Handling the Inner Aftermath

Have you ever handled a situation brilliantly, only to find yourself shaking afterwards? Maybe there's a scene that plays over and over in your head while you search for the words you wished you had said. It's not that you handle conflict badly. You handle conflict well. It's the aftermath that's a killer.

I had this discussion recently with another facilitator. Like me, she was able to handle conflict in the room. Like me, she hated it and wondered if there was a way to be more confident, more balanced, more able to handle the conflict without paying the price.

Maybe there isn't. Maybe part of the price of leading - as a trainer or facilitator, as a manager or executive or team captain - part of the price of leading is the slightly sick sensation that follows conflict. The feeling that comes when you can't shake the idea that there was something you could have done better, something that would have outframed or out-manoeuvred the conflict.

But it's entirely possible that paying attention to people's anger or frustration requires that you meet them in that level of tension and uncertainty. And the shaking that you do afterwards, with your own anger and frustration and uncertainty, is the sign that you were really paying attention, that you took the conflict seriously. This is not the same as giving up your own point of view, and it's not the same as making a mistake. It's more like building a bridge through a bog - you'll probably get muddy making your way across.

It's not necessarily harmful, this aftermath. It pushes us to look for ways to agree instead of arguing, which is good. It gives us a stake in how we make other people feel, which is also good. It may even give us insights that we couldn't get if we stayed as cool and comfortable, as confident and as competent as we wish we were.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The hypnotic contract

Under what conditions would you allow someone else to tell you what to think?   If you have watched a stage hypnotist, you have seen what looks like one person exercising remarkable control over the thoughts and actions of another. It is fascinating, in part, because we have all seen it happen in real life. Suddenly someone we know seems to be relying on someone else to do the thinking.  Even if the influence is good, it is a little frightening. The secret is that there are no magic words.  In order to lead someone into hypnosis, that person has to be willing to go there. Often the people you see on stage are more than willing. For whatever reasons, they are enthusiastic about giving up self control and allowing someone else to take charge. They know that there are limits to what can happen on stage and they are only agreeing to give up control within those limits. What you see in hypnosis is an agreement between two people. Like all agreements between human beings, it stretches as far...
Read more

Good with people

What do you think of when you hear the phrase "good with people?" When a wine is good with steak, it means that both the steak and the wine taste better when enjoyed together. If you are 'good with people' that could mean that both you and they perform better when you work together. "Good with people" should not be confused with charm or grace. Many famous leaders have, in the absence of any obvious charm or eloquence, managed to get people to produce at high levels. Some introverts fail to be influential; some extraverts fail to be effective. The most useful criteria for "good with people" is the performance that results when an individual is working with others: does the sum exceed the total of the parts? Or would they all have been better working from separate cubicles? We are entering the season of networking: it's a perfect time to observe the difference between the people who are working the room and the people who are making the room w...
Read more

The fine line between observations, suggestions and commands

I have been watching Tony Robbins this week in the documentary called " I Am Not Your Guru ." You can read a nicely ambivalent review in the Financial Times here.   I think the ambivalence is built into the process, which might be surprising given the loud celebration that characterizes the Date with Destiny in the film. For those of us whose work has evolved from NLP, there are lessons to be learned from modelling the most famous and successful practitioner of NLP (Robbins has far surpassed all the founders by all measures of success). Because he does so much so well, Robbins lets us see how fine the line is between observing and suggesting. Let me explain. Robbins frames his "interventions" both with the exercises and performances we do not see in the film and with his invitations. The film opens with an intervention with a young man who says he is suicidal; it is only later that we see Robbins say he is looking for someone who is suicidal to work with. Since...
Read more