More and more I find my coaching is as simple (or hard) as helping people take a different perspective and/or change their focus of attention. Last week I was discussing this with a colleague (a proper neuroscientist with a PhD etc) and she gave me a neat neuro-biologically informed explanation of how to discover what change is required by thinking about your strengths.
The basic neuro-biology is that we literally see what we focus attention on, and are correspondingly "blind" to what we are not focusing on. So changing perspective and shifting our focus of attention are actually both about altering our perception. Once we see / perceive the situation or the person differently we can act / react differently. So far, fairly obvious.
The interesting bit is that by thinking about your strengths you can quickly identify what you habitually pay attention to, hence what you will typically be blind to and how you will tend to mis-interpret what you do see. Knowing where you habitually focus attention makes it much easier to shift it elsewhere. And knowing you have a (literal) blind spot is an essential first step towards seeing what is in it!
The easiest way to explain this is with an example.
Suppose your strength is that you are decisive and action oriented. This suggests you pay a lot of attention to looking for decisions to be made and actions to be taken. As a result, you see lots of decisions to be made and lots of actions to be taken. You are literally blind to other possibilities. So you carry on making decisions and taking actions - because that's all there is to do! From another person's perspective, of course, you may appear to be over-using your strength - they may see you as too dominant and/or too hasty.
Take this further, if you mostly pay attention to decisions and actions you will only see those aspects of other activities (or other people) that affect the decisions and actions you are paying attention to. Nearly everything else - even a suggestion that you pause for thought- will be seen as either a challenge to be overcome or a delay to be avoided or ignored. And, of course, if all you are seeing is your decision or your action, it's actually true - that is the self-fulfilling prophecy, ie "What You Get Is What You See".
So how do you get to see a more complete picture? The answer is to shift your focus of attention. Practice asking yourself: "What if a decision or action wasn't the only thing needed right now, what else might be needed?" or "What if this other activity / person was not just a delay or a challenge, what else might it / they be offering that is helpful?". It's that simple.
However, if your brain is telling you that even pausing to think is a delay, it won't necessarily be easy. That's why you have to practice!
Showing posts with label 1.2 Personality types. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1.2 Personality types. Show all posts
Are they going mad? Or were they always mad?!
This post was prompted by reading a review of "What is madness?" a book by Darian Leader (a psychoanalyst). I haven't read the book but was taken with what was reported as one of its basic premises, which is that there is a difference between being mad and going mad. People can be mad, ie have an internal world which makes no sense, but unless they go mad, ie do something which projects that internal world externally, we would never know it. So many people might be mad, but we only recognise it when they go mad.
Now I realise he is talking about real psychiatric disorders, but I found myself thinking about character styles in healthy people. We each have an internal world that makes perfect sense to us, and the internal world of others who share our character style would also make sense to us. But the internal world of those with different character styles would seem crazy. However we don't see it while their behaviour fits with what we can make sense of using our own internal model. So we don't realise their internal world is different to ours. We only notice their different inner world when they show it to us through unexpected actions, at which point we think they've gone crazy!
What you have to realise is they were "crazy" all the time (to you), just as you are "crazy" all the time (to them). So it's worth taking the time to truly undertand their inner world (and your own) so that their (or your) "crazy" action doesn't take you (or them) by surprise!
Now I realise he is talking about real psychiatric disorders, but I found myself thinking about character styles in healthy people. We each have an internal world that makes perfect sense to us, and the internal world of others who share our character style would also make sense to us. But the internal world of those with different character styles would seem crazy. However we don't see it while their behaviour fits with what we can make sense of using our own internal model. So we don't realise their internal world is different to ours. We only notice their different inner world when they show it to us through unexpected actions, at which point we think they've gone crazy!
What you have to realise is they were "crazy" all the time (to you), just as you are "crazy" all the time (to them). So it's worth taking the time to truly undertand their inner world (and your own) so that their (or your) "crazy" action doesn't take you (or them) by surprise!
Head spinning with DISC
I was working on a programme last week which uses the DISC model as an introduction to personality difference, in preparation for team working on a two day business case simulation. I like the DISC model in this context because it is simple (in both concept and language) and easy to remember (if you use the Red, Green, Yellow and Blue colours that is). But it is often dismissed as too simple. For example I've heard it dismissed as "simplified MBTI" - which is inaccurate on both counts!
I'm not going to explain the model here - I have a feeling I did this in a previous post (and anyway you can Google it for yourselves). However, I will share a few thoughts which came to me as I mused on DISC while the teams were working away on their simulation.
Firstly, I find the most useful thing about the model is that one dimension is about whether you see the world as threat or opportunity (and the consequences on behaviour). Discussions around this can take you quite deep quite quickly and open up the possibility of change more directly than many other models (such as MBTI).
Secondly, it maps really easily to the Belbin model - the Belbin roles people habitually take will probably reflect their DISC profile. More interestingly, just as Belbin roles are all necessary in a team, so are DISC profile characteristics. And when there is a gap, a role (or a characteristic) can often be adopted by someone for whom it is not normal, but for whom it is quite an easy step.
Lastly, it is easy to see a connection to Centaur types (again, see earlier posts, my website or Google). Although it doesn't map exactly, you can see that Warriors and Wizards will typically be D's and C's (seeing other people as "threats"), and Poets and Good Parents will be S's and I's (seeing others as "opportunities").
These mappings and connections are not just for intellectual amusement. I find them useful in helping me move from using the DISC model as just another label to something which enables personal change through deeper awareness of what is really going on.
I'm not going to explain the model here - I have a feeling I did this in a previous post (and anyway you can Google it for yourselves). However, I will share a few thoughts which came to me as I mused on DISC while the teams were working away on their simulation.
Firstly, I find the most useful thing about the model is that one dimension is about whether you see the world as threat or opportunity (and the consequences on behaviour). Discussions around this can take you quite deep quite quickly and open up the possibility of change more directly than many other models (such as MBTI).
Secondly, it maps really easily to the Belbin model - the Belbin roles people habitually take will probably reflect their DISC profile. More interestingly, just as Belbin roles are all necessary in a team, so are DISC profile characteristics. And when there is a gap, a role (or a characteristic) can often be adopted by someone for whom it is not normal, but for whom it is quite an easy step.
Lastly, it is easy to see a connection to Centaur types (again, see earlier posts, my website or Google). Although it doesn't map exactly, you can see that Warriors and Wizards will typically be D's and C's (seeing other people as "threats"), and Poets and Good Parents will be S's and I's (seeing others as "opportunities").
These mappings and connections are not just for intellectual amusement. I find them useful in helping me move from using the DISC model as just another label to something which enables personal change through deeper awareness of what is really going on.
Your personality is like your face
How fixed is your personality? This is a question that comes up time and time again on development programmes when people are looking at personality profiles, whilst thinking about changing behaviour, yet also being told to be authentic! During today's discussion I hit on an analogy that seemed to work well, which is that you could regard your personality as being like your face.
To a large extent, how you look is genetic, and clear by very early childhood. However, over the years your face will change through age and life experiences. You may pick up scars or other damage. And at any moment, your emotions will change your expression - in some cases to transform your look. And a habitual attitude, which produces a habitual expression, can "set" on your face - like the permanent frown creating wrinkle patterns, or conversely the permanent smile creating lines. But you are always recognisably you.
You can deliberately change your looks (to look your best) by work from the inside out on lifestyle, health, attitude or emotional state. Or you can do surface level work on personal grooming. But whatever you do, you will still be recognisably you. Unless of course you go too far down the cosmetic surgery route! And everyone knows when it has gone too far - because your face is no longer authentically you.
To a large extent, how you look is genetic, and clear by very early childhood. However, over the years your face will change through age and life experiences. You may pick up scars or other damage. And at any moment, your emotions will change your expression - in some cases to transform your look. And a habitual attitude, which produces a habitual expression, can "set" on your face - like the permanent frown creating wrinkle patterns, or conversely the permanent smile creating lines. But you are always recognisably you.
You can deliberately change your looks (to look your best) by work from the inside out on lifestyle, health, attitude or emotional state. Or you can do surface level work on personal grooming. But whatever you do, you will still be recognisably you. Unless of course you go too far down the cosmetic surgery route! And everyone knows when it has gone too far - because your face is no longer authentically you.
What you see is what you get (WYSIWYG)
I was very amused the other day by one of my client's use of this phrase. It comes from the early days of PCs (the 1980's) when it was a breakthrough to get things to print out the way they looked on screen, and WYSIWYG was a sales feature. It then slipped into common usage (at least among IT people) to mean simply that someone is very straightforward - ie they are truly just who they seem to be.
In our session we had been exploring reciprocity and perceptions (vs reality) in this case in relation to trust. To cut a long story short, through some 2-chair work we'd seen that if you go into a meeting treating the other person as a threat (so not to be trusted) you will naturally be suspicious of their motives and cautious with them. Reciprocity of emotional response means that they will immediately read this caution in you (at least unconsciously, sometimes consciously) causing them to become similarly suspicious and cautious. So both sets of defences are up, all comments or actions will be interpreted as potentially hostile and each side will actually experience the other as not to be trusted. Perception becomes reality!
The helpful part of these ideas is opening up the possibility that just because you experience another person as threatening it doesn't always mean they really are - it may be your perception that is creating this reality in your interactions. By re-framing the situation so that you perceive them differently, you may actually experience a different them.
What I loved is that my client (an IT person of roughly my vintage) summed this up as "what you see is what you get" - a deliberate reversal of the normal meaning of this phrase which was (I thought) very clever and quite witty.
In our session we had been exploring reciprocity and perceptions (vs reality) in this case in relation to trust. To cut a long story short, through some 2-chair work we'd seen that if you go into a meeting treating the other person as a threat (so not to be trusted) you will naturally be suspicious of their motives and cautious with them. Reciprocity of emotional response means that they will immediately read this caution in you (at least unconsciously, sometimes consciously) causing them to become similarly suspicious and cautious. So both sets of defences are up, all comments or actions will be interpreted as potentially hostile and each side will actually experience the other as not to be trusted. Perception becomes reality!
The helpful part of these ideas is opening up the possibility that just because you experience another person as threatening it doesn't always mean they really are - it may be your perception that is creating this reality in your interactions. By re-framing the situation so that you perceive them differently, you may actually experience a different them.
What I loved is that my client (an IT person of roughly my vintage) summed this up as "what you see is what you get" - a deliberate reversal of the normal meaning of this phrase which was (I thought) very clever and quite witty.
Are you blind to opportunity?
I did some interesting work recently with a very high achieving client who was working on improving their empathy and reducing their aggressiveness - something they'd had feedback on many times both from their team and their boss.
On a programme some time ago, my client had explored their DISC profile - a simple personality type model which uses two dimensions of personality to create four quadrants with characteristic approaches: Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, Compliance (Google it for more information). He was firmly in the D quadrant and he saw the change as being about using a more I style.
Of course, the difficulty with that framing of the change is that it doesn't recognise that there are deep beliefs and attitudes which cause him to be high D in the first place and there are many positive aspects about being high D which he wouldn't want to lose. So although his conscious was trying to be more I, his unconscious was driving him to continue to act as a high D - effectively sabotaging any change.
A breakthrough came from some more experiential work we did around a specific event. What became clear is that his instinctive reaction to any situation is to see the threat in it, and his aggressiveness is largely a defence against perceived threats. What he hadn't realised up to that point is how this pervades his life and often stops him seeing opportunities (including in career etc). Recognising that this blind spot was a distortion of reality that he might enjoy freeing himself from was a frame for change he was truly motivated by.
The interesting tie back to DISC is that although one dimension is often described as being about whether someone is task or people focused, in the original model it was about whether you perceive the world as a threat or an opportunity. So a characteristic of high Ds is that they see threat rather than opportunity - particularly in people - and they nulify that threat by dominance. If they can recognise and accept the way they distort threats - again, particularly in other people - they will be less gripped by their D style in dealing with them.
On a programme some time ago, my client had explored their DISC profile - a simple personality type model which uses two dimensions of personality to create four quadrants with characteristic approaches: Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, Compliance (Google it for more information). He was firmly in the D quadrant and he saw the change as being about using a more I style.
Of course, the difficulty with that framing of the change is that it doesn't recognise that there are deep beliefs and attitudes which cause him to be high D in the first place and there are many positive aspects about being high D which he wouldn't want to lose. So although his conscious was trying to be more I, his unconscious was driving him to continue to act as a high D - effectively sabotaging any change.
A breakthrough came from some more experiential work we did around a specific event. What became clear is that his instinctive reaction to any situation is to see the threat in it, and his aggressiveness is largely a defence against perceived threats. What he hadn't realised up to that point is how this pervades his life and often stops him seeing opportunities (including in career etc). Recognising that this blind spot was a distortion of reality that he might enjoy freeing himself from was a frame for change he was truly motivated by.
The interesting tie back to DISC is that although one dimension is often described as being about whether someone is task or people focused, in the original model it was about whether you perceive the world as a threat or an opportunity. So a characteristic of high Ds is that they see threat rather than opportunity - particularly in people - and they nulify that threat by dominance. If they can recognise and accept the way they distort threats - again, particularly in other people - they will be less gripped by their D style in dealing with them.
Why is it harder to deal with people at work?
Interesting conversation with a coachee the other day about personality clashes with work colleagues. We had been looking at how hard it is to really "get" the fundamental differences in another's world view, and even harder still to deal with them.
As a throwaway comment my client said "It's so much easier outside of work... I just wouldn't have these type of people as friends". But then we looked at this claim more closely. And actually their friends were not all clones, they included representatives of virtually all personality types, in particular this type that was causing them so much difficulty at work.
So what is the real problem at work? Why can we deal with difference in friends better than difference in work colleagues? Here are a few thoughts we came up with. For a start, we often see friends less frequently than work colleagues, so that the irritations from difference don't build up. Many friendships wouldn't last the intensity of a week's holiday together! When a friend's different world view annoys us we can cool off by not seeing them for a while. Or the friendship relationship means we can usually be more direct in dealing with it. Lastly, our primary objective during our interactions is clearly on enjoying the friendship rather than achieving any particular task, so we can usually allow ourselves to be more flexible and let things go rather than gripping them ever harder.
Does this analysis help? Well, one thing it tells us is we may be better at dealing with difference than we consciously know, and our friendships may provide more useful guidance than we expect. More importantly, it tells us to relax and just accept difference as something we have to (and do) deal with... everywhere. It really wouldn't be a "perfect world" if everyone was the same as you!
As a throwaway comment my client said "It's so much easier outside of work... I just wouldn't have these type of people as friends". But then we looked at this claim more closely. And actually their friends were not all clones, they included representatives of virtually all personality types, in particular this type that was causing them so much difficulty at work.
So what is the real problem at work? Why can we deal with difference in friends better than difference in work colleagues? Here are a few thoughts we came up with. For a start, we often see friends less frequently than work colleagues, so that the irritations from difference don't build up. Many friendships wouldn't last the intensity of a week's holiday together! When a friend's different world view annoys us we can cool off by not seeing them for a while. Or the friendship relationship means we can usually be more direct in dealing with it. Lastly, our primary objective during our interactions is clearly on enjoying the friendship rather than achieving any particular task, so we can usually allow ourselves to be more flexible and let things go rather than gripping them ever harder.
Does this analysis help? Well, one thing it tells us is we may be better at dealing with difference than we consciously know, and our friendships may provide more useful guidance than we expect. More importantly, it tells us to relax and just accept difference as something we have to (and do) deal with... everywhere. It really wouldn't be a "perfect world" if everyone was the same as you!
Personality profiles: So what?
Nearly every leadership development intervention at some point looks at personality profiles. But what do you really do with the results? This was the discussion we had in the group I was leading on a programme this week, in this case looking at their NEO profiles.
There are two apparently contradictory messages that go with any profile. On the one hand, to justify doing them, we say "you (pretty much) can't change who you are" and on the other hand, because we're talking about leadership development, we say "what got you here won't get you there" (self explanatory comment on stepping up to lead, but see the book of the same name by Marshall Goldsmith if you want more). So what do you actually supposed to do with your profile?
It was easy to agree that one key benefit of looking at profiles is that by becoming more aware of what you do instinctively (ie without conscious thought), you can "loosen the grip" of your personality. If you can loosen the grip, you develop flexibility and give yourself the choice of doing things differently. But our common experience was that the grip is strongest just when you most need to loosen it up.
To truly loosen the grip you have to do some deeper more psychologically based work around these profiles, recognising that what you do instinctively is driven by a set of unconscious beliefs and assumptions you hold about the world. To overcome these you first have to make them more conscious, then work out how to get around them in certain situations. This is what we worked on in the group, as usual finding that it's often more productive to focus on whether an assumption is helpful or unhelpful in a given situation, rather than whether it is true or not. And if it's not helpful, it's also often easier to reframe the situation, rather than work directly on the belief itself.
So the real benefit of these personality profiling tools is not the profile itself - a description of characteristic behaviour. Whichever one you use, it's really just another way to uncover those unconscious assumptions which, for better AND worse, are driving your behaviour.
There are two apparently contradictory messages that go with any profile. On the one hand, to justify doing them, we say "you (pretty much) can't change who you are" and on the other hand, because we're talking about leadership development, we say "what got you here won't get you there" (self explanatory comment on stepping up to lead, but see the book of the same name by Marshall Goldsmith if you want more). So what do you actually supposed to do with your profile?
It was easy to agree that one key benefit of looking at profiles is that by becoming more aware of what you do instinctively (ie without conscious thought), you can "loosen the grip" of your personality. If you can loosen the grip, you develop flexibility and give yourself the choice of doing things differently. But our common experience was that the grip is strongest just when you most need to loosen it up.
To truly loosen the grip you have to do some deeper more psychologically based work around these profiles, recognising that what you do instinctively is driven by a set of unconscious beliefs and assumptions you hold about the world. To overcome these you first have to make them more conscious, then work out how to get around them in certain situations. This is what we worked on in the group, as usual finding that it's often more productive to focus on whether an assumption is helpful or unhelpful in a given situation, rather than whether it is true or not. And if it's not helpful, it's also often easier to reframe the situation, rather than work directly on the belief itself.
So the real benefit of these personality profiling tools is not the profile itself - a description of characteristic behaviour. Whichever one you use, it's really just another way to uncover those unconscious assumptions which, for better AND worse, are driving your behaviour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)