[helen@helenquinncoaching.com]

1.Articulate: From we what have heard, our staff turnover relates to the volume of workload in the administrative department; and levels of work-related sickness in our clincal team.
2.Advocate: I really feel we need to proceed with option 1 in order to be profitable.
3.Advise: If I were you I would look into a few more options to find the best price for that service.
4.Challenge: We seem to have veered off topic, can I suggest we get back to the questions on the slide.
5.Direct: It is not acceptable to behave in that way.
6.Evaluate: On one hand, the individual appears to meet our criteria for the role but the interview performance highlighted some concerns over inter-personal skills.
7.Probe: Tell me more about what you mean when you say that
8.Inquire: What would be the best outcome from today’s meeting for each of you?
9.Diagnose: We appear to have a split in terms of what the information is telling us – the quantitative data suggests an issue with the supply chain, but staff feedback suggests its performance and morale.

[helen@helenquinncoaching.com]

What do you hypothesise from Yvette’s triangle?
The scores are low across all 9 voices. I would be interested to explore this perception and whether there is some element of being conscious the findings will play out in an Away Day, and / or if this person feels under pressure in this team.
I also feel the shift in the advocate voice suggests she may feel she struggles to have her voice heard. There is a a tendency to use the exploring styles more under pressure. I would be interested if this is an inner vs outer voice – one hypothesis is that this could be an introvert and/ or someone who feels different to the rest of the team so is deferring to more of a passive style, and is working hard to process communication internally when feeling stressed.

What does Yvette’s comparative track tell you about her tendencies under pressure?
The increased use of advocating, inquire, diagnose and articulate suggest to me that Yvette tries harder to put forwards her position, and to understand the situation by seeking further information. The reduction in use of the direct and probing styles suggest there is little or no use of these under pressure.
What are your hypotheses and lines of enquiry to explore Yvette’s profile?
I would be interested in exploring how Yvette answered these questions and the scenarios she was considering; and whether she was conscious of the use of the findngs in the Away Day.
I would also explore how Yvette feels in this team – does she feel psychologically safe and able to voice her opinions? Does she feel heard, valued and respected? How does she feel others in the team see her?
I would inquire around the pros and cons of the styles she is using, and how these are showing up in the team.
I would also discuss the positive and negative pressure scenarios for her and the differences for the ‘pressure point’ findings across each of these.

[helen@helenquinncoaching.com]

What are your hypotheses?
The nature of Becca’s job requires a decisive leadership approach which fits more in the directive style and this appears to be evident in her profile. The use of the controlling voices are high in normal and higher stake situations.
Her lesser used voices include the more exploring and some positioning styles: Probe, Inquire, Diagnose, Articulate and Advocate. This suggests she may be used to perhaps working alone or needing to be a decision-maker in situations. Whist she works in partnership with many organisations, I would assume she may not have a ‘team’ so would be interested to explore this. I woud also wonder about the relationships with the Partner stakeholders she works with and a potential hypothesis is whether the relationships are fractious / difficult, and resulting in her adopting in a more directive approach.
The absence of Articulate voice across any situation is also interest and suggests that clarity may be lacking in her communications.
What lines of enquiry would you follow?
I would explore the high use of the controlling cluster – why, how is this serving, what are the risks. I would also probe from a systems thinking point of view to determine how each of the Partner organisations / stakeholders would experience her.
I would try to understand the lower use of the exploring styles and whether this is intentional / pros / cons.
I would also look into the under use of the articulate voice and how this might be showing up.
What questions would you like to ask Becca?
Tell me about the voices you are using most proactively – why is this? What are the benefits? WHat are the risks?
Which voices are you under-using? Why might this be? What are the benefits? WHat are the risks?
The absence of the articulate voice is interesting – what do you feel are the reasons for this?
How do you think each of your stakeholders / partners experiences you? Shall we go through each of them / seek feedback?

[helen@helenquinncoaching.com]

What are your hypotheses?
Marcia leverages strong exploring voices across all three perspectives to uncover the full context and detail necessary to make informed evaluations of the challenges. This approach aligns with her experience in palliative care, where a deep understanding of patients’ needs was likely essential. Marcia draws less on the socially risky styles and it would be interesting to understsand if there are specific factors affecting this – eg. psychological safety.
A stronger ability to use the direct voice would further equip Marcia to advocate or call attention to areas of responsibility or perhaps to hold people to account.

What lines of enquiry would you follow?
I would explore the shift from her old to new role, and the culture and team dynamics she is navigating. I would also want to explore what is serving her in using the exploring voices, and how over-use of these could be playing out. Similarly, I would like to understand why there is low use of higher social risk voices of direct and evaluate – is there something holding her back or is she feeling unsafe in any scenarios…

Were there any surprises in Marcia’s profile?
I find it interesting that there is a general correlation between Marcia’s use of most voices, suggesting she is able to ‘access’ these in her approach – but the exceptions are the evaluate and direct voices. The evaluate voice appears to be one she goes to in some instances, but downplays in high pressure situations. The direct voice is not a voice that is used apart from in some high pressure scenarios. I’d like to explore this.

What might be missing that could be useful?
It would be really helpful to understand the experience of Marcia’s stakeholders as part of a 360 degree review – this would be particularly helpful in gauging where she might be holding back.

[helen@helenquinncoaching.com]

1. Jack’s primary communication style is advocacy, with a notably high score. This is followed by above-average scores in advising and challenging. All three of his styles align with the more closed styles on triangle. His scores for probing and evaluating are moderate, indicating a potential willingness to engage in socially bolder conversations. The articulate, diagnose and inquire bars are equal suggesting this is a decision-point which should be explored further. Notably, directing is his least utilised style.
2. Jack appears confident in expressing his opinions and engaging in constructive debate with those who hold differing views. He communication style feels like a fit with his role as a consultant in an industry where I assume he would need to appear competent and confident . However, a gap appears to be that he does not appear to prioritise eliciting others’ perspectives or spending time understanding situations / problems, so I would want to explore this.
3. Contextual factors influencing Jack’s communication style include his previous professional role and the shift he has had to make; the expectations placed upon him by his clients; the environment and culture of his indisutry; and his own journey, values and influences.
4. Key questions for reflection include:
o Does the profile resonate with him? Which aspects do / don’t?
o How does this profile benefit him in professional and personal contexts?
o In which situations do his styles prove effective, and when might it be less successful?
o What are the risks of the voices he is using less?
o Does Jack consciously select his communication styles, or do they reflect a natural inclination?

[helen@helenquinncoaching.com]

Q1: Criticise / Attack
Q2 I can react in 2 ways – either I become submissive in the interaction and comply; or I can get triggered and move towards the attack or criticism to defend myself
Q3: It’s instinctive but I am more aware of it than I used to be so hopefully have learned to regulate it better
Q4: It either enables their behaviour or may result in a communication breakdown