Post caught my eye because it sits so closely to my work. My initial reaction to it is that I wonder if mirrors and mirroring are complements rather than alternatives.
In organizations, I rarely see value in a mirror that claims to reveal "the truth." But I do see value in collective mirrors that make differences in interpretation visible.
Those differences are not reality. They are perspectives on reality. Yet comparing them often reveals why capable teams experience friction, rework, repeated escalation, or inconsistent follow-through.
The mirror creates a shared object for inquiry. The mirroring creates the conditions for people to feel heard while exploring it together.
Perhaps the challenge is not choosing between mirrors and mirroring, but designing processes that combine both.
Lived this on both sides = transparency in semi-toxic cultures is two-tiered. Underlings surface the truth and absorb erratic consequences; leaders signal openness but reserve the right to judge harshly when it arrives. Real pressure on execs to be "tough" quietly maintains that asymmetry, even when individually well-meaning.
John, Happy Birthday! Embrace your gray. Experience, pattern recognition, and hopefully wisdom serves you and everyone in your sphere well.
Happy birthday! The mirror concept is really interesting to add onto my mental model of power and lenses. Each person has a lens that they look through some narrower and wider than others. Organizational power structures add extra light distorting magnets and fields.
There's quite a bit you can do with organizational power, but getting people to recognize their own lenses and mirrors makes an even bigger massive difference.
First of all, Happy Birthday!
Post caught my eye because it sits so closely to my work. My initial reaction to it is that I wonder if mirrors and mirroring are complements rather than alternatives.
In organizations, I rarely see value in a mirror that claims to reveal "the truth." But I do see value in collective mirrors that make differences in interpretation visible.
Those differences are not reality. They are perspectives on reality. Yet comparing them often reveals why capable teams experience friction, rework, repeated escalation, or inconsistent follow-through.
The mirror creates a shared object for inquiry. The mirroring creates the conditions for people to feel heard while exploring it together.
Perhaps the challenge is not choosing between mirrors and mirroring, but designing processes that combine both.
Lived this on both sides = transparency in semi-toxic cultures is two-tiered. Underlings surface the truth and absorb erratic consequences; leaders signal openness but reserve the right to judge harshly when it arrives. Real pressure on execs to be "tough" quietly maintains that asymmetry, even when individually well-meaning.
John, Happy Birthday! Embrace your gray. Experience, pattern recognition, and hopefully wisdom serves you and everyone in your sphere well.
Happy birthday! The mirror concept is really interesting to add onto my mental model of power and lenses. Each person has a lens that they look through some narrower and wider than others. Organizational power structures add extra light distorting magnets and fields.
There's quite a bit you can do with organizational power, but getting people to recognize their own lenses and mirrors makes an even bigger massive difference.
John, man.... the last 5 paragraphs... you're a real one. I have been thinking *a lot* about culture lately. Will be gnawing on this one for a minute.
Happy Birthday.