Leading with "AND" (Part 2 - replacing the word "BUT")

Webster’s Dictionary definition of the word ‘BUT’ is as follows: 

“...used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned.” 

Contrasting views, opinions, points of view make the world go around. Different cultures, experiences, personalities, ethnicities, religious beliefs, and political affiliations all contribute to the mosaic of the human condition on this planet. Differences should be celebrated and highlighted. Diversity should be sought after and revered. Bias or racism based on any of these differences should not be and cannot be tolerated.

My Grandmother used to say that the world would be a much better place if there were no such word as "HATE". To this day I do not use the word – nor do I allow anyone who is with me to use it. There is another word that I believe is anathema to being inclusive and collaborative; not conducive to sharing or empathizing and that is the word "BUT".

The connotation of the word "BUT" seems to be antagonizing and confrontational. It tends to shut people down and is disengaging. It is the favorite word of those leaders who are still in command and control mode on how to operate businesses and run organizations…

Pegasus NLP’s newsletter made the following observation:

“The word BUT negates or cancels everything that goes before it. And is generally accepted as a signal that the really important part of the sentence is coming up.

When you use it, most people listening to you will give more attention and more weight to what you say after you say BUT. This tiny little word is widely misused…”

The misuse is not just reserved for corporations, but at home with spouses and children. Any time the word "BUT" is used in a sentence, it’s as if what came before it matters very little. A few examples:

• In performance feedback at work, a positive compliment is generally followed with some sort of constructive criticism often bisected with the word "BUT".
• Compliments at home, especially to spouses and children often carry the weight of the dreaded "BUT" as the hammer drops with criticism after one tiny compliment.
• Teachers, in their constant quest for perfection or the infusion of knowledge with a healthy sprinkling of "BUT" when critiquing papers, homework, or someone’s diction.
• Coaches have demanded perfection forever. Their critical feedback is un-relenting and their players’ or performers' skill and creativity are given short shrift while their list of complaints (often to the media) is always much longer.

In this politically charged society, we have become accustomed to hearing the word "BUT" instead of "AND". There must be some innovative and worthwhile ideas on both sides of the political divide that with a little dialogue and some humility, multiple solutions could be found that are the aggregate of the two sides’ views on numerous topics.

It is still remarkable that the “Command and Control” leadership principles of the past century are still being practiced in organizations big and small throughout the globe. This is where the word "BUT" lives.

Throughout my career, I have witnessed some CEOs who firmly believe they alone are responsible to not only foresee the future but also solve all the problems in the businesses themselves. These executives genuinely believe that their role is as savior and know-it-all, especially in troubled circumstances where transformation and restructuring may be needed. While situational leadership does call for proscribing things at certain times, it does not mean that leadership is a one-person crusade. This attitude holds back many companies from attaining their potential on several fronts:

• Due to this ego-inflating (albeit - in a lot of cases - sincere) attitude, it creates an unhealthy amount of agreement and obsequiousness amongst the senior team and leads to groupthink for fear of rocking the boat and disagreeing and embarrassing the boss. It is also a form of self-preservation as in this type of environment, disagreement leads to termination
• There is a distinct lack of engagement throughout all levels of the organization. This leads to laziness, apathy, some forms of sabotage, and a general lack of productivity and creativity. It saps the energy out of the entire organization
• It stunts growth. Studies show that due to the lack of creativity and engagement, growth never reaches its potential, and the organization ‘tops out’ when the CEO has reached the end of their wick of intelligence and understanding
• Succession planning is not prioritized nor does the successor usually succeed as the “Command and Control” culture does not encourage development or maximizing the potential of the next levels and therefore there is nobody in the pipeline ready to step in. The company is forced to look outside and then the cycle starts all over again as strategies and priorities doubtlessly will shift with the next genius being granted the role and responsibility.

As we know all too well, the United States has turned into a politically charged and divisive entity. There is very little compromise on Capitol Hill or in many, if not all, of the State legislatures across the nation. This leads to what is commonly referred to as ‘Gridlock’ – which, in essence, means that bills, ideas, concepts, and plans are at a virtual standstill – nothing moves forward as in a massive traffic jam.

This is the essence of the ‘either/or' culture. There is no compromise because that would be giving in on any long-held ‘principles’ and is perceived as a form of weakness. This is, of course, strict nonsense as there is no progress without compromise. There is no creativity without compromise. There is no growth without compromise. If you can’t pass bills that improve the lives of the citizenry through compromise then society loses. The elected officials are literally not doing their job.

Great legislators of the past were hailed as masters of reaching across the political ‘aisle’ and creating consensus. Isn’t that the essence of what a great leader does: To inspire consensus among differing viewpoints in their organizations and ensure what they decide on they march forward in solidarity together with one voice?

Legislators such as Ted Kennedy, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, John McCain, Joe Biden – they all had the notoriety of being able to get things done through compromise and influence on both sides of the so-called ‘aisle’.

Legislating is not a “Hobbes-ian Choice”. If both parties will agree to bend, learn the meaning of give-and-take and understand the power of the word "AND", we would be much further ahead as a nation than we are today. In the areas of gun control, economic equality, energy policy, climate change, and criminal justice, this nation could be seen as a beacon of hope and light for every aspiring democracy. 

Oh, wait – the U.S. was at one point. We can rise again both in our organizations and in government by leveraging the power of "AND" and becoming a more inclusive society by replacing or reducing the usage of the word "BUT".

Lloyd A. Perlmutter is Founder/President of Veritas Advisory, LLC and has been leading and advising organizations for over 35 years. Call 248-794-9673 to have a meaningful and powerful conversation.