The shit sandwich

  (Grant, 2024)  

Once upon a time, in the long, long ago when I worked in a corporate, I remember being taught about the "shit sandwich". This is where we were advised by management consultants to give feedback constructed by using compliments in pairs, wrapped around a piece of criticism.

Of course, the consultants didn't call it the "shit sandwich"; they called it the sandwich feedback protocol (Von Bergen et al., 2014). It was we attendees who called it the "shit sandwich". I don't think we ever adopted it as a feedback strategy: it was just 1990s management consultant crap.

When exposed to this idea, we felt some would miss the criticism, and some would ONLY hear the criticism. Both of those were pointless outcomes. Some might lose all of it. Further, reviewing staff might spend forever and struggle to find any positives to convey (some staff were in the wrong industry, and needed encouragement to seek work that better suited them). We might lose half our day chasing down nice things to say... which are more than likely going to come across as fake, or be missed anyway.

As a result, I was entertained earlier this year in a newsletter post by Adam Grant, talking about what he called the "compliment sandwich" where we "Put a slice of praise on the top and the bottom, and stick the meat of your criticism in between" (2024). Ah: a shit sandwich with a much more polite name. Some still use it, but they shouldn't, for the reasons I have highlighted in the previous paragraph. However, Adam goes into the 'why nots' more detail:

• "Problem 1: the positives fall on deaf ears. When people hear praise during a feedback conversation, they brace themselves. They’re waiting for the other shoe to drop, and it makes the opening compliment seem insincere. You didn’t really mean it; you were just trying to soften the blow" (Grant, 2023)
• "Problem 2: if you avoid that risk and manage to be genuine about the positives, they can drown out the negatives. Research shows that primacy and recency effects are powerful: we often remember what happens first and last in a conversation, glossing over the middle. When you start and end with positive feedback, it’s all too easy for the criticism to get buried or discounted… especially if you’re talking to a narcissist" (Grant, 2024).

In addition, over time, when we get a compliment, we become primed - in a Pavolvian response - for the criticism to follow. This makes the sandwich method counterproductive. A better method has been suggested in the following four step model (Grant, 2024, citing Von Bergen et al., 2014):

1. Why. We begin by explaining why we are giving feedback; perhaps: we value your contribution to the team, you have potential, and we want to help you to develop
2. Team. Remind the recipient that we are a team; for example: "we've been working together for a while", and "I think we can help each other to be more effective"
3. Ask. Say that we have: "noticed a couple things and wondered if you would like some feedback"
4. Talk. Have an open chat about what can improve. Ask the staff member for ideas. Make it a real conversation. Adam Grant suggests we say "I want to start by describing what I saw… and see if you saw the same things…. Then we can decide what, if anything, we need to do going forward". I may have missed something important, or I may have "contributed the concerns I’m raising. How does that work for you?" (2024), and we go from there. If we channel the naive inquirer (more on that here), we can tailor this conversation to suit.

No manipulation, no butt covering. Just a conversation about what needs to improve, working together to collectively solve an issue.

Sam

References:

Grant, A. (2024, January 18). Stop serving the compliment sandwich. file:///C:/Users/Sam/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/29S7LYAT/email.mht

Von Bergen, C. W., Bressler, M. S., & Campbell, K. (2014). The sandwich feedback method: Not very tasty. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 7(9), 1-13. https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/141831.pdf

read more "The shit sandwich"

Using the naive inquirer to politely disagree

When we are studying, we tend to assume that our lecturers and supervisors know more than we do. We are in a junior - lower - power position, learning with our 'master', on our way through our journeyman work. However, having more power does not mean that our lecturers or supervisors know everything. We all have limits to knowledge, and are prone to our own biases. Our own egos can get in the way - as either the learner or the learned - of being truly open-minded.

Open-mindedness has been termed having a 'beginner’s mind', which comes from the Zen Buddhist construct, 'shoshin' (Finzi et al., 2019). Those with beginners minds are open, without preconception, and are eager to learn - having a child-like approach - intersecting with the naive inquirer construct. A "naive enquirer is someone who sees the world as a benign place which is full of diverse treasures to be revealed to [them]" (Good, 1986, p. 7), and who "asks simple, basic naive questions to uncover 'taken-for-granted' assumptions and reveal new/different perspectives" (Taket & White, 2000, p. 166). Naive inquirers have a child-like approach to learning.

I was reminded of this when I read: 

"I have [...] experience with a more senior colleague who would not admit they were wrong even after confronted with a lot of evidence. I [...] was intimately familiar with the research problem at hand and they had just some very superficial knowledge of it, which probably led to their mistake. I suspect that at some point they realized they were wrong but were trying to hold the upper ground ('I'm right because I'm the more senior person') and 'win' the argument. [...]  I [...] cannot write a statement on a paper that I know to be wrong just to avoid hurting somebody's ego. [This appears to be] about stubbornly persisting on one's mistake even when confronted with evidence and given the time to think about it" (Miguel, 2017).

Ouch. When we notice that egos may get in the way of learning, taking a truly child-like approach to asking questions - if we are truly open to learning and being persuaded by the arguments of the other person - may allow a real discussion and debate about the actual issues. The discussion is not about the fixed positions that we have taken, but instead allows us to take a growth mindset approach (Dweck, 2006).

Contrasting views should be able to be discussed academically, based on the available scientific evidence. Sometimes multiple views are partially correct, and the naive inquirer stance looks at evidence of all viewpoints and explores all sacred cows on their merits. 

However, if we descend into argument, then we have failed in being the naive inquirer: our ego has arisen with its flaming sword of justice. A real discussion should not be about participants being 'wrong', or about 'admitting their mistakes'. 

Academic papers should be about scientific evidence. I think that Miguel's best bet is to get someone higher up the food chain to discuss the issues with this senior academic - or alternatively, in simply submitting the paper containing the error, and trusting the review process to highlight what is incorrect.

Tricky.

Sam

References:

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Baltimore Books.

Finzi, B., Lipton, M., Firth, V. (2019, February 4). A beginner’s mindset. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/leadership/beginners-mindset-decision-making-for-leadership.html

Good, M. (1986). The Playback Conductor Or How Many Arrows will I Need? [Psychodrama certification thesis: Centre for Playback Theatre]. http://www.playbacktheatre.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/playbackconduct-good.pdf

Miguel. (2017, March 22). How to deal with a colleague who won't accept they're wrong. Academia. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/86852/how-to-deal-with-a-colleague-who-wont-accept-theyre-wrong/86854#86854

Stuck, F. (1889). The Guardian of Paradise [Der Wächter des Paradieses]. Munich; Museum Villa Stuck.

Taket, A., & White, L. (2000). Chapter 8: Pluralism in the facilitation process. In Partnership & participation: Decision-making in the Multiagency Setting (pp. 145-182). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

read more "Using the naive inquirer to politely disagree"

Caging the smiling assassin

The last post laid out who the smiling assassin is (here). This post is going to outline some strategies for when we have to continue working in a workplace containing one, but where we have little power to change the situation.

Before we begin, I will summarise who the smiling assassin appears to be. They may "claim[...] to have [...]our back but [we sense] a lack of sincerity. The[y...] have very jealous tendencies" (Yee, 2017), taking "credit for [our] work", not sharing, and "not team players. They pretend to know more than they do" and "are fantastic liars [,... who] use rumour to undermine [us] and adopt a passive-aggressive, indirect, dishonest style of dealing" (Young, 2016).

There are strategies for dealing with this person, but if we lack power, we need to play a waiting game, waiting for those higher up than us to notice the scorched earth that the smiling assassin leaves around them: the lower productivity and higher staff turnover. Our "best solution is to not engage in too much on a personal level [,... and to c]reate a professional environment and interaction [which] leaves little for them to play with" (Yee, 2017). Caging the smiling assassin takes time.

We can point out increased turnover and lower performance comparisons with other departments to our manager (or to our manager's manager, if our manager is the smiling assassin), but we must do this by being the naive inquirer and asking questions (read more here). Any sign of a direct challenge will jeopardise us, because we can almost guarantee that the smiling assassin has got closer than we have. They instinctively divide and conquer, and we usually only see their strategy when it is too late.

If we are silly enough to blindly challenge the smiling assassin, we will find we have inadvertently put ourselves in the firing line. Like walking past a wasps nest, this is a hard position to recover from without many, many wounds.

Sometimes we will need to move out of the firing line. A sideways transfer to wait out the uncovering of the divisive nature of the smiling assassin can work. If however, we have to continue to work in close proximity to the smiling assassin, a key strategy is to record EVERYTHING. Record meetings as mp3s, or attend meetings via Zoom where we know the meeting is being recorded by a third party (DO NOT trust the smiling assassin to keep records). Minute everything. Email follow-ups to everything decided, shared or otherwise. Keep a diary of run-ins with the smiling assassin, with as many factual details as we can.

If we hear anything odd, off-kilter, or what could be taken as an indirect warning in what the smiling assassin tells us, or emails to others, we must answer it immediately (and in an email, if possible). Otherwise the "ah yes, I warned [x] about that at the time" will be the smiling assassin's comment to our boss, tainting our work record.

This will not be quick. We must consider if our work is worth waiting for, or if we should just move on when an alternative shows up. If we decide to stay, we must be punctilious and meticulous in quality assurance practices. We follow all policies and organisational practices very carefully, so we cannot be called out ourselves. We must be extremely careful with whom we speak, so the smiling assassin does not have anything to get a grip on. This is of course exhausting. But being squeaky clean is a good way to wait a smiling assassin out of the organisation.

If the organisation does not have an anonymous way of providing feedback, suggest the organisation sets something up (perhaps with the company accountants). Then we and others can provide feedback on the smiling assassin's micro-aggressions. Evidence will accumulate over time of the difficulty this person creates. Further, we can encourage the organisation to set up "a no-tolerance policy [for toxic behaviours]. Decisive action is critical. Otherwise [the organisation] risk[s] sending the message that bad behavior is OK" (Harvard Business Review, 2022). However, while the smiling assassin's results tend to fall off, the organisation has to have the will to (a) actually measure results to a meaningful level, and (b) actually DO something about decreases.

If we know someone who is seeking research ideas, we can suggest a cultural audit of the department as a research project, in comparison one we know is more functional. If we have some power, or connections to someone with power, we can suggest an anonymous cultural audit survey. Providing those who review the outcomes "respond with humility, curiosity, and empathy" (Harvard Business Review, 2022) to the findings, not defensiveness, this may indirectly expose the smiling assassin to scrutiny.

None of this is ideal. But at least there are some things we can do while we await effective caging of the smiling assassin.

Sam

References:

Harvard Business Review (27 April 2022). Management Tip of the Day: Don’t Allow High Performers to Get Away with Toxic Behavior [email]. https://m.a.email.hbr.org/rest/head/mirrorPage/@epZAQHe0ne3U-kJVN2VwVBlXbnj4HIcOHHn2VhdommFgjUPkSr1ROm8Vmr_46t3O4FQoZFcdZMDHW9jIP77cpkAcsFBle_YBlxmQTq_y97WSayGr.html?deliveryName=DM189705

Yee, H.-R. (7 June 2017). How To Spot A Toxic Co-Worker (And What To Do About Them). Body + Soul. https://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/mind-body/wellness/how-to-spot-a-toxic-coworker-and-what-to-do-about-them/news-story/f1471804c7e1e1a85a942de23439cef7?nk=aa31cbaf54e83c7f46a5a84c6b543850-1650929301

Young, S. (13 July 2016). The Smiling Assassin – do you work with a functional Narcissist?. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/smiling-assassin-do-you-work-functional-narcissist-samantha-young

read more "Caging the smiling assassin"

Deepening understanding with our clients

We service our mechanical things. And, like a car, our work environments can also do with a regular tune-up. How often has it been - for example - since we looked at how we welcome our clients?

Reconsidering how welcoming, open and friendly our spaces are, particularly for those who are coming to us with some feelings of hesitancy, or even trepidation, is always helpful. Barrier-oriented signage can be particularly off-putting (WHO, 2013). How long since we considered our office entrances? Our signage? Our phone manner? Our emails?

Attempting to consider our own practices with a 'beginners mind' is difficult, but is very useful (Daft, 2008). The image accompanying this post (WHO, 2013, p. 60) is familiar to anyone who has visited a hospital: and is even more so under Covid-19.

We can attempt to resurrect our beginner's mind by taking a notebook with us, or using a note-taking app, and NOTICING throughout the day our experiences of personal and environmental welcomes, or how we are "greeted and treated" in a variety of situations (WHO, 2013, p. 61). We would then reflect upon our findings, considering the following:

• How did each situation make us feel?
• Did we feel welcome? Or unwelcome? Why?
• Did we feel included? Or excluded? Why?
• What would have made any experience better?
• How could we apply that learning?
• What influences the way things are done?
• What do we need to avoid?

From that, we would be deliberate in planning a welcome strategy, now being clear in how we would like to make our clients feel when they come to see us.

Sam

References:

Daft, R. L. (2008). The Leadership Experience (4th ed.). Thomson-South Western.

WHO (2013). Chapter 5: Practical Considerations in the Counselling Process, in Counselling for Maternal and Newborn Health Care: A Handbook for Building Skills. World Health Organisation. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304189/

read more "Deepening understanding with our clients"

Strategies to reduce client resistance

In an earlier post (here), I explored six questions we could use for reflection, which may help us to see the barriers for clients who are stuck. Those question were (Cianci et al., 2010; Gollwitzer & Brandstatter, 1997; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006):

1. What can we do when our client avoids the conversation, or avoids the topic?
2. How do we move from problem-focused goals to decision-making goals?
3. If scaling and reframing are useful tools to work with resistance, what are others?
4. What happens when we disagree with client goals? Our own prejudices and values emerge. Is this helpful?
5. How can we effectively challenge. What does that look like?
6. Discuss clients who have been resistant. What does that resistance look like?

However, once we have thought through the potential barriers, we then need some strategies to better help our clients to find their solution.

Following are some potential solutions to each of the six questions above:

1. Gently addressing avoidance. As the naive inquirer, we may ask our client "Do you see [X] as being a barrier for you?". We might want to follow that with "Can you tell me why that is?" - a nice open question to allow the client to answer honestly. Asking will help us identify where the the client 'is' in the process. It may turn out that our client is still in the information gathering phase, and is not yet at the decision-making phase (Su, 2016; also see here). Asking the question gives the client time to self-determine.
2. Getting to decisions. In moving from problem-focused goals to solutions, we must be led at the client's pace, by the client. Offering a potential strategic path to a solution before the client is ready to process it can be pointless. It often means repeating the same work (not that there is any harm in this, either, so long as we are able to keep our own act hunger from reducing our patience. While experience helps us to wait for the client to ask for potential solutions, sometimes we can wait for too long. There is a fine tension here. Sometimes a "What do you think your next steps might be?" question can move things along - and, again, identify where the client is in the process (Su, 2016).
3. Strategies. Again, I think the naive inquirer model can help us here. Asking "How do you think you could change this?". Further, we could ask "What happens if you don't change this?" and "What happens if you do change this?" (Su, 2016). Sometimes this may sharpen the focus for the client. We can also consider using motivational interviewing techniques, which use nudges of roughly 2/3 ratio of reflecting back to the client what they are saying for confirmation, and 1/3 naive inquirer questions (Miller & Rollnick, 2013).
4. Client-focus. In my view, we must always allow the client full control. This process is not about us: it is about them. We are the mirror. If we disagree, we can ask open-ended questions, such as "Tell me more about that?" and "How might that work out for you?". We could even get more specific, such as "Do you see any risks with this strategy?" and "How might you avoid those?", but the choice is the client's, not ours.
5. Self-determination. An important element to keep front of mind is that our clients have the rights to self-determine. This process is not about us. It is about letting the client lead the way, and us simply asking questions so our clients can consider things from a different perspective: but the outcomes, the changes, and the strategies need to be owned by the client. This approach enables us to leave our ego out of the process. We are an asker of questions; a suggester of possibilities; a source of ideas; a considerer of risks.
6. Resistance indicators. If clients like the status quo, we may feel they are 'stuck' or 'stalled', and that we are no longer facilitating progress. But it is best to check in to see if our client feels that. We can ask naive inquirer-style questions: "are you comfortable with our progress?", and "where would you like to be by the end of this session?", and - a key one - "what stage are you at in your thinking: are you still information gathering, or should we be talking about how you might make a decision"? (Su, 2016). This latter is where we can so often get frustrated: we THINK people are at the 'decision-making' end, when actually they are three steps back down the track at the 'wanting information' end (Su, 2016). We may need to find out WHY there is resistance to change, if the client has expressed a desire for change, but is not making headway. We can ask clients when it appears that they do not want to move is "Are you comfortable with how things are at the moment?". If they are comfortable, then why do they need to move? Or, need to move YET? (Dweck, 2006). If they were going to move then have become stuck or were moving then lost focus, we can ask "Could you help me to understand what has changed in your thinking since we spoke last?” (Su, 2016).

Overall though, we need to be led by our client. Remembering that this is THEIR process - and that we are simply the guide - will assist us to do that.

Sam

References:

• Cianci, A. M., Klein, H. J., & Seijts, G. H. (2010). The effect of negative feedback on tension and subsequent performance: The main and interactive effects of goal content and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 618-630. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019130
• Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Baltimore Books.
• Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstätter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 186-199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.186
• Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Chapter 2 Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta‐analysis of effects and processes. In Zanna, M. (Ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol 38, pp. 69-119). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
• Miller, W. R. & Rollnick, S. P. (2013). Motivational Interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). The Guildford Press.
• Su, A. J. (25 May 2016). What to Do When a Colleague Can’t Stick to a Decision. Harvard Business Blog. https://hbr.org/2016/03/what-to-do-when-a-colleague-cant-stick-to-a-decision

read more "Strategies to reduce client resistance"

Where does the naive inquirer come from?

It is good for us to regularly 'forget' our conditioning, and to be open to new ideas. While it is exhausting if we have to do this too often or for too long, regular learning or stretching of our conditioning helps us to keep supple in our thinking, and enables us to reassess our mental models. This type of openness - the "putting aside preconceptions and suspending beliefs and opinions" is known as a beginner's mind (Daft, 2008, p. 140).

The idea of a 'beginner’s mind' - or 'shoshin' - is a Zen Buddhist construct, allowing us the “inclination to periodically question and reassess deeply held theories, archetypes, and conventions to devise new and fundamentally innovative solutions" (Finzi et al., 2019). Those with beginners minds are open, lack preconceptions, are eager to learn - behaving as a keen beginner would. A child-like approach, perhaps.

So how does this idea intersect with the concept of the naive inquirer? The parallels can be seen in an early definition; that a "naive enquirer is someone who sees the world as a benign place which is full of diverse treasures to be revealed to [them]" (Good, 1986, p. 7), and who "asks simple, basic naive questions to uncover 'taken-for-granted' assumptions and reveal new/different perspectives" (Taket & White, 2000, p. 166). These too have elements of a child-like approach to the new.

And when did the naive inquirer model arise? Well, despite much reading and digging, I have been unable to find where this construct originally became 'a thing'. The earliest I have found thus far, where it is mentioned - I think - in a way aligned its present use, is as follows:

Benjamin "Franklin cannot be understood [as] a naive inquirer tied to narrow utilitarian pursuits, in the spirit of Max Weber's caricature of him" (Koch, 1961, p. 316).

However, the Parsons translation of Max Weber's essay (1904/1958) which Koch (1961; Klassen, 1962) refers to, The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, does not clarify the naive inquirer construct. Ah well. I found some earlier mentions (Hurley, 1945; Wyatt, 1928), but they appear not to have been used as a deliberate model.

I will close with how Meaden and Fox (2015, p. 57) define the naive inquirer:

It "allows the professional to suspend judgements about what [our client] is saying; to actually listen to [them] and gain an understanding about what is happening for [them]; explore what they have already attempted in order to resolve the difficulty and explore where they would prefer to be. There is also an assumption that [they] can identify answers and solutions to their own difficulty.

And I will keep looking for the birth of the concept.

Sam

References:

• Argyris, C. (2000). Flawed Advice and the Management Trap: How managers can know when they are getting good advice and when they are not. Oxford University Press.
• Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind: A revolutionary approach to man's understanding of himself (7th reprinting, 1978). Ballantine Books.
• Daft, R. L. (2008). The Leadership Experience (4th ed.). Thomson-South Western.
• Fast Company. (04 October 2004). A Beginner’s Mind. https://www.fastcompany.com/918964/beginners-mind
• DePaul, M. R. (1993). Balance and refinement: Beyond coherence methods of moral inquiry. Routledge.
• Finzi, B., Lipton, M., Firth, V. (04 February 2019). A beginner’s mindset. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/leadership/beginners-mindset-decision-making-for-leadership.html
• Good, M. (1986). The Playback Conductor Or How Many Arrows will I Need? [Psychodrama certification thesis: Centre for Playback Theatre]. http://www.playbacktheatre.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/playbackconduct-good.pdf
• Hurley, T. J. (1945). When is a Judgment a Lien?. Indiana Law Journal, 20(4), 293-301. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4129&context=ilj
• Klassen, F. (1962). Persistence and Change in Eighteenth Century Colonial Education. History of Education Quarterly, 2(2), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.2307/367104
• Koch, A. (1961). Pragmatic wisdom and the American Enlightenment. The William and Mary Quarterly: A Magazine of Early American History, 18(3), 314-329. https://doi.org/10.2307/1921168
• Kuhn, T. S. (1967). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1st ed. 5th printing). The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962).
• Taket, A., & White, L. (2000). Chapter 8: Pluralism in the facilitation process. In Partnership & participation: Decision-making in the Multiagency Setting (pp. 145-182). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Weber, M. (1904/1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (trans. T. Parsons 1930/1958). Charles Scribner’s Sons.
• Wyatt, H. G. (1928). The Gestalt enigma. Psychological Review, 35(4), 298-310. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071672

read more "Where does the naive inquirer come from?"

Metalogues and the naive inquirer

I thought it was about time that I wrote a little more about the naive inquirer. Work by the mid-20th century essayist, Bateson, can assist us with a slightly deeper exploration (1972). Bateson explores the philosophy of a naive inquirer through 'metalogues', which he defines as:

"...a conversation about some problematic subject. This conversation should be such that not only do the participants discuss the problem but the structure of the conversation as a whole is also relevant to the same subject" (Bateson, 1972, p. 1).

In his book of collected essays, Bateson uses a young girl (D) and her father (F) as his 'voices' (1972). The voices interplay: each asking questions of the other; proposing naive answers; acknowledging a lack of knowledge; and - through dialogue alone - illustrate views on the metalogue issue such as chaos, culture, play, and instinct. The refreshing point is that there is no 'side' to either voice's position; no attachment. There is a very low fog factor (Gunning, 1968). Differing, evolving, and informing viewpoints on an issue, like Edward De Bono's (1985) thinking hats, are clearly outlined in simple language. See the illustration accompanying this post for an example of Bateson's metalogue questioning (1972, p. 3).

The metalogues provide us with two voices of the naive inquirer. One is an older inquirer who still does not have all the answers and does not pretend to: the younger inquirer shares the wonder and the stupidity of the world in the questions asked. Together, at bedtime, they may come to conclusions, or postpone the issue as being unresolved. To see a clear construction of a metalogue, Pitruzzella's 2012 paper contains an illustration of one he constructed, alongside a rationale.

The unnamed naive inquirer concept begins with Beatson (1972) as a philosophy. While the naive inquirer concept must have been codified previously (Kuhn, 1962/1967, is evidence of this), Meaden and Fox (2015) name it and define it:

Allowing "the professional to suspend judgements about what the person is saying; to actually listen to the individual and gain an understanding about what is happening for the person; explore what they have already attempted in order to resolve the difficulty and explore where they would prefer to be" (Meaden & Fox, 2015, p. 57)

Meaden and Fox (2015) suggest that the work of Pradesky (1993) is similar to the naive inquirer model: while Pradeksy is using the Socratic method, there are similarities in the curiosity and openness of questioning (1993). Further, Meaden and Fox draw on the motivational interviewing model of Miller and Rollnick (1991, 2002), in particular 'evocation'. The naive inquirer 'elicits' information from the subject; not imposing their wisdom, but drawing forth the subject's own, hidden knowledge. Neither Pradesky (1993) nor Miller and Rollnick (1991, 2002) name the naive inquirer concept in their respective work. And neither does Kuhn (1962/1967).

The naive inquirer is a light, collaborative, and effective way of working with others. It uses power lightly. It does not impose dominion.

Nice.

Sam

References:

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind: A revolutionary approach to man's understanding of himself (7th reprinting, 1978). Ballantine Books.

de Bono , E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats. Little, Brown & Company.

Gunning, R. (1968). The technique of clear writing (Rev. ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1967). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1st ed., 5th reprinting). The University of Chicago Press.

Meaden, A. & Fox, A. (2015). Innovations in Psychosocial Interventions for Psychosis: Working with the hard to reach. Routledge.

Miller, W. R. & Rollnick, S. P. (1991). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed., 2002). The Guildford Press.

Padesky, C. (1993). Socratic Questioning: Changing minds of guided discovery? [Keynote address]. Presentation at the European Congress of Behavioural and Cognitive Therapies, London, 24 September 1993. https://www.padesky.com/newpad/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/socquest.pdf

Pitruzzella, S. (2012). Measuring, classifying, mapping: a metalogue. Dramatherapy, 34(1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02630672.2012.658208

read more "Metalogues and the naive inquirer"

Deep Learning

Image thanks to Paddlechicka, n.d., from
Kathy Sierra, Creating Passionate Users, 2006

A career colleague of mine recently shared a Medium article on LinkedIn, which centred, beyond instrumental imperatives, around a core message on the deeper benefits of learning.

Having just attended the Career Development Association's Symposium (CDANZ), where we had a robust discussion on professional development, one early paragraph in the Medium article really struck me:

"The difference between the professionals and the dreamers is that the professionals actually become students of their craft. They live and breathe learning and improvement. It’s not just 10,000 hours of it, either. Becoming a student means developing your deep work abilities. It means you practice deliberately" (Moore, 2017).

Isn't that a lovely thought? That "[b]ecoming a student means developing your deep work abilities. It means you practice deliberately" (Moore, 2017). This ties in quite nicely to what both Professor Michael Arthur and Judith Jamieson said in their respective key notes at the CDANZ symposium. What great managers - and career practitioners - have that sets them apart is intellectual curiosity. If we constantly feed our own curiosity about our profession, then we are displaying professional behaviour.

However, it is not just curiosity that we need to be professional. Moore quoted Epictetus, a Greek philosopher, who said “If [we] want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid" (1 November 2017). Being prepared to learn with a beginners mind (Daft, 2008, Kuhn, 1970) is a very important part of remaining professional. Always being a naive inquirer (Miller & Rollnick, 1991). Then as things change in our profession, we update our knowledge. When we stop doing that, it is probably time for us to move on to something new.

Something else that struck me from Moore's article was the attitude of others to our learning. This related to those who are single-minded enough to pursue their own self-development:

"First they laugh at you. Then, they criticize you. Finally, they brag to others how they know you" (Moore, 2017).

This is an interesting point. Sometimes people who are very focused on gaining mastery have little time left in their lives for anything other than becoming the best at their own game. I personally feel that there is a difference between mastery and professionalism. One can become all consuming (mastery), and the other remains practice.

My friend, Mike Dooley, said that this idea of deliberate practice could be "a view of study as a 'good in itself', which would liberate it from the dictates of someone other needs/ends (the economy, an employer, status, gaining a diploma....)". I particularly like this view of study as a 'good', as an end in itself. This is probably what professional organisations are trying to embed; that part of being 'professional' is the deliberate practice of continual self-development.

While some of us are still struggling to make the shift from a fixed, "I'm done" mindset to a growth, if we are professionals, we need to move to an "I'll always be developing" mindset.

And practice deliberately :-)


Sam

References:

• Daft, R. L. (2008). The Leadership Experience (4th ed.). Thomson South-Western.
• Dooley, M. (4 November 2017). A reminder of the wide and deep benefits of applied study, beyond instrumental imperatives. Retrieved 4 November 2017 from https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3711595/3711595-6331935456061685762?midToken=AQGAxGsctAQ4_g&trk=eml-b2_anet_digest-hero-24-hero%7Edisc%7Edisc%7E0&trkEmail=eml-b2_anet_digest-hero-24-hero%7Edisc%7Edisc%7E0-null-az11i%7Ej9kfwzjt%7Ef9-null-communities%7Egroup%7Ediscussion&lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Aemail_b2_anet_digest%3BGPQpxj3NQH2JE3fgbS0FfA%3D%3D
• Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
• Miller, W. R. & Rollnick, S. P. (1991). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed., 2002). The Guildford Press.
• Moore, A. (1 November 2017). If You Don’t Become a Student First, You’ll Never Be Great at Anything. Retrieved 4 November 2017 from https://medium.com/the-mission/if-you-dont-become-a-student-first-you-ll-never-be-great-at-anything-6560cc7e72d0
• Paddlechica (2015). How to be an Expert. Retrieved 5 November 2017 from http://paddlechica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/paddlechica_how_to_be_an_expert.png
• Sierra, K. (2006). How to be an expert. Retrieved 5 November 2017 from http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/03/how_to_be_an_ex.html

read more "Deep Learning"

Finessing the decision-making process

In a recent post, I looked at the stages in the decision-making process, drawn from an HBR blog post by Su (25 May 2016).

Su also went on to talk about how we can become frustrated with colleagues who appear to habitually change their minds, often seeming to take the opinion of the last person whom they have spoken to (25 May 2016).

When we have colleagues who appear regular decision flip-floppers, we need to realise that the problem is probably ourselves. Our colleague is probably still at step 1 in the decision-making process: "still seeking input to understand potential options", while we are expecting them to be at 3: "Have you come to a decision and are ready to inform the team on how to proceed". Understanding that different colleagues will reach decisions differently will help us make room for other processes.

Before speaking to colleagues about where they are in the decision-making process, Su (25 May 2016) suggests four questions that we can ask of ourselves:

1. "Is this a one-off situation or a recurring pattern?
2. "What is the impact to the business, the team, and you?
3. "What are the risks in not having a conversation?
4. "What are the risks in having one?"

Once we are clear about what it is that we need to know, and why, we can broach the issue. Su stresses that this must be face to face, with open sharing of our observations. For a positive outcome, our focus needs to remain on trying to understand. She provides an example (25 May 2016):

“I received your email about the vendor situation and saw that it was different from what we had originally discussed. Could you help me to understand what has changed in your thinking since we were last together?”

The tone is open, curious and listening. It probes whether something had changed since they last talked; whether there had been later conversations, new facts, interpretations, or if a shift in thinking. It adopts the role of the naive inquirer (read more about this here).

It also points out the importance about noting the decisions that have been made, and why, and sharing those notes with all who need to know. This can be done easily in OneNote on an intranet page.

Once in writing, it is easier to discuss differing perspectives.

Additionally, it would make sense when any decision is being made for people to indicate where in the decision-making process they are: at 1, 2 or 3. It will make for a great deal more clarity, and much less frustration in our organisations.


Sam

• Reference: Su, Amy Jen (25 May 2016). What to Do When a Colleague Can’t Stick to a Decision. Retrieved 25 May 2016 from https://hbr.org/2016/03/what-to-do-when-a-colleague-cant-stick-to-a-decision?cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-management_tip-_-tip_date&referral=00203&utm_source=newsletter_management_tip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tip_date

read more "Finessing the decision-making process"

The Naive Inquirer Model

(Milne, 2009, p. 45)

Have you heard of the "naive inquirer" or "naive enquirer"?

This model is where the practitioner takes the role of an outside observer in conversations with a client, holding judgement back, and listening with an open mind or beginner's mind (Daft, 2008).

An open mind is where we display child-like curiosity; seeking to exchange information, to know, to find out. We don't look for 'right' or 'wrong' in the answers we receive, we simply explore for exploration's sake (Meaden & Fox, 2015).

Think 'four year old in a lolly shop'. Or Pooh bear:

Benjamin Hoff, in mulling over how Pooh found Eeyore’s lost tail, wrote that: “An Empty sort of mind is valuable for finding pearls and tails and things because it can see what’s in front of it. An Overstuffed mind is unable to. While the clear mind listens to a bird singing, the Stuffed-Full-of-Knowledge-and-Cleverness mind wonders what kind of bird is singing. The more Stuffed Up it is, the less it can hear through its own ears and see through its own eyes. Knowledge and Cleverness tend to concern themselves with the wrong sorts of things, and a mind confused by Knowledge, Cleverness, and Abstract Ideas tends to go chasing off after things that don’t matter, or that don’t even exist, instead of seeing, appreciating, and making use of what is right in front of it.” (1982, pp. 146–147; Daft, 2008, p. 140)

This model is excellent for putting the client at the centre. The client leads as the expert, and the practitioner is the naive inquirer and respectful listener (McMahon & Patton, 2002). The framework was formalised by Miller and Rollnick (1991) and built on by Padesky in 1993 (Meaden & Fox, 2015). (However, it must be noted that the Miller and Rollnick model is very similar to work by Kuhn's 1966 work (1970). Great minds :-)).

As the professional, we can ask our client obvious questions. We can explore what they have already done, and how useful it was. We can ask what worked and what didn't. We do this just from wanting exchange, not from wanting to put our own construction on it; to 'fix' it. By creating the conversation, we give clients the power to solve their own problems.

It can be a very useful technique for getting people to talk; where we can allow ourselves to not know; to be uncertain; to restart exploration over and over, while remaining clear-eyed. It takes the pressure off the practitioner: we can remain the observer.

We then help the client re-examine problems with a fresh approach, and put aside 'over-stuffedness'.

Powerful.


Sam

References:

• Daft, R. L. (2008). The Leadership Experience (4th ed.). Thomson South-Western.
• Hoff, B. (1982). The Tao of Pooh. E. P. Dutton.
• Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
• McMahon, M. & Patton, W. (2002). Using qualitative assessment in career counselling. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 2(1), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014283407496
• Meaden, A. & Fox, A. (2015). Innovations in Psychosocial Interventions for Psychosis: Working with the hard to reach. Routledge.
• Miller, W. R. & Rollnick, S. P. (1991). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed., 2002). The Guildford Press.
• Milne, A. A. (1926). Winnie The Pooh. UK: Penguin Group UK Ltd

read more "The Naive Inquirer Model"

Graceful Disagreement

I was reading a post on a recent conference by Debsnet - aka the édu flâneuse - when she said "scholars brought diverse perspectives to the same general topic of leadership in education. They agreed and disputed. They converged and diverged. It was a great example of respectful, well-considered and articulate debate. Graceful disagreement. Elegant contestation. Research as conversation".

Wow. What a lovely phrase. I loved the sense of respect, approachability, egalitarianism, openness and richness of the words.

For me, this evoked a sense of debate in its full majesty, where the true pursuit is not our own ego, but the real development of knowledge and mastery. A place where we can truly put aside our own agendas, shoulder-chips and weaknesses, and create something that is larger and more enduring than ourselves.

Debsnet's ideas link in well with an article written by Rebecca Gelding on kindess which I also read today. Rebecca cited Anne Galloway who tweeted in 2014 “We are all smart – distinguish yourself by being kind” (citing Professor Charles Gordon, Sociology & Anthropology HoD, Carleton University, 2012). We can make disagreement a learning opportunity when we shift focus from "win" to win:win.

Kindness can - and should - exist in academia, despite its reputation of being the last place on the planet that our ego is ripped off firmly stuck to the editing plaster.  We can present bad news in a way that is not dishonest, but focuses on what we can do to repair errors, not on the errors themselves. We can ask for more information, we can be the naive inquirer, without agenda and just ask questions, ask about alternatives, ask why they chose what they chose (Miller & Rollnick, 1991). We can also ask about "that", not about "their": a great distancing tool for taking the proximity heat out of ownership (Shetty, 2013). And kindness has an advantage: it spreads.

Another powerful punch for looking after the views of everyone, and keeping respect close to our hearts.

Nice.


Sam

References:

• Debsnet (2015). Indra’s Net: We are all connected. Retrieved 1 December 2015 from https://theeduflaneuse.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/indras-net/
• Debsnet (2015). Balance, not division. Compassion, not attack. Conversation, not war. Retrieved 1 December 2015 from https://theeduflaneuse.wordpress.com/2015/07/31/balance-compassion-conversation/
• Galloway, Anne (2014). Best advice I got when I entered academia: "We're all smart. Distinguish yourself by being kind" [Tweet, 12:37 PM 25 Feb 2014]. Retrieved 1 December 2015 from https://twitter.com/annegalloway/status/438412389319319552
• Gelding, Rebecca (2015). Distinction of kindness. Retrieved 1 December 2015 from https://musiconthemindblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/distinction-of-kindness/ 
• Miller, W. R. & Rollnick, S. P. (1991). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed., 2002). The Guildford Press.
• Shetty, Rajesh (2013). The Art of Graceful Disagreement. Retrieved 1 December 2015 from http://www.rajeshsetty.com/2013/02/07/the-art-of-graceful-disagreement/

read more "Graceful Disagreement "