Shall we “McDonald”?

Getting to know McDonald.

In one of the recent assignment, I was working with my In Tense co-facilitator with a group of participants in Shanghai. One of the little game we invited the participants to experience is called “McDonald”, for teamwork and resolving conflicts. We drew a big McDonald yellow M on a flipchart. Then my partner torn it off and put it in front of one of the participant, as we are sitting in circles, people have different view from different angles to this piece of paper. He asked the participants from all different directions what do they see? W, E, 3….Voices reported back. just like how it is in life, there are many different perspectives about the same thing. He picked a participant in front of him and said “I think this is a M”, the person in front of him said “No, I think it’s a W”. They pull and pushed for a few rounds like this. Then my partner raised the tone and volume try to convince the counterpart it’s an M. The guy opposite did the same accordingly back to him. The exchange quickly escalated into a “fight”...

Mac or Wendy?

Everyone has experienced this M-W exchange when getting along with the others, right? And everyone can see that the only solution to it is for the two parties to switch positions. But the questions is- How? And how often do we do it in a way itself creates another layer of Mac Wendy situation? We went on to illustrate: my partner was still standing in front of the sitting participant, and he now gets so angry and gestured furiously his counter part to come over to see his “M”. The participant obeyed with a submissive body language. The participant agreed it’s a “M” from my partner’s angle. The M or W conflict is harmonized, but how about the second layer (how the agreement is made)? How is the new seed of disagreement planted? How was that participant feeling when he was “instructed” to come over to see my partner’s view? To compare, we illustrated the alternative option: Back to the point where two parties were disagreeing about M or W… In the middle of that fight, my partner paused, walked to the counterpart, and said “let me have a look at what you see first”? He immediately understood why it’s a W. Then he invites the counter part to join him to experience the M…and the participant happily followed. The message is crystal clear: First to understand, then to be understood! This is where the personal leadership begins in this kind of situation.

“McDonald”, but no happy meal ;-(

All sounds pretty straightforward. Yet how easy is it to be said than to be done! Particularly when the disagreement is about something that touches upon our value, our deep belief we’ve heritage or safeguard in life. Giving up the position is almost like giving up one’s own identity, it’s a matter of live or die!

I had fortune to experience this with my working partner, right in that program. The evening after we’ve worked in the group about this Mc Wendy theory. We went to Starbucks for an off the work talk. My partner is passionate about his life work to help others finding their dreams. I am committed to dance my way along the path to help people courageously live the changes. The disagreement started with something trivial, soon it become more and more clear it’s a clash in our deep down ideals. He believes that happiness is the ultimate goal of life, that everyone is a god in himself, that suffering is not necessary. I believe that being human is to experience both the suffering and happiness, and live the life fuller is to be real to embrace the both. Our disagreement gets more and more emotionally frustrating for both of us. The night ends with him disconnecting free from the suffering and me in fury and tears. Neither of us felt understood, nor bother to understand.

From Mcdonald to Spear & Shield

The next day during an intervention, we continued the M-W reflection with the group. When the switching the position can be easy, and when can it be really difficult? We shared with the group that we as the facilitators also went to the McDonald last evening and still in process to dance our way for understanding. Through the discussion, the group seems to conclude: what makes it really difficult is when the M or W represents what are dear to us- our dreams, values, beliefs… just like the never ending religious and political conflicts around the world at large. At one of the silent interval, one participant sitting right next to me suddenly said: “Maybe sometimes for some matters, there is no need to come to the common understanding”. Intrigued, I turned to him: “ Say more please?” He went on as if he was talking to himself: “ it’s like the spear and the shield. Combining them together in Chinese we call it the “conflict”. But on the other hand, the spear and shield need each other to exist. If there is no spear, why we need the shield? Had not being the shield, how would the spear become sharper? I was captured by his words… BRAVO! Right there, in that moment, a new light was shed on my McDonald… We don’t need to agree, perhaps nor need to fully understand what the other party is holding up to or against. So long as I understand that there is always space for two, and so long I believe next to the conflicting nature, the process of conflict with the efforts to understand is a meaningful process of growth for both of us. I am at peace.

McDonald has never tasted so delicious and healthy. That yellow, familiar gold arch look like two open arms, reaching out and always ready to embrace anything happen to fall into her arms…