February 24, 2018

Archives for October 2016

Resolution wasn’t built in a day

Bridge to visionOur inclination is to think that it should be possible to resolve issues, disagreements, and even conflict in one go—in a day perhaps. Sometimes, no doubt it is, if we can bring enough goodwill and expertise to bear.

Other times, we may only be able to proceed part way; we may only be able to head in the right direction—or even just a promising direction.

But we should not be deterred…

Sometimes a little progress—and a little sustained movement by all parties—can be enough to build sufficient trust, confidence, and faith that, in time, further steps can be taken and more progress made towards an ultimate resolution.

Important, then, not to dismiss the initial progress, just because it’s incomplete.

Relationship building, or especially rebuilding, is a through-time process not an in-time event.

Resolution wasn’t built in a day.

The value of validation

TeamOf course, it’s good to make up our own mind about whether something we’re doing is right or not. Nevertheless, a bit of external validation is still very welcome.

We can seek it out ourselves, for our own needs.

But what about other people—those we have reason to assist in their learning?

If we’re supporting someone develop new leadership behaviours, for example, and they seem to be making some progress in that some of their people are stepping up and taking on appropriate leadership responsibilities as well, it can be extraordinarily reinforcing to prompt other people seeing these positive developments to say so.

In a workshop setting, one answer is simply to invite other participants to comment. Out in the field, a little more deliberate action is needed—perhaps asking them to take the trouble to have a word.

From our perspective then, as the orchestrator of all this, perhaps as a facilitator, or maybe just a friend…

Worth thinking about how to prompt people who could say something helpful.

Don’t leave it to chance.

Connection or fluency?

Mid sized audienceWhich is more important: being fluent or being connected with your audience i.e. the other party?

Traditionally, we pay a lot of attention to being fluent, even organising many aids to make sure we can join words together in a smooth and flowing way.


It may be more effective to concentrate on being connected with the audience.

If people have a sense of connection, they’ll listen with the heart rather than the head—and, in fact, take more away from the conversation. They won’t be that aware of glitches in the delivery.

It might not really about the words anyway.

If people are disengaged, it really doesn’t matter how good your words are.

Sometimes attempts at fluency can get in the way of natural connection.

The ideal is both, I suppose, but if you can’t have that, which would you go for…

Connection or fluency?