Today, another team member stated the ONE THING I've been saying for several weeks. Everyone went, "Ahhh, yes, great idea. Let's do that."
I feel like complete crap. My emotional conclusions about this experience are the following:
1) I hate trusting group process. I hate waiting for everyone else to "catch up."
2) (As a result, I'm in the wrong line of work, but maybe we'll get back to that later)
3) I am a craptastic facilitator.
4) I am a worthless communicator, and in this instance, I have no idea why.
I did more writing about this to share with my Working with Ease cohort:
Working with Challenges – Process Window & 'Reporting to Yourself'
Happy Wednesday - Yvette Here. I don't know if I'm alone or not in the fact that I 100% "forgot" about our fieldwork. I know it happened somewhere between writing action items on my workbook last week, and today's e-mail with week 8 materials. Despite my login reminder to strive for One Thing; despite excellent intentions, and even specific ideas about what to present...I allowed the deliverable to slip away from the forefront in my mind (where it probably wreaked unconscious havoc and subliminal panic).
Needless to say, my reaction today was less than Easeful.
I immediately recognized that the meta-fieldwork had become an attempt to easefully integrate a less-than-ideal deliverable (the fieldwork) into my day and CHOOSE to handle it in as easeful a manner as possible.
First I had to have a conversation with myself and decide what my priority was. Should I do Ease-work, or Company-work? Could I combine both? Which would more critical for my success...immediately? Long Term? Which would support a higher-quality of work output?
I have chosen (and I have the luxury of choice) to give myself as much time as I need to easefully 'work through' the fieldwork, in this moment, within today's context. I feel unable to express a "presentation on working with challenges." For the present, I feel far too incompetent to draw any conclusions of my own, so I will share the following instead:
1) Challenge Case Study: Day in the Life of a Bored Drama Queen
2) An exercise called "Reporting to Yourself" which can be found at: http://www.thework.com/pdf/articles_21WaysEnglish.pdf
Please note that I'm trying this exercise out for the first time, and I heard of "The Work" for the first time 6 days ago. It is not "a resource" in the sense that I recommend it…I offer it only as a "sample."
One of my biggest challenges is remembering that "There is a better (easeful) way."
Another challenge is putting "life" into the same box as "work." Everything is SO MUCH WORK that of course I would forget little things...like living and working with Ease.
Athena’s coaching challenged me about thinking “WORKLIFE” into this big, hard, scary, dramatic, unending (unendurable) challenge, with an opposite of “fun.”
In my blog / journaling, I have pondered for myself what it means when a task is “effortless.” When work flows and just *is* without angst. Because writing and speaking are an effortless, easeful way for me to approach ideas and process my experiences, I offer them to you…probably in more words than necessary. At least I will have completed the fieldwork for myself. Given myself the time to gain perspective and completion. I feel better for having tried to get objective about what I saw happen versus what I felt happening.
* * * * *
Day in the Life of a Bored Drama Queen
I had an emotionally crippling work experience this morning. Today, a very simple thing “caught” me during a team meeting / facilitation: A suggestion I had offered to the group several times, in different ways, over the past 4 weeks, was offered by another team member, and immediately accepted.
My external reaction was to re-state the suggestion, confirm with the team that taking action was a unanimous decision, and call the meeting to a close. My internal reaction was to crumble into pieces – smashed by my own response of pain and anger and frustration:
Why did this conclusion take so long? Why did I have to endure the frustration of believing in this action for weeks while the team “caught up?” Why didn’t they react that way when I made the same suggestion? Why didn’t the team adopt this tactic when I mentioned it before? Why can’t they hear *ME*? Why am I communicating so badly? Why is ‘trusting the process’ so annoying? Why are my facilitation skills so bad that I am invested in the decision AND constantly wishing I could skip the process? Why have I been assigned to do this work when my reaction clearly indicates I am not competent?
I’m relieved by the outcome and at the same time angry that I will get no recognition for my contribution. That anger and frustration
means I’m obviously not suited for the job. The fact that they didn’t see the
merits of the option when I presented it must mean I can’t communicate well enough. The content captures and notes I spend so much time compiling confuse the team instead of clarifying. They make the task harder instead of easier. They impede the process instead of allowing it to follow a natural progression. Either that or it is actually *me* the team distrusts. Something personal or situational is preventing my message from reaching the team. What could THAT be?
Entirely In my head, I questioned my position and my abilities. I felt that I had done a terrible job of communicating, facilitating, capturing and supporting the team. I considered that perhaps I don’t have the skills, the strength or the competence to do my work in this area. I desperately churned through many possible scenarios for “fixing” myself, the group, the company, the process…and concluded that I believe no “fix” is possible at this time. I have to continue and see where this particular process will lead. I despise the waiting - I want to act and have it be over-and-done-with. It is all too easy to be in a demoralized, mournful and completely insecure place.
* * * * * *
The Exercise: Reporting to Yourself - This exercise can help in healing fear and terror. Practice reporting events to yourself as if a circumstance you find yourself in is actually a news story and you are the roving reporter. Announce exactly what your surroundings are and what's happening "on the scene" at that very moment. Fear is always the result of projecting a re-creation of the past into the now or the future. If you find yourself fearful, find the core belief and inquire: "Is it true that I need to be fearful in this situation? What is actually happening right now, physically? Where is my body (hands, arms, feet, legs, head)? What do I see (trees, walls, windows, sky)?" Impersonalizing our stories gives us an opportunity to look at circumstances more objectively, and choose our responses to what life brings. Living in our minds, believing our untrue thoughts, is a good way to scare ourselves to death, and it can appear in form as old age, cancer, degeneration, high blood pressure, etc.
NOTE: I didn’t even know about this activity this morning, so this is as if I was on the sidelines actually observing. I tried to imagine that the team was the new Iraqui Government. Boy, that helped!
* * * * * *
At 10:28AM PST in Sunnyvale, California, the WC Improvement Team decided unanimously to recommend that additional data be collected on customer needs. The team plans to present this recommendation in the form of a single PowerPoint slide. The slide is slated to include a graph of OTD to CRD for 2006, and a request for additional data. Also in the planning stages are five bullet-points providing recommendations for what data would be useful and how it might be collected.
All members of the team appeared visibly relieved by the outcome and plan.
The weekly team meeting began at 9:30AM with the opening question: “Are we telling marketing how to do their job?” The team had been expressly warned not to make direct recommendations for changes within the Marketing Department. Given the warning, the facilitator asked, “As a team seeking “improvement” in the area of meeting customer needs, what are we actually doing?”
Several team members shared divergent opinions: Yes, if we see an area for improvement in marketing ‘territory’, we are going to recommend that change. Another pointed out that having been the focus of previous recommendations, she felt that the team “sometimes came up with good ideas, while some just showed that the team was ignorant of ‘how things worked’ resulting in recommendations which could not be implemented.”
The debate culminated with a review of the team’s charter and a general consensus that the scope of “customer satisfaction” was so broad that yes, the team might have to make recommendations seen by some as intrusive. Team members agreed that the way to prevent defensiveness was to include the experts and get buy-in and input for the recommendations before making them.
The facilitator shifted the team to the second task: reviewing the content of slides that summarized team work and conclusions to date. Written responses had been submitted prior, expressing disagreement with the content of certain slides. The facilitator addressed each area of contention. At one point in the discussion, a team member asked the facilitator “Where did this information come from? Did you just make it up?” Looking shocked, the facilitator explained that the wording was content offered by a fellow team member, captured in the team notes from one week earlier.
Prior to making the decision, the team provided feedback about confusing elements of the slides. Headings were changed for clarification, re-ordering was suggested. Some information one member wanted to add was identified as existing in a location which seemed illogical to him. Positive feedback was offered for the format of the slides in contrast to previous attempts.
The facilitator sat at the head of the Red Conference Room table, hands alternately typing captures into a PowerPoint slide and making notes on a lined 8.5 x 11 notebook. Members of the team self-facilitated well, often inquiring of the quieter members, re-stating for understanding and making open efforts to respect team opinions and allow team mates to finish their sentences.
With only eight minutes remaining, dissatisfaction with the slide content prompted conversation about the usefulness of team debate, ideas-sharing and the prospect of quarter end and no foreseeable outcome. After one lengthy monologue on why the team process was a waste of time, especially with only three work-weeks remaining, the facilitator sharply stopped a team member to ask, “Wait one minute – what would that look like if it was not a waste of time? What would the ideal outcome be?” The response was that instead of trying to delve into or gather data which currently did not exist in the organization, perhaps the team should simply provide the data found and indicate a need for additional data – reiterating a suggestion made by the facilitator several weeks before. The suggestion was then unanimously accepted.
At 10:28AM PST in Sunnyvale, California, the WC Improvement Team decided unanimously to recommend that additional data be collected on customer needs. The team plans to present this recommendation in the form of a single PowerPoint slide. The slide is slated to include a graph of OTD to CRD for 2006, and a request for additional data. Also in the planning stages are five bullet-points providing recommendations for what data would be useful and how it might be collected.
All members of the team appeared visibly relieved by the outcome and plan.
The weekly team meeting began at 9:30AM with the opening question: “Are we telling marketing how to do their job?” The team had been expressly warned not to make direct recommendations for changes within the Marketing Department. Given the warning, the facilitator asked, “As a team seeking “improvement” in the area of meeting customer needs, what are we actually doing?”
Several team members shared divergent opinions: Yes, if we see an area for improvement in marketing ‘territory’, we are going to recommend that change. Another pointed out that having been the focus of previous recommendations, she felt that the team “sometimes came up with good ideas, while some just showed that the team was ignorant of ‘how things worked’ resulting in recommendations which could not be implemented.”
The debate culminated with a review of the team’s charter and a general consensus that the scope of “customer satisfaction” was so broad that yes, the team might have to make recommendations seen by some as intrusive. Team members agreed that the way to prevent defensiveness was to include the experts and get buy-in and input for the recommendations before making them.
The facilitator shifted the team to the second task: reviewing the content of slides that summarized team work and conclusions to date. Written responses had been submitted prior, expressing disagreement with the content of certain slides. The facilitator addressed each area of contention. At one point in the discussion, a team member asked the facilitator “Where did this information come from? Did you just make it up?” Looking shocked, the facilitator explained that the wording was content offered by a fellow team member, captured in the team notes from one week earlier.
Prior to making the decision, the team provided feedback about confusing elements of the slides. Headings were changed for clarification, re-ordering was suggested. Some information one member wanted to add was identified as existing in a location which seemed illogical to him. Positive feedback was offered for the format of the slides in contrast to previous attempts.
The facilitator sat at the head of the Red Conference Room table, hands alternately typing captures into a PowerPoint slide and making notes on a lined 8.5 x 11 notebook. Members of the team self-facilitated well, often inquiring of the quieter members, re-stating for understanding and making open efforts to respect team opinions and allow team mates to finish their sentences.
With only eight minutes remaining, dissatisfaction with the slide content prompted conversation about the usefulness of team debate, ideas-sharing and the prospect of quarter end and no foreseeable outcome. After one lengthy monologue on why the team process was a waste of time, especially with only three work-weeks remaining, the facilitator sharply stopped a team member to ask, “Wait one minute – what would that look like if it was not a waste of time? What would the ideal outcome be?” The response was that instead of trying to delve into or gather data which currently did not exist in the organization, perhaps the team should simply provide the data found and indicate a need for additional data – reiterating a suggestion made by the facilitator several weeks before. The suggestion was then unanimously accepted.
