“Working with Eric was a pleasure. We developed a good rapport and established a level of honesty and trust. I valued his counsel and recommendations. I find Eric to be very competent in a variety of disciplines. He is able to correctly diagnose organizational problems and suggest solutions that are on point. I found Eric to be a professional with the highest levels of honesty, integrity, and ethical behavior. I would not hesitate to engage his services again in the future.”
Kathy Lueckert,
former Corporate Services Director,
Department of Planning and Development,
City of Seattle
(Kathy is now Director of Planning and Finance for Advocacy and Communications at World Vision.)
“I've worked closely with Eric on developing and presenting the Leadership Eastside community leadership program. He has that rare blend of extensive real-world experience along with a very strong background in theory and research. He moves easily between big picture strategy and the tactical details. Eric brings a superb ability to plan, execute and follow-through, both as a behind-the-scenes planner and as an upfront instructor and facilitator.”
Annalee Luhman,
founding board member,
Leadership Eastside
Conflict and change: The blog
27 January 2010
Get into the weeds!
Yesterday, I was working with a group that was breaking into factions. Each faction was pushing a different idea of how to solve a problem. As you can imagine, they were quickly coming to loggerheads--a stalemate.
Just before a break, I suggested to them that we weren't going to get farther talking at the level we were on. We either had to get more global and remind ourselves of the larger purpose, goals and values we were seeking to address, or get into the weeds about (1) where these ideas came from (the thought process) and (2) how they would work when implemented.
We decided to get into the weeds. This was important because one of the things I saw was that people had very different understandings of each of the ideas. The folks who were pushing an idea had a more specific, fine-grained idea of what they were talking about. However, the other folks did not have that granular view. They didn't understand the idea well enough to feel comfortable with it.
The advocates for an idea needed to show the other people how they came up with their idea--what they started with, ideas they rejected, how the idea would address the problem. In other words, they needed to make their thinking apparent.
It's common for us to assume that everyone else shares our view of the world and knows what we know. In cognitive psychology, this is called the "false consensus effect." Yesterday, each of the groups was in the grip of false consensus. They each thought their idea was "self-evident."
By getting down into the weeds, we were able to avoid an impasse and move forward.
© 2010 All Rights Reserved