Before We Start...

This is a 2-page Coach’s Column (an exception). I had too difficult of a time getting important points across within a 1-page format. In these difficult economic times for nearly all companies I work with, an outlook suggestion I gave a customer has transformed his line of attack to this economic climate. His organization is actually growing! His competitors are not! He very recently called, we had a great conversation, and he was excited. I felt you might benefit also. It’s about working with “AND” versus “OR.”

Most of you know of my work with Leadership, after all, what we worked on most was that. With some of you, while our relationship may have started as a coach-coached association, it then evolved to business consulting, strategic supremacy, managing change (OD), and other dimensions. What many of you may not be aware of is of my work in Creativity and Innovation. The work I do in this field helps clients develop new, innovative, and competitive products, or put in place major improvements in manufacturing processes, or provoke ideas that really fix things and/or generate and produce significant results. The AND versus OR issue comes from that area of my work.

AND vs. OR

The AND versus OR issue is about shifting away from thinking about alternatives as simply choices. It is saying AND instead of saying OR. Here’s a scenario. You go to your boss to request funding for something. Your boss tells you that the budget is tight right now and that the organization needs to hang on to their money. You’ve just been victimized by OR thinking. Either the boss funds you OR he/she hangs on to the money. Here’s another scenario. You have limited resources. Your people are overworked, stressed by all that needs to get done, and less than in love with what appears to be their future. Your boss comes in and wants you to take on a

special urgent project. You tell your boss you can’t, or that if you do, something else will likely suffer. Your boss has just been victimized by OR thinking. Either you don’t absorb additional work OR you swap it.

When you use AND it shifts thinking into alternatives other than the two seemingly opposing positions. In the previous first scenario, it is asking, “how can my need be funded while (i.e., AND) at the same time we hang on our money?” In the second scenario, it is asking, “how can I absorb this additional work AND at the same time sustain the work already being done?” Only when the AND is planted do possibilities arise that would satisfy the needs of all interests.

The AND angle tends to prompt thoughts totally different from just looking at 2 options. The thoughts are now in response to a problem or challenge, not a decision. The response now shifts to finding a solution to a much broader challenge than simply making a yes/no decision.

Our social environment is riddled with OR distinctions . . . hot OR cold, half-empty OR half full, plastic OR paper, less-filling OR tastes great, cash OR credit, and the list goes on and on. We are then socially conditioned to think about many potentially coexisting things in terms of OR. Now and then, these OR distinctions are legitimate, where there is no middle ground, like in dead OR alive, stand OR sit, and others. However, in far too many instances their legitimacy is questionable.

We over and over again tend to see some decisions as polar opposites. We also often fail to see the “gray” zones, as they say. Well, in reality we shouldn’t see gray. That’s one way of looking at it. And, it’s unappealing. Gray is dull and monotonous and boring. Who would want to distract themselves with such dullness?

Now, think about it from another angle. There really is no “gray.” If white is a combination of all colors in the spectrum, and black is the absence of all colors in the spectrum, then what lies in between are really the colors of the spectrum! The middle is really much more colorful than shades of gray. While the shades of grey come from overlaying the two extremes, the options between the two extremes are limitless – blues, greens, yellows, reds, etc. That’s what happens when you shift from OR decisions to AND thinking. Many alternatives can and do come up that equally satisfy what may seem like competing requirements.

There's More

There are really two sides to choosing AND over OR. The first one is the obvious advantage of gaining options that could resolve apparently opposing positions. The second one is a social issue. The principal problem here is that OR choices most often produce a winner and a loser. Somebody is going to feel great. Somebody isn’t. And, while it is noble to feel happiness for the winner, if you didn’t win, you’re not happy. Face it. Who wants to NOT win? If you wind up losing (e.g., you didn’t get funded or additional work isn’t going to get done), your enthusiasm, your levels of commitment, your dedication, and your industriousness are all at risk. Not finding an alternative that satisfies all interests invites an unhealthy life-world posture that, short or long term, will cost you dearly.

OK, So Now What?

Some years ago, a similar message was coined Win-Win. It didn’t really stick all that much for two primary reasons. One, we never let go of the OR kind of thinking. All of a sudden, negotiations were wars where casualties were negotiated. Win-Win became a contrived kind of negotiated satisfaction. In reality, neither side was as happy as if they had obtained all they wanted. This is because most often they went at it from an OR angle.

Two, it was most often targeted at people issues (one wanted this, the other wanted that). More

often than not, people didn’t seem to target nonpeople issues like manufacturing conflicts (do we run one product OR another, or do we run this line or machine OR this other line or machine?), budget allocations (do we budget for this thing OR for this other thing?), and time management (do we do this OR do we do that?), just to name a few.

Now, mind you, we do use AND when it comes to satisfying stakeholders. We need to manage our costs AND produce quality results AND deploy them quickly AND protect workers AND care for the environment. We don’t trade off here. The problem is that we’re inconsistent.

Every time you find yourself having to make a yes/no decision where a winner will emerge and a loser will be left without satisfying their need, try and insert AND between the 2 perspectives. Work on solving the newly articulated challenge (e.g., how can we do this, and also do that at the same time?) and you’ll be pleasantly surprised at the available options that emerge.

Also, reawaken your creativity and the options that surface will surprise and delight you. (Contrary to popular belief, we all have an innate creative spark inside of us that is simply dormant in most people, or atrophied at best.)

Give it a try. Don’t assume that things are always as black and white as they may appear to be. You will find that in many business situations it really isn’t all that cut-and-dry.

One closing remark . . . One of the things that sets exceptional executives apart from others is their elevated thinking and processing skills, such as AND thinking over OR. After years of working with executives across a broad spectrum of talents and capabilities, I have found that those who are dominant in AND thinking educe a fierce sense of loyalty from their people, create an environment of possibilities, get much more done, and teach the people in their organizations to expand their thinking and improve their effectiveness.