Hi everyone!

I had a meeting recently that went, sideways? Not like a blow up or anything. Nothing major or remarkable. But odd.

The meeting

There were genuinely excellent folk in the room. Diverse group too. We had analysis, design, tech, delivery, and more – some seriously smart and experienced people. The very people you want on your team if you're tackling something gnarly.

But, I don't know if it was the recent dial-up of the work stress, the weather, or just the fact that we had reacted to the identification of a missing discussion and shoved an hour long workshop in between the rest of the other meetings on a Monday morning, but it wasn't the best meeting I've been to.

Not by a long shot.

Because two of these excellent peeps kept talking past each other.

They were not disagreeing. Hilariously, from the sidelines, they were both just diligently digging into the nuance. But over the meeting it grew that tone. You know the one … slightly exasperated. Slightly frustrated. Slightly “yeah if you had read the pre-reading properly you wouldn’t be asking this question.” I cringe a bit thinking about it.

So what should have been a collaborative exercise devolved into weird defensive back and forth between two voices with various interjections from the gallery attempting to refocus and align. Somewhat needless to say, we didn’t get to a clean solution.

After the meeting I immediately called another participant to ask “okay, so, they were basically saying the same thing, no?”

Yip. My colleague confirmed: they were saying the same thing. But using different framing. Different language. Different perspective.

It actually wasn't about ego – both individuals involved are far more interested in outcomes than outputs (which is why I rate them both). But the tools they'd each used to unpack the problem from their perspective had got in the way of them seeing the other's view.

Tools can be useful right up until they’re not.

To be good at your job you need tools. Mental models, frameworks, techniques, and patterns. These tools are why you’re valuable. They’re how you make sense of complexity quickly.

All tools have limits. And the biggest one is that it usually models the situation from a specific perspective. Very very useful! Helps you unpack the details. And yet it is far too easy to assume everyone else is working from the same foundation you are. That they can see what you see. That the structure you've built in your head is the structure.

But they're not necessarily working with the same foundations as you. They can’t necessarily see what you see. They're probably working from their own foundation, with their own tools, seeing their own version of it all.

This is problematic. Especially when you're doing something gnarly and nuanced – the kind of thing that requires multiple perspectives to weigh in with relevant detail before you can muddle your way to a solution.

But when those different versions don't line up? When someone questions something obvious? That's when the defensiveness creeps in. You have done the work, you have thought it through, and now someone is apparently ignoring all of that! What a jerk!

Except they're not ignoring it. They literally can't see it the way you do. Because they're using different tools to make sense of the same gnarly problem.

And that's your signal. If you're getting defensive about your model or framework, that's a sign it's not translating well.

Heck, I’m going to put that in a heading so it’s clear that this is the point of this brief:

If you're getting defensive about your model or framework, that's a sign it's not translating well.

Amusingly, this is not an area in which I’m enlightened at all. Actually, I suck at this.

That slight irritation when someone "doesn't get it" is super common for me. Doubling down and explaining how my model is “right” is my natural default position.

Except that way only leads to frustration. I’ve learnt that the hard way.

Every time I've switched from defending my position to adopt curiosity about the questions, or dropped the “proper” language in favour of common usage in this context – things move forward. When I've dug in ... yeah, not so much.

It's taken me longer than I'd like to admit to learn this. And I still catch myself mid-explanation sometimes, already three sentences deep into why my analysis is obviously better than the alternative, before I realise I'm doing the thing again.

I'm still working on catching that moment. But at least now I know what I'm looking for.

As always, I would love to hear your thoughts on this (or anything else), so do reply to this email, DM me on LinkedIn, or send me a letter via pigeon. 

I cannot tell you how much I like hearing from y'all!

And until next time, stay excellent! 💖
Hannah