Maurice Zicman

🌟 New Supervision Groups for Coaches Navigating Neurodivergent Dynamics 🌟 With Professor David Clutterbuck and Francoise Orlov, PhD We’re delighted to offer three group supervision opportunities designed specifically for coaches exploring the complex dynamics of neurodiversity in coaching relationships. Led by Professor David Clutterbuck and Dr Françoise Orlov these sessions offer an opportunity to explore lived experiences and real client cases in a trusted, expertly facilitated space. Each group is limited to eight participants to ensure a rich, psychologically safe environment for deep reflection and peer learning. These groups are for experienced coaches only. Now taking applications for the following supervision groups: - Neurotypical coach with neurodivergent clients - Neurodivergent coach with neurodivergent clients - Neurodivergent coach with neurotypical clients These are among the first supervision groups of their kind, created to explore the often overlooked dynamics between neurodivergent and neurotypical coaches and clients. You will: ✅ Sharpen your awareness of neurodivergent needs ✅  Build confidence in adapting your coaching style ✅  Learn from real experiences in a trusted peer group ✅  Deepen ethical and inclusive coaching practices 👉 Explore the groups and express your interest  https://lnkd.in/ejwEnwPH #davidclutterbuck #ccmi #supervision #neurodivergence #coaching

44

One of the ten habits in our #BetterConversations workshop is 𝘧𝑜𝘴𝑡𝘦𝑟𝘪𝑛𝘨 𝘥𝑖𝘢𝑙𝘰𝑔𝘶𝑒. Dialogue grows when we practice humility in inquiry. That means communicating ideas clearly, but provisionally—holding space to be wrong, because growth matters more than being right. When leaders and coaches embrace this stance, they create environments where people feel safe to learn, reflect, and innovate. 📅 Learn more at our 𝙫𝙞𝙧𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝘽𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙥 𝙤𝙣 𝙉𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧 5. 🔗 https://ow.ly/2PhG50X1N21

79

2 Comments

In a recent workshop I conducted, we explored the difference between 𝑨𝒈𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑨𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 behaviour, a staple in communication programs. During one exercise, participants brainstormed where 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒄𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕, and the insights were powerful. We all know that in any conversation, tone matters, intent counts, perspective shapes openness, and together they influence the impact of our words. But moments of true discovery are rare and often happen in hindsight, when we find a clearer way to articulate what we have always sensed. Here’s what emerged (and, I gathered) from that exercise: 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒔. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒔 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒕𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒔𝒆𝒆𝒌𝒔 𝒔𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒔𝒆𝒆𝒌𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒆. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒏𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒖𝒆. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒔𝒉𝒖𝒕𝒔 𝒊𝒕 𝒅𝒐𝒘𝒏. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒔𝒊𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒔 𝒗𝒐𝒊𝒄𝒆𝒔. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒎. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒔 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒘𝒕𝒉. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒔 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒏𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒑𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒕. 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒆. It was a powerful reminder of how we communicate, especially in teams and leadership. The takeaway? 𝑰𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒚 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒂𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒆 (even, strongly) 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒅𝒆𝒆𝒑𝒍𝒚 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓. 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒉𝒐𝒘 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔, 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒆𝒂𝒎𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒃𝒖𝒊𝒍𝒕. Point to ponder: Are we creating environments where respectful disagreement is not just allowed, but encouraged? #ConfidentSpeaking #Leadership #Teamwork #Communication #ConflictResolution #WorkplaceCulture #Assertiveness #CommunicationStyles #BehaviourStyles

37

15 Comments

Author Tom Geraghty shares an insightful exploration of why safe workplaces often fall short. The "top barriers identified: • Steep power gradients — few things shut down vulnerability faster than imbalance in authority. “The number one barrier to psychological safety is not a lack of trust or empathy—it’s power. And we can’t fix what we won’t name.” • Cultural norms & organizational hierarchy — old habits die hard; if the status quo discourages dissent, nothing changes. • Personal fears and self‑judgment — individuals often hold back because of fear of rejection, shame, or looking ignorant." Why this matters? If people are silently opting out of sharing ideas or raising concerns—even when systems and values say otherwise—the culture remains fragile and the team underperforms. Some insightful steps leaders can take include: * Call out power imbalances: Name them and shrink them—invite input, rotate facilitation, model candor. * Shift cultural norms: Encourage debate, dissent, and safe challenge as everyday behaviour. * Build individual confidence: Role-play speaking up, normalize mistakes, share your own vulnerabilities. Psychological safety isn’t just about policies or once‑a‑year surveys, it’s about naming real-world barriers and creating space for human risk to be taken publicly and safely. https://lnkd.in/gpF-2GMW

36

4 Comments