When our invisible architectures clash and disrupt: How neuro-differences can end up in grievances

Context

Two senior managers in one department of a global law firm were in dispute. Each was clear that the other was bullying and undermining them. Dr Caitlin Walker was approached to do some conflict resolution.

What we did

Caitlin interviewed each manager individually asking the following:

• When you’re working at your best, you’re like what?

• When you’re at your worst, you’re like what?

• Currently the situation between you is like what?

• What would you like to have happen?

By asking these starter questions and following up with clean-ish questions, Caitlin supported the individuals to build their structures for working, living and learning. She helped them uncover what they needed to be at their best, their preferred patterns for processing, for memory and for sharing information in the workplace. 

Using these models Caitlin was able to coach the two managers to ask one another questions to clarify the motivations behind their actions to one another, to be clear what their intentions were and to advocate for how they like to have information while also being aware of how different the other person’s system was to theirs.

It became clear to both parties, very quickly, that one of them, Manager A, had an extraordinary capacity for retaining data and for being able to give dates, facts and figures instantly. A assumed this ability was true for everyone at their level of seniority. When they asked their colleague, Manager B, for facts and figures and they couldn’t immediately give them, they assumed, mistakenly, that B knew the answers but didn’t want to share them. They interpreted B’s behaviour as an attempt to undermine them. 

Manager B struggled with memorising facts and figures and leant into colleagues to bring fresh facts and figures to meetings and into reports. When Manager A asked them for facts or figures in meetings, they felt anxious and embarrassed and misinterpreted A’s behaviour as an attempt to make them look foolish. 

Manager B had an extraordinary ability to build meaningful relationships with colleagues in the team. People sought them out to sound ideas out and to share risks and concerns in the organisation. 

Manager A struggled with personal relationships and tended to avoid interacting with the wider team unless there was a valid professional business transaction that required them to meet.

Manager B assumed everyone was as comfortable with social interactions as they were and when Manager A turned down coffee invites or seemed to change directions when they saw B in the corridor, then Manager B felt hurt and offended. 

The neurodiversity across this pair meant that instead of leaning into one another’s differences they were both misinterpreting the other.

 What happened as a result

By sharing their Structures for Living including working @ best and worst, instead of filing grievances, they were able to form a strong working alliance in which they played to one another’s strengths and mitigated each of their struggles.