Solution-Building™: An Introduction, Part 4
This week I want to start to address an important issue: ego.
Ego is an important part of personality; it defines us to ourselves as who we are. It is very intimately internal to each of us. Ego, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad but how we express our ego to those around us will influence how they see us. It will also influence how they relate to and work with us.
Where does ego fit into Solution-Building? The short answer is that it is a very important part and, to some extent, is a major component of what makes Solution-Building work. But it is a two-edged sword in that it can also make Solution-Building, or, to be honest, any effort at decision-making, fail.
The positive side of ego is what encourages us to understand that we can make contributions that can be meaningful to any discussion. It is also what makes it possible to listen dispassionately to questions and critical comments about our contributions.
A healthy ego also influences the way we respond to the ideas and proposals from others. It allows us to look carefully at those ideas and proposals and seriously consider the merits and possible flaws in them. It helps us do that without denigrating the ideas or those offering them.
Perhaps the most important part of healthy ego is that we can avoid the belief that our ideas are obviously better than others, which leads us to seek flaws in those other ideas that help us reject them in favor of our own. When we can look at all ideas, including our own, as being potentially valuable, we are more capable of participating in synthesizing truly effective decisions and solutions to problems by taking the best components from wherever they arise and from whomever they are offered.
We can even accept that, in the end, our ideas were not part of the result and understand why.
But what happens when a participant appears to lack sufficient ego to believe they can contribute meaningfully? One outcome is that participant will not, well, participate. The fear of looking foolish, of not having worthwhile contributions to make, of not really being “smart” enough to be an active participant, or being intimidated by someone else in the group; all of these and more inhibit their participation.
In reality, this attitude, no matter its origin, deprives the group of potentially useful ideas, and perspectives on ideas, from being put forward. No one has all the pieces of the puzzle being worked through and, usually, everyone has some part, potentially an important part, that can help the process succeed. By not participating they may be preventing the group from finding the best workable solution or decision.
How do we draw them into the discussion? This can be difficult to do in a group setting. You just can’t demand they participate by asking a question like “Well, George, what do you think?” in a meeting. If you get any answer at all it will be something along the lines of “I agree with Judy” or “I really don’t have anything to add” or “Everything I can think of has already been said.” In other words, a neutral and useless response. In fact, it will set George up to look foolish or even unintelligent. At which point he will no longer want to participate in any way.
The facilitator may want to speak with him outside the meeting, which may or may not elicit anything useful. Or, knowing that George will not openly participate, she may try something a bit different like having the entire group write out all their ideas anonymously and separately, put them into a box, then draw them out randomly and list them. This may help the Georges of the meeting feel more comfortable about offering ideas.
This may sound a bit sophomoric but the goal is to get the participation of everyone. It is not practical for every meeting or every topic but may just break the ice so that the desired universal participation can at least start. There may also be other ways such as giving “homework” between meetings by assigning topics to research that are related to the question at hand and having short presentations or discussions from each participant about the topic they were asked to look into. Those presentations could include suggestions for integrating the information into the discussions.
There are many ways that ego can facilitate active and useful discussion in groups charged with making decisions or solving problems. The clear value is in the ability for the group to have positive exchanges of ideas and the examination of those ideas that comes from an atmosphere that is conducive to open evaluation of all points of view.
But there is a dark side to ego as well, a side that squashes discussion and is not aimed at achieving the most effective result. I will address that next week.