I've been writing up and explaining some of the fundamentals to the Training Attention approach to some colleagues in the clean community - all those things that seem to us to be givens. It's brought up a whole range of 'balances' that we make micro-decisions about.
One is the age old question of pacing and leading.
When a client asks us to facilitate them then our attention immediately goes into modelling mode:
What would they like to have happen?
Currently it's like what?
Where do the issues come from?
What needs to be true before the changes they'd like would become everyday and 'just the way we do things around here?'
Is the way they're engaging our services an example of what they would like to have happen or an example of the issues they're struggling with?
Who aren't we hearing from?
What happens just before they can have what they want?
What will they see/hear/feel as they're changing the way they'd like to?
What would we like to have happen?
Armed with clean questions we aim to move as swiftly as possible from conflict to curiosity and from fixing problems to considering outcomes.
A big question is the balance between
practising the expertise we're being paid to bring to the company and
building rapport with and pacing the place they're at
Too fast on the former and we can't build a strong enough relationship with them to help to support them to develop a different relationship with themselves.
Too long on the latter and we run the risk of joining them in the complex issues they're experiencing and becoming a part of the model instead of the facilitating modeller.
How agile can we move between the two and how do we know when we're being most effective?
That's my question for this day.
No comments:
Post a Comment