Karen: 0:08

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

Paul: 0:15

I'm Paul Tevis.

Karen: 0:16

And I'm Karen Giming.

Paul: 0:18

Each episode, we start with a question and we see where it takes us. This week's question is, "When do I get my way?"

Karen: 0:28

So this is a thing that comes up in any kind of collaborative work environment. Sometimes we talk until we all agree this is the best way forward. That's the thing that can happen. And some of the time, we don't really agree about what's the best way forward. We just find one that we can all get behind enough to function and work toward our goal – whatever that is – and that's fine. But often in those dynamics, somebody doesn't really get their way. And one thing that I see in consensus-based groups is that there are certain personalities that tend to push and get their way pretty reliably and certain personalities that don't. Often a culture develops around,"Well, the nice thing or good consensus practice is if I give in and let others have their way, so that we can move forward. And that's me being a good positive skilled consensus person." And then "I get to complain that people who don't do that, because they stand up for what they want. Because if they were good at consensus they would give in." Which, of course, ends up being something closer to a majority vote. Because in those cases, usually the way it plays out is that, if most people want a thing other people just fall in line. And what I wanted to explore here today, is when is it appropriate to actually hold your ground? And the hint is, it's not about whether you happen to be a strong-willed person or not. There are other criteria that are better to use for when do I persist in saying, "I really think we should do it this way."

Paul: 2:25

I think that one clue is that when you notice you're setting yourself up to complain. Because this is absolutely a thing that happens in the recognition of the pattern. Any individual decision, it's usually not a big deal. But the problem that I see, when we do tend to have a more consensus-based decision making process or even when we don't have an explicit decision-making process but we're told, "The team needs to decide" and then it's vague exactly what that means. Over time, we start to notice this pattern of, "Well, we always seem to go with the idea that this person came up with" or the one that this person throws their weight behind or these people throw their weight behind. And it's that pattern, I think, that tends to build up resentment, because it points to the fact that we're not actually making decisions the way that we say that we are. And so we might think, going into those spaces, that this idea that everybody's voice gets heard – that we know that all voices are heard, that everyone's needs are respected and taking into account – is at odds with our experience of what's actually happening. And I think that that feeling of resentment or that feeling of"I'm going to say yes to this, and then I'm going to go complain" is a sign that we shouldn't just say "yes."

Karen: 3:53

I think that's an excellent thought. What are the cues that maybe this is not going the way it ought to? And I think another one is the one I alluded to, which is, "Is the only reason I'm saying yes, because I'm out-voted?" Is that my primary decision-making point? Because one of the really important reasons to adopt a consensus process is because we believe that the minority opinion sometimes is the thing that would be best for the group. If we don't believe that– if we think that "if most people want it, that must be the best thing for the group" – then we shouldn't put ourselves through the pain of trying to make consensus decisions. We should just have a voting process. I actually do believe that very often a minority view needs to be considered. Maybe it's not by itself the right thing, but if we have disagreement in the room, odds are there is a better path yet to be found that we would miss if we just took a vote. And that's why we do it. But I do think there's a thing to really think about. It's a discipline to learn about when is it useful to the group for me to hold my own here? And when do I need to notice the rigidity within myself and take in other people's viewpoints? And then possibly even say, "You know, if everybody else in the room really thinks that's better and I've been really heard, then maybe I should think about that." So I guess that's sort of the thing I want to go to is, how do I know that this is a time to let go? How do I know that this is a time to persist?

Paul: 5:50

And I come back to the idea we've talked about before of willingness. Am I am I willing to go with this decision? And truly embrace it? It's not begrudgingly. It's not"I'll say yes and then resent it." Willingness really, is,"This isn't what I would choose, and I can embrace it." And I think that part of that is – connected to something you said in there, which is that – do I think that I've actually been heard? That my perspective, that my needs, that the thing that I'm holding on to, has that actually been considered by the group? Because I think that's often when we do need to persevere. To say, "I think that what I'm saying hasn't been heard. That this hasn't landed. I at least need some acknowledgement of the fact that we're not going to do the thing that I would prefer." I think that when we have a sense that we haven't been heard by the group is absolutely a place where it makes sense to say,"Hold on, let's slow down." I think the other piece about it – this is where the the pattern and the recurring thing comes up for me – is that it can be useful to think about, am I going to stand in the way of this decision for long enough that I can bring up the larger issue? Because oftentimes where the resentment builds up, and the complaint is going to come from is that feeling that this happens again, and again, and again. And it can be really useful to say, "I might actually be okay to go along with this particular decision. But first, I want an acknowledgement of the dynamic that keeps happening over and over and over again." Because I think oftentimes, when we're on the losing side – or the receiving end, however you want to say it – when we're on that side of the pattern, we become very aware of it. And it's distinctly possible no one else even notices that we're always the one saying, "Oh, okay, fine." And I think it's useful, regardless of the content of the decision, if you're starting to feel that, I think it's useful to to hold your ground until you at least get an acknowledgment of both of those things, and an acknowledgement that that isn't what the group wants in the long term.

Karen: 8:30

Yeah. I often say that what I find is that people can almost always tolerate not getting their way, if they feel like they have been very well heard. And I would add the word"validated." There is sometimes this misnomer that we have heard you because we sat here quietly while you talked. And that actually is not the same thing. Because, in fact, I can sit here quietly while people talk and not hear them at all. Anyone who's been through the public school system in this country has probably gotten really good at that. We actually train kids in that in our system. So that assumption that "Well, we've given you plenty of time to talk" is is not enough. So it is have we engaged and have we acknowledged and respected that although we disagree with it, we're not dismissing you, we're not thinking "Oh, yeah, that's just Paul being his crazy person again, and we don't have to listen to him." That we've actually really engaged with it, seriously considered it possibly even made some sort of shift around it, that kind of thing. So I think yes, if you've been heard if it's clear that people understand your perspective – and I think a way to say that would be for them to say, "Okay, we we understand that there is a real risk that this thing that you're worried about could happen. We know that could happen. For us it's worth taking this risk." – then you might be at a point where you're like,"Okay, I've been really heard, and I'm landing in my own values in a different place, or my own risk tolerance, or whatever it is in a different place than others in the group." And that may be a time that you sort of go with where the majority is because it's about a risk tolerance, which isn't an on-off switch, right? This is a spectrum and we land in different places. So I think that's true. I think another thing to look for in answering this question is to look internally for rigidity. Am I just dug in? As you were saying about the pattern thing, when you see it as a pattern, you can get dug in. I actually knew of a group or someone said, "I'm going to oppose anything you propose ever again because this horrible thing happened between us." And you don't often hear it said that blatantly and you kind of hope they didn't mean it, but I do think we get there. I think there can be an internal rigidity, either to this person– you know, "Paul has done this to me so many times that anytime he speaks, I just oppose," or"Paul's been perfectly appropriate but he really reminds me of my father who shut me down constantly through my childhood in some mannerism, and I'm just getting resistant." So getting curious about, "Am I stuck? Is there something about this that I'm not hearing?" And that might be a time to say,"Okay I'm not fully engaged. I'm triggered in some way. My emotions are up. There's something getting in the way of me being fully present and acknowledging and hearing others." That might be a time to say, "This isn't the one I want to stick on." Or it may be to do what you were suggesting, of saying, "You know, I'm pretty triggered by this. I think it's because we've been down this road before."

Paul: 11:57

I think it can be really useful to take a step back and say, "What are the things that I'm bringing this that are contributing to me not getting what I'm hoping for? Not getting what I want? How am I getting in my own way of getting my way?" And noticing what are the things. Part of that is the latching on to the pattern, part of that can be the projection stuff, whatever that is, that can be inside your head. And then that comes out sideways, when you actually try to do something. Which I think actually points to a thing that I want to mention, because we're skirting dangerously close to"just give up on getting your own way and go with the group" which thing we go want. To go the opposite direction, I think when we recognize we are at that point where we have to take a stand for whatever this thing is, being able to do that as calmly and as evenly as possible is, I think, a thing that is really useful. So recognizing,"Yeah, I'm probably triggered by this thing, because of this than the other, blah, blah blah. But the content of this decision really matters to me. I seriously believe that this is a mistake." Because it can be that I am the one person in the group who notices this thing. That's the thing. When we're in groups and we've got the one person who won't let the thing go, we have to admit that sometimes they may be right. And if you really are feeling like you're in that place, being able to calm yourself and come to that in as grounded away as you can be really useful. Becoming the immovable object in a way that other people can still engage with it is really useful. Not in this frantic, angry, resentful, complain-y way of "You never listen to me." But being able to stand firmly on that place of"These are the things that I've seen. This is what I know. Here's why I am not comfortable with this and why I have to veto this decision at this point. I'm willing to talk about these things. And here I stand." Being able to do it in that way, I think is one of the most valuable things that we can do to help ourselves in terms of helping us not be so separate from the group. Because often it's that emotional agitation that is the thing that's the barrier to collaboration.

Karen: 14:31

I think that's true and I'll add another nuance to what you're saying. I'm going to put in the word mission here and you can interpret that as goals, objectives, profitability, whatever is the word that makes sense. But one of the things to think about is the mission of the group. Or even the contract of the group. What have we said is the reason that we come together exists and exist? What is the thing we're trying to accomplish? And do my objections relate to that? As opposed to, I may have an objection – that's a completely legitimate one, like, this is gonna have a bad impact on me, and I don't want it to have a bad impact on me because I'm me. right. But if the thing I want is in my personal interest but isn't really part of the goal of the group... Now, I want to keep in mind that very often, the goals of the group include some personal interests, and I believe we did an episode on that, so that balance of individual needs and group needs... But there certainly could be cases where the thing that I want is really outside the scope of what we've said we're going to do for each other. And it may scare me that this isn't going to go that way. Or even that it may be telling me this group isn't the group I really need and I don't want to lose this group. But actually they're going a different way and that's appropriate for what's the agreed mission and I'm findin, it doesn't work for me. All of that can be in the mix. But, as you say, if having done that kind of filter of what is the group's mission and I am concerned that we're missing the group's mission, either because I see some future ramification or something that really is whole group, or because I'm seeing an impact on some number of individuals – including me – that does imply that it won't work. Even if it's as simple as"If you double the dues, I can't afford it anymore. And I think a couple other people can't. And keeping the group together actually is really important to our goals." Like it could be as simple as that. "I can't afford it is very unique to me, even. But this is the impact it will have and I think that's not good for the group." So there's a lot of nuance there. But thinking about is it within the scope of the group mission, whether or not it's an individual need. Does it fit with the group, and getting honest about that. And then to your point about if we're trying to be less emotional, a place to go is to connect with the group's vision, the group's intentions, the group mission, so that we're not caught in the winner-loser dynamic that we sometimes get to. But in the "I'm really not comfortable that the group is going to do well with this and hold my ground."

Paul: 17:25

And – of course, because it wouldn't be an episode without bringing this word in – I think this is also where curiosity is really useful. Because we've been talking sort of a lot about advocating for positions or making statements around, "This is what I see, this is what I noticed, here's what I think, here's how I blah, blah, blah." I think that that's also a spot from which it can be very useful to inquire about what are other people's senses of this. Going back to your example of dues, "Hey, if we raised the dues, I know that that's going to have a financial impact on me. I'm curious, would that have a financial impact? Am I the only one that would be impacted by this? Or do people have ideas how we might offset that impact? Or does this impact not matter to people?" When you bring a thing to the group – when you are asking for your way– I think it is very useful to ask, "How does that land with other people? What's their understanding of it?" And that's also – going back to something we talked about before – that's a way you can know that they hear you. Actually asking about,"What's your sense of this thing that I brought? What are you noticing that I'm not noticing? Because it's about accepting that our view is necessarily limited and partial – we don't see everything – but we may be noticing things that other people have never noticed before. And by bringing that to the group, we get the more combined vision of everybody being able to look at things we didn't notice before and make better decisions. So I think if we have not yet done that – if we have not yet brought that perspective to the group that we notice it's missing – that's another time when it's really really useful to sort of hold on until we know that that's really been processed and understood.

Karen: 19:25

Yeah, I think that's super important. And I feel like it's easy for us to talk about when you should go with a group and when you shouldn't. One of the things I want to make sure we name is it is hard for – well, it is hard for some people to let go of their rigidity and go along with what actually is best for the group mission even though it's not best for me. That's hard for some people. For other people, it's really hard to stand up for themselves and say, "I don't think you're hearing this yet. I am not comfortable with this decision. I don't think it's good for the group" and to speak that clearly. And so I want to just point to the importance of getting outside of comfort on this one. And probably everything we talked about every episode. But that the things

that are miscues: 20:12

"Am I in a minority?" that doesn't tell you whether to stand up for your way on this. "Iam I comfortable" doesn't tell you whether you're in a good place. "Would I be comfortable standing up or comfortable stepping aside?" That's not going to be a good cue. But things that are – and I think I'm moving into summary here – but I think that things that are really good cues are"Are we on mission? Where are we relative to the mission of the group?" "What might be going on in me, that is resistance?" And"Has everybody been heard and in particular, have I been heard and really understood?" And so there is a point at which to say, "Okay, I've been really heard. I think it would be worse for the group to do this than if they didn't do it. But it's not going to be a disaster. We're not going to make everything go bankrupt. It may be a time that this is the time to let go."

Paul: 21:09

Well, I think that's gonna do it for us today. Until next time, I'm Paul Tevis.

Karen: 21:14

And I'm here on Karen Gimnig, and this has been Employing Differences.