5. The Good Thing That Can Cause Big Trouble—Right vs. Right
Chapter Contents
How Was Right vs. Right Discovered?
Overview
This chapter describes a key finding during the BIS/PwCC[1] integration effort: There were conflicts left unresolved despite many decisions that were made to guide the new business unit. We describe the events leading up to the creation of the Right vs. Right approach as well as related thought leadership and techniques. Definitions, examples, and benefits are also provided. This is a core chapter, and readers may want to return to it when they use Right vs. Right for their own initiatives.
Introduction
The second, and perhaps most profound, of our developments was that of Right vs. Right. Distinguishing between right and wrong options is easy. But what if two people have reasonable approaches for something, but those approaches conflict? Expand this conflict to many, often thousands, of people involved in business initiatives and there is enormous opportunity for delays, strife, and lost business value.
What’s the Problem?
Culture clash is an issue when multiple companies are involved (for example, mergers, acquisitions, alliances). The global move to service-based economies is leading to more culture clash due to co-production between companies and their employees, clients, suppliers, and part-ners—situations where preferences, methods, and value systems differ (just to name a few).
The studies referenced in Chapter 1, “Introduction—An Overview of Tangible Culture,” indicate that we are dealing with a universal challenge. However, it has been difficult to pinpoint the reasons, much less define them in an actionable way. Right vs. Right helps us to both understand and act on the issues.
In answer to certain questions, you will hear people describe characteristics of their company’s culture. We call them Business Practices, and Chapter 6, “The Unseen Hand That Propels Organizational Action—Business Practices,” covers them in more detail. For instance, Table 5-1 shows what members of two companies may say.
Table 5-1. Company Traits
If these two companies merge, their differences would become evident—but not immediately in our experience. At first, the executives craft the merger intent and make strategic decisions about what the new organization will do. They may also define some principles, values, or behaviors to guide action. Table 5-2 shows some examples.
Table 5-2. Merged Company Priorities
These executives are likely to delegate operational decision making to people who are closer to the day-to-day details—and here is where the issues typically begin.
There are numerous ways to achieve the priorities mentioned above and, unfortunately, they often conflict with each other. Let’s look at just one of them: Customers are our top priority.
Company A, which encourages employees to do whatever it takes, believes that prioritizing customers means finding a way to do whatever the customer wants, even if it means agreeing to a customized solution. Company B, which focuses on standardization and its efficiencies, believes that it will provide customers with the fastest, lowest-cost solutions by avoiding customization and helping customers select from its menu of options. Both approaches are right, but they conflict.
The problem often manifests when a difficult decision arises—one where reasonable people can disagree about the right thing to do. For instance, a sales leader from Company A has a proposed contract he wants to get approved. The process requires him to get concurrence from a technical leader who came from Company B. The contract is significant—representing 10 percent of targeted revenues for the quarter, but it will require the company to agree to several expensive and technically difficult custom changes.
Both leaders understand and agree with the company priorities mentioned in Table 5-2. And that may be all the guidance available because executives have left the details on how to do these things to leaders at this level. Due to habit, and the absence of additional guidance, the sales and technical leaders will refer to their previous ways of doing things—and they are very likely to come up with different answers on what should happen.
Look at the traits in Table 5-1 again, and then see, in Table 5-3, how the leaders are likely to reach different answers based on those traits.
Table 5-3. Likely Responses Based on Company Traits
Sound familiar? These conflicts are almost inevitable where unreconciled Right vs. Right options exist. And do not think you are safe just because you are not merging—Right vs. Right surfaces in various situations (see Section II, “The Application”). The fallout is troubling.
First, there are delays—in both decisions and action. Then, strife creeps in. And it may extend beyond those directly involved due to the rumor mill (which is always active in these types of situations). Then, win/lose patterns emerge. We have seen two different types of win/lose:
“Winners and losers,” which emerges when some group (for example, Company A or a functional area, such as Finance), “wins” on a regular basis and the other “loses.” This can negatively impact morale, reduce the ability for certain groups to fulfill their charters, and lead to loss of key personnel.
“Win/lose, lose/win, win/lose, lose/win,” which emerges when the groups take turns winning. It may sound “fair,” but it is dangerous. There are inconsistencies that may be obvious to customers and others. Also, employees who do not know who “won” last time are less willing to make decisions, leading to more escalations and disempowerment.
“Globally distributed teams are especially fertile ground for subtle differences in assumptions and values about how organizations should operate. If left below the surface, such differences can result in dysfunctional team dynamics that detract from common goals. Using the ‘right versus right’ approach can surface hidden differences upfront so that they can become sources of creative tension and innovation instead of destruction.”
Marietta L. Baba
Dean and Professor of Anthropology
Michigan State University
What we have here is Right vs. Right—conflicting, yet viable options for achieving the merger intent. Now that we see them that way, the options become clearer. Because they are all “right” answers, we could
Choose one option, and exclude the other.
Choose one as predominant, and define exceptions where the other is appropriate.
Choose a combination of both approaches, and carefully define when each applies.
How Was Right vs. Right Discovered?
During the creation of BCS, we looked at continuums of options, each with logical endpoints, and made decisions on a five-point scale. Figure 5-1 shows some examples.
Figure 5-1. Integration continuums.
As we worked with these continuums, a series of interesting observations emerged:
With the five-point scale, we had to deal with precision that was not needed, or even helpful, for our purposes. For example, some participants would disagree about whether the answer was the left box (1) or the box right next to it (2). When we probed to understand the differences, the participants were clarifying answers that were quite close together—for instance the difference between 16 and 24, which would fall into different boxes but would not be discernibly different.
Some choices were dilemmas—things we simultaneously needed to do. And with dilemmas, we invariably selected the middle box. For example, to be successful, we would need both cost discipline and a focus on generating revenues. The key was not the choice, but rather to determine how best to do both, yet our continuums did not help with that.
Other choices represented different ways to perform the work. We found some differences of opinion between BIS and PwCC on some topics. For example, the role of staff functions (for example, Finance, Legal) in decision making was subject to debate because the companies had used different approaches. The ultimate decision meant both companies would need to make changes. Responsibility for client relationships was also debated. IBM did not want standalone consulting; instead, it wanted a business front end for its end-to-end capabilities. This meant multiple managers and some difficulties.
Others were easy to decide, but meant difficult transition issues. For example, decision processes and whether they should be rules based or judgment based had one appealing (and one not-so-appealing) choice. However, in a large corporate structure, governance is different than in a partnership. Although the preference was for judgment-based decision making, it would not always be under the control of BCS.
Still others left us with little actionable information because we were dealing with continuums so broad, we invariably selected the middle answer. For example, the continuum that plotted risk averse vs. risk taking was easily plotted smack dab in the middle. But what did it really tell us? In the end, the “answer” was not at all helpful for determining what to do.
Finally, yet importantly, use of the logical continuum approach required a “right/wrong” combination in several cases. For example, no one believed that individual consultants should make all their own project assignment decisions, so it was not really an option. Using the continuum, however, it became one of the endpoints to acknowledge individual consultants have a role in the process.
What we really needed was a process that would
Clarify needed information without undue precision.
Raise realistic options (not just the logical ones) for the needed decisions.
Surface and help to reconcile differences of opinions that could impede progress.
Help us to understand and reconcile dilemmas and other trade-offs where different groups had come to contradictory conclusions.
Clarify and help us to reconcile conflicting operational preferences—different organizational “habits” or norms.
Definitions and Examples
From these observations, Right vs. Right was born. The primary difference between Right vs. Right and the approach we used was a focus on “right” options only—options advocated as feasible for BCS yet in conflict with other advocated, feasible ones.
We also realized that a change to our five-point scale would remove needless precision. Now we would use an uneven scale, as shown in Table 5-4 (be sure to look at the percentage headers).
Table 5-4. Right vs. Right Uneven Scale
Table 5-5 shows some examples using the Right vs. Right approach.
Table 5-5. Example Right vs. Rights
Notice these specifics about the Right vs. Rights in Table 5-5:
Some are dilemmas where certain people or groups have identified a decision that conflicts with other decisions, as demonstrated in the first two examples.
Only viable, advocated options are considered, which means that some endpoints are not opposites or logical endpoints, such as those in the second two examples.
Some are operational preferences where previous organizational “habits” are different and need to be reconciled, demonstrated in the last two examples.
Right vs. Right also applies to mindsets, priorities, and policies (see Table 5-6).
Table 5-6. Right vs. Right Mindsets, Priorities, and Policies
To help you see how this works, here is an example from a reconciliation session. Table 5-7 shows the input we collected prior to the session.
Table 5-7. Right vs. Right Data Collected Prior to Reconciliation
The facilitator noticed that the group was split and initiated this discussion:
Facilitator: “I see you’re grouped around the middle, but there are some different opinions about top-down versus bottom-up. Who wants to share their view?”
Member 1: “Well, I’m the outlier so let me start. I think it’s a good idea to better understand the issues. With these projects, I’m concerned that we’ll get direction from the senior leaders, and then find things they didn’t know and need to amend the project definition. This can waste time and upset expectations.”
Member 2: “Interesting. Historically, we’ve started from the top, but I see what you are saying about these projects. There may be times when the senior leaders don’t know what they’re asking us to do and we could waste everyone’s time.”
Member 3: “That’s true, but how can we even approach the other leaders without the needed sponsor backing? That doesn’t make sense to me. We need commitment. We need to direct them on what information we need....”
During the discussion, the facilitator captured key elements of the discussion into a spreadsheet on an LCD projector for the participants to see. Eventually, the facilitator asked whether they were ready to make a decision.
“Remember, our standard is, ‘Can I live with this?’ not perfection.”
An open vote was taken and the group chose the middle answer. The discussion points were documented to demonstrate the thought processes, as shown in Table 5-8.
After the session, the information was refined and documented, and used to create Outcome Narratives.
Table 5-8. Results of Right vs. Right Reconciliation Session
Historically, we’ve been top-down, but this project means we’ll do more bottom-up. Use bottom-up if senior leaders request more information to understand the issue. Use bottom-up as influence strategy when appropriate—create the business case and sell up based on the nature of the senior leader. It is critical to get senior leader sponsorship, commitment, and follow through—important on the front end.
“The business case of BC S-PwCC shows clearly the powers that are unlocked when you are open to the process of enriching each other’s [sic] cultures rather than compromising them—capturing the power of ‘right versus right’ thinking in practice. Linear thought is replaced by cybernetic thought and the results are just amazing.”
Fons Trompenaars
Founder and Managing Director
Trompenaars Hampden-Turner
How “New” Is Right vs. Right?
Conflicts where humans are involved are certainly not new, and many ways exist to address them. In reviewing the Right vs. Right approach we had created, we knew we built on some thought leadership, and we uncovered other connections later. For example:
1. There are typically multiple perspectives that need to be considered before a lasting answer can be determined.
Stephen Covey’s seven habits refer to the importance of win/win and synergy—leveraging differences while finding ways to help everyone feel they can support the decision. Negotiation techniques often emphasize the importance of understanding the other party’s perspective so that a “win” can be found for everyone. Right vs. Right looks for differences that lead to conflicts and helps people constructively think through the answers that will work best, often through a combined approach.
Game theory, through thought leaders such as Robert Wright and Jorgen Weibull, has an emerging application to designing win/win “games” for all stakeholders in a change situation. Right vs. Right is a way to understand the perspectives needed to design a win/win for all stakeholders.
2. Some choices companies wrestle with are dilemmas—areas without easy answers.
When we first used the term Right vs. Right in early 2003, we discovered the Institute for Global Ethics, which also refers to Right vs. Right. Their context is ethical dilemmas, and their focus on stories is more akin to Outcome Narratives than how we use the term.
While IBM Research was honing these concepts, and unknown to those working on it, IBM engaged Trompenaars Hampden-Turner consulting to help the new BCS leaders with its Dilemma Reconciliation Process (DRP). The method uses the phrases “on the one hand, yet on the other hand” to help leaders work through dilemmas (Hampden-Turner, Trompenaars, and Woolliams). Both Right vs. Right and DRP seek answers for difficult questions, but they use different techniques. Also, Right vs. Right deals mostly with operating preferences. Where dilemmas are included, it is generally where groups have arrived at different answers to those dilemmas.
Polarity Management, published by Barry Johnson in 1992, is another way to look at organizational problems—specifically ones that need to be managed rather than solved. Although Right vs. Right targets areas where action can be taken, both approaches work on difficult business problems.
3. Many conflicts are based in conflicting values and what is important to people.
The Competing Values model was developed through research by John Campbell, Robert Quinn, and John Rohrbaugh, and applied by Kim Cameron and Quinn in Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. The model explains different orientations that characterize organizational behavior by looking at competing sets of values and created quadrants of Hierarchy, Clan, Adhocracy, and Market. The concept is similar to Right vs. Right because both are based in what has created effectiveness in the past.
And you may see additional connections not identified above.
So, Right vs. Right is a fresh way for businesses to work through conflicts, and it joins a list of other options for addressing them, too.
Benefits
Right vs. Right establishes boundaries and expectations for people to use in their work. They are similar to lines on a road: They help us to understand where to travel and avoid crashes, but they are flexible and we can drive over them when the conditions warrant it.
We have found a number of benefits from Right vs. Right, specifically the following:
Simply using the terminology Right vs. Right is constructive, and helps to get the reconciliation effort off to a good start.
The work is bounded by “right” answers, which helps to narrow the discussion—and ensures success no matter what answer is chosen.
Focusing on conflict areas concentrates attention where significant benefits can be gained (that is, helping to address productivity drains and increased risks from strife, frustration and dysfunctional norms—such as win/lose).
It can surface collective mindsets that differ between groups, or that need to be changed within the same organization to achieve new strategies or goals.
There’s another benefit to actively managing conflict: creative solutions. In their article “Want Collaboration? Accept—and Actively Manage—Conflict,” Weiss and Hughes emphasize that managing conflict effectively can lead to answers that would not have emerged without it. We have seen it happen, so we know they’re right!
In fact, we would go further and say that you must get to a place of disagreement with your vision. At the conceptual level, nearly everything sounds good. If everyone is nodding and there are no conflicts about how to execute your vision, you are likely to have unsurfaced Right vs. Rights. They will rear their ugly heads at some point—and later in the process makes them more difficult and costly to resolve.
Application
Right vs. Right involves the steps shown in Table 5-9 (visit www.almaden.ibm.com/tangibleculture to download a Right vs. Right tool).
Table 5-9. Work Steps for Right vs. Right
Conclusion
Right vs. Right is a new way of deciding among available options. It is constructive and focuses attention on ways to avoid delays, strife, frustration, and reduced productivity. It helps to address the culture clash that so often impedes progress and leads to failure on mergers, acquisitions, alliances, and restructuring.
Right vs. Right can be applied to dilemmas, tradeoffs such as cost-quality-schedule, operating preferences, and mindsets. And as you will see in the next chapter, it is especially applicable to Business Practices.
References
Cameron, K. S., and R. E. Quinn. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Series on Organization Development, 1999.
Covey, S. R. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Fireside, 1989.
Hampden-Turner, C., and F. Trompenaars. Building Cross-Cultural Competence: How to Create Wealth from Conflicting Values. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.
Institute for Global Ethics. www.globalethics.org.
Johnson, B. Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. Amherst: HRD Press, 1996.
Trompenaars, F., and P. Woolliams. Business Across Cultures. West Sussex, UK: Capstone Publishing, 2003.
Weibull, J. W. Evolutionary Game Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997.
Weiss, J., and J. Hughes. “Want Collaboration? Accept—and Actively Manage—Conflict.” Harvard Business Review, March 2005.
Wright, R. Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny. New York: Vintage Publishing, 2001.