Kelvyn Youngman

Logistician/Logician

原文处：https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eli-got-wrong-goldratt-resistance-change-kelvyn-youngman?trk=mp-reader-card

 由Kelvyn Youngman授权SCOM翻译，翻译：蔡晰华 Kevin

该主题包含两篇文章，比较深奥，不太容易理解，本周为第一篇文章。请下周继续学习第二篇文章（2/2），你才能更加了解作者试图表达的核心概念。

Goldratt made a mistake, and we propagate that mistake.  The mistake that Goldratt made and that we propagate is to believe that the types of change that we address are technical changes, when in fact they are adaptive changes.

· Technical change = new skill-set within an existing mind-set.

· Adaptive change = new skill-set within a new mind-set.

高德拉特博士犯了个错误，然后我们将这个错误广为传播。这个被广而告之的错误在于，我们以为所解决的改变类别是技术性改变(Technical Change)，但是实际上这些属于调适性改变（Adaptive Change）。

· 技术性改变= 在当前的思维模式中融入一套新的技术。

· 调适性改变= 在新的思维模式中融入一套新的技术。

These are vastly different issues.

这两种问题存在了巨大的差异。

In a paraphrase of Ron Heifetz it is argued that "leader's biggest and most frequent mistake is to try to meet adaptive changes via technical means."

在Ron Heifetz的文章中有这样的争议“领导者最大和最经常犯的错误是，尝试通过技术性手段解决调适性改变。”

That wouldn't be us would it?

我们不应该这样，对吗？

Heifetz teaches at Harvard, but not in the Business School, rather he teaches in the John F. Kennedy School of Government.  If you want to see lieutenant's clouds by real lieutenants you might like to read his Leadership without easy answers.  If you want to help lead adaptive change you might like to read the chapter on assassination (and how to avoid it.)

Heifetz在哈佛教书，但不是在商学院，而是在政府的约翰肯尼迪学院。如果您想看到高德拉特博士引用过的中尉冲突图（lieutenant’s clouds）在现实中的写照，可以推荐他的这本著作：Leadership without easy answers(领导力没有简单的答案)。如果您想实践调适性改变，就可以阅读里面的这个章节，关于如何避免暗杀行动。

When we use our approach to resistance to change within Theory of Constraints we are implicitly treating the whole affair as a technical issue.  This is our mistake.  I want to show you what I mean.  First, however, let's remind ourselves of the most basic of our sequence of resistance to change.  This is from Eli's My Saga (1996);

当我们采用TOC的方法来解决人的抗拒改变，我们纯粹（毫无保留地—）将这件事当作技术性问题来处理。这是我们所犯的错误。我想展示所表达的意思。首先，让我们回到关于抗拒改变最根本的几个层次顺序。高德拉特博士于1996年发布的My Saga我的传奇

1. Raising problems having one thing in common – it’s out of our hands

当前所提出的问题都具有一个共性—超出了我们能够掌控的范围。

2. Arguing that the proposed solution cannot possibly yield the desired outcome.

存在争议-认为建议的解决方案无法产生期望的成效。

3. Arguing that the proposed solution will lead to negative effects.

存在争议-认为建议的解决方案会带来负面效应。

4. Raising obstacles that will prevent the implementation.

提出存在某些障碍，会妨碍解决方案的实施。

5. Raising doubts about the collaboration of others.

提出质疑，担心解决方案无法得到其他人的通力协作。

I usually abbreviate this to something like; (1) we don't agree about the problem, (2)  we don't agree about the solution, (3) we have reservations, (4) there are real obstacles, and finally (5) we have unverbalized fear.  We can easily place this into a matrix, and indeed it makes a great deal more sense to do so.  You might like to sketch this out and have it at hand as we move down the page.

通常我将以上几点概括为：(1) 不同意问题的存在 (2) 不同意提出的解决方案 (3) 解决方案会产生负面效应 (4) 有现实中的障碍，最后 (5) 无法说出的恐惧。 我们按照以下的图示继续展开。

I most often start in the lower-right quadrant which contains the negatives of the current reality.  This is our disagreement over the nature of the problem and it is also our first layer of resistance.  We resolved this toward the future positive of the upper-left quadrant which contains our solution.  Disagreement over the nature of the solution is the second layer of resistance.  Resolution of this leads in-turn to three potential negative future impacts in the upper-right quadrant.  The first of these are reservations about negative outcomes that we might reasonably expect to occur if we implement the solution; this is the third layer of resistance.  We "trim" these. The second of these are real obstacles that might stand in the way of implementing our solution; this is our fourth layer of resistance.  We can work out how to overcome these.  The third and final impact is unverbalized fear - our fifth layer of resistance.  And this is where we get stuck.

通常我从右下方的矩阵开始，这包括了对当前现状的负面看法。我们在问题的属性上无法达成共识，也就是抗拒改变的第一层。我们解决了这个层次就指向了左上方的矩阵，对未来的正面看法，包括了我们的解决方案。不认同对解决方案的属性，是抗拒改变的第二层。解决这层的抗拒就转折到了3个潜在的负面影响，也就是右上方的矩阵。首先是可以有理由预见解决方案在实施过程中可能产生的负面分支，这就是第三层抗拒改变。我们必须“修剪”这些分支。其次是在实施解决方案的过程中，存在的真正的障碍和拦路虎；这是抗拒改变的第四层。我们也能够去克服这些障碍。最后的影响是无法说出的担心/恐惧---抗拒改变的第五层。也就是在这里我们陷入僵局

Looking at the matrix, the dark grey upwards facing arrow is always the suggestion and the lighter grey downwards facing arrow is always the reaction to the suggestion.  The suggestion is always about satisfaction and the reaction is always about security.  They "talk" to each other via the horizontal impact arrows.

我们来看看这个矩阵表，深灰色向上代表的是改变的提议，浅灰色向下代表的是对提议的反应。建议总是和满意度相关联，而对建议的反应总是和安全感相关联。它们通过横向的影响箭头相互“影响”。

If we look at our approach to resistance to change we can see that fully 4/5ths of this process is given over to technical issues - layers 1-4.  Only 1/5th addresses adaptive issues - and it is unverbalized for goodness sake - layer 5.  No wonder that we have the problems that we pretend that we don't have.  And where is that last layer pointing to?  It is pointing to the present positives in the lower-left quadrant.  And we stagnate there.  And then we blame everyone else because we won't even entertain for one moment that we could be the cause of our own problem.  You know the story; "if TOC needs a solution we will invent one."  But what if we can't even see the need?

如果检视我们应对抗拒改变的方法，可以看到这个流程上4/5都是在解决技术性问题-抗拒改变的1-4层。只有1/5在解决调适性问题---也就是无法说出的恐惧---第五层抗拒。无怪乎我们面临这样的问题，但是我们却视而不见。那么最后一层的抗拒指向哪里呢？它斜指向左下方的矩阵，也就是当前现状的好处。那么我们就在这里停滞不前。接着就开始责备每个人，因为我们甚至没有停下来检讨下，我们自己可能才是问题的根源。您还记得这样的故事吗：“如果TOC需要解决方案，我们就可以创造它。”但是问题是，假如我们自己都不知道实际真正的需求是什么？

A didactic matrix sets out to teach.  The upward facing arrow teaches a solution, and it is the suggestion here.  The downwards facing arrow is the reaction to the suggestion and it is also a part of the cause of the problem that we are trying to address via the solution.  So once again, we can go around and around in a figure-of-eight.  But there is a difference here.  We, or rather they, stagnate in the lower-left quadrant of this matrix.  Stagnation is a little recognised fact of systemic clouds, and didactic matrices.  And guess what, we have nothing written there.  We have nothing written there because we don't know what to do.  And if we are not careful we will "push" or we will be perceived to be "pushing" and they will "resist" and we may as well all go home.

这个辅助引导式的矩阵按照这样的顺序来解读。向上的箭头表达的是解决方案，提出的建议。向下的箭头是对建议的反应，并且它同时也是问题原因的一部分，我们试图通过提案加以解决。周而复始，我们可以一次又一次按照这样的循环。但是这里存在着差异。我们，或者更确切的说是他们，在这个矩阵的左下方。停滞不前是系统冲突的一部分体现，同样也是这个矩阵的体现。但是请留意，这部分是空白的。之所以留着空白是因为我们不知道如何应对。如果不采取谨慎的态度，而是“强推”或者我们看上去像是“正在推动”，那么他们就会“抗拒”，这样我们可能就只能打包回家了。

What we fail to recognise is that there is an adaptive challenge going on, a new mind-set is required and the old mind-set isn't too happy about this.  We can most succinctly summarise this as follows.

我们无法认识到事实上存在这调适性的挑战，需要一套全新的思维，这会让旧有的思维模式无所适从。我们可以简要归纳为以下的矩阵。

If we have a technical problem, then we will can trace out a solution as a reversed "Z" from status quo to problem to solution to reservation and obstacles.  And we will be able solve it in that form.  If we have an adaptive challenge, then we will slide back down from our anxieties to the current positives of the status quo and stagnate there.  That's the test.  If this is going to happen then the mechanics that are our 5th layer - the unverbalized fear - can easily be broken down into three stages: anxiety, denial and ultimately rejection.  Each of these helps to take us to take a step closer and back towards the security and comfort of the status quo.  And you know denial does a wonderful job of ignoring the present problems that we initially set out to address.  There is a name for this, it is called wilful blindness.

如果我们面临技术性问题，那么我们可以按照颠倒的“Z”顺序找出解决方案，从现状è问题è解决方案è负面分支è实施障碍。那么我们能够按照这样的模式解决问题。

如果我们面临的是调适性挑战，那么我们从产生的焦虑è当前现状存在的好处è导致停滞不前。这是测试的过程。如果真的将会发生，那么抗拒改变的第5个层次—说不出的恐惧—能够很容易分解成这3个阶段：焦虑，否认，最后完全反对。每个阶段都能够帮助我们更进一步接近并且指向当前状况所存在的安全感和舒适区。您知道，“否认”对于忽视当前您正准备解决的问题是起到多么美妙的反效果。有个更加确切的词汇来形容它，“选择性失明”/“刻意的无视”

We pride ourselves on the fact that we are meant to be able to think clearly and to teach others to do so, and yet we are not doing a very good job of it ourselves.  We should be asking ourselves; "why do we keep returning to the status quo?"

我们引以为豪地认为，能够清晰地思考，并且教导他人也要知行合一，然而，我们自己却并非以身作则。应当扪心自问“为何我们又回到现状？”

To answer that we have to turn to Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow-Lahey's mechanism of immunity to change.  I'll do that in the next article.  We will fully addresses the adaptive challenge that our technical solution has raised - and that we are at a loss to address.

回答这个问题我们必须回到Robert Kegan和Lisa Laskow- Lahey's 的著作mechanism of immunity to change（变革免疫力）。我将在下一篇文章来作进一步的阐述。我们将彻底地解决调适性的挑战，也就是技术性的解决方案已经呈现出来的问题---我们无所适从，不知道如何解决的问题。

To recap - go back to the first matrix above - we only really address the upwards facing diagonal of; the suggestion, the solution, and the satisfaction, and we treat this as a technical issue.  We don't address the downwards facing diagonal of; the reaction, the problem, and the security, and this is an adaptive issue.  It is also the heart of the matter

综上所述，回到上面的第一个矩阵，我们仅仅真正解决的是向上的问题提案，建议，满意度，我们将这些当作技术问题加以对待。我们并没有解决向下的问题，反应，问题，安全感，这些属于调适性问题。并且是整个问题的核心。

提醒：俱乐部有TOC专业讨论学习群，如需要加入，请扫描二维码或联系我们：