Moving up a Level

Here is a little trick I learnt as a Shell GBLP faculty, but which applies in many situations. If you are bogged down in detail or want to communicate powerfully, consider moving the conversation to the next level up.

By explaining the GBLP context, I hope I can make this clearer. In GBLP, candidates were asked to play a particular role in a series of business exercises. Maybe they were handling an operational meeting with a difficult partner, or trying to coach a staff member, or trying to get a project back on track. The simulations were written to be challenging and to require a lot of thinking and acting spontaneously.

Candidates often struggled, and in different ways. Two types of struggle were very common. Some became overwhelmed and found it hard to act with structure or make any progress at all. Others were quite active, but got lost in detail, hammering on about the issue at hand but unable to give any context or motivation.

It was hard to help the overwhelmed. Often they just needed more composure or experience at this kind of situation, and were betraying their immaturity and lack of readiness for this sort of tough role. Either they needed more time or practice, or perhaps their career had some limiting factors.

But my tip could help the detail people. I would ask them to appeal to a higher authority. That didn’t mean God, or even the boss, but something more in reach. They could progress if they found some common ground with the person they were arguing with.

Three types of common ground were often readily available, if only candidates could emerge from the morass and step back far enough. One was the vision or strategy. The second was the customer. And the third was the team or staff.

If they were stuck in an argument, the role players on the other side were told to just carry on. But if the candidate had the presence of mind to change the discussion, the role player responded. So something like: “This is all true and we have to resolve it, but let us not forget what we are trying to do here for our customer. He does not care about this detail, but he definitely wants us to reach an agreement.” Something similar for vision or strategy or team can easily replace the customer.

This does the trick. It changes the nature of the discussion. The other side always responds, even if it is not a role-play exercise. By appealing to some common ground, the atmosphere becomes about seeking a resolution rather than prolonging a dispute.

I call this moving up a level and I try to use it in many situations. It is a good general rule, that if you seem to be stuck in a dispute, moving up a level always helps.

Sometimes the dispute as an internal one with yourself. Should I tip this waiter who provided very ordinary service? Wow, that mechanic should have warned me before handing me that bill? That driver was rude and dangerous, I want to pay him back.

This sort of everyday situation makes us angry, gives us stress, and causes us to start fights. But try going up a level. Perhaps you are in a foreign country where things are cheap and even a 30% tip would amount to less than your daily Starbucks. Perhaps the mechanic will respond better to some humour or some begging than to anger, and you can do a better deal and remain friends for next time. And the driver will be rude and dangerous to others whether you honk your horn or not, but your kids in the back seat care will be put more in jeopardy if you start driving the same way.

Sometimes I wonder if this basic rule has eluded some of our politicians. It was obvious from the start that the brinkmanship leading to the closing down of congress was not going to work, but the players became more and more stuck in their petty argument and failed to see the big picture. For them the biggest picture they ever see is a headline in tomorrow’s local newspaper. Gradual erosion of their party base would be a more useful starting point. Public trust in democracy and the decline in America’s standing in the world might be even more useful to bear in mind.

There are some interesting books appearing about the origins of the first world war as we approach its centenary. That moment in 1914 shaped much of the next hundred years so it is fascinating to find out about the characters involved. One thing is clear, people became so stuck in the tiny detail that they initiated something of huge negative consequence to themselves and everyone else. One player was obsessed by a personal sleight. An army leader put building his power base above all else. Tragically, no one was able to go up a level.

Obama is a master at going up a level. He is always able to see and articulate a bigger picture, and use it to motivate people. That is how he got elected and then re-elected. Kennedy had the same, whereas someone like Angela Merkel relies more on the daily grind. It remains to be seen whether Obama’s legacy reflects this ability, though the recent deal with Iran looks promising, and it is possibly the harbinger of other good things. Kennedy may have been flawed in many ways, but ultimately his legacy includes major progress on minority rights and the beginning of the de-escalation of the cold war. That is not bad.

But the Obama example shows that going up a level, while always a good approach, is rarely sufficient. Two other things are necessary.

The first is the ability to find a higher power to appeal to. You cannot go up a level when there is no such common ground. This is why the level of the nation state remains such a frustrating blocker to progress on many issues. Climate change is one example, but others include eradication of poverty, reforming finance and middle east tensions. A little bit of common ground would go a long way in each example, but the only appeal anyone can make is an altruistic one. That is not enough when weighed against the interests of re-election and national competition.

The second requirement goes back to the example. Moving to a higher level can take the conversation away from petty disputes. But the petty disputes do not go away. At some point it is still necessary to resolve them, and that takes hard, painstaking work. Obama has shown himself notably unwilling or unable to do this.

I recently read a quote from Bill Clinton about Obama, in both Time and the Economist. Clinton points out that Obama has been brilliant at all the difficult things, but has been undermined by failing in all the easy ones. Success needs both.

So remember the skill of taking disputes to a higher level, it almost always works. But remember also to come back and fix the disputes as well. Even in a positive atmosphere, that is still needed.