Obstacles to True Consensus – Summary

[Tl;Dr: Major improvements in the effectiveness of any organisation go begging, because the skills and experience for reaching the necessary True Consensus are almost always absent.]

This is the final post in my recent mini-series about obstacles to True Consensus.

The Big Picture

Let’s step back and try to take in the big picture for a moment.

I most often label this big picture “Organisational Effectiveness”. You might prefer to call it “improving the bottom-line”, “productivity”, or simply “success”.

Why does this big picture matter to me? Because of the impact ineffective organisations have on the people who work in them, on the people who depend on their products and services, and on society as a whole.


I’m a software engineer at heart. I have so many times worked with software engineers and other folks wanting to make a difference in the world, and being unable to do so because of the ineffectiveness of the organisations within which they work. Sooner or later, these folks simply give up on their dreams and “check out” (remaining employed but disengaged) or quit. Having been in the same boat myself on any number of occasions, I feel like I can relate. And, BTW, that’s why I now serve organisations in the role of Organisational Psychotherapist, actually doing things – albeit non-software engineering things – to “make a difference”.


I’m a customer of these organisations, too. We all are. Not out of choice, let me add. I have in mind the various organs of state, in which we have no say regarding the shoddy services and lame products they foist on us. Not that most private corporations are much better.


How do ineffective organisations impact society? Apart from the waste of public money (many are in the public sector) that could be put to better use elsewhere, the sheer number of ineffective organisations lead us all to believe that ineffectiveness is normal and unavoidable. We seem to have lost the belief that we can ever expect to see things become better.

The Key to Improved Effectiveness

It’s pretty much accepted that the ability to transcend paradigms (an organisation’s beliefs, assumptions and rules about work) is the greatest lever to improve effectiveness. And by effectiveness, I mean reducing or eliminating things that should not have been done but nevertheless were done. See my recent post: Reliability and Effectiveness for details and objective measures of this.

In other words, the prevailing paradigm, or mindset or memeplex governing an organisation determines its effectiveness. And so, it’s obvious that to improve effectiveness, we must “shift” this paradigm. This is where most organisations falter and fail. They have no experience or capability in achieving a True Consensus. Such a thing looks like an impossibility.

Aside: Agile

In case you’re wondering if there’s any relevance to tech companies and their employees and customers: All flavours of Agile are essentially forms of local optima. Local optima, in that Agile initiatives are almost always limited to one silo (the “development” or “IT” silo) in the organisation. Most people in organisations doing software development are obliged to place their faith in systems of local optima. This is because the prospect of building a True Consensus across the whole organisation seems so daunting, so impossible, so contrary to prevailing behaviours, as to never receive serious consideration or discussion. And so, systemic ineffectiveness is locked in.

True Consensus

A “True Consensus” is when ALL top managers agree on the exact SAME action plan, with each and every top manager regarding his or her components of the joint action plan as his or her own baby.

Whether in a single organisation, or society as a whole, True Consensus is a prerequisite for concerted action to make things better, to make things more effective. On the path towards effective organisations, progress will only come about if the top teams, and eventually their whole organisations, can agree on their core problems and find coherent, holistic ways forward, together. True Consensus is the necessary prerequisite for Rightshifting any organisation.

This mini-series and its precursors has described one path to arrive at such a True Consensus, including describing the obstacles we can expect to encounter along the way, and ways of overcoming those obstacles.

In brief, the described path consists of repeatedly practicing, as a group and emergent leadership team, these steps:

  • understanding the core conflict in a problem by discovering the inherent flawed assumption
  • agreeing on a direction for a solution
  • elaborating that direction into a full (holistic, company-wide) solution or plan of action
  • agreeing on how to implement that full solution
  • enacting the implementation

You can find more details in the posts of this mini-series:

Obstacles to True Consensus – The Dominant Impatient Visionary

Obstacles to True Consensus – The Smart Conservative

Obstacles to True Consensus – Extrapolating From the Past

Obstacles to True Consensus – Solutioneering

Obstacles to True Consensus – Summary (this post)

and in the four posts prior to the mini-series itself:

Organisational Psychotherapy and the Bottom Line


Innovation ALWAYS Demands We Change the Rules

Reliability and Effectiveness

And you can find even more in-depth elaboration of these ideas in e.g. Goldratt’s audiobook “Beyond The Goal”.

– Bob

Further Reading

Beyond the Goal ~ Eliyahu M. Goldratt (Audiobook only)
Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System ~ Donella Meadows
The Asch Conformity Experiment (Video)

Obstacles to True Consensus – Solutioneering

Following on from the third post in this mini-series, today I’ll describe another obstacle to True Consensus. Again, it’s about the behaviour of certain key people. And again, in line with our belief that “People are Good”, the behaviours we’re discussing are not dysfunctional behaviours, but the outstanding, positive behaviours that have brought the company to its present success.

The term “solutioneering” describes our natural tendency to jump to a solution, and elaborating that solution, even implementing something, before we fully understand the problem at hand.

Obstacle: Solutioneering

If we think about solutions while we are analysing a core problem, we will distort reality to fit the solution we have in our mind.

And at the time we’re creating the solution, any time we spend on thinking about how we’ll implement it will distort the solution, too.

In other words, we’ll come up with better solutions, and implement them better, when we tackle any candidate idea in clearly delineated and separated steps:

  1. Analyse the core problem. Simply understand the problem, and the underlying core conflict.
  2. Find the solution
  3. Decide how to implement the solution

You may recognise this approach as the Three Fundamental Questions of Theory of Constraints.

1. What to change?
2. What to change to?
3. How to effect the change?

At each step, we forbid ourselves from considerations better reserved to the other steps. Given the risk of confusion, delusion, distortion, and ineffective conversations, we must maintain the separation between these steps. Absent such separation, the risks of conflating these concerns means we will be that much less likely to achieve our essential True Consensus.

Next time: Summary – Summarising this mini-series.

– Bob

Further Reading

Beyond the Goal ~ Eliyahu M. Goldratt (Audiobook only)
Theory of Constraints: What to Change ~ Dave Lane (blog post)

Obstacles to True Consensus – Extrapolating From the Past

Following on from the second post in this mini-series, today I’ll describe another obstacle to True Consensus. Again, it’s about the behaviour of certain key people. And again, in line with our belief that “People are Good”, the behaviours we’re discussing are not dysfunctional behaviours, but the outstanding, positive behaviours that have brought the company to its present success.

Extrapolating from the past is not something negative, it’s something positive. If we don’t extrapolate from the past, if we start every time from a clean slate, what are the chances we’ll do anything sensible? Pretty close to zero. Experienced people are, by definition, people that extrapolate from the past. Otherwise we have no intuition, no insights into a subject.

Here, we’re going to look at two different aspects of this obstacle.

Obstacle: Extrapolating From the Past Into What We Might Do In the Future

This is the first aspect of extrapolating from the past. Extrapolating from the past works in our favour. So what’s the problem with it? When we come to build the change, to build the new strategy based on our new rules, to really embrace the power of the synergistic approach, our past contains what? Yup. The old rules. And if we extrapolate from the old rules, what do we get? We get the same strategy we already have – maybe in slightly different words only – and nothing happens.

Remediation: Exclude the old rules

So, how can we make sure we extrapolate from the past, building everything on past experience, except for the old rules. How can we exclude these old rules? By examining each conflict, by identifying our flawed assumptions- rooted in the old rules – and removing these flawed assumption. In this way, we make our past experience more homogeneous, and everything makes much more sense. We’re not abandoning the past. We’re not erasing our past experience. Exactly the opposite. We’ve removed the one thing that causes our experience to be inconsistent. And we’re reshaping our past experience. Making it much clearer and more palatable. Folks love this.

So what we have to do is take a number of key ideas in turn, and apply the same process:

  • Do the analysis
  • Discover the conflict via the flawed assumption
  • Remove the conflict

By doing this, we reshape our past experience. And the minute we do this, we still extrapolate from our past experience, but based on the new rules, rather than the old rules.

And by the way, did you notice how, for this aspect of the obstacle, remediation is much the same approach as we take with the Dominant Impatient Visionary and the Smart Conservative obstacles?

Obstacle: Extrapolating From Past Experience of Each Other

This is the second aspect of extrapolating from the past. Given our experience of the folks we work with, will they collaborate now? Do they really mean yes when they say yes? Can we rely on them? In most companies, extrapolating from the past in this context leads to less than positive feelings, because what we extrapolate from the past is not exactly flattering.

Remediation: Explore, Reflect and Change as a Group

How to remediate? We have to ensure that we reflect on the past, on our past interactions, on our extrapolations of folks’ behaviours, as a group, rather than in one-to-one conversations. In this way, each person will see how everyone else is also going through the same kind of change. This means, by the way, that all the previous remediations we have mentioned in this series also have to be done in a group, not one-to-one.

Aside: This excludes people learning this stuff from books. People have lost the art of reading together in groups.

Next time: Solutioneering – the final obstacle to True Consensus, explored.

– Bob

Further Reading

Beyond the Goal ~ Eliyahu M. Goldratt (Audiobook only)

Obstacles to True Consensus – The Smart Conservative

Following on from the first post in this mini-series, today I’ll describe another obstacle to True Consensus. Again, it’s about the behaviour of certain key people.  And again, in line with our belief that “People are Good”, the behaviours we’re discussing are not dysfunctional behaviours, but the outstanding, positive behaviours, the virtues, that have taken the company to its present success.

Obstacle: The (Smart) Conservative

Usually, these are people with an enormous amount of experience, very well respected. But somehow, given any suggestion of what to improve, they immediately find ways to prove to you it should not be done. It’s as if they’re going out of their way to maintain the status quo. Do you know anyone like this? What can we do?

As long as these people are in the crowd – and they’re always in the management crowd – what chance do we have of reaching a true consensus on some idea, or way forward, that is beyond the expectation of almost anyone in the group? It’s not that these conservative people are stupid. Definitely not. Do you think that they’re out of touch with reality? That they don’t know the situation of the company? Of course they know. And very well.

And now if we talk with them and ask them “What do you think? Do you think that if the company fails to embark on a process of ongoing improvement, it will survive in the future? What do you think their answer might be? They thoroughly believe that if we DON’T improve, we’re going to be out of business. So how come that these people – with so much experience, with such strong convictions that the company must improve – block any suggestion for improvement? What are they, imbeciles? How it is that this happens?

Here’s the explanation: These smart conservative people have the gift of being able to see both sides of a conflict. Very clearly. As a matter of fact, when we, through analysis, cause them at last to see the core problem, they will tell us “We already know that. We have already spoken out about it, more than once.” And they really believe the problem exists, and the analysis is correct. They have seen both sides of the conflict. They are keenly aware of both sides of the conflict. But do you see what’s happening? Most suggestions for improvement that they have seen in their careers, the vast majority, anyway, are not solutions or improvements that remove the conflict, they are solutions based on movement on the conflict arrow. To give an example of what we mean by “movement on the conflict arrow” consider the bin-annual flip-flop in many companies; from centralisation, to decentralisation, and back again to centralisation. Each time this movement was presented as “THE thing that will save the company” So many huge and expensive reorganisations. Each time, these smart conservative people oppose such initiatives.

Why? They’ve already seen solutions based on movement on the conflict arrow. They have learned from experience that the ONLY thing that will happen in such cases is the substituting one set of undesirable effects for another set of equally undesirable effects. And if that’s what people want to do, better not to do anything. ”Thank you – we have seen it before, we’ve been there already, why should we try the same thing again?”

Remediation: Block Movement on the Conflict Arrow, Identify and Remove the Flawed Assumption

How then do we cause these conservative folks to move towards our true consensus? Let’s present some new ideas, and for each one show the core problem, the conflict. To begin with they will not be surprised. They know the problems already. But then we show them that we have no intention whatsoever to move on the conflict arrow. More than that, we show that we propose blocking any movement on the conflict arrow, because it would be just substituting one set of undesirable effects with another.

Instead, we highlight the flawed assumption within the conflict. We don’t say ”we have a solution”, but rather “we have a direction for a solution”. In other words, our direction is based on the knowledge that we have found one (or more) flawed assumptions. So now we proceed to the next step: creating the full solution. In Theory of Constraints, the full solution emerges from the creation of a Future Reality Tree.

Yes, But

The Future Reality Tree leverages the remarkable ability of people, especial smart, conservative people, to say “Yes, but…”. Usually, a small yes, and a big BUT…

So, rather than attacking these “yes, but” reservations, we embrace the gift within every “yes, but”: “Yes, I understand the solution, yes, it will remove the conflict, BUT it will create another issue…”.

We help as much as we can to meticulously document the cause and effect of the “but”. We go out of our way to do this, to clarify their reservation. Once we have articulated really clearly what’s bothering someone, their reservation will augment our solution by removing the “but”. In this way we arrive at a full solution. With each reservation making that solution simpler, more powerful, and more intense.

And we ourselves learn the value of taking the time to listen to and clarify folks’ reservations.

Repeating this approach three or four time with a smart conservative person, they begin to realise that we are even more paranoid than they are. In a good way.

As soon as these folks understand our intentions, our rigour in dealing with risks, they become our champions and biggest supporters. In most cases the biggest supporter of True Consensus and all the changes it implies is the CFO.

This is how to remediate the obstacle of the smart conservative.

And by the way, did you notice how it’s much the same approach as we take with the Dominant Impatient Visionary?

Next time: Extrapolating From the Past – another obstacle to True Consensus explored.

– Bob

Further Reading

Beyond the Goal ~ Eliyahu M. Goldratt (Audiobook only)


Obstacles to True Consensus – The Dominant Impatient Visionary

In my previous post I describes the necessary condition for successfully approaching a shift away from a company based on local optima (a.k.a. the Analytic-minded organisation) to one based on a holistic view of business (a.k.a. the Synergistic-minded organisation). Goldratt refers to this necessary condition as a “True Consensus” at the top of the company (along with a subsequent smooth spread of that holistic top-level consensus, without resistance and without fighting).

But how to reach such a true consensus? It can look like an impossibility, due to a very common set of obstacles.

In a series of posts I’ll run through describing these obstacles, along with some options for minimising or even removing each of them in turn. In a nutshell, the real obstacles to True Consensus are the behaviours of key people.

In line with our belief that “People are Good”, we might choose to note that the behaviours we’re discussing are NOT dysfunctional behaviours, but the outstanding, positive behaviours, the virtues, that have taken the company to the successful place it occupies today.

The First of Five

So, what are the real obstacles (barriers) preventing a True Consensus? And how to overcome them, systematically, in a way that’s widely applicable across many companies, and minimising the risk of running into brick walls along the way?

There are five obstacles I’d like to explore. This post begins with just one; the Dominant Impatient Visionary.

Obstacle: The Dominant Impatient Visionary

This kind of person drives their company forward to success. They have been, and remain, the engine of the company. Explaining an idea to this kind of person, though, we generally get just a minute or two of their attention before they start to chew us up, to attack or dismiss our idea. Even though this kind of person is so important for the progress of the company, they are also deadly poison for consensus. Their use of positional power and charisma kills any chance of consensus. And god forbid we try to get rid of people like this. On the other hand, these folks are very smart. They do realise that the biggest stumbling block in moving the company forward is their own impatience. Nevertheless they look like they can’t control their toxic behaviour. How is this?

Here’s what happening: their impatience is probably imbedded in the fact that this person has the stamina to shoot for a very high vision for the company. At the bottom of any idea there is a core problem, and the core problem is based in some kind of conflict. This person has unconsciously conditioned himself to look at just one side of any core conflict. Because he’s trying to avoid taking the “hit” to his stamina that will inevitable arise if he spends any time looking at the other side of the core conflict. He has unconsciously blinded himself to the other side of any core conflict.

As soon as anyone presenting a new idea mentions the other side of a core conflict, his impatience kicks in, and this nice pussycat becomes a tiger. This is what always happens.

But there is a way to channel this person’s phenomenal vision, ability and stamina into a direction that helps consensus:

Remediation: Focus on the Benefits of Identifying and Removing the Flawed Assumption

For any idea, we analyse it and show the core conflict explicitly. We show both sides of the core conflict. And then we say that despite the conflict, we’re NOT going to lower our expectations, or lower the vision. We’re not going to compromise. What we ARE going to do is find and remove the flawed assumption.

And when the flawed assumption is found and removed, we’re shooting even HIGHER than before. Amazingly, we can show how the side of the conflict he habitually ignores – where he intuitively avoids looking – contains the flawed assumption.

The minute we find and remove the flawed assumption, then everybody can get behind the idea. The smart person can soon spot this pattern, in maybe as little as three or four instances of highlighting the flawed assumption. And the pattern is: “I’m not afraid any more that by looking on the other side I will reduce my ambitions, or that I will lose my stamina. I’m looking on the other side for only one purpose: to find and remove the flawed assumption.”

Next time: The Smart Conservative – another obstacle to True Consensus explored.

– Bob

Further Reading

Beyond the Goal ~ Eliyahu M. Goldratt (Audiobook only)

How to Communicate Your Needs At Work

When people come to understand the disadvantages of ordering others about, some can over-compensate by avoiding all forms of telling. This can lead to frustration, inaction and disconnection. One of the things these awakening folks can struggle with is communicating their needs to others. Because they shy away from conflict, and don’t want to trouble or inconvenience or coerce others, they might favour avoiding expressing their own needs in case it might become a “burden”, or lead others to feel obligated or compelled to do something. So these folks find it difficult to share their personal goals and desires. Instead, they might opt for a reliance on “mind-reading,” believing their colleagues and peers should intuitively know what they need without them having to say anything.

Relying on mind-reading to get your needs fulfilled creates feelings of frustration, maybe even anger and contempt towards colleagues, feelings which will almost invariably lead to the atrophy, even deterioration, of your working relationships. To keep working relationships positive and flourishing, it’s up to you to make your needs clearly known. Nobody is in a better position to understand your needs than you are:

“You have a right to ask for the things you need in a relationship. In fact, you have a responsibility to yourself and your co-workers to be clear about your needs. You are the expert on yourself. No one else, not even your best friends, can read your mind and know what you need in the way of support, connection, time alone, order, independence, play, joy, financial security, and so on.”

So if articulating your needs isn’t something you’ve felt comfortable doing, how do you start going about it? And how do you do it in a way that doesn’t create obligations, defensiveness or anger, and offers the best chance of your colleagues being willing to listen and fulfill that need?


Here’s a sample “needs script” to follow when initiating this kind of conversation. Obviously, it’s not a word-for-word script – what you say will vary greatly according to your relationships and personal situation. Instead, it offers a very simple template for communicating your needs in a healthy and productive way. However, if expressing your needs is something you really struggle with, you may actually find it helpful to write out your “script” beforehand. You don’t need to read it to your colleagues, but putting down your thoughts on paper can help you prepare. That way, in the heat of the moment, you don’t fall into old traps of passiveness or aggressiveness and can instead navigate the healthy middle path of assertiveness and clarity.

The Needs Script

Situation (specific, objective description of facts). Start off the conversation by offering a straightforward description of the situation you want to address. Leave out analysis, interpretation, and inflammatory or accusatory language – try to make it as specific, impersonal, and objective as possible.

  • Our relationship has really sucked lately. We’ve been disagreeing a lot more than usual these last few weeks.
  • Our office looks like a bomb went off. There’s a lot of stuff lying about.
  • Your spending is out of control. We’re $3000 over our budget this month.
  • I’m going crazy in at the lack of progress here. We haven’t accomplished much in two months.
  • I’m always stuck in the office and never get to meet customers or partners. I’s loosing what little touch I had with our customers’ needs.

Feelings (non-blaming “I” statements). When you tell your colleagues what you’re feeling, you need to be careful to not vent or explode in a vague, accusatory way (“I’m angry/stressed/upset and you’re to blame!”) which may feel cathartic, but isn’t actually productive. In order to keep the conversation as a problem-solving discussion rather than a heated argument, you want to accurately convey the nature, intensity, and cause of your feelings. So before you begin the conversation, you’ll want to have honed in as much as possible to the specifics of what you’ve been feeling. Once you’ve identified the broad feeling that first comes to mind (angry, upset, hurt, etc.), You might like to use a Feelings Inventory to help narrowing down its nature and focus, or use these these modifiers:

  1. Definition. First, make your broad feeling more specific by adding some synonyms. When you say angry, do you mean angry and stressed, or angry and irritated? Or are you really more confused or disappointed than mad? When you say you’re upset, are you upset and disappointed, or upset and depressed? The more specific descriptors you can use to describe how you’re feeling, the better.
  2. Intensity. Add modifiers that accurately convey the intensity of your feelings. Have you been feeling a little resentful or a lot? Slightly discouraged or majorly depressed? Be honest here.
  3. Duration. How long have you been feeling this way? Have you been stressed since your latest vacation, since your role changed, or ever since you started working here? Have you felt irritated for months, for weeks or for days?
  4. Cause and Context. You want to avoid naming your colleagues as the cause of your feelings, no matter how tempting, and even if their actions really have been the catalyst. Blame begets defensiveness, not communication. What will result is a fight that doesn’t end up addressing the real problem whatsoever. Instead, try to communicate the cause of your feelings in the form of their impersonal context, and describe your own feelings rather than those of the other person. You can accomplish this by using “I” statements rather than “you” accusations.

Request (for behavior change). Ask for a change in behavior only. This is a very important rule. Don’t expect your colleagues to change their values, attitudes, desires, motivations, or feelings. These characteristics are very hard to change. It’s like asking someone to be taller or more intelligent. People feel personally threatened if you ask them to change intangibles that are seen as part of their very nature and beyond their conscious control. For example, what does it mean to ask someone to be ‘more loving’ or ‘less critical’ or ‘neater’? These kinds of requests are heard as attacks, and little real change is likely to result.

Instead of going after someone’s “core” attributes, and having them react defensively, stick with making a request that they modify a specific, observable behavior.

  • I need a neater environment around me. Would you be willing to keep some of this stuff in the drawers and shelves?
  • I want you to be less critical of me. I would appreciate it if you didn’t make jokes about me in front of the management.
  • I need to see more action. It would mean a lot to me if we could work together on how to make things happen more quickly round here.

When you make your request, only tackle one situation and 1 or 2 observable behavior changes at a time. You don’t want to overwhelm your colleagues – they’ll likely just shut down. Pick small changes that might make them feel like, “Okay, that’s reasonable. I can do that.” See if your colleagues follow through on your requests. If they do, then bring up something else to work on down the line.


Other Things to Keep in Mind

Keep your tone as calm and level as possible. Don’t let anger or annoyance creep into your voice – using even a slightly heated, annoyed, accusatory, or patronizing tone can escalate things into an unproductive argument.

Pick a time when your colleagues can give you their full attention. Don’t start the conversation in the middle of a meeting or when they’re in the middle of something important. You don’t want their annoyance about the circumstances to color how they receive your request. Select a time when they’re in a good mood and ready to listen.

Start out by expressing a small need, rather than a large, contentious one, especially if your relationship has been struggling. Once you start meeting each other’s needs successfully, you’ll be in a better position to tackle more polarizing problems.

Sometimes, empathising with them and their situation may be necessary to “earn” their trust and the right to bring up your needs.

Don’t feel like having to ask for something makes it less valuable. It’s easy to fall into the trap of waiting for your colleagues to come to you and should know what you need without you having to say anything – that if they really cared about you and knew you, or weren’t so busy or engrossed, they would just naturally do it. You might then feel that a change in their behaviour is somehow less “real” or valuable because you had to ask for it. “You’re just doing it because I told you I needed it, not because you really want to.”

But people, even those in the closest of relationships, think and see the world differently. Something may seem obvious to you, but simply not occur to them – not because of some character defect or lack of interest — but because they are simply a different person with a different brain – and heart – than you. Instead of seeing their inability to anticipate your needs on their own as a flaw, accept your differences. And instead of seeing behaviour changes you directly asked for as less valuable, appreciate the way they’re willing to meet that need, even if it doesn’t come naturally. It’s just as worthy as a gesture of interest and commitment, if not more so.

Communicating needs is not a one-way street. Hopefully this is obvious, but asking someone to meet your needs is not a unilateral process. Encourage your colleagues to make their needs known as well, and do your best to listen to, understand, and try to meet those needs when you can. In a healthy relationships, all parties are eager to try to do what they can to make the other person flourish.

If you’re on the receiving end of a needs request, one of the most important things to do is to try to accept the other person’s “quirks.” You may not understand why they like things done in a certain way, or how something that can seem so trivial to you can be so important to them, but you have quirks, too, that they find equally hard to grasp. The more you can compromise and accommodate everyone’s unique, but not-so-onerous needs, even without necessarily understanding them, the happier you’ll be.

You have a right to ask, but that doesn’t mean your needs will always be met. Your colleagues have needs too, and their needs may conflict with yours. Making your needs known is not about issuing an ultimatum, but about open communication, compromise, and cooperation. Even if you don’t achieve the exact solution you had hoped for, being open about your needs will make you a happier, less angry colleague, co-worker or employee.

If your colleagues are unwilling to compromise or cooperate with you in any way, you have a choice in how to proceed. You can:

  • Try to put this one refusal in perspective with all the good things they do offer and bring to the table. Is the issue such a big deal in the big picture? If not, you express your disappointment and work to understand why you can’t meet on this issue, but ultimately accept their position. Ask if you can re-open the discussion at another time.
  • Utilise a self-care alternative. You might choose to have “self-care alternative” in mind (a Plan B) when possible in case your colleagues can’t or won’t meet your needs. While it doesn’t hurt to ask, in the end, it’s not other people who are ultimately responsible for meeting your needs.
  • If an issue is too important to you to simply accept a “No,” and/or if this refusal to meet your needs is a consistent pattern, in which you’re always being walked over while giving a lot in return, you may need to remove yourself from the situation permanently, or even end the relationship.

– Bob

A Deliberate Approach

“Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action has arrived, stop thinking and go in.”

~ Napoleon Bonaparte

In response to your kind questions and comments regarding my previous post, I mentioned that I would be writing a post to address some of those questions and comments. This is not that post (I’m still in the middle of that).

In the meantime, and hopefully to preserve some sense of momentum, might I invite you to advise me on your feelings about approaching the journey ahead (e.g. building a thing we may come to refer to as a community of principle) with a modicum of deliberate intention? Specifically, it has been my habit to follow an approach evolved over many years for this sort of thing. Presently this bears the name “Javelin”. There’s a paper on Javelin which you might care to read. Please accept my apologies in advance for labelling it a process, and for its anachronisms.

In a nutshell, the approach entails, at its heart:

  • Choosing a name, for easy referencing of “this thing which we have come together to build/grow” (Name).
  • Discussing our various perspectives re: our (common) purpose, leading to a Statement of Purpose.
  • Listing key stakeholders and their respective needs (what they say they need, not what we’d like them to need).

The approach aims to address a bunch of risks inherent in this kind of endeavour, including the risk of spending precious time and effort on building the wrong thing(s).

Put another way, what’s the minimum amount of structure that will serve us in approaching our joint endeavour?

How does this sit with you? What advice can you offer me? Upon receipt of this advice I will be better placed to decide whether this kind of  approach might fly, and what else to do instead or in addition.

– Bob

Further Reading

Our Javelin Process ~ Bob Marshall


%d bloggers like this: