It is a common wisdom expressed by wise men and women that sometimes a situation has to get worse before it can get better. Why is that true? We know from experience that it is—but why?

In order to solve a problem, it is not enough that the solution is well known, articulated, and understood. The interested parties whose cooperation and support are needed to solve the problem, must be mobilized. Many stakeholders do not share the same urgency to solve the problem. But, as the situation deteriorates, more and more parties begin to feel the need to solve the problem. What once felt like someone else’s problem slowly becomes their own. Eventually, when the crisis becomes severe enough, even the last holdout—the stakeholder who had the least to gain—comes to the table, that is the tipping point. That is when alignment happens. And that is when change finally becomes possible.

How can we put this insight to use?

One way is to follow this “wisdom” and wait for the situation to get worse. It’s a costly solution— there is a high price to pay when things continue to deteriorate.

The other strategy is to simulate a future where the situation has become so bad that all stakeholders are forced to engage.

How?

In the Adizes Symbergetic™ Management (A’S/M ) methodology we gather all the movers and shakers of the company into one room—up to thirty of them—all those who can rock the boat. It is our role now to make them start rowing; those who row the boat usually do not rock it. They are involved, and thus, they care about the success of what they are involved in.

Through a very detailed procedure that controls the interaction in the room—so that there is no violation of mutual trust and respect (just the opposite; the process nourishes it)—all the problems the company is facing, that they are in control of, are exposed.

Now the question is posed:

“How many of these problems did you have last year?”

The usual answer: Most.

“How many two years ago?”

Most.

“Three years ago?”

An embarrassing answer: Most.

The next question:

“How many of these problems will you still have three years from now? If you haven’t solved them over the last three years, why would it be any different going forward?”

This question usually makes participants realize that they need to do something different if they want to see these problems resolved.

Next question:

“How many of these problems can be solved by any individual in the company including the CEO?”

The usual answer: None.

It makes sense—because if an individual could have solved the problem, they would have. These problems persist because they require the cooperation of multiple parties who are not collaborating.

Then we ask:

“How many of these problems will be solved if you all agree on the solution?”

The answer: All because we said in the instruction to accumulate problems that are controllable by the company, in this case, by the people in the room. So, the real problem is not what was presented. The real problem is that the group is not addressing the problems together. And that is why the problems haven’t been solved in the last three years.

What needs to change now is that they must learn how to solve problems collaboratively, as a team.

This exercise usually makes the group realize they need each other. Even the one whose interest in solving the problem is minimal comes to understand: the problem won’t be solved without their collaboration.

We simulated the future by showing the company that their chronic problems are because not all those that are needed to solve the problem are equally committed to solve it. After this exercise they do collaborate or the problem will continue to plague the company.