Inverted_question_mark_alternate.svgInverted_question_mark_alternate_inverted.svgInverted_question_mark_alternate.svg

Leading creativity and social innovation requires strong organizational tools. One such tool involves beginning with the right questions. As Einstein wrote, “To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.” What questions should leaders employ in framing their vision, mission and strategy?

In approaching this subject, let us begin by surfacing three highly dysfunctional questions that thwart progress in organizations. Think of these as counter-examples, almost doppelgängers of the right questions. For those not steeped in German words invited into English, a doppelgänger is the ghostly, evil twin of a person, a dark, antimatter alternative to the living!

Unfortunately, people generally use these dysfunctional “antimatter” questions to orient themselves within groups, at work, in relationships, in society at large, and even within the framework of their entire lives.

So, beginning with the questions from the dark side:

  • First, what is wrong, and how did it get so wrong?
  • Second, who is to blame, and how can they be stopped, punished or held accountable?
  • Third, how do we prevent things from going wrong in the future?

If you find your mind and heart filled with these unfortunate questions, my advice to you is this: start over. These questions and their cousins generally lead work teams into a dark psychological state filled with feelings of unhappiness, depression, anger, frustration, revenge and fear.

Nevertheless, these dysfunctional questions animate vast amounts of strategic thinking in our society. Turn on cable news, pick up a newspaper, watch Congress. Most of what you hear and read will be oriented with reference to these questions and emotions.

As one example among literally thousands, consider the media’s coverage of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The 24-hour news cycle was devoted to recrimination, blame and wonder at the evil human beings who had caused the downfall of humanity and nature, and also to imagining all the terrible results of the catastrophe. For months, the circle of wrongdoers grew bigger every day, as did the increasing legions of finger-pointers. “We knew better. Why can’t these dummies fix this problem?” So they said.

At the height of the crisis it became fashionable to blame the President. “Why can’t Obama swim under the Gulf of Mexico and stick a cork in the hole?” asked the pundits. After all, he is the leader of the free world. It is so easy for us to address global catastrophes as we watch cable TV or read the newspaper while reclining in a big easy chair with a comforting cup of coffee.

The same pattern emerges in every domain of our existence: finance, healthcare, the economy, education and so many others.

1. Find something very bad.

2. Focus on it intensely.

3. Call out the scoundrels who made it happen.

4. Talk endlessly about how to prevent its recurrence.

Begin again.

Not to say that this negative focus, along with the media coverage it generates and the dark emotions it produces, aren’t justified. Of course they are. The allure of the dysfunctional trinity is that an overall negative posture toward the world is entirely warranted. Orient yourself around these questions and you will find yourself falling into outrage directed against all of reality. Justified outrage. The world contains no end of situations to bemoan. And if you should grow weary thinking about the past evils of the universe, there are always the present and future evils to consider. If you work just a little at this you will turn your daily reality into the ultimate fear channel.

What is the better way forward? What alternative questions should displace these wrongheaded ones?

People who change the world have very different inquiries in mind at the start. Here are three specific questions at the forefront of effective social-change movements:

1. What are we working together to create?

If, instead of seeking to know what is wrong, we start with the question of what we are trying to create together, we take up the critical inquiry about our shared vision for the future. Asking this question releases significant positive energy leading to very different outcomes than the question about what has gone wrong and how it became so. Here is the key insight entailed in this alternative question: Understanding how things went wrong, and even fixing what is wrong, often fail to bring about what we truly want to create. For example, when we think about international energy, we may realize that we want to create sustainable, green power sources. Now, fixing the gulf oil spill and preventing another such spill was and is certainly important, but it doesn’t create sustainable green energy, does it?

Turning to an individual example, many Americans look at their health status and identify problems like losing weight, lowering high blood pressure and eliminating painful symptoms such as indigestion and headaches (the annual world market for painkillers is expected to reach $35 billion by 2015!). But how would the quest for personal health change if we were to ask different questions: What kind of a life are we trying to create? What kind of day-to-day existence do we want to experience? What do we want for our energy levels and our sense of well-being? Asking what we want to create leads to a remarkably different set of behaviors than asking what to eliminate or what is wrong. Giving up cigarettes and drugs does not necessarily create optimal health, especially if we replace them with chocolate bars and video games!

Answering this specific question about our shared creative vision is not easy.  But the answers may fill us with hope and energy about the possibilities for positive change.

2. Working together, what can we do right now to start creating what we want?

How would the world change if, instead of asking who is to blame (and how to punish them), we were to ask what we each can do, concretely and right now, to move forward?

When we look for scapegoats, we work to externalize responsibility. Those searching for the guilty usually do not look in the mirror, because they remain remarkably certain of their own innocence. It is comforting to think that one bears no responsibility for the world’s problems. It is reassuring to believe that the world’s evils were all caused by others, and that our job should simply be to point this out, so that the evildoers can be locked up and compelled to pay for their crimes.

But here is the insight embedded in the second proposed question: Finding the persons who caused the problems generally does not create any solutions. The processes of crime and punishment are necessary for the effective functioning of society, but alone, they do not bring about positive social change. Reform does not equal innovation. The wellsprings of human progress are generally not responses to the failed strategies of the past.

There are so many examples of this in history. We did not invent modern transportation systems because walking is broken. Electric power is not a fix for a failure of human metabolism. We did not create the Internet as a solution to a broken phone system. Innovation does not fix the world; it results when humanity strives to create something far beyond the world that exists. Progress inheres in our ultimate desire to transform human systems in ways that vastly exceed and completely reframe the problems and shortcomings of present realities. Transformational social change does not eliminate problems, it creates new and better problems.

When we focus intensely on seeking wrongdoers, on allocating blame, we fall back into old ways of thinking. If all we do is punish the guilty, then we will have simply guaranteed their return wearing new costumes.

On the other hand, when we ask “What can we each do, right now?” we discover resources we did not know about, and unleash the energy required for positive transformation.

3.  What will be the shared measure of our success?

When we think together about how to measure success meaningfully, this inquiry grounds us in reality and helps us navigate as the world around us changes. This inquiry points us toward not only achieving our gains, but also building upon them.

In contrast, the effort to organize human society around the prevention of future evils exposes a third critical insight: Success does not arise from avoiding failure. On the contrary, success often results from a daily assault upon failure, a commitment to endure defeat until one finally gets it right. Unfortunately, the effort to avoid problems often creates a culture of fear and paranoia in which no one takes action for fear of facing blame when things go wrong, as they inevitably do.

If we focus on achieving success, and let go of avoiding failure, we can tolerate many mistakes and false steps on the pathway to our destination, and as a result, find our path more surely and swiftly.

To see the differences in approach, think, for example, about national security. If we orient our approach around the idea of preventing acts of terrorism, this leads to the growth of security, police and military responses to terrorists. What has been the opportunity cost to human productivity of this approach? And as we have seen over the past decade, the effort to police and fight our way to national security may perversely reinforce terrorist opposition. While we have prevented a major incident of terrorism in the United States, the war on terror has served as a massively expensive factory of terror and terrorists around the globe.

But if we ask different questions—what are we trying to create, what can we do now, and how do we measure success—we may define progress in radically different terms: promoting positive international relations and strengthening the forces of moderation, diplomacy and peace.

At a personal level, we could think about health from the perspective of avoiding illnesses. This might lead us to an expensive, ongoing regimen of invasive disease tests and screenings. But if we think about measuring health in reference to what we want to create and what we can do proactively, then we might find ourselves exercising, eating and sleeping well, having fun, and generally enjoying the process of living instead of embarking upon a paranoid flight from disease.

There may be a temptation to look at these questions and ask, “Isn’t this just about words?” Is there really a difference between asking what we want to avoid and what we want to accomplish?

The answer is yes, and yes. It is about words. But in this case, words matter enormously. Of course they do. Words are ideas. Different ideas lead to radically different ways of thinking, choosing and being in the world.

But don’t take my word for it. Conduct an experiment in your life, in your intimate relationships, in your social circles, in your organizations and in thinking about national policies. Try starting from a different place.

Move beyond what’s wrong and ask instead, “What are we trying to create together?”

Move beyond who is to blame and ask instead, “What can we each do, concretely and right now, together?”

Move beyond preventing evils and ask instead, “What will be our shared measure of success?”

Watch the road fork. Find yourself going to a better place, on a faster path, with a brighter smile on your face.

This post was originally published by KFLA on its Courageous Leadership Blog.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Thanks for helping fight spam! *