On value creation

There is an interesting debate going on between me and John. See comments here. I hope this example can illustrate what I have been talking about in paradox thinking. Here. This is essentially what happens in chess and why we are still stuck. The example is on contradiction thinking. And contradiction thinking does not create solutions; it does not add value.

Lets consider this. It's a win lose argument. The solution is really both/and. Both technical and emotional. And more. We also need knowledge on how things work.

Here I will digress a little. Lets talk about listening skills. Listening is not easy. To listen properly we need to suspend our preconcieved ideas. The technique is called bracketing. This was first expounded by M Scott Peck. By bracketing we allow the other to expound their ideas without judgement. Listen first. Only after that do we weigh and consider what has been said. This technique does 2 things. First it allows the other to feel heard and it also allows the creation of a new idea. That is also the basis of partnership.

By not being able to hear the other, we are creating a top down relationship, a hierachy, a patronage. In this relationship no new value is created. Why? Because the only input is from the one at the top, the one who "wins" the argument. A pyrrhic victory at best.

Contradiction thinking also create information silos. I believe we already have all the knowledge we need to create our GM's. But the information cannot be shared so long as arguments are of a win lose nature. All sides need to listen before new value can be found.

So we find in Malaysia, the followers of Dato Tan who is a strong advocate of tournaments and his people who are good at that. The people who want systematic development, the ones who can best contribute to that development are sidelined and starved of funds. Either/Or thinking. My way or the highway.

But we need Both/And. Both tournaments and development. The different strengths and weaknesses recognised. And so the solution must come from all sides listening and recognising each others contribution. And maybe even more. I have been arguing for a systematic approach to EQ training on top of technical. Yes, on top. EQ has the bigger picture. If the players EQ is not carefully nurtured they will not be able to take the pressure at the top despite all the technical. And so far it has mostly fallen on deaf ears. I have given example after example of good players who have been victimised, fixed tournaments and in our chess circle few even raise an eyebrow. It has become the norm.

So these things need to be fixed. Then we create value. We need to have our concerns listened to. And from all stakeholders. It is not about win lose. It's about creating value. Then chess can grow. But first we need to listen. My conversation with John is typical of the conversations within our chess world. So to find the solution we need to move away from that.

But maybe it would be impossible to have all sit down and listen. So maybe the doable solution is a small group with the correct skill sets who are also able to listen to one another and contribute.