Balance assertive and accommodative styles in one-on-one conversations
In a one-on-one disagreement, notice whether you are pressing your view or holding back to keep the peace, and practice moving between the two as the situation calls for.
Pourquoi ça marche
Joiner and Josephs treat pivotal conversations as one of three “action arenas” where leadership agility shows, alongside leading teams and leading organizational change, and they say interpersonal interactions are a form of leadership. The skill they describe is balance between two tendencies, assertive and accommodative, which they name as the parts of “power style.” They present this as something that develops, with each new level retaining the competencies of the levels before it.
Comment faire
- Before a one-on-one where you expect disagreement, write down whether your usual move is to push your view or to go quiet and accommodate.
- In the conversation, state your view plainly, then pause and check whether you are still pushing or have started giving ground too quickly.
- If you notice yourself swinging to the other style, say so, and ask what the other person needs before you respond.
- Afterward, note which style you used more, and whether the other person was able to disagree with you.
Données probantes
The three action arenas, the claim that interpersonal interaction is leadership, and the assertive–accommodative balance come from the authors’ Chapter 1 excerpt and their June 2006 interview. The authors describe the Pivotal Conversations program as one they delivered with clients, not as a tested intervention. No outcome study of this practice was found in the sources read. (anecdotal)
The authors’ claims about this arena rest on their own client work. Balancing styles is their framing, and this exercise has not been evaluated against outcomes.
Sources
- Joiner, W. B., & Josephs, S. A. (2006). Leadership Agility: Five Levels of Mastery for Anticipating and Initiating Change, Chapter 1 (publisher excerpt). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Joiner, B., & Josephs, S. (2006, June). Leadership Agility with Bill Joiner and Steve Josephs [interview]. Integral Leadership Review, Fresh Perspective.
Erreur fréquente
Treating either style as the skill itself. The authors describe agility as the capacity to use both as a situation calls for, not as settling on a better default.
Pratiquez cela avec IX Coach
Plus de pratiques pour Leadership Agility: The Five Levels, Explained
- Share responsibility for objectives and keep the accountability
Hand real ownership of objectives and coordination to your team, and be explicit about the accountability you keep as the formal leader.
- Scan the environment before you choose and scope an initiative
Before committing to a change, look at the conditions around it, write the outcome you want, and narrow the initiative to a scope you can actually shape.
- Map each stakeholder’s perspective before you try to align them
Identify the people an initiative affects, state what each one sees, and check your own assumptions about power before you seek agreement.
- Write the leader you want to be, then review what you learn
Put in a few sentences the kind of leader you want to be, compare that with one recent situation, and write down what the gap teaches you.
- Alternate between immersion and stepping back to reflect
Work through a stretch of real tasks, then stop to write what happened and what you noticed, and repeat the cycle rather than reviewing only at the end.
- Train attention with a daily practice such as meditation
Pick one short daily attention practice, such as meditation, and carry the attention it trains into meetings and one-on-one conversations.
Concepts associés
- Torbert’s Seven Action Logics of Leadership
Seven ways leaders make sense of pressure, how common each is, and how to work with your own
- Le leadership adaptatif, rendu pratique
Distinguer les défis adaptatifs des problèmes techniques — et diriger en conséquence
- Vertical Development Practices: How Adults Grow, Not Just Add Skills
Heat, colliding perspectives, and sense-making — and what the research can and cannot promise
- La théorie sujet-objet de Kegan, en pratique
Passer d'être mené par ses présupposés à pouvoir les examiner