up with my staff for two nights preparing for this meeting.”

“Remember the ground rule, Roger? There’s no admission into this arena without the ticket of the other person saying that you understand their point.” So he is torn between his ego needs, hidden agendas, desire to speak, and the realization that he is not a player until he first understands to the other’s satisfaction. For the first time he really listens empathetically.

Sylvia says, “Thank you, Roger. I do feel understood.”

“Okay, Roger, your turn.”

Roger looks and says, “I agree with Sylvia.”

MY EXPERIENCE is that if people really try to understand each other, they will, in most, but not all, cases come to agree with each other. Why? Because over 90 percent of all communication problems are caused by differences in either semantics or perceptions. Again, semantics means the way you define words or terms. Perception means how you interpret data. Whenever people listen to each other with true empathy, that is, within the other’s frame of reference, both semantic and perceptual problems dissolve just as they do with the saxophone player/woman exercise. This is because they’re listening from within the other’s frame of reference. They’re sensing how the other defines words and terms, or how the other interprets meaning and data. This puts them on the same song sheet, using the same language, which then enables them to get on with problem solving on the other 10 percent of the genuine disagreements. The spirit of this mutual understanding is so affirming, so healing, so bonding that when people do discuss their disagreements, they do it in agreeable ways and usually are able to solve them either through synergy or a form of compromise.

SILENCE IS ALSO a key to Indian Talking Stick communication with others. We must be quiet, even silent, to begin to deeply empathize with others. Of the power of this silence, Robert Greenleaf commented, “One must not be afraid of a little silence. Some find silence awkward or oppressive. But a relaxed approach to dialogue will include the welcoming of some silence. It is often a devastating question to ask oneself, but it is sometimes important to ask it. In saying what I have in mind, will I really improve on the silence?” ON A LIGHTER NOTE, let me share a story I heard recently that shows the effects of a person who does not understand or practice the Indian Talking Stick concept.

A farmer went into his attorney’s office wanting to file for divorce from his wife. The attorney asked, “May I help you?” to which the farmer replied, “Yeah, I want to get one of those dayvorces.” The attorney said, “Well, do you have any grounds?” and the farmer said, “Yeah, I got about 140 acres.” The attorney said, “No, you don’t understand. Do you have a case?” and the farmer replied, “No, I don’t have a Case, but I have a John Deere.” And the attorney said, “No, you really don’t understand. I mean do you have a grudge?” And the farmer replied to that, “Yeah, I got a grudge. That’s where I park my John Deere.” The attorney, still trying, asked, “No, sir, I mean do you have a suit?” The farmer replied, “Yes, sir, I got a suit. I wear it to church on Sundays.” The exasperated and frustrated attorney said, “Well, sir, does your wife beat you up or anything?” The farmer replied, “No, sir. We both get up about 4:30.” Finally, the attorney says, “Okay. Let me put it this way. WHY DO YOU WANT A DIVORCE?” And the farmer says, “Well, I can never have a meaningful conversation with her.”

New heading.

THE TWO STEPS TO SEARCHING FOR A THIRD ALTERNATIVE

There are basically two steps in searching for a Third Alternative (see figure 10.5). In fact, the very searching process through these two steps feeds back and helps create the trust (moral authority) that encourages the search:

It’s important to note that these two steps are not always sequential. At times you start with the first one; other times you start with the second. Sometimes you may just naturally begin interacting and genuinely trying to listen to someone else who has a totally different point of view and solution. Then you might ask the other to listen to you as you have to them, after which you might see if the other wants to search for a Third Alternative. Sometimes you find yourself going back and forth between these two steps. Every situation is different. And every relationship is very unique. Bottom line, it requires good judgment, awareness, self-control and presence to initiate these two steps.

New heading.

EXPERIENCES IN SEARCHING FOR THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE

Over the years, some of my most challenging but enjoyable professional experiences have come from acting as a third-party facilitator in taking people who are very emotionally invested in strong opposition to each other almost to the point of irrationality through the two steps of searching for and finding a synergistic Third Alternative. You can literally see them struggle through the modes of communication reflected in this continuum