“They brought me in for my experience and contacts. We had a good year, yet I am laboring under a boss who second guesses me, and makes my life difficult. My review was devastating. I am thinking of leaving.” My client, Andrew, shared his frustration.
The Chief Legal Officer, Jay, had another perspective. “Andrew has accomplished more than we hoped. Lately, he has become less vocal and quick to criticize everything. I wish he would be more of a team player. He is talented and I don’t want to lose him. He needs to lose his rough edges. During our recent performance review discussion, he was uncharacteristically sensitive and didn’t seem to absorb any of the main messages.”
Their stories reflected starkly different perceptions of their work. These differences affected their colleagues. While there was no open conflict, colleagues aligned with one side or the other. Remarks by each party were misinterpreted and escalated by those around them.
I started by exploring their shared values, underlying needs and points of stress.
What emerged was a picture of two lawyers with different orientations to assessing and minimizing risk. Together, they could complement each other. At this point, the relationship was not productive and it affected the climate of the group. Both Andrew and Jay were highly respected for their professional expertise. Both were highly regarded for the wisdom of their decisions.
They differed in their approaches to sizing up an issue and making decisions. Jay started with a broad view and made decisions quickly. After reaching a decision, Jay reduced risk through checking in with others. Andrew gathered lots of data, considered implications carefully and then voiced a firm conclusion.
Why might a decision-making process create so much friction within a group? After all, everyone has their own decision-making preferences, and as long as a good decision is reached, why does the path one takes to get there matter? In Andrew’s and Jay’s case, it wasn’t just making the decision. Other factors like timing and inflexibility contributed to the discord.
For example, Andrew felt that Jay should seek more information earlier. Jay felt that Andrew was inflexible and impatient when he reached a decision.
What did they have in common? They shared an orientation to helping others. Both had low needs for personal recognition and a healthy respect for systems and procedures. Both worked hard to minimize risk through thoughtful judgement and intense awareness of objective facts and interpersonal details.
I started by exploring their internal “stories” about each other and the effect of their behavior on each other. Both felt disrespected for different reasons. Andrew thought Jay did not engage in enough time and energy exploring context before he voiced an opinion and should give more credence to Andrew’s carefully considered recommendations. Andrew felt disrespected because Jay challenged his opinion with insufficient data.
Jay’s natural tendency was to make quick assessments, and he wanted colleagues to add information to his “first take” on issues. He felt Andrew’s dialogue often had a condescending tone. Jay felt Andrew’s distain and resented the lack of respect for Jay’s position and the perspective it entailed.
Jay and Andrew did not consider the emotional impact of their harsh assessment of each other.
Understanding when and how each reached a decision allowed Jay and Andrew to tap into each other’s strengths and changed the tone of the conversation as they approached each other to discuss decisions.
As they view each other with empathy, the dialogue between them broadened from conveying only “need to know” information to helping each other protect their personal, as well as professional vulnerabilities.
The impact of deeper understanding of each other’s process helped alter the culture of the group.
.
