Chapter 68 · Study

Synergy: the third alternative

Print study sheet Read first, then practise.

Vocabulary · 10

Synergy (Habit 6): Covey's published Habit 6: the creative cooperation that produces a third alternative neither party could have produced alone. The published definition: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Synergy is not the same as cooperation, teamwork, or compromise; it's the specific moment when two different views combine into a solution that's strictly better than either original. Covey called it the highest of the seven habits because it requires all the others to be in place to occur reliably.
Third alternative (Covey): Covey's published term for the creative solution that emerges from genuine engagement of two different views. Not my way. Not your way. A third way that neither party brought into the conversation but both can endorse. Covey wrote a full book on this concept in 2011; the working test is that both parties say "yes, that's better than what I came in with." Most arguments stop at Win-Lose or compromise because the participants don't believe a third alternative exists; the move is to believe it does and then look for it.
Synergy vs. compromise: The published distinction. Compromise: both parties give up some of what they wanted; total value goes down; both feel mildly cheated. Synergy: both parties get more than what they wanted; total value goes up; both feel they got the better of the deal. Compromise is 1 + 1 = 1.5. Synergy is 1 + 1 = 3. The reason compromise dominates real-world decisions is that it's easier; synergy requires more creative work and more trust. The work is worth it when the stakes justify it.
Valuing differences (the prerequisite): Covey's published prerequisite for synergy: you have to actually value the other party's differences, not just tolerate them. The published claim: a tribe that values differences (in experience, age, background, training, personality) produces synergy reliably; a tribe that tolerates differences while privately wishing everyone agreed produces compromise at best. The Craft's brotherly love charge — meeting on the level across rank, age, and station — is, in Covey's language, the structural condition for synergistic work.
The three-step synergy practice: The published recipe for finding a third alternative: (1) Define the problem from both parties' frames, fully, until each can restate the other's frame to satisfaction. (2) Brainstorm together for the third alternative — explicitly looking for solutions neither party walked in with. Suspend judgment; volume first, evaluation second. (3) Recognize the third alternative when it appears — both parties say "that's better than what I had." If nobody says it, keep brainstorming or accept No Deal; don't settle for compromise and call it synergy.
Dialogue vs. discussion (Bohm/Senge): David Bohm's published distinction, adopted by Peter Senge for organizational learning. Discussion (from the same root as percussion, concussion): each party plays his point, the points collide, a winner emerges. Dialogue (from dia + logos, "meaning flowing through"): the parties think together rather than each defending a pre-formed view. The published claim: synergy happens in dialogue, never in discussion. The mode shift is the leadership move; you can't extract synergy from a room that's stuck in discussion mode.
Suspending assumptions: Bohm and Senge's published practice for entering dialogue: notice your assumptions and set them aside long enough to genuinely consider the alternative. Not abandon them; set them aside. The published claim: most stuck conversations are stuck because both parties are defending unexamined assumptions, and the disagreement is downstream of those assumptions. Surface them, suspend them, and the disagreement often dissolves into a question with multiple workable answers.
Bug or feature (the synergy recognition signal): The working signal that you've found a third alternative: what looked like the bug in the situation turns out to be the feature. In the fundraiser example, the dinner-vs-5K conflict looked like a problem until "both at the same venue on the same night" turned the conflict itself into the design. The published pattern: synergistic solutions repurpose the obstacle. If the third alternative still treats the obstacle as an obstacle, keep looking.
Synergy in Lodge work (historical examples): The Craft's published history offers several synergistic precedents: the conjunction of operative and speculative Masonry into a single body neither could have produced alone; the formation of appendant Rites that preserved tradition while letting newer organizational forms develop; the partnership of Lodges with appendant charities (Shriners Hospitals, CMMRF, KTEF, RARA, Shrine Transportation Fund) where the Blue Lodge does the formative work and the charities do the relief work, neither displacing the other. These are working examples of 1 + 1 = 3.
When synergy fails (published failure modes): Covey's and Senge's published warnings about why synergy attempts collapse: (1) One party is operating from scarcity even while saying "Win-Win" — fake abundance is detectable. (2) Habit 5 hasn't actually been done; participants think they understand the other view but they don't. (3) The room moves to evaluation before brainstorming is finished. (4) Authority-based shortcut: someone with positional power calls the question early to avoid the discomfort of unresolved tension. (5) Insufficient time; synergy can be fast but cannot be rushed.

Sequences · 4

The synergy practice, one decision at a time

Use this sequence when a committee or family is stuck on a binary choice. The point is to look for a third alternative before settling for compromise.

Define the problem both ways. Each party states it from his own frame, and then states it from the other party's frame to the other party's satisfaction. If you can't restate it to his satisfaction, you're not ready to brainstorm.
Name the assumptions on the table. What is each party assuming about resources, timing, audience, format? Surface them. Most stuck choices are stuck on assumptions, not actual constraints.
Brainstorm together, evaluation suspended. Volume first. Bad ideas welcome. The goal is to get to twenty options before you start choosing; the third alternative usually appears around option twelve or fifteen.
Look for the bug-or-feature flip. Which of the obstacles could be repurposed into a feature of the solution? The fundraiser example: the conflict between dinner and 5K became a feature when the 5K finished where the dinner started.
Test the candidate. If both parties say "that's better than what I came in with," you've found the third alternative. If not, brainstorm more or accept No Deal; don't accept compromise and call it synergy.

Shifting a room from discussion to dialogue

Most committees default to discussion (each brother plays his point, points collide, a winner emerges). Use this sequence to shift toward dialogue, where synergy becomes possible.

Name the mode. "I notice we're in debate mode; let me see if we can shift to thinking-together mode for a few minutes." Permission for the shift makes it possible.
Suspend assumptions deliberately. Each brother names one assumption he's bringing in. "I'm assuming we have to do this in March." "I'm assuming the budget is fixed at X." Just naming them often loosens them.
Ask a different kind of question. Not "what should we do?" but "what's possible here that we haven't considered?" The wording shifts the room from advocacy to inquiry.
Keep evaluation off the table. When someone says "that won't work because Y," gently redirect: "good — let's hold that for the evaluation round. For now, what else?"
Run an evaluation round at the end, with all the options visible. Now you can apply Y and any other test. The synergistic option, if there is one, will survive better than the compromise would have.

Diagnosing why a synergy attempt failed

Use this when the room tried to find a third alternative and ended up at compromise or stalemate. The failure modes are predictable; the diagnosis is the start of doing it better next time.

Check for fake abundance. Was anyone saying Win-Win while privately operating from scarcity? The tell: someone defending his original position the whole time rather than genuinely engaging the others.
Check Habit 5. Did anyone actually restate the other side's view to that side's satisfaction? If not, the engagement was performance, not understanding.
Check for premature evaluation. Did the brainstorming get killed by "that'll never work" before the room got to twenty options? Synergy needs volume; killing options early kills the third alternative.
Check for authority shortcut. Did someone with positional power call the question to end the discomfort of unresolved tension? Authority-based decisions cut off synergy reliably.
Check the time budget. Synergy can be fast but cannot be rushed. If the room had ten minutes for a decision that needed an hour, the problem was the meeting structure, not the participants.

Applying synergy to a Lodge project

Most Lodge events are designed by one or two brothers, then defended in committee. Try this sequence for the next major project and compare the outcome.

Before any specific plan is drafted, gather three to five brothers with different experience (line, Past Masters, newer brothers, an outside view if you can get one).
State the goal in one sentence, leaving the form open. "We want this fundraiser to bring in $X and visibly demonstrate the Lodge's relief work." Don't pre-specify dinner, 5K, or any format.
Run the three-step synergy practice on the form. Define what success looks like from each brother's frame. Brainstorm together. Look for the third alternative.
Pick the strongest candidate and write it up using the Win-Win agreement format (Chapter 65): Desired Results, Guidelines, Resources, Accountability, Consequences.
After the event, hold a Monitor and Review session (Chapter 64): what worked, what didn't, what we learned. Each cycle of synergy applied feeds the next.

Practice questions · 10

What's Covey's published definition of Synergy (Habit 6)?
- a. Everybody agreeing quickly
- b. The creative cooperation that produces a third alternative neither party could have produced alone; the whole is greater than the sum of the parts ✓
- c. A formal voting process
- d. A synonym for cooperation or teamwork
What's the third alternative, and what's the working test for finding one?
- a. A backup plan in case the first two fail
- b. A solution neither party brought into the conversation but both can endorse; the test is both parties saying "yes, that's better than what I came in with" ✓
- c. The compromise position halfway between two views
- d. Letting the senior brother decide
What's the published distinction between synergy and compromise?
- a. They're synonyms
- b. Compromise: both give up some of what they wanted, total value goes down (1+1=1.5). Synergy: both get more than what they wanted, total value goes up (1+1=3) ✓
- c. Compromise is faster than synergy
- d. Synergy is the formal name for compromise
What's the published prerequisite for reliable synergy, and how does it connect to the Craft's brotherly love charge?
- a. Everyone being the same
- b. Valuing differences (not just tolerating them); meeting on the level across rank, age, and station is the structural condition for synergistic work ✓
- c. Strong leadership from a single brother
- d. Tight time constraints
What are the three published steps of the synergy practice?
- a. Argue, vote, accept
- b. (1) Define the problem from both parties' frames until each can restate the other's view; (2) Brainstorm together for the third alternative, judgment suspended; (3) Recognize the third alternative when both say "better than what I had" ✓
- c. Plan, execute, evaluate
- d. Listen, decide, announce
What's Bohm and Senge's published distinction between dialogue and discussion?
- a. Dialogue is between two people, discussion is among many
- b. Discussion (from percussion, concussion): each party plays his point, points collide, a winner emerges. Dialogue ("meaning flowing through"): parties think together rather than defending pre-formed views. Synergy happens in dialogue, never in discussion ✓
- c. Dialogue is formal, discussion is informal
- d. They mean the same thing
What's the published practice for entering dialogue?
- a. State your position more forcefully
- b. Suspending assumptions: notice your assumptions and set them aside (not abandon them) long enough to genuinely consider the alternative; most stuck conversations are stuck on unexamined assumptions ✓
- c. Asking only questions
- d. Staying silent until called on
What's the working signal that you've found a third alternative (bug or feature)?
- a. Everyone is exhausted
- b. What looked like the bug in the situation turns out to be the feature — the obstacle gets repurposed into the design; if the solution still treats the obstacle as an obstacle, keep looking ✓
- c. The senior person announces the decision
- d. Time has run out
Which is a published historical example of synergy in the Craft?
- a. Every Lodge looking identical
- b. The conjunction of operative and speculative Masonry; the formation of appendant Rites alongside Blue Lodge; the partnership of Lodges with appendant charities (Shriners Hospitals, CMMRF, KTEF, RARA, Shrine Transportation Fund) where Blue Lodge does formative work and charities do relief, neither displacing the other ✓
- c. Standardizing all ritual nationally
- d. Eliminating appendant bodies
What are the published failure modes for synergy attempts?
- a. Too much enthusiasm
- b. Fake abundance (scarcity behind Win-Win words); Habit 5 not actually done; premature evaluation; authority-based shortcut to end discomfort; insufficient time ✓
- c. Too many ideas on the table
- d. Trying it more than once a year