One U.S. government study linked watching television with being obese, hostile, and depressed. In this study the researchers found that those who watched TV four or more hours a day were more than twice as likely to smoke cigarettes and be physically inactive as those who viewed the tube one hour or less a day.2
After discussing the negative impact of watching too much television, we turned to some of the positive things that might happen if we changed our habit. In one of the articles a study was quoted which showed that families who cut back on TV watching found more time for conversation at home. One person said, “Before it was, like, mostly we’d see Dad before he left for work. When he came home he’d watch TV with us, and then it was like, ‘Good night Dad.’ Now we talk all the time, we’re really close.”3
Another author pointed out that research data indicate that families that limit television viewing to a maximum of two hours a day of carefully selected programs may see the following significant changes in family relationships:
Value setting will be taught and reinforced by the family. Families will learn how to establish values and how to reason together.
Relationships between parents and youth will improve in families.
Homework will be completed with less time pressure.
Personal conversations will increase substantially.
Children’s imaginations will come back to life.
Each family member will become a discriminating selector and evaluator of programs.
Parents can become family leaders again.
Good reading habits may be substituted for television viewing.4
After we shared this information, we got up and left the room. About an hour later we were invited to return for the verdict. One of our daughters later gave us the full report of what happened in that vitally important hour.
She said that after we had left the room, her brothers and sisters quickly appointed her the discussion leader. They knew she was an advocate of watching TV, and they anticipated a quick resolution.
At first the meeting was chaotic. They all wanted to speak up and get their views known in a hurry so they’d be able to get a liberal decision—perhaps to cut down just a little on the amount of TV they were watching. In order to satisfy us as parents, someone suggested that they all promise to do their household chores cheerfully and get their homework done without being reminded.
But then our oldest son spoke up. Everyone turned to listen as he told how the articles had impressed him. He said TV had put some ideas into his mind that were not what he wanted to be there, and he felt he would be better off if he watched a lot less TV. He also said he felt the younger children in the family were starting to see things far worse than what he had seen as a young boy.
Then one of the younger children spoke up. He told everyone about a show he had seen that made him feel scared when he went to bed. At that point the spirit of the meeting became very serious. As the children continued to discuss the issue, a new feeling gradually began to emerge. They started to think differently.
One said, “I think we’re watching too much TV, but I don’t want to give it up altogether. There are some shows I feel good about and I really want to watch.” Then others talked about shows they enjoyed and wanted to continue to watch.
Another said, “I don’t think we should talk about how much time to watch each day because some days I don’t want to watch at all, but on other days I want to watch more.” So they decided to determine how many hours each week—rather than each day—would be appropriate. Some thought twenty hours would not be too much; some thought five hours would be better. Finally, they all agreed that seven hours a week was about right, and they appointed this daughter the monitor to ensure that the decision was carried out.
This decision proved to be a turning point in our family life. We began to interact more, to read more. We eventually reached the point where television was not an issue. And today—aside from news and an occasional movie or sports event—we hardly ever have it on.
By involving our children in the problem, we made them participators with us in finding a solution. And because the solution was their decision, they were invested in its success. We didn’t have to worry about “snoopervising” and keeping them on track.
Also, by sharing information about the consequences of excessive television watching, we were able to move beyond “our way” or “their way.” We were able to get into the principles involved in the issue and tap into the collective conscience of everyone involved. We were able to help them realize that a commitment to win-win is more than a commitment to having everyone temporarily pleased with the outcome. It’s a commitment to principles because a solution that is not based on principles is never a win for anyone in the long run.
An Exercise in Synergy
If you’d like to see how this Habits 4, 5, and 6 process can work in your own family, you might try the following experiment:
Take some issue that needs to be resolved, an issue where people have different opinions and different points of view. Try working together to answer the following four questions:
What is the problem from everyone’s point of view? Really listen to one another with the intent to understand, not to reply. Work at it until other people can express each person’s point of view to that person’s satisfaction. Focus on interests, not positions.
What are the key issues involved? Once the viewpoints are expressed and everyone feels thoroughly understood, then look at the problem together and identify the issues that need to be resolved.
What would constitute a fully acceptable solution? Determine the net results that would be a win for each person. Put the criteria on the table and refine and prioritize them so that everyone is satisfied they represent all involved.
What new options would meet those criteria? Synergize around creative new approaches and solutions.
As you go through this process, you’ll be amazed at the new options that open up and the shared excitement that develops when people focus on the problem and desired results instead of personalities and positions.
A Different Kind of Synergy
Up to this point we have primarily focused on the synergy that takes place when people interact, understand one another’s needs, purposes, and common objectives, and then produce insights and options that are truly better than those originally proposed. We could say that an integration has taken place in the thought processes, and the third mind has produced the synergistic result. This approach could be called transformational. In the language of nuclear change, you could compare this kind of synergy to the formation of an entirely new substance resulting from changes on the molecular level.
But there is another kind of synergy. This is the synergy that comes through a complementary approach—an approach in which one person’s strength is utilized and his or her weaknesses are made irrelevant by the strength of another. In other words, people work together like a team, but there’s no effort to integrate their thought processes to produce better solutions. This kind of synergy could be called transactional plus. Again, in nuclear language, the identifying properties of the substance would remain unchanged, and it would be synergistic in a different sense. In transactional plus synergy, the cooperation between the people involved—rather than the creation of something new—is the essence of the relationship.
This approach requires significant self-awareness. When a person is aware of a weakness, it instills humility sufficient to seek another’s strength to compensate for it. Then that weakness becomes a strength because it enabled complementariness to take place. But when people are unaware of their weaknesses and act as if their strengths are sufficient, their strengths become their weaknesses—and their very undoing for lack of complementariness.
For instance, if a husband’s strength lies in his courage and drive but the situation requires empathy and patience, then his strength can become a weakness. If a wife’s strength is sensitivity and patience, and the situation requires forceful decisions and actions, her strength can become a weakness. But if both husband and wife were aware of their strengths and weaknesses and had the humility to work as a complementary team, then their strengths would be well used and their weaknesses made irrelevant—and a synergistic result would occur.
I worked with an executive one time who was absolutely full of positive energy, but the executive to whom he reported was full of negative energy. When I asked him about this, he said, “I see my responsibility as finding out what’s lacking in my boss and supplying it. My role is not to criticize him but to complement him.” This man’s choice to be interdependent required great personal security and emotional independence. Husbands and wives, parents and children, can do similarly with one another. In short, complementariness means that we decide to be a light, not a judge; a model, not a critic.