The challenge these animals faced was this:

“They had no tail, but a head at each end, and sharp horns on each head.” and “…no matter which way you came towards him, he was always facing you.”

I always thought that an animal like this would die out, because if the heads were equal, it would never be able to go anywhere.

We all know about “too many chiefs and not enough Indians”, which has a similar problem.

So how do you handle a situation where there’s either too much push or too much pull?

In t’ai chi ch’uan (commonly referred to as just tai chi), one of the techniques has to do with pushing. Pushing takes on many different aspects, from forceful lifting/pushing, to a gentler slower movement. As I think about how we work with teams and organisations, it occurs to me that all too often we’re either pushing too hard and too directly, or not enough.

Consider, first, what happens when you try to push someone. What do they do? They brace themselves, at a minimum. Sometimes, they prepare to push back, and then they do push back.

How about if you come up on them gradually? Let’s say you’re standing next to someone, and you slowly shift your weight so that you’re leaning on them – pushing – more and more, little by little? How do they react? Most typically, they will notice when you cross some threshold that is very specific to them. Many times, it will be when some “significant” amount of pressure reaches their awareness. If you were walking down the street, then they’d realize at some point that you had steered them by either physically leaning on them or by entering their “personal space”.

If we are working with a group, team, or organisation, in helping them to adopt new principles, practices, and/or methodologies, some of us – myself most definitely included – have a tendency to push. To be emphatic, zealous, excited, energetic, passionate, insistent,…

We must be aware and wary of creating resistance through our pushing. We must consider whether it’s more effective to lean on them rather than to push them.

One of the things that Andy talked about was Cognitive Bias. I found it fascinating, as he reiterated some of the research and findings that I’d just read about in “Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions“.

What got me was when he talked about the endowment effect. Simply stated, “a hypothesis that people value a good or service more once their property right to it has been established. In other words, people place a higher value on objects they own than objects that they do not.”

This got me to thinking about the resistance we meet when we introduce Agile concepts and practices to product development teams. After all, while I understand that change is hard and frightening, sometimes it still surprises me how much energy people put into resisting change, especially when they are suffering.

At one client I worked with recently, we had the group split into two teams, and had each team do a process doodle. As part of the exercise, each group explains their doodle. Both teams that participated explained that they spend something like 60% of their project time developing requirements and generating the various design documents. Add to that that they spend something like another 20% of their time on QA and UAT, and they spend 20% or less of their project time on actually building the product. They expressed frustration at the amount of overhead and the difficulty of getting things done. Finally, they explained that at each phase of the project, there are specific percentages by which they are allowed to be off in their estimates. That is, during requirements gathering and writing, they can be off by 50%. When they get into design, it goes down to 30%. And so on.

There’s such a powerful expression of lack of confidence in this that it amazed me. They have institutionalized their lack of confidence in both their system and their approach. And yet, there are way too many of “them” who hang onto this approach for dear life!

Let’s look at the endowment effect. “…people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it.“

Here’s my Agile Adoption Resistance Endowment Effect: If I know how my system works, and I know how to work my system, then even in the face of something that appears to work better and will probably ease my pain, I will demand more assurance of success and ease of adoption than I am willing to offer for the system I am currently using.

I’m going to spend more time on this stuff – cognitive bias – with thought toward how it applies to the training and coaching we do. There are some powerful lessons in there.

Joan’s phone starting ringing insistently. Joan thought for a moment, since she was watching her favorite reality TV show, and that was her time to just disconnect. In spite of her preferences, Joan decided to answer the phone.

“Joan?” She heard her friend Nancy’s voice, and her heart skipped a beat. Nancy was sobbing. “Nancy? What’s wrong honey?”

“They fired me, Joan! They fired me!”

“Joanie…” sobbing “…they said that I just wasn’t living up to their expectations.”

“Oh, Nancy…”

Now let’s talk about Joan’s possible reactions…

Each of us has a different reaction, and each of us offers a different response based on that reaction*. For the moment, I want to talk about three types of reaction and response: sympathy, empathy, and identification.

Reaction: Sympathy

Response: “Oh, Nancy… that’s terrible. You must feel miserable.  I can only imagine how that feels. Would you like to come over and talk?”

Reaction: Empathy

Response: “Oh, Nancy… I feel terrible. I can’t believe it! I’ll come over and let’s talk about what we can do.” Joan cries.

Reaction: Identification

Response: “Oh, Nancy. Those bastards! After all you’ve done for them, and how hard you’ve worked. You gave your all to that company, and this is how they treat you? I’m devastated.”

Nancy cries.

Joan cries.

Up to this point, sympathy, empathy, and identification sound a lot alike. In all three versions, Joan has an emotional reaction that leads to a behavior – her response. In each case, her response is subtly different. Note that in the following discussion, I am not making a judgment about better versus worse, or good versus bad… I’m working on achieving understanding and recognizing that each type of reaction and response deserves and requires a different response from me.

In being sympathetic, Joan’s response is separate. Joan is clear that what is happening to Nancy is about Nancy, not about Joan. While Joan may feel sad or angry, it is on behalf of her friend. From Nancy’s perspective, there is a little bit of distance between them. Joan’s feelings are moderate.

In being empathetic, Joan’s response is collective. Joan feels what she believes Joan feels, including the pain, indignation, and so forth. For Joan, what is happening is also happening to her, emotionally. From Nancy’s perspective, it’s like a resonation, which may increase the level of her feelings. To a certain extent, Joan’s reaction becomes an extension of Nancy’s reaction. Joan’s feelings are intense, although she recognizes that they are about Nancy.

In identifying with Nancy, Joan takes on Nancy’s feelings and reactions. Joan’s response is intense and personal, as though she were the one who had been fired. Nancy may be taken aback by the intensity of Joan’s reaction, as Joan takes on some of Nancy’s emotional response. Joan behaves as if she were the one who had been fired, and will react to others as if she were the victim as much as Nancy.

To see how this works, let’s add Joan’s husband Mark to the story…

“Joan? What’s going on?”

Sympathy

“It’s Nancy. She got fired today. I feel so bad for her. She’s so upset.”

“That sucks. What’s she going to do?”

“I don’t know yet. I may have to spend some time with her.  I hope that’s okay with you.”

Empathy

“It’s Nancy. She got fired today. I’ve got to go over there to be with her right now!” Sobbing

“That sucks. What’s she going to do?”

“I don’t know yet, but I just know how horrible she feels and that I have to go be with her. It’s so painful! Doesn’t this upset you?”

Identification

“It’s Nancy. She got fired today. I’ve got to go over there to be with her right now!” Sobbing

“That sucks. What’s she going to do?”

“They treated her like dirt! How can you be so calm?  Don’t you care? They were unfair and cruel. I don’t know what we’re going to do, but we’re going to do something to show them!”

Note that Joan’s response to Mark escalates from Sympathy to Empathy to Identification. In the latter, Joan feels that what has happened to Nancy has happened to her, and thus she expects the same kind of reaction from Mark that she’d expect if she had been fired.

This post is long enough.  Now I’m going to go off and think about the differences in responses to each of the three.

Sympathy

• an inclination to support or be loyal to or to agree with an opinion; “his sympathies were always with the underdog”; “I knew I could count on his …
• sharing the feelings of others (especially feelings of sorrow or anguish)
• a relation of affinity or harmony between people; whatever affects one correspondingly affects the other; “the two of them were in close sympathy”
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sympathy

Empathy

• understanding and entering into another’s feelings
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathy

Identification

• the attribution to yourself (consciously or unconsciously) of the characteristics of another person (or group of persons)
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• a process by which one ascribes to oneself the qualities or characteristics of another person.
• A person’s association with or assumption of the qualities, characteristics, or views of another person or group.

  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identification

*Reaction vs. Response

For the purposes of this discussion, I’m defining “reaction” as the emotional or physical effect that occurs without thinking, and “response” as the chosen action or thought that occurs after the reaction. That is, if I put my hand in a fire, pulling my hand out is a reaction – I don’t think about it – while swearing about it is a response.