Karen: 0:08

Welcome to Employing Differences, a conversation about exploring the collaborative space between individuals.

Paul: 0:15

I'm Paul Tevis.

Karen: 0:17

And I'm Karen Gimnig.

Paul: 0:19

Each episode we start with a question and we see where it takes us. This week's question is, "Is the best idea the right idea?"

Karen: 0:30

So this is a dilemma I've been having around when you've been doing something for a long time – and it really can be anything, but in my case, it's the process work and relationship work that I do – and I come in, and I'm working with a client who hasn't got that experience. They don't have that expertise. That's why they hire me. And I can come in and they say, "Okay, we need to do this kind of thing." And I have an idea – and I have a client I've been walking through this with lately where they had a particular kind of process they needed, and I said, you know,"Okay, for that kind of decision that you're trying to make, that's very complex, there's this particular process that I think would really work well, if your group has enough trust to do it." And they thought their group did and they went for it, and all chaos has broken out. Because in fact, they didn't as a group have enough trust to pull off that thing. They just weren't ready for it yet. It was unfamiliar. It was very consensus-y and very different than mainstream culture and very uncomfortable for certain people. And so what I realized is that I do think that was the best way to do the thing that they wanted to do. It would have been very effective, it would have been very efficient, that all sorts of things that about it that would have been the right thing. So I think it was the best thing. But in retrospect, looking at how it's been received, and where it was in the community, and kind of what their developmental level was, I'm now beginning to think it probably wasn't actually the right thing.

Paul: 2:13

One of the challenging things, I think, for both of us, is the assessment of readiness for any particular tool or process or thing that we have in our toolkit. Because as you point out, when you've been doing things for a long time, you forget what it's like to encounter these things for the first time – particularly to encounter them not in a training situation but in a live-fire exercise where you actually need it to solve the problem that you have – which means you have the problem. And so I think it's very easy, and I've certainly fall into this trap before, of suggesting to a group that they do a thing or – I've also done this – introducing to the group, bringing the group into doing a thing that is way deeper than they're actually really ready to do. And so one of the things that I try to occasionally remember is you can't always know what a group is ready to do. So how can you ease yourself in? What might be things that you could do that maybe isn't the best idea, it isn't the thing that you think would necessarily fix the problem at the deep level it is, but what's something that you might do that operates at a shallower level that requires less vulnerability, less trust, less of these sorts of things but that might start to move the needle on things? And test the waters? And maybe it's not going to work and you need to be ready to move to the next deeper level if it does.

Karen: 4:01

Yeah. I think that assessment piece is really tricky. And I don't know about your work, but as I'm working with clients, very often I'm working with the subset of clients who are most enthused about this kind of work. There's a client group that's trying to function and a few of them come and talk to me, because they're the people who like to process stuff and like to do relationship stuff. So one might guess that they're the ones who are most ready for these things. And so there's this tricky bit about giving them what they're ready for, but also I think there's a piece about helping them assess their group too. And that part of doing my own work is figuring out how to be the person that can function well in the group that I'm in. Knowing that that group may not be ready for the depth that I'm ready for or may not like the tool that I like to get to that depth. You and I have talked before about Nonviolent Communication as something that often in groups, some folks think it's fabulous. And as long as they do their thing themselves, it is fabulous and it works well. But the minute that they start saying,"Well, if you're not doing this with us, there's something wrong with you, you're part of the problem, you should be liking this," that's were a good thing– which NVC (Nonviolent Communication) is a good thing – but it's probably not the right thing if you've got a community where some people aren't enthusiastic about it. And I feel like that just plays out over and over again in communities. And it can be true of a new roof. The most ecological, longest lasting, The Best Roof... If the community isn't ready to pay for it, and people are really looking for a less expensive... The best thing, even if anybody looking at it in the long run would think it was the best thing, it may not be the right thing for this group right now.

Paul: 6:09

I was recently revisiting an article by Roger Harrison from 1970. He was an Organizational Development practitioner, and he wrote an article called "Choosing Your Consulting Depth" – I think is what it was called. I can probably link to it in the show notes, I can find it. But what he was talking about was in groups, when he talked about depth, what he actually meant was, to what degree is the information you're trying to get or the thing you're trying to influence personal, private, hidden, individual. And so shallower things are things like group structures: What's our purpose? Our goals? The roles that exist? Those are actually quite shallow, because they're not private or hidden or personal. But things like our worldview, our sense of self is pretty deep. Things like safety and trust, those are deeper than structural elements, but they're, but they're still interpersonal and they're in the group dynamics level. So he said basically, you can think about any intervention that you're trying to do in a group as falling somewhere along this spectrum. And what he discovered in his practice was there were two useful principles to follow. One of them was, don't go any deeper than you need to in order to produce a lasting solution to the problem at hand. Because obviously, the more work you're able to do at that deep level, the more enduring that's going to be. That lasts a lot longer; it roots really deep. Those are things that can have effect years down the line. But he's, it's hard to get there. So the other part of it is, don't go deeper than the group actually has interest or time or energy to go to. Because if you try to do that, you actually make the problem worse. People will get defensive, they get annoyed. And so what you're talking about within a group, there's going to be people who are ready to go to a deeper place. But you kind of have to go to the shallowest level that the collective is really ready to go to. And so that's one of the things that I sometimes think about when I'm going, "Is the group ready for this?" I go, "How deep is it? Who's gonna get annoyed if we try to do it?" Because as much as I might want them to be ready to do that, if they don't have the time or the interest – they've got to do the work. It's not gonna work if they're not up for it. And I think that's a hard thing, sometimes for us, as people who help people, to remember.

Karen: 9:04

Yeah, I want to make a distinction with that, which is, I think that any of us can go as deep as we want to in our own personal work, including how we apply that within our working relationships. I think there's a lot of personal work, and I don't have to be limited in what I'm doing – even relative to my work on a team – because others on the team aren't ready to do their side. I think there's still huge benefit. The place where it gets tricky is when the work relates to everyone. So when you're talking about processes or decision-making or group dynamics where everyone is participating... and I think it's really true that you can only go as deep as a whole group as the sort of shallowest person is willing to go. And I want to be really careful with those terms because shallow has such a negative connotation. For those of us who like to go deep, you know, we have that value. But in fact, there are plenty of perfectly fabulous people in the world doing great and wonderful things that don't spend a lot of time and the personal growth, deep personal work, you know, deeper levels of what we're talking about. So I just want to be careful of that sort of judgment that comes with it. But the reality is, if you want really to do the deep, deep personal work, then you better look for a group of people who wants to do deep, deep personal work. Because the idea that my deep personal work is going to cause those around me to go deeper – that they have some responsibility to go deep with me – might be a good idea, but it doesn't work. It doesn't result in them being willing. And it's just not something that you can force. On the other hand, the personal work that I do will likely make others feel safer around me. And so that their safety level – their depth rating – may increase around other people who have done their own work. So there's a lot of complexity and inter-relatedness to this. And I think it's absolutely a factor that has to be considered. What is the whole group ready for? Because if they're not ready for it, it won't matter whether it's the best idea. It's still not the right idea.

Paul: 11:22

Yeah, I mean, to go back to your example of Nonviolent Communication. That's a thing where I might find this practice really, really useful, because it helps me to stay curious and empathetic about other people. It helps me to be clear about what it is that I need, to actually make clear requests, and – to something that we've talked about on the show before– it might make my life a whole lot easier if you did that, too. But if the whole group isn't ready to do all that work together, then it's not useful to try to make them do it. Mytrainer, my strength coach, we used to have these conversations, and one of the conclusions we would land on was, there's always this question of what's the best workout that you can do. And the thing that she always said was,"The best workout is the one you'll actually do." There might be one that in theory would be better for you, but if you're not actually going to do it – if you're not going to use the process, if you're not going to follow the behaviors, if you're not going to engage with it in a way that produces meaningful change in the way that you actually operate – it's not going to get you the results that you need. And so yeah, it's not the best idea at that point. It's not the best idea for that group, at that place, at that time.

Karen: 12:49

Yeah, and I think one of the tools that we can use – because we're really talking about this discernment piece. It's not like it's obvious where a group is, or what the depth level is. You don't know those things. And I think one of the tools we can use to help us with that is a frame of invitation. You said, "We can't make people." Well, if we're trying to make people – fill in the blank – if we're trying to make someone, we're probably already in trouble. So being able to think about... You know, we can float a balloon and see what happens. We can invite and if that invitation, if that offer is always Invitational, that it's not demanding, it's not expecting and it's not judgmental, it's not, "This would be the best thing. This is the right way..." Of it's just not all of that energy and language, it's, "This seems like it would have some benefits. Are we up for that?" And if we can get that level – and that's the thing each of us individually can work on. To lose our attachment. We can do the work and think we know and have a suggestion, and still have done enough of our own processing to say, "I'd like the group to be able to do this. And let's see." And maybe even to try and have some clarity before we go into the boardroom, the battlefield, whatever. These are the things I should be watching for. And if it looks like we're getting resistance, I want to be ready with a backup plan that is a shallower level – or a baby step is a way to think about it. But if you can't go in with a truly invitational unattached offer, you might very well be going too deep for the group.

Paul: 14:43

I want to underline one of the things you said in there because I think it's a really useful approach, which is if I'm convinced that this is the best idea for the group, one of the things that's really useful for me to go is, "What's the easier version of that?" That might not work. It might not address it, but it might also address it. Because because it I think that can also clarify our thinking about what are the fundamental issues at play. And so actually being able to go, and in fact,"What's the shallowest version of this that I think could possibly work?" It's not guaranteed to work, but what might set us on the road towards this and might give us more information? That if it doesn't work, we would know more. But we've started in a place that the group is willing to start.

Karen: 15:33

And hopefully what happens then is we've started in

Paul: 15:33

There's two ways that the the thing can go wrong. One is a place the group is willing to start and some piece of progress that's visible and everybody experiences. And so then they're it doesn't actually address the thing; you don't get the result more willing to take the next step and more willing to take the next step. So I do want to be careful of the frame of you only go as far as to solve the problem – which is – and then be looking for the next potential. Your problem may be that we could go further and we haven't yet. That might be the next problem or the next stage. So addressing the thing that's real now, and being ready to do the next step, when it's ready. that you want. The other one is people have a horrible experience with it. So here's the thing, try to do it so that you only fail in one of those ways. And ideally, it's that the we failed to get the result we wanted. Since the idea is starting where the group is willing to, you might not get the result but people at least didn't get defensive, didn't have a terrible experience with it. You've not decreased their willingness to try something. If anything, everybody can together go, "Okay, well, we we didn't get the result that we were hoping for, what might we try next?" And as opposed to pushing people away when it doesn't work, because you tried to start at a level that was too deep, and so people didn't engage in the process, and you still didn't get the result you

Karen: 17:12

So I think what we're saying is that, when we have a wanted. great idea, when we can see the best way forward with it – and we're going to just pretend that it is the best way forward in a non-applied setting – it's really important to think about what is the group that you're going to put that idea into, and particularly for process ideas where is that group? And what level of depth is that idea trying to work in? And is that a match for a level of depth that members of that group are interested and have energy and willingness to function in? And is that depth actually necessary to achieve the desired goal. But if you can really assess that, which does involve often doing our own personal work, and then if we're not sure, or if it doesn't seem like a good fit – or frankly, even if we are sure, and it does seem like a good fit– develop a skill around offering from an invitational frame, and being really responsive to the pushback that we might get and taking that pushback as data to tell us that even though it's the best idea – a fabulous idea – it's not actually the right idea for this group at this time. And choose something that's shallower, that's easier, that's more comfortable for the group for now, and hope that that begins to lay groundwork for the next stage or the deeper thing that you'd hope to get to at some other point.

Paul: 18:51

That's going to do it for us for today. Until next time, I'm Paul Tevis.

Karen: 18:56

And I'm Karen Gimnig. And this has been Employing Differences.