Jedi mind tricks advice for difficult work relationships
Discussion
I'm looking for better methods of debating / negotiating with a senior manager in another department. Or some psychology advice that can help me decide whether it is worth the effort.
I'm going to keep roles and organisation details vague, but I'm sure the dynamic is true across many work places.
My role is an operations manager in Department Luke, we work across the organisation providing services to other departments. Our work has close ties to Department Vadar who also provide services to other departments, including ours. Vadar is a much larger department in terms of staff and has a higher graded management team (I'm not sure if that's relevant).
I previously worked in the Vadar department, didn't like the culture, direction and didn't really get on with the most senior manager.
I'll keep the focus to my title question. I'm regularly in meetings that include this senior manager for Vadar that go like this.
me to the room: We've established peace on these 4 planets, in the past the organsiation have looked at establishing peace in the galaxy and its been a non-starter. We can make a huge impact on galaxy peace by concentrating on Earth and Mars.
vadar sm: Its going to cost too much and be too hard for us to supply what you require to establish peace in the galaxy. You need to lower your expectations.
me: I did clarify that we are not looking at the galaxy. The focus is on just Earth and Mars requiring a fraction of the budget and effort.
vadar sm: I know, that's what I'm saying. The effort and cost is too great to establish peace in the galaxy. Let's take this offline...
meeting chair or vadar sm: Lets pick that up later and move on.
Does anyone have any tips for dealing with people that behave like this? It's their ability to shut down a conversation by appearing to agree but avoiding the point and reiterating their original argument that doesn't apply.
I'm going to keep roles and organisation details vague, but I'm sure the dynamic is true across many work places.
My role is an operations manager in Department Luke, we work across the organisation providing services to other departments. Our work has close ties to Department Vadar who also provide services to other departments, including ours. Vadar is a much larger department in terms of staff and has a higher graded management team (I'm not sure if that's relevant).
I previously worked in the Vadar department, didn't like the culture, direction and didn't really get on with the most senior manager.
I'll keep the focus to my title question. I'm regularly in meetings that include this senior manager for Vadar that go like this.
me to the room: We've established peace on these 4 planets, in the past the organsiation have looked at establishing peace in the galaxy and its been a non-starter. We can make a huge impact on galaxy peace by concentrating on Earth and Mars.
vadar sm: Its going to cost too much and be too hard for us to supply what you require to establish peace in the galaxy. You need to lower your expectations.
me: I did clarify that we are not looking at the galaxy. The focus is on just Earth and Mars requiring a fraction of the budget and effort.
vadar sm: I know, that's what I'm saying. The effort and cost is too great to establish peace in the galaxy. Let's take this offline...
meeting chair or vadar sm: Lets pick that up later and move on.
Does anyone have any tips for dealing with people that behave like this? It's their ability to shut down a conversation by appearing to agree but avoiding the point and reiterating their original argument that doesn't apply.
If we strip out the star wars references you seem to need some action from another department that will use that departments manpower and budget to achieve. In your view this will then help the company overall but not specifically offer anything useful to the department spending the manpower and budget.
Has this all been costed out with a proven business case or is it just a suggestion you make in meetings that the other manager can easily fend off?
Has this all been costed out with a proven business case or is it just a suggestion you make in meetings that the other manager can easily fend off?
Data and clearly presented facts will help you. Keep emotion out of it.
"We want to achieve A, which will cost X and will save the business XX. Recognising that this is a large initial outlay, we can focus on B. This will cost Y, be a shorter time frame than A but will save YY"
Why would they wish to prevent progress.....
I had a similar issue a few years ago with recruiting into a team. It was a blanket "no" to recruiting due to costs. The way we operate is through time recording and invoicing to claim staff costs incurred. I pointed out that there wasn't enough staff to cover all projects, thus without recruiting we would be unable to claim over £200k over a two year period and would need to inform our clients for that project that we are unable to deliver (not good for reputation). Are you sure we can't afford to recruit a £35k per year member of staff....... The end result was I got a further 3x members of staff to sort out that project and to increase our capacity for incoming work.
"We want to achieve A, which will cost X and will save the business XX. Recognising that this is a large initial outlay, we can focus on B. This will cost Y, be a shorter time frame than A but will save YY"
Why would they wish to prevent progress.....
I had a similar issue a few years ago with recruiting into a team. It was a blanket "no" to recruiting due to costs. The way we operate is through time recording and invoicing to claim staff costs incurred. I pointed out that there wasn't enough staff to cover all projects, thus without recruiting we would be unable to claim over £200k over a two year period and would need to inform our clients for that project that we are unable to deliver (not good for reputation). Are you sure we can't afford to recruit a £35k per year member of staff....... The end result was I got a further 3x members of staff to sort out that project and to increase our capacity for incoming work.
Massive assumptions but it sounds like you are a big picture sort of person (see Myers Briggs iNtuitive) and Vader guy may be more of an bottom up / practicality person (see Myers Briggs Sensing).
Given that.....maybe this will help. You need to put aside the big picture and focus only on the practical steps - even if you know what the bigger picture is you are trying to get to.
https://www.truity.com/blog/intuitives-guide-getti...
Given that.....maybe this will help. You need to put aside the big picture and focus only on the practical steps - even if you know what the bigger picture is you are trying to get to.
https://www.truity.com/blog/intuitives-guide-getti...
Thanks for the reply, my post was a bit waffley wasn't it.
That's the general relationship, we require actions from the other department. The example is not really my problem, it's more working out ways to deal with the interaction. Perhaps your suggestion will be present a facts and figures that no-one can argue with.
However, the underlying conflict or difficulties with this person exist across all discussion. Another example could be:
me: Here's our quarterly review, the facts show all agreed corporates goals have been met
other department: You've done this without us and we feel we should be involved
me: There are no actions required from your department for these goals and you have been present in all the board meetings
other department: That's what I'm saying. We need to be involved in all these discussion because we are doing a good job delivering actions for the organisation.
That's the general relationship, we require actions from the other department. The example is not really my problem, it's more working out ways to deal with the interaction. Perhaps your suggestion will be present a facts and figures that no-one can argue with.
However, the underlying conflict or difficulties with this person exist across all discussion. Another example could be:
me: Here's our quarterly review, the facts show all agreed corporates goals have been met
other department: You've done this without us and we feel we should be involved
me: There are no actions required from your department for these goals and you have been present in all the board meetings
other department: That's what I'm saying. We need to be involved in all these discussion because we are doing a good job delivering actions for the organisation.
I'm going to come across as a Myers Briggs obsessive (which I'm really not, but I think it is sometimes a useful way of thinking about things) but that sounds a bit like Thinking vs Feeling (the third MB dimension). You are giving a logical answer. They want an emotional approach.
It's like when my wife gets frustrated and upset about something and I try to suggest / explain how she might go about solving it. And she says 'I don't want a way to solve it logically, I just want someone to hug me and tell me that everything will be OK'. Ooops.
It's like when my wife gets frustrated and upset about something and I try to suggest / explain how she might go about solving it. And she says 'I don't want a way to solve it logically, I just want someone to hug me and tell me that everything will be OK'. Ooops.
CharlesElliott said:
Massive assumptions but it sounds like you are a big picture sort of person (see Myers Briggs iNtuitive) and Vader guy may be more of an bottom up / practicality person (see Myers Briggs Sensing).
Given that.....maybe this will help. You need to put aside the big picture and focus only on the practical steps - even if you know what the bigger picture is you are trying to get to.
https://www.truity.com/blog/intuitives-guide-getti...
Thank you I'll take a look. I think I agree, I am naturally a big picture sort of person. Given that.....maybe this will help. You need to put aside the big picture and focus only on the practical steps - even if you know what the bigger picture is you are trying to get to.
https://www.truity.com/blog/intuitives-guide-getti...
There's a couple of things resonate with me from what you've said.
Vadar SM sounds like a number of people I've worked with in the past - they say they want to be involved with everything, then when you rock up and ask them to get involved their department is too busy or it will cost too much or why didn't you tell us about this sooner/it's not in my departments annual business plan (that was produced in isolation without any input from other departments).
If something's gone well they want to be involved so they get some of the credit, and if it's gone badly it must have been because they weren't involved.
I managed this by focusing my interactions on what is in it for them/their department. Be that giving them some of my project budget to cover their costs, prestige from being involved in transformation project that will massively improve the business, doing project X will reduce ad-hoc calls on your department resources going forward, development opportunities for their staff etc.
If they ever said they were too busy I would float the idea of bringing in some external resource to help and I would get some costs together so we can get the best outcome for the organisation. This sort will hate their idea of having other professionals on their patch that they do no directly control.
The other trait that seems present here is the ability to speak in a way which sounds coherent and intelligent but on closer analysis is actually meaningless or nonsensical drivel. The "That's what I'm saying" line of your second post appears to be a classic example of this - they had no actions but they need to be involved. The only way to combat this sort of thing is to call it out - and in this case I'd tie it back to the too busy thing and say something like: "It's great that Vadar have contributed to success in other areas of the business, but our review had no actions for Vadar and as you were aware of through the board meetings I thought that would provide a forum for your to provide input of any strategic issues. Going forward if you want Vadar to be involved then that's fine, but at our last meeting when I raised project X you said Vadar were too busy to provide resource. It seems that a greater level of involvement will potentially become a barrier to other departments completing their workstreams in a timely manner. Are there any plans for an expansion of Vadar resources to service other departments so you can be involved everywhere you think you can add value and provide your expertise to other business-wide projects?"
Sometimes a fairly subtle approach like that will work, other times you've just got to be more direct and say something like "You're too busy - can we get a steer from the meeting whether that means we postpone this until Vadar can help, can the project completely, or look at bringing in some external resource because in my view the benefits of this project will far outweigh the cost even if we bring someone external in".
There is a very small group of people who are unable to agree with anyone, ever. I was in a meeting once when a new Chief Exec called out a notoriously cantankerous head of department and said "Look John, if I said to you it was raining outside you'd tell me I was wrong and then say it's actually precipitation. It's not helpful and we need to work together and move things forward". He paused for laughter and then carried out with the discussion. John was visibly shaken by this, but he certainly moderated his attitude in future meetings.
Vadar SM sounds like a number of people I've worked with in the past - they say they want to be involved with everything, then when you rock up and ask them to get involved their department is too busy or it will cost too much or why didn't you tell us about this sooner/it's not in my departments annual business plan (that was produced in isolation without any input from other departments).
If something's gone well they want to be involved so they get some of the credit, and if it's gone badly it must have been because they weren't involved.
I managed this by focusing my interactions on what is in it for them/their department. Be that giving them some of my project budget to cover their costs, prestige from being involved in transformation project that will massively improve the business, doing project X will reduce ad-hoc calls on your department resources going forward, development opportunities for their staff etc.
If they ever said they were too busy I would float the idea of bringing in some external resource to help and I would get some costs together so we can get the best outcome for the organisation. This sort will hate their idea of having other professionals on their patch that they do no directly control.
The other trait that seems present here is the ability to speak in a way which sounds coherent and intelligent but on closer analysis is actually meaningless or nonsensical drivel. The "That's what I'm saying" line of your second post appears to be a classic example of this - they had no actions but they need to be involved. The only way to combat this sort of thing is to call it out - and in this case I'd tie it back to the too busy thing and say something like: "It's great that Vadar have contributed to success in other areas of the business, but our review had no actions for Vadar and as you were aware of through the board meetings I thought that would provide a forum for your to provide input of any strategic issues. Going forward if you want Vadar to be involved then that's fine, but at our last meeting when I raised project X you said Vadar were too busy to provide resource. It seems that a greater level of involvement will potentially become a barrier to other departments completing their workstreams in a timely manner. Are there any plans for an expansion of Vadar resources to service other departments so you can be involved everywhere you think you can add value and provide your expertise to other business-wide projects?"
Sometimes a fairly subtle approach like that will work, other times you've just got to be more direct and say something like "You're too busy - can we get a steer from the meeting whether that means we postpone this until Vadar can help, can the project completely, or look at bringing in some external resource because in my view the benefits of this project will far outweigh the cost even if we bring someone external in".
There is a very small group of people who are unable to agree with anyone, ever. I was in a meeting once when a new Chief Exec called out a notoriously cantankerous head of department and said "Look John, if I said to you it was raining outside you'd tell me I was wrong and then say it's actually precipitation. It's not helpful and we need to work together and move things forward". He paused for laughter and then carried out with the discussion. John was visibly shaken by this, but he certainly moderated his attitude in future meetings.
quinny100 said:
There's a couple of things resonate with me from what you've said.
Vadar SM sounds like a number of people I've worked with in the past - they say they want to be involved with everything, then when you rock up and ask them to get involved their department is too busy or it will cost too much or why didn't you tell us about this sooner/it's not in my departments annual business plan (that was produced in isolation without any input from other departments).
If something's gone well they want to be involved so they get some of the credit, and if it's gone badly it must have been because they weren't involved.
I managed this by focusing my interactions on what is in it for them/their department. Be that giving them some of my project budget to cover their costs, prestige from being involved in transformation project that will massively improve the business, doing project X will reduce ad-hoc calls on your department resources going forward, development opportunities for their staff etc.
If they ever said they were too busy I would float the idea of bringing in some external resource to help and I would get some costs together so we can get the best outcome for the organisation. This sort will hate their idea of having other professionals on their patch that they do no directly control.
The other trait that seems present here is the ability to speak in a way which sounds coherent and intelligent but on closer analysis is actually meaningless or nonsensical drivel. The "That's what I'm saying" line of your second post appears to be a classic example of this - they had no actions but they need to be involved. The only way to combat this sort of thing is to call it out - and in this case I'd tie it back to the too busy thing and say something like: "It's great that Vadar have contributed to success in other areas of the business, but our review had no actions for Vadar and as you were aware of through the board meetings I thought that would provide a forum for your to provide input of any strategic issues. Going forward if you want Vadar to be involved then that's fine, but at our last meeting when I raised project X you said Vadar were too busy to provide resource. It seems that a greater level of involvement will potentially become a barrier to other departments completing their workstreams in a timely manner. Are there any plans for an expansion of Vadar resources to service other departments so you can be involved everywhere you think you can add value and provide your expertise to other business-wide projects?"
Sometimes a fairly subtle approach like that will work, other times you've just got to be more direct and say something like "You're too busy - can we get a steer from the meeting whether that means we postpone this until Vadar can help, can the project completely, or look at bringing in some external resource because in my view the benefits of this project will far outweigh the cost even if we bring someone external in".
There is a very small group of people who are unable to agree with anyone, ever. I was in a meeting once when a new Chief Exec called out a notoriously cantankerous head of department and said "Look John, if I said to you it was raining outside you'd tell me I was wrong and then say it's actually precipitation. It's not helpful and we need to work together and move things forward". He paused for laughter and then carried out with the discussion. John was visibly shaken by this, but he certainly moderated his attitude in future meetings.
This is exactly what I'm dealing with. It's reassuring to hear that you've had similar challenges and I like your approach to handling it. Thank you!Vadar SM sounds like a number of people I've worked with in the past - they say they want to be involved with everything, then when you rock up and ask them to get involved their department is too busy or it will cost too much or why didn't you tell us about this sooner/it's not in my departments annual business plan (that was produced in isolation without any input from other departments).
If something's gone well they want to be involved so they get some of the credit, and if it's gone badly it must have been because they weren't involved.
I managed this by focusing my interactions on what is in it for them/their department. Be that giving them some of my project budget to cover their costs, prestige from being involved in transformation project that will massively improve the business, doing project X will reduce ad-hoc calls on your department resources going forward, development opportunities for their staff etc.
If they ever said they were too busy I would float the idea of bringing in some external resource to help and I would get some costs together so we can get the best outcome for the organisation. This sort will hate their idea of having other professionals on their patch that they do no directly control.
The other trait that seems present here is the ability to speak in a way which sounds coherent and intelligent but on closer analysis is actually meaningless or nonsensical drivel. The "That's what I'm saying" line of your second post appears to be a classic example of this - they had no actions but they need to be involved. The only way to combat this sort of thing is to call it out - and in this case I'd tie it back to the too busy thing and say something like: "It's great that Vadar have contributed to success in other areas of the business, but our review had no actions for Vadar and as you were aware of through the board meetings I thought that would provide a forum for your to provide input of any strategic issues. Going forward if you want Vadar to be involved then that's fine, but at our last meeting when I raised project X you said Vadar were too busy to provide resource. It seems that a greater level of involvement will potentially become a barrier to other departments completing their workstreams in a timely manner. Are there any plans for an expansion of Vadar resources to service other departments so you can be involved everywhere you think you can add value and provide your expertise to other business-wide projects?"
Sometimes a fairly subtle approach like that will work, other times you've just got to be more direct and say something like "You're too busy - can we get a steer from the meeting whether that means we postpone this until Vadar can help, can the project completely, or look at bringing in some external resource because in my view the benefits of this project will far outweigh the cost even if we bring someone external in".
There is a very small group of people who are unable to agree with anyone, ever. I was in a meeting once when a new Chief Exec called out a notoriously cantankerous head of department and said "Look John, if I said to you it was raining outside you'd tell me I was wrong and then say it's actually precipitation. It's not helpful and we need to work together and move things forward". He paused for laughter and then carried out with the discussion. John was visibly shaken by this, but he certainly moderated his attitude in future meetings.
CharlesElliott said:
I'm going to come across as a Myers Briggs obsessive (which I'm really not, but I think it is sometimes a useful way of thinking about things) but that sounds a bit like Thinking vs Feeling (the third MB dimension). You are giving a logical answer. They want an emotional approach.
It's like when my wife gets frustrated and upset about something and I try to suggest / explain how she might go about solving it. And she says 'I don't want a way to solve it logically, I just want someone to hug me and tell me that everything will be OK'. Ooops.
I've found Myers Briggs very useful. I went in thinking it was a typical management bullsIt's like when my wife gets frustrated and upset about something and I try to suggest / explain how she might go about solving it. And she says 'I don't want a way to solve it logically, I just want someone to hug me and tell me that everything will be OK'. Ooops.
t course. I came out having a much better understanding of who I was and why I hated my management job!I'm introvert (not in the shy way) and very practical/bottom up focussed. My boss was extrovert and strategy focused (with the attention span of a goldfish).
Ultimately MBTI drove me towards contracting and l never looked back. Employed to focus on a task and deliver something with little outside interference.... perfect for me.
It sounds like the sm you’re dealing with has a high desire to be recognised. You can either trample over him (metaphorically) in every meeting which will lead to a fractured relationship between the 2 of you, or try to steer the conversation so that it’s him who suggests what it is that you want to achieve. They/he will only listen to suggestions from people he sees as equals or higher.
I had it with a colleague a number of years ago. He had a qualification that I didn’t have, thus my opinion on everything was wrong. The moment I had the same qualification his attitude towards me changed. People are strange.
I had it with a colleague a number of years ago. He had a qualification that I didn’t have, thus my opinion on everything was wrong. The moment I had the same qualification his attitude towards me changed. People are strange.
CharlesElliott said:
Massive assumptions but it sounds like you are a big picture sort of person (see Myers Briggs iNtuitive) and Vader guy may be more of an bottom up / practicality person (see Myers Briggs Sensing).
Given that.....maybe this will help. You need to put aside the big picture and focus only on the practical steps - even if you know what the bigger picture is you are trying to get to.
https://www.truity.com/blog/intuitives-guide-getti...
Charles, thank you for that link- really helpful Given that.....maybe this will help. You need to put aside the big picture and focus only on the practical steps - even if you know what the bigger picture is you are trying to get to.
https://www.truity.com/blog/intuitives-guide-getti...
It's so depressing that these type of people do well in corporate environments. A word of caution. Many posters are recommending a movie script "public slapping". Your unexpected attack / counterstrike in the meeting taking them off guard and make them look silly and they change their ways. All very hollywood.
Now the above *may* work.... But its high risk. sm got there by being a silver tongued teflon corporate animal. If you try a public slap down / passive aggressive approach, dont be surprised if you get out manoeuvred and end up looking petulant /silly as you may get frustrated by sm's response, which is BS, but every one else beleives it.
In similar circumstances ive had better results emailing sm directly (so there is record, sm knows this) saying something like "can we sync, getting conflicting feedback re resource and appetites to get involved in projects - want to be on same page in board meetings" - have a call, explain either be involved or not, come to agreement about what youre doing & also say you didnt appreciate the way sm handled in last Board meeting. follow up with email minuting.
Now either sm appreciates your approach and is more collegiate, or if something silly happens in a meeting you've got a something with substance to rely on.
So Now if Sm does something against agreement / sticks oars in.
"sm, im a bit confused. You know I setup a discussion on this after the board meeting as I was getting conflicting information from vader resourcing, after our discussion I thought we were aligned? Clearly we need to revisit this as we seem to be making the same mistakes again - can you suggest some times for us to chat and we'll update the board next time with agreements on what you're resourcing and not - be awesome to get this nailed down for clarity and efficiency! "
This isn't an overt attack on sm.
But you've taken the lead to identify a problem (first email), initiative to speak and drive consensus (call+minutes), plus held someone more senior to account (bm) in a non confrontational or emotional way, whilst suggesting ways to help fix the problem.
Sm cannot dodge this now and will have to engage and knows there is a light shining on this issue, but cant attack you back as you clearly have the paper trail moral highground in terms of trying to fox the issue, politics aside.
Attacking anyone directly in meetings rarely works and is last resort gangster stuff. Speak 1:1, solve the problem and explain how it makes you feel. Minute it and drive change from that platform. Much safer and more realistically going to help solve the problem and make you look like an exec.
IMO
Now the above *may* work.... But its high risk. sm got there by being a silver tongued teflon corporate animal. If you try a public slap down / passive aggressive approach, dont be surprised if you get out manoeuvred and end up looking petulant /silly as you may get frustrated by sm's response, which is BS, but every one else beleives it.
In similar circumstances ive had better results emailing sm directly (so there is record, sm knows this) saying something like "can we sync, getting conflicting feedback re resource and appetites to get involved in projects - want to be on same page in board meetings" - have a call, explain either be involved or not, come to agreement about what youre doing & also say you didnt appreciate the way sm handled in last Board meeting. follow up with email minuting.
Now either sm appreciates your approach and is more collegiate, or if something silly happens in a meeting you've got a something with substance to rely on.
So Now if Sm does something against agreement / sticks oars in.
"sm, im a bit confused. You know I setup a discussion on this after the board meeting as I was getting conflicting information from vader resourcing, after our discussion I thought we were aligned? Clearly we need to revisit this as we seem to be making the same mistakes again - can you suggest some times for us to chat and we'll update the board next time with agreements on what you're resourcing and not - be awesome to get this nailed down for clarity and efficiency! "
This isn't an overt attack on sm.
But you've taken the lead to identify a problem (first email), initiative to speak and drive consensus (call+minutes), plus held someone more senior to account (bm) in a non confrontational or emotional way, whilst suggesting ways to help fix the problem.
Sm cannot dodge this now and will have to engage and knows there is a light shining on this issue, but cant attack you back as you clearly have the paper trail moral highground in terms of trying to fox the issue, politics aside.
Attacking anyone directly in meetings rarely works and is last resort gangster stuff. Speak 1:1, solve the problem and explain how it makes you feel. Minute it and drive change from that platform. Much safer and more realistically going to help solve the problem and make you look like an exec.
IMO
I similiarly thought tha MB was going to be a load of rubbish when I first came across it 20 years ago at work. In fact, it has turned out to be one of the most useful things I have ever been taught in a work environment.
It's not perfect, and you have to use it sensibly but it is very helpful at allowing you to understand why different people react / think / approach things in different ways given exactly the same information.
Should I present the data or an approximate summary? There is no right answer and it depends who is in the room. You probably need both or some people won't like it!
It's not perfect, and you have to use it sensibly but it is very helpful at allowing you to understand why different people react / think / approach things in different ways given exactly the same information.
Should I present the data or an approximate summary? There is no right answer and it depends who is in the room. You probably need both or some people won't like it!
One last anecdote. I am Introverted in the MB sense (take energy from my thoughts and internal feelings and not so much from being with / around other people). I was on a course about 10 years ago and we were exploring how MB types interact. A guy I knew well who is extroverted (in the MB sense) was asked....'so, you are hosting a party and you notice that Charles is sitting at the side of the room watching everyone and having short chats but isn't in any particular group socialising. What would you do?'
Extrovert - 'well, I would go over and lead Charles into one the groups, make sure everyone knew each other, maybe suggest that he tells an anecdote about something we have done in the past to get him into the conversation. I wouldn't want him to be left on the sidelines, I would really want to help him get involved.'
Moderator - 'and Charles, what would you think about that.'
Me - ' that sounds like my worst nightmare. I would be really happy sitting slightly to the side and watching everything that was going on.'
Extrovert in disbelief - 'Really?? I am stunned. I had never even considered that someone would WANT to be on the side and not the centre of a social group. Is that really true??? Oh my God.'
And that's why it helps to understand these perspectives :-)
Extrovert - 'well, I would go over and lead Charles into one the groups, make sure everyone knew each other, maybe suggest that he tells an anecdote about something we have done in the past to get him into the conversation. I wouldn't want him to be left on the sidelines, I would really want to help him get involved.'
Moderator - 'and Charles, what would you think about that.'
Me - ' that sounds like my worst nightmare. I would be really happy sitting slightly to the side and watching everything that was going on.'
Extrovert in disbelief - 'Really?? I am stunned. I had never even considered that someone would WANT to be on the side and not the centre of a social group. Is that really true??? Oh my God.'
And that's why it helps to understand these perspectives :-)
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff