They would challenge us to review and potentially revise our psychosocial template. For instance, just because we get a bit defensive when receiving negative feedback does not mean that we are not open to learning from this feedback. It is always difficult to hear “bad news”; however, these are the occasions when we can learn most about our behavior and how we can do a better job in the future.
Reflection on Anticipations
Engaging our polystatic perspective, the message might be: “Our anticipation might be inaccurate; perhaps we need to consider an alternative anticipation.” Argyris and Schön might also suggest that we are setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy if we set ourselves up to respond by “easing in” when anticipating defensiveness. Our tentative presentation of the feedback could make the recipient of this feedback increasingly uneasy about what we have to say, which leads to us being even more tentative and the recipient being even more defensive. It gets even more complicated and destructive. The vicious cycle becomes “self-sealed.”
Argyris or Schön would also suggest that we test out scenarios that yield positive outcomes. They might offer one other suggestion. At some point, we may want to share our assumptions and anticipations with the recipient. We would engage in what is sometimes called “meta-communication,” where we talk about what we have just been talking about. Both parties learn from this process of meta-communication. While a modicum of trust must be established between the two parties before this powerful process can be engaged, it ultimately can be a source of important shared insight. Joint reflective practice has been engaged. Action science is in full operation.
The following set of coaching steps builds on what Argyris and Schön have offered and incorporates concepts derived from the polystatic perspective.
Step One:
Identify the behavior you have enacted or expect to enact.
Identify what you anticipate would be this person’s reactions to your behavior
Identify what your likely behavior would be following the other person’s action/reactions
Step Two:
Why do you anticipate that this would be this person’s actions/reactions?
What might be their alternative actions/reactions? How might your behavior influence the engagement of their alternative behavior?
Step Three:
What do you anticipate happening following this engagement?
Do you anticipate that this would result in good outcomes, bad outcomes or both?
On what do you base this anticipation?
At this point, it is often helpful to role-play the anticipated interaction, with the coach initially playing the role of the feedback recipient (after finding a bit more about this person’s past behavior and even their “character” as assessed by one’s client). As alternative behaviors are explored, the coach and client might even change roles, with the coach demonstrating actions that can be taken based on alternative sets of anticipations.
Download Article
