Change Blindness

I recently tuned in to a discussion among coaches of assessment results for a client whose profile indicated he knew he was charming and likeable, but lacked depth of detail and follow-through. In spite of his self-awareness, I was concerned about his future in that company. His low ratings among peers and senior management suggested he's seen as  a "lightweight," a perception that can be very difficult to change, no matter how effective the coaching or how committed he is to balancing his influence style. I've seen change blindness on more than one occasion:

Change blindness – a phenomenon in visual perception where large changes are undetected by the viewer.

How many times have you made what felt like significant changes and no one noticed? How often, when working with clients, have co-workers or friends and family failed to observe, appreciate, and reinforce changes? This blindness occurs because others' ability to perceive something new is hampered by what they think they already know. This is often such an unconscious process they might not acknowledge their own change blindness (yep, denial of change blindness is called "change blindness blindness"). 

In a follow-up data-gathering session for a client who'd made significant changes in the previous six months, he and I pondered the fact that others I interviewed were highly focused on some problems from months earlier, even though I specifically asked them how this person is different in the present. 

A way around this phenomenon is to set clients up for success by coaching them to engage others in the process:  

“These are three specific behaviors you'll see that are different for me, and please, when you see me behaving in these new ways, tell me so I'll know I’m on the right track.” 

Three Motivational Styles

According to the theories of David C. McClelland, we all draw to some degree from each of three motives, but one will be predominant and may reinforce our habitual way of operating. We initially respond best to the approach that fits most closely with our dominant motive. However, if you're in a managerial or coaching relationship, you could unwittingly strengthen a motive that's not in the person's best interest. For example, if someone constantly looks to you for approval and you give it, that person will be satisfied but continue to rely on you for approval, and won't develop independent standards. 

AFFILIATION MOTIVE – Being with others, expressing feelings and ideas, and getting others' approval. People primarily motivated by affiliation are often friendly and work best when they feel appreciated and their work environment gives them the opportunity to interact with others. This motivation is reinforced and maintained by providing work where cooperation with co-workers is required, time for personal interaction is encouraged, and team building efforts are valued. Positive feedback that's not specific will satisfy and/or develop peoples' affiliation motive because it lets them know they're liked and accepted, but will not develop their achievement or power motive. 

ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVE – Standards of excellence are clear, with opportunity to set goals and perform successfully against those standards (includes problem-solving about how to overcome obstacles to performance). People primarily motivated by achievement are usually competitive and work well independently. This motivation is reinforced and maintained by providing challenging work that stretches capabilities, along with concrete standards for success and clear, unambiguous feedback. Specific and descriptive feedback will provide people with a tool to satisfy and/or develop their achievement motive because it allows them to set their own goals and give themselves feedback about the degree to which the goals were accomplished. 

POWER MOTIVE – Impact the surrounding environment; persuade and/or influence others.  People primarily motivated by power usually have an interest in moving up in an organization and are often fluent in their communication style. This motivation is reinforced and maintained by allowing personal control over work pace and methods, as well as opportunities to influence – especially if they can deal directly with people higher in the organization. Encouraging peoples' involvement in problem solving and decision making will satisfy and/or develop their power motive because it gives them influence over their work and other people.   

The Donald Duck Cure

The following is an example of a paradoxical intervention (encouraging clients to exaggerate a behavior):

Greg had been promoted to management as a reward for his technical know-how. Creative and bright, he was experienced at resolving problems by himself and had no models for how to encourage others. In particular, instead of coaching team members in private Greg criticized them openly in team meetings. They had recently been his peers and found this humiliating.

When I gave Greg this feedback, he understood why they felt embarrassed, but insisted he had no control over his behavior: "It just comes over me!"

Knowing how much he loved his young daughters, I asked if the same thing happened with them. "No," he replied, "they're really fun to be around and easy to teach. I love playing with them and showing how things work." He said their happiest times were spent watching Saturday morning cartoons together.

I asked Greg to look for a cartoon that depicted aggressive behavior, "putting someone down" and we'd talk about it in our next session. I expected coyote and roadrunner, but Greg described Donald Duck's nephews building a snowman at the bottom of a hill, only to have Donald zoom down on his sled and break up the snowman, laughing (quacking) and laughing (quacking). After several attempts, the nephews built a snowman around blocks of cement. This time when Donald ran into the snowman, he was flattened, and stars appeared over his head (in that fun way of cartoons).

"So, Greg," I suggested, "since you can't stop criticizing team members at meetings, just keep on doing what you're doing, but take a second as you deliver the message to imagine yourself as Donald Duck quacking to his nephews."

His problem behavior spontaneously disappeared.

The Creative Edge

In Out of the Box Coaching with the Enneagram, Clarence Thomson and I suggest for Enneagram style Fours, "You'll establish more rapport when you witness their pain, show your empathy, honor their unique way of seeing things, and focus your questions on how they feel." In a similar vein, we write that style Twos "respond better to feelback than to feedback."

Nonetheless, when coaching someone with heightened emotions, I sometimes wonder if I've been helpful by simply listening and mirroring their feelings.

Aware that my own needs for evidence and results don't necessarily serve the client, I try not to be pushy about moving to solutions. But I have often used Focusing as a way to help them move through emotional pain via kinesthetic sensing and imagery. So I was pleased to connect with Dr. Kathy McGuire, who studied with the creator of Focusing, Dr. Eugene Gendlin. Among the many free articles at McGuire's Creative Edge Focusing site, those on grieving have been especially helpful to me when coaching clients with strong feelings.

In "Active Grieving" Dr. McGuire writes, "Your body knows how to grieve and will direct the process to a healing conclusion, if you can stop suppressing it." In her Five Minute Grieving process, she suggests we:

1. invite the client to cry ("... let's make room for your tears...")
2. empathize without trying to "fix" or take away the grief ("It seems bleak right now...")
3. help the client find words or images for the tears ("It helps to get a handle on the feeling...")
4. empathize again, often by paraphrasing the client's words ("So it's your fear you'll never be a parent and that's hard...")
5. continue steps (1) through (4) as long as makes sense, then establish closure and orient the client, if necessary, by doing a "present time" exercise ("You're welcome to sit here for a minute... let's make sure you're back in the world...")
6. or you may want to continue with other aspects of the session ("Let's see if we can look for solutions to your situation...")

I've written elsewhere about Symbolic Modeling, a right-brain technique where the coach stays within a client's metaphor landscape by using clean language (responses that elicit the client's own resources to generate healing at a symbolic level). McGuire's Focused Listening is similar, combining Gendlin's Focusing with Carl Roger's Reflective Listening:

1. Pure Reflection of the client's words, gestures, and metaphorical responses ("So there's an image... two triangles intersecting, red and white intertwining..."). 
2. Asking for More ("Can you say more about 'the pressure'... exactly what is that like?") 
3. The Focusing Invitation ("Would it be okay to 'sit' at the Edge of that anger for a moment and see what comes?")
4. The Personal Sharing (for which Dr. McGuire provides the caveat, "It's hard to even mention the possibility of personal sharings, because they can include all the typical responses outlawed when the listener sets aside personal assumptions," but sometimes you may have a strong intuition, to be offered only if the client gives the go-ahead and only to return immediately to pure reflection).

Finally, I am touched by McGuire's discussion of The Focusing Attitude. To capture the essential qualities of empathy, respect, and non-judgmental acceptance, she shares the metaphor used by Fathers Pete Campbell and Ed McMahon, creators of Bio-Spiritual Focusing, to convey a caring, feeling presence:

Imagine you have found an abandoned infant on the steps of your hospital. Imagine how you would, through your bodily attention, convey complete acceptance and love and safety to the infant: "You are totally wanted in this world and safe with me." Now, turn this same kind of loving attention toward your inner experiencing.

I'm convinced that the creative edge of change involves working with metaphors and -- lovingly and with trust in our clients' innate healing capacity -- following the trail through kinesthetic, auditory, and visual imagery to the healing power of those metaphors.

Developing a Work Team with the Enneagram

The following is a snapshot of my work with a senior executive team. Pete (style Five) was the CEO, with a team of three Executive Vice Presidents: Matt (style Six), Sally (style Three), and Joe (style Nine).

Initially, each of the four worked with me to create an individual development plan based on self-assessment, my observations, and feedback from in-depth interviews with their boss (in Pete's case the Board Chair), peers, and subordinates. Our work also included learning about the Enneagram and applying their insights to both individual growth and effectiveness in team interactions. All four met with me several times independently, observing their Enneagram patterns between sessions and engaging in pattern-breaking experiments.

The team members are described briefly below and more thoroughly in the linked posts, in both their own words and a summary of team mates' observations. These are partial descriptions that highlight aspects most impacting team effectiveness.

Matt: "I'd like to be more centered, more at peace with myself," said Matt (style Six), "so my reaction doesn't become a function of what somebody else says every twenty minutes!" He felt close to Joe, but sometimes resented Pete for being "stingy" with praise, and found it difficult to accept Sally's suggestions without thinking she was meddling. Matt's team mates described him as very bright, capable, intense, hard working, and an excellent manager. They agreed, however, that he was "a package of contradictions," cautious yet reckless, confident yet worrying what others thought of him, impulsively decisive or unable to decide. (Read more...)

Pete: Possessed of an outstanding mind, Pete's (style Five) retreat into intellect was apparent: "It's my gift and also my down side that I can be an intellectual dilettante and play with ideas for the sake of playing with them." The other three respected his brilliance, innovative thinking, and love of debate, but said he had a hard time seeing issues from others' points of view. The said Pete expected them to take care of themselves and saw emotional vulnerabilities as weaknesses. (Read more...)

Sally: Her earlier (style Three) reaction to emotional discomfort had been to withdraw without explaining herself. She was convinced she could make a difference and aggressively pursued goals she believed in. Her team mates described Sally as bright and articulate, but they wished she wouldn't hold such a dichotomy between her personal self and work life, and they saw her persistent efforts to intervene as interfering. (Read more...)

 

Joe: At a polar extreme from Sally, Joe (style Nine) was the most open, loving, and emotional of the four. Sometimes he'd blow his top, then apologize, then forget what had happened. He was highly valued by the others as entrepreneurial, well-informed, and passionate about having an impact on the world, but it was difficult to follow his epic tales, and he needed more focus and clarity when presenting his ideas. (Read more...)

Team Session

Their half-day together began by acknowledging their Enneagram styles to the others, with examples of typical motivations and behaviors of each. From their self- descriptions we created ground rules for the session. Joe (style Nine) asked that he be offered multiple options. Sally (style Three) requested that we stop and create some guidelines for self-disclosure if she began to feel too uncomfortable. Matt (style Six) wanted any feedback he received to be balanced, preferably with the positive feedback first. And Pete (style Five) was accorded time to process his reactions internally. We discussed the value each brought to the team, as well as Enneagram dynamics that might impede their full effectiveness. They found this discussion so useful, we created a group action plan based on their styles, with two commitments from each to the other three.

Most of the session's content reflected the assessments described above and in the linked details. In addition, there was an observable emotional impact of disclosing themselves so fully, and their own dynamics became even more evident to them as they had a reality check from each other and from my real-time observations. Furthermore, several additional dynamics were highlighted through the group interaction:

• There was a tendency for "we-they" pairings (Pete/Sally and Matt/Joe), explained not only by their Enneagram styles but also by their MBTI preferences, in Joe's (ENFP) and Matt's (ENFJ) greater ease with openness and more people-oriented observations (both had a Feeling preference on the MBTI), as compared to Sally's (ENTJ) and Pete's (INTP) more reserved styles and logical observations (both had a Thinking preference on the MBTI).
• Joe (style Nine) played the role of facilitator in general (astutely analyzing and explaining some of the dynamics he observed), and mediator between Sally and Matt in particular. In debriefing this behavior, however, it became clear Joe had unwittingly diffused some energy between Sally and Matt by acting as a sounding board to each, instead of helping them find a way to work things out directly, without his intervention. 
• Matt (style Six) showed courage in diving in to speak what was in his heart, and also a tendency to defend himself in the face of perceived criticism. He had promised himself he'd quietly take things in and respond in a non-defensive manner instead of reacting immediately blurting out emotionally, all of which went by the wayside as members of the team lost themselves in the drama of their interaction.
• Pete (style Five) intellectually analyzed others' behaviors in a way that seemed to them somewhat condescending and interpretive. He had difficulty making positive statements. To his credit he hung in and kept trying to be more self-disclosing and to give more balanced feedback. 
• Sally (style Three) showed physical discomfort but honored her commitment to stay engaged in the process. In addition, she brought value to the group with her clarity about the importance of being heard. She asked others to paraphrase what they'd heard her say, which was good modeling for the group. 

By the end of the session they agreed they'd met their goal of "going deeper" than they had in the past, and there were a number of recommendations for working together more effectively. I later summarized these in a group action plan for mutual development, the introduction summarizing three key points:

1. Conflict occurs largely because we all interpret things differently from our various worldviews. When you put yourself in someone else's shoes you'll enhance the possibility of learning about yourself and building more constructive ways of working together.
2. Each of the Enneagram patterns represents only a glimpse of reality. As you wake up to these aspects of your shadow you'll free yourself from habitual behavior, gain tolerance for one another, open communication, and develop trust and compassion. 
3. It's important to recognize each others' gifts. It's also important to acknowledge that working on yourself in the team is an unparalleled development opportunity. Each has separate work to do, but the work touches and moves in the heart of the relationship (Margaret Frings Keyes, The Enneagram Relationship Workbook). 

 

CRS Disease: "Can't Remember S---t!"

More information about Joe, Executive VP in a team of four in "Developing a Work Team with the Enneagram."
 
At a polar extreme from his style Three team mate Sally, Joe  (style Nine) was the most open of four executive team members. "Matt (style Six) and I connect very well and have a lot in common," he said. "Sally and I are so different our relationship is variable -- sometimes good, sometimes strained. Connecting is very important to me, which our CEO Pete (style Five) sees as a weakness, and he's the least likely to give praise or connect with me or anyone else on the team."

Joe's Eight wing was prominent. "Sometimes I'll blow my top. People who know me realize it's never directed personally, and I've also learned -- if I do screw up -- to go apologize. But I'm not the most sensitive person in the world on social nuances. Someone has to hit me on the head, and then I say, 'Oh thanks for waking me up!'" This element of self-forgetting was also evident in Joe's poor memory: "I have CRS disease: Can't remember shit. I think it's an asset in that I don't hold grudges very long, mainly because I've forgotten what happened."

Matt attributed Joe's outbursts of anger to "getting too worn down physically. When that happens things get out of whack. At one meeting he got me out in the lobby and started screaming at me, explaining it by saying, 'This is me, I have to vent.' The next day I told him 'Don't yell at me!'" Sally said "Joe and I have worked out a deal that when he's emotional I go away and come back after he's calmed down." 

Joe didn't remember being discounted as a child; in fact he remembered little of his childhood. But he came into one of our meetings after a visit from his father, and announced, "I saw it! We played golf while he was here and after I teed off he said, 'You call that a drive?' He even made fun of me to some golfers who came up behind us. I realized that kind of remark must have been common when I was growing up." Joe described his mother as "the kind of person for whom the glass is always half-empty. That's also the kind of person I have the most difficulty dealing with: they look for ways to be disappointed because it reinforces their view of the world." 

Style Nine's coping strategy also was revealed in Joe's early, vague focus about his career: "Growing up, I was not an overachiever, and I wasn't very mature going into college. I always knew I was smart, and I knew eventually I'd get my act together, but I didn't have a plan. It kind of fell together. Each year it's more focused. I just wish it had happened a long time ago!"

His distractibility had been somewhat of a problem for Joe in meetings: "Being in a room for two or three hours really stresses my abilities because it's hard to stay focused." He was aware how difficult it was for others to follow his epic tales, but this also had an upside: "Though Joe's lack of focus may sometimes hide it, he is incredibly bright." "Joe's not very structured in his thinking, but he's a free-wheeling idea generator who doesn't have restrictions or boundaries." According to Pete, "Joe has a very long-winded communication style; for example, his voice mail messages are all over the place. He has good ideas, but they're not polished or worked through enough and, if I stop to ask questions, he says I don't appreciate his ideas." 

Joe agreed with Pete. "I need to formulate my thoughts before speaking. I'm seen more as a mad scientist and would like to be seen as a critical thinker. I'd like some help on how to be more controlled, analytical, thoughtful, to be able to sit in a meeting, process information, and speak only to really important issues, with few words. I believe I have a responsibility to stay focused, to make sure the group attains its goals."

He was highly valued by the other team members as "an entrepreneur with good ideas and perceptions, someone with a long-term perspective, extremely well-informed about business and industry issues, an idealist with passionate feelings about making an impact on the world in areas he valued." Joe was seen as open-minded, someone who tried to understand various points of view, but he could also be positioned. "If it's a new idea where nothing already exists, he'll explore things," said Sally, "but if he's thought it through himself he tries to defend his position, sometimes stubbornly."

Joe's loving nature was quite apparent to his team mates, who described him as "fun socially, warm, sincere, charming, and affectionate, more of a feeling person than an analyst." Matt was at ease with these qualities, but Sally said, "We're very different. Joe's a touchy person. Maybe I have too many walls around me, but it makes me nervous." And Pete saw Joe as "someone who needs positive feedback more than most; you can tell when you've said something that's tripped one of his switches, because he gives very strong nonverbal clues that he's shut off." Matt said, "I don't buy Pete's view that Joe needs more feedback than most. He just needs balance instead of only negative feedback."

Finally, others described Joe as having a kind of innocence about his own behavior. "He seems caring," said Sally, "yet sometimes I can't believe how oblivious he is to what's going on around him." Pete had noticed in meetings, "It will be clear to me and others that someone's not listening, and Joe won't see it. For him to hear something you have to come at him pretty directly; otherwise he kind of goes to sleep."

Among other development actions, Joe learned through meditation techniques to focus for prescribed periods of time, and he became much better able to handle long meetings and to present his thoughts more succinctly. In fact, he sailed through an executive MBA program.