My Second Coachee Session

In my coaching session with Rachael, this week, I explained the role I played in three different conversations during the past week. The situation in which I played a role I was unaccustomed to playing had just happened about an hour prior to my coaching call with Rachael.

A high-ranking person began the meeting of six people. She was very open about problems that her staff is facing, along with a lack of clarity of policy. We all listened to her. Then, I decided that this was a moment that I could "move" and speak authentically about something. I felt courageous, and explained this to Rachael. After I made my statement in the meeting, the high-ranking person, and another high ranking person "followed" my idea. This also felt good.

I explained to Rachael that the roles I played in the meeting changed. I also, later, engaged in  the "bystander" role and put things into perspective. But, I found it very meaningful  to move out of my comfort zone by "moving" and engaging my voice.

As we talked, I explained to Rachael that Isaacs has a different definition of "bystander" than I was accustomed to.  I said that sometimes I do not engage in one of Isaacs four roles. I am silent and I listen. While this sounds like a "bystander," this is not what Isaacs is talking about. If the silent passive participation occurs in a regular weekly meeting, I may return the next week to the next meeting and offer perspective on what we discussed the week before, by acting as a bystander in Isaacs' definition of the role.

So, I introduced the idea of a delay between engagement in a dialogue.  So, perhaps there can be participation as a listener, followed by more active engagement in a later meeting with the same people. This seems to be a branch or node reaching from the Isaacs "Four Player Model." Rachael and I wondered if Isaacs has addressed this idea.

I told Rachael about presenting the "Four Player Model" to my husband. I told her that he understands it, but that he laughed and said that I impose my ideas upon him. He also said that I don't listen to him deeply. He and I agreed that we both have these tendencies. Rachael asked why I'm able to play the "Mover" role more often in my relationship with my husband instead of at work. I laughed and said that he doesn't pay me. I think that I am often stuck in the Politeness Zone of dialogue at work. I don't want to offend. I don't want to get fired.

I explained to Rachael that my husband and I shift fluidly between roles in our dialogue together. He may move on an issue, and I'll follow to ensure completion. Or, I may present a half-baked idea, and my husband will oppose to provide correction.


Rachael asked if I feel I am able to implement what I'm learning in my workplace.  I told her that I am already changing my behavior, suspending judgment, and opening myself up to the wisdom of my co-workers that I may not see. The third interaction I shared with her involved my opposition to a decision my supervisor made.  But after my initial anger, I thought about it over the weekend and saw that my supervisor was trying to protect me from overwork. She saw the amount of projects and deadlines I already had. So, she encouraged me not to take on three additional presentations. In the moment, I was not able to see her wisdom. But with a few days of reflection, I was grateful for her foresight.