Our chat on the 13th was enjoyable and wide ranging and thanks to Bob, David, Beverly, Ricardo, Sue and Sabine for joining us.
Steve suggested we explore three questions;
- How do you decide if there is good or bad fit between someone when you meet them?
- How long does it take to decide if there is a good or a bad fit?
- How are you going to go about deciding on the quality of fit between you and me (in this case Steve)?
Over and above the very interesting responses, the other themes that emerged from the conversation included;
- The role of the conscious and subconscious in fit
- Listening skills
- The time it takes to achieve fit and can it be seen as a process
- Fit in the context of mergers and acquisitions
- Fit and individual/group values
Below is a recording of the conversation.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Suggested topics for the next call(s) include the conscious and subconscious in fit and fit in mergers and acquisitions.
4 Comments
Have you guys read Divide or Conquer by Diana McLain Smith?
The reason I raise this is because for me, her book shows that there is a flowing, moving, developing process around “fit”.
Sometimes when I hear the term “fit” it sounds a little like a static thing – like jigsaw pieces fitting together.
Pete
Hi Pete,
I haven’t read the book myself, not sure if Steve has though…
That said, I’d certainly see fit as being more dynamic than static in terms of the time perspective one adopts. Single moments in time *might* be subject to a binary view of fit, although including more granularity is likely to appeal to all concerned.
Given multiple data points in time, there is no doubt that fit flows and is much more dynamic. That said, understanding understanding McLain Smith’s process would be good too.
Can you shed any light on this at all?
Hi Bruce
The process she suggests is, I think, quite straightforward. What I find so encouraging about her view is that she seems to imply that unlike a static situation where two people either fit together or don’t, she suggests that by adopting certain ways of communicating, and in particular stepping outside the relationship to get a meta-level view of it, relationships can be transformed.
She gives the example of Steve Jobs and John Sculley as one where the original appearance of “fit” quickly broke down under pressure.
But my reading from her other case-studies is that it is possible to transform a relationship to a positive one even where some might say at first analysis that there isn’t good fit.
Pete
A belated (post holiday) reply….
Hi Pete,
I echo your thoughts on the ‘flow’ in the context of for. One of the things that Bruce and I discussed early on, when we started to talk about the possibility of the Fit Forum, was a belief in the emergence of some-’thing’ that we come to know as ‘fit’. It could be said that what we actually experience is a constant process of changing ‘fit’, as we self-organize consciously and unconsciously around one another.
I would agree that transforming relationships is possible, and that in turns leads you back to the intention and intentionality that the parties come with. To take your example of Jobs & Sculley, that would appear to suggest that the ‘fit’ that was supposedly there was either misinterpreted, and/or in the desire to make the union work (like the classic M&A metaphor) differences in the Bride & Groom were ignored in the hurry to jump into bed with one another. What we do not know the extent to which the ‘mis’-fit was around motive and goal at a business/strategy level, as opposed to their lived experience of eachother.
Hope you can join us tomorrow.
Steve
One Trackback
[...] can listen to a recording of the meeting here, and find details when we announce them of our next conversation here, which will explore in more [...]