When this year’s Corvette Stingray rolled out, critics lusted. The slick GM (GM) sports car, they wrote, has throaty vroom and plenty of zoom. Plus the ride gets 28 miles to the gallon. A fuel-efficient muscle car? It’s possible, if businesses can tackle more than one vision at once.
At Excel Leadership Solutions, CEO Deborah Schroeder-Saulnier points to the latest Stingray as an example of a new brand of broad thinking. Her lesson to executives: You can have it all — if you’re willing to stretch your mind.
“People achieve the impossible by striving for goals that don’t seem as though they belong together,” she wrote in The Power of Paradox.
Try twisting either/or thinking to both/and strategy. “If you see an opposite that is right in front of you, grab it,” she told IBD.
Start with these tips:
• Explore. Schroeder-Saulnier urges executives to take a candid look at their companies. Profit-charging polarities hatch when you ask probing questions:
How are things going with you?
What’s working well?
What do you want long-term?
How will you get there?
• Stabilize. You can be level and still bring the sizzle. Listen to cynics and traditionalists. Their chorus will steer your insights, Schroeder-Saulnier says. “It’s not just looking at what we are moving away from, but it’s also ‘What’s the as-is we want to hold onto?’”
• Map the gap. Disagreements spark new conversations. So Schroeder-Saulnier encourages colleagues to keep talking — with an eye on possibilities.
For example: One corporate hotel chain she advised was lagging. The issue? Inns held tightly to unique character. Customers liked that. But to survive globally — and go after big goals — the chain had to have some standard procedures.
• Harness. Schroeder-Saulnier taught the company to understand that its corporate coordination didn’t need to trump the charming, local flair of each inn. Balancing between global and local was an ideal way to work, she told leaders.
• Equalize. “The team immediately had a fresh focus,” she said. “They now saw a situation in which their company had a strong presence around the world both because of the standards established at the corporate level and because general managers at the individual properties had the freedom and creativity to manage that presence as they saw fit on the local level.”
• Train. Ready to shift? Work daily to boost both/and thinking, recommends Amy Hillman, dean at Arizona State’s business school.
“The key to this is mental discipline,” she said. “Every article or headline you read, make yourself think through the options, either/or or both/and. If you can practice this dispassionately about companies that aren’t yours, then when you need to, you’ll have the discipline to do it regarding your own company.”
• Cooperate. “Both/and thinking requires a safe environment that focuses on celebrating and rewarding team achievements,” said Brent Daily, co-founder of the office-culture adviser RoundPegg.
• Campaign. Idea drivers: Leverage both/and thinking to gain buy-in from a variety of key players with different needs, suggests Christian Gaiser, CEO of online shopping platform Retale.
“Have an open and unbiased discussion style,” he said.
• Explain. “Either/or thinking would just lead to a loss in acceptance among team members,” said Gaiser, “and ultimately negatively impact execution, which is most important of all.”
Bringing the skeptics on board — and hearing them out when they resist your idea — adds verve to new initiatives.
IT professionals need to value the inherent paradoxes that lie within their field of endeavor, and embrace them as a means of ensuring that a balanced, inclusive approach is taken to managing conflict and achieving the objectives of the organization.
That’s the advice of Deborah Schroeder-Saulnier, PhD, a leadership consultant and author of the book, The Power of Paradox: Harness the Energy of Competing Ideas to Uncover Radically Innovative Solutions. I recently spoke with Schroeder-Saulnier about the paradoxes that confront IT professionals, and about how “paradox thinking” can help identify the potential of seemingly conflicting options.
During our conversation, Schroeder-Saulnier demonstrated an impressive breadth and depth of knowledge about the IT profession. She said the receptivity of IT leaders to paradox thinking—taking a “both/and” approach to conflicting ideas—runs the gamut.
“It’s interesting, in that IT professionals don’t all come from the same background base into IT,” she said. “What I find is there is clearly a sense of openness to listening, because of a desire to be more innovative, and to look for whatever’s coming next. When there’s that openness, I find that it turns into almost a hunger to delve deeper into it. … It’s all about exploring, or being creative.”
At the same time, she said, some IT leaders are more analytical and formulaic, and may not be as open. She described that group as “those who are the more traditional computing people, who have been trained in the sciences, who in the past have had limited tools. They’re the black-and-white thinkers who have experienced change as more evolutionary than revolutionary.”
What’s important, Schroeder-Saulnier said, is to appreciate the validity of both mindsets, and to embrace the paradox around logic and creativity.
“Inside an IT organization, you may have some of those who are more rules-based, and others who have a much more visionary mindset,” she said. “So you have the grounded and the visionary, and it’s critical that both be paid attention to.”
That’s essential, she said, in order to understand the broader issues.
“IT professionals need to go beyond the computing,” Schroeder-Saulnier said, “and have a broader background, with more of an integrative kind of thinking.”
There appear to be plenty of other paradoxes that are readily identifiable in IT organizations.
“If we’re talking about an IT organization that creates and produces IT products, the awareness of ‘high tech’ vs. ‘high touch,’ right there is a paradox,” Schroeder-Saulnier said. “So the higher-tech we go with a service or an offering, we should also be mindful of the higher touch that’s necessary in, for example, a communication device.”
Another one, she said, is “technology focus” vs. “relationship focus.” It made me think of the stereotypical coder, who enjoys being head-down, alone in his corner writing code, but who out of necessity collaborates with plenty of others in the organization to get the job done.
So when organizations that adopt the paradox thinking model fail to achieve the results they’re hoping for, I wonder, where did they go wrong? Schroeder-Saulnier said often it amounts to a timing issue, and there may not be a failure at all.
“Do they really fail to achieve the results, or are they still on the way to achieving the results that they desire? A lot of that can reside in the complexity of paradox,” she said. She cited a company’s growth strategy, which may entail both growth by acquisition and organic growth.
“It’s possible that we’re focusing on one side of the paradox at the neglect of the other,” she said. “If we focus on growth through acquisition at the neglect of organic growth, and we don’t achieve the results we’re looking for in Year One, is that a failure? No. It’s just the outcome of Year One.” It’s all about managing the paradox of stability and change, she said, and recognizing that growth by acquisition is short-term, and organic growth is long-term.
Interestingly, Schroeder-Saulnier mentioned during our conversation that her background is in the exploration of religion and religious studies. I shared with her the fact that I’m a member of the Bahá’í Faith, and I noted that in Bahá’í consultation, the aim is to foster an environment that harnesses the power of conflicting opinions. The idea is to detach oneself from the opinions he expresses. So once I express my idea or opinion, say, in a meeting, that idea no longer belongs to me—it belongs to the group. I asked Schroeder-Saulnier whether that approach is consistent with the paradox model she espouses. She said it’s very consistent, in that it addresses the basic paradox of self and other:
“So if I’m going to try this on, let me go ahead and listen to your ideas in addition to sharing my ideas, because with this approach comes the realization that we aren’t looking at the whole, at the completeness, unless we look at both,” she said. “That’s what this model does. It takes the personal attachment away, to focus on what is our shared aim, and what the interrelationships and interdependencies are.”