Ever had that feeling when talking to someone that you are somehow missing one another?

The language and culture are the same. The words are recognisable. Yet nothing makes sense.  You listen ever more closely.

“Just where is this other person coming from?” you think to yourself.

This was brought home to me when working on the design of an evaluation for a programme. To cut a long story short I felt that the context we were working in was a complex one, where “good” could best be described in words rather than numbers; words in the form of stories the sponsor would like to hear participants, the wider organisation, customers etc. tell. Mood music stuff. Pretty subjective.

The person I was discussing this thought I was being a bit fluffy. He was clear about how simple it was. The intervention would take place and this would map pretty directly to a measurable effect. A number. Good could be described by a number.

“I don’t see vaat de problem is. Simplzz!” he said, mimicking the TV meerkats.

So there we were: me drawing on complexity theory to make my sense of the context, and using aural and kinaesthetic language – “hearing”, “feeling”, “mood music”; and he expressing a world-view of predictable cause and effect, and using visual language – “clear”, “map”, “direct”.

Different world-views. Different languages. Potentially different action.

Now that we have recognised this we are having a richer more learning’ful engagement. Making sense together. Dialogue.

Have you spoken to anyone from another world recently? How did it go? How is your engagement unfolding now?

Dave Stewart

The Fresh Air Learning Company

Last week I wrote about how two actors brought life to a mock board exercise that was part of a non-executive recruiting process. They went out of themselves to inhabit fictitious board characters. Their role-play was awesome.

This week I supported an experiential learning exercise for a group of executives. We were using the Barry Oshry (1995) power framework of Tops, Middles, Bottoms and Customers – roles we all inhabit every day – to help the executives examine a real work issue from multiple, connected perspectives.

The executives were divided up. The Tops had a plush boardroom, the Middles had a busy open plan meeting space, and the Bottoms had a room that was soul-less, lacked enough chairs, and was freezing cold.  The Customers had a warm, well-appointed, magazine- and coffee-full waiting room.

Everyone was invited to adopt the relevant power perspective, and to rotate around the different environments on a timetable. A number of scripted events connected some of the groups during the exercise.

Almost everyone went into role-play. They adopted different levels of over-the-top-ness in their mannerisms, tones of voice, energy etc. It was as if they went “out” of themselves to inhabit fictitious external characters. Just like actors.

Yes, there was some value to this. However the invitation, and the real power of the exercise was to inhabit their real selves; to go “in” and be the people they are when they are – every day – Tops, Middles, Bottoms and Customers; to draw on the knowing they already possess; the knowing they somehow lose sight of and don’t use in the bustle of business life.

The seemingly natural reaction to go “external”, to talk about the “its” and “them” is part of a narrative we commonly hear in organisational life. It is as if many of us forget to bring ourselves fully to work.

We seem to be at our most comfortable holding stuff at a distance; and we seem to be at our least comfortable and competent when we explore – together – personal issues such as trust, compassion and challenge.

The Oshry exercise was part of a journey to develop and integrate self-awareness, relational maturity, and contextual sense making; to create the conditions for collective connected thinking, dialogue and impactful action.

It is tough going for those involved but the self-discovery and business outcomes are stellar.

Dave Stewart

The Fresh Air Learning Company

I was recently part of a non-executive directors selection process. One element involved my chairing of a mock board. My board colleagues were two professional actors and seven candidate non-executives.

Of course, everyone was acting to some extent, and there were competitive pressures underlying an otherwise collegiate exercise.

Let me focus on the two professionals.

They had no real grasp of “content” beyond the short written brief they had been given and a short conversation with the real directors – now sitting in critical audience of the mock board.

But gosh they were awesome!

They modelled a presence that was respectful and listening-ful, and they used questions in a way that invited exploration and reflection and created the conditions for fresh insight.

They helped the board to think together.

They played as a team, not just between each other tag-style, but also with their “colleagues”. They handed off to one another, building on each other’s contributions, yet never colluding with a position that seemed soap-boxy and untested. They weaved artfully between advocacy and inquiry – sometimes leading, sometimes opposing, sometimes building, sometime inviting pause for reflection.

Never broadcasting, never withdrawing. Always fully and powerfully engaged.

Bravo, encore!

Dave Stewart
The Fresh Air Learning Company