Dear President Obama:
Congratulations on winning the Presidency for another 4 years.
I know that one of your biggest challenges in the coming months will - once again - be to try to create a productive working relationship with the Republican Party.
A wise person once said to me: "Do you want to be right, or do you want to make progress?" I often wish someone would whisper that in the ears of some Senators and Congressmen, because being right doesn't solve the issues of the day - it just gives you an excuse to avoid progress while blaming the lack of it on someone else.
Steven Covey talked about finding the 'third way': A better way than 'my way' or 'your way'. It seems to me that this what you and Congress need to do together. However, in order to do that, individuals need to decide that they'd rather make progress than be right. Of course, that's a huge risk for some people: They've made a career out of 'being right', their reputation and their self-esteem is tied to 'being right'. Looking for that 'third way' forces them to let go of past beliefs and change the way they look at the world. And that's scary.
It's an interesting thing about change: We often don't believe we need to change, and we think that if we resist change often enough and loudly enough, the need for it will somehow go away.
Dr. Jeffery Schwartz, in his book Brain Lock, addresses this idea from the perspective of OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder). He says that in order to unlock the brain and be free from OCD, new pathways must be formed in the brain. IN many ways, our current government is suffering from 'brain lock' in that they continue to behave in the same ways, over and over again, and it's crippling - just as OCD can be crippling to an individual.
Dr. Schwartz offers a two-part process to help unlock the brain and create new pathways:
- Re-label the problem. Instead of saying "I am right and I will not budge from my position", say "I think my position has merit, but it might not be the only way".
- Create a new path in the brain which refocuses on the positive. Instead of "I need to get my way on this issue, because I am right", say "Lots of positions have merit. What can we do together to move this country forward?"
Even getting one or two people to think - and speak - this way can go a long way in changing the current culture of Congress. It's like throwing a pebble in a lake and watching the ripples: Sometimes there are lots of ripples; sometimes only a few - but each changes the flow of the water for some period of time.
It seems to me that you see the problems in this country and want to fix them, and that's admirable. But change is scary for most people, and even when they say they want it, they often mean they want to change others' lives, not their own.
Radical or transformational change often causes anxiety-related panic. In institutions, this can trigger a step back into 'survival mode', in which the source of change itself is attacked. The Healthcare Initiative is a good example of this: The proposed changes benefit the average American, but insurance companies, faced with radical change, panicked and attacked. The panic of the few (insurance companies) infected the many (average Americans) - and the changes began to seem a lot more scary than they needed to.
Connecting the dots - demonstrating that a change isn't really as radical as they think, and that it will have demonstrable benefits for the individual - for people is critical in times of change. We often assume that people can connect their own dots, or that there aren't any dots to connect because it's so obvious and we think we'll insult people's intelligence if we connect the dots for them. But helping people see how the future is connected to their present is one of the best ways to move change along - and that goes for the average person and for members of Congress.
Language as an underused tool
You've mentioned the difficulties people might need to move through in order to get to a great future. People often don't want to hear that; they don't want to have to live through it - and they definitely don't want to hear about it from someone they think won't have to 'suffer' through it like they will. When you use terms like 'tough choices' or 'challenging times', you're putting people back into Maslow's survival mode. On the other hand, helping people envision the better future and walking them through the steps required to get there may keep them higher up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs - and keep them moving forward.
Positive psychology, the study of happiness, has an interesting take on the language we use to describe the everyday. Instead of focusing on what isn't working, focus on what is working and build on that. It may seem counterintuitive - and even pollyanna-ish - but it may deliver better results with your cabinet in the longer term.
I bet the majority of Americans don't know that the Healthcare Initiative you spearheaded and passed through Congress isn't actually called 'Obamacare' but in fact 'The Affordable Care Act'. It's a great name, positive and descriptive, but no one uses it - not even people in your own party.
I realize I've touched on a lot of topics and I"ve oversimplified the challenges you face. But I did that on purpose, because I find that for many organizations, the enormity of the change required can cause paralyzation and inaction. By simplifying the challenge, they can find a way to take the first step - and the next, and the next. What we face as a country is enormous but we need to take that first step.
I'm sure you don't need reminding that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We can't afford another 4 years of that kind of insanity in Washington, and as the President, the country is looking to you to lead them into doing things differently to achieve different results.
I wish you the best of luck, and much success.
Beth Banks Cohn, PhD
