March 12, 2010Coaching alchemy proves the shortest distance isn’t always a straight line.
She fired the coach who led her in a straight line. She hired the one who meandered with her. The shortest distance between two points isn’t always a straight line.
Communication alchemy can take you interesting places. My colleague discovered this when she worked with a business coach who uses a partnership approach. Other coaches forced their agendas and insisted she fit into their processes. This one let the agenda unfold and adapted the processes to her interests and enthusiasm. Instead of going down a straight road to a predetermined destination, they meandered where each moment took them and ended up in places that surprised and delighted them both.
The shortest distance between two points isn’t always a straight line.
The shortest distance between two points isn’t always the best route.
Sometimes it is great to get where we’re going directly. Sometimes we need to meander.
Email This Post
Related posts which may interest you
- Success Story: energy at work by noting interests
- Reader success story: I’m doing my job by asking you to do yours.
- Talking to Teens
- This Week in the World ~ Top of the World
- Got a radio gig from twitter. http://acloserlookradio.com/ So that’s what my social media coach @phylliskhare was talking about.
11 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
I couldn’t agree more… one of my favorite lines is from the song “All Star” by Smashmouth, “So what’s wrong with taking the back roads, you’ll never know if you don’t go.” As far as I’m concerned, life is a journey, not a trip, with the implication that it’s about exploration and learning experiences, not traveling as quickly as you can to get to your destination, which is, after all, ultimately (physical) death.
Comment by Grace — April 1, 2010 @ 8:40 am
Grace, I LOVE your comments! Thanks so much! Please keep posting!
Now, it’s great to enjoy the journey, and how about if we enjoy the journey and have a great destination too?
Comment by merylrunion — April 1, 2010 @ 11:47 am
One life lesson I learned in the military is that other minorities (specifically blacks and Hispanics) are not as linear in their thought process as Asians, and that this can actually work to our advantage. If we listen, we can pick up information and insights that would otherwise be overlooked. This is how diversity and cultural competency can become more than just buzzwords.
Comment by Charles — April 3, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
Yes, yes, yes! We have been biased in favor of linear thinking and communication, not recognizing what we miss by only operating that way! As a result, many women, minorities and other indigenous cultures (and men who are inherently global in their thinking) have felt a need to prove they (we) can be as linear as anyone. It’s good to have a perfect marriage of both. Not to negate one or the other.
I’m a constellar thinker – and it has been useful for me to learn how to be more linear. But it has also been amazing for me to understand how great a gift my own MO can be. When I use linear thinking to support my natural style, magic happens.
By the way – it’s great to hear from you again!
Comment by merylrunion — April 4, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
Sometimes you can’t fire your coach…because you ARE the coach.
I’m an intuitive problem solver working in the world of corporate business systems. “Leapers” like myself are as successful as the methodical “Linears” who make up the majority of business programmers. Both types become valued experts for the complex business systems they are responsible for.
However, I’ve discovered that a potentially eruptive mix is a Leaper working with a Linear to solve a problem. A Leaper will often quickly and intuitively leap to the source of a problem. A Linear will just as often dismiss such a leap because it came too quickly. The Leaper loses patience with the Linear. The Linear loses patience with the Leaper. Voices can be raised. Careers can be stalled. Coworkers can be turned into decade-long enemies.
I have discovered that the onus is always on the Leaper to show maximum patience and maturity to settle things down.
Here’s a typical toxic encounter. Because you–a Leaper—are reasonably successful at troubleshooting a business system you know completely inside out, a programmer arrives under heavy time pressure to find and fix a problem.
You know the system so well that it has become a part of you. After hearing the symptoms you just ‘know’ where the problem is. You say something like, “It’s the ABC logic in the XYZ module. I bet there’s an illegal character in the AP data.”
Sometimes the programmer reacts with the disdain of a homicide detective forced to work with a pet psychic. Classic Linear reaction to a wild leap.
Here’s what doesn’t work. “Check it out. You’ll see I’m right.”
Linear won’t. Linear will say, “This is a serious and you’re wasting my time by blindly going with the first thing that pops into your head.” The pet psychic will never convince Sam Spade that the cat helped the killer stash the knife under the dog dish.
Here’s what does work. Develop the skill to patiently explain how to get to your answer by a step-by-step path. It doesn’t have to be THE path you used. (Path? Heck! You teleported there, right?) It just has to work. You start with, “Ok, here is what happens first and then…(an hour later)…the ABC logic of the XYZ module expects only numbers in the AP data.”
If you’ve done it right, the Linear will exclaim, “I bet there’s an illegal character in the AP data!” Just what you said an hour ago.
Now, gentle Leaper, maturity steps in. Maturity reminds you that the point of this encounter is NOT to gain respect for your intuitive way of thinking. The point is to enable this person to solve their system problem in a way they understand.
So, the best response is to smile and say, “Wow! I bet you’re right!”
And just let ‘em go happily on their way. Believe me, they’ll be back if you’re wrong and you get to practice communicating effectively this way all over again.
Comment by David — April 8, 2010 @ 12:30 am
David, this is brilliant. You explain it so well! You’re doing what you describe in your comment.
It’s essential we be bilingual – able to speak linear and leaper. Here’s what strikes me most in your comment.
1. Once leapers reach a conclusion, they (we) need to be able to put it into logical steps. That’s a whole different skill than knowing in the first place.
2. The onus is on us to translate into other styles. For me, as a leaper, a simple linear acknowledgment that I have made a leap can help enormously because the linear will know to stop trying to look for the B that follows the A and will realize we’ve gone to a D. It isn’t always enough, but it helps a lot.
3. It takes enormous maturity to take the responsibility to bridge the communication and walk through the steps.
There are a lot of leapers – constellar thinkers – who haven’t learned how to do that, and either think there’s something wrong with them as they try to fit themselves into a linear box, or something wrong with the rest of the world that won’t leap into their vision. SpeakStrong has been a way for me to translate my constellar world into language more linear thinkers understand. For example, I always revisit and edit my writing to fill in gaps – and there always are many. I am grateful to the linears in my life who have helped me figure this all out.
As I become more able to draw a straight line to places I leaped, I find that what had once seemed to be a major flaw is actually a great gift. David, it looks like you’ve successfully integrated the two approaches. And your post will help others to do that. So many thanks to you!
Comment by merylrunion — April 8, 2010 @ 6:56 am
Although I have learned how to leap in situations like David describes, where my intimate knowledge of a system allows it, I tend to think of myself as a linear thinker. Speaking from that perspective, when I work with a leaper who has shown to me that their knowledge of the process is intimate enough to rely on, I often find myself enjoying it a great deal.
Now, is always helps if the leaper can “backtrack” the logic for me, so that I can better understand the process. Sometimes, the leapers I work with, however, come to me because they followed the logic of the leap, and the problem was not solved, and there aren’t any logical leaps left from their perspective. In situations like this, I will usually find the error when they describe the path they followed in more detail.
Comment by Ken Rhodes — April 9, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
I was talking with a friend yesterday about how Malcolm Gladwell promotes intuitive knowledge in his book Blink and others, and people interpret what he writes as suggesting intuition should override expertise and that there is not good place for linear logic. And we agreed that was not his intent. In fact, expertise and experience can open pathways to solutions so we become more capable of figuring things out intuitively because we have been down that and other roads linearly. Ken, you seem to have found a nice balance of honoring other styles and honoring your own as well.
As a leaper, I have had to learn how to backtrack, and there are times where I can’t because I’m wrong. When I’m right, filling in the gaps deepens my understanding. It’s nice to know what to say to an angry boss, and it’s even nicer to know what and why.
Another point I want to throw into this discussion is, while our articulate leaper David illustrates how leaping can work with a concrete issue that has one right answer, we don’t want to assume there is only one answer for all questions. I imply that with my catch-phrase “the shortest distance between two points isn’t always a straight line.” I identified two points. But in face, there might be 50 points we could reach that would be well worth visiting and worthy end results. I am reworking my website, and there is no right way to structure my home page. I know my need to explore options and start over and over and over fried at least two linear thinkers who were working with me, but there wasn’t one right answer. Now I’m at a point where we’re narrowing options and calling on the linear aspect more. But in reaching that point, we weren’t just figuring out how to get there, we were figuring out what “there” meant.
Comment by merylrunion — April 9, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
I love the idea of no “one right answer,” Meryl.
For me, the process owner, the one operating the process, is king. Their methods have gotten them this far, who am I to challenge that when I don’t even know the process? But at the same time, their methods didn’t bring them to the final solution, or else they wouldn’t have called me. So balance is the key.
But there are times when explaining the full linear path just takes so much time that it isn’t worth it unless there is absolutely no other option. Explaing a process path is one thing, but if each sub-process needs detailed explanation as well because of a lack of familiarity, that is often counter-productive.
Speaking as a linear again, I love it when a leaper can tell me, “This is the problem, and I’m sure the cause is here, but I just don’t know how to fix it properly.” That makes my task of fixing it that much quicker, then I get the kudos for knowing how to fix it so quickly.
I agree with David – we linears need to learn to appreciate the leapers more for the value they add. But I also agree with the main point of the post, that if the journey needs to go off in a different direction, in order find a new perspective, let’s take that road trip and learn as much as we can.
Comment by Ken Rhodes — April 9, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
I appreciate all the thoughtful comments after my original post.
I agree that Leapers don’t always arrive at the right answer. It fine for a Leaper to say they suspect they know what the problem is, but need help drawing a way to get there.
As for how much step-by-step a Leaper needs to come up with after a leap; usually medium detail is good.
That said, at least in technical circles, there is the rare Linear who accepts only excruciating exactitude. Coming up with such intricate but accurate explanations can be highly stressful for a Leaper—and, actually, highly challenging for most Linears too. At least in my trade, this type is that one in a hundred folks who answers the question, “Do you know what time it is?” with a simple “Yes” and leaves it at that.
I usually tailor my ‘post-Leap’ explanation based largely on the Linear’s own expertise. In reality I start with something like,” First, there are the data pre-checks. I doubt the problem is there, but I’m happy to explain the pre-check logic.” Sometimes they want it. Sometimes they don’t. Sometimes we can link elbows and skip briskly along the path. Sometimes, we need to put one foot carefully in front of the other and test its firmness before proceeding.
I also agree with Meryl. Outside of machines, there is and should be room for more than one answer. Brainstorming, innovating, and blue sky inventing require lots of leaps and then lots of ‘reality checking’ before any new way of working, or thinking, or doing, or seeing comes to fruition.
Someone leaped to radio, cash machines, touch screens, lattes, the Clapper, Chia pets and all the other things we now can’t live without. Someone else–most likely–figured out how make each work.
So, for me the world is far richer and more exciting when Leapers and Linears appreciate the other’s gifts and willingly use them together to make everything better.
Comment by David — April 12, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
Keep in mind that any given problem may have more than one factor creating it. The leaper goes to the bad character here, but the linear thinker follows a thread and finds two other wrong characters in two other places.
This is certainly true in communications. I have a hearing loss, but I have found that the biggest misunderstandings occur when we both heard the words perfectly, but assigned different meanings to them. One classic cartoon has a laboratory setting, where an assistant was told to go get a funnel. Sitting on the counter is a ship’s funnel.
One solution is to keep talking and make sure that you are both thinking along the same lines. And certainly start the communication with both of you on the same page. Talking about groceries when the other person is busy reading a book on nuclear power is almost guaranteed to lead to some momentary confusion! (And a few good laughs!)
Comment by SLCCOM — April 14, 2010 @ 2:44 pm