The title of this essay, “The Power of ‘And,’” has been a bit of a business cliché for years.  There was some ad campaign by, I think, AT&T in the ‘90s and the theme rears its head regularly in both consumer and business advertising.  It usually refers in some way to the benefits of bringing together opposites, like a beer having great taste AND being lower calorie or bringing contrarian thinking to solving a problem.

I’ve been noodling on this concept partly because I’ve been writing more articles on Leadership for Lab Manager Magazine and this is an important leadership concept.  I’ve also been going on long walks outside again now that spring is sort of here.  That means more Brené Brown podcasts and “holding opposing truths” is a big theme of hers.  And I’ve been entirely exasperated with the news and how we as a populace seem to have completely lost the ability to hold two competing truths in our heads.  Let’s tackle those topics one at a time.

One of the first lessons you are taught in preparing for corporate brainstorming sessions is that you never critique ideas during the “storming” part of the work.  Even if you think an idea someone has proffered is totally idiotic, you don’t say so.  In fact, the second lesson you learn is to try to build on the ideas of others whether you think they are good ideas or not.  If one person suggests, say, a survey of existing customers to probe interest in a new offering, you might say, “we could also set up a kiosk at a trade show to survey people who aren’t customers yet” and someone else might say, “and we could offer a raffle drawing to encourage people to fill out surveys.”  One idea builds on another and even if the initial idea didn’t sound so great, those builds usually make it better.  Both of these lessons can be summarized in the maxim “do not say ‘yes, but’; say ‘yes, and.’”  The reason “yes, and” is so difficult, though, is that most people feel strongly about their own ideas and immediately dismiss ideas that are different or counter to their own.

As a leader, both of people and of ideas, the “power of and” is simultaneously one of the best tools in your tool box AND one of the most difficult to use.  One of the myths of leadership is that if you are at the top of the org chart then you know more than anyone else, make better decisions than anyone else, and have better ideas than anyone else.  A good leader knows that is a recipe for disaster but in practice it is difficult to resist pushing your own plan.  While there are a number of reasons why someone has attained a leadership position, hopefully one of them is that this is a person with good judgement who is constantly looking for new data to improve their knowledge, decisions, and ideas.  The best way to do that is to invite and listen to contrarian thinking.  And I mean really LISTEN.  Not listen-to-rebutt, but listen-to-learn.  Someone with a different background and set of experiences will see a problem or an opportunity in a totally different way—and that may make all the difference in actually solving the problem or capitalizing on the opportunity.  Just because an approach is different from your own does not by definition make it inferior or wrong.  Embracing different thinking is extremely powerful—AND extremely difficult.  A strong leader focuses efforts on building the judgement skills in the organization so that different ideas are not immediately dismissed.  Ideas are fragile things!  Even the best ones can be killed off with one negative comment and why “yes, AND” instead of “yes, BUT” is so important.

This brings us to the “Brené Brown” piece of this essay which takes “the power of and” into a slightly different direction.  One of her themes is around probing this concept of constructive paradox—the ability to hold competing truths in your head.  Intellectually, we all know that the world is more gray than it is black and white.  Emotionally, we would prefer simple and clean choices and that often means ignoring a “competing truth”.  For example, I do not want to get COVID-19, so I wanted to get vaccinated.  I also know that there are a range of side effects from the vaccines, some more prevalent than others and some more severe than others.  I had a pretty rough day after my second shot and I’m ok with that.  This sort of risk calculation is part of holding two competing truths:  I am protected from COVID-19 AND I suffered yesterday.  Not BUT.  AND.  The good from the shot was not diminished in my mind by the bad of the side effects.  The side effects were part of getting the protection.  I didn’t choose to get the vaccine in spite of the side effects.  I chose to embrace the side effects as part of getting the protection.

This concept is a bit more difficult when applied to people AND it’s even more powerful.  You will never like everything about your spouse or family or friends.  You will never like everything about yourself.  You will forever be evaluating that balance between the good and the bad.  Remember, we talked about “balance” in the concept of a pendulum and not a scale, so it is ever-changing.  As long as that balance point stays more to the positive, then it’s a relationship you will continue to value and nurture.  I could say, “Trish loads the dishwasher weird, but I love her.”  Instead, I choose to say, “Trish loads the dishwasher weird, AND I love her.”  See how different that sounds?  It shows I value the whole person.  I don’t ignore parts I may not like because everything about her adds up to the person I love.  Similarly, I value all the mistakes I’ve made in the past because they all have contributed to making me who I am. 

And that’s what brings us to current events.  Seeing people as whole and human is crucial to avoiding judgement based on just part of them and critical to not dehumanizing them.  None of us are without failings and flaws. It is important to look at the whole person and evaluate where that balance is between the things you judge as “good” and “bad”.  Someone can have drug issues or mental health issues or even a warrant out for their arrest AND not necessarily deserve to be shot.  They are a human being.  A politician or friend or relative can have positions you agree with AND have positions you don’t agree with.  No one deserves your unquestioning support.  You are allowed to disagree on something and still love and support that person.  Similarly, you are also allowed to agree on occasion with someone you normally disagree with and not change your fundamental positions.  You can hold those competing truths.

Here’s my challenge to you.  Avoid the word “but” as much as you can.  I’ve purposely done that in this essay and have been surprised at how often that choice comes up AND how using “and” has strengthened the thoughts.  It’s not easy.  It takes intention and effort.  AND it’s worth it.