chapter FIVE
The Behavioral Profile
A Synthesis of Levels I, II, and III
In Chapter One, I introduced the concept of an individual’s behavioral profile, which is a combination of his or her behavioral tendencies at the first three levels of the structural dynamics model of any speech act. In the previous three chapters you became familiar with each: Level I, action stance; Level II, communication domain; and Level III, operating system.
Any individual can be understood as having a certain behavioral profile (habitual pattern) when he or she speaks with others, especially in day-to-day, low-stakes situations. Recognizing one’s own behavioral profile and those of others in the room is the foundation for learning how to read the room, which involves observing oneself in often challenging situations. By far the best way to learn to recognize profiles is to be assisted by someone who is also an excellent bystander in the room and can help you debrief about what’s been going on, just as Duncan has been doing for Ralph. With sustained focus and the help of a coach who understands and has practiced the model, leaders can rapidly become more adept at reading the room.
As I will show in Chapter Eleven, individuals can develop great insights and skill through simply working with a coach, but there is also the possibility of using formal diagnostic instruments to aid in identifying any person’s profile and to speed a leader’s learning.
Understanding her own behavioral profile is the first step in a leader’s conscious effort to evolve her ability to act in the room. Even in relatively easy contexts, when personal stakes are relatively normal and low, unawareness can limit or distort one’s perceptions of what is taking place. For example, from the perspective of our general business culture, Ian’s behavioral profile is indicative of a good leader; but because of it, Ian routinely distorts and only limitedly perceives someone with Martha’s open affect profile or Ralph’s random meaning profile. This compromises the strength, range, and quality of his performance as a leader.
As you have probably noticed, I haven’t yet discussed the fourth and final level to the structural dynamics model: Level IV, the level of identity and personal story. I will come to that in Chapter Six as we move closer to more stressful, high-stakes situations in which people feel more personal pressures and risks. In high-stakes situations, behavioral patterns are often disrupted, which adds to the stress and communicative challenges of those high-pressure times. In those circumstances, Level IV can dramatically enter the room.
This chapter will get you into the swing of identifying behavioral profiles and should also further intimate the power of this skill. At times, context strongly determines an individual’s behavior, but recall these general preferences on the part of the ClearFacts team (Table 5.1).
Table 5.1 Context, Language, and Action
A CLEARFACTS MEETING IN RALPH’S ABSENCE
One Monday, Ralph was “on the road,” site-visiting some interesting prospects for purchase or collaboration. He asked the team to meet in his absence and carry on with prepping for a later meeting when he returns. That later meeting will include representatives of an agency that does TV commercials, a big step in the firm’s marketing plan. Ralph had asked the team to work together to come up with ideas for a video montage for the advertising pros to work with. Each team member was eager to get this done.
“Mind your manners,” Ralph joked as he left. “On your oath, have fun with this. Don’t waste your time or mine squabbling. Besides,” he added in self-mocking allusion to his recent misstep, “I’ll probably dismiss what you come up with anyway. I’ll have the final word.”
In effect, Ralph was asking them to keep their behavioral repertoires in the light zone with each other. As you follow the text, you will see that they almost get into their dark sides but are pulled back onto a productive path by a collective effort in which each individual’s natural behavioral propensities are called into play in a timely way.
The following dialogue occurred before the team actually embarked on the formal agenda in Ralph’s absence. They were shuffling about: Art mentally dabbling in the poets’ realm, casually turning up his sleeves; Martha cooing a “see you in the lounge at six” to a friend, shutting her cell phone down and ceremoniously dropping it into her handbag; Ian straightening his agenda and two pads, one blank and ready, the other full of “concept maps” whose detail speaks to the care he gave to any assignment, but especially when he assumed he was in charge, as he did now; Ron casually doodling, cautiously surveying the climate of the room. Howard spoke up first, raising his voice just short of a shout to draw attention.
The dialogue in this opening scene has roughly forty speech acts, only enough to establish a pattern that, after a slightly bumpy start, will get corrected and roll smoothly toward the meeting’s goal. Don’t focus on the substance, subject matter, or issues that arise, but on the structure of discourse, the kinds of speech acts each team member typically utters having been asked to show his or her best self. What makes the dialogue work is the best-case use of each member’s behavioral profile. I will provide more analysis following the exchange.
| Speaker | Speech Act | Stance, Domain, System |
| Howard | I’ve thought long and hard about how to get this done. | A move in closed power. |
| Ian | (Interrupting) Not so fast, Howard; let’s decide first how we want to proceed. I’ve done an agenda (circulating copies). Nothing fancy … | An oppose and then a countering move, both in closed power. |
| Martha | (Sarcastically) As you always do … | Subversively opposing Ian, in power as she does often. She’s driven here by her open-system preference. |
| Martha | (Noticing Ian on alert) Look, I love Ralph and his ways. He works on instinct, never seems to have an agenda. Yet somehow we “get there” and feel heard. You’re never without your agenda. The question is, which way is the best way for this task? | A compound action: a move in affect and a bystand in power; open system. |
| Howard | Everyone here knows where I stand. I prefer working from an agenda. (Looks at Ian’s agenda) I’m for moving on. | A move in power, then a follow in power, and then a move in power. Closed. |
| Martha | Good enough, Howard. But I’m just trying to get a sense of where everybody stands before moving ahead. | Follow, then move (in open power) to be more inclusive. |
| Howard | With due respect, Martha, your wish for “all voices to be heard” does often slow things down to a point where nothing real gets done. | Oppose in power; a closed power rebuttal to open power. |
| Martha | I take issue. It depends on how you define real work. To my mind the real work gets done when everyone is engaged and encouraged to freely contribute. | Oppose in power, move in meaning, continuing her open power stance. |
Martha and Howard are beginning an all-too-familiar escalation—opposing each other’s every move and making a countermove of his or her own.
| Speaker | Speech Act | Stance, Domain, System |
| Art | (Interrupting) Let me make an observation, then a suggestion. Ralph’s way and Ian’s way both get us to where we want to go. Ian’s is a kind of “let’s go by land,” which keeps us on solid ground; Ralph’s is “let’s go by sea,” which is always an adventure that gets us there from a new direction. Let’s do a route check every so often. If we get bogged down in detail, we can switch; if we get fogged out at sea, we can switch. And you, Ron, might want to be the one who calls the time-outs. | A compound bystander speech act: starting with a request to make a move, then a bridging bystand in power, and then a move in open power. A perfect example of the range of effective open-system bystanding—follow the action, then make a bridging move and then another move to include a newcomer. |
| Ian | Thanks, Art, that was helpful. Why don’t you as our artist in residence start us off. | A rare (for Ian) follow in open power, then a move that invites a move in meaning (the creation of meaning being what the assignment is all about). |
| Art | Okay, if you all let me do it my way. I’ve got this oddly shaped stone (sliding the object to the middle of the table) that I carry around for inspiration. Hold it a few seconds, stare at it, feel it, search out its meaning. | Takes Ian up on the invitation and makes a quixotic, random-like move in meaning. |
| Ron | (Looking at Martha, then at Howard, then at Art; then, to Martha) I’m still getting my “sea legs” on this team (to Howard with disarming politeness), so anything I say could sound like an intrusion. (To Art) Looks to me like an African sculpture, a woman with a bulbous belly, suggesting a “renewable” image. | Feeling his way, Ron covertly opposes Howard, then makes a move in meaning that follows Art. |
| Howard | (Frowning, shaking his head, no, no, he stares, as if appealing to a judge, at Ian.) | Oppose in closed meaning, then a move in power. |
| Ian | I see I’ve ignited a fuse. Howard? | A follow (honoring Howard’s closed power), then inviting a move. |
| Howard | (Loudly) Damned if you haven’t, sir. I feel betrayed, ugh, let down. I told you before we got to this room that I had some great ideas for how to do this assignment and do it quickly and effectively. So right off you turn the meeting over to him with his usual mumbo jumbo. | “Betrayed” is a word that can be anchored either in affect or in power. We can assume from history that for Howard, publicly at least, it belongs in the power domain. Upset, Howard has strayed from his closed-system respect for authority. |
| Ian | Take it easy, Howard. I apologize. I made a mistake. I misread how invested you are in making this video a powerful statement. You’ve got a good case, but your outburst is out of line. | Like Art’s, this is a critical speech act in a compound action sequence. Ian has decided to defuse Howard with a move-oppose in closed affect. Ian follows Howard, then effectively bystands before opposing Howard in power. |
| Ron | (Interrupting Martha who is about to speak) Excuse me, Martha; I have two things I need to say. I apologize for jumping in so quickly. I appreciate your investment in this exercise. And to you, Ian, I’ve something to learn about fairness. | A series of moves based on bystanding his previous act. Shows his strong preference for the open system here. |
| Martha | (Continuing) Let me help out, Ian. What you said might sound patronizing to someone as talented as Howard who’s out there fighting the market wars to make us all rich. You haven’t “heard” all of what I suspect he is saying. | A move in open power, then a bystand that supports Howard. |
| Howard | You’re damned right, but I don’t need your help. | Howard follows and then, true to the dictates of his profile, opposes. Closed power. |
| Martha | Then indulge me, Howard, by just letting me say two things. How Art taps his creative juices does seem like mumbo jumbo to you. And it’s a bit like Ralph. | Pressing on with a move in open meaning, then a bridging bystand. |
| Howard | (Quieted down, listening now) Right on both counts. | He follows Martha in meaning. |
| Martha | And you think Ralph doesn’t “get” how creative you are and how you get there. Say something about that. | The essence of this two-part speech act is a bystand in open meaning and a move that invites a move in meaning. |
| Howard | I do a lot of research, taking lots of notes, which I organize, and when I’m ready to sit down at my computer, I expect that “it” and I will produce. And when it doesn’t, I stare it down until the ideas begin to flow. And, to be truthful … | A move in closed meaning. |
Howard is closed in power and also closed in meaning. He is explaining how someone with these behavioral characteristics creates meaning. I regard this as a perfectly legitimate route to creative thinking, though different from the random’s route preferred by Ralph. People with Howard’s profile often see meaning as power, which is different from the pursuit and use of meaning for its own sake. (Other individuals may be inclined to a different confusion—for example, seeing or reading affect as power.)
| Speaker | Speech Act | Stance, Domain, System |
| Howard | I think that neither Ralph nor Art appreciates my method or what it produces. Ralph, anyway, appreciates the sales I manage, but not what’s happening behind the scenes. | A move in power, with meaning as a subtext. Howard is lobbying the case of how closed power can make meaning. Note the irony: behind the curtain is a man who not only conflates meaning as power to good effect but also undercuts his case when he uses power to shut down affect, which can also generate meaning. |
| Ron | (Neutral voice signaling a genuine inquiry) And you think Ian does? | A move from Ron (a neutral bystander) to confirm or disconfirm another’s move. Open like Martha, Ron makes purer moves with the closed Howard. |
| Howard | I know he does. | A follow in power and meaning. |
| Martha | And that leads to my second point. And I hesitate to say it, but I will. When Ian “appreciates” you, your methods, and what you produce, you feel … (a long pause) … cared for. (What everyone in the room hears is “loved,” a word Martha uses often, at times to gently provoke those like Ian and Howard who object to its use.) | A move in open affect, whose subtle emphasis carries a touch of goading Howard into admitting he seeks love—that is, with a hint of challenge, or opposing. |
| Howard | Not quite; I prefer the word appreciate. | Howard, correcting her course, opposes Martha, insisting on staying on his own, a countermove in power as meaning. |
| Ian | I get your point, Martha, and yours, Howard. But this seems like a good time to move on. The air is clear. Does anyone have an idea how? | A constructive two-part action: a move from bystanding, within the bounds of the closed system. Follows Martha and Howard, then moves, and then moves again with an invitation for someone to step forward with an idea for getting on with the assignment. |
| Art | I do. Why don’t you start us off with what you came in with, Howard? I for one will join you full-mindedly, as I’m sure everyone will. And when Ron calls for a check on how things are going, you decide whether it would help and be fun to turn the reins over to me for a while. | Art makes a series of actions: first a move, then a follow, then another move—all constructive, all apparently originating in his ability to bystand. |
Howard likes the challenge and so agrees.
A FUNCTIONAL TEAM IN A LOW-STAKES CONTEXT
You’ve just read a fairly successful interaction, from which the team, after getting over some typical interpersonal tensions, goes forward with the assignment, their behavioral repertoires (stances, domains, and system preferences) aligning dynamically toward an end they know is good. The dialogue reflects strengths and weaknesses that those profiles include, summarized in Table 5.2. Behavioral profiles capture much of a person’s level and style of communicative competency.
Table 5.2 Behavioral Profiles Revealed in the Dialogue
Note a few more things about structure in the team and its capacity to function when not under pressure:
Meanwhile, Ralph, a mover in random meaning, keeps working with his coach on expanding his repertoire.
THE VALUE OF BEHAVIORAL PROFILES
Here it’s worth considering again the tremendous value of understanding behavioral profiles. As I said at the outset, a leader’s understanding his own is the first step in his conscious effort to evolve his ability to act in the room. Unawareness can limit or distort one’s perceptions of what is taking place. For example, as noted earlier, Ian’s behavioral profile is what the business culture considers indicative of a good leader. Leaders with Martha’s profile are not recognized or are relegated to divisions down in rank from those at the top, and leaders with Ralph’s profile start out leading innovative start-ups, but are eventually replaced by those with more closed profiles.
In subsequent chapters, I will show how understanding profiles deepens and becomes even more powerful as a tool if one has some idea of their source. I’ve been suggesting already that personal history is the primary source of one’s behavioral profile. Earlier, I introduced some backstory to suggest the origins of Ian’s closed power preference. Here are two other critical life events that illuminate his aversion to affect. The first is a distant, buried memory.
• • •
Ian is eight years old. In the twilight zone before sleep, he is startled by sounds from behind his parents’ closed bedroom door. “Controlling! Brutal! Cruel! Sadistic!” his mother screams. “You may have forgotten—not me. To spare you, fool that I was, I hid every bruise you gave me!”
Ian is bewildered. For years he’d never heard a harsh word spoken between them. But her screams have awakened another memory: from some dark chamber, he hears his own screams. Finally, the curtain comes down. His screams and the memory of them fade into darkness. Only silence from his parents’ room.
• • •
The second event is reflected by Maura, Ian’s ex-wife, describing their failed marriage:
“He never once touched me with affection in public—not my arm or my shoulder, no gently caressing intertwined fingers, no bold pat on my butt, no sniffing my body’s aromas, no wink of sex to come. Oh, it did come on some schedule in his head. But more out of duty than desire. Yes, he was a good man. Duty. Honor. Tradition. And his ability to provide even after the tours ended when he quit the service? I never gave it a thought. But the intimate space between us was just too wide for me. Cross its outer rim without invitation? It left me feeling not odd, but alone.”
- Your range of propensities at each structural level
- What kinds of actions you might want to build into your behavioral repertoire
- How difficult it will be to do this
- What other profiles yours complements, fits well with
- What profiles you recognizably clash with
- The implications all this has for your leading or coaching