Blind Spot
Presentation by Jonathan Mozenter 
Volpe Transportation Center
and Iris Bagwell 
Action Design

The theoretical basis of this activity comes from the work of Chris Argyris and David Schon. The specific activity was created Phil McArthur (who was present at this meeting), Bob Putnam, and Diana Smith of Action Design.

The group activity entailed the participants breaking up into groups of three.  Two people enacted a role-play between “Bill and Sinclair’, two partners at a law firm having a disagreement over the hiring of a new person.  Each of the two participants had a different background on their respective character, of which the other was not aware.  Each participant was operating under certain assumptions, which created a heated discussion. The third person was the observer, who reacted to the role-play.

After the role-play, the group discussed each player’s role. 

Blind Spots 

© 2001 Action Design

 The shaded area is what we are not aware of.  There are things others see about your self, but you don’t know about your self. 

We discussed the impact of the blind spots on the conversation. 

• Emotional responses vs. logical response: Some people found the other responses illogical, even though they made perfect logical sense to the speaker.  Participants had different ideas of logic, based on their own intentions and constraints

• There is a similarity to Chris Argyris and David Schon’s  left hand column exercise: what I saw in right column, what I am thinking in left column

Intervention Options for Blind Spots 

1.      Assume you are probably missing something.  Try to find out what that something is, and learn how it might change what you believe to be true.

2.      Treat your assumptions about others’ intent as if they are hypotheses to be tested, not as if they are in fact to be relied upon.  Say what you believe to be true, then ask if they see things differently.

3.      Just because something (e.g. your intention) is obvious to you, doesn’t mean it’s obvious to anyone else.  Testing the ”obvious” can reveal new, useful information.

4.      Inquire about your impact on other people..  Say what it is you  are trying to do and then check to see if that is in fact what you are doing.

5.      Offer others feedback on their impact on you.  Try to use clear data, and explain that your reaction to them may say more about you than it does about them.

6.      Summarize your best understanding of their view and your view, and inquire about what you are missing or misinterpreting.  In your paraphrase, try to capture both areas of overlap as well as areas of disagreement.

7.      Try to understand the constraints under which others are operating, as well as share the constraints that shape your actions.  Again, state your situation and inquire into others’.

Back to Process Consultation II