Hangman - One Move

I was thinking about how we frame situations in our lives. This situation occurred in a meeting I attended some years ago now. I'm sitting with a guy (we'll call him Bud) in a meeting with other leaders in the organization. It is a multisite business with locations around the country, so meetings frequently involve video- and teleconferences. The main man leading the organization frequently tells people to speak their minds; that he is open to criticism.

At the meeting, the main man lays out a plan citing who would be involved and how things would proceed. Bud was struck by how certain people in the process were placed above others, even though the others were equally as important. He spoke his mind about it; and the other people in the room with him looked at him incredulously. Immediately after Bud finished speaking, he knew that he had gone over the line. A few minutes later he drew a hangman game on his notepad as they looked on. In this special version of the game, one had only one move before his guy was hung. When he showed the others at the table, they shook their heads in agreement and laughed.

Bud's comment would have been okay had he framed it properly. But, he allowed his emotion to influence his framing of the situation. Needless to say, the "main man" was not happy with Bud. The "main man" initially wanted Bud fired. They ironed things out, but it was touchy for a few days.

Bud became the poster child for a new game - "Hangman - one move."

Most organizations have hierarchical structures (represented on org charts) with a boss at the top, the workers on the bottom and some layers of administrators in the middle. Generally, the lower one is on the chart, the less money and power one has. Where one falls on the chart influences how one sees situations. The boss might present some plan for the future and be thinking about how that plan fits the structure of the organization or be looking at the plan relative to its political potential. Those at the bottom of the org chart, however, might be listening to the plan from the perspective of "what does this mean about the work I do?" They might also ask themselves, "how much will this cost me in time and effort?" For the guys at the bottom, the plan symbolizes something about who they are; not just what they make or how much they make. They also usually have little to say about the infringement on their personal lives for little extra benefit.

Looking back at Bud's case, we can see how the main man might have been looking from a structural and political perspective while Bud was looking through the symbolic frame.

Now we have a convergence of three perspectives, or frames: structural, political and symbolic. There are other frames as well, but these will be enough for now. Generally, we are aware that perspectives exist other than our own, but it is interesting how often we fail to use that awareness in the moment. Many times, even when we are aware of other perspectives, we have a tendency to elevate the importance of ours above the others. As we become increasingly invested in our ideas, we begin to lose our objectivity. (The origin of the word "object" means to be thrown from.) The closer we hold our ideas, the more difficult it is to throw them from us. We can't physically get another perspective on something that we hold too closely.

If my job as the boss in the organization is to make sure that the bottom line is protected, and I believe that I can accomplish that by focusing on who does what, when, and where, I distance myself from the capacity to see the "real" and immediate importance of whether Bob down on the line is experiencing "fulfillment" in his job. I become susceptible to framing the situation such that Bob's job is to do his job. If he needs "fulfillment," perhaps he should volunteer at an animal shelter or something. This attitude can, of course, make the boss seem like a thoughtless person. This particular response is very one sided; but it is often a reaction to one sidedness from others.

From the bottom of the org chart, the other side of the situation, the perspective can a little different. One can hear people say, "If the company would consider making my work meaningful, I would put in 110% and the bottom line would be very secure. We would be so far into the black that the concept of being in the red would not be a fading memory." This position can be very alienating to a boss like the one just above. Failure to come together in some type of real dialogue leaves both sides polarized, alienated and increasingly cynical. This happens in relationships, families, neighborhoods etc.

A powerful solution to the framing problem is to sit together in dialogue. Simply, this means to come together to consider the topic without trying to solve anything or convince anyone that your idea is the best, or even good. The first thing to do is try to understand the position of the others. In a dialogue, you are under no obligation to change your position. If, however, you truly participate in the process, you will come away with an expanded perspective on the topic. You can develop the habit of using all of the frames in your daily life.

(By the way, twenty years ago the top guy made about 40 times more than the bottom guy. Now the top guy makes 400 times those at the bottom. This is not directly related to my topic today. I just thought it was interesting. Food for cynicism - a topic coming up.)