Strength can come from smartly exploiting weakness

The most common and natural way to deal with weakness seems to trying to strengthen the weakness. But did you ever consider smartly exploiting the weakness as a direction to deal with the weakness?
Recently I participated in a training course advisory skills based on the work of the color theory of Caluwé at the University of Maastricht. Among the things I learned is how people tend to think alike and come up with similar solutions.

Caluwé suggest to view issues from different perspectives in order to have a 'more complete' view and understanding. His color theory works very nicely for the diagnosis, change strategy and intervention plan. However, the color theory doesn't help necessarily to think out-of-the-box.

In the past I've seen and also undertook successful out-of-the-box thinking by creating a paradox.  Basically it is going for the opposite. So, a problem is not a problem, it is actually the nucleus of the solution. No, this is not the same as: 'no it is not a problem, it is a challenge'. It is more along the line of: "X is the root of the problems, AND X is the root of the solution".

Below is an example based on a fictional setting, but with real people in training course advisory skills...Yes, a University can be practical as well.  Like what some of the partime students gave as feedback:

"If we had more courses like this, the Master would have practical value rather than just the title."

The fictional setting with real people
The fictional setting is the merger between two hospitals. The new board consists out of a CEO, CMO and a CFO. The legal part has taken place, now it is all about integrating and making it work. Of course the setting is that of today where cost saving has become a necessity.This is the fictional setting that was used in a training session.

The people in the role of CEO, CMO and CFO are real people. About 46 participants divided into 11 groups interviewed in any way they liked the CEO, CMO and/or CFO over a 2 week period. Even though the 'CEO', 'CMO', and 'CFO' agreed to some kind of game plan, due to the fact they were interviewed by so many people over a 2 week period, their reactions were driven by their own personality.

The initial person for the position of CEO has been dismissed due to 'differences' (in reality due to an unfortunate illness), the CFO became the CEO, a new CFO was appointed with a background from industry. So, two people with a financial background in the board. .

The general perception
All the groups that interviewed one or more of the board in one or more interviews all shared the same observations:

• The board states that they are in full agreement
• The CEO and CMO give conflicting signals and even statements regarding fundamental issues, e.g.:
• CEO and CFO strongly cost-saving driven, cost is the primary focus
• CMO strongly driven by patient view, cost is a triviality
• The CEO and CMO are very dominant
• The CFO is very timid almost shy.

The general advise

The general independent conclusion of each group was:

• We must help them to become one team and generate one shared vision and strategy
• We must break through their denial
• We must improve the position of the CFO and reduce the dominance of the CEO and CMO

An alternative approach
With my love for paradoxes and background in the Theory of Contraints, I tackled the problem in a different way. First, by posing the paradigm: the weakness is the strength, they key is making use of the perceived weakness.

This means in this specific case to find a way to exploit:

1. The perceived difference between the CEO/CFO and the CMO
2. The timidness of the CFO

1. The perceived difference between the CEO/CFO and the CMO

Everybody understands that the roles and responsibilities of CEO/CFO and CMO are different. By making it clear to all stakeholders that there is a fundamental difference between the roles and responsibilities between the CEO/CFO and CMO then it is a public secret that there is difference. When further stating that the end decision mostly medically based decisions will be made by the CMO and that mostly organizationally/financially based decisions will be made by the CEO then it is clear who will be making what decision. Further it is important to expose the issues, how they will be dealt with and the benefits that result from such a division in roles and responsibilities.
For people with a background in TRIZ, it is basically creating a separation in time/space solution.

2 The timidness of the CFO
It is necessary for the merged hospitals to work further on their cost structure; this would have been needed without the merger as well. A dominant CFO would cause a lot of trouble when he would 'help' the CMO and medical staff. However, a timid / shy CFO would not been perceived as a threat by the CMO nor by the medical staff. Therefore, the CMO and medical staff will not perceive the CFO as a threat and if the CFO can maintain an 'advisory' role, a good constructive and lasting dialog can be created. This will be the best chance for creating buy-in and a mindset change. Since buy-in and mindset change of the CMO and medical staff is necessary to make any (lasting)  improvement in cost structure ...in this way of thinking, the weakness of the CFO can be turned into a necessary advantage for all parties.

Selling the alternative approach

The basic pitch is based their own number one statement: "we are in full agreement."

This resulted in the pitch:

"Whether you as CEO, CMO and CFO are or are not in full agreement is not important. You are perceived as being in disagreement: this is my own observation, this is what I got back from the people around you. When people perceive you not as one team, but in disagreement on fundamental issues there is no way you can make the merger work. You can't get good deals with the insurance companies, suppliers, with your people, with any other stakeholder ...they will try to play you based on the differences they perceive. One way to deal with this is ...[outlining the alternative approach]."

Reflection
Would the alternative approach work? Who knows. What worked was to come up with a completely different approach by 'creating' a paradox. And these alternative solutions can trigger other solutions that otherwise never would have even been thought of. After all, 11 groups came to relatively the same conclusion by following independent a similar line of thought. A line of thought that was in my mind as well initially, only by 'forcing' myself to create a paradox, a complete new way opened up.