Someone told me recently that after I had a conversation with his colleague, the colleague told him, "I got good information for the first half hour, then he went all ADD on me."
First, I appreciated the candid information. An important mentor of mine, Robert Lefton, was an advocate for candid observations. Candid reporting allows us to respond, adjust, and move forward. In addition Lefton pointed out, since we all have growing edges, if the candor doesn't sting a bit, as the observation delivered to me did, it probably isn't candid enough. The truth can hurt. Candor takes courage to deliver and courage to receive.
Now having gotten this observation, here's what's next for me. Having "gone all ADD on me" tells me the person was less than satisfied with my communication, but it doesn't give me much else to go on. First, I searched, "Is ADD a thing?" The answer was no. The individual was likely referencing a clinical diagnosis for ADHD, which is a thing for many people, but not for me. I have plenty of diagnoses, just not that one. Second, I got a second-hand report. The reporter is a reliable source, but perhaps there was more information or more nuance from the source. My next response is to go to the source.
What I want to find out: Did I offend the person? Did they feel I disrespected them by being inattentive? What did they remember was helpful about the first part of our conversation? What changed when they perceived I went "all ADD.” Did I appear to have lost interest in them? Did I start to engage in a way that wasn't interesting to them? Was I expressing myself in a way that was confusing or hard for them to follow? Did they try to get me back to the way I engaged at first? Did I fail to respond to their attempts to change the direction I had taken the conversation? If they hadn't tried to stop and redirect me back to the communication they had found effective, why not?
Another important lesson from Dr. Lefton, you have to ask. And I may be putting myself in the path of more stinging observations. Learning takes courage.
Here's what I think happened. This individual has a preference for the Essential side of the Observer scale. The Essential side allows us to put our attention on the fitness of something for its intended use. If it's a text, is it easy to read; if it's a machine, are the controls intuitive and easy to manipulate; if it's a cup, does it have a convenient size, volume, insulating capacity, comfortable handle, drip-resistant rim?
The first half of our conversation was descriptions of components and what functions they performed. I was speaking to the Essential side of the continuum. The second half I told stories to put the functions into context. They were anecdotes representing applications of the functions for individuals and specific circumstances. In short, in the second part of the conversation I engaged the Symbolic side of the Observer. That is, what story does something tell? Was it a gift, a souvenir, a family heirloom.
I have more energy for the Symbolic side of the continuum: my client for the Essential side. I should have given them more context for what I was doing. Further, the client was a selective Listener. The harder information for them to take in, came in the second half of the hour when their attention for listening may have started to fade in any case. The part I was highly enthusiastic about was taxing to their attention. I should have checked in more frequently with questions clarifying their interest and checking for understanding.
At least 40 percent of the time, we're going to find ourselves engaging people on the opposite side of our cognitive preferences. I was engaging good practice by presenting to both sides of the preferences, but I slipped in not taking care to have been explicit about the shift, to have slowed myself down, and to have checked for understanding.
These experiences create what we call 'teachable moments." I've outlined my learning so far. When I next engage the client, I'll make explicit the shift that happened, confess my shortcomings, and encourage them in how to lean in next time someone goes "all ADD on them."
Warm regards,
Francis Sopper
REFERENCED IN THIS LETTER:
Robert Lefton: https://www.stlmag.com/news/the-ceos-confidant/