Trianges, Sabotage & Crucial Conversations

Effective leadership thru response to influence

The Friedman video points out what happens in a lot of cases. A few people team up to seem that they are the majority but they are not. Good leaders reconize this and respond without getting caught up in these triangles of emotional responses. Sabotage happens when their is a great deal of anxiety throughtout the organization and a good leader will turn that anxaiety into opportunities for crucial conversations. The open mindset treats every challenge as an opportunity. We may have that brief period of anxiety ourselves as a leader, but using the tenuous situation as an opportunity to get the dialog moving is the right move for a good leader. Letting people know your why and trying to get agreement on why we are having the dialog. Looking for those who are passively or aggressivlely staying silent or getting emotional can help determine if the participants are feeling safe about what is being or might be said. Everyone must avoid victim and villan stories that may work their way into their thoughts and try to get these stories out in the open to increase safety and understanding. Explaining how you got to your position and listening to how participants got to their position can help determine common threads. Ultimately you will want to agree to agree and move to action.

I feel like differentiated leadership situations come up more often and will be what I will focus on, but as stated, I feel that an open mindset welcomes the anxiety as an opportunity for crucial conversations.

Lastly there are a few things in the Crucial Conversations book I do not like.

1) The use of the term violence to define any form of emotional disagreement is twisting definitions for a rhyming memorization trick. It is this type of redefinition of word meanings that can be dangerous for everyone in civilized society. I cringed every time thay used the term and they used it a lot.

2) I think this book may not be effective in current society. Alternative facts, micro agressions and unconcious bias have changed some of the steps to true dialog. Many people do not believe anyone who disagrees with them is a rational human being and therefore cannot make propper assumptions in this process. Just putting it out there for rational human discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: