The safe role of being by-stander

Coaching sessions with Nawal are really pleasant. Most of the time we are on closed mind. The session started like the others: she summed up her story, I told her what were the mains points according to me and I asked her a range of questions to lead her reflection. What I prefer when she tells me her story is she usually adds details consciously or unconsciously. Ton of her voice gives me clue on her feelings about the situation. It’s another way to listen to people. 

Nawal had found a way to experiment the two models: the 4 players of Kantor* and the advocacy/inquiry model. She had shown a strong emotional intelligence* (EI) to face the last part of her group meeting. In a sense, the goal of using EI is similar when using advocacy/inquiry model. 

We also talk about which kind of leader she could be. I understood she had a lack of spontaneity in expressing her idea. She really needs to feel save, to feel her ideas are good one and she is not going to lost the face. The extreme safety is one reason why she loves the role of by-stander. 

After the main part of the session, we exchanged stories, opinion about followers we’ve already met. We were both not sure on the usefulness of being a follower. The end of the conversation looked like more a discussion between friends than an analyze between coach and coachee. It maybe a way to get to know her more and be able to lead her reflection better. 

*Four Players Model from David Kantor, 1995

*Emotional Intelligence made popular by David Coleman

Get to know the follower

I just finished my call with Astrid. Unfortunately the communication wasn’t so good. Due to bad internet connection, we had to cut the conversation earlier. But it gave us the opportunity to go straight to the point. I definitely have a negative image of the follower. She tried to show me how he can be useful when supporting a good idea. I agreed with her as soon as the idea is a good one. But supporting when it’s a bad one is no sense. It doesn’t help the group dynamic. Moreover, I think it’s kind of hypocritical to support one’s idea if you don’t trust in it.

Nevertheless, we agreed with one point. The four roles are essential to balance the team. We just need to find the true usefulness of each member. This is the hardest part. She asked me an interesting question: What should I do if one member is too involved in his role and if he doesn’t improve in other one? The answer is not obvious. It might be easier if he bring bad waves in the team. If I show him the bad effect he has on the team, he could think of changing his mind.

I think the only way for me to see the role of the follower under a better angle, would be to meet someone who deeply trust on the efficiency of this role. Astrid and I had a similar point of view. It didn’t help me to see things differently.

Four roles for a better team dynamic

In team work members usually take an unconscious role: the mover, the opposer, the follower or the bystander*. The mover is the one who launch a new idea in order to move forward the team work. The opposer is the one who launch another idea, opposite to the mover’s one. The follower is the one who agree with the mover. Finally, the by-stander is the one who reject both idea using appropriate arguments.

By nature, I prefer observe people before take the word. It might help me to analyze other’s proposition better. So, I can easily see if ideas offered are relevant or not. Sometimes I can take the role of the mover. I choose it only when the group dynamic is bad. I mean, when nobody really wants to start to take the word. But because I don’t like such kind of situation, I take the word. It’s not I’m feeling uncomfortable but I believe other team member see me as the leader and give me all the responsibilities. When it’s time to take decision, most of the times we ask the leader to choose the final word. Also when something doesn’t work we ask the leader to fix it, even if all team members have the same level of skills or responsibility in theory.

I can also use the role of the opposer and the follower. Nevertheless I could improve those two points. I see the follower as someone who is avoiding conflict. Too often, we met people who follow because they don’t know how to express their opinion or who don’t really have one on the subject. I deeply think this is useless. I might improve my skills as follower if I could find usefulness as being follower. Be the opposer is easier. I like see the side people usually avoid. I like play the devil’s advocate. It’s brings the team view from another angle, to see other solutions or other issues. The point is I tend to not do it as much as I could. I guess it is because of the social pressure. People acting as opposer are often seen as negative people, who slow down the team dynamic. I knew someone like this. At the end of the team work, nobody could work with him anymore. He was just the annoying boy always criticizing our idea but without bringing new one.

During my last team meeting I tried to apply one of my two weakest points: following. It was pretty hard, especially when I didn’t absolutely agree with one’s idea. I always wanted to follow it but adding my suggestions, by-stand or oppose. It was kind of frustrating. It’s also forced me to speak before heard everybody’s ideas. I felt I had not enough information to extract the right idea. I think the only way for me to improve this skill is to associate a positive role to the follower. As I mentioned above, a follower doesn’t seems to have his own opinion. If I find a useful role to the follower it might change my perception of it and it could be more natural to use it. 

*Four Players Model from David Kantor, 1995