 ‘Above all, try something.’ (Franklin D. Roosevelt) Trilemma is a new word for me. It means to face a situation where we must decide between three desirable (or undesirable) and mutually-exclusive options. Some call it an ‘impossible trinity’ where, at most, we can (or must) choose only two of the three options and, thereby, must (at least from that perspective) give up on the third. I sometimes see this when working with Christian leaders who feel caught in an ambiguous ethical choice between, say, exercising personal agency vs showing respect to others vs trusting God to act. ‘Should I seize the initiative (agency)…or wait first to see what actions others may take (respect)…or pray instead to see what God will do (trust)?’ Ignatius of Loyola offered some partial advice to help resolve this: ‘Pray as if everything depends on God – and act as if everything depends on you.’ Oliver Cromwell offered similar guidance to his troops when crossing a river to face an enemy: ‘Trust God – and keep you (gun)powder dry.’ I wonder if a tetralemma may be a useful tool here too. Future Learn published an interesting, practical case example of a trilemma when discussing the potential trade-offs of policy goals to address drugs, peace and development. It demonstrates an interdependence of sorts between intersecting issues, so that addressing one or two may have unintended consequences for the third. When have you faced a trilemma? What did you do to resolve it?
13 Comments
 English translation of a short talk I delivered at a Prayers for Peace meeting in Germany last night: A few years ago, a colleague in the UK, Rick James, was the keynote speaker at a forum for international development experts from around the world. Rick is a follower of Jesus and is widely respected in this arena for his own work in many different countries, especially in those that are poor. As the participants waited eagerly to hear his words of knowledge, wisdom and expertise, Rick sat quietly for a moment then said, unexpectedly, ‘There is so much I don’t understand.’ What an astonishing opening for a presentation. It demonstrated deep humility in the face of a complex world in which so much is truly beyond human comprehension. As we look at the news today, for instance, in spite of our prayers for 4 years, the world seems to be getting worse. Who could have imagined a month ago that the USA and Israel would attack Iran? Who could have imagined that, as a consequence, Russia is now even stronger than before to attack Ukraine? This may test our faith and challenge our hope. Some of you may have heard of Henri Nouwen, the Dutch priest who wrote an array of books about spirituality and Christian living. In one of his texts, he advised that, when faced with such painful questions, we should avoid the temptation of offering or accepting simple or easy answers. Instead, he advised that such questions should be raised and faced with honesty. Sometimes this will mean being present yet silent before God and one-another – like here this evening. His guidance reminds me of another priest, Iain Matthew, who is from the UK and lives in Spain. Iain offers profound reflections on the biblical account where Jesus is at a wedding in Cana and the host runs out of wine. It’s a painfully embarrassing situation for the host and we can imagine how, if we were there as his guests, we might try quickly to hide it, reassure him or find a solution. We might also call on Jesus to do what we think is best, what we think is needed to fix it. Yet here is Mary now. 'She perceives the need and names it, ‘They have no wine’ – without prescribing a solution. She takes it, holds it, and allows it to ache before Jesus.' Iain suggests this may be, at times, a pattern for prayer, 'to feel our way to a wound that is in us (perhaps a hurt or disappointment that our prayers seem unanswered), to go the place of our need.' He suggests, 'Go there, name it and hold it before Christ.' In doing so, we offer our doubts, confusion and fears to God. He then goes further, inviting us 'to feel our way to the wounds in this world, to those people or situations in dire need of help or healing. To go there, take them, name them, and hold them before Jesus. To go there, not to dictate to Christ what the answer should be or what he should do about it, but to hold the wound before him.' This is prayerful advocacy. We play our part by presenting our concerns and hopes before God in trust, and Jesus is Lord – the wisdom of God and the power of God.  ‘Learn your theories as well as you can, but put them aside when you touch the miracle of the living soul.’ (Carl Jung) It’s not every day that one has opportunity to lead a coach training workshop for participants from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe all in the same online room at the same time. I’m greatly indebted to insightful contributions from group members as we looked at how to navigate cross-cultural dynamics in coaching conversations. We spent some time exploring, critiquing and adapting a conventional Western coaching model, with all its embedded cultural assumptions, to people and relationships in very different global contexts. I noticed that finding a way to navigate a group conversation about such complex issues was, in itself, a cross-cultural experience in real time. I was particularly interested, for my own development too, in how to offer challenge in collectivistic cultures where group harmony, cohesion and interdependence are valued highly and indirect communication is the norm. A direct challenge could be perceived as disruptive to relationship and, therefore, experienced as blunt, threatening or rude. The wisdom that emerged from today’s participants began to take shape in something like the following form (below) – although I’m aware that I’m imposing a structure on a conversation and ideas that felt more fluid and emergent at the time. It offers a window of insight, shared by people with far greater cultural-lived experience than my own:
 ‘We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking, only to learn that it is God shaking them.’ (Charles West) The taxi arrived late to take me to the railway station. The train was on time but arrived late at the station I was heading to to switch to the metro light rail. The metro too was late yet I still arrived in time to check-in at the airport. My flight from the UK to the Netherlands was delayed, leaving me concerned about missing my connecting flight. Then the connecting flight to Germany was also delayed. I felt immensely relieved when I did finally arrive. That was my day yesterday. I hope things will run more smoothly when I travel by train to the nearest German city next Saturday, then fly out to Turkey and onwards to Georgia as my next destination. What struck me this time was my anxiety at each stage about the potential impacts that the lateness at one stage would have on my arrival at the next stages. It felt like a timely metaphor and reminder to me: to relax and trust God that things will work out.  ‘Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence.’ (G.K. Chesterton) At the end of this week’s Christian leadership retreat which drew on Action Learning at its core, I was struck by one participant’s feedback that, ‘This was the first time I’ve experienced authentic community.’ We had opened the event with trust-building activities, getting to know and understand one another as different people before introducing and practising Action Learning techniques. We also chose our own ground rules from the outset. The retreat was interspersed with times of prayer, biblical reflection and sharing of meals together. This reflection on community struck me as significant because it says something profound about what happened within the group, and is also a comment on outside-of the group. The participants were from very diverse personal and professional backgrounds, thrashed through some pretty tough issues together with honesty and care – and found this experience unique. It contrasted starkly with superficial conversations elsewhere, or with experiences of diversity that have resulted in avoiding, ‘othering’, polarisation, tension or conflict. I arrived home last night to hear the news on TV of a public activist’s murder, apparently by someone who didn’t agree with his views and influence. Then, today, I watched a huge protest crowd in London clash with a smaller group of counter-protestors, with embattled police holding the sides apart. It felt symptomatic of people, groups and societies that have lost their willingness and ability to tolerate difference, to tolerate truth, and to hold rigorous debates without feeling the need to silence with a bullet or with an arrest for free speech.  ‘It's not how much we give but how much love we put into giving.’ (Mother Theresa) ‘I don’t own a purse because, with God’s help, I give everything away.’ As this humble Filipina revealed a rare glimpse of this personal dimension of her life of faith, I was struck by how she said it with absolutely no air of virtue-signalling. It was so matter of fact, as if speaking a self-evident truth for all followers of Jesus, everywhere. It challenged me as I glanced at my own wallet on the table. I’ve never met anyone so principled. I mean, it’s one thing to share from the edges of our excess wealth. It’s quite another thing to be very poor and not to cling on hard to the little we have. Yet I’ve seen her live out this faith, day after day and year after year. It’s humbling and inspiring and I’ve never witnessed so many miracles as those I’ve seen God work through her. True faith = love + trust.  ‘What happens is what happens. The beauty is in the imperfection.’ (Will Moule) I can already hear those with a perfectionist streak raising shrill voices of protest. ‘Surely we should be aiming for the ideal?’ I ran an Institute of Leadership and Management recognition workshop for Action Learning Associates-trained Action Learning (AL) facilitators yesterday. One of themes we discussed is how to work with emergence in an AL set (a group of peers doing AL together). This is core to AL facilitation and often quite different to, say, managing training. How is that? What does that mean? Firstly, the agenda for an AL set lays in the hands of set members; the process in the hands of the facilitator. More often than not, the facilitator won’t know in advance what challenges set members will choose to address in a specific AL round (session) when they select and work on issues to reach a solution. Peers are unlikely to know, too, what questions they will pose and how an exploration will unfold organically during that round. Those presenting (that is, thinking through an issue with support and challenge from peers) sometimes don’t know at the outset what the crux of an issue is for them; and won’t know until the round progresses what direction an exploration may take, what discoveries may surface and what the resulting outcomes may be. AL therefore involves inviting and staying with, as far as we can, a state of curiosity – an openness in the moment to whatever of significance may arise. A paradox for the facilitators lays is that, insofar they may try to control what happens in a set to achieve an ‘ideal’ process or outcome, that same effort to control may inhibit or even prevent optimal results – a bit like how grasping a beautiful flower too tightly may squeeze the life out of it. An effective AL facilitation style entails adopting an open, agile presence and stance, trusting that what needs to be said will come up naturally. Hold the process and release the group. (See also: Emergence in coaching; Test and learn; Plan vs prepare)  ‘I can’t dream while the platform’s burning.’ (Benjamin Downing) It’s hard to think straight, let alone creatively, if we feel threatened, anxious or stressed. It’s like trying to see clearly while thick clouds of emotion-filled dust are kicked up in the air. For coaching to be effective, sufficient psychological safety and trust are critical success factors. This means co-creating the conditions for a person to engage in critical reflection, decision-making and action. Without it, searching questions are likely to trigger defensive routines. These risk dynamics can be amplified if, for instance, a person is being coached by their own line-manager and worried about how it could affect subsequent performance evaluations; or if coaching has been commissioned by HR as a remedial intervention, rather than something the person has chosen for themselves; or if a person being coached has been betrayed before and doesn’t feel fully-confident in the boundaries of confidentiality they’ve agreed with a coach. In view of this, I find that careful contracting with potential and new clients is very important. It means discussing these and any other issues of hope or concern explicitly from the outset. I may ask, ‘If we were to work together, what would that mean for you (potential outcomes, consequences or implications)?’ And, ‘Given that, if our work together were to be successful (for you, your team or organisation), what would you need (from me, yourself or others)?’ Do you need help with creating psychological safety? Get in touch!  'There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at critical points to create a power that governments cannot suppress.' (Howard Zinn) At the heart of coaching generally lays a desire and opportunity for impact and change, a goal that may seem obvious, but one that raises important questions. As coaches aspiring to make a difference in the world, we can find ourselves navigating complex dilemmas. When we work with agents of change in, say, NGOs, charities, churches or public sector organizations, we often seek to empower individuals, teams, and organizations to be resourceful and effective in achieving transformation. One challenge we may encounter is determining the coaching agenda. A Western coaching ethic advocates for giving the client complete control over the agenda, focusing on their chosen goals and boundaries. While this approach seems straightforward, our intention of promoting social change may lead us to contemplate how much influence we should exert on the client’s journey. What if the client's solutions seem unethical, ineffective, or could pose risks to broader social development? Furthermore, when working in diverse cultural contexts, we need to be mindful of differing perspectives on individual autonomy. In some Eastern and Southern cultures, the concept of setting individual goals might not resonate the same way it does in the West. People in these cultures often prioritize the wishes and expectations of a wider group, whether family, team or community, before their own hopes and ambitions. We could risk inadvertently imposing our own cultural values onto the client. The solution often lays in recognizing the significance of context and building a strong and trusting relationship with the client. By understanding the dynamics of power, language and agendas that may emerge between us, we can gain insight into the issues at hand and potential solutions. We become allies, working together to achieve meaningful impact. A critically-reflective process allows us to adapt our coaching practice on route and to challenge our assumptions as we learn and grow.  ‘It’s a question of what the relationship can bear.’ (Alison Bailie) You may have heard the old adage, the received wisdom that says, ‘Don’t try to run before you can walk.’ It normally refers to avoiding taking on complex tasks until we have mastered simpler ones. Yet the same principle can apply in relationships too. Think of leadership, teamworking, coaching or an action learning set; any relationship or web of relationships where an optimal balance of support and challenge is needed to achieve an important goal. Too much challenge, too early, and we can cause fracture and hurt. It takes time, patience and commitment to build understanding and trust. I like Stephen Covey’s insight that, ‘Trust grows when we take a risk and find ourselves supported.’ It’s an invitation to humility, vulnerability and courage. It sometimes calls for us to take the first step, to offer our own humanity with all our insecurities and frailties first, as a gift we hope the other party will hold tenderly. It's an invitation, too, for the receiver to respond with love. John, in the Bible, comments that, ‘Love takes away fear’. To love in the context of work isn’t something soft and sentimental as some cynics would have us believe. It’s an attitude and stance that reveals itself in tangible action. Reg Revans, founder of action learning, said, ‘Swap your difficulties, not your cleverness.’ A hidden subtext could read, ‘Respond to my fragility with love, and I will trust you.’ I joined one organisation as a new leader. On day 3, one of my team members led an all-staff event and, afterwards, she approached me anxiously for feedback. I asked firstly and warmly, with a smile, ‘What would you find most useful at this point in our relationship – affirmation or critique?’ She laughed, breathed a sigh of relief, and said, ‘To be honest, affirmation – I felt so nervous and hoped that, as my new boss, you would like how I had handled it!’ In this vein, psychologist John Bowlby emphasised the early need for and value of establishing a ‘secure base’: that is, key relationship(s) where a person feels loved and psychologically safe, and from which she or he can feel confident to explore in a spirit of curiosity, daring and freedom. It provides an existential foundation on which to build, and enables a person to invite and welcome stretching challenge without feeling defensive, threatened or bruised. How do you demonstrate love at work? What does it look like in practice? |
Nick WrightI'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch! 
Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
|
RSS Feed