Conundrum 5
Constructive dialogue

Helen quietly congratulated herself, the meeting had gone as well as it could have done. She had avoided hurting Jo’s feelings, by telling her how much she rated her work, how much she cared about the quality of her services, and by not criticising Jo’s own proposals for resolving the problems they faced. She’d also explained that if she herself had had her own way she wouldn’t be taking this action, it was only because of the pressure she was under from Rod, her boss, that she was doing this. That wasn’t strictly true, Rod had given her discretion over how she reached the targets, but she needed to preserve her relationship with Jo so that they could continue to work together.

She knew Jo wasn’t happy with the new arrangements but Helen had explained their benefits and countered Jo’s objections. Helen herself felt good about the proposals, and was sure they would streamline decision making to everyone’s benefit. She was especially pleased with the way the meeting had gone because she had been so worried about it. In the event she had been persuasive, she had been firm but concerned. Helen really felt she was getting better at handling this sort of discussion.

.............................................................................................

Jo walked quickly back to her office and shut the door firmly. She shook her head in exasperation. The meeting with Helen hadn’t resolved any of her concerns, in fact it had added to them. How could Helen say that she appreciated Jo’s work and wanted to support her, when these recent decisions actively prevented her from doing a good job. Oh she knew Helen wanted her to believe that Rod, Helen’s boss, was to blame, indeed Helen had said so, but Jo thought this was just a cowardly way out, a way of trying to ingratiate herself with Jo. ‘No doubt she tries to do the same with Rod by blaming me’ she thought. ‘If only she would listen to what I’m trying to tell her, she might understand why her proposals won’t work. There’s a much better way of achieving what she wants but she’s only interested in saving money, not in improving services.’

Jo reflected on her relationship with Helen over the last few years. They had joined the Trust at the same time and had often had to deal with each other, Jo as a therapist, Helen as a manager. It had been easier when Helen was more junior, thought Jo, she hadn’t been so glib, so smooth talking, so outwardly supportive while at the same time refusing to listen. Jo decided she herself would have to develop those skills, and felt cross with herself for feeling unsure of her ground and her argument in such meetings. Perhaps she could find a course that would help her make her case more forcefully.

How could Jo or Helen have encouraged a more constructive dialogue?

Commentary 5

Here we have two committed people both trying to solve a problem - the same problem. The trouble is they have come up with different solutions - each has found a solution that addresses their own key concerns. Neither Jo nor Helen can see it, but neither of their solutions solves all of the problem, and they will need to put their heads together if they are to find a way forward that will really work. But they are not doing so. Both are engaging in what Chris Argyris and Donald Schon call ‘skilled incompetence’ or defensive reasoning - a kind of behaviour (that they also term model 1 behaviour) which is anti-learning, and which all of us tend to adopt when we are in a situation where we fear embarassment or threat. For a description of this behaviour click here. Note that Helen, as she has become more and more senior in the organisation, has become more and more skilled at this anti-learning behaviour.

Let us suppose that Jo wants to change the nature of their meetings, how could she do so?

She may be tempted (we can see that she is) to think that if she could advocate her position ( sell her solution) more persuasively and forcefully she would be more successful but, on its own, this is unlikely. She will find Helen just as excellent an advocate and although the debate may feel less one-sided the outcome will probably be the same. If, however, she were to try to sell her problem ( rather than her solution) and to invite Helen to try and solve it the debate would begin to look different. If, at the same time, Jo were to try and understand Helen’s problem and try to solve that, then the meeting would begin to become highly productive.

A number of writers have considered this situation and used different terminology. Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline talks of balancing advocacy with inquiry. Stephen Covey in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People suggests ‘Win-WIn or no deal’. Valerie Iles in Really Managing Health Care suggests that selling problems is much smarter, and much more of a core management activity, than solving them. Psychologists Thomas and Killman all this behaviour collaborating, and distinguish it from competing, accommodating, withdrawing or compromising. Argyris and Schon term it model 2, or productive reasoning.

Jo may well start to behave in this different way, but become downhearted when she finds she cannot keep it up. She may find it reassuring to know that all of us will revert to defensive reasoning when we fear embarrassment or threat, so she will inevitably do so, but will find that her ability to reaosn producitvely will improve with practice.

Helen too could initiate the change - but all change requires a source of energy and Jo’s frustration may provide this energy more quickly.

Please send any comments and suggestions to
conundrum@reallylearning.com