Forum Replies Created
-
1. What are the potential strengths in the relationship?
Both Victor and Simon are comfortable with the use of the challenge voice. This could mean that they’re not afraid to have difficult conversations in order to improve the outcome of the work.
They could also be a good team where they have differing strengths. Victor is high in evaluate and direct – so can easily weigh up pros and cons and be clear on his outcomes and instructions – areas where Simon’s voices are less strong. Simon is high in Advocate and Articulate so could spread Victor’s outcome/instructions more widely to broader teams and get better enagagement – these are areas where Victor’s voices are in the low range so his communication may not be landing as he intends.
2. What are potential areas of tension in the relationship?
Simon’s use of Diagnose and Articulate are both very high, and so risk tipping over into over analysing and being verbose. This tendency could be heightened by Victor’s very low use of articulate. It may be difficult to understand what Victor is thinking and so Simon is constantly analysing and trying to work this out. As someone whose voices seem to reduce under pressure (lots of red dotted lines), Victor may not respond well to this.
Under pressure, neither make much use of the inquire and probe voices and so may struggle to ‘head north’ at exactly the point that they need to – in order to understand each other better and make progress.
3. What are your hypotheses?
These two could actaully be an amazing team if they can master their communciation with each other.
However I would hypothesise that Victor isn’t always very clear on aims and objectives with others, including Simon. These leads Simon to try and figure it out with his diagnose voice which makes him seem over analytictal. This in turn puts Victor under pressure who then withdraws further. So Simon becomes more verbose and over analytical to try and work it out and a cycle develops.
I would be curious to see how much better their relationship could be if they were able to increase their inquiry and probe voices.
4. What lines of enquiry would you follow?
I would be curious to understand what frustrates each of them about the other.
I would also like to understand what strengths they can see in each other and to describe moments that ‘work’.
I would like to explore how they feel about increasing their probe and inquire voices and how they feel that could impact the relationship and the work.
5. What development recommendations would you make for Victor and Simon?
For Simon – de-emphasise diagnose and articulate and strengthen probe (what is Victor really thinking) and direct (asking directy when he’s not clear).
For Victor – strengthen his articulate and possibly advocate so Simon has a clearer idea of what he’s thinking. Be wary of his evaluate and challenge voices coming across as attacking or crtiticisms – these are two of the most socially ‘dangerous’ voices to overuse.
For both – head north!
Inquire: Tell me about your experience
Probe: What happened next?
Diagnose: Do you have a preference for coffee, tea or cold drinks?
Evaluate: Taking the motorwya is quicker but there are tolls, the back roads are slower but with no charges.
Direct: You need to book your holiday onto the system please
Challenge: We need to gather more facts before we decide
Advise: I would take the motorway rather than the A road
Advocate: I think it should always be cream before jam
Articulate: So Janet thinks we should holiday abroad but Sheila would rather stay in the UK
1. What do you hypothesise from Yvette’s triangle?
It’s noticeable that all of Yvette’s voices are in the low/occasionally used range, which perhaps suggests she’s a less vocal member of the team. I would be curious to explore if that’s true and what the impact of that might be for her and how that relates to improving communications among the 12 senior leaders. I would hypothesise that its an usual profile for someone in a senior leadership role. How does she go abour exploring, making decisions etc if not with talk?
2. What does Yvette’s comparative track tell you about her tendencies under pressure?
Under pressure, Yvette’s voices don’t move an awful lot so in general her colleagues may not notice that she is under pressure in any way – either negative or positive responses. The notable exception to this is the Advocate/Preach voice. The red line is over half of the whole bar, which suggests that Yvette may overuse this Preach voice. On the shifts graph, it’s the only voice that ever moves above the low range.
Diagnose/Over analyse is another example where the red line is over halfway. Although the diagnose voice moves only from very low to low, and sits alongside other voices in the low category – i would be curious as to whether the absence of diagnose in relative terms was having an impact.
The direct voice actually moves backwards under pressure, Yvette is even less likley to dictate under pressure than in normal circumstances.
The entire absence of dictate and intrude are also noticeable under pressure. It suggests Yvette can sometimes keeps a neutral stancemin some circumstances.
3. What are your hypotheses and lines of enquiry to explore Yvette’s profile?
I would be curious about Yvette’s inner vs outer voices. If it’s true that she’s less vocal, how comfortable is she with that situation? Does she want to speak but feels she can’t? Or does she feel she has little to actually say?
The Avocate/preach voice under pressure is also worth exploring. Under what kind of pressure does this voice emerge for Yvette? What’s the impact for her and the team? How does that impact the communciation?
As said above: Although the diagnose/over analyse voice moves only from very low to low on the shift graph, and sits alongside other voices in the low category – i would be curious as to whether the absence of diagnose in relative terms was having an impact.
I;d also like to understand more about how the absence of dicate and intrude has an impact.
What are your hypotheses?
Becca’s voices are very strong in the controlling corner of the triangle, perhaps without being balanced with her exploring and positioning voices. The one the stands out as particularly noticable is the evaluate voice. Although it’s in the middle range on the first triangle it’s noticeable on the track how the pressure version totally eclipses grey line. The difference on the shifts graph from medium to very high is also significant. This suggests that criticism, which is also strong on her pressure triangle, is coming across without any balance from evaluate at all when she’s under pressure.
On the flip side, her role sounds high pressure and time critical – so being direct and able to challenge are crucial skills. It sounds as though it can be life and death, so avoiding challenging in order to remain likeable could be fatal for someone. So these could be significant strengths.
What lines of enquiry would you follow?
How much pressure is Becca under and therefore how much the evaluate/criticise imbalance is showing up – and what the impact of that might be.
How the balance of her controlling voices (impaoertant in a crtitical situtaion) is balancing with her lack of expoloring voices – there’s a potential lack of engagement – how important is that is her situation? How do time pressure possible prevent the exploring voices and if they need to be dialled up, how could that practically happen?
What questions would you like to ask Becca?
What kind of pressure is she under?
How effective does she feel she is under high and lower pressure situations?
How do others respond to her/what feedback does she get?
Which one voice would she choose to adjust?Q1. What hypotheses do you have about how Marcia’s profile helps her to be effective in her role?
Marcia is trying to get people to adopt change, which can be very challenging. Her tendendecy towards the exploring voices will likely help her in that the people she’s working with are likely to feel seen and heard, which is often a prerequisite for adopting change (even if they don’t agree!). Her postitioning voices also appear to be in the effective range so hopefully she’s clear on what change she is trying to effect. With the controlling voices in the lower range i would hope that noone feels bulldozed by her – but she remains effective at challenging so she should be able to rebutt any resistance to the change.
Q2. What hypotheses do you have about her how profile might cause her difficulties in her role?
When under pressure Marcia’s exploring voices may be seen as unwelcome questions – particularly in a high pressure environment like a hospital. If she also patronises on top of this, her messages may not land well! With her evaluate voice being in the lower range, people may not be able to see her weighing up the options. So although she my be asking questions, it could seem as though she’s not considering the answers which could make her appear insincere. A lack of directness, especially at the point where the change actually needs to be implemented – could lead to poor execution of the change if she’s not clear.
Q3. What sort of conversation might you expect to have with Marcia?
I’d be be curious as to how effective she feels she’s being in terms of implementing the change – where it’s going well and if she’s facing challenges in any particular areas. I’d also be curious to undertsand the different between her palliative care role and this one and how the voices in those circumstances are different. Are there any ‘hangovers?’
Q4. What voice/s do you think it might be helpful for her to develop?
The evaluate voice for sure, and perhaps the direct one at the appropriate point. Dialling down the explore questions will also be relevant once action starts to kick in, as over analysis or interrogation could add to the stress of the change.
Q5. In what way/s?
Evaluate – to show she’s heard the answers to her questions
Direct – to be clear on actions and implementation
Exploring voices – to avoid over analysis or intrusion when it’s no longer relevant (i.e. as the change is being implemented)Q1. What catches your attention about the shape of Jack’s profile?
He has a lot of strong voices with advocate being nearly at the maximum and advise also very strong. The voices on the right hand side (inquire, diagnose and articulate) are lower scores at the bottom of the track. Also interested that his direct voice is the lowest, which stands out amongst his high use of other more directiv voices.
Q2. What impressions do you find yourself forming about Jack from his profile?
That he holds strong opinions and isn’t afraid to share them – but possibly lacking in actual direction/intruction (if that’s appropriate). I’d be curious as to how this may be being received next to his lower score on voices used to connect.
Q3. Which aspects of the context do you think might be important in this case?
South East Asian and American cultuues are very different. If Jack hasn’t made sufficient efforts to connect with his inquire/diagnose/articulate voices his other strong voices could come across as him bulldozing and he could be playing to American stereotypes. In the absence of specific direction (the direct voice) this could be frustrating for thise around him.
Q4. What issues might you be looking to explore with Jack?
– How well he’s forming connections (and how that might be affecting his effetiveness)
– how the lack of direct might be showing up
– what impacts his very strong voices are having
– how does he reflect that he moght balance his voices differentlyQ1. Attack or Criticise
Q2. I tend to withdraw (quietly seething) or I might push back if I have the right relationship with someone.
Q3. Instinctive for sure!
Q4. It shuts it down…