Sequencing
The usual—and “very polite”—mode of sequencing is for one of the parties to simply say “after you.” This is being gracious. We now know that this act of generosity can also offer us a squirt of “feel good” chemicals. While we probably can’t get high on or addicted to this act of kindness, it certainly can motivate us to open the door for someone at the hotel or suggest that someone else speak at the present time while we remain quiet. This is all very nice—but not necessarily productive. The person who is being gracious might also be the one with the best idea. The person being invited to go first through the door might be feeling patronized by us. The person who is asked to speak first might actually be waiting to hear for us before speaking up (or they might simply not have much to say). Most importantly, graciousness should not serve as the foundation for thoughtful and systematic problem-solving and decision-making. Nor should it guide the communication pattern during an important meeting. It definitely should not be the primary strategy for resolving a conflict. Empowerment in the engagement of communication, conflict-management, problem-solving and decision-making requires a meta-level conversation—especially when the matters being addressed concern Essentials. We should ask: “how do we best sequence our ideas and concerns?” Or we consider ways in which to identify immediate and long-term Essential priorities.
A more thoughtful suggestion is to begin with the “low handing”. Which initiative is most likely to yield success. This can provide motivation to tackle the tougher initiatives. We are opportunistic. We go with the flow and make use of the existing momentum. This is an obvious suggestion and well-proven strategy. However, it risks “addiction.” We grow accustomed to the easy successes and are increasingly leery about tackling the tougher ones. These are the ones that are most often associated with that which is Essential. We think and act short term and fail to be systematic in our analysis, purposeful in our selection of a sequence, or engaged in activities that further our learning (for the future).
My first alternative suggestion returns us to the description of enablement that I introduce in my previous essay on Essentials (Bergquist, 2024). In this essay, I considered ways in which we can transform complex issues and conditions into matters of systemic enablement. We engage a systemic analysis. We look at the interweaving of the issues we face and see that it is possible to leverage one or more of these issues by resolving these issues in a manner than benefits the resolution of the other issues. In other words, some outcomes can be valued not because of their inherent, isolated importance, but because successful achievement of these outcomes can lead to successful achievement of other important outcomes. Thus, in seeking to sequence action regarding several different initiatives, it is often appropriate to act first on the initiatives that impact several of the other initiatives. Making use of the network metaphor, we look for nodes and intersections so that these can first be addressed.
My second alternative suggestion is that we focus not only on our current situation—with all of its complexity. We also look upward and outward. We seek clarity and commitment regarding higher order purposes. While there might be differences among us as to immediate priorities when seeking to sequence several initiatives, we might wish to slow down our work a bit and consider why we are engaged in this conversation. We make use of Peter Senge’s (Senge, 1994) five whys in order to move deeper into the purpose of our work. Often, the priorities will emerge when we become clearer about why we are gathered together. If nothing else, we are likely to move beyond “win-lose” and the bruising of personal egos. Our graciousness now is based on purpose rather than just being kind. We invite someone else to go first because this will help us all get to where we want to be going collectively.
Download Article 1K Club
