The PluribusOne™ Challenge to Change

PluribusOne™ Consulting, LLC has the most innovative and efficacious bundle of meta-tools on the block. Yet, like even the largest and oldest consulting firms and other “helping organizations,” we often experience an initial lack of receptiveness to receiving assistance, an automatic resistance to considering changes. Clients and prospective clients (individuals, businesses, or offices of government) are typically predisposed to defend their incapacities and, thereby, defend against any opportunity to eliminate or reduce even those problems that threaten their existence. To a resistant mind its endless defenses seem rational, yet the truth is that the root of this mindset is far from rational or reasonable. It is, however, basic human nature. 

Professor and business guru Warren G. Bennis has said: “It takes repeated attempts, endless demonstrations, and monotonous rehearsals before innovation can be accepted and internalized by an organization.” Although I met him twenty-seven years ago, this still is common. What CEO, government official, business leader, or hot-dog stand owner has not been exposed to courses, books, magazines, and other information mediums heralding and encouraging the opening of closed minds? Nonetheless, the vast majority—even corporate giants such as General Motors—fail to meet, or to meet adequately, the challenge to change. 

Resistance is natural, and no sector knows that better than the mental health industry, but even in the field of psychology where Ph.D.s can competently articulate its “causes and cures,” resistance to change runs rampant. William James (1842-1910), leading force in the functionalist school of psychology, said, in his book, Pragmatic Theory of Truth: “First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it.” More than fifty years later, renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Ralph Greenson, presented his lament in a paper titled: “The Origin and Fate of New Ideas in Psychoanalysis.” Twenty-three years after that, Eric Gillette, M.D., addressed this same persistent irony in his paper: “Psychoanalysis’ Resistance to New Ideas,” published in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. Though far from alone in their experiences, the situation remains unchanged today; browse the current college textbooks. 

Some four-hundred years ago, Sir Francis Bacon recognized the problem when he said: “He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator.” The innovating way of Time is, of course, to demolish through entropy and cataclysmic upheaval. The world economy is a prime demonstration of failure to receive and allow new remedies, and the planet is up to its elbows in “new evils.” Dinosaurs became extinct because they lacked imagination; humans do not have that handicap—instead we have ignorance and issues in denial, a tendency toward closed-mindedness. 

This blog contains more than one hundred non-monotonous demonstrations of the Swiss Army knife of challenge-meeting systems called Noetitek™. Meet the challenge. Reap the rewards. Be “open” for business™.

[As of November, 2012, there are more three hundred posts describing and/or demonstrating our system.]

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “The PluribusOne™ Challenge to Change”

  1. Stan Q. Says:

    What do you mean when you say “defend their incapacities?” I’ve never heard that phrase before.

  2. PluribusOne™ Says:

    When someone defends their incapacities (or the incapacities they see in their organization), they are arguing on behalf of their perceived limitations. Hearing those defenses always brings to mind the image of a car stuck in mud with the scowling driver stomping on the gas pedal while the engine is revving too loudly to hear a bystander offer the use of a truck and chain.

    Some of the statements we hear repeatedly, often verbatim, are: “It’s unsolvable,” “It’s inherent to this industry,” “It’s just too complicated,” “We’ve tried everything,” “There’s no real way around it,” “It’s cyclical,” “It’s not worth the time,” “We’re good here,” “Nothing new ever works,” “Everyone in our industry is having this same problem,” “No one understands,” “Using outsiders isn’t for us,” “If there were a better way, I’d know it,” “Our accountant (and/or lawyer) is our consultant and all we need.”

    Etcetera.

    My all-time favorite close-minded statement is: “I don’t even have time to think about it.” A closed mind is closed for business.

  3. Mimzykl1 Says:

    You say that the dinosaurs became extinct due to lack of imagination. I think the dinosaurs died because an asteroid hit the earth and polluted the atmosphere. That’s an old theory but I read it again recently in a news article and this is still what scientists believe.

  4. PluribusOne™ Says:

    It’s just a metaphor. That asteroid impact theory may be correct. I’m not saying that there was no species-threatening event that led to their demise. What I’m saying is that: if they had had a neocortex and the ability to use imagination they might have seen the disaster coming, or considered the possibility, and taken some protective action.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s