Organizations live or die as complete integrated systems, existing in an external environment that imposes conditions, including competition, on the activities of the system. Effective strategy must consider both the internal activities and the external environmental factors.

FIGURE 19-11 AllForm Welding Company strategic intermediate objectives map.

The OODA loop developed by Boyd provides an excellent foundation for managing the development and evolution of strategy over the foreseeable time horizon of an organization. (It should be emphasized, however, that the OODA loop is only one small but important part of Boyd's contributions to systemic thinking. The sources on Boyd listed in the references are all highly recommended reading.) The LTP is perhaps the most powerful system-level policy analysis tool ever conceived. Strategy development and refinement is very much concerned with policy analysis, since strategic prescriptions inevitably take the form of policies to some degree. Consequently, the use of the LTP as a strategy development and deployment tool can't be reinforced too strongly.

Merging the framework provided by the OODA loop with the trees of the LTP provide a "power boost" for organizations of any stripe-commercial, not-for-profit, or government agency-in helping them achieve their goals. If such organizations exist in a "zero sum" environment (a gain for them is a loss for some other group), this kind of assist can spell the difference between success and failure.

References

Athey, T. H. 1982. Systematic Systems Approach: An Integrated Method for Solving System Problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Coram, R 2002. Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War. New York: Little, Brown & Co.

Dettmer, H. W. 2003. Strategic Navigation: A Systems Approach to Business Strategy. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.

Dettmer, H. W. 2007. The Logical Thinking Process: A Systems Approach to Complex Problem Solving. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press, Goldratt, E.M. 1990. The Haystack Syndrome: Sifting Information Out of the Data Ocean. Great Barrington, MA: The North River Press.

Hammond, G. T. 2001. The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security. Washington, DC: The Smithsonian Institution Press.

Holley, D. 1997. "Toyota heads down a new road,"Los Angeles Times, March 16.

Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Osinga, F. P. B. 2007. Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd. New York: Routledge.

Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press.

Ramel, G. Gordon's Flea Page. Siphonaptera: A nursery rhyme, dating back to the 1800s. http://www.earthlife.net/insects/siphonap.html.

Rantanen, K. and Domb, E. 2002. Simplified TRIZ: New Problem-Solving Applications for Engineers & Manufacturing Professionals. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Richards, C. 2004. Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd Applied to Business. Philadelphia, PA: Xlibris Corporation.

Safranski, M., Ed. 2008. The John Boyd Roundtable: Debating Science, Strategy and War. Ann Arbor, MI: Nimble Books LLC.

About the Author.

William Dettmer is senior partner at Goal Systems International, providing consulting and training on established applications of constraint management tools in both manufacturing and services with Fortune 500 and other companies. He has developed new applications for constraint theory, principles, and tools. Dettmer has deep experience in logistics, project planning and execution, and contracting/procurement and has had direct responsibility for project management, logistics planning, government contracting, system design, financial management, productivity improvement, idea generation, team building, strategic planning, and customer-supplier relations. He is the author of seven books on constraint management and system improvement.

CHAPTER 20.

The Layers of Resistance-The Buy-In Process According to TOC

Efrat Goldratt-Ashlag

Introduction.

Sitting in a crowded airport lounge not long ago, I overheard a discussion between two men regarding a proposed change in their organization. The first man was making a real effort to convince his colleague to go along with the change. The colleague was clearly not thrilled about the idea, and began raising objection after objection. As soon as the first man addressed those concerns, his colleague was either ready with a new objection or, worse, insisted on rehashing a problem the two had already discussed. As the men grew more and more irritated with one another, all I could think of was how I wished these guys were familiar with the Layers of Resistance-that might have given them a chance to get somewhere instead of going around in circles.

When we recognize that a change should be made, we often realize that we cannot pull it off without someone else's permission and/or collaboration. Thinking about bringing another party on board tends to make us somewhat apprehensive. Not only because of the time and effort it is going to take, but mostly because we can't be sure that these efforts will pay off; getting buy-in is not a trivial task. So, we prepare our arguments (or don't), take a deep breath, and tell the other party all about our fantastic idea. Sometimes it works and they get excited, and sometimes it doesn't and they leave less than enthused. Resistance comes in many forms: We might encounter a flat-out NO, or get caught in the cycle of objection and reassurance like those folks at the airport. Even a repetitive "let me think about it" can be a type of resistance, and there are many more. The result is still the same: We do not yet have the approval or collaboration we need in order to move on.

Our natural reaction on such occasions is to get all worked up and blame the other party for being indifferent or stubborn or even stupid (Goldratt, 2009). After all, they are the ones who failed (miserably, we might like to tell ourselves) to see the need for our change. The literature on the subject also focuses on the other parties' reasons for resisting change, stating causes such as personality traits (e.g., intolerance for ambiguity, need for control), inertia, promoting or protecting one's self-interest, and more. If we pause for a minute to think about what these causes mean, we can see that the literature has a lot in common with our natural reaction-both imply that the person who resists the change is the "bad guy" in the situation. TOC takes a very different stand in that matter. What TOC suggests is that instead of blaming the other party, the person proposing the change should be accountable for thoroughly planning and presenting the change.

Copyright 2010 by Efrat Goldratt-Ashlag.

First of all, let us assume that we are talking about a win-win change, one that benefits all parties involved. Too often we come up with the most creative justifications for demanding that others give up their needs so that we can get ours met. We are pushing for a win-lose change. If we expect to "win" at the expense of the other side, we are practically asking for resistance-and shouldn't be surprised when we get it. Win-lose solutions are hard to sell, and even if we have the power to enforce them, we cannot expect our partners to collaborate happily. In this chapter, we focus only on win-win changes.

At first glance, it seems that win-win changes should be easy to sell. After all, if everyone wins, why would anyone object? Win-win changes should practically sell themselves. In reality, however, this turns out to be false. People do object to win-win solutions, and often for very good reasons. For instance, they may not be clear on how they win, exactly (or, shall we say, we haven't outlined their benefits clearly enough), they may have concerns that we might have overlooked, they might believe this change will not "stick" and want to preserve their energy for more worthwhile efforts (as excited as we are about this change, have we really thought of how to integrate it fully?), and so on. Today's world presents people with abundant opportunities to make changes in all areas of life. In order to make sure that they look after their best interest and use their resources for efforts that will pay off, it stands to reason that people will approach change with various degrees of caution. If we would like to implement a change that requires their collaboration, then it is up to us to buy them in.

Some of us are excellent salespeople when it comes to getting people on board, and some of us are less "talented" in that area. We have all initiated and implemented successful changes in the past, but we have probably failed too-we have tried to get others to collaborate and we have gotten stuck. The question is, when we get stuck, is there something we can do about it? Is there a way for us to uncover the other party's concerns and address them properly? Or, if we anticipate difficulty in getting buy-in for a certain change, can we tackle it in advance? Can we systematically line up our arguments, so that we have a better chance of getting people to collaborate with us? The TOC "Layers of Resistance" may offer significant insights into these questions.

The Layers of Resistance to Change

The Layers of Resistance to change originate from the TOC basic questions of change (Goldratt, 1984).

1. What to Change? (What is the problem we are attempting to address?) 2. What to Change to? (What is our solution to this problem?) 3. How to Cause the Change? (How to implement the solution?) Taken together, these three questions represent the buy-in effort in a nutshell. Yet each one of these three is a separate issue that must be addressed before we even attempt to get the other party to buy-in to our change initiative. The second and third questions (agreeing on the solution and the implementation steps) may seem self-explanatory, but it is also vital to make sure that everyone understands and agrees on the problem. What sometimes happens is that in our haste to talk about the change (i.e., the solution), we neglect to verify that we agree on the problem-and if both parties have different problems in mind, the odds are rather slim that our solution addresses their problem. It is no wonder, then, that they fail to see the merit in our solution, and object to it. The three questions of change thus highlight not only what should be covered in a buy-in effort, but also, and just as importantly, the inherent order in which this effort should be executed. There is no sense in talking about the solution before we agree on the problem, and no sense talking about the implementation steps before we agree on the solution. Hence, the three questions of change act as the basic Layers of Resistance to change that must be overcome or "peeled away," one after the other, in order to get a buy-in. We use the terms "layers" and "peeled away" since it's easy to picture the various challenges that must be overcome as peeling away layers of an onion until we get to the heart of the matter: the buy-in (see Fig. 20-1).

Awareness of the three basic Layers of Resistance is sufficient to improve many discussions about change. It was clear that those guys at the airport were all over the place. The guy who objected kept bouncing from the reasons why it was impossible to implement the change (disagreement on the implementation), to questioning whether they should focus on that particular change (disagreement on the solution), to suggesting that they should solve another problem first (disagreement on the problem). The initiator was doing his best to address each objection, but without any sense of progress; it was no wonder that those two were growing increasingly frustrated with each other and the entire discussion. The first thing they should have done was to pause and make sure that they agreed on what the problem was. Then, once they were on the same page, they could have moved forward to discuss the solution. If at that point they failed to reach an agreement, they would at least know where they stood and could restart from that point. In order to avoid wasting time and trying our own and our partner's patience, we need to resist the urge to hop all over the place-we should identify as soon as possible the earliest "Layer" on which we disagree, and suggest to the other party that we concentrate on that issue before we move on to the next.

Being aware of where we are in the discussion-identifying the Layer with which we have to deal-may also give us a better idea as to whether we are making progress or we are stuck. In tough situations where the changes may appear "radical" or the other party is exceedingly resistant, the buy-in process may still take some time. Instead of experiencing the uncomfortable feeling that we are going nowhere, the Layers may serve as a road map, indicating where we are, when it is appropriate to press forward in the discussion, and when we have to take a deep breath and stay put.

FIGURE 20-1 The basic Layers of Resistance based on the TOC questions of change.

The three basic Layers of Resistance may be the essence of this model, yet they do not tell the whole story. Once we take a closer look at these Layers, we detect even finer Layers inside them. Since the term "Layers of Resistance" was first coined in My Saga to Improve Production (Goldratt, 1996a; 1996b, and later reprinted in 2003, 114), I have come across outlines of TOC Layers of Resistance that contained within them anywhere between three and nine Layers. The reason for this phenomenon is that in different types of changes, there may actually turn out to be different finer Layers of the basic three that should be dealt with separately. Also, the magnitude of the change has an effect, as large-scale changes tend to have more fine Layers than local, small changes. Moreover, even with regard to a specific change it is difficult to predict how many and which Layers we will encounter. This is mainly because if we succeed in overcoming one Layer, the other party may overcome the next one independently. In order to develop further our intuition around identifying the Layers and successfully coping with them, it might be worthwhile to review the finer Layers one by one.

Disagreement on the Problem

Layer 0. There is no problem

When we approach the other party eager to discuss the win-win change we believe should be implemented, we sometimes receive responses such as, "What is wrong with what we have right now?" or, "There is no problem," or, "Everything is fine the way it is." These kinds of responses clearly indicate that there is no point discussing the problem (i.e., Layer 1) yet, as the other party does not yet acknowledge that there is a problem. We have to take a step back and deal first with Layer 0: Convincing the other party that something is wrong with the current state of affairs. In an illustration that has been used in the TOC community for years when discussing the Layers of Resistance (Fig. 20-2), we approach Wary Will and tell him, "You have got to make the effort to climb that cliff (read: Implement the change) because there is an alligator right behind you!" Wary Will answers, "What are you talking about? I don't see any alligator1." The only way to move past this Layer is to listen very carefully to what the other party is saying-in other words, to understand what is truly behind their claim. Wary Will may claim there is no problem because the approaching alligator is still too far away for him to notice it, or he can claim that "there is no problem" because he believes that the approaching alligator is friendly and won't bite. Because these are two different cases, we will have to use very different arguments to convince Will that there is a problem.

People may be stuck in Layer 0 for various reasons. Sometimes it is because they fail to see that there is something wrong in the current situation. Sometimes it's the opposite: They may have been well aware of the undesirable effects and fought very hard to get rid of them, but have failed so miserably that as far as they are concerned these negative phenomena must be accepted as part of reality. They might even have become so used to living with these negative phenomena that they no longer see them as negative (Goldratt, 2009, 19). Blockage at this layer may even be inherited from a predecessor who fought and failed, so the person to whom we are talking may not be aware that things can be different. It is no wonder, then, that they don't think the change we are presenting to them should be a priority.

FIGURE 20-2 Weary Will's dilemma: To change or not to change.

How do we move beyond this Layer? The best way is to take the time to understand fully where the other side is coming from. We should let the other party talk and assist them in uncovering their assumptions until we identify their false assumption with regard to the situation. The next step is proving to them that their assumptions are not in fact valid and a problem does exist. Most of the time it only takes a few minutes for the other party to realize that they were operating under a misperception and we can move on. On other occasions, peeling away Layer 0 may take longer. In extreme cases, we might even need to hold a series of discussions in which we gradually bring the other party around to our view of the situation. For those of us who tend to run out of patience, it may be best to muse upon the alternative for a moment: If we become frustrated, lose our temper, and decide to skip this step, what are the chances of the other person willingly collaborating with us? What are our chances of success without their support?

Sometimes it is wise to prepare some "ammo" going into a discussion with the other party, especially if the buy-in effort takes place as a formal presentation to a group. One approach that might help is to remind the other party of the goal they are trying to achieve and examine whether this goal is fully met with their current mode of operation. If we succeed in making the other party realize that their goals are not met to the extent they would like them to, it means there is a problem-we overcame Layer 0. In other cases, we might consider using another approach to peel back this layer: We need to remind the other party of some significant undesirable effects that are caused both by the problem we are attempting to solve, and by the problem from which the other party suffers. Then we need to convince the other party of two things: First, that these effects do indeed exist, and second, that they are harmful (and thus undesirable). This discussion is not as painful to conduct as it may sound. That is, if we prepare for it. It is best to come up with four to seven undesirable effects that we must verbalize from the other party's point of view. Remember, mirroring the other party's terminology is key to getting buy-in. In order to demonstrate that these effects are part of our reality, we can use leading questions, numbers, or any other kind of "proof." Most of the time this demonstration is sufficient because the undesirability of these effects speaks for itself. And if on occasion one or more of the undesirable effects are not intuitively perceived as negative, we can try to lead the other party through an "if...then" discussion until they realize that those effects are in fact negative.

Now, a word of caution: Let us think for a minute about those people we want on board. We probably need their permission or collaboration because they have some authority or responsibility in an area that is closely related to our change. It stands to reason, then, that if they have responsibility in an area related to the change, then they are also at least partially responsible for the problem we are trying to solve. So, it might be that they are well aware that there is a problem in the current situation, but they refuse to acknowledge it in public because they don't want to be blamed for it. If this is the case, discussing different undesirable effects and demonstrating how harmful they are might give them the impression that we are blaming them for even more than they thought. It will be like pouring gas on a fire, causing them to resist us even more! That is why we have to be extra careful in the way we approach the other party and in our choice of words. How do we know whether they are ignoring the problem because they are unaware of it or because they don't want to be blamed for it? If we listen well enough, we should know. Buy-in is as much about listening as it is about talking. But what if we are not sure? It is better in this case to play it safe and make very clear to the other side that no one is assigning blame, and all we want is to make things better for everyone.

Let's assume we have peeled away Layer 0 and have gotten the other party to acknowledge that there is a problem. Where do we go from here? Again, we have to listen. If we hear something like, "I see we have a problem, but what exactly is it?" or "Now that I think about it, the problem is different than what you are telling me," it means that we have moved to Layer 1 and should begin to discuss and get agreement on the problem. Sometimes we may find that, especially in small changes, once the other party realizes there is a problem, they are able simultaneously to recognize exactly what that problem is. In this case, we don't need to expend our energy and bore the other side with excessive explanations about the problem. It is better to verify that we are talking about the same problem, realize that Layer 1 is also peeled away, and move on.

Layer 1. Disagreeing on the problem

People come from different backgrounds, have different roles, and have different agendas. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect different answers to the question of what should be improved in a given situation. As we mentioned earlier, it is rather difficult to reach an agreement on a solution unless the two (or more) parties agree on the problem first. If we approach Wary Will and say, "Watch out! There's an alligator behind you!" and he replies, "That's not an alligator, it's a vulture!" then what chance do we have to convince him that climbing up the cliff is a good idea? I have heard people say that to avoid wasting time, it is better to discuss the solution right away and go back to Layer 1 only if during the discussion of the solution we realize that there is a discrepancy in our perceptions of the problem. This shortcut is risky because once we place our cards on the table and the other party objects to our solution, it will be harder to get them to admit they were wrong about the problem in the first place. It is therefore better to play our cards close to the chest to avoid giving the other party the opportunity to object until we verify that we are both on the same page, as far as the problem is concerned.

So, how can we agree on the problem? One way to go about it is to discuss openly the party's assumptions of what the problem is. During such a discussion, we may realize that although we are tackling different problems, they are actually related. It may be that we are talking about the same problem using different terms, or that we are talking about a series of linked problems that should be addressed sequentially. Examining each party's perceptions of the problem enables us to reach agreement on what should be addressed, at which time we can move on from this Layer. Sometimes, if we cannot reconcile the different points of view, we may resort to negotiating whose problem will be dealt with first. It might work, but it also might result in a stalemate. We may be able to preempt this situation by preparing for it.

Having different roles might mean that different people suffer from different undesirable effects that they mistakenly view as the main problem in the current situation. If we do not deal with the real core problem-the problem that is causing the various undesirable effects-we cannot fully remove those undesirable effects. That is why each TOC analysis begins with a search for the core problem that is causing the undesirable effects in the situation. The TOC thinking tools that are designed to help uncover the core problem are the three-cloud approach and the Current Reality Tree (CRT). The buy-in effort can also benefit from this type of analysis. If we can show the other party that their problems, as well as ours, are all derivatives of the same core problem, we may be able to reconcile our different points of view and get consensus on focusing our efforts on the core problem. Whether it is conveyed in a formal presentation or a systematic conversation, getting people to realize what the core problem is and how it relates to their own undesirable effects is very effective in peeling away this Layer of Resistance and enabling us to move forward.

Here again we must be cautious about blaming. We already mentioned that the people we want on board might be sensitive to the subject we are raising. When we approach them to talk about the problem, we might inadvertently give the impression that we are blaming them for the problem. This can easily become the case if we just have an intuitive discussion about it and are not careful about what we say and how we say it. Now imagine what might happen if we approach them with a well prepared, logical analysis that shows how they are not only responsible for their own undesirable effects but are also responsible for the core problem that is causing everyone else grief and agony. We might be-unintentionally, of course-forcing them into a corner, making them feel blamed or even attacked. And if they get defensive, what are the odds of all of us sailing smoothly toward a happy buy-in for our proposed change? Whether or not they should be blamed is irrelevant at this point. If we are serious about implementing the change, we have to put the issue of blame behind us. Instead, we must concentrate on how the other party is going to perceive our motives for approaching them. They must not feel blamed. Ideally, we want to put them at ease so that they are receptive and positive about our initiative. Being careful about the words we use is the key! If we could also demonstrate that we understand what kept them from solving this problem before, all the better. TOC recommends verbalizing the problem in a conflict format (i.e., a cloud). We want to show the other side not only that we are not here to blame them, but also that we actually understand the conflict in which they are trapped.

When we sense that all sides are on the same page as far as what the problem is, it usually means it's time to move on to discuss the solution. Except, however, for rare cases in which we bump against Layer 2.

Layer 2. The problem is out of my control

Thank goodness this Layer is rare because when it occurs it is very hard to overcome. Layer 2 describes those cases in which the other side insists that the problem is beyond their control and expects us to drop the whole thing. Wary Will tells us firmly, "My hands are tied. There is nothing I can do to help you," and refuses to hear another word on the matter. When we encounter responses such as these, we had better listen carefully to what the other party has to say. Sometimes the other party is right and the problem is indeed beyond their span of authority. In order to solve the problem, therefore, we may have to speak to whoever has the power to solve that problem. However, we do not always have the option of approaching someone's superiors, which means we might be stuck.

What if they just say it and the problem is in fact under their control? Here we have a serious problem because they usually refuse to continue the discussion. But if we find a way to open a dialog, we can try to uncover their erroneous assumptions and get them to see the problem is solvable within the boundaries of their control. Or, we can try to convince them, despite their unwillingness, to listen to our solution and then reconsider whether they have the power to implement it.

Disagreement on the Solution

Layer 3. Disagreeing on the direction for the solution