I have been coaching two business partners lately and they wouldn’t mind me saying that they are different personalities in every way. I think, in a lot of ways, this is their strength as a pairing, because these dynamics provide checks and balances and diverse ways of looking at things, but as with all relationships, differences can also cause a little friction.
Improving any kind of collaborative relationships isn’t complicated. It always requires each to understand where the other is coming from, for each to concede at times, and for both to foster: understanding, trust and to let each other be an individual as well as part of a pair.
The hardest aspect to approach with differing personalities is that of one thinking with their head and the other with their heart. A logical thinking type (T) with tend to make black and white decisions about things, while those with a values and feelings based approach (F), use exactly those qualities to inform their decisions. Head versus heart can quite quickly morph into good versus evil. If the F believes that the T doesn’t care they will then position themselves as ‘protector of the people’, and if the T believes the F is a ‘bleeding heart, they will position themselves as ‘guardian of the business’.
One business I worked with had over time acquired a lot of part-time staff that came and went with no rhyme or reason to the work schedules. When we began to organise the business into pillars of activity, we quickly realised that they needed 3 key full-time members of staff and 1 job share, instead of 8 very casual workers.
Now both reached this conclusion without any disagreement and they were both committed to recruiting from the staff that they already had. Where it got interesting was deciding who they would encourage to go for the permanent roles and who they would have to let go. They both agreed initially to one very obvious skills match but it got messy with all of the others.
The T didn’t sit down throughout the discussion and paced about, leaning into the table to talk then walking over to write on the flip chart in the corner. You could certainly feel her energy. The F sat at the table and would often hang his head, you could feel his anguish when it got ‘painful’. They wrote all of the names on to the chart and started from the top to work their way down.
“Xx,” said T, and immediately drew a line through an employees name “he lets us down a lot, I mean a lot” he slowed his speech to emphasise “a lot”
“Hold on a minute,” said F, shaking his head and standing up from his seat “his wife has mental health problems and she needs some support at times, that is not his fault and he needs this job, it is all he has for himself”
“He may well need it” was the response, “but his circumstances mean that he won’t be able to commit to what we need for the business”
And back and forth it went.
“he has been loyal”
“we are here to run a business, not provide pastoral care”
“he did that thing once that bailed us out”
“he also didn’t turn up that Tuesday and left us with no help at all”
“You’re cold”
“They take advantage of you”
“Stop, now guys, it’s getting personal” (that was me)
I pointed out to them that this was a key difference in how the two different types made decisions and neither was right or wrong, they were just looking at it through different lenses. As with all good negotiations, we compromised. They agreed to offer the employee one of the job share positions if he would agree to commit to the hours proposed and take action if he could not meet that commitment.
“Right, now XX” said T going down to the next name on the list
“Before you start,” said F
“It’s going to be a long day” (that was me again)
lexfarndell.com 