Schlagwort-Archive: Understanding

Out of the dilemma

It is a difficult balancing act to filter one out of two unpleasant solutions. The choice between pest and cholera only gives hopes that both will not happen – although fate could still pass you by. And then, because of the different interpretations, additionally many have the public hounding them. There seems to be no way out for the favorable representation of one’s intentions. No matter which solution you choose, you will always be shown that it is the wrong one. A good example is the current debate on the sponsorship of events by political organizations, such as the EU. Can a soft drink producer support an event financially without being under general suspicion of trying to influence?

This is a dilemma for the organizers. If sponsoring takes place, it is assumed that the companies buy favorable decisions from politicians. If the organizers renounce the funding by the industries, it could result in the fact that somebody is accused of wasting public funds. Where is the way out of this dilemma? The following steps will help you find your way out of this desperation.

  • Understanding
    Nowadays, news are almost simultaneously in the media. The immediate consequences often only become clear afterwards. The experienced reporter has a sharpened eye for interesting matters. If then the logo of a soft drink manufacturer is emblazoned on the event sign of a political association with the note “sponsored by”, then speculations start. It is important to understand the situation. Sponsor or not? Influenced or not?
    The real dilemma should be clear; otherwise you will make the wrong conclusions.
  • Rating
    After recognizing the dilemma, you should work out the pros and cons. What speaks for one perspective and what for the other? What are the reasons against it? With this ProCon list you can classify the different options – by the way also the possibility of choosing none of the alternatives. This way you choose the lesser evil.
    The real dilemma resolves by itself, since a reasonable decision is prepared.
  • Dissociating
    The consequences resulting from the dismantling of the dilemma unfortunately still remains fatal. For this reason, the risks are separated into factual consequences and undesirable impressions. Factual consequences are physical or human damages. Damage can be minimized by means of preventive risk limitations or short-term crisis management. Public evaluations are opinions that damage one’s reputation. A coherent reasoning and comprehensive publication can help the audience to better understand their own point of view. However, in the end, the public still values at its own discretion based on the mediated “reality”
    If the dilemmas are not practical emergencies, such as natural disasters, economic threats or war, then these are often political reasons that should be confronted politically with clarifying statements.
  • Accepting
    The decisive factor of a dilemma is the fact that the predicament is not under control, but that somebody has to choose one of several undesirable alternatives. Doing nothing by shock-induced paralysis is only the last option. Through the above steps you understand better, which possibilities exist with which consequences. Since it is not possible of safely getting out of this clamp, it is important to accept the insolvability and to decide on one of the alternatives. You are aware of the consequences and initiate appropriate countermeasures.
    The dilemma disappears, when you adopt the chosen solution – and above all when you are convinced that you are doing the right thing.
  • Explaining
    The most important part of the solution is the justification. Since everyone is always the victim of a limited range of vision, we should always explain our solutions in such a way that others can develop their own opinions based on the available arguments. However, poor processing throws oil into the fire. For this reason, well prepared public relations are indispensable.
    The dilemma is mitigated by proactive media work.

Bottom line: With the sensory overload in the media, attention is becoming an increasingly scarce commodity that everyone is ripping off – with the aim of selling products, services, or themselves. In this context, clever expressions about decisions that can be evaluated differently are a good way to fight for one’s share of attention. This means that all kinds of decisions are always placed on the gold scale. Starting point are mostly dilemmatic situations, such as sponsoring political events. If you get sponsored, you get suspected of being impressionable. If you pay, you waste taxpayers’ money. This desperation is solved by choosing an alternative, usually the one with the least damage. For this purpose you should understand the dilemma and estimating the advantages and disadvantages. As soon as you dissociate the consequences, you select a solution and explain it to the public. Do the least bad thing and talk about it. That’s how you get out of the dilemma.

Change is more than an “Oh, I see”

The misbelief of managers and consultants that change is nothing else than a button, which is simply switched and the change is already accomplished, leads to wrong expectations. In their own life, they obviously could not yet learn that all extensive transformations take time. They believe being able to cause a desired behavior. Changing not only individual employees, but the whole staff, through clear, quick measures, although changes take more time than an “Oh, I see”.

Change begins long before the crucial point can be seen. The following steps describe the time before (recognizing), the moment of enlightenment (understanding), and the definition of the new (designing) and the pain of the conversion (rethinking).

  • Recognizing – Oops
    Even practitioners of the head-in-the-sand practice cannot avoid the feeling of the uncertainty. Something is not OK and develops pressure over time that cannot be located easily. Eventually it becomes so unpleasant that the psychological strain forces you to face the problem and to have a closer look at it. It can take years without regular mutual exchange of opinions and feelings, until the participants get to this point. This step ends with a formulated problem that should be solved.
  • Understanding – “Oh, I see”
    The changes are preceded by a convinced “Oh, I see”. The recognized problem and the need of change are understood by the involved people. It is, as if a knot dissolves, as if the knotting would have never been there. The Greeks called it “Eureka”. In Japan the German „Ach so” is even part of the everyday language, outdone only by the Japanese なるほど (naruhodo). This internal conviction is the prerequisite for real change. For changing the whole enterprise, each individual must have gone through the lock of a personal “Oh, I see”.
  • Designing – That’s the way it goes
    With the conviction that something should be changed, it still remains unclear, what and how. An undesired condition has immeasurably many, different solutions. These new ways lead everyone in another direction and need therefore a joint adjustment to each other. The new behavior can be designed with this desired future state. It goes from new business models, operational sequences and IT-programs, to new rules, up to new values that affect the happening. The designing of the future ensures the proof that the new reality is better at all than the old and the current situation will not only be disimproved. Thereafter the actual change begins.
  • Rethinking – Ouch
    The disconnecting from old behavior requires that it will be discussed, judged, rejected and eventually forgotten. This procedure is painful, since all create unpleasant and pleasant feelings in different places. Only, if the old instinctive reflexes are replaced by new, you are in the new pattern of behavior. Thus you are at the end of the change and at the beginning of the development of new routines. It continues until the whole restarts from the beginning.

A study examined the time for changing meal behaviors. The participants needed on average 66 days (from 16 to 254 days), in order to change their behavior. The changes in an enterprise are more comprehensive and concern many differently deeply anchored behavior. This means that change takes time, depending on, where you begin to measure. In extreme cases it takes years. However, after the step “Oh, I see”, it should not last longer than six months, since otherwise you might never leave the uncertain change mode. If the changes are too comprehensive, the measures should be portioned into smaller initiatives that can be mastered within six months.

Bottom line: Change takes time. This begins long before the problems are recognized. A personal “Oh, I see” is crucial for the convinced change. With the designing of the new, it is guaranteed that you will get to the desired condition. The actual change should be finalized within half a year.