Tanner Wortham

No. Please don't aim for consensus. It's a waste of time. We want varying opinions. We want disagreement. Most importantly, we want everyone to be heard. So aim for that. And when everyone doesn't agree (and they won't), identify a time-bound experiment the group can try to learn if an approach has merit. Two weeks is a good starting point. After all, one great method to get everyone on board is to tell the skeptics that in two weeks, they can say "I told you so," and then we'll try their idea.

Just because you can't spot emotional intelligence doesn't mean it's not there. After all, potential is in all client, whether you can put your finger on it or not. So, coaches, start by looking within before making a judgment: * What's the mirror look like that you're holding up? Are you sure it's facing toward your client in a way that they can recognize themselves? * If it's not emotional intelligence that you think they're recognizing, what is it? * What language do they use when they realize they've made a misstep or a mistake? What activated that realization? * What's so important to you about them naming this thing as emotional intelligence?

The question suggests this is a team issue. Perhaps it's not. Perhaps is something else. Here are some questions to ask: * Who is setting the deadlines? And who is identifying the solutions? It should be your people in both cases. If not, they may lack ownership and not be properly invested. * How do you and your team recognize when they're at capacity? And capacity here shouldn't be 100% work load since disruptions inevitably find their way into our workdays. * When was the last time someone politely said no to more work? What was your reaction? These people are often very committed to their previous yeses and want to hit those deadlines. Find the right way to reward and appreciate them for their dependability.

I look at these people a little differently. These people are the professional trouble makers. Here's what they look like: * They know what they stand for and against and appreciate the same in others in a way that's authentic, transparent, and gives space for everyone. * They'll stand up for others even when they have nothing to gain from it themselves. * The know the rules of the game, and they usually prefer tweak some rules to benefit the whole rather than optimize for themselves.

There's a few simple hacks to balance transparency and confidentiality here: 1. Write a confidentiality clause in your statements of work so it's known before the work begins that you take that commitment seriously. 2. Collaborate with the client what they will and won't share with others after the session. I usually suggest two pieces of information: ** An answer to the question of what was most useful to you at our session today. ** Actions I intend to take between now and the next session. 3. As a coach, I don't share any information with others (except that they did or did not attend the session). I leave that to my client.

Keep this in mind if the focus is on team communication: * If you know who the more talkative ones in the group will be before you begin, discuss with them beforehand how they can make room for others to contribute more. * Incorporate written techniques to get ideas out early. This way, introverts have an opportunity to consider their thoughts before speaking. * Ideally, everyone contributes equally. Even so, some will be more comfortable than others sharing their thoughts openly. * For the extra quiet, talk to them afterward to collect their ideas. Then give those ideas more voice. * If you're the facilitator, be aware that you set the "containers" for conversation. Let the team fill those containers, not you.