PART I
The Process: Unleashing the Power of Paradox
Chapter 1
Paradox Thinking: What Is It and Why Use It?
âThe test of a first-rate intelligence is
the ability to hold two opposed ideas
in the mind at the same time, and still
retain the ability to function.â
âF. Scott Fitzgerald, The Crack-Up
My new client had a lot on the line. It was no longer the golden years in which companies like his could hold on to the status quo and make profits. Money was tight, and he was feeling intense pressure to make changes that would boost profits immediately.
He started our first meeting with a story Iâd heard many times before: âWeâre struggling. We need to cut costs, but if we donât invest in growth opportunities, the company will wither away.â
âLetâs look at the challenge through a different lens,â I suggested. âThereâs no law that says you have to cut costs or invest in growth, is there?â
He laughed, âMaybe a law of business.â
I told him a law like that was meant to be broken. And then I wrote the words âcut costsâ on the left side of a paper and âinvest in growthâ on the right side. Between them, I wrote the word âand.â
Cut costs and invest in growth.
âHow is that possible?â he wondered.
âWeâre about to figure that out!â
Welcome to paradox thinking.
Definition and Benefits
Paradox thinking is âandâ thinking. It is thinking that identifies pairs of opposites and determines how they are interdependent relative to a key goal. In the previous example, the pair of opposites is âcut costs and invest in growth.â They are interdependent because both are vital in achieving the goal of a thriving organization. Failure to manage the pair of opposites may result in the company going out of business; at the very least, it will result in its slow decline.
Paradox thinking enables balanced management of conflicting objectives. A company wants to be known for innovation at the same time customers embrace it for its stability, to thrill shareholders with strong short-term revenue results and concurrently take actions to ensure long-term health. From those two examples alone, it should be easy to see how failure to manage a critical pair of opposites results in the company stumbling and, perhaps, failing.
Adopting an appreciation for paradox ends the practice of viewing conflicting needs separately and addressing one over the other. Paradox thinking unravels the assumption that, if we analyze a situation thoroughly, one option will trump another in terms of problem-solving. Organizations do not reach their potential when they habitually use that kind of either/or approach to challenges. Their profit, morale, and ability to innovate suffer. Renowned playwright George Bernard Shaw addressed what it takes to make progress when he said, âThe reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.â1
Paradox thinking supplements the type of thinking many consider natural. So if you are a linear thinker, for example, you wonât stop being a linear thinker and suddenly transform into a complete paradox thinker by reading this book. A linear thinker might look at the challenge of employee performance management like this: âFirst I will point out the employeeâs shortfalls, and then I will praise him for his accomplishments.â The solution to the employee management problem is a step-by-step progression involving critique and rewardâbut the linear thinker wouldnât necessarily see critique and reward as a pair of interdependent opposites.
To that linear pattern, therefore, paradox thinking adds another way of looking at options and goals. It means looking at the divergent needs for critique and reward as linked and necessary in pursuing the goal of effective performance management. In other words, paradox thinking adds a level of understanding of the challenge, the ways to address it, and what the intended outcome is. In this example, once the linear thinker makes the connection between critique and reward, and consciously manages both to help the employee improve performance, he establishes an environment for faster behavior change and helps employees hit higher performance levels.
When paradox thinking becomes part of your problem-solving strategy, it has another benefit. It alerts you to when you are over-focusing on one part of the pair at the neglect of the other. That is, it helps your management of issues and actions stay balanced. In the performance management situation, itâs possible that you may want focus on the reward more than the critique, of course. Doing that deliberately and keeping in touch with the outcomes of that action will help you in the future. But if you are unaware of that emphasis on reward over critique, then you may have just created a problem for yourself.
Paradox in the Language of Business
Many business-related concepts suggest opposing needs. For example, customer service implies the âpushâ of providing something to customers and the âpullâ of finding out what the customer wants. Contract negotiation entails dual requirements: to listen/pay attention and talk/demand attention. More than any others, however, two elements stand out as embodying multiple, significant paradoxes: innovation and leadership.
In a business context, innovations tend to involve imagination and logic, a focus on whatâs different and whatâs familiar, being practical and stretching for the incredible, and many more interdependent opposites. Michael S. Dobson, author of Creative Project Management among other engaging business books, told me this story of innovation from early in his career:
I was at the toy fair with my boss, looking around the show floor for the next big thing. This was the year the Cabbage Patch Kids became a fad. We were in some Hong Kong importerâs show room and they were selling Broccoli Patch Kids. They were a terrible knockoff. I made some disparaging remarks about them and my boss said, âYou have to understand that itâs not bad that itâs a knockoff. Itâs just a dumb knockoff. There is a brilliant Cabbage Patch knockoff at this show. See if you can find it.â
I looked around for hours and didnât see anything that fit his description. At the end of the day, he said, âWhat is the Cabbage Patch gimmick?â
That much I knew: âYou adopt them.â
âWhat else do you adopt?â
That was a gigantic clue. The brilliant Cabbage Patch knockoff at that yearâs toy fair was Pound Puppies. They are exactly like Cabbage Patch dolls, but completely different.
The ideal toy is brand new, completely original and just like everything else.
The paradox Dobson discovered applies to any company that tries to innovate, from toothpaste to smartphones. Integrating such paradox thinking into to new product development creates the kind of competitive advantage that companies profiled throughout this book enjoy.
In addition to innovation, leadership embodies myriad conflicting needs, such as confidence and humility, control and empowerment, grounded and visionary. Reinsurance Group of America (RGA) experienced major structural changes in 2008 and then again 2011. Because of these changes, new leadership paradoxes took shape for CEO Greig Woodring. Once owned by Metropolitan Life Insurance, RGA split off from MetLife in 2008 after expanding its global presence by adding new foreign offices. Then in 2011, it became a matrix organization and started to move toward more integrated systems instead of running like a loosely affiliated group of reinsurance companies. Control and empowerment emerged as central conflicting needs in his changing world. By exercising too much control, he could quash the entrepreneurial spirit of the individual company leaders. By empowering them too much, he would undermine the moves toward more coordinated behavio...