[Helen Wada]

What are the potential strengths in the relationship?
One is sense making, inquire, diagnose, articulate (Simon) whereas Victor is more decisive, with challenge and direct voices featuring more frequently. On the one hand this could work well, working collaboratively, both with different ways of preferred communication style. This could facilitate good brainstorming and collaboration, coming at the same thing with a different lens.

What are potential areas of tension in the relationship?
If Victor and Simon do not understand the communication preferences, then there could be tension in the way in which they understand each other – and how they articulate their point / analyse information.

What are your hypotheses?
Tension exists, not because they have different styles but because they do not understand the styles of each other, and the impact this could have on the relationship.

What lines of enquiry would you follow?
I would enquire if the diagrams resonate with each of them. Talk through examples. Ask if they understand how others might perceive the communication style and discuss where it may serve them well – and then where it might hinder their progress.

I would enquire if they understand the preferences of others and if they have ever discussed communication styles to improve dialogue between them.

What development recommendations would you make for Victor and Simon?
I would encourage them to think how their preferences might show up in a negative way and ask them to make a note of when they notice their behaviour / conversation in these styles. Starting to notice what they are doing and when is the first step to helping them adapt to the person and situation in front of them.

[Helen Wada]

1.Articulate: I’m sensing that there are a few options here, but we need to select one of them so that we can move forward

2.Advocate: I believe that we need to look at the bigger picture, rather than focus on the detail that we are currently looking at

3.Advise: Based upon my experience I would suggest that including the team in the decision is the right thing to do

4.Challenge: I would challenge that view, in so far as it represents one group of people but does not take into account the other team

5.Direct: We cannot proceed as it stands. We don’t have the full support of the Board.

6.Evaluate: On the one hand it makes sense for us to instruct people back to the office, but I can understand how that it will be difficult for some people to make the switch back immediately.

7.Probe: What do you mean when you say you find it uncomfortable? In what sense?

8.Inquire: Where would you like to start today?

9.Diagnose: I’m trying to get to the bottom of why these errors keep happening, are we looking at a system or human issue here?

[Helen Wada]

What do you hypothesise from Yvette’s triangle?
Surprisingly nothing stands out. I would question how she felt going into the exercise, how it was set up and how open she felt that she could be. It is unusual to have nothing dominant in answering the questions. In the pressure track, there was nothing in dictate or intrude, I wonder what she is holding back from when she feels stressed – and whether this had any implications for completing the exercise.

What does Yvette’s comparative track tell you about her tendencies under pressure?
Under pressure – probing and directing disappear, I wonder why this is, does she not feel confident about her position? Equally advising is a low score. My sense is that she retrenches when things get tough and so maybe not making her voice heard enough. The pressure track shows that she can go into preaching mode and over analysing – I wonder what this does for her decision making and how she is perceived in the team.

What are your hypotheses and lines of enquiry to explore Yvette’s profile?
I would start with how she felt when asked to complete this exercise?
How does she see her role in the team? How does she feel when around the rest of the leadership team?
Does she think that the chart is representative of her true voices?
what examples are there where she feels really good, compared to situations under pressure?
I would like to know what more / different she wants to do with regards to her role and position within the team and what she can draw upon from this data to firstly uncover and then start to apply different skills for different situations.

[Helen Wada]

What are your hypotheses?
She is a strong character, not afraid to direct to get things done, but can often be seen to be less inclusive and could be more articulate in the way that she goes about her work and life

What lines of enquiry would you follow?
– Ask her what resonates, and how it shows up (home and work)
– take her through the day to day and pressurised environments and the voices that appear strongest
– are there situations where she feels better under pressure?
– talk through situations where she struggles under pressure – what happens and what would she like to happen

What questions would you like to ask Becca?
– Would explore how she feels about seeing the data points and what it means for her
– does she agree / disagree
– discuss situations in real life where these characteristics show up and understand the implications for her
– draw out the strength in being direct in challenging, directing, advising – can also have the potentially negative consequence of being critical
– Evaluate under pressure is an interesting data point on the track line, together with the criticality I wonder how much of that is internal as well as showing up externally, would explore this with her. Is she self-critical, does it hold her back?
– she works in a pressurised environment, so are there voices that help her in these situations – explore with examples

[Helen Wada]

Q1. What hypotheses do you have about how Marcia’s profile helps her to be effective in her role?

Marcia’s voice profile demonstrates that she is strong in the Exploration part of her role. Perhaps stemming from her previous role in clinical care, she has a natural tendency to inquire and diagnose. These skills, whilst built for patient care are strong communication tools for a role in change management, exploring what needs to happen and building trust and rapport with those she is working with.

Q2. What hypotheses do you have about her how profile might cause her difficulties in her role?

The absence of her ability to direct is notable and could potentially cause her challenges when trying to roll-out a new process where she needs to get people to change their ways of working. She also shows little traction towards evaluation, I wonder if she is missing anything through this absence. Her “strong voices” are so strong, that there is a potential risk that she could be seen to over-analyse, intrude and interrogate those she is working with. This may not have been so apparent in pallative care, but she is now operating in a different environment.

Q3. What sort of conversation might you expect to have with Marcia?

I would firstly explore with Marcia whether the data presented resonated with her. Was it what she was expecting to see, or is there anything there (or not there) that surprises her. Having heard from her, I would ask for practical examples where these voices show up for her (in a good way) but also in a way where she has felt uncomfortable. I would also turn the question to how she experiences others and what this does to her energy / action and mood – and see what emerges from this conversation.

Q4. What voice/s do you think it might be helpful for her to develop?

I think, given her role she may need to get more comfortable with her controlling voices. Being able to balance her curious/ explore nature with more direct confidence to get things done, could help her in this new role. I Would explore what this means for her, how comfortable she feels stretching her style and when the voices might be more appropriate.

Q5. In what way/s?
She is now in a position of authority, although I would dive deeper to understand whether she sees herself in this regard – and what might be stopping her from “owning” the role and the direction she needs to take. I would also discuss how she is under pressure, explore whether pressure for her is a good thing or a bad thing (or maybe both in different places). I would explain that practice is a key to help her try new things out, recognising the sensitivity that different voices are right for different settings.

[Helen Wada]

Jack’s profile suggests that he has a tendency to favour positioning and controlling voices. I would firstly seek to understand if this resonates with him and dig deeper to understand if it does resonate, why he feels comfortable in this zone of speech. I would encourage him to think about how his approach is received by clients and others that he works with. I would also encourage a discussion around his experience of other voices and what it does for him.

As well as focusing on those data point showing strong tendencies, I would notice that the exploring voices are less strong in his profile; again, checking whether this resonates with him and what this might do for his working practice. I would explore his career history, what has he been asked to do it in the past and what is required of him now – does he need to adapt his style for the situation in front of him. Discuss how it feels to explore these voices and what his gut is saying to him as we talk through different approaches.

Explore what he might want to do (or how he could BE) different and what he will need to support him to (a) acknowledge his behaviour and (b) adapt accordingly.

[Helen Wada]

In terms of where I struggle, it is when I am being dictated to, or the voice is patronising. I don’t mind challenge and am very open to inquiry.

My response when being dictated to or patronised is normally to switch off and shut down; the end result being that I ignore the messages that are trying to be communicated to me.