In the book, Let’s Get Real or Let’s Not Play, Mahan Khalsa and Randy Illig introduce the concept of the ‘mutual conspiracy.’ The interesting connection they make is that both a consultant and a client often prioritize discussing solutions before and instead of addressing the more challenging task, which involves clearly defining the problem for which a solution might be necessary. This natural tendency hinders the discovery of the most effective solutions for the client’s success.
However, this eagerness can lead to a problematic dynamic. On the one hand, the client wants to believe there is a quick silver bullet for solving their problems. It’s simpler for the consultant to propose a solution, and then the client can pick apart why it does not work. This is a comfortable place because it does not involve answering difficult questions and spending energy on establishing clarity around what is not working. Similarly, consultants often find it easier to discuss their solutions in a comfortable and easy place where the talk track is already pre-defined.
Watch my video on the ‘Mutual Conspiracy’ here
This, however, completes the conspiracy. Both client and consultant are happy as they work together to fall into this old habit of quickly moving to the solution. One speaks, and the other listens. The meeting adjourns, and then both participants become victims to weeks and weeks of follow-up communication. Khalsa and Illig strongly urge consultants to “move off the solution.” This is a reminder to NOT enter into this mutual conspiracy but rather honestly and with clear intent to pursue a thorough understanding of the client’s issue, problem, and challenges.
This concept not only applies to professional scenarios but also to personal interactions, as I recently realized. Reflecting on this concept today, I remembered how often I fall victim to this mutual conspiracy. Even this morning, in a discussion with my teenage daughter, I realized the exact same thing was happening. She had a problem and was looking to me to provide a solution. The mutual conspiracy began in earnest. She waited for a response, and I hastily offered a solution. My solution did not address her real need because all teenagers are good at deflecting the actual problem. The conversation went nowhere, and neither of us understood the problem or left the conversation with a reasonable solution.
I then realized how often I enter into a mutual conspiracy with myself! There are two voices going on in my head. One seems to understand that I have a problem, and the other wants to quickly find a solution. I like to jump to the solution fast, which appeases the other side of my mind trying to fix a problem. This is not good because I need to understand the problem before I jump to a solution too fast. I need to move away from the solution and get both sides of my mind to focus on the real problem. Spend adequate time to really understand the problem and define it properly. Then, perhaps only then, I can find an adequate solution.
In conclusion, the ‘mutual conspiracy’ as illustrated by Khalsa and Illig, and mirrored in my personal experiences, underscores a fundamental challenge in problem-solving: the tendency to prioritize solutions over a deep understanding of the problem itself. This insight invites us to pause and reflect on our interactions, both professionally and personally. Are we too quick to offer solutions without fully grasping the underlying issues? By committing to a thorough examination of the problems we face, we not only enhance our problem-solving skills but also foster more meaningful and effective communication. Perhaps the first step in overcoming our challenges is to acknowledge this tendency and consciously move away from the comfort of immediate solutions to the rigorous yet rewarding process of genuinely understanding our problems.
