We still have our moments, but we have found that she is much more cooperative, much more willing to work things out. And I have found that when she does have her struggles, things work out much better if I hang in there with her and don't let her run away. I don't say, "You don't run away." I say, "Come over here. Let's work through this and solve it together."

Notice how this father's insight and vision of his daughter's true nature helped him to value her unique difference and to be proactive in working with her. And notice, too, how even young children can learn and practice Habits 4, 5, and 6.

Based on a number of variables, you may find yourself at different levels of proactivity at different times. The circumstances you're in, the nature of the crisis, the strength of your resolve around a particular purpose or vision, the level of your physical, mental, and emotional fatigue, and the amount of sheer willpower you have all affect the level of proactivity you bring to a potentially synergistic experience. But when you can get all these things in line and you can value the difference, it's amazing how much resourcefulness and energy and intuitive wisdom you can access.

You also have to live Habit 2. This is the leadership work. This is creating the unity that makes diversity meaningful. You have to have a destination because destination defines feedback. Some say that feedback is the "breakfast of champions." But it isn't. Vision is the breakfast. Feedback is the lunch. Self-correction is the dinner. When you have your destination in mind, then you know what feedback means because it lets you know whether you're headed toward your destination or you're off track. And even when you have to go to other places because of the weather, you can keep coming back so that eventually you will reach it.

You also need to live Habit 3. One-on-one bonding times give you the Emotional Bank Account to interact authentically and in synergistic ways with the members of your family. And weekly family times provide the forum for synergistic interaction.

You can see how interwoven these habits are, how they come together and reinforce one another to create this beautiful family culture we've been talking about.

Involve People in the Problem and Work Out the Solution Together

Another way of expressing Habits 4, 5, and 6 can be found in one simple idea: Involve people in the problem and work out the solution together.

We had an interesting experience with this in our own family some years ago. Sandra and I had read a great deal about the impact of television on the minds of children, and we had begun to feel that in many ways it was like an open sewage pipe right into our home. We had set up rules and guidelines to limit the amount of TV watching, but it seemed that there were always exceptions. The rules kept changing. We were constantly in the position of dispensing privileges and judgments, and we had grown weary of negotiating with the children. It had become a power struggle that occasionally caused feelings to flare in negative ways.

Although we agreed on the problem, we didn't agree on the solution. I wanted to take an authoritarian approach inspired by an article I'd read about a man who actually threw the family TV set into the garbage! In some ways that kind of dramatic action seemed to demonstrate the message we wanted to send. But Sandra favored a more principle-based approach. She didn't want the children to resent the decision, to feel it was not a win for them.

As we synergized together, we realized we were trying to decide how we could solve this problem for the children when what we needed to do was help them solve it for themselves. We decided to engage Habits 4, 5, and 6 on a family-wide basis. At our next family night we introduced the subject "TV-how much is enough?" Everyone's interest was immediately focused because this was an important matter for all involved.

One son said, "What's so bad about watching TV? There's a lot of good stuff on. I still get my homework done. I can actually study while the TV is on. My grades are good, and so are everyone else's. So what's the problem?"

A daughter added, "If you're afraid we're going to be corrupted by TV, you're wrong. We don't usually watch bad shows. And if one is bad, we usually turn to another station. Besides, what's shocking to you is not all that shocking to us."

Another said, "If we don't watch certain shows, we're socially out of it. All the kids watch these shows. We even talk about them every day at school. These shows help us see how things really are in the world so that we don't get caught up in all the dumb things that are going on."

We didn't interrupt the kids. They all had something to say about why they didn't think we should make any drastic changes in our TV habits. As we listened to their concerns, we could see how deeply they were into their feelings about TV.

Finally, when their energy seemed spent, we said, "Now let us see if we really understand what you've just said." And we proceeded to restate all we had heard and felt them say. Then we asked, "Do you feel that we truly understand your point of view?" They agreed that we did.

"Now we would like you to understand where we're coming from."

The response was not very favorable.

"You just want to tell us all the negative things people are saying about watching TV."

"You want to pull the plug and take away our only escape from all the pressure we feel at school."

We listened empathically and then assured them that this was not our intent at all. "In fact," we said, "when we've gone over these articles together, we're going to leave the room and let you kids decide what you feel we should do about watching TV."

"You're kidding!" they exclaimed. "What if our decision is different from what you want?"

"We'll honor your decision," we said. "All we ask is that you be in total agreement about what you recommend that we do." We could see by the expressions on their faces that they liked the idea.

So, all together, we went over the information in the two articles we had brought to the meeting. The children sensed this material would be important in their upcoming decision, so they listened very attentively. We began by reading some shocking facts. One article said that the average television diet for a person between the ages of one and eighteen is six hours a day. If there is cable in the home, that increases to eight hours per day. By the time young Americans have graduated from school, they will have spent thirteen thousand hours in school and sixteen thousand hours in front of a television set. During that time they will have witnessed twenty-four thousand killings.1 We told the children that, as parents, those facts were scary to us and that when we watched as much TV as we did, it became by far the most powerful socializing force in our lives-more than education, more than time spent with the family.

We pointed out the discrepancy concerning TV program directors who claim there is no scientific evidence to link TV viewing to behavior and then quote evidence showing the powerful impact a twenty-second commercial has on behavior. Then we said, "Just think about how different you feel when you watch a television show and when you watch a commercial. When a thirty- to sixty-second commercial comes on, you know it's an advertisement. You don't believe a lot of what you see and hear. Your defenses are up because it's advertising, it's just hype, and we've all been burned by it again and again. But when you're watching a show, your defenses are down. You become emotionally invested, vulnerable. You're letting images come into your head, and you're not even thinking about it. You're just absorbing it. Of course, the commercials impact us in spite of our defensiveness. Can you imagine the impact the regular programs are having on us when we're in a much more receptive posture?"

We continued these discussions as we read more. One author pointed out what happens when television becomes the baby-sitter for parents who are not cautious about what their children watch. He said that unsupervised TV watching is like inviting a stranger into your home for two or three hours every day to tell the children all about a perverse world where violence solves problems and all anyone needs to be happy is the right beer, a fast car, good looks, and lots of sex. Of course, the parents are not there while all this is happening because they trust this television character to keep the children as quiet, interested, and entertained as possible. This teacher could do a lot of damage during that long daily visit, planting misperceptions no one could ever change and causing problems no one could solve.

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.

When people are open to feedback regarding strengths and weaknesses-and when they have sufficient internal security so that the feedback will not destroy them emotionally and also sufficient humility to see the other's strengths and work as a team-marvelous things begin to happen. Going back to the body metaphor: The hand cannot take the place of the foot, or the head the place of the heart. It works in a complementary way.

This is exactly what happens on a great athletic team or in a great family. And it requires much less intellectual interdependence than the other form of synergy. Perhaps it also requires a little less emotional interdependence, but it also requires great self-awareness and social awareness, internal security and humility. In fact, you might say that humility is the "plus" part between the two parts that enables this kind of complementariness. Transactional plus synergy is probably the most common form of creative cooperation, and it's something even little children can learn.

Not All Situations Require Synergy

Now, not all decisions in the family require synergy. Sandra and I have synergistically arrived at what we've found to be a very effective way of making many decisions without synergy. One of us will simply say to the other, "Where are you?" That means, "On a scale of one to ten, how strongly do you feel about your point?" If one says, "I'm at a nine," and the other says, "I'm at about a three," then we go with the approach of the person who feels the strongest. If we both say five, we may go for a quick compromise. To make this work, both of us have agreed that we will always be totally honest with each other about where on the scale we are.

We also have the same kind of agreement with our children. If we get into the car and people want to go different places, we sometimes say, "How important is this to you? Where are you on a scale of one to ten?" Then we all try to show respect for those who feel the strongest. In other words, we've tried to develop a kind of democracy that shows respect for the depth of feeling behind a person's opinion or desire so that his or her vote counts more.

The Fruit of Synergy Is Priceless

This Habits 4, 5, and 6 process is a powerful problem-solving tool. It's also a powerful tool that is tremendously helpful in creating family mission statements and enjoyable family times. I often teach Habits 4, 5, and 6 before teaching Habits 2 and 3 for this very reason. Habits 4, 5, and 6 cover a whole range of needs for synergy in the family-from the everyday decisions to the deepest, most potentially divisive, and most emotionally charged issues imaginable.

At one time, I was training two hundred MBA students at an eastern university, and many faculty and invited guests were there as well. We took the toughest, most sensitive, most vulnerable issue they could come up with: abortion. Two people came to the front of the classroom-a pro-life person and a pro-choice person who felt deeply about their positions. They had to interact with each other in front of these two hundred students. I was there to insist that they practice the habits of effective interdependence: think win-win, seek first to understand, and synergize. The following dialogue summarizes the essence of the interchange.

"Are you two willing to search for a win-win solution?"

"I don't know what it could be. I don't feel she-"

"Wait a minute. You won't lose. You will both win."

"But how can that possibly be? One of us wins, the other loses."

"Are you willing to find a solution that you both feel good about, that is even better than what each of you is thinking now? Remember not to capitulate. Don't give in and don't compromise. It has to be better."

"I don't know what it could be."

"I understand. No one does. We'll have to create it."

"I won't compromise!"

"Of course. It has to be better. Remember now, seek first to understand. You can't make your point until you restate his point to his satisfaction."

As they began to dialogue, they kept interrupting each other.

"Yeah. But don't you realize that-"

I said, "Wait a minute! I don't know if the other person feels understood. Do you feel understood?"

"Absolutely not."

"Okay. You can't make your point."

You cannot believe the sweat those people were in. They couldn't listen. They had judged each other right from the beginning because they took different positions.

After about forty-five minutes, they started to really listen, and this had a great effect on them-personally and emotionally-and on the audience. As they listened openly and empathically to the underlying needs, fears, and feelings of people on this tender issue, the entire spirit of the interaction changed. People on both sides began to feel ashamed of how they had judged one another, labeled one another, and condemned all who thought differently. The two people in front had tears in their eyes, and so did many in the audience. After two hours each side said of the other, "We had no idea that's what it meant to listen! Now we understand why they feel the way they do."

Bottom line: No one really wanted abortion except in very exceptional situations, but everyone was passionately concerned about the acute needs and profound pain of people involved in these situations. And they were all trying to solve the problem in the best way they could-the way they thought would really meet the need.