Posts tagged dilemma
owning a contradiction
Aug 31st
Ah.
Contradictions. My favorite topic (certainly in business).
I guess the idea from a literature rules standpoint is a combination of an oxymoron and figurative literature (if you want to track using other people’s words).
Regardless.
I personally love the idea of ‘owning a contradiction’ because it is a descriptive phrase that invokes people to hold two opposing concepts concurrently.
And more importantly?
It is a smart idea. And I don’t care who you are you like smart ideas. Ideas that make you think.
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.” F. Scott Fitzgerald
Anyway.
I can’t believe it has taken me so long to write about contradictions. And owning a contradiction.
Patient quickness.
Make haste slowly.
That kind of stuff.
Literally I imagine we are simply discussing oxymorons.
But.
I will get back to that (because I am curious and looked up all that stuff).
Owning a Contradiction is excellent for when you are talking about brand positioning and company’s value propositions and what people think about an organization (or product or service).
It becomes something that may seem counter intuitive and make people cock their heads a little bit and think “how do they do that?”.
From an organization value proposition standpoint (what is it we do best – with a skew toward functional) owning a contradiction is kind of the holy grail.
In particular you love to zero in on some aspect of more for less.
(Think of that as the holy grail value proposition sweet spot).
What do I mean?
That’s like …
More happiness-satisfaction less worry.
Get more Services at less cost.
More nutrition in least (smallest) portion.
Do more with less (plus/minus relationship).
Do most with least amount of money/budget.
Large global resources attention to small details.
Just saw an Accenture ad … “who say you can’t be big and nimble?”
Stuff like that.
If you can build an organizational culture and innovations and attitudinal structure with something like that at the core you are golden.
Now and for the future.
Anyway.
Whenever I bring up owning a contradiction at first blush everyone loves the idea.
The challenge is when people want to “understand it.”
So.
Inevitably you get the smart(ass) question … ‘are you talking about an oxymoron or a paradox’?
(yikes. Here is where I need to search dictionaries for help)
Oxymoron or Paradox. Here are the two definitions.
An oxymoron as “a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in ‘cruel kindness’ or ‘to make haste slowly’.”
(c’mon … who uses ‘locution’ in a sentence … jerks)
A paradox is defined as “a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth”.
Uh oh.
That didn’t help me. Is one a figure of a speech and one a sentence? Geez.
‘Self contradictory but in reality expresses a possible truth.’
Now. That sounds good.
Unfortunately if I research oxymoron I get more of what I am talking about with owning a contradiction despite the fact the explanation for a paradox seems … well … righter.
(figures it couldn’t be easy, huh?)
The Oxymoron is a figure of speech that deliberately uses two contradictory ideas. This contradiction creates a paradoxical image (okay. They just used oxymoron and paradox together … they are frickin’ killin me) in the reader or listener’s mind that generates a new concept or meaning for the whole.
Some typical oxymorons are:
- a living death
- sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind
- a deafening silence
- bitter sweet
- The Sounds of Silence (song title)
- make haste slowly
- conspicuous by his absence
Ok. It gets worse (trying to understand what it is supposed to be) when you look at these.
The following seem more like paradoxes to me, but they all are from a book called “Oxymoronica” by Dr. Mardy Grothe.
I can resist everything but temptation.
Oscar Wilde
Don’t be too clever for an audience. Make it obvious. Make the subtleties obvious also.
Billy Wilder
Just be truthful – If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
Barbara Stanwyck
Please all, and you will please none.
Aesop – 6th century BC
Nothing is permanent, except change.
Heraclitus – 4th century BC
Okay.
Regardless
Owning a contradiction (to me) is not only smart but it articulates something in a way that it actually becomes a figure of Speech (which also has a literal definition by the way)
Uh oh. Another definition. Figure of speech?
A figure is worth a thousand words (A picture is worth a thousand words)
Figurative language:
One meaning of “figure” is drawing” or “image” or “picture”. Figurative language creates figures (pictures) in the mind of the reader or listener. These pictures help convey the meaning faster and more vividly than words alone.
We use figures of speech in “figurative language” to add color and interest, and to awaken the imagination. Figurative language is everywhere, from classical works like Shakespeare or the Bible, to everyday speech, pop music and television commercials. It makes the reader or listener use their imagination and understand much more than the plain words.
Anyway.
I come back to “expresses a possible truth.”
Owning a contradiction (when you aren’t making it up and it is something of value) is figurative, a paradox and most importantly is communicating the possibility of a truth.
Something meaningful but contradictory … all to the benefit of whoever you are communicating to.
In a way it is quite possible I like contradictions because they aggressively and interestingly attack people’s ignorance.
They make you think of things that may not seem possible but become an interesting ‘truth’ (and we learn something).
Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.
Confucius – 6th century BC
Anyway.
I know I embody a contradiction in the work place.
Lunch bucket intellectual is my contradiction. Bring a blue collar work ethic day in and day out but relentless intellectual curiosity to seek insights and ‘truth.’
I guess I am also a generalist specialist. But. We will get back to that.
But.
I didn’t write this because of me.
It is because I am across a real contradiction that intrigued me.
So I was looking at a software company who really didn’t have marketing strategy at it corporate culture core (as if any technology software company does, huh?) and as I was cruising through some information and it hit me … they were generalist specialists (specialists in software innovations and tool development yet generalist in industries – their customers are a potpourri of industries and services and product deliverers)..
It was interesting to me.
Maybe because I am almost positive they don’t see themselves that way.
Maybe because I am a generalist specialist.
And maybe it is interesting because I really enjoy trying to get organizations like that to understand the potential of such a positioning for them.
Anyway.
Not sure I will ever get to tell them but if I do you can bet I will be talking about “generalist specialist.”
Bottom line?
Any time you can own a contradiction you are more interesting … as a product, as a business or even as a person.
Change part 4: broken pieces
Jun 18th
“I was never one to patiently pick up broken fragments and glue them together again and tell myself that the mended whole was as good as new. 
What is broken is broken — and I’d rather remember it as it was at its best than mend it and see the broken places as long as I lived.” – Margaret Mitchell
This post is kind of a hybrid of management of change (part 2) and embracing change in plans (part 3) and whatever else you can think of with regard to change (parts to continue ad nausea).
So. I begin with … it drives me crazy when a manager’s plan falls apart and then they run around (or have their “people”) trying to put all of the broken plan pieces back together again solely so they can “stay with the plan.”
Ok. That was a generalization.
Some pieces of a plan are more important than others. You save those. And most times those pieces don’t break off that easily anyway.
Regardless.
When a plan is broken super gluing it back together again is probably not the best plan of action.
Yet. Time and time again you see leaders slavishly having people run around sticking pieces back onto the plan like little barnacles on a ship.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Why? (me asks myself).
Well. Interestingly a leader runs into a different aspect of the same issue the organization is dealing with.
While the organization (and people in general) typically hates change it helps they have a plan to follow (kind of like going on a trip and at least you have a map), the leader likes a plan to implement change and yet hates changing the plan (despite the fact it is all directed to creating a change).
Yikes. That was confusing.
Suffice it to say human nature says we want the plan to stay the same but are not opposed to it being better (ah. The contradictions in life).
“Our dilemma is that we hate change and love it at the same time; what we really want is for things to remain the same but get better.”
Sydney J. Harris
So. In practicality the organization (people) loves having the plan but inevitably will be shaking their head over some things and say “wouldn’t it be better if we do this?” (and start implementing change on their own).
This is where I go back to the beginning where I said I hate managers who maniacally glue the plan back together when it breaks. The organization, the people, in the midst of the change transition start implementing plan changes (let’s call these, at their best, course corrections) and then you have managers running around with glue putting the original plan back together again and, well, that would be call disorganization. Or maybe negative energy. Or maybe even wasted energy. At its worst it is unadulterated chaos.
(needless to say … on the McTague good bad scale that is bad for an organization)
I would suggest to leaders “go with the flow” when a plan breaks apart (but I tend to believe that is slightly too flippant).
In the end change is a funny thing. In business it is often the same as in life.
There may be a grand plan and a vision. But during the ‘change’ we (personally and/or organizationally) are never quite sure what we are becoming, or why. Then one day we look at ourselves, and wonder who we are, and how we got there. But if it’s done right we are pretty happy with what we see.
And if we are really true to ourselves we have changed in some way by being broken and picking up some old pieces and some new pieces and just “are.” (no superglue involved)
So. All that said (because this is about gluing together broken plans) great leaders recognize that the people they started with in their organization will not be the same people when the “change” is done.
What this means is that a leader can’t glue back the original employees into the plan … they have changed.
And treating them as the unbroken original is silly (and non productive if not chafing). Change means breaking from what is. And assume a change plan of action will change. If you don’t, have lots of superglue.
Oh, by the way, employees (and people in general) don’t like to follow a plan that has been superglued back together again.
If you want to keep a secret call the Red Cross
Mar 19th
I love learning new things and I just did (ok. maybe back in December but I just thought about writing something because I just wrote about the dilemma of Conscience and the price of Evil).
I have always known that the Red Cross is staunchly neutral. Meaning that they will be silent in the face of any inhumanity or evil in order to meet the on the ground obligations of dealing with the human needs. They do this within conflict (war work well known) as well as humanitarian efforts for disaster relief – disaster being both natural and manmade. I didn’t know this but they have a network of humanitarian volunteers in over 186 countries.
Despite some pressure from other aid organizations the Red Cross staunchly defends its impartiality to politics and “evil doings” as being the advantage to serving the needs of the people anywhere.
Because of their stance in countries ravaged by war and genocide, the local Red Cross efforts have proven quite resilient. Basically, Red Cross (or Red Crescent societies – latter title preferred in many Muslim countries) gains access to areas others cannot in order to help those in need … because they are fanatically secretive with regard to what they see and hear around them.
The needs of those who are in harm’s way stand far above anything else they may feel.
I have one word for this – wow.
Ok. Let me share an example of why I say “wow.” (and I could use many but this ties into my Conscience post)
For example. In World War II the Red Cross could have possibly been invited to assist in aiding Concentration Camp victims but would have been required to tell no one about the Concentration Camps. Wow.
(this is only partially hypothetical because I believe they did work with Nazis in some situations)
If you want a moral dilemma take this one on. But I do know one thing. While I am fairly sure I couldn’t do it I am glad someone can…and someone does. I admire the Red Cross as an organization relentlessly sticking to its vision and mission and understanding their end objective – assisting people in need. They understand they cannot control Conflict but rather only serve those in the aftermath of conflict.
I cannot imagine how difficult it is to maintain their discreet silence in the face of terrible atrocities.
This is simply a “wow” post from me. I guess I never really knew, or maybe took the time to think about, the extent of their “silence to do good work” manifesto.
Wrapping my head around this makes my head hurt. Thank god for an organization like the Red Cross and the minds who created it with the vision they maintain today.
