Working Paper Series 2018/42/EFE I won’t, therefore I am: Being Stubborn Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries INSEAD, [email protected] Starting with a fairy tale (sparked by the Brexit experience), this article explores the phenomenon of stubbornness. Although it describes how a leader’s stubbornness can be a force for the good—Charles de Gaulle being a prime example—it’s main focus is on how this behavior pattern can turn into a force for the bad. The fine line between stubbornness and persistence is explored, as well as the very narrow division between stubbornness and stupidity. It is demonstrated how, in many instances of stubbornness, the defense mechanism of denial reigns prominently. In addition, the role of the confirmation bias is highlighted. Also, stubbornness is explored from a phenomenological point of view, describing its behavioral manifestations. Reference is made to the relationship of stubbornness and power games, and ideological belief systems. Stubbornness is also looked at from a developmental point of view, taking an in-depth look at the kinds of strategies children use to deal with intrusive parenting. It is noted that stubbornness is often a strength of the weak—a compensatory reaction of dealing with a deep sense of inner vulnerability. Reference is made to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Mental Disorders (DSM V) description of the “Oppositional Defiant Disorder” (ODD), one of the more troublesome behavior patterns of childhood and adolescence. Finally, ways of dealing with stubborn people are explored. Keywords: Stubbornness; Persistence; Leadership; Confirmation Bias; Closed Mindedness; Cognitive Complexity; Resistance to Change; Oppositional Defiant Disorder; Weltanschauung. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3253106 A Working Paper is the author’s intellectual property. It is intended as a means to promote research to interested readers. Its content should not be copied or hosted on any server without written permission from [email protected] Find more INSEAD papers at https://www.insead.edu/faculty-research/research Stubbornness should have been my middle name. —Martin Luther I am not stubborn. My way is just better. —Maya Banks A long, long time ago Once upon a time, in a country far, far away, there was a queen who was known by all her subjects for her stubbornness. All the citizens of the country were familiar with her mantra: “No, I won’t, and you can’t make me!” They all knew that once she had made up her mind, there was no way she would change it. Having a queen who always had to be right made life very difficult for her counsellors, who struggled to get her to pay attention to other possibilities. “My way or the highway,” was her constant response to people with a different point of view. But the queen was convinced that her stubbornness had been the secret to her success. Although all was well in the queendom, the queen felt that the country was not living up to its full potential. Often, she dreamt of its glorious past — times when it had been the envy of all neighboring countries. Her most ardent wish was to return the country to its former splendor. But as things were now, she felt that the country was bound to a larger Federation. The lack of real independence was a thorn in the queen’s flesh. She felt— and many of her subjects agreed—that there were too many outsiders having a say in 1 decisions that affected the country’s future. What’s more, she believed that too many foreigners had been flooding the country, making her citizens feel like strangers in their own land. The queen was convinced that all these non-citizens were taking advantage of her country. Therefore, she felt it was high time for a change. Her country should become unbound and free from outside interference. Haunted by dreams of past glory, the queen decided to endorse a referendum, asking her subjects the question whether the queendom should once more be on its own. Although she was eager to initiate a divorce, she believed that it was not a decision to make unilaterally. Such a decision would have more impact if it were supported by all her subjects. To ensure that she got the outcome she wanted, her closest advisors framed the referendum questions in such in a way that her subjects believed that on leaving the Federation, pots of gold would be waiting at the end of the rainbow. Due to the overoptimistic propaganda proclaiming the advantages of being independent, the leavers gained the day. Now, the queen’s new challenge was to arrange an amicable divorce from the other members of the Federation. But making this divorce a seamless process proved to be much more difficult than the queen had imagined. The attempt to separate her country from the others opened a whole can of worms. Belatedly, the queen’s counsellors discovered that not enough preparatory work had been done to understand what it really meant to divorce the Federation. Only now did they realize how interconnected the member countries were. 2 The counselors informed the queen of the quagmire they found themselves in, but the queen didn’t want to hear any of their objections. She was convinced that her decision had been the right one. Stubborn as she was, she told her advisors to get on with it, and to settle the divorce without delay. “Where there’s a will, there’s a way!” she asserted. Soon after the queen’s edict, one of her counsellors asked for an audience. He said, “Your majesty, in the past we have had a shared military force to protect our borders. As you very well know, its main task was to prevent trolls from infiltrating our country and creating mischief. But given our steep mountain ranges and impenetrable forests, it is impossible to guard these domains all by ourselves. We have always needed the cooperation of other members of the Federation. Given this major constraint, do you think we should still go ahead with the separation?” Although the counsellor had provided ample evidence in defense of his case, the queen rebutted it all, “You are wrong. We can defend the queendom by ourselves. You’d better get on with it.” Soon after, a second counsellor requested an audience with the queen, telling her: “Your majesty, before we decided on a break-up, we forgot an important detail. One of the reasons we decided to separate was to prevent foreigners from migrating to our country. We thought that they were just taking advantage of the many benefits that our country provides. But a recent study has shown that most of our entrepreneurial people turn out to be immigrants. Contrary to what we initially believed, they have brought much wealth into the country and have created many new industries to the benefit of us all. If we separate, our supply of entrepreneurs will dry up, to our peril. Should we still go ahead?” Again, the queen argued, “I’m convinced that 3 we are much better off alone. There’s more than enough entrepreneurial talent among our own people.” But in spite of the queen’s positive spin on things, the courtier didn’t agree, having collected much information that disproved her point of view. A few days later, a third courtier asked for an audience with the queen. She said: “Your majesty, in the Federation we have always been the major producers of magic mushrooms. As you know our mushrooms are in great demand. But with the break-up, there will be borders. How are we going to sell these mushrooms to our most profitable customers, the other members of the Federation? If the separation goes through, they may look for different suppliers.” The queen responded: “Don’t worry, there are many rich markets beyond the Federation. All these markets have been waiting for us. I’m sure we will be much better off, going on alone.” But even after the queen’s reassuring words, the counsellor wasn’t convinced. Again, she stressed that she didn’t think the separation was a good idea. When she showed the queen figures to prove her point, they were angrily dismissed. What’s more, the queen yelled at her, saying: “We will manage.” She didn’t explain, however, how they were going to manage. And so, the discussions went on, with counsellors coming and going, asking the queen’s advice about what to do. But whatever information she received about the catastrophic consequences of the separation, any figures that proved their point were instantly dismissed. As time went by, and the divorce grew imminent, the queen’s counsellors realized that they were facing a doomsday scenario. Leaving the Federation was going to be a disaster. The divorce was going to be much costlier than anyone had ever imagined. Most of the counsellors agreed that the best thing to do was to forget the divorce — to admit 4 that it had been a terrible mistake. The queen, however, refused to budge. She was unflinching in her belief that the decision to separate was the right one. There were worrying occasions when, in fits of anger, she lashed out at attempts to change her mind. It was clear to all that the queen perceived questioning the virtues of the divorce as a personal attack—akin to high treason. The few advisors who still had the nerve to tell her that the divorce was a disaster—implying that she was wrong—were immediately sent to the Lord High Executioner, where it was off with their heads.