Mark McGinnDirector

PeopleFit027 6288803

Workshop objectivesTo gain an overview of collaboration and

adversarialismUnderstand the various emotional states in

organisationsThe laws of dialogue and the impact of

emotional intelligenceDialogue, debate and defensiveness

Discussion

Think about positive and negative experiences of working with others with different work status (power through knowledge, hierarchy)

Then describe What worksWhat doesn’t work Focus on behaviours & feelings generated.

Differences in ApproachADVERSARIAL – DEBATEEmphasis on positions1. Members see themselves as

opponents2. Polarisation of members on

issues 3. Winning arguments are

sought4. Yields a forced compromise

or an impasse - team members often dissatisfied

5. Characterised by suspicion and high negative emotions

6. Authority for the decision rests with hierarchy

7. More superficial relationships – people talk at one another

8. Lower Emotional Intelligence9. Organisational response:

More suspicion, control & compliance

COLLABORATIVE – DIALOGUEEmphasis on interests1. Members see themselves as

colleagues with different views2. Joint search for underlying interests 3. Workable options are freely

discussed 4. Yields resolution of integrated

interests and satisfied team members

5. Characterised by respect, listening and the application of reason

6. Authority for the decision rests with a consensus committed to implementation

7. More authentic relationships – people talk with one another

8. Higher Emotional Intelligence 9. Organisational response: More trust

& empowerment

I’m OK”ish”

I’m not OK (bruised)

Givenupcaring

Care

Volunteers

•Available, discretionary effort for others

•Language of inclusion “us, we, our” etc

Survivors

•Follow rules, only the minimum, quit but still here

•Self-interested, will “play the game”

Whingers•Depend on willing ear: complaints, demands, criticism of others, insecure

•Language of exclusion “they, them, the system, the boss

Prisoners•The darkest place, low self worth, hates the organisation -stuck

•Stuff up the system, make them pay, self sabotage – high stress

Start here

VolunteersFeel OK and it’s real – degree of enthusiasmAvailable for robust & authentic conversation

– will front difficult issues“We” - language of inclusionEnough trust to risk trying new things –

discretionary effortQuadrant of commitmentSupported by leaders

WhingersDon’t feel OK – bruisedBecome dependent on support of othersFeelings of annoyance, insecurityGeneralise – “they”, language of separationLook and listen for evidence to prove their

pointEnough trust to whinge (express feelings) to

othersFrustrated idealists/pragmatists

SurvivorsPut things in place that shut out others to

make themselves feel OK “ish” (false OK)Fundamentally detachedMask their true feeling to othersLow/diminished trust of othersGame players – attend to things on the

surfacePathway of safety – no risks – no change

PrisonersBruised by others & selfDo things to sabotage others – even

themselves; Fundamentally “stuck”Mask their true feelingLow trust of othersTend to ill-health if sustained over long

period

DiscussionDoes the model make sense?

Why do people stay in a volunteer state?

Why do people stay volunteers?

Identity and inclusion in the relationship:(1) They maintain self awareness & self management - they know what they like and focus their effort on overcoming obstacles(2) They understand others have different needs and are willing to engage, optimistic about win/wins over the long-term(3) They receive validation and respond to

leadership

Why do people move away from volunteer mode?

Loss of identity and exclusion from relationships

1.They no longer feel known for who they are: “I feel like I’m a number” – “its all transactional,

2.They perceive threats to their purposes, circumstances and concerns,

3.They lose clarity about their value,4.They have difficulty “swimming against the

tide”.

Keeping people engagedEveryone , from those carrying out ‘menial’

tasks to the CEO, needs to feel they are part of something

That their knowledge and skill is valued because it contributes to others success

Value is everything from a smile and “hello”, to remuneration

Opportunities for meaningful dialogue – genuine exchange of ideas, shared understanding of difference.

Know the 3 laws of dialogue1. All humans have purposes, concerns &

circumstances (pcc).2. If someone perceives that you are

unaware or disrespectful of their pcc, they will consider you a threat, resulting in active efforts to avoid, resist or undermine such threats (negative energy/engagement).

3. If someone perceives that you are aware & respectful of their pcc, they will join you in conversation, share information, co-invent solutions and move into action. (positive energy/engagement).

Broaden the intersectionYour Purpose My Purpose

Our commitments (to action)

Emotional Intelligence (EQ) the foundation for dialogueRecognising our own emotions and what causes them.Managing those emotions constructively, to influence others emotions

It is not about who has the most general mental ability (IQ) “about being nice” “letting it all hang out”fixed genetically and only develops in childhood

EQ CompetenciesSelf awareness

(recognition)Understanding what

pushes your “hot buttons”

Recognising when they are being pushed

Willingness to take in information improving self awareness (feedback)

Self managementSelf control &

confidenceTransparency –

bring all informationAdapting to the

unexpected Persisting despite

obstacles Initiative – new

ideasOptimism

EQ CompetenciesSocial awarenessEmpathy for

another’s situationOrganisational

awareness – knowing more than just your job

Relationship management

Influence others’ thinking

Conflict management

Team work & collaboration – be open to being influenced!

Logic &reasoning

Relationshipmanagement

SocialAwareness e.g. empathy

Direction

of

effort

when

building

trust

and

exerting

influence

SelfManagement

SelfAwareness

Model for trust and influence using emotional intelligence

Most common mistake? Starting here!

80% to 90%of whatseparatesaveragefromexcellentperformers

A significant EQ behaviourListening

0 - Bio reaction – listening through a threat response

1 – Content – separating spoken words from meaning

2 – Compassion – listening for an emotional relationship to the words

3 - Essential purpose – listening to what’s at stake for the speaker (rare)

4 – Intersection – Listen for mutual value in face of differences (very rare)

The effect of listeningHigh listening - quality dialogue

Low listening – high debate or disengagement

Debate – dialogue behaviours

LISTENING

T IME

EFFORT AT ENGAGEMENT

Real collaboration

Checking reality

Deep listening – rungs 3 & 4

Testing assumptions

Patience – tolerance for difference

Avoidance

Detached observance

Explaining

Advocating

Politeness appeasement

Contradicting

Beginning to listen – rungs 1 & 2

Dialogue balances advocacy with inquiryInstead of:

I disagree – that’s wrong

That might be your view but this is how it really is

The only way this problem can be fixed is if you….

Try:What leads you to conclude

that?What data do you have for that?

Can you help me understand your thinking here

What is the significance of that

Are we starting from different sets of assumptions here

Discussion – In debate, we defend!

How do we encourage others to be defensive?

Defensiveness – “The elephant in the room”We stimulate flight/fight/freeze/appease responses in others

Examplesexpose others to threat or embarrassment,

Impose or demand without reciprocity, When we attack, blame or defend we find it difficult to stay in dialogue mode.

Blame, defense and learning

Blame Defensivenes

s

Reduction

in info.

Distorted reality

Poor problem

solving

Mor

e

proble

ms

Discussion pointHow can we break the cycle and

improve organisational learning?

Steps to avoid the blame game1. Remember that others are acting

rationally from their perspective2. Notice the larger forces at work that

probably have an impact on you and your colleague with a different view

3. Look at what you did that got the reaction

4. Remind yourself that judgment & criticism of others makes it very difficult for them to see clearly & respond appropriately

Some important engagement skills

Help make sense of what’s going on

Build productive relationshipsDevelop ability to be inventive/creative

Engaging in making sense of what’s going on We do this well when we:Involve others by saying what we think we are seeing, and checking this out (different perspectives from ours).

Get and share data from sources e.g. customers, other stakeholders.

Explore what the data means for alternative ways of working/processes

Building productive relationshipsWe do this well when we:Try to understand others

perspectives, listen with an open mind & without judgment.

Encourage others to voice their interpretations about what’s going on and why.

Try to anticipate others’ reactions with a focus on meeting their needs.

Be open about our reasoning – not just expressing a “bottom line”.

Develop the ability to be inventive/creative

We do this well when we:Avoid assuming that the way things have

always been done is the best way to do them.Encourage creative ways of getting tasks

done.Experiment with processes and organising

e.g. finding alternative methods for grouping or linking people.

Continually asking “what other options are possible”.

Steps in self-monitoringWhat important purpose is at stake for

them?What concerns do they have about

achieving their purpose What circumstances are having an

impact on their purposeWhat rung on the listening ladder am I

on?Where am I on the Dialogue/Debate

continuum?

Steps in self-monitoring1. Am I spilling milk or crying (pointing or

measuring the problem) or cleaning up (identifying steps for prevention and a better future state)?

2.  How well am I showing a colleague with a different view that I understand them?

3. What could I do more of to engage in shared understanding of issues?

4. What could I do to be more collaborative?

An example of demonstrating understanding of a colleague “My perspective, informed by xyz, is that you

…… or”

“I accept I don’t necessarily have the whole picture but what I see is ….. And this has had …. impact on you.”

THEN

“What would you add or change (to what I’ve just said)?”

Concluding commentsIf you want to create anything new in a system, change the content and tenor of the conversation(s)

Engagement is an emotional issue before it’s a cognitive issue. There is no mind applied without the heart

We all need to feel heard