Hi. My name is Daryl Conner and I’m a methodology bigot.

In this series, I’ve been trying to challenge all of us to search out any tendencies of the methodology bigot that we might harbor. We’d rather not admit it, but we probably all have some elements buried inside us. It is hard to be fully dedicated to an approach and avoid crossing the line into disregard, if not intolerance, of alternative perspectives.

No, you’re probably not a full-blown dogmatist as characterized by all the attributes I have described. Neither am I, but that’s not the point. The question for us is not, “Am I a methodology bigot?” The more poignant challenge is, “Is it possible that some of these tendencies might be lurking beneath the surface and inadvertently show up in how I relate to approaches other than my own?”

You’re probably safe in assuming that you’re not as atrocious as the sum total of all the negative characteristics I’ve described in this series, but that still leaves open the issue of how many, how often, and to what extent some of these difficult-to-admit inclinations are in play. If being a 100% bigot is both unlikely and too reprehensible to contemplate…is matching 80% of the profile within your tolerable range? No? Well, what about displaying only 50% of the characteristics? Is that acceptable? Still too high? How about 30%, or maybe 15% of the bigot’s narrow mindedness…would either of these ratios be respectable enough for you?

If you’re like most of us, you’ll say none of the bigot’s leanings are acceptable, and yet, if we don’t acknowledge that we have some of these impulses—at least at the unconscious level—we are more prone to fall prey to them. This is the shadow, or dark side, of being committed to a particular way of approaching change implementation. With the benefits of strong allegiances, there is the vulnerability of exclusionary thinking. It comes with the territory. Rather than deny that these biases exist, it’s best to accept that some of the tendencies are at least latent in all of us, and that continuing to surface them is the best course of action. Pretending that we could never be a host for such a foul temperament only increases our susceptibility to it.

The solution isn’t to abandon our well-deserved devotion to whatever approaches we have formed attachments to. The last thing we want to do is lose the differentiations the various methodologies offer. Alternative frames of reference about implementing change is the grist on which creativity depends.

Varying perspectives aren’t a problem unless they become a justification for discounting and disregarding each other’s views. This is when healthy differences cross the line and enter the prejudice-filled world of bigotry. The secret lies in cultivating different frames of reference that pay tribute to each other, not that hold each other in contempt.

What will foster our own development as practitioners, as well as advance our profession’s collective wisdom, is a virtuous balance—steadfast belief in and support of our respective preferred methodologies, while we honor and learn from other approaches. There is nothing inconsistent about being an aficionado of one approach while also being a student of several others.

There is no reason to withdraw any of our allegiances. We just need to ensure we remain not only open to but actively in pursuit of ways our separate strategies and tactics for implementation can inform and strengthen each other.

Next: Herding Strong Egos

Go to the beginning of this series.