Why Dilemma Thinking?

Start the online DRP now Submit your workshop Dilemma Worksheet

Overview of Dilemma Reconciliation

There are several models published on National and Organization Cultures but most of these are descriptive and analytical — but stop there. The Trompenaars Hampden-Turner model goes further and leads to a 'call for action' by our unique methodology which secures the best of both sides of the competing demands together. 

Introduction

The Trompenaars Hampden-Turner Dilemma Reconciliation Process (DRP) is a combined analytical, problem-solving and decision-making series of steps designed for leaders in business organizations. It starts from the basis that most organizational (cultural) issues, business and leadership challenges can be framed as a tension between two or more (desirable) value propositions in apparent conflict.

DRP tells a business leader how to identify, elicit and frame these challenges, how to validate these dilemmas against a framework of cultural dimensions, how to reconcile these tensions, how to identify better or new solutions, and how to structure the action steps for implementing these solutions. It is supported by a wide range of proprietary scientific research, tools, software programs, training courses, a certification process, personal and group assessments, templates, and other supports.

Modern approach
Dilemma reconciliation overcomes the limitations of traditional approaches to enquiry such as positivism, constructivism, and post-modernism which do not take account of competing or contrasting values that are central challenges to modern organizations. The central construct is that in today's business world, organizational, managerial; and leadership issues can be captured and thereby made explicit as a tension between two (desirable) opposites. We define Dilemma Theory as the basis for eliciting the business problems in this paradigm, so that a process of reconciliation can accommodate the seemingly contrasting alternatives.

Today's organizations need stability and change, tradition and innovation, public and private interest, planning and laissez-faire, order and freedom, growth and decay. These dynamics, deriving from economic and societal changes that include globalization, increasing diversity and ever pervading technology, mean that traditional frames of reference are insufficient to accommodate competing values simultaneously. The consequence is that the systems and processes of organizations are changing to a world of dilemmas.

The DRP methodology is applicable to a wide range of problem types and organizations (including both private and public sector) with high levels of validity and reliability.

This version is intended particularly for those:
  • who have not previously been involved in any (face to face OR online) events where you would have already been introduced to dilemma thinking and our dilemma reconciliation process.

    OR
  • those that already have knowledge and would like to revise and extend their understanding before engaging in the DRP App.
THT's unique approach
Without doubt, how to deal with competing demands from different values is the single most important issue that differentiates Trompenaar's models from others. National or organizational cultural dimensions are a tension between two extemes and therefore must be considered as a dilemma.

For example, where would you position between the competing demands of universalism (keeping to the business terms of a contract) and particularism (responding to new unforseeen excetional changes)?

In models from most other authors, you would stop at the point of positionning yourself on a linear scale.
But this implies you have a tendency to focus more on one end of the dilemma than on the other.

28
Universalism Particularism

In order to deal with cultural differences, Trompenaar's invites you need to think differently and to chart the dilemma by rating BOTH sides of the dilemma separately by indicating where you would position yourself on an x-y grid.

The steps of this Dilemma Reconciliation Process involves being able to explore how to subsequently move the dilemma holder to the top right position in which the benefits (positives) of both sides of the dilemma are realised simultaneously. In this way, you can develop your inter-cultural competence begin to leverage cultural differences to business advantage. And organizations can elicit reconcilations that resolve the competing demands of their business challenges.

If you work through all the six steps, you will be able to engage more effectively in the DRP App to resolve dilemmas of your own interest as well as those faced by your organization.

Reconciling dilemmas

We now describe below the 6 steps to elicit, formulate and reconcile dilemmas arising from competing demands.

When you later come to use the DRP App, you will follow these steps working together with a team of individuals or a number of groups. You will each make contributions to each step to and also see and rate contributions from others. As you progress through the steps, the 'best' contributions from the collective participants willbe carried forward to the next.



Step 1: How to identify the dilemma

First - what is a dilemma? We define a dilemma as: “two propositions in apparent conflict”. In other words a dilemma describes a situation whereby one has to choose between two good or desirable options. E.g. On the one hand we need flexibility whilst on the other hand we also need consistency. So a dilemma describes the tension that is created due to conflicting values/demands.

What is not a dilemma?
Here are some examples:

  • A description of a current and ideal state: “We have good communication tools but we need to use them better”.
  • An either-or option: “Should we start hiring new employees now or wait till next year”.
  • A complaint: “We make good strategic plans but due to lack of leadership we are not able to follow them through”

How to formulate a dilemma?

Some guidelines:
  • Avoid the above negative examples of a dilemma.
  • Describe a specific situation to explain the context of the dilemma.
  • Describe positive elements of both sides of the dilemma (e.g. individual versus group; objective versus subjective; logic versus creativity; analytical versus intuitive; formal versus informal; rules versus exceptions etc).
  • Describe the dilemma by using the words: “on the one hand whilst/and on the other hand…”.

Examples of Dilemmas:

Example 1

On the one hand

Whilst on the other hand

we need to standardize our systems and procedures to benefit from compliance and economies of scale

we need to be able to respond to the particular needs of specific clients/customers

Example 2

we need to keep details of our relationships with individual clients/customers confidential

we need to share best practice in our dealings with clients/customers across our organization
Step 1: Identify the dilemma
  1. Make the dilemma you have chosen as specific as possible:
    • Think of a concrete situation that directly concerns or affects you and structure it as follows: 'On the one hand we want/must(Value X), whilst on the other hand we want/must(Value Y).'
    • Identify the dilemma holder. This is the person or team who values both equally and is in the position to implement the reconciliation.
  2. Enter the name of the dilemma holder and the two opposing Values in the heading of the worksheet.
  3. Give your dilemma a catching title.
 When eliciting a dilemma use multiple sources:
  • Interviews
  • Questionnaires
  • Storytelling
  • Data analysis
  • Humor/cartoons
  • (Participant) Observation
  • Analyze documents; e-mails
  • Cross validate



Step 2: Plot the dilemma on the x-y grid
Current Position on the Dilemma Grid

 It is insightful to try to consider where the dilemma holder is currently positioned in the total grid space.

Thus, is the dilemma holder mainly living proposition A (near the 1,10 position) or proposition B (near the 10,1 position), or some compromise (near the 5,5 position) or even denying the existence of the dilemma and is near to the origin (the 1,1, position)?

Your eventual aim of course, through reconciliation is to move the dilemma holder(s) towards the 10,10 position.

At this stage, simply try to indicate where the current dilemma is positioned. Of course, you can use intermediate values to locate the dilemma holder anywhere on the grid (e.g. 6,3) and are not limited to the above extreme examples.

  1. When using the App, click on the grid into the appropriate space.

    Rewrite the noun as a present participle (e.g. changing instead of change).
  2. You will later see how others have positioned the dilemma holder in comparison to yourself.



Step 3: Stretch the dilemma

Try to consider each Proposition separately. Be careful not to make the Negatives of proposition B simply the positives of Proposition A and vice versa.

Think about each proposition separately and identify the most significant positives and negatives for each.
  1. List the advantages and disadvantages of Value X.
  2. Similarly, do so for Value Y.



Step 4: Epithets
Emphasise the simultaneous undesirability (or simultaneous desirability) of the positions (1,10), (10,1) etc. by stigmatising them with an epithet. This is a 'sweet and sour' action or expression.

Start with position (1,10) and think of the consequences of taking Proposition A too far. Do the same with position (10,1). Similarly create epithets for the (5,5)-compromise and (1,1) denial position (optional).

You will need to be creative here. It is a little like trying to write a newspaper headline that captures the issue in a recognisable phrase or saying.

Examples are (for the extremes of propositions A and B)

A='Shooting from the hip' B = 'Paralysis by Analysis'

A = 'Angels' B = 'Devils'

A = 'I did it my way' B = 'Consultation on everything'

A = 'Pile them high' B = 'sell them cheap'

A = 'Sell what you can make' B = 'Make what you can sell'

A = 'High Tech' B = 'High touch'



Step 5: Reconcile the dilemma
Your challenge is now to combine the positives of Proposition A with those of Proposition B or vice versa?

Here are some approaches:
  • Think of how, through making use of the positives of Proposition A, one can get more of the positives of proposition B and vice versa? We call this through/through-thinking
  • Think in processes. Reconciliation mostly involves realising something over time: the creation of movement or change
Try to reconcile the opposing proposition by using one of the following sequences:
  • Realise proposition A in the context of proposition B, or vice versa (framing).
    • First realise proposition A to create the conditions that will allow for the realisation of proposition B in the (not to distant) future, or vice versa (sequencing).
    • Let proposition A learn from proposition B or vice versa (error correcting system)
    • Create an ever growing synergy between the two propositions (synergizing)
Example: Individual versus Team development?

How can we through putting high performing individuals in our team, improve the performance of the team, and through the use of the team, develop the individuals to even higher effectiveness, even as individuals? Epithets: All for one, and one for all

Reconciliation: all for all!



Step 6: Make an implementation plan
Define what is needed for implementation.

You have chosen to work at the level of detail which enables you to specify an overall outline Dilemma Reconciliation Implementation Plan. At a later stage, you may wish to consider more detailed aspects of implementation ~ including SMART objectives and/or a full "dilemma to activity" analysis.

At this stage, just indicate the key issues under the following headings:
  • What should be done: what actions, what timing and what deadlines (if any)?
  • Who should sponsor this change?
  • What obstacles need to be overcome?
  • How will you monitor the progress of the implementation of the reconciliation solution?
  • Later you can (where appropriate) complete further additional analysis and coding steps to consider for example the business benefits of reconciling the dilemma.
In summary:
  1. What actions should be undertaken, by whom and when?
  2. What obstacles need to be overcome?
  3. How would you monitor the progress?