Communication Styles in the Workplace: Goals vs. Flow

As coaches, we spend a lot of time helping people understand the distinctions between the six different Perceptual Styles. Why? Because these distinctions are essential to understanding conflicts that arise in the workplace (and everywhere else, too). A classic example is a corporate client we had that was in serious danger of bankruptcy. They hired a “turn-around” specialist who had the Goals Perceptual Style. His initial plan involved some severe “reductions in force” and the shutting down of all projects and lines of business that were not part of the organization’s core. The time frame he outlined was aggressive. In explaining the Goals Perceptual Style, I often use a military analogy: If you tell a person with the Goals Style that the objective is to “take that hill”, they will immediately march forward, straight to the top of the hill, dispatching any resistance they meet along the way, and perhaps even sustain heavy losses to their own platoon in the process. While the example is simplistic, the image conveys the Goals approach—direct, immediate, tenacious, determined, and fully focused on the objective. These qualities make such people a tremendous asset in a crisis, as they have the ability to see the most important objective and drive towards it, ignoring everything else. This particular organization, however, had been around for over a hundred years and had a long history and tradition. Part of that tradition was placing a high value on people—an attitude of “taking care of our own”. The specialist failed to take these organizational values into account at the beginning of the process when he brought all the managers together and laid out his restructuring plan. Three of the key managers involved had the Flow Perceptual Style. Those with this style are the keepers of history and tradition, and they understand the human dynamics involved in organizations better than any other Style. People with the Flow perspective see the impact on the human system that changes will create, and they know how to subtly use and influence the human community within an organization to mitigate, diminish or even block such changes. This group of Flow managers began “doing their thing,” and before the specialist knew what was happening, he found himself in front of the company’s CEO defending and then finally backing down on the abrupt nature of his plans. He was shocked by this turn of events because he knew that unless the organization changed quickly, they would not survive. What he missed was that because of the power of the organization’s history and traditions, it could not survive if it tried to change so quickly. This is a common Goals versus Flow conflict, and although the example is from a corporate client, this type of conflict can occur just about anywhere: in coaching relationships, in small business environments and even at home—anywhere these two styles interact. People with the Goals Style step up to engage a problem and boldly and directly lay out a solution that will achieve the desired end, but ignore the impact and ripple effects it will have on people, the environment, and clients. People with the Flow Style see these impacts only too well and begin to refine, modify, discreetly block, or completely ignore those directives in order to soften the “damage”. The more Goals pushes, the more Flow backs away, and the more Flow backs away, the more Goals pushes. As in all conflicts, of course, there is truth on both sides, and a solution lies in accepting that each view is limited. In our example, the specialist had to accept that his ability to understand the human impact of his plan on the organization was limited, and that his plan would have a much greater chance of success if he listened to the managers’ advice on how to deal with its impact. The managers had to acknowledge the reality of the dire situation they were in—and accept that if they blocked all of the changes proposed, the organization would disappear. Conflicts can be resolved by acknowledging the value that other Perceptual Styles bring to the table, and by accepting that one’s own understanding, without the input of others’, is both limited and incomplete.