Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

The topic today is: communication between the worldviews.

Scenario: a clark goes to his Manager (who is a roger) for help. the clark has looked at the problem from every conceivable angle, but nothing he can think offers a credible solution to the problem. the clark is reluctant to ask for help because…well, because he’s a clark. (he should have this one! he’s been doing this work a lot longer than the roger and besides…he should be able to do this one!). the clark decides, “screw it. this is about providing service to the client. I can’t let pride get in the way, I’ll let the Manager have a shot, maybe there is something I’ve over-looked” and off he goes to talk to the roger about the problem. the clark goes to the Manager’s office and says, “hey, I need your help on something, is there a time we can sit down for a minute?”* So the clark describes the situation, the problem that is proving to be so intractable. The roger asks questions, even though the clark is presenting the information as a synopsis. (It becomes clear from the clark’s responses to the roger’s questions, that he, (the clark), has covered all the bases, taken all reasonable approaches to solving the problem. Eventually, the roger runs out of questions, one sentence sooner that the clark runs out of information (about the problem).)
the clark completes his presentation and the roger says, “I’ll be glad to help, let me give it some thought and I’ll get back to you later today.”

Later that day, the roger comes into the clark’s office and says, “I’ve spent time with the problem you’re having and think I can help.” the clark responds, “thats great! what have you got?”  and the roger hands him a typed list and says, “Here’s a list of things that I think, if you go through and do each item, the problem will be solved.”

the clark gets angry and the roger feels disappointed (therefore, angry).

The above is an example of how communication, despite the good intentions of both participants, can result in un-necessarily negative responses.

What happened:

• the clark ‘made the sacrifice’, in the interest of his client, and asked for help (this comes at a very high price, a clark expects to know how to do the job he believes he knows how to do)
• the roger has welcomed someone into his herd (this is metaphorical, of course. if you still are shaking your head and wondering what the hell this is all about…the photo was so enticing…. you might want to ask a question or two or maybe go to the ‘About’ page)
• the clark shares all that he knows about the problem and, by doing so, exposes himself to being identified as being insufficiently informed
• the roger, excited about the prospect of a new Herd Member (the bigger the herd, the more valuable he is), commits to giving it his all, which, for a roger, is best offered in the the form of a List
• the clark, seeing a List being offered as the solution to his problem, becomes ‘angry’ (which is to say, ‘pissed-off, but-to-all-the-world-seems-for-some-reason-to-be-getting-very-formal-and-polite’)
• the roger seeing the clark in front of him go from being enthusiastic and talkative (at the first meeting) to becoming visibly-and-painfully polite, begins to wonder if he didn’t mis-judge this person’s request for help
• both leave the second meeting un-happy.

Why?
Because in the world of the Outsider, information is everything and, (for a clark) to admit to an insufficiency of information is to be vulnerable/open to the world. In the world of the Outsider, a List manifests is a checklist, it is a standard of comparison. A challenge. A negative when given to another… ‘hey, in case you missed something, here is an itemization of what you should have known to do.’
Because in the world of a Herd Member, a request for help is a request to be invited into the world (of that roger). In the world of a Herd Member, a List manifests as a ….a  celebration and invitation, an itemization of the thing that is being shared!

(…to be cont’d)

* (from ‘the Wakefield Doctrine On the Job’ “… when you have a rogerian superior and you need to talk to them or ask them a question, (even a simple, short-answer question), always try to avoid asking the question ‘out of the blue’ and especially avoid asking the question when there are more people in the room than you and the roger. Always ask if they (the roger) have some time for a question, making it obvious that you are not requiring answer ‘right here, right now’