Drafts being read as proposals, over and over.
An Influence and Conscientiousness pairing collides on a single mechanism: Influence thinks by talking, so their first few versions of an idea are drafts, and Conscientiousness evaluates what is said as though it were a proposal. Each is doing exactly what their style does well, and the result is a loop that frustrates both.
- Influence × Conscientiousness
- Both sides get moves
- Measured, not concatenated
This is the most fixable pair on the list. Almost all of it goes away if the mode is labelled out loud.
Where it works, where it slips.
Where it works
Complementary once the timing is sorted. Influence generates the range of options; Conscientiousness works out which of them survives contact with reality. A good version of this pair produces better decisions than either would alone.
Where it slips
Conscientiousness costs an idea Influence had not committed to, Influence defends a position they were still testing, and both dig in over something neither of them actually believed.
The tell
Design review or planning meetings that go round in circles without either person changing position.
What each one concludes about the other.
Influence reads Conscientiousness as
negative — finding the problem with everything, apparently before giving the idea a chance.
Conscientiousness reads Influence as
unrigorous — proposing things that have obviously not been thought through, and then not defending them consistently.
Four moves, not four adjectives.
Both sides get something to do. Guidance that only asks one person to change is a verdict rather than advice.
- 01Influence: say "this is a half-thought, do not cost it yet." One sentence, and it removes most of the collision.
- 02Conscientiousness: ask "is that a proposal or are you still turning it over?" You will get an accurate answer.
- 03Separate the generating meeting from the evaluating meeting, even if they are twenty minutes apart.
- 04Conscientiousness: lead with what would need to be true for it to work, rather than with what is wrong. Same content, and Influence can act on it.
Are we evaluating something, or still making it up?.
This is the general case. Your two colleagues aren't.
Throughline measures the pair rather than concatenating two type descriptions — so the guidance names the specific people, and changes when you change the names.
All ten pairingsTell us what you’re working on.