What difference does it make when you get in sync?



Brad Cheeseman Trio at The Steel City Jazz Festival, 2016

Most people think that having more influence means one of two things: either they can somehow eliminate resistance so people will do what they want or they can achieve enough status and power so that people will do what they want. There's nothing wrong with either of those as goals, but there are many things you might want people to do that won't come from choosing the right words or having the power to make people comply.

I am a teacher, and I often teach adults who have more money and power than I do. I don't have a carrot or a stick to motivate them to do what I want them to do. Even if I did, carrots and sticks are not good motivators of self discovery, of reflection or of the pause that comes before a sound decision. The influence I want will not come from carrots or sticks. So I have to look for other models of influence and leadership.

This is one of the reasons I listen to jazz. If I want to isolate the power of rhythm in leadership, I can learn by listening to a jazz trio. Their direction is set by structure (the piece they agree to play together), by rhythm (the key to playing together instead of on top of one another) and by suggestion (one solo leads to another collaboratively).

If they don't have a way to be in sync (to share the rhythm) then they can neither collaborate (suggest) nor communicate meaningfully (play the piece). 

Now think about the influence you want to have on a person or a project. Ask yourself: are we in sync? If you're not, it's  your job to change so that "sync" happens. You can't count on other people to come to to you; you'll have to gather them by sharing their rhythm until you can move into something that works better.

Think of getting in sync as sharing a set of expectations that occur in time. Some times you expect action (the sound) and sometimes you expect preparation (the silence).  You can shorten the intervals by increasing the tempo (but then you don't leave time for thought) or you can change the relationships between sound and silence (by changing the rhythm so that sometimes there is more time in between and sometimes less). The beat sets the priorities (so that some actions govern other actions).

It's so complicated. Yet you have listened to music and tapped a finger or a foot. You have listened as musicians layer different sounds to make music. You have walked away from meetings knowing when a team was in sync (and when they weren't). You know that being in sync means that priorities and actions become reliable.




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