Home | Login | Recent Changes | Search | All Pages | Help

CongruenceOrLackThereOf

A colleague of mine sent myself and a couple of other trusted colleagues an interesting email recently about congruence. Since they didn't mind sharing it with the AYE Community, I posted the email below. I thought that the situations identified were challenging. They made me stop and think... mostly because these types of situations seem to be prevalent in my organization recently. I reacted pretty strongly to how a couple of the situations should be handled, especially the third one. I thought it was a good topic for discussion here, and I am curious to hear what your thoughts and suggestions would be.

<snip>

So here is a question I have been pondering (both personally and professionally)�.how do you balance believing you are right with being open-minded? How do you let go or go forward even though you think you are right? Sometimes it feels to me that unless you are willing to give in and agree, you will be seen in a negative light.

Let�s consider some examples:

• Jane is making a proposal for a new different way of doing process A. Bill is considering the proposal and doesn�t agree with it. Bill likes the way they are currently doing things. Both parties believe they are right. Jane is presenting her point clearly and rationally. Bill is doing the same. Bill perceives Jane as being stubborn and inflexible, unable to see his point of view. Jane views Bill as stubborn and resistant to change, with no vision for the future. How does Jane handle this better? How does she get closure with Bill when she truly believes that Bill is wrong? Is the only way for Jane to be perceived positively to agree with Bill? If Jane agrees with Bill (and she really doesn�t), what does that say about Jane? How does Jane feel about herself under those circumstances?
  
  
• This one is a little more challenging. Jim and Joe are peers. Jim feels that Joe needs to develop in certain areas in order to be more effective. Jim communicates this to Joe. Joe does not agree. Within the team, Jim is perceived as not respecting Joe�s abilities. Indeed Jim does not respect Joe�s abilities in certain areas. This is having a negative impact on Jim�s career. What does Jim do? Does Jim pretend that he does respect all of Joe�s abilities when he doesn�t respect some of them? If Jim does this, how does it make Jim feel? If Jim does this, is he doing Joe any favors?
  
  
• Bob is manager to Jane and Jim. Bob understands where Jane and Jim are coming from and agrees with Jane and Jim. Tim is Bob�s manager, and does not agree with Jane and Jim. What feedback does Bob give Jane and Jim? Bob can take the easy road and present the feedback the way Tim expects it to be presented. How does this make Bob feel?
  
  
• Now for something a little different but similar�.Ken and Barbie are friends. While playing a board game, Ken feels that Barbie has an unfair advantage. Barbie did not agree and tries to justify her opinion. Ken finds this to be argumentative. Should Barbie just agree with Ken? It would be a lot easier. By agreeing though, Barbie is acknowledging she had an unfair advantage. How does that make Barbie feel?

So how do Jane, Jim, Bob and Barbie act congruently in these situations? (Congruence is a concept based on aligning the internal (what I think and feel), with the external (what I say, how I say it, and how people interpret it (thanks Selena)) To me the situations feel pretty no win�.you can give in to what you don�t believe or be perceived as stubborn, inflexible, disrespectful, biased and argumentative.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to approach these? How do these situations become win:win?

<end snip>

SelenaDelesie - 2007.02.21

1 - Who makes the final decision on the process, Jane or Bill? If both sides have presented a clear case, then a decision will be made. Right then both sides have information. If you are responsible for making a decision and people hate you for making a tough decision your way, you know the consequences of leading your way (which if you are the leader, is the way) in that group. If you lobby for a point of view that is rejected that says nothing much about you at that point. Someone else is responsible for the decision and you have done your best at that point in time. Both parties get more information when, or if, the results of the path chosen become evident, but that is for another day.

After a reread of the question the following quote comes out. Jane: "Bill, since you are responsible for the decision I will stand by it. I think how I have presented my case does put me on record as believing that there is a better way. Time may or may not tell."

2 - Segmented Markets 101. Jim perceives Joe's abilities in Jim's context. Joe perceives Joe's abilities in Joe's context. Those contexts do not match. (If Jim does anything we can ask Jim how it makes him feel. None of us outside can say.) If Joe is doing okay in his context he should not care (too much) about Jim's worries. If Jim has a greater management context he operates in he has to match that against the company he is in. If what he feels about his peers is not taken in to consideration (rightly so) then perhaps he is in the wrong company. If his peers react negatively to Jim's actions he is probably also in the wrong company. Jim gets to decide if he wants to adapt his responses to his situation or find a new situation.

I think Jim's quote is something along the lines of "I think I may have a different context for evaluating abilities and the use thereof. In this context, which is xxxx, I feel Joe is under-performing. I understand he is very good at the following, a,b, and c, and that may be all that is important now. I hope he can respect my perspective as well."

3 - We did the Bob scene two years ago at an AYE session. Bob must act according to his beliefs. If Bob is the manager in charge of Jane and Jim he must give accurate feedback. If Tim steps in and overrules him, then Bob has information about Tim and how Tim feels about Bob.

4 - Ken has presented an argument. Does he expect Barbie to roll over? (probably) If you present an argument, you ought to expect an argument back. Barbie can agree to either acknowledge an unfair advantage or to "pick another battle." (Let him win this one, but fight harder later.) Barbie gains control over Ken if she agrees with him, even if she believes she is right. Barbie may not know this. Barbie could agree because she is weak. Nobody asked if Barbie might actually be wrong. If Barbie had an unfair advantage why might she not see it? (Every woman in a low cut outfit has an unfair advantage against a guy every time she leans over the board. Do all women know that?)

These are fun! I look forward to other perspectives.

KurtSimmons 2007.02.21

Whenever I have been absolutely certain that I am right about something in my marriage and pushed ahead with my certainty, I have experienced effects that have convinced me that I was a fool.

I suggest reframing the discussion. "Right" or "wrong" leaves only two choices. If you are right, I must be wrong. And regardless of the righteousness of your proposal, I am more likely to dig in my heels. I think arguments framed around producing intended results open up the discussion. Whatever happens, set a context for the discussion.

I am curious, do any of these people try amending the other person's proposal so they will work for both parties?

Whose opinion counts more in the organization?

Organizations are political so process them that way. If someone else's opinion is valued more than mine by the decision maker, I better have a compelling argument. Otherwise, the other person's opinion will carry the day.

• Bill perceives Jane as being stubborn and inflexible
  
  
• Jane views Bill as stubborn and resistant to change
  
  
• Jim feels that Joe needs to develop in certain areas in order to be more effective
  
  
• Joe does not agree.
  
  
• Within the team, Jim is perceived as not respecting Joe�s abilities.
  
  
• Jim does not respect Joe�s abilities in certain areas.
  
  
• Joe's lack of respect for Joe's abilities is having a negative impact on Jim�s career.

What did the communicator see or hear that led them to these conclusions?

I suggest slowing down. There is a lot to be learned by the negotiators sharing their data points before leaping to an interpretation of their meaning.

• How does Jane feel about herself under those circumstances?
  
  
• how does it make Jim feel?
  
  
• How does this make Bob feel?
  
  
• How does that make Barbie feel?

My goodness... I can't know. I suggest someone ask them.

First, ask them, "How do you feel about that?"

After they tell you, ask them, "How do you feel about feeling that way?"

I suggest processing more than simply facts and logic -- also process the emotions of the people who are involved. Feelings are facts that are typically marked as undiscussable and the undicussability is marked as undiscussable. How someone feels about a feeling may be more important to processing things than the initial feeling.

Don't forget to process your own feeling and feeling about your feeling. My experience is that without processing the emotions around an arguement, the emotions may persist and the other facts fade.

SteveSmith 2007.02.21

Now, I know this intellectually but my emotions always get in the way, even if I think I don't have any. So here, I am back to what Steve laid out.

MikeMelendez 2007.02.22

I suspect "congruence" means being able to embrace "their" side, "your" side, and the context, all at once.

I said somewhere (might be here) that there are at least 5 working definitions of "congruence" within the OD & human potential oriented folk. These range from "all communication channels harmonious with each other and what you really mean" to "nobody has the slightest discomfort under any circumstances." Those seem more like indicators to me than a prescription for how to be in the world. The first is insufficient. The second an impossible goal. "Self, other and context" seems very workable to me, and it seems to work in practice.

That's part of what's going on in the examples, all stuck conversations. The folks aren't agreeing on the content of what they are talking about. But, that happens. They're stuck because they're not agreeing on and worse, no one of them individually has, a way to work with differences in facts, next steps, and feelings. God (or "god" or bog) help them if they're any of them hooked on a specious kind of "congruence." Consider:

• "I'm a-saying what I mean, so I'm congruent (and sucks to you) . . . "
• "Gosh how do you feel about that? Is it OK that I ask? I'm sorry the planet circling around the sun makes you nauseous to think of it . . . "

Both perfectly congruent by some definitions, definitions possibly implicit in the examples above. *Embracing* their side doesn't necessarily mean that "they" will get everything they want (Although, go ahead and want it if that works for you.) any more than embracing "your" side means you will.

But that's just me, here and now, talking to you, making my own choices and living with them. -- JimBullock 2007.02.22 (Yep. "Kinds of Congruence" I posted here, says my stone pile.)

I will address only the first situation - Jane and Bill - today.

Congruent statement from Jane:

Bill, I understand your position and I will work for the success of whatever you decide. I still think my proposal will be better for us. How do you feel about that?

I would feel good about saying that.

(1) I am being honest - what comes out of my mouth is what I feel inside.

(2) I am keeping self, other, and context in my statement.

I would like Bill to think well of me, but if he feels I am being stubborn and inflexible - well that is his choice. He is an adult and he can feel what he feels.

This is easier to write in a wiki that it is to live, but lying to Bill and dying inside if he doesn't like me is harder to live than being congruent.

DwaynePhillips 23 February 2007

Today I will address the case of Tim, Bob, Jane, and Jim.

Bob should tell Jane and Jim as he knows the situation - honesty.

"Jane, Jim, I like what the two of you are doing. My boss (Tim), doesn't like what you are doing. I will try to convey what I think Tim feels. I suggest the three of us talk with Tim together to try to understand his feelings and perspective better."

DwaynePhillips 24 February 2007

The definition of congruent that I have heard repeatedly is respecting yourself, the other and the context. I can respect you and your position, and try to understand it in terms of the context of the situation, without agreeing with you. I don't feel very respectful of either of us if I lie to you.

The problem I have with win - win is the same problem I have with win - lose; both assume a competition. I find cooperation more effective than competition. SherryHeinze 2007.02.25

Today I will write about Jim and Joe.

I agree with Selena in that this one can be more difficult.

Jim doesn't respect all of Joe's abilities. Jim has the freedom to think that (see The Five Satir Freedoms http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/rights/satir.html). Jim also has the freedom to choose if he will inflict his thoughts on others. The others have the freedom to choose their own reactions to Jim's thoughts. Jim will have to live with the reactions of others.

My advice to Jim if he hasn't yet told people what he thinks of Joes abilities:

(1) Ask Joe, "Joe, would you like to know what I think about some of your abilities?"

If Joe says yes, tell him. If Joe says no, don't tell him.

(2) Jim should tell others what he thinks of Joe only after directly telling Joe. Otherwise Jim is creating triangles of communication and that usually leads to bad things.

I emphasize (2) above. Talking behind someone's back is only spreading rumors and driving hidden agendas. Not congruent. This leaves the context - the workplace - out of the equation. Spreading rumors usually destroys the workplace.

Sure, I think Joe's handwriting is poor. So what?

If, however, I believe that his poor handwriting is hurting our workplace - our context - then I say something like, "Joe, I have observed confused communication in some of our staff meetings because people misread your writing on the white board. I think that if the white board messages were more legible, we would all benefit."

Joe can still hate what I said, so can other people. That is their choice.

Side Note - I hope that some day I will be able to think through situations in real time and say things as congruent as I am writing. Considering such situations and writing about them helps me develop those abilities.

Selena, thank you for providing the learning opportunity.

DwaynePhillips 28 February 2007

Re: I hope that some day I will be able to think through situations in real time and say things as congruent as I am writing.

I find it helpful to ask myself: "What do I want, right here, right now?"

That stops me from getting hooked a lot of the time when I might get hooked. Yeah, OK, Joe thinks my handwriting is bad. Do I care about that right now? Does it matter in the situation I am in?

- JimBullock, (2007.02.28)

Getting to Yes, Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1981.

Getting Past No, Ury, 1991.

They provide a framework within which to use some of the specific ideas laid out above, including that of personal congruence.

-- MikeMelendez 2007.02.28