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

Methodology bigots are “true believers” in the worst sense.

There are many positive and admirable aspects to being not just a supporter, but a disciple, of a particular methodology of change. Here are two examples:

• The enthusiast has a loyal conviction to his or her methodology, which  fosters effective application of the concepts and techniques.
• He or she is willing to penetrate deep into the crevasses and nuances of an approach to search out the hidden treasures.

As wonderful as this kind of dedication can be, there is a down side to being a true believer: The practitioner can become so adamant about the singular correctness of his or her approach that other methodologies are considered unworthy.

Herein lies the essence of the Methodology Bigot Syndrome, and the reason it’s so debilitating to the individual practitioner (and ultimately, to our profession). Chauvinists of any persuasion aren’t just gung-ho for something, they are ardently against anything outside their belief system. This typically presents itself in the zealous promotion and fervid protection of their biases.

Passionate Promoters

We methodology bigots feel justified in, even sometimes obligated to, “spreading the truth” about the superiority of our chosen approach. We subscribe to a “what is true for me should be true for everyone” stance and feel the need to enlist or even convert as many change agents as possible to our way of practicing the craft.

A healthy enthusiasm for one’s chosen path is a natural outcome of positive experiences within a particular methodology. A bigot’s need to persuade others of the virtues of his or her approach, however, goes beyond just hardy eagerness. Our unspoken (and usually unconscious) motivation for enrolling others is that it bolsters our own decision to be a devotee of the chosen approach. “This must be the best way: See how many smart people made the same decision I did?”

Ardent Protectors

Even more revealing is the bigot’s tendency to be so protective of his or her chosen methodology’s views that he or she feels the need to defend against intrusions by the “opposing forces” (other approaches). (Note: If you’re saying to yourself that you would never stoop to such haughtiness, remember, methodology bigotry typically resides beneath our awareness and we usually express it in very politically correct ways.) Methodology bigots typically think of themselves as tolerant, if not embracing, of other methodologies when, at a deeper level, they are actually quite discriminatory. Although they try to camouflage their biases from others, they often end up only concealing it from themselves.

True believers form an interesting paradox for themselves. They are certain their answers are right and others’ are wrong (based mostly on their own experiences and whatever research or empirical evidence they decided to accept as valid). Logic would suggest that such a position of strength ought to create confidence, but instead, insecurity is more often what is displayed. This is never more apparent than when they see other methodologies as adversaries to be defended against.

There is only one reason a person needs protection, and that’s when he or she feels vulnerable. In this case, vulnerability reveals itself when change agents are antagonistic toward other approaches based on a fear (remember, typically unconscious) that exploring alternatives could somehow weaken their confidence in the methodology they use.

This fear of undermining their allegiance to an adopted approach isn’t limited to concerns about actually substituting one methodology for the other. Sometimes practitioners are protective of their preferred concepts and tools because of the time, energy, and money that has gone into their training and/or certification, and the length of time (sometimes years) they have used the approach.

The Danger of Certainty

It’s not easy to invest heavily in something, become convinced of its value, and at the same time remain open to new and different ideas. Yet, someone truly grounded in his or her position usually has little need to put up safeguards against other opinions simply because they are of a different persuasion. In fact, one indication of a person’s self-confidence is his or her interest in exploring alternatives beyond what appears to be “the truth.” I’m not talking about exploring in the sense of, “Let me see how I can demonstrate how right my way is and why yours is wrong (or at least not as affective as mine).” I’m referring to respectful investigation…pursuit of diverse perspectives about change implementation with the expectation that significant value will almost always be the result. In fact, when important new insights aren’t uncovered through this kind of open dialogue, it is a surprise.

Probably the greatest debilitation methodology bigots suffer is when they become certain, rather than knowledgeable. There is an important distinction between these two terms. Knowledgeable practitioners can hold a particular perspective about the change process without shutting off the possibility of new learning. Practitioners who become certain of their craft, however, close their learning borders—there is no more interest in new investigations because they are sure they already have all the answers.

Methodology bigots are certain of their approach as well as themselves, and thus, they shut down their critical thinking. They are the worst kind of true believers…no longer needing to critique what they believe. For them, their methodology is a tightly-woven system that accounts for and explains any implementation-related question or issue that might surface. As such, a self-perpetuating logic loop forms that is difficult to break out of: “Everything of consequence can be addressed through the lens of my methodology so anything unanswered by it is, by definition, inconsequential.” Bigots don’t stop thinking altogether—they just limit their thinking to what is acceptable within their approach’s strongly defended frame of reference. It’s not that searching for new insights is prohibited—it is simply considered unnecessary.

Next: We Have Met the Enemy and It Is Us

Go to the beginning of this series.