1. Column 1 contents: What sorts of things—if they were to happen more (or less) frequently in your work setting—would you really want to make this a better place? What do you want to make others and yourself more successful? Which one or two things on this list are most important?
2. Column 2 contents: What things do you do (and/or not do) that keep you from doing what you said was most important to you?
3. Column 3 contents: Based on the answer(s) in column 2, what else are you committed to?
4. Column 4 contents: What are the underlying assumptions for your behavior in column 3?
Note: If the responses in columns 3 and 4 represent issues that have occurred over many years, the correct issues have likely been identified.
Step 3. Interpret the results. Begin with the fourth column and work left through the remaining columns to identify and understand how your personal paradox is unfolding in your life.
WHEN INTERESTS AND VALUES COLLIDE
The previous examples of personal paradox addressed issues that are intrapersonal—these polarities naturally occur as a part of living. There are times, however, when what we want and who we believe we are or want to be collide with the needs of the organizations we work for.
In the last chapter David faced a different set of challenging circum- stances. He liked working for the company…it was the source of his live- lihood. He had shaped the organization and he certainly felt it was his
“baby.” He also knew that it was time for a strategic change. He recog- nized the potential of danger in opportunity. A few of the people whom David had hired were successful in their current roles but they lacked the skills to move the company forward. The leadership team and some on the board would likely resist his leadership actions. Because the path for- ward required a significant financial and emotional investment, he saw only two options:
Option 1: Don’t rock the boat. Maintain the organization on its current trajectory. This option offered personal financial and job security, especially in the short term. If the company did not change now, it was mortgaging its future. David knew that if he chose not to push the organization, he could not live honestly with his conscience. He would not compromise his personal standard of excellence. He was committed to do his professional best.
Option 2: Prepare the organization for potential changes in the market- place. Pursuing this option would put at risk David’s continuing leader ship role in the company. Choosing option 2 might jeopar- dize the welfare of his family. David was in his late 50s. He realized that companies, for both genuine and spurious reasons, sometimes favored younger talent. He was concerned that another organization
PARADOXES IN NATURE: FLOW AND CONNECTION Diamonds are beautiful and forever—but they’re dead. They’re also impervious to assaults from outside: fire, wind, water—none leave their mark on the diamonds’ splendor. Their perfection is the very antithesis of messy, fragile, living organisms, from the lowly bacterium to the towering redwoods to Homo sapiens, and even to the organizations that we assemble. These living structures may appear to be static—isolated except for some carefully managed exchanges with the external world. Look more closely, however, and the illusion is uncovered—there is a constant flow of material and energy through each organism, minute by minute, that keeps it alive. We humans, for example, each continuously lose the energy equivalent of a 100-watt light bulb. And lest we die, this energy must be replenished, and quickly. Even our apparently stable material bodies are in constant flux. Our red blood cells last only a few months, and we must contin- uously resupply the iron needed to build new ones. The atoms in our bones may tarry for a decade, but their calcium, too, must be replaced over time if the structure is to survive. While the diamond can main- tain its perfection as the world changes around it, living organisms cannot. Nature favors those that can adapt to varying temperatures, rainfall, and the availability of iron and other essential nutrients. The transformation of living organisms, in the face of an ever shifting environment, is often messy, but it is the essence of survival.
might hesitate to hire him, especially if it looked from the outside as if he were incapable of effectively implementing change.
Clearly, David was in the midst of a critical dilemma. Neither option was comfortable…yet a decision had to be made. David decided to take the second option because he felt he had a moral obligation to do what was right. He would not compromise the values that had been central to his life.
David’s underlying core values are in opposition. First, he is strongly committed to providing for his family adequately and responsibly. He likes job security. Second, he takes pride in being a consummate professional who takes care of the organization to the best of his ability. He feels a moral obligation to “do the right thing.” He will have to share his concerns with the board of directors—who may not appreciate the value of his insights.
David must determine whether it is more important for him to have the security of a continuous stream of paychecks, at least in the foreseeable future, or to act according to his personal professional image and perhaps forgo short-term security. When decision makers forgo immediate security for a future of uncertainty, they often act to achieve a higher purpose.
Like Marie, David discovered that effectively addressing life’s challeng- ing paradoxes requires great personal courage. Typically, we tend to shoul- der such issues in private or openly blame the organization and others.
Unfortunately, these negative strategies typically fail.
When your personal/professional values collide with organization reali- ties, try answering these questions:
1. What is really going on here?
2. Do others have different perspectives on the issues?
3. Can I talk to someone in confidence?
• Who will be honest/objective with me?
• Who will have a perspective different from my own?
• Who can help me work through my concerns?
4. What am I doing now that is a barrier to success?
5. Is there a difference between the organization’s core values and my core values?
6. Is this difference, if any, the source of the challenges I face?
7. Can I use this challenge as an opportunity to grow?
8. Can I identify an opportunity to make a difference here?
9. What have I learned about myself and the organization?
Your responses to these questions provide an assessment of the current situation. Perhaps staying with the organization and reconfiguring the job, the responsibilities, or the reporting relationships will provide the means to help you grow and develop additional skills. Such changes build the personal resiliency you need to handle more challenging circumstances.
On the other hand, if core personal values—yours or the organization’s—
are being violated, if there is little hope for change, or if you are not able to make the changes required to be successful, changing to another organiza- tion is probably advisable.
CLOSING THOUGHTS ON PERSONAL PARADOX
Many of our most personal and professional challenges are paradoxes that must be balanced. They are both a source of great anxiety and an impetus for growth. Although they may cause great personal pain, they are at the same time a gift. Pain can be a source of growth, change, and ultimate fulfillment if we learn how to work through it, rather than trying to avoid it.
Working through personal paradox requires the courage to face facts that most of us prefer to avoid. Surfacing and facing underlying facts typically requires having a different kind of conversation. Rather than complaining about others or the organization or the circumstances, it is better to look objectively at the part we may be playing.
Working through personal paradox typically requires the support of at least one other person…a trusted colleague, spouse, coach, or member of the clergy. Their role is to ask insightful questions and listen to your answers.
The structures and tools provided here will significantly reduce the time, effort, and pain of getting unstuck. Most helpfully, they offer options for change.
RALPH’S THOUGHTS
• The more passionate I am, the harder it may be for me to accomplish what I want.
• Much of what I learned isn’t really true.
• It may be better for us to be right than for me to be right, though I really like to be right.
• Finding balance is a lifelong process.
In the next chapter we find some ways of addressing some of humanity’s greatest issues.
103
6
Addressing Humanity’s Most Pressing Challenges
We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
—Konstantin Josef Jireček
WHAT WE EXPERIENCE
Over tens of thousands of years, humans have had to adapt to survive.
We learned to slay beasts that wanted to tear us apart and to kill deadly microbes that are invisible to the human eye. We organized ourselves to build the housing, raise the food, and make the clothes that are essential for an abundant life. We created written and spoken language and the technical capacities to communicate with one another instantaneously anywhere on earth. We developed the economic institutions to simplify the financial transactions that enable people to be productive and enjoy a high standard of living.
We owe most historic successes to our creative spirit and our zest to solve life’s many problems—and yet…
• How do we find emotional health and financial stability at a time of unprecedented change and uncertainty?
• How can nations that seek to protect themselves from the potential harm of other nations avoid the arms race that threatens all humanity?
• How do we maintain optimum body weight and a healthy lifestyle when there is an overabundance of food?
• How do we remain physically fit when most work can be done at our fingertips?
• How do we address the great divide between those who have far more than they need and those who struggle through a meager existence?
• How can we use communication tools such as social media to create deep and meaningful relationships?
• How can we create a healthy economy that does not rely on people spending more money than they can afford?
• How can we create a political structure in which true differences can be incorporated to create the greater good?
• How can we find true wisdom amidst the overabundance of infor- mation that is available to us?
As Albert Einstein noted, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” The challenges we face are no longer external threats to humanity; they are the result of our his- torical success, our inability to work through our cultural differences, and our inability to create a more wholesome reality.
Addressing some of humanity’s most critical issues requires:
• Less posturing and more listening
• Fewer answers and more possibilities
• Less dogma and more pragmatism
• Less certainty and more ambiguity
• Fewer experts and more dialogue
• More “we” and “us” and less “me” and “they”
• More questions and fewer assumptions
Despite the billions of dollars spent on leader development training and the tens of thousands of books that have been written on the subject, only a few courageous leaders demonstrate the talent, vision, and courage to address the daunting challenges before us. There appear to be fewer leaders in politics, business, and nonprofit organizations who possess the capacity to take humanity and civilization to a higher plane…despite their having most of the resources necessary to do so.
Often, we look to existing society structures, such as the court or politi- cal systems, to resolve complex issues. Unfortunately, the advocacy models embedded in these systems exacerbate disagreements more than they add wisdom. Policy decisions, legislative rulings, and legal settlements are
insufficient means to address the complexities and nuances presented by paradoxical situations.
Our reliance on strong leaders and existing institutional structures to move us forward may be misplaced. Instead, it may be more helpful to find alternate approaches to address humanity’s most critical issues.
Understanding the concept of paradox and knowing the tools for work- ing with a paradox provide a powerful platform from which meaningful and lasting change can be implemented.
The formula for addressing common societal—often cross-institutional—
paradoxes is to:
• Find a trusted and neutral convener that can embrace both polarities of the paradox.
• Bring together a microcosm of 50 to 300 participants who represent the various perspectives of the paradox.
THE PARADOX OF OUR AGE We have bigger houses but smaller families;
more conveniences, but less time.
We have more degrees but less sense;
more knowledge but less judgment;
more experts, but more problems;
more medicines but less healthiness.
We’ve been all the way to the moon and back,
but have trouble in crossing the street to meet our new neighbor.
We built more computers to hold more copies than ever, but have less real communication;
We have become long on quantity, but short on quality.
These are times of fast foods but slow digestion;
Tall men but short characters;
Steep profits but shallow relationships.
It’s a time when there is much in the window but nothing in the room.
—His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama
• Create a highly structured agenda and a process:
• To define and focus on the positive and negative aspects of each polarity
• So that all opinions can be heard and effectively processed
• So as to ensure that a consensus of objectives emerges
• With action items and individual volunteers committed to achieve them
• Hold the event over a period of 2 days.
• Create follow-up plans following the meeting to facilitate the execu- tion and implementation of action plans.
The following are two example situations where the concepts and tools provided a powerful forum for effective action. Specific agendas are pro- vided to offer support to others who may wish to undertake such work in their professional or geographic communities.
Example: Antibiotics and Agriculture
Antibiotics have been deployed by farmers for decades to improve the qual- ity and quantity of our food supply. They enable high production levels to support growing a sufficient quantity of food to feed the world’s population.
Starvation among the populations of many nations is in great part the result of politics and economies rather than a lack of food supplies.
An alarming number of human pathogens have become resistant to one or more medicines, thus undermining the ability of doctors to treat patients effectively. Experts believe the primary cause of this resistance is overprescribing antibiotics—often for such benign conditions as colds, where antibiotics are ineffective. But overuse of antibiotics in farm animals is also thought to be stimulating the emergence of resistant bacterial strains that can infect humans or pass their resistance to other germs that infect humans. The use of antibiotics to eradicate and reduce plant and animal disease has had unintended consequences. For example, DES is a synthetic growth hormone that was used both clinically and in the beef and poultry industry in the 1960s. It was eventually found to cause breast, prostate, and vaginal cancer. Enrofloxacin is an antibiotic that was approved by the FDA for subtherapeutic use in poultry until it was found to promote antibiotic- resistant strains of Campylobacter.
The use of antibiotics in agriculture stimulates the growth of quantities of food deemed necessary for human survival AND some of these anti- biotics may create harmful reactions in the human body. The issue remains before the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where advocates on either side of the argument remain frustrated.
According to the November 21, 2011, issue of Food Safety News, “‘It’s a shame that after all these years the United States is still caught flat-footed,’
said Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY), in response to the European Union Commission demands for the judicious use of medically impor- tant antibiotics by phasing out their preventative use in food animal pro- duction.” In the United States, where 80 percent of all antibiotics sold are given to food animals, advocates against the use of antibiotics in agriculture state, “We’ve known that this is a problem for quite some time. And we’re totally unprepared to deal with the growing threat of antibiotic resistance, as was confirmed by the GAO, by not even collecting the necessary data. The American public should be outraged.”
The article continues with a quote from Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), rank- ing member of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry of the House Agriculture Committee, who keynoted the event:
Unfortunately, there are a lot of misconceptions about the use of anti- biotics and other medications in animals raised for food. Many of the cur- rent legislative proposals put forth in reaction to these complicated issues only exacerbate the problem. They are championed by people who don’t fully understand agriculture, or don’t understand the role that medicinal treatments can play in overall health in our food supply.
Cardoza, a conservative Democrat whose district produces more dairy products than any other in the United States, argued that decisions should be based on science: “Prevention is absolutely key,” he said in his remarks.
“Get in front of it before you have a crisis.”
Though we may personally be aligned with one point of view over the other, the reality is that this is a genuine paradox for which there is no single answer. Antibiotics are miracle drugs, yet, once used, they risk losing their efficacy. This paradox cannot effectively be adjudicated within a political forum.
ANTIBIOTICS IN AGRICULTURE PROCESSED AS PARADOX
There are at least two advocacy groups that are not talking with each other.
Some fervently believe in the benefits of antibiotics, while others wish to minimize the uses and perils of antibiotics. The parties on both sides view their interests as being mutually exclusive. To work through the paradox, both parties must work together to realize the strengths and weaknesses of their own and others’ points of view. In this manner the two sides see that they can be both right AND wrong.
The University of Minnesota’s Centers of Integrated Leadership and Global Food Safety Leadership, with the sponsorship of the Minnesota Departments of Agriculture and Health, provided a neutral forum to tackle this issue as a paradox. Sixty people with divergent perspectives partici- pated in a day-and-a-half long event. Table 6.1 is the agenda for the event.
The professors who presented the case for the benefits of antibiotics and the perils of antibiotics were not given an option to choose which side TABLE 6.1
Finding Common Ground: Antibiotics and Agriculture
Topic Presenter
Day 1 Agenda
Opening: setting the context Director, Global Initiative for Food Systems Leadership
Executive director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Integrative Leadership Presentation: the benefits of antibiotics Randy Singer, associate professor of
epidemiology in the University of Minnesota’s Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences
Presentation: the perils of antibiotics James Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and senior associate director of the Infectious Diseases Fellowship Program and the VA Molecular Epidemiology Unit Presentation: using paradox to
address complexity Ralph Jacobson, The Leader’s Toolbox Application: using the principles of
paradox to find common ground in the use of antibiotics in agriculture
All participants
Developing Minnesota objectives:
• What will we do to get more of the benefits of antibiotics?
• What will we do to limit the perils of antibiotics?
All participants
Day 2 Agenda
Review and next steps Will Houston
The Leader’s Map™: How to get things donea Ralph Jacobson Implementing common ground for
antibiotics: Getting it done All participants Closing thoughts/next steps Will Houston
Laura Bloomberg
a Described in Jacobson, R., 2000, Leading for a Change: How to Master the Five Challenges Faced by Every Leader. Burlington, MA: Routledge.