(This insight is for those who have read at least one of my books and know the methodology somewhat.)
We know and have tested the hypothesis that in an organizational structure it is dysfunctional, to mix (P) and (E). Thus, Adizes methodology recommends not to have one VP for sales and marketing in the corporate structure.
Two different time perspectives. Marketing fulfills the (E) role, while sales needs to be (P) oriented. If those two functions are combined in the same department, with the same manager, the (P) function will dominate. The result being that the marketing department will carry the name of marketing, but in reality it will be bolstering and supporting sales.
By the same token avoid combining (A) and (P) or (E).
Because (A) will rapidly dominate the other two functions and the organization will become bureaucratized.
Intuitively I have known for years that PAEI roles should be separated…Thus, in a Syndag™, when we accumulate pips we DO NOT accumulate what is positive about the organization. The positive is accumulated in Phase 4 of the program for organizational transformation. Much, much later.
I would recommend that one never mix positives and negatives for the simple reason the two are incompatible. One process will undermine the other. For example, in a Syndag if we accumulated the positive as well as the Potential improvement Points, i.e., the negatives, the “pressure“ to cause change will be diminished. The purpose of the Syndag as an event that is supposed to start change will therefore be disrupted.
Now it occurs to me that this “rule“ of not mixing long with short range goals, and the positive with the negative, makes sense in one’s personal life too.
When you debate your problems in your own head, or at a session with a therapist, the tendency is to present the negatives, that is, the weaknesses, and to counter the “confession” immediately with: “Yes, but on the other hand,…” and present the positives for balance.
Why should we not mix positives with negatives at the same time?
Because one process undermines the other to the point that there is little energy, if any, left either to build one’s sense of self esteem, if the positives win, or to start a process of healing, if the negatives prevail.
In other words, it is all about energy. Conservation and the use of energy.
What should happen?
Keep the two apart. Separate the two sides of the internal argument.
First try and figure out what is wrong. The mind becomes engaged in processing information, facts and feelings. Focus on the negatives, on what is not working for you. Resist, at the same time, the desire and the sense that you need as well to balance your thinking by including the positive side of the argument with yourself.
Leave that for later. For some other time.
If you do so, sufficient energy might build up to start a process of change. It will not tell you, granted, what needs to change. For that you must think and process facts and feelings about the positive side of your conflict with yourself; determine what is right about you; and for you. But do all this later.
First create the energy to change by sorting and calculating what needs to be improved. Later, identify and quantify ONLY your strengths and positive attributes.
In both cases find a pattern. Then compare the patterns and design a plan of action.
I repeat, the positives and the negatives should be considered (apart from one another) in order to design a plan of action that is balanced.
But the accumulation of the positives and of the negatives, the sorting it out process if you will, needs to be done at two different intervals of time. Never simultaneously, or one rapidly after the other.
I hope I was clear and that it makes sense to you all.
Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes