There is one other approach I might take as a coach to Susan Telluride. It involves a blending of the domains of intentions and ideas. We focus on a hypothetical interaction between Susan and her boss. We first consider what would be a desired outcome of this interaction for BOTH Susan and her boss. I suggest a role play with Susan first playing herself and I playing her Boss (after a bit of information domain portrayal by Susan concerning her boss). Susan leads off with a statement regarding the desired outcome for both her and the boss. She also shares some information regarding what she considers the primary barriers to achieving these outcomes.
Playing the role of her Boss, I react to her opening statements and perhaps reflect on my own defensiveness in hearing what Susan has said (especially if she is being “assertive”). We try it out again, with Susan being a bit more sensitive to her Boss’s fears. However, she doesn’t “ease in” or become highly indirect in what she is presenting. She remains candid. There is nothing wrong with the Boss being somewhat “defensive” if what Susan has to say can in some way challenge his way of relating to Susan and other people with whom he often interacts.
The role play continues with Susan trying out several different approaches. We both reflect on the impact of each approach. We sometimes reverse roles. I play Susan and either replicate one of her approaches (so that Susan can get a first-hand experience of receiving this approach) or try out a quite different approach (so that Susan can evaluate this approach from her Boss’s perspective). As we move back and forth between different versions of Susan’s critical interaction with her Boss and view these interactions from the perspective of both Susan and Boss, there is an emerging clarity regarding not only the desired outcomes of this interaction (domain of intentions) but also the best ways in which for Susan to approach this critical interaction (domain of ideas).
While this coaching engagement may lead Susan to a decision that there is no other choice than to find a new job, she has come to this decision having gained greater clarity regarding alternative actions to take. Furthermore, she now has a much better idea about what she will be looking for when applying for a new position. Her perspective will be much more than: “Anything is better than working with that ineffective and blocking jerk who makes my life a living Hell right now!” A safe place (sanctuary) in which to test out alternative behaviors is rarely present, yet of vital importance when operating in the often mechanized and frequently unsafe environment of a large modern corporation.
The Postmodern World: Fragmentation and Complexity
As we enter the postmodern era, it appears that even if the integrative services of a modern organization are extensive, they often are insufficient to hold the organization together. Even with greater attention being given to organizational culture and to the creation of a strong feeling of solidarity, contemporary organizations are experiencing pervasive fragmentation, chaos, and inconsistency. One part of the organization does not know or care what the other parts are doing. Growing frustration is founded on frequent and counterproductive reorganizations, conglomerations of differing structures that always seem to be “in planning,” the failure of many divisions to coordinate their efforts with other divisions, the lack of clearly established organization-wide priorities, and a general sense of foreboding or panic (postmodern edginess).
Download Article
