A failure mode in any helping profession with a principal-agent asymmetry (lawyers etc) is being so script-locked you can’t hear. Good ones rise above, viewing the (procedurally necessary) script as an eventual compile target rather than a way to confine a free-form conversation.
-
Show this thread
-
Where this asymmetry is lacking because there is no significant *procedurally defined* expertise on the helping side (consulting, many types of therapy), the lack of scripted leverage and steering authority can be anxiety provoking. So people make up bullshit processes.
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
I’m convinced half of all business consulting “process” models are just ways to avoid the real stress of live play sparring conversations. Any actual content in say “lean startup” can be made prerequisite pre-reads so the actual conversation can stay unscripted.
1 reply 1 retweet 21 likesShow this thread -
A lot of things that aren’t really education get cast in educational molds simply to provide conversational control. The OP is an obvious example. It’s indoctrination pretending to be education. A lot of business “courses” fall into the same trap *cough* lean six sigma *cough*
1 reply 1 retweet 21 likesShow this thread -
If you do solve the problem in the immediate conversation, you still have to solve it one degree removed. In consulting, you are forced to operate on the evidence of one side of the story: your client’s. And immature ones will often report stylized scripts+diffs.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
The “data” of the consult will be one-sided highly unreliable hearsay reports of conversations *they*had. Unconsciously these reports will have a) caricaturing of counterparty b) consistency editing removing the revealing glitches c) embellishments to make themselves look good
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
It’s not a court so you can’t get testimony from other side. They’re unconsciously looking for validation but if you cave and supply it, you’re useless and they’ll eventually realize it and end the gig You can’t cross-examine like they’re a hostile witness: you’re on their side
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
The way this works is: when somebody reports a scripted-sounding conversation ask diagnostic questions they’d only know answers to if they were listening in free-play mode” Eg: Client: “I called him out on project delays but he just made excuses” Me: “what’s on his plate?”
1 reply 1 retweet 18 likesShow this thread -
If they can’t answer, you simply set conversation-data aside as insufficient/incomplete and say “maybe we can table this item until you’ve had a chance to talk with them again and figure X out” It’s an informal version of disallowing inadmissible evidence. Or down-weighting it.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
For a sufficiently mature person, a word to the wise is sufficient. They instantly get why hearsay of anything other than properly witnessed free-play conversations is basically noise as consulting input. Or that at best it reveals stuff about projection tendencies.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread
Once you get it it seems like a superpower. “Oh wow you can actually use conversations to discover new info if you allow other side to own their side of the conversation. It doesn’t have to be a Sisyphean struggle of hostile universe repeatedly knocking your story off-script.”
-
-
People who resist the allure of this discovery potential are attached to the world being the way their scripts validate. They literally want to hear nothing except confirmation. When I sense this (if it gets this far) I tell them they need a therapist not a consultant.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
Though usually I can tell from the initial email or exploratory call.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.