[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

(from the examination of both sides) and the areas of agreement are noted.
Next, the areas of disagreement are noted; finally, the areas of irrelevance. It
often turns out that this neutral exploration shows that the areas of
disagreement may be quite small but appear very much larger in the
argument situation because neither side dare concede a point for fear that
this will be used against the arguer. At the end of an effective ADI both parties
should be able to point directly at the area of disagreement:  What we are
really in disagreement about is this point here. Since there will usually be
quite a lot on which there is agreement, this can be used as a base for trying
to design a way around the disagreement. In any case there is a stronger
negotiating base.
Isolating the area of disagreement also means that it can be further
examined in order to find out how basic the disagreement may be. Whatever
the outcome, it is easier to make progress than with the blanket opposition of
the adversary system. Even if the fundamental area of disagreement is one of
principle or value it becomes easier to design an outcome that might satisfy
both sides. For instance, if there is basic agreement that change must come in
the end, then the area of disagreement is about the rate of change, method or
stages.
The ADI can be done separately by both parties or it can be done as a
cooperative undertaking with both parties sitting down together. The best
procedure is the cooperative one but this does depend on the mood of the
parties. If this is antagonistic it might be better for each party to do the ADI on
its own. Even if the other party is unwilling to do it, there is nothing to stop
one party doing it and then presenting it to the other party for modification.
A girl of fifteen wants to smoke. She and her father have an argument. The
ADI works out something as follows:
Agreement
" that the father has a right to his point of view, so does the girl
" that smoking is held to be harmful to the health, now and later
" that many girls of this age do smoke
" that the father has a right to forbid smoking in his house
" that smoking is expensive
" that now or later the girl will eventually have to make her own decision.
Disagreement
" whether father has a right to make his daughter s decisions for her just
because she lives in his house
" whether there is any harm in just smoking a few a day
" whether what is at stake is cigarette smoking as such or the girl s
independence
" whether if the girl does not smoke now she may never want to smoke.
Irrelevance
" that Susie s father lets her smoke
" that the father has banned some other things
" that the father himself smokes
" that smokers do not harm anyone else
" that the girl could be made into a rebel
" that the girl would smoke secretly anyway.
For exercise, lay out an ADI for each of the following situations:
1 A neighbour plays music too loudly at night.
2 Workers want a pay rise but management say this would raise prices too
much.
3 A new road is to be built through a country beauty spot.
4 A seventeen-year-old girl wants to come home at night whenever she
wishes.
5 Producers want to put a lot of violence into films.
6 Fines for parking in the wrong place are to be doubled.
 Logic bubbles
If someone does not agree with you or does not do what you think he ought
to do there are several possible attitudes. He is stupid. He is bloody-minded.
He is obstinate. There is, however, an alternative attitude: he is highly
intelligent and acting intelligently within his own logic-bubble. And his logic-
bubble happens to be different from yours. As suggested in the figure on the
next page, a logic- bubble is that bubble of perception within which a person
is acting.
DE BONO S THINKING COURSE
The bubble includes perception of circumstance, structure, context and
relationships.
' ' . si ' *
k.v
5 /
Too often we put intelligent people into certain situations and then complain
when they act intelligently. For instance, let us look at innovation in any type of
large bureaucracy. If a person tries something and it is a failure, then that
failure hangs around his neck for the rest of his career. He cannot recover
from it with a following success as he might in business. If his innovation
works then he is condemned for not having thought of it sooner or
implemented it earlier. If it works he risks being regarded as an  ideas man -
which means that although this idea has indeed worked, other ideas may not
work. When it comes to appointing the head of a department a  sound man is
to be preferred over an  ideas man. For all these reasons innovation is not
intelligent behaviour - but survival is. So one can hardly blame a person for
acting logically within that particular logic-bubble.
A company has been having a lot of wild-cat strikes. Once the idea is
suggested then the workers do not want to let their mates down, so the strike
takes place. The company institutes a small payment for every week of work
completed without any such strike. The amount is small when compared to
the weekly wage. The strikes diminish to one sixth of what they have been. Is
this bribery? It is really a change in the logic-bubble at the moment a strike is
suggested. Instead of just following along there is now some reason for a
worker to ask  why? . Although he may be as ready as ever to go on strike, this
slight change at the moment of decision alters his intelligent behaviour
through altering the logic-bubble.
It is probably quite far from the truth that everyone is acting very logically
within his or her logic-bubble. But as a practical way of looking at things the
method has the merit of directing
OTHER PEOPLE
attention not to the stupidity of the person (which is difficult to alter) but to the
circumstances (which are easier to alter) in which the behaviour is quite logical.
The logic-bubble includes both the actual circumstances surrounding a
person and also his  perception of the situation. For example, there may be
an actual reward for certain behaviour but this could be perceived as a bribe.
In a company where I had been called in as a consultant to advise on how
to make the executives more opportunity conscious,
I suggested the setting up of a risk fund which executives could use to
finance opportunities - instead of having to divert their operating budgets.
One executive said that he did not want to  risk using the risk fund because
he knew that he would be judged on how he used it. In other words his logic-
bubble took into account the risk- averse culture of the company, so the very
purpose of the risk fund was negated. He did admit, however, that the mere
existence of this fund had allowed him to look at new areas which he was now [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]