Introduction
Today I want to do a slightly different kind of blog post, rather than explore an idea over a couple of days and construct an in-depth post around it, I want to share something which I witnessed over the final dregs of my coffee yesterday and the thoughts which came to me.
A large part of my routine at this time of year involves changing the scenery a little and sitting in different cafés or the gym and writing a blog post, editing an upcoming podcast or just general content creation.
So, today I went to one of my random cafés to do some writing for my upcoming book, Lessons in Leadership. While I was sitting there and reflecting on my own leadership journey and the lessons I have learnt along the way, a young woman came in and waked up to the owner. I had seen her in there before, she often served me my coffee, so thought nothing of it. However, unusually for me, I was sitting there without my headphones in and therefore I heard her ask if she could speak to him.
They sat at a table directly in front of me which made it almost impossible to tune them out and concentrate on my writing. However, never missing a chance to observe and learn I ended up dipping in and out of the conversation as it unfolded, and it reinforced in me the need for anyone in a position of influence over others to consider exploring leadership practices.
The café I was in is a franchise of a fairly small chain of independent coffee shops, and the owner in question owns the chain itself. He is a similar age to myself, whilst the young woman must have been in her early twenties. I could not discern exactly what the issue which was being discussed was about, which I am glad of, however what I could tell was that she had either gone through a disciplinary process or been let go, and she had come in to discuss and clarify a few things with the owner.
Observations
My first observation was that the young woman seemed to have approached this in a very brave and mature way, her body language was assured and confident initially, she sat upright in the chair with her body turned towards him in an open stance. She spoke calm and eloquently in starting the conversation by sharing her desired purpose behind the conversation itself. At this point I will point out that they were in two armchairs around a circular coffee table, with the chairs positioned slightly further than at right-angles to each other looking out over the coffee shop floor.
In contrast, the owner had a very relaxed stance, slightly slouched back into the chair and facing forwards with his body out towards the shop floor. Rather than opening his body out towards his employee, he was angled in a way which could be construed as making himself smaller yet slightly closed-off. The leaning back and facing away stance which he took almost portrayed a dismissive stature, it wasn’t confrontational however it also wasn’t a stance which met the employee where they were at in terms of her opening intention to the conversation.
The next couple of times I looked up and dropped into the conversation, what I noticed was she had changed her position slightly. She was in the seat which was pointed more towards the door, and she had turned her body slightly that way, and folded one of her legs to be sat on it in a way which formed a subconscious barrier between herself and him. In the parts of the conversation which I heard at the beginning here, he had been talking at her very quickly, and in an accusatorial way, many of his sentences started with ‘I’ and then on to listing all the things he had done and expected to be done, he then touched on things he had noticed which had been going wrong in his absence which he seemed to be directing towards her and then told her than in the week she had not been there how it had been much nicer to be there and much fewer issues had arisen. He also at times threw out a few general comments about things which were frustrating him which he was going to address and impose on everyone.
The impact this had had on her during this conversation was apparent in her body language, her stance, and the way she was addressing him. She very much seemed to be trying to rebuttal the accusations by appeasing the concern then explaining her experience of the instances and her understanding of the expectations on her. While he was talking, she was looking at him however when she was talking, he was looking slightly towards the ceiling away from her and interjecting a few times.
This went on for about 10 minutes, while I packed away my laptop and finished my drink. Then, just before I left, I sat for about 30 seconds watching and wondering to myself about two things:
- Was she getting out of this conversation what she initially wanted?
- Was he getting out this conversation what he needed to?
This is clearly a leadership situation, and a challenging one at that. Expectations have been placed, they have not been met in some instances, and as a result some form of consequence has been put in place. This consequence has fallen upon this young employee, and they have chosen to come in and seek some form of clarification and/or resolution for the situation.
Analysing the Interaction
What would I advise that the owner did differently here in this situation, and what do I believe the outcome could have been? Let’s break it down a little and explore the complex dynamics here from the very brief observations and choice of language which I picked up.
At this point I want to put it out there, that I have no understanding of what had happened before I witnessed this, the relationship which is there prior to my observation, what occurred afterwards and therefore the overall context of this interaction. All I am going to be doing is postulating based off the observations I made, as an interesting example within leadership development. I am therefore not suggesting the way in which it was handled was completely incorrect or that what I am suggesting here should be done in every instance.
1. Exploring the power dynamics at play.
As a leader in any example, we automatically hold an automatic position power. The extent to which this power dynamic underpins an interaction comes down to several key factors, all of which are in the hands of the leader.
The difference in position within the organisation: in this instance we have the owner of the chain and a young employee who had worked there for a couple of years. The power imbalance here is very large and in favour of the owner. This means there is not going to be a power struggle here, however it immediately takes them in to two possible spaces depending on how the conversation starts and both of their initial forays within this.
The easiest model to explore here is the P-A-C model within Transactional Analysis (TA), which can be used for any interaction between individuals regardless of setting or status. The three overarching ego-states are parent, adult, and child. These are how we see and portray ourselves, there are inner dialogues between our ego states which we will not go in to here, however there are interactions between individuals which can put us in to each of these ego-states. Within the P-A-C model we will use here the parent and the child ego-states have two distinct sub-states.
The parent ego-state has the critical parent and the nurturing parent, the critical being the state which looks to reign in the inner child and the nurturing being the more encouraging and caring stance. The child ego-state has the free child and adapted child, the free child being more of the impulsive and free willed, to some extent a more ‘wild-child’ state, while the adapted child is our inner child state which looks to follow the rules and fit in with others, it is a more compliant child state.
The adult state is more of a rational, logical stance, looking to meet others somewhere in the middle and come to an agreement and a give-take compromise. This is the last ego-state to form and develop and comes through experience and a level of self-awareness which we only develop through maturity, whilst the parent ego-state develops through the relationships with superiors and parental figures which we have through our childhood and adolescence.
So, in this instance, the interaction which I witnessed between the owner and the young employee, the power imbalance alone would automatically look to set the interaction at a parent-child pathway, which the owner falling into one of the parent states, while the young employee inhabits one of the child states. This is not a conducive workplace interaction to be in.
The desired interaction should be adult-adult, when we are within an adult-adult interaction we are both within our logical and linguistic states, we can comfortably interact, and we do not fall foul of emotional drivers which can escalate a conflict and exacerbate an existing issue.
What did I witness? Well, from what I saw, the young employee came into the interaction calm, rational and logical. They were within the adult ego-state. The owner, through both body language and the way they responded to the request for clearing up what had happened went into the parent state. They were in critical parent.
So, what did this lead to? By holding the power imbalance in his hands, he had a greater influence over the interaction and therefore she moved into the child state, she had two ways in which she could have reacted; the free child could have stood up, yelled, and stormed out. She didn’t, she did change her body language, she did take up a guarded stance, but she emotively went in to adapted child, and looked to appease his critical parent.
Subconscious body language and verbal cues: we often pick up on subtle cues from others, which tells us a few things such as when to speak, how interested someone is in what we are talking about and whether they are listening to us.
Within the parts of the interaction I witnessed, she started with a neutral and open body stance, she sat up straight with her body turned towards him, she looked at him, spoke slowly and clearly, and used her hands to gesture towards him. All these cues are signals that she wanted to connect with him, she was throwing out a subconscious invitation towards him and created a conversation space in front of her which she was inviting him in to.
He on the other hand used the chair position to face his body away from her, providing a natural body barrier, he sat back in the chair and at times brought himself forwards as he spoke to then sit back as she did. All of these signs are subtle but indicate subconsciously a defensive or dismissive stance towards what she had to say, yet moving himself forwards into the space as he spoke added weight towards his contributions and then retreated when she once again spoke. He often looked towards the ceiling, both as she spoke to him and he spoke to her, he made verbal interjections whilst she was speaking, and when he did speak, he spoke very quickly which signifies emotional weight behind the words.
When put together, I read that he was within a defensive position, almost like a cornered animal, retreating backwards and advancing forwards throughout the interaction. However, I felt as though he had been caught off-guard by the interaction, and despite giving himself a few minutes between her asking for the conversation and them sitting down to have the conversation, he was still in an emotionally charged state. Which triggered what is commonly called a “fight or flight” response.This emotional charge then ‘leaked’ into the conversation and to her, as she equally went into a “fight or flight” response.
Masculine/Feminine Approach: this is often misunderstood as a male/female approach. However, everybody regardless of gender has both a masculine and feminine energy within them. The levels of each which we have, dictates, and determines the way we show up in interactions.
Our dominant energy comes to the fore very quickly, and we ‘learn’ to utilise this response to ‘survive’. This is innate within us and comes from our survival response, which is why it is very closely linked with the common “fight or flight” model (which is a very masculine dominated model).To explore this model a little more, and how it comes in to play within this interaction, we need to look at the four types of interaction which there can be. This is the interplay between ourselves “I” and the other party “you”. Our emotional centre within the brain looks for a cue within an interaction within the first few seconds, it takes a quick read, and it determines which type of interaction this is going to be.
The four types of interaction are:
- I’m okay and you’re okay.
- I’m okay, but you’re not okay.
- I’m not okay, but you’re okay.
- I’m not okay and neither are you.
Within each of these are the different responses which our energies lead on.
Within the first, this is a neutral space, no threat is detected and therefore both energies lead us towards befriending the other party. We will have a mutually beneficial interaction; we will both look to enjoy the interaction and not escalate it in any way. This is where friendships are formed, and this is the social and communal element which the human species has been so successful building upon. As long as neither party poses a threat to the other, we have a predisposition to befriend and help each other; there is an element of ‘what can we each offer to mutually gain from this interaction’.
The second interaction sees us feeling secure within ourselves and feeling “fit and healthy” and we deem the other party as not being “fit and healthy”. Our internal measure of our capabilities, whether this be physical, mental, intellectual, or even our righteousness is greater than that of the other party. Internally, our two energies rush to the fore and we have two possible outcomes.
- A masculine energy would look to fight; adrenaline rushes making us more alert, we become tense and poised, and we speed up as our vision narrows. Our mind becomes narrower, we become focused and clear on our goals and viewpoint, and our ‘hackles’ come up as we get ready to dominate the space.
- A feminine energy would look to tend; we would look to de-escalate the situation, we become more aware of external threats instead of focusing on them, and our mind opens. We look to help, rather than owning the space we open it to them and let the other party come into it, we then look to show them there is no threat and instead we empathise with them and help them to calm into that space. We control the space still and we are assertive, but we allow them into the space and look to control it in a way which de-escalates the confrontation.
The third interaction sees us feeling insecure within ourselves and not feeling “fit and healthy” and we deem the other party as being more “fit and healthy”. In contrast to the previous, our internal measure of our capabilities is lower than that of the other party. Internally, again our two energies rush to the fore for protection as we feel as though we are being threatened in our insecurity, and again we have two possible outcomes.
- A masculine energy would look to flight; again, adrenaline rushes in and we become focused on fleeing the situation, we need to get out of there and live to fight another day. The energy we would have used to fight is now expended on getting away, yet we still have the potential here to fight should we feel unable to get out of there.
- A feminine energy would go submissive; we would readily concede the space and again we would look to de-escalate the situation by becoming agreeable and letting the other party completely dominate the situation. Our wants and needs are put aside, they are not important here, survival is, and the way to survive is to realise that we cannot control the situation, we are not secure enough in ourselves to help them and be assertive.
The fourth and final interaction sees us feeling insecure within ourselves and not feeling “fit and healthy”, yet we equally deem the other party as not being “fit and healthy”. In contrast to either of the two previous interactions, we sense that neither party could “win” in this situation. Internally, again our two energies come to the fore to survive, deeming no threat to our safety there is no need to control the situation, instead there are two parallel and similar outcomes.
- A masculine energy would look to withdraw; there is no benefit from remaining in the situation and therefore a slow retreat is seen as the best outcome. This physically removes us from the situation allowing us to slowly de-escalate our stress of being in the situation and live to fight another day.
- A feminine energy would look to shut down; again, there is no benefit from the situation yet there is safety in the knowledge of the situation and uncertainty outside of the situation. We do not know if it is better out there, and therefore we shut down until something better comes along.
This is summarised in the following diagram:
As I said earlier, each of us have different levels of these energies, and equally we each have different reaction rates for each quadrant, and therefore in one situation we may react in a typically masculine way whilst in another we may react in a more typically feminine way.
So, in this instance, the interaction which I witnessed in the café, how did they both respond? The owner has been caught off-guard by the young employee walking in without prior warning, it was clear that this was the first interaction since whatever incident had preceded this, equally it was late within the working day, and he would have been drained from the day. As such his rational repressor would have been slower to react. Upon seeing her and her asking for the conversation, he went straight into “I’m okay, but you’re not okay”.
He instinctively felt that he was within the right, and she was within the wrong, his choice of language within the conversation portrayed this stance clearly. The question is which energy was he reacting from here? The speed at which he spoke and his inability to face her and be open within the interaction clearly comes from the narrowing of focus, and inwards readiness to respond and therefore he was reacting in a typically masculine way and therefore the “fight” stance.
The young employee started rational, and almost tried to inhabit a befriending situation, she wanted to clear the air. Yet at the sight and sound of the “fight” stance from the owner, she was thrown and what interesting is that throughout the bits of the conversation which I witnessed she yo-yoed between three different approaches. The first response to the threat of the “fight” was to inhabit the “submissive” stance, she conceded several times and let him speak in agreement. This was clearly influenced by the power dynamics which emphasised the difference between his “okay” and her sudden “not okay”.
However, as the interaction went on and she started to disagree with some of his points, she moved her inner reading of the situation from him being “okay” to “not okay” as she felt he was wrong, and she moved herself from “not okay” to “okay”. Then as she tried to gain control over the space from his “fight” stance, she wrestled between “tend” and “fight” herself. This showed she had both energies at play within her at almost equal amounts. This must have been fuelled slightly by the power imbalance there as she would have questioned her ability to “fight” and come out of the situation beneficially; either retaining her job or getting a good reference.
2. How could this conversation have gone differently?
My initial gut reaction her suggests they both went into the conversation with good intentions. She came in to the clear the air and he accepted the invitation to talk, he even gave himself some time between the invitation and sitting down to have it. However, within this time he continued working for a minute or two, giving some directions to a few of those who were working at the time. He therefore gave himself the illusion of time, but not the space within that time to destress.
Therefore, our first step should be to make sure, when we are caught off-guard as a leader and posed with a difficult situation or challenging conversation, we give ourselves the uninterrupted time and space to destress momentarily. If this means taking a couple of moments in front of them, simply saying “of course, just give me a moment to get into the right head space”. By doing this we are also gifting them with time and space to do the same. We could also take a few moments to go to a neutral space, offer to get them a drink and take that time again to settle. Or finally, we are well within our rights to agree to the conversation but ask them to come back later, simply saying something like “of course, you have caught me a little off-guard, let’s do it tomorrow when I will be in a better place and able to show up as a better version of myself”. Having the humility and vulnerability to rationally share that we need that time to best serve them in that conversation is a sign of strong, effective leadership.
By taking this uninterrupted time, in whatever form we need, we are able to provide our rational brain time to control the situation and not let our emotional response dominate, where we can fall into an instinctive response where the interplay between the two parties can keep us both within that emotional response.
Secondly, once we have taken the time to become rational, when in the interaction we as a leader need to be aware of how we present ourselves. The imbalance of power automatically amplifies our subconscious cues, we therefore need to be more conscious of how we are presenting ourselves. We need to create a safe and conducive space; that is our responsibility as the leader and the one holding the power. Only then, can we empower the other party in the interaction and level power imbalance. Therefore, we need to go into every interaction with an open stance, a non-threatening stance (either aggressive and forward, or defensive and backwards). If we are open, facing them, removing barriers such as crossed arms and we use our body and verbal communication to invite them into the space, we can share the space and have a more honest and open conversation which can reach an amicable resolution.
Thirdly, we also need to be aware of the innate power imbalance there is which could lead to a parent-child interaction, particularly when there is an age or experience gap as well. In this instance, we need choose our language carefully, the moment we start ‘pointing’ what we are saying towards an individual using “I … you …“ dialogue we automatically place ourselves in parent and the other party in child. We as the leader, have a level of influence which can enforce this dynamic. Rather than the “I … you …” dialogue, we can instead get a more productive dialogue by inhabiting the adult-adult interaction. We can do this be engaging in their adult state through questions, when we open the space up to them through careful questions, and actively listening to their responses, we can then gain a deeper understanding of their experience of any situation and steer them towards reflection on our observations. We have facilitated the reflective space, rather than made them feel attacked and placed in a child state. So instead of saying “I saw you …” or “I heard you …”, what we do is use the reflective space we have facilitated, and ask a question such as “I noticed …, can you share with me what you saw?” They will stay within the logical space and share, you are more likely through this to trigger insights which could lead to their growth and development, as well as reinforcing a positive relationship between them and you.
Summary
In this post, I have shared my reflections of an interaction I witnessed during a recent visit to a café. What began as a casual coffee break turned into a insightful reflection and provided a powerful leadership lesson. Through careful analysis of body language, communication styles, and the power dynamics, I was able to draw key insights into effective leadership.
This interaction underscores the importance of understanding and carefully navigating the power dynamics which often come into play, often we are not taught how to do this when starting out in our careers.
Most large organisations invest money into their professional development offering, and many are even starting to prioritise leadership development programmes. However, with less money to invest and smaller employee pools, small to medium size businesses often overlook this and instead rely more on a personal touch and their instinctive approach to conversations. Equally, within such a small-knit team individuals can become emotionally attached to their work, especially when you own the business itself. This can lead to interactions becoming more emotionally charged, as I witnessed.
Witnessing this interaction served as a vivid reminder of the subtle yet profound impact of effective leadership. Observing the interaction highlighted the importance of empathy, clear communication, and the ability to read and respond to social cues. These are essential skills for anyone looking to lead successfully.
It is my belief that investing in leadership training is equally as crucial for small businesses as well as larger organisations. Effective leadership is a key driver that shapes the culture of the organisation itself; how we all think, act and interact.
For small businesses, strong leadership can mean the difference between survival and failure, fostering an environment of innovation, employee engagement, and customer satisfaction. By prioritising leadership development, businesses of all sizes can build resilient, adaptive, and high-performing teams, ensuring long-term success and providing a competitive advantage.
Ultimately, leadership is about influencing others positively and inspiring them to achieve their best, and these insights which came from reflecting on an ordinary café visit provide valuable insights into how we can all become better leaders.
Christopher Waters
Founder of LAMDA Solutions