Marsha and I often talk about how Corporate America in the 90's is not a worker-friendly ecosystem. There is a singular, driving focus -- the short-term bottom line. In this environment business considers a profit shortfall the most serious possible problem. The usual thinking is that competition is keen so we can't raise prices, and increasing volume won't improve our profit margins; therefore, we must reduce costs. And, guess what is the largest single component of most companies' cost structure? Labor! An obvious and seemingly simple answer is to reduce head count. Bingo, immediate profit improvement. When another bump occurs, make another reduction in force. Hey, this is easy.
Then sales growth slows, productivity declines and profits drop. Improvement ideas dwindle to zero and several key people leave. Management decides that more belt tightening is needed. Again, a simple response is to drop a few production line maintenance people. Later, production problems reduce output and the plant fails to fill a large shipment. A major customer is lost and profits drop more steeply. What's going on here?
The manager tried to follow conventional business wisdom so he thinks he must have made a mistake. In reality, the problem wasn't the manager's ability to execute standard practices but the standard practices themselves. There is an insightful book that was popular in the business community called The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge. It describes our preoccupation with the kind of linear thinking pattern that says if I take a specific action to reduce labor costs, then profits will rise. Period. End of story.
But the story doesn't end there. The manager's actions don't occur in a vacuum. They impact other parts of the "system" chiefly the workers and, when jobs are lost, the remaining workers respond by acting differently than before. These responses vary with conditions but they always cause a change in the profit/labor equation. The manager didn't consider any other changes and assumed that one action was insulated from any others. That was his mistake.
Mr. Senge advises that we engage instead in systems thinking that recognizes the interconnectedness of things, "...[business endeavors] are also systems. They, too, are bound by invisible fabrics of interrelated actions, which often take years to fully play out their effects on each other....we tend to focus on snapshots of isolated parts of the system, and wonder why our deepest problems never seem to get solved."
I finally had to ask, "Richard, what does this have to do with the ladies of Sweetheart Connection?" His response was thought provoking, "If the principles of systems thinking are true in business wouldn't they also be true in our interpersonal relationships? Yet we have a tendency to treat both situations with inappropriate linear thinking. That's a big problem."
It reminded me of some women's magazine articles that ask us to list what we want most out of our relationships. They give tips and tricks to get our man to give us what we want. We read the article, the technique sounds good so we decide to try it. We act a little bit, bend the truth a little bit, butter him up a little bit and pout and whine a little bit. Guess what? It works and we get exactly what we asked for. We're so inspired that we try it again and it works a second time.
Later our husband seems hesitant when we ask for something or make a suggestion. He seems suspicious of our actions and motives and acts as though he doesn't trust us as much as before. We tried to do exactly what the article said so we think that we must have made a mistake. Again the mistake wasn't our ability to execute the technique but the technique itself. Does this remind you of the manager and his declining profit problem?
If we could look inside our husband's head we would see that he is feeling used and betrayed. Out-maneuvering someone can deliver the desired short term results, but it also delivers a different set of long term results. How would you feel if you discovered that your husband had used some new business negotiating technique to get you to do something that you didn't really agree with? He got the immediate results but he also got a wife who won't quickly forget how he tricked her.
Our marriages are an intimately connected system and any action by one party has a major impact on the other and causes behavior changes that eventually affect both partners. This is particularly significant in a marriage with a cross-dresser. Often we think that what we want is for our husband to stop dressing or to severely control it so we feel more comfortable. If we do that, what happens to him? How does he feel? How does he respond? What impact will his response have on me and on our marriage?
Most likely, what you really want is a good marriage and a strong relationship. That isn't about getting what you want, but it is about both partners jointly balancing their wants, needs and desires. That balancing act is difficult, but we have a favorite technique that has withstood the test of time. It is a simple concept widely known as "The Golden Rule" and directs us to treat each other the way we want to be treated. It takes a lot of work and time but gives back a strong, long-lasting and rewarding relationship. We both agree that it is worth the investment.
Return to Spouses and Partners
