Forum Replies Created
-
What are the potential strengths in the relationship?
What stands out mostly here is the use of the Challenge voice by both Victor (VH) and Simon (H) which outside this particular relationship ie. with someone less comfortable with the Challenge voice, could be construed as attacking. We can also see that under pressure both Simon and Victor rely even more on this voice while at the same time, the Direct voice for both drops from VH to H which may suggest the respect they have for each other in avoiding being as dictatorial.What are potential areas of tension in the relationship?
Looking at the two profiles Victor’s prefers to rely heavily on his Challenge and Direct Voices, both Controlling voices.
Meanwhile Simon, employs a broader range of voices, and is relying more heavily on his Diagnose (OverAnalyse), Advocate (Preach), and Articulate (Verbose) voices.What are your hypotheses?
Simon may be feeling interrupted and unheard in his contribution, tending to lean more into over-long, over-analytical or excessive questioning when under pressure (Inquire > interrogate voices) to overcome this eg. if I just say more, Victor will understand, or, If I step back and ask more questions, I’ll understand what Victor wants and be able to speak to his point to improve the conversation (Challenge).
Victor’s strong preference to get to the point by Attacking or Dictating may not be making room for more constructive exploration or understanding different positions, points of view and his low use of the Articulate voice is ‘pushing’ Simon into over-describing where he sees they are in their discussion. Viktor’s use of these voices is exacerbated under pressure which is also accompanied by a rise in the use of Diagnose and Advise voices to the mid-range, perhaps triggered by frustration with what he sees as coming to a conclusion and trying to use analysis and suggestion to bring the discussion to some sort of conclusion or next step.What lines of enquiry would you follow?
I’d ask each to describe a situation where their communication ‘worked well’, how they felt about it and then ask them to identify what voices they were using and why.
I’d also ask each about a frustrating or unsatisfying conversation as well as one when under pressure, and ask them to identify what changed and stayed the same in terms of their own voices being used and how much.
I’d use these two lines of enquiry to explore more lines of enquiry based on the context and answers.What development recommendations would you make for Victor and Simon?
With Viktor, I would potentially explore use of more mid-range voices in his repertoire, perhaps looking at leveraging more of the two exploring voices, Inquire and Probe. Less ‘telling’ more exploring!
With Simon, I would potentially explore the use of Probe more to help him deepen enquiry with Victor followed by Evaluate vs sitting in Inquire and Articulate for too long. Simon’s overuse for Over analysing may also be tempered by a) Probing – asking deeper questions, and then moving into Evaluate before heading directly for Challenge.
Given the level of respect and common objectives, I might also suggest a session together where some further insights and understanding may come to light for them to ‘tackle’ together.1. ADVISE I’m thinking we should invite some of our sales leaders to contribute to this discussion
2. ADVOCATE I’m right behind the decision to raise prices
3. ARTICULATE What I’m hearing is that there are a number of concerns from Jane about losing customers if we raise prices
4. CHALLENGE We seem to have gone down a rabbit hole and need to come back to the agenda
5. DIAGNOSE How much customer attrition do you think is likely?
6. DIRECT We have 15 minutes left and need to agree on a course.
7. EVALUATE On one hand, there are great opportunities for profit growth, however our customers may be unhappy and go with another provider.
8. INQUIRE What are some of the other options we have?
9. PROBE Based on that, what else do you think we could be doing?What are your hypotheses?
There is a gap between what Becca thinks she’s doing ie. Exploring and Positioning (Internal Voice) vs what is actually showing up ie. a largely Controlling group of voices which, when under pressure, become particularly critical, dictatorial and attacking.The ‘immediate response’ (perceived or otherwise) Becca thinks is required in disaster situations may be colouring everything Becca feels she needs to do in her role. She may also be affected by the culture/behavioural norms of those around her that respond with urgency to everything.
Becca’s role as ‘expert’ may also be preventing her from learning from and communicating more effectively and empathetically with those with front-line experience undermining her ability to design and evolve programmes that will be the most supportive, useful and appropriate
for both current as well as new and emerging challenges and priorities.What lines of enquiry would you follow?
From the diagnostic outputs, it seems that there is a gap between what Becca thinks she’s doing ie. Exploring and Positioning (Internal Voice) vs what is actually showing up ie. a largely Controlling group of voices which, when under pressure, become particularly critical, dictatorial and attacking. I would also explore some of the under-used voices, in particular, the almost absent Articulate voice, to understand how they could be leveraged to create clarity and empathy (key elements in training) as opposed to criticising or attacking.What questions would you like to ask Becca?
I’d like to understand Becca’s perception of what’s working well/not working well. I would ask about her current role, where she feels more and less confident or frustrated, and are there certain situations or areas of her job where using the same voice for one area ie. training is not working well in other areas. I’d also ask her more braodly about her role and where she feels pressured – what happens, what she thinks about those situations and how she feels she responds. This might open up a conversation about deploying different voices in different areas of her role.Q1 Marcia has a strong tendancy towards the explore voices – starting strongly with inquire then heading into diagnose and then probe – which I imagine would have been very useful in her previous role as a nurse and will stand her in good stead in her process change role, helping her to uncover information in order to form a summary of ie. articulate, the particular work/s to be done.
Q2. In this changed role, where she is not ‘taking care’ of people in the same way, these voices could be showing up as intrusive, over analytical and patronising, undermining her relatedness and communication with her peers and team. Her tendancy to diagnose before probing may also lead Marcia down inappropriate or ill-judged paths of enquiry and she may be showing up as someone who gets lost in irrelevent detail. Marcia’s under-use of voices such as advocate and challenge may also be seen as indecisive, unwilling to take a point of view or make recommendations, and may be under-mining her ‘champion’ role in this new position.
Q3-5. I would start this conversation by exploring how Marcia sees her profile, where she believes she has been effective in the past compared with this new role, and consider how some of the under-used voices could be used more – rather than making her feel wrong for over-using the ones where she is ‘strong’. Examples of these under-used voices would be advocate and challenge in light of her champion role in particular, and more of the very under-used direct voice where appropriate.
Q1. The strong preference for use of advocate, then advise and challenge. Also that his highest explore voice is probe.
Q2. Jack leans towards positioning himself as the expert, suggesting ‘best’ or most effective solutions or proposals then using the challenge voice to imply that it’s something the client ‘should’ consider and then using a probe voice to identify what the barriers are for the client in implementing the proposed approach.
Q3. One line of enquiry would be to explore that Jack’s predominant voices arefrom Jack to the client – what benefit could there be in being more curious (Inquire) and ‘Here’s what I’m hearing’ (Articulate) to a) engage the client in forming the solution, b) identify new information to uncover what the client thinks they need and c) consider why the client thinks this way to create a solution that will be of benefit to the client AND that they feels that they can progress with.
A second line of enquiry would be around the low use of the Direct voice and when used, how/in what situations is it appled.Q1. Which negative voice/s particularly annoy you? Patronise and preach
Q2. How do you tend to react when you feel you are being spoken to in that way? I feel frustrated and switch off/stop listening
Q3. Is that reaction deliberate or largely instinctive? Instinctive
Q4. What effect does your reaction have on the interaction? Makes me clipped in my responses, sometimes brutally blunt