To learn about change you can study Hegel,
But it's plain to see if you toast a bagel.
You put it in a toaster that's electric.
The bagel heats up; everything gets hectic.
Then it pops up, and that's a dialectic.
At first, 2 × 2 modeling appears rather straightforward and obvious: pick a couple of variables influencing something that matters, like profitability and time, place them on a standard x-y grid, and you're done. Right! But as most readers know, this is unlikely to produce anything of insight or value. The bare essentials of matrix building have been attended to, but all the detail and nuance are missing. It is like equating fine cooking with a well-stocked kitchen or medical treatment with a lab coat and a doctor's office.
Although the requirements of the form have been met, key ingredients are missing: these are the knowledge-intensive, hard-fought lessons of experience that guide us in making critical choices. The lessons are expressed as method—steps, procedures, and guidelines—and mastery—a deeper level of wisdom that comes from direct contact and watching great practitioners up close. The greatest source of insight into this process comes from the philosophical domain of study called dialectics. We draw extensively on dialectics in making sense of high-impact 2 × 2 modeling and problem solving.
From the Greek dialectiké, the origin of the term dialectic is literally the art (techne) of philosophical discussion. The meaning has shifted since the days of Heraclitus and Socrates to embody a set of beliefs about the nature of change and the structure of thinking and discovery processes. Nothing exists in isolation; nothing occurs or exists independent of other events and systems. Facts, issues, and processes need to be examined within a larger context by exploring their logical opposites, internal tension, purpose, and history. The dialectical perspective pushes us to search for meaning beyond the level of obvious, visible evidence, focusing on the dynamic relationship between things and how they evolve.
The benefits for problem solving and design are significant. Dialectical thinkers are better and faster at framing, exploring, and resolving problems. If you believe there is a single right and wrong approach to most things, you are probably not a dialectician. Dialectical thinkers are able to wend their way through complex and difficult challenges because they are less likely to ignore messages that trouble them. They see both-and potential rather than either-or forced choices in situations (see Chapter One). If you naturally ask what-if questions to generate alternative views, you are likely to be a dialectical thinker. Dialectical thinkers free themselves up to quickly create and sort a larger list of possible problem statements and solutions. They like to put things in perspective and are suspicious of easy, simple answers to complex problems.
Dialectical method is ultimately about transcendence. This means getting beyond the initial view of a problem or situation to gain a new, more helpful perspective. In business and social contexts, this often involves influencing the feelings people have about an issue that stand in the way of progress. To do this well and consistently, you need form (the 2 × 2 matrix), method (a process), and mastery (principles and competency).
The starting point is the 2 × 2 matrix itself and understanding why it works. When Blaise Pascal, father of probability theory, sought a rationale for pursuing a religious path, he applied his exceptional intellect to create the argument contained in Figure 2.1. Either God exists or not. We can live a religious life, acting as if God existed, or we can live hedonistically without moral restraint. If God does indeed exist and we have lived an unruly life (God forbid), the price is eternal damnation. The opposite, living piously in a godless universe, isn't really very bad at all, he surmised. By applying 2 × 2 logic to the issue, he was able to present one of the most compelling non-faith-based arguments for following a religious path. A creative blend of theology and mathematics, this formulation is considered by many to be the first example of what is now called decision theory.[12]
The use of intersecting x- and y-axes (used in all 2 × 2 modeling) is basic to statistical methods, ranging from the t-test to multivariate factor analyses. Statistics concerns itself principally with the classification, quantification, and measurement of relationships. By comparing different states of possibly related items on a simple matrix grid, we are able to note and test patterns, converting quantitative into qualitative value, or numbers to meaning.
Two characteristics make the form so powerful: simplicity and limits. Simplicity makes the 2 × 2 matrix intuitive to apply and easy to communicate to others. There is no need to waste time with elaborate explanations of the method itself. The form is obvious. And yet it is capable of supporting and expressing the most complex sorts of material, from economic forecasts in supply and demand calculations to negotiation strategies modeled with the use of Game Theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma.
Limits are imposed through the selection of a single issue, which is then precisely and dynamically defined through the choice of two prime, opposing forces. With limits come focus and tension, essential aspects of the 2 × 2 problem-solving process.
Together, simplicity and limits render the humble 2 × 2 matrix natural, adaptive to many situations, highly scalable, and as useful at the individual level as it is for addressing national policy considerations.
The 2 × 2 matrix is a tool, much like primary colors and elemental shapes such as circles and lines. Although the form is there for all of us to use, some apply it better than others, just as some of us are better at painting or manipulating shapes and building things. To improve our success in using the 2 × 2 matrix, we need to add method and mastery.
When Plato described Socrates' logic as dialectical, he was referring to the intensely honest and courageous investigation of important subjects, including, or perhaps especially, the self and reality. The Socratic method as used to adroitly elicit curiosity and promote learning is the practical application of this form of dialectic.
Table 2.1. Examples of Form, Method, and Mastery
Domain | Form | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Ingredients, pots, pans, stove, kitchen | Recipes, cookbooks | Touch, creativity, scalability | |
Building materials, equipment | Blueprints, building methods, and codes | Taste, design, beauty, strength, ideal trade-offs | |
Equipment, drugs, hospital | Procedures, manuals, protocols | Diagnostic accuracy and speed, healing ability | |
Equipment, labs, substances, projects | Scientific method, test procedures, formulas | Sixth sense, patience, accumulated knowledge | |
Curriculum, class-rooms, instruction, roles of teacher and pupil | Pedagogy and androgogy | Insight, timing, sensitivity, ability to inspire | |
Roles, responsibilities | Theories, methods, principles learned from books, courses, TV | Intuition, trust, anticipation, inspiration | |
Instruments, songs, performance halls | Lessons, technique | Virtuosity, interpretation, ability to move listeners |
The definition of dialectical method took firmer shape around the start of the nineteenth century thanks to the efforts of the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. Building on the conceptual work of Immanuel Kant, Hegel observed the importance of contradiction for progress—how forces seemed to elicit their complement and vied with each other for dominance, ultimately resolving in some fashion. "Contradiction," he wrote, "is the root of all movement and vitality, and it is only insofar as it contains a contradiction that anything has impulse and activity."[13]
With dialectical reasoning, Hegel created an intellectual method to address issues and raise the quality of logic and discourse among his contemporaries. According to Hegel, the thesis and antithesis of an important issue are pursued in tandem until their resolution is found in the synthesis.
You begin with a single idea, which he called the thesis. Consider, for example, the impact of scientific methods in areas such as medicine, agriculture, and psychology. In prescientific time, people made sense of events in the natural world with explanations based in folklore, religion, and superstition (thesis). As scientific tools and methods improved, the old beliefs fell into disrepute (antithesis). In time, science hit its own limits, encountering problems that could not be solved. On occasion, scientific solutions created entirely new problems as secondary effects of themselves; consider pollution levels, treatment-resistant germs, and urban sprawl. Resolution of the tension set up between the two points of view (the synthesis) presents us with new possibilities that draw on both traditions. Today we see increasing openness to blends of naturalistic and scientific orientations. In medicine, for example, this is taking the form of integrated Eastern and Western practices, drawing on science-based cures while promoting balanced living, natural foods, and exercises like yoga and forms of meditation.
Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx applied Hegel's dialectical formula to the analysis of power structures and forms of economic and political organization. They concluded that tensions between owners of value (thesis) and creators of value (antithesis) would ultimately lead to more egalitarian and fair structures (synthesis).
According to Hegel and his contemporaries, the process does not end after a single cycle. Each resolution of tension typically contains its own contradiction, sparking a new round of investigation. Thus goes the dialectical process.
In Chapters Four and Five, we provide two levels of dialectical problem-solving method. Chapter Four is a nuts-and-bolts tutorial that describes exactly how to go about constructing a powerful and original 2 × 2 matrix in response to a problem situation. This is a primer that takes the reader from issue definition through to choosing and testing the two essential dimensions that form the matrix. Chapter Five moves up a logical level, placing 2 × 2 Thinking within the context of organizational problem solving and strategy formulation.
2 × 2 Thinking offers a different approach to qualifying issues. Problems that stick around suggest there are underlying factors in need of exploration and development rather than elimination. Properly and squarely viewed, problems such as these become opportunities. Dialectical thinking helps to quickly surface and resolve core conflicts and dilemmas, ensuring that attention is directed toward the areas needing understanding and management. Chapter Five illustrates the power of this approach with the case of strategy formulation at Fujitsu Corporation's North American Retail business.
A young colleague of ours and his fiancée recently enrolled in an eight-session Latin dance course. Both novices and with their wedding two months away, they recognized an opportunity to acquire a lifelong skill that would pay off in the short term at their wedding. The first class was all about the fundamental structure and basic dance moves (form). Over the next few weeks, they learned a myriad of combinations (method), gaining confidence and a bit of flair through repetition and feedback provided by the two expert instructors (mastery). By week eight, they felt they could recognize and appreciate mastery when they saw it . . ., and they understood how much work it would take to achieve it. Suitably inspired by the experience, they are on their way!
Mastery is a combination of talent, dedication, effort, and experience. It generally takes time, risk, and sometimes failure. There is the well-known story of Thomas Watson refusing the resignation of one of his young managers at IBM who had made an error that cost the company $10 million. Watson's response was, "No way": IBM had invested $10 million in the man's development, and he was unlikely to make this kind of mistake ever again.[14]
Mastery is why we pay more for the top performer to do essentially the same job a junior person could do and feel that we are getting a good deal. Who wants a twenty-something medical specialist operating on them or a junior law associate handling a complex business transaction? Certainly they should be part of the team, but we want seasoned professionals on the job when the stakes are high. Mastery is hard to transfer, which is why mentoring and coaching are so important for certain kinds of learning. Mastery is composed primarily of what Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotake Takeuchi, coauthors of The Knowledge-Creating Company, call tacit knowledge: personal and difficult to express and pass on formally.[15] (See the framework write-up in Chapter Seven for a fuller description of this point.)
Mastery in deploying 2 × 2 modeling is no small thing, and true to Nonaka and Takeuchi's notion of tacit knowledge, it is indeed a challenge to capture it in a few words and pictures. You learn the craft as you use it. We suggest keeping in mind the five mastery principles set out in Table 2.2 as you apply 2 × 2 Thinking. Periodically, it is worth performing a quick process audit to ensure that the principles are reflected in your approach.
Tension results from unresolved opposition between forces. Archery is a good example. Pulling back on the string intensifies tension between the two ends of the bow. When the arrow is released at the optimal point, it flies forward with full force. Add aim, and the archer hits the target.
Apply the same thinking to the now famous Balance Theory of Supply and Demand (featured in the film A Beautiful Mind). Pricing is dynamically set by respecting the naturally opposed forces of availability of something (the push of Supply) and the need for it (the pull of Demand), as measured by price and quantity. This same tension exists in Steven Covey's Urgency versus Importance formulation. Calculation of Urgency versus Importance is most valuable when time is scarce, forcing attention to pressing but ultimately mundane tasks, perpetually postponing more significant life or business priorities. Remove the time pressure, and the exercise loses its tension and ultimately its purpose. Find the tension, and purpose and value return. A different 2 × 2 model, perhaps one that contrasts Importance with Cost or Capability, might be more relevant and capable of generating useful insights.
Table 2.2. Principles of 2 × 2 Mastery
Dialectical axiom: Ensure that creative tension exists between the two axes to provide the energy and aim necessary for success.
Hegel observed that opposition is the source of forward movement. Tension is born of such difference and struggle, seeking out resolution at a new and higher level. The key to harnessing this power lies in selection of the core dialectical struggle and identification of the competing forces. Get it wrong, and you're wasting your time.
As applied to problem solving and design, we have identified three legitimate forms of opposition and one artificial one that we call the false dialectic. Our primary concern is that the forces be independent of each other (statistically orthogonal). The simple test for dialectical opposition is the possibility of four plausible options resulting from combinations of high and low conditions of the two forces.
Direct opposition. This is the purest form of opposition and accounts for approximately a quarter of the frameworks included in this book. Examples are Drucker's Getting It Right (Right Job versus Doing the Job Right) and Covey's Urgency versus Importance. These dialectics are the most glaring instances of apparent either-or tension. The test for direct opposition is the ability to place the two dimensions on a single continuum. For example, Urgency and Importance are instances of priority, ranging from immediate to long term; Right Job and Doing the Job Right are aspects of work.
Complementary opposition. This category refers to opposition between factors that are qualitatively different yet interdependent in a relevant way. They could never exist as the polar ends of a single scale, unless the scale is of a generic nature like focus, which doesn't count. Ansoff's Product-Market matrix and the BCG Grid (Market Growth versus Competitive Positioning) are examples of complementary opposition.
Although the two factors are not strictly opposites, they create a dynamic field of interaction seeking resolution. Taken together, they succinctly account for a significant amount of variation possible in a situation. This is important because the selection of these factors serves to constrain and direct problem-solving efforts. The insight or energy generated is proportional to the amount of leverage represented by the dialectical dimensions that are chosen.
Many dialectics of this type can be broken apart to create two directly opposed matrices (the first type of opposition), yielding different and often more granular insights. Ansoff's classic strategy formulation separates easily into two new matrices, one profiling Markets and the other Products. As Figure 2.2 illustrates, by contrasting Existing Markets (Yes versus No) and New Markets (Yes versus No), we are able to map the four market strategy options available to a firm.
Reflexive opposition. Another form of opposition occurs when a single category is used to represent both of the dialectical dimensions, viewed from two or more perspectives. The Prisoner's Dilemma and Johari Window (both found in Chapter Six) are examples. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, parties must choose a collaborative or competitive strategy without knowing what the other's choices will be. The Johari Window compares Self-Knowledge with what Others know or don't know about the Self. These matrices are properly viewed as a variation of direct opposition.
False dialectic. False dialectics occur when change in one factor (a dependent variable) results from changes in the other (the independent variable). When investment leads to growth all the time, the relationship is not dialectical but causal. Viewed graphically, these false dialectics yield a diagonal plot line from the lower left to the upper right of an x-y grid. When set in a 2 × 2 matrix, they tend to define only two plausible options: low-low and high-high. False dialectics have their place as valuable analytic and modeling tools; however, for this purpose, it is important to understand the differences to avoid null and frustrating exercises. Tom Stewart's modeling of Knowledge Intensity in Figure 2.3 is an example of a useful analytic matrix that presents a false dialectic.
Dialectical axiom: Ensure that opposition between forces is real. Understand it, and exploit it.
The buildup and release of tensions are best understood within the context of the complex sets of processes and relationships that surround the issue in question. No problems exist in isolation or should be studied separate from their natural context. This might appear to render the exercise of dialectical 2 × 2 modeling paradoxical and contradictory—we isolate to integrate—however maintaining this perspective is critical for drawing full value from the process. By setting limits and selecting critical dimensions, we add focus and energy to our efforts, knowing full well that some exclusion and distortion will result. Critics of 2 × 2 modeling will challenge (often with validity) that reality is more complex than any two variables, however carefully they are selected. Of course, it is! At every step, therefore, the process must remain true and accountable to real-world constraints and reality testing.
When allowed to flow naturally and freely, most problems progress in a cyclical manner, oscillating from side to side, with each resolution (synthesis) constituting a new starting point (thesis). Charlie Fine, MIT professor and author of Clockspeed, observes this perpetual pattern in market and organizational behavior, likening it to Watson and Crick's double helix (Figure 2.4): "Business genetics features the industrial equivalent of the double helix—a model based on an infinite double loop that cycles between vertically integrated industries inhabited by corporate behemoths and horizontally disintegrated industries populated by myriad innovators, each seeking a niche in the wide open space left by the earlier demise of the giant."[16]
Consider the following example of an iterative, cyclical application of 2 × 2 modeling to solve a personal planning dilemma. In a recent lunch conversation we had with a colleague in the midst of a career transition, he asked, "So, given my options, what do you think I should do?" Being trained consultants, we of course responded with questions, which thankfully in this case happened to be the most helpful response: What excites you most? What are you really best at? Do you want a satisfying experience or financial security? How marketable are you at this moment, and are you prepared to wait for the ideal fit? In serial fashion, we built several 2 × 2 matrices, leading eventually to his choosing a different direction from the one he had been favoring. Although entrepreneurial activity was appealing to him, his strongest skills lay in coaching and facilitation. He realized that his deepest satisfaction came from guiding others in their business deliberations rather than managing a business himself. On the question of financial pressures, he saw that the urgency to decide was in fact artificial, driving him toward a shortsighted choice he might later regret.
The application of 2 × 2 logic and method to a real and urgent problem at once enriched and grounded the discussion. We suspect the same conversation might have felt superficial if the circumstances had been hypothetical.
Dialectical axiom: Return regularly to the natural context of the problem to maintain perspective and urgency. The value of 2 × 2 Thinking is directly proportional to the timeliness and importance of the topic. Go directly to the heart of the matter; address essential rather than peripheral points.
2 × 2 modeling is characterized by discovery and unpredictability. The two axes set the tone and challenge level for the ensuing search. When a process is conducted with integrity and openness, results are often surprising. Referring to his work on large-scale systems change, a long-time colleague of ours, John Cotter, inscribed on his stationery, "When you dance with a bear, you don't decide when to stop." The same can be said of 2 × 2 modeling, where investigation of unanticipated outcomes is often the most rewarding path.
When Royal Dutch Shell developed a scenario of a possible world oil embargo in the 1970s, it could have trivialized and skirted the unpleasant finding. Instead, it readied itself for such a situation, and several years later when the scenario became reality, was the best prepared of the major oil companies, with ample supplies and backup facilities to maintain operations. For a number of years, GE enforced a disciplined assessment of its competitive market position for all of its businesses. Priorities were determined by contrasting market attractiveness with GE's relative strength in that marketplace. If it could not occupy one of the top two spots in an industry that was demonstrably desirable, the unit was sold, disappointing some executives, but increasing earnings by 559 percent through the 1990s.[17]
Dialectical axiom: Stay open to what emerges, building on interim findings. As in the example of our colleague engaged in career planning, the greatest gains are made when the process is characterized by openness, integrity, and courage. One observation leads to another insight, which eventually sheds important light on the central topic.
Dialectical thinkers write about transformation rather than adaptation. Change creeps along slowly until something entirely new suddenly appears on the scene. Quantitative change leads to qualitative change once a threshold is reached. The butterfly is not a caterpillar with wings, and steam is not merely heated water but a new state. In human experience, love and trust are of a different order from the series of events and experiences leading up to them.
The whole purpose of dialectical, 2 × 2 Thinking is to attain a transcendent perspective, creating new options or moving beyond negative or stuck feelings that render progress impossible. (Self) consciousness is critical in achieving transcendence, which is always an active process demanding effort and imagination. This is why 2 × 2 modeling is so effective in team design efforts and for the resolution of interpersonal and interorganizational conflict. Hubert Saint-Onge, coauthor of Leveraging Communities of Practice for Strategic Advantage, describes this power of 2 × 2 reasoning as a function of language: "When conflicting parties agree on the definition of the axes of the matrix and start dialoguing about what to name the four quadrants, I know they are going to work things out. They now have unwittingly started to create common language for resolving their differences, which is a bridge to seeing what they have in common."[18]
Dialectical axiom: Seek out opportunities to reframe. The answer often lies in perspective, which implies letting go of some old views.
Form alone is mechanical and aimless. Resorting to 2 × 2 modeling without method and mastery risks tackling the wrong issue or staying on the surface. Method without form and mastery is a frustrating and inefficient endeavor. It's like having the recipe for a cake but lacking both the proper cooking pans and that sixth sense that guides an experienced pastry chef. Mastery on its own is interesting, but most efforts are a lot easier when the tools and processes are available.
All this is most useful when the issue being tackled is suitable ground for dialectical treatment. As an analogy, it may be true that exercise is generally good for everyone, but it is not always the best response to a problem (such as marital difficulties or declining sales), and there is a wide assortment of exercise regimens available. Barry Johnson, author of Polarity Management, makes an interesting distinction between problems that can be solved and "polarities" that need to be managed.[19] The two defining features of polarities are that they tend to be ongoing and the polar forces or choices are interdependent. This is helpful. Chapter Three sets out the eight most interesting classes of polarity worth managing. (For a sampling of the diagnostic and modeling power of the archetypal dilemmas, try out the self-assessment guide on page 56.) When you target a real and pressing archetype with form, method, and, most important, mastery (Figure 2.5), problems become the launching pads for valuable insights and opportunity identification.
