There have been some thoughtful comments on my previous blog post in which I confessed to being a so called Controller.
OVERLAP
One of the questions Krista asked was whether or not I had observed any inconsistency between the Pursuit of Excellence (TPOE) and Nonviolent Communication (NVC). So far, I have observed only very minor contradictions between the two. They have been differences of style rather than substance. In fact, I believe that TPOE and NVC complement each other. They, in turn, tie in nicely with two other concepts I have been studying, namely, consensus decision making and conflict resolution.
REFRAMING
I agree with MidnightCafe's observation that "Controller" is an unfortunate label and that something about "leadership" would sound more constructive. I like the way in which Krista used the language of Nonviolent Communication to reframe the labels in terms of needs.
NUANCES
I want to add to the information about myself that I provided yesterday. I am not a pure Controller, what the Pursuit of Excellence folk call a Controlling Controller. When I completed the communication Styles questionnaire, I recognized myself in each of the four quadrants to some extent.
This was confirmed yesterday, during a chat with one of my fellow Pacific Gardeners who also had done the Pursuit of Excellence. He said that he saw me as being close to the middle of the graph, where the four types intersected. However, our Pursuit of Excellence instructor encouraged us to identify our strongest quadrant, even if it represented only a mild preference.
The exercise in TPOE revealed that I had a secondary communication style that moderated my primary one. My secondary personality type is what they called the Supporter. That is the sympathetic person who loves to help others, who will go to the ends of the Earth to save a relationship, and who avoids conflict. The Supporter's downfall is that he or she finds it difficult to say, "No." Hence, his or her needs often go unmet. That was the person whom I used to like to think I was.
So, in TPOE language, I am a Supporting Controller.
STRETCHING
My fellow Pacific Gardener with whom I discussed this told me that he was a Controlling Analyzer. The Analyzer is a person who loves to study facts and data. He or she does not like to look foolish. He or she also dislikes being rushed. At the extreme end of the spectrum this person can suffer from analysis paralysis.
He told me that, since he had become aware of the personality types, he had made a deliberate attempt to stretch himself. For example, it does not come easily to him to be spontaneous (like a Promoter). He also may overlook other people's suffering (which a Supporter automatically would notice). So, from time to time, he reminds himself to be sensitive to other people's circumstances, and he also reminds himself to have fun.
MORE STRETCHING
On Monday night I experienced an extraordinary example of someone stepping outside of his comfort zone. The weekly meeting of Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community's shareholders was challenging. There was one point, in particular, in which I had a meltdown. As had been the case the last time this had happened, I felt deeply ashamed of myself, and apologized to everyone.
About twenty minutes after I got home, the phone rang. It was one of my fellow Pacific Gardeners. He is not a Controlling Analyzer, like our other co-owner whom I mentioned above. Rather, this person is a pure Analyzer, an Analyzing Analyzer. He examines numbers in spreadsheets and the wording of legal documents in excrutiating detail. He expresses his emotions relatively rarely.
He said, "Hi, Judy. After what happened at the meeting, I just wanted to check how you were feeling now." To say that I was surprised doesn't even begin to tell you how I felt. This question, coming from our resident Analyzing Analyzer, was nothing short of astonishing. I also felt deeply touched that he had reached out to me. I knew that he too was a graduate of the Pursuit of Excellence. I was in awe of the positive effect that his efforts at personal growth had had on him.
ASKING FOR HELP
Being aware of the weaknesses of my personality type helps me to identify areas in which it would be wise to ask for assistance. For example, I made a snap decision to buy into Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community. Last August, I travelled to Nanaimo, a place to which I had never been before. I looked around the city, met the folks who were involved with Pacific Gardens, and did a tour of the construction site. Three days later I signed on the dotted line.
When I look back on that, I shake my head. It's true that I'm glad I moved here. I love my life in Nanaimo. Although we go through wobbly patches, I also love my involvement with Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community. But it was a huge decision with significant, long term implications. If I was faced with such an enormous decision in future, I would force myself to spend more time in Analyzing mode. I also would solicit the opinions of a couple of Analyzers who had no vested interest in the outcome.
UNDERSTANDING OTHERS
Awareness of personality types helps me in my dealings with other people. A while ago, a man -- whom I now recognize as a Promoting Promoter -- let down a volunteer organization to which I belong. He said he would do something for us, and he didn't. As is typical of a Promoter, he is full of brilliant ideas. But his strength lies in starting things, not in finishing them. Now I will take into consideration the fact that he is weak when it comes to focus and closure. Instead of being disappointed in him, I will be realistic about the gifts that he can and cannot contribute to our group.
In saying that this man is a Promoting Promoter, I don't want to suggest that he has been sentenced to that pigeonhole for life. Maybe his self-awareness will increase, and maybe he will expand into the other quadrants in due course. But, at this point, he is not a close friend. Other than wishing him goodwill in a general way, I don't care what he does with his life. The only information that feels useful to me right now is an awareness of his personality type insofar as it affects the volunteer organization to which I belong.
Being aware of personality types also helps me to package information when I'm making proposals. I now understand that an Analyzer, for example, will want lots of information and will want time to process it before making a decision. I will allow the time and space for him/her to do that, rather than expecting him/her to get back to me right away.
VARIED TERMINOLOGY
There are other personality classification systems. Two that I have studied in the past are the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Enneagram. In the MBTI, there are sixteen types, while in the Enneagram there are nine.
I don't think it matters which system I use. I think they all offer the benefit of awareness that some people view the world as I do and some people view it differently.
Owing to my previous studies, I already knew that when I went into the Pursuit of Excellence. The big Aha for me during TPOE was that the Supporter was only my secondary personality type, while the Controller / Leader / Decision Maker was my primary one.
Showing posts with label conflict resolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conflict resolution. Show all posts
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Feelings and values
Something that I learned in my conflict resolution workshop and that I witnessed again during the meeting facilitation training in Courtenay, British Columbia was the importance of a dialogue in which feelings and values are expressed and heard.
When people encounter challenges, they often respond with what they believe are solutions. Hasty solutions, however, sometimes have unintended consequences that, in themselves, become problems.
One of the issues that we trainee meeting facilitators observed the members of Creekside Commons discussing was whether or not to surround their community with a deer-resistant fence. Prior to our arrival, members of the community had been divided on the question.
Attempted solutions that had created new problems were the fences and walls that about forty percent of the households had erected around their individual back yards and the temporary fences around the community vegetable garden and community orchard that many residents considered ugly.
When people who disagreed with each other about a perimeter fence sat down and had a dialogue, they were very surprised to discover the values they shared.
A theme that emerged was that members of both camps cared deeply about the meadow on which they had built their community. Most of them also were committed to sustainability. But what did sustainability mean? Did it mean ensuring food security for humans? Did it mean living in harmony with deer and other wild animals?
Creeksiders also found out that many of them regarded themselves as prudent. But again, how was that defined? For some community members prudence meant fiscal responsibility. For those people, the cost of a perimeter fence and Texas Gates (cattle grids) were a concern. For other people, prudence was tied to stewardship of the land for future generations.
Other issues that emerged were aesthetic considerations (what balance to create between edible and ornamental landscapes), privacy in individual owners' back yards, and maintenance of an open and accessible community while providing safety for children.
Allowing for minor modifications because of our community's different layout, I can see us at Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community having to address the same issues in due course. I also see the same range of values and interpretations of those values represented amongst our community members.
The meeting that we external trainees facilitated for Creekside Commons did not result in a consensus decision. But it cleared the air and elicited mutual compassion amongst Creeksiders who previously had disagreed with each other. Towards the end of the meeting they figured out some next steps that we all were confident would result in a resolution in the near future.
This exercise demonstrated to me very powerfully that a discussion of feelings and values was not a waste of time. Indeed, while it involves an upfront investment of time, it is more efficient in the long run. It also leads to win-win outcomes.
When people encounter challenges, they often respond with what they believe are solutions. Hasty solutions, however, sometimes have unintended consequences that, in themselves, become problems.
One of the issues that we trainee meeting facilitators observed the members of Creekside Commons discussing was whether or not to surround their community with a deer-resistant fence. Prior to our arrival, members of the community had been divided on the question.
Attempted solutions that had created new problems were the fences and walls that about forty percent of the households had erected around their individual back yards and the temporary fences around the community vegetable garden and community orchard that many residents considered ugly.
When people who disagreed with each other about a perimeter fence sat down and had a dialogue, they were very surprised to discover the values they shared.
A theme that emerged was that members of both camps cared deeply about the meadow on which they had built their community. Most of them also were committed to sustainability. But what did sustainability mean? Did it mean ensuring food security for humans? Did it mean living in harmony with deer and other wild animals?
Creeksiders also found out that many of them regarded themselves as prudent. But again, how was that defined? For some community members prudence meant fiscal responsibility. For those people, the cost of a perimeter fence and Texas Gates (cattle grids) were a concern. For other people, prudence was tied to stewardship of the land for future generations.
Other issues that emerged were aesthetic considerations (what balance to create between edible and ornamental landscapes), privacy in individual owners' back yards, and maintenance of an open and accessible community while providing safety for children.
Allowing for minor modifications because of our community's different layout, I can see us at Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community having to address the same issues in due course. I also see the same range of values and interpretations of those values represented amongst our community members.
The meeting that we external trainees facilitated for Creekside Commons did not result in a consensus decision. But it cleared the air and elicited mutual compassion amongst Creeksiders who previously had disagreed with each other. Towards the end of the meeting they figured out some next steps that we all were confident would result in a resolution in the near future.
This exercise demonstrated to me very powerfully that a discussion of feelings and values was not a waste of time. Indeed, while it involves an upfront investment of time, it is more efficient in the long run. It also leads to win-win outcomes.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
How could I?
During a meeting that I attended a couple of days ago, I had a temper tantrum. I shouted and swore at the facilitator.
As soon as I'd done it, I felt ashamed of my behaviour and apologized.
Luckily it didn't phase the facilitator. As a matter of fact, she gave me a ride home after the meeting, and was perfectly friendly.
But that isn't the point. What's more relevant is that I am deeply committed to compassionate communication, and I violated my own principles.
Only a week previously, I'd participated in a two-day conflict resolution workshop. I did a consensus decision making workshop in September, and I'm registered for another one in April. One of my favourite books is Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg.
Yet, when it felt to me as if one of my core buttons was being pushed, the blood rushed to my head, and I lashed out.
When I later recalled what I'd said, I was grateful for a couple of things. First of all, I had used I statements. Secondly, I had criticized the facilitator's behaviour (or at least my perception of her behaviour). I had not called her names or questioned her integrity as a person.
Of course that doesn't excuse my behaviour. I consider it to have been totally unacceptable.
I have been going over the incident in an effort to recognize the dynamics, learn from it, and be better prepared when a similar situation arises in future.
I have tried to avoid beating up on myself, as that would only compound the problem. I've tried to accept that I'm imperfect and to forgive myself.
In our Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community meetings, which was where this happened, we have a beautiful tool that is designed to address this very scenario. Each meeting participant has three cards.
When a meeting participant holds up a green card, it means, "I agree," or, "I have information to contribute." A yellow card means, "I have a question," or, "I have a concern." A red card means, "I disagree," or, "There is something terribly wrong going on here."
When a participant holds up a red card, the facilitator is obliged to stop the main discussion so that the issue can be addressed. If I had remembered to use it, that one thing -- a little red card -- would have created a very different outcome.
I also forgot to maintain an attitude of curiosity. Instead, I jumped to conclusions about the facilitator's intentions.
In the interim, I have thought of a way of tweaking the meeting process so that it will accomplish what the facilitator wants while at the same time addressing my needs. I will suggest it to her before our next meeting.
Interestingly enough, I once again have found myself playing leap frog with another blogger. Yesterday there was an entry entitled Control on the Sensible Living blog. As soon as I saw it, I thought, "Oh, Annie, you've read my mind."
As soon as I'd done it, I felt ashamed of my behaviour and apologized.
Luckily it didn't phase the facilitator. As a matter of fact, she gave me a ride home after the meeting, and was perfectly friendly.
But that isn't the point. What's more relevant is that I am deeply committed to compassionate communication, and I violated my own principles.
Only a week previously, I'd participated in a two-day conflict resolution workshop. I did a consensus decision making workshop in September, and I'm registered for another one in April. One of my favourite books is Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg.
Yet, when it felt to me as if one of my core buttons was being pushed, the blood rushed to my head, and I lashed out.
When I later recalled what I'd said, I was grateful for a couple of things. First of all, I had used I statements. Secondly, I had criticized the facilitator's behaviour (or at least my perception of her behaviour). I had not called her names or questioned her integrity as a person.
Of course that doesn't excuse my behaviour. I consider it to have been totally unacceptable.
I have been going over the incident in an effort to recognize the dynamics, learn from it, and be better prepared when a similar situation arises in future.
I have tried to avoid beating up on myself, as that would only compound the problem. I've tried to accept that I'm imperfect and to forgive myself.
In our Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community meetings, which was where this happened, we have a beautiful tool that is designed to address this very scenario. Each meeting participant has three cards.
When a meeting participant holds up a green card, it means, "I agree," or, "I have information to contribute." A yellow card means, "I have a question," or, "I have a concern." A red card means, "I disagree," or, "There is something terribly wrong going on here."
When a participant holds up a red card, the facilitator is obliged to stop the main discussion so that the issue can be addressed. If I had remembered to use it, that one thing -- a little red card -- would have created a very different outcome.
I also forgot to maintain an attitude of curiosity. Instead, I jumped to conclusions about the facilitator's intentions.
In the interim, I have thought of a way of tweaking the meeting process so that it will accomplish what the facilitator wants while at the same time addressing my needs. I will suggest it to her before our next meeting.
Interestingly enough, I once again have found myself playing leap frog with another blogger. Yesterday there was an entry entitled Control on the Sensible Living blog. As soon as I saw it, I thought, "Oh, Annie, you've read my mind."
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Mrs. Nice Guy
"Uh oh. There are a couple of guys walking towards me. If I'm to maintain my image of myself as a nice person, I'll step to one side and make way from them. But my homework assignment is to practise operating in my least favourite mode. So, this time, I'm going to keep walking and force them to make way for me. Oh my God, I'm a total jerk. Oh, but look at that. They made way for me. Nothing terrible happened."
What was that all about? It was my homework assignment from the second day of my workshop entitled Essential Communication Skills in Conflict at Vancouver Island University. The assignment called on me to practice using my least favourite conflict resolution style, which in my case was competition.
One of the big Ahas I had that day was that there are no good or bad conflict resolution styles. Rather, each one has its uses. Each is helpful in some situations and unhelpful in others.
Each style can be measured by its levels of assertiveness and cooperation. Another big Aha for me was that a conflict resolution style could be highly assertive as well as highly cooperative. My previous thinking had been that assertiveness and cooperation were mutually exclusive.
Here’s a run-down of the styles:
Avoidance
Assertiveness – Low
Cooperation – Low
Behaviour – You do not engage.
Uses – When you are in imminent danger.
Accommodation
Assertiveness – Low
Cooperation – High
Behaviour – You give the other person what they want, and sacrifice what you want.
Uses – When there is little time for discussion, when it’s a one-off situation, and when the outcome is unimportant to you.
Compromise
Assertiveness - Medium
Cooperation – Medium
Behaviour – Each of you gets some of what you want, and each of you sacrifices some of what you want.
Uses – When attempts at collaboration have failed and there is insufficient time to discuss things further, the best you may be able to achieve is compromise.
Competition
Assertiveness – High
Cooperation – Low
Behaviour – You get what you want, and sacrifice nothing.
Uses – In an emergency, when there is little or no time for discussion, someone needs to take charge.
Collaboration
Assertiveness – High
Cooperation – High
Behaviour – Both of you get what you want, and neither of you sacrifices anything.
Uses – If you have the time to pursue it, collaboration produces win-win decisions, to which the stakeholders have a high level of commitment.
Traditionally, my conflict resolution style leant towards avoidance and accommodation. Since I have bought into Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community and have been learning about consensus decision making and nonviolent communication, I have grown better at compromise and collaboration. I’m still uncomfortable about being competitive. But watch out –- I’m practising.
What was that all about? It was my homework assignment from the second day of my workshop entitled Essential Communication Skills in Conflict at Vancouver Island University. The assignment called on me to practice using my least favourite conflict resolution style, which in my case was competition.
One of the big Ahas I had that day was that there are no good or bad conflict resolution styles. Rather, each one has its uses. Each is helpful in some situations and unhelpful in others.
Each style can be measured by its levels of assertiveness and cooperation. Another big Aha for me was that a conflict resolution style could be highly assertive as well as highly cooperative. My previous thinking had been that assertiveness and cooperation were mutually exclusive.
Here’s a run-down of the styles:
Avoidance
Assertiveness – Low
Cooperation – Low
Behaviour – You do not engage.
Uses – When you are in imminent danger.
Accommodation
Assertiveness – Low
Cooperation – High
Behaviour – You give the other person what they want, and sacrifice what you want.
Uses – When there is little time for discussion, when it’s a one-off situation, and when the outcome is unimportant to you.
Compromise
Assertiveness - Medium
Cooperation – Medium
Behaviour – Each of you gets some of what you want, and each of you sacrifices some of what you want.
Uses – When attempts at collaboration have failed and there is insufficient time to discuss things further, the best you may be able to achieve is compromise.
Competition
Assertiveness – High
Cooperation – Low
Behaviour – You get what you want, and sacrifice nothing.
Uses – In an emergency, when there is little or no time for discussion, someone needs to take charge.
Collaboration
Assertiveness – High
Cooperation – High
Behaviour – Both of you get what you want, and neither of you sacrifices anything.
Uses – If you have the time to pursue it, collaboration produces win-win decisions, to which the stakeholders have a high level of commitment.
Traditionally, my conflict resolution style leant towards avoidance and accommodation. Since I have bought into Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community and have been learning about consensus decision making and nonviolent communication, I have grown better at compromise and collaboration. I’m still uncomfortable about being competitive. But watch out –- I’m practising.
Friday, March 13, 2009
"Curiouser and curiouser!" cried Alice
Today I participated in the first half of a two-day workshop called Essential Communication Skills in Conflict, which was designed by the Justice Institute of British Columbia and delivered at Vancouver Island University here in Nanaimo.
Our instructor encouraged us to choose an anchor word that we would say to ourselves when our emotional buttons were pushed and we felt ourselves getting angry. She said her own anchor was, "Be curious." Although she said we were free to choose different anchors for ourselves, I actually liked hers and decided to stick with it. Approaching a situation with an enquiring mind helps us to avoid being judgemental.
Earlier in the week, I had confronted a friend by saying, "I feel hurt because you did such and such." At the time, I felt proud of myself for raising the topic at all, as it had involved overcoming my reluctance to bring up a difficult subject.
Secondly, I thought I was doing well, because I started out by saying, "I feel ......." But the second part of my sentence -- because you did such and such -- turned it into blame.
Fortunately the conversation went well and the issue was cleared up. I attribute that to my friend's excellent communication skills, which turned the conversation in a positive direction.
I'm still glad I raised the issue. Although my delivery wasn't perfect, at least it was better than allowing my resentment to build. But, with the benefit of some conflict resolution coaching behind me, I now would start out by saying, "I wonder if you could tell me more about such and such, because I didn't know what you meant by doing it, and I'm feeling confused."
Our instructor encouraged us to choose an anchor word that we would say to ourselves when our emotional buttons were pushed and we felt ourselves getting angry. She said her own anchor was, "Be curious." Although she said we were free to choose different anchors for ourselves, I actually liked hers and decided to stick with it. Approaching a situation with an enquiring mind helps us to avoid being judgemental.
Earlier in the week, I had confronted a friend by saying, "I feel hurt because you did such and such." At the time, I felt proud of myself for raising the topic at all, as it had involved overcoming my reluctance to bring up a difficult subject.
Secondly, I thought I was doing well, because I started out by saying, "I feel ......." But the second part of my sentence -- because you did such and such -- turned it into blame.
Fortunately the conversation went well and the issue was cleared up. I attribute that to my friend's excellent communication skills, which turned the conversation in a positive direction.
I'm still glad I raised the issue. Although my delivery wasn't perfect, at least it was better than allowing my resentment to build. But, with the benefit of some conflict resolution coaching behind me, I now would start out by saying, "I wonder if you could tell me more about such and such, because I didn't know what you meant by doing it, and I'm feeling confused."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
