“Being against something is easy!” - Richard Seidl
“All happy families are similar; but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own special way.” So begins the classic Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy. These words have been with me since a seminar a few months ago and are currently finding a resonance in a topic that I keep noticing in society, politics and companies. It’s about the basic motivation of people and groups. Specifically, the meta-program Add/away from.
We are currently experiencing a lot of controversy and conflict in our world and the debate between pros and cons, this or that. But what is right or wrong? In many areas, I don’t think it’s that easy to answer. For one thing, the criterion of black and white no longer works - the world is complex in its shades of grey and many bright colors, all of which are “right” somewhere. And then there is always the question: when does a story begin and when does it end? And depending on the starting point, there may be more arguments for one side - or the other.
But apart from that, there is another phenomenon: it is easier to bring people together for a “away-from” than for an “towards”. Although this is not actually true, because there are often many “away-froms” behind this. Let’s take the example of political opposition: it is much easier to be against something than for something. The reason? Lots of them! It unites rejection, one person doesn’t like this, another doesn’t like that. One person is afraid of this, another is afraid of that. No matter. Against it!
Conversely, it is much more difficult to get everyone pulling in the same direction. Finding a common goal that attracts and unites - and it should also be emotionally appealing. You can clearly see that difficulties arise when long-standing opposition parties come into government. It then quickly becomes apparent that they were not so united on the issue after all. Internal quarrels and difficulties begin. What previously seemed so strong turns out to be a false strength when it comes to making a constructive contribution, shaping and pursuing a common goal.
It’s no different in our development teams. Let’s have a retrospective! That won’t work because one participant thinks
- not having time
- that the previous retros have achieved nothing
- that the hierarchy levels must be taken into account
- that we can’t achieve anything anyway
- that the retro formats are just a gimmick
- that the workshop leader/coach is a pipe
- not to be told anything by him anyway
- …
And now, of course, we can fall into the argumentation trap: But look, this is such a great format, we can use it to develop further! Silence.
In the most mediocre case, this is the end of the matter. In the worst case, the conflict intensifies. Arguments, counter-arguments, insults, coalitions, oppositions. In the end: a massive waste of time.
A few ideas on how to deal with opposites sorting and such situations:
1 What’s in it for me: We like to argue with things that are important to US. But what is much more interesting: What does the other person need? Why does he say no? What fear do they have? We have to give them the answer: What’s in it for him? 2. emotional goal: We have to develop a goal that is attractive. A 10% increase in turnover is unlikely to win over an employee. Appreciation for their work might. This needs to be worked out. Start-ups and small companies have a much easier time of it. Because there the purpose of the activities, the why, is much closer to the employee and much more tangible than in the 7th management level as a clerk in a corporation. But emotionalization is also possible here! 3 We could also be wrong: Anyone who engages in an honest discussion has to be okay with possibly being wrong. If you know in advance “I’m right and now I have to convince you”, you won’t achieve much. Unfortunately, we have lost this admission nowadays.
And perhaps a whole new possibility will suddenly arise in the discussion. Could be, couldn’t it? No? But it’s possible. Just go for it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why isn’t a “pros and cons” approach enough when dealing with complex topics?
Because a black-and-white approach doesn’t do justice to the issue. Many positions are valid from their own perspective; the world consists of shades of gray and colors. Then there’s the starting point: Depending on when you begin a story and when you end it, there are more arguments in favor of one side or the other.
Why is it easier to win people over against something than for something?
Rejection brings people together without requiring agreement. Behind a shared “no” there are usually many different reasons for walking away: one person dislikes this point, another that one; one has a fear here, another there. A “move toward,” on the other hand, requires a shared goal that attracts, unites, and appeals emotionally. That is significantly more difficult.
Why does an alliance based solely on opposition often fall apart?
Because its strength is an illusion. This becomes most evident when long-standing opposition parties enter the government: As soon as it comes to contributing something constructive and pursuing a common goal, it becomes obvious that there was never actually agreement on the issue. Internal squabbles and difficulties follow.
Does it help to counter resistance within a team with good arguments?
No, that usually leads into the trap of endless argumentation. Anyone who responds to objections by pointing out just how helpful a particular approach is will, at best, be met with silence. In the worst-case scenario, the conflict escalates: arguments, counterarguments, insults, coalitions, and opposition. The result is a massive waste of time.
How do you deal with people who are fundamentally opposed to something from the start?
You have to shift your focus away from your own arguments. We tend to argue based on things that are important to us. What’s more interesting is: What does the other person need? Why are they saying no, what fear lies behind it, and what’s in it for them? You have to give them that answer—not your own.
Why do sales targets rarely motivate employees?
Because they don’t resonate emotionally. A ten percent increase in sales hardly inspires anyone, whereas appreciation for one’s own work certainly does. Startups and small businesses have an easier time here because the purpose of the work is tangible. Someone working as a clerical employee in a large corporation, seven management levels down, is far removed from the “why.” Yet it’s still possible to make the discussion emotionally engaging.
What mindset is needed for an honest discussion?
The willingness to admit you might be wrong. Anyone who already knows they’re right and just needs to convince others will achieve little. This kind of admission has become rare. The benefit is that a conversation can open up an entirely new possibility that no one had thought of before.
