Katie Churchman (0:06):Hello and welcome to the Relationship Matters podcast. From the boardroom to the living room, we believe relationship matters. Hello. I’m your host, Katie Churchman. And in this episode, Marita Fridjhon and I deep dive into the second of the five principles of relationship systems intelligence. Every member of the system is the information carrier and voice of the system. You can think of a team or family as a puzzle, where every member is a piece to reveal the picture of the overall team experience or family dynamic. Every piece is needed. Each member has critical information about the functioning of that team or family. The information may be transmitted through verbal and non verbal signals, as well as through the behaviours and actions of the individuals within the team or family. So here’s Marita Fridchon talking about how every member of the system is a voice of the system. Welcome back, Marita.

Katie Churchman (1:11):So today we’re tackling principle two, every member of a relationship system is a voice of that system.

Marita Fridjhon (1:17):Yes, it’s great what to talk about, particularly during this time and again, it ties into what we hold to be the definition of relationship systems to intelligence. That is, if we can sense and feel into the fact that everything that’s happening to me and to you is personal. But it’s also not personal. It belongs to the system. So from that perspective, if we then hold every voice as a voice of the system, it may be marginalized, it may not be a healthy one, but it is some form of expression of the system. And how do we then listen differently? That’s the place to play from.

Katie Churchman (1:58):Yeah, I’m sure this is going to be an interesting one, particularly for people who have big teams, because what happens when there’s time pressure and there’s this massive team that you’re working with? How can you possibly listen to every single voice in every single meeting?

Marita Fridjhon (2:11): That’s a really good question. I think that one of the things that’s asked for from us in those kinds of situations is what are the processes and what are the tools that we can put in place so that we can have some of that. So one of the ways that we sometimes work around an issue is to do a, from my tennis years, a round robin choice of something. So what we do is have people go to groups, whatever the topic is, and then let them express in their small groups, whether it’s five or depending on how much time you have in life, the group is, but let them express in that group, and then from there in the group, have them come up with a the top three, that there’s alignment on this is what we think and feel about it. So the top three, then we bring the whole group. So they select that. Then we bring the whole group back together, and we go around and ask the first group, what was your number one? We put that down, we check with the other groups, anybody else that had that one as one of your top three, and then they take it off their list. We keep it on there, we give an extra vote for this one, we go to the next group, and so literally, we go around and we sift through their choices. The process itself is much faster than if we try to do a roundtable conversation with 25 and 50 people. If we can begin to do it like that, it feels like it creates a little bit more time, but actually it doesn’t. It gives us, it’s faster than the roundtable conversation, and it guarantees that everybody had input and everybody had a voice on that. That then gives us a better idea of what the systemic cohesion is, if you will. From there, we can then begin to work. That’s just one way, but it really is. What are the ways that you can include more and work faster at the same time? Because the end result is that we’ve had input from everybody.

Katie Churchman (4:18):So do you think that’s become harder or easier? Now we’re all virtually working?

Marita Fridjhon (4:23):I think that it needn’t be more difficult, because if we think of the platforms that we are working on, when we get together virtually, whether it’s Zoom or webex, pick any one of them, there is a way in which we can break out into rooms. It’s exactly the same thing as putting people into groups. So break out in rooms, have that conversation, vote, and then come back, or rank and then come back. So I think that they’re breaking people into smaller groups to begin to process together. Then bringing that back to the bigger group, I do think, is the way that many of us and many organizations work already, and that’s the way of the future. Do you do it by voting? And voting is another way that you do that, but it’s that kind of thing for us. The fact that you get people in process before they vote, that’s where the gold is, because it gives everybody a chance to not just off the top of their head cast, but to sort through what they really think and feel.

Katie Churchman (5:26):Yeah, I’ve noticed with a virtual communication how actually some people have had more of a voice because they can now type in the chat box or use the doodle board, and they maybe didn’t have that.

Marita Fridjhon (5:38):Yeah, I love that. Actually, you’re so right. I think we should begin to. Instead of just mourning the fact that we couldn’t be face to face. Yes, let’s do that. But also let’s do that piece. That is, what are the different access points that we actually can do better at? The internal processors have a much better chance to participate in this way than when they’re sitting in a circle.

Katie Churchman (6:05):Yeah.

Marita Fridjhon (6:06):One of the things that we see in teams is when we begin to talk about that, it literally shifts how people feel and think. Because if I can say I feel and believe such and such, and I know that that’s because of my profile, that’s because of my values, but also something of it is an expression of the system itself. People tend to feel psychologically more safe because it’s not just, oh, that’s Merida again, or that’s Katie again with that thing that they know. If we really begin to look at that as an expression of the system, we can see different themes and the themes begin to get us to what is actually the major flow or drift. So in the direction of something, what is interesting, we just had a meeting in which a strategic conversation, and because we worked and hold the principles in the background, it became part of our agreement, our design team agreement, in terms of how we want to work together, that we will hear pushback as a voice of the system, we will hear the fact that somebody just acknowledged as the voice of the system. So thank you, Katie, for the acknowledgement, but also acknowledgement is the thing that belongs to all of us. Or thank you, Joe, for the pushback, but also know that there’s pushback in the system. So just that changed the culture and the experience of the meeting in a significant way. So once we begin to hold that principle as a guiding principle and then begin to wonder, how would I execute in any situation while holding that? What would I do differently? What’s the tool or the definitely, what’s the skill that I need to bring to that?

Katie Churchman (8:11):I guess that’s perhaps much more challenging, though, when you really disagree with a certain voice in a system, to hold that and work with it.
Marita Fridjhon (8:20):Well, you know, it’s so interesting when you ask that question, because you can see how nothing, everything is interdependent and nothing stands alone. But if you can begin to hold that as that voice, as the voice that belongs to the system, it forces us to listen differently and to maybe go, if it really is a voice that I can’t line up with, it may be really useful for me to then do that thing that we talk about where let me go and sit in your chair and let me experience it from that and then come back here again so you can see how it’s not static. And when you get that kind of piece, it really is useful to switch roles and switch voices and just begin to understand. It doesn’t take away from the fact that if we are in a conversation and there are a majority of us leaning in the direction of one decision, that we probably for now, need to go with that. Because if we hold that, it’s so interesting when we think about it. When you think of systems as that web of connection between us, the only way that it actually can express itself is to use our voice, is to speak through us. So if I can really hold that as I’m saying something on behalf of our web of connection that can’t speak, then I listen differently and I speak differently.

Katie Churchman (9:49):Just even embracing their voice as a part of the system creates, I guess, deeper empathetic understanding, would you say?

Marita Fridjhon (9:56):I think so. I think so. And then it ties us back into roles as well. Because we cannot forget that our own psychological makeup, our own profile, whichever assessment you’re using, pre disposition us to go to a disturber role, to go to the role of nurturing and holding space. So you’ll see it break out in terms of personality types as well. There are some people that are conflict averse that won’t push. There are people that love conflict and will push. So if you can then see it ties us into a principle that we’ll talk some other time about, it ties us into. The system relies on roles for executing its functions. So there has to be somebody that can push back, because that’s the voice that the system needs. There has to be somebody that can acknowledge, because we need the five to one ratio of positivity to negative. Those are all needs of the system. And sometimes we can just ask somebody for this call or for this session. Jo, we know you’re really good at pushback. I want you to, whenever you want to push back, invite somebody else to do the pushback. Because that’s the way that we begin to work on the first system that itself our own vertical development as individuals and as team members. Because then I begin to exercise that part of me that I’m not so identified with. And Joe begin to do the same thing. If he now begin to be the pushback and one that sees the conflict to some extent, he will actually be differently and sometimes better tolerated than the person that always brings the conflict.

Katie Churchman (11:50):Oh, that’s interesting.Yeah. It makes me think, actually, the people that are opposite of you say in a group or a team, they’re the ones that are perhaps going to jar with you. I don’t know how they can think like that or behave like that. They’re the ones that you need the most, because otherwise, if you’re a pusher, you need someone to absorb some of that. Otherwise, it’s just gonna be chaos, isn’t it?

Marita Fridjhon (12:10):Yes. Yes. That’s where we come across. The thing that we talk about is role nausea. If I always have to be the one that acknowledge I begin to have role nausea, so please, for somebody else, will you say that? Or if I’m always the one that bring that, whatever it is, people do develop role nausea because they begin to be identified with that. That’s not all of who they are. That’s one expression of who they are. So it’s a fascinating. But you can feel the complexity.

Katie Churchman (12:41):Yeah. So with regards to starting to work with all of the voices within a team or any type of system, whether it’s your family, your organization, how would you say that people start to sort of step into that for the first time?

Marita Fridjhon (12:55):One of the. There’s so many ways, but the first one that comes to mind for me is if somebody has an opinion, whatever it is, whether it’s agreement or disagreement, one of the ways is to invite them to have that and then invite the rest of the family or the rest of the team with. How would you express that? It may not be how you feel, but if you were to say that, how would you say it? That brings them a little bit closer to speak from that place. It softens it in a different way, and it gives us different access because they may actually be able to say it in a way that’s more acceptable for everybody else, and the person who said it won’t feel rejected. So that’s one way that’s interesting, invite people to feel into it. If you were to say, what are the words that you would use or where else do we hear somebody in our family or system say that? Can you feel how we begin to separate it from the identity of the person who said it?

Katie Churchman (14:05):Yes.

Marita Fridjhon (14:06):As something that’s more widely expressed.

Katie Churchman (14:09):Yeah. It’s an idea of that system, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a personal thing.

Marita Fridjhon (14:14):Yes. Yes.

Katie Churchman (14:15):Which it so often gets locked in, doesn’t it? It’s. Oh, that person. They always bring the conflict.

Marita Fridjhon (14:22):I know, I know. We were just in a conversation yesterday. We recently lost one of our founder faculty members, Grace Flannery. And we were just having a conversation, a ceremony for her. And one of the things that was one of my memories was how Grace is a thinker and an amazing mind, but she is very at home in essence and dreaming. So what that means when we move, when we lead together, is that if Grace remains with essence and dreaming, and I’m the one that keep on thinking about new things for the two of us together, it was very difficult to stick to a timeline. Okay, so one of the agreements that we made was that she will hold the timeline. Consensus reality. Consensus reality is something that you could do really, really well, but it lifted her from the place of comfort to hold responsibility in a different place. And it freed me up to dance more in the essence dreaming space. So you can see how profiles impact how we are an expression of the system. And sometimes, and as we evolve our own selves, I think that’s one of our jobs in our own vertical development, is to become more fully, to use your company name, 4D human in our expression, not to be seen as a threat, but that’s the growth, and that’s systemically how we evolve individually, but also how the systems around us then evolve.
Katie Churchman (16:11):Just thinking in terms of the voice that you were mentioning there, which you were kind of sharing initially, would you say that there’s then often a need for balance and binaries? You were both holding that dreaming essence, and then Grace was shifted into consensus reality.

Marita Fridjhon (16:27):I think that to be able to occupy all of it, which means to be on opposite ends of the spectrum while aligning, I think that’s the challenge invitation for human evolution. I really do, because we need to be fully expressed in all senses and in all dimensions, and not one of us can do all of it at the same time, which is why we need, I really think that’s why we go into relationship, to evolve ourselves more, to occupy more. The difference is actually the wealth, provided we can leverage it and not fight about it.

Katie Churchman (17:09):Yeah, I never thought about that. But of course, when I’m in my dreaming space, I can’t really think about the logistics behind that dream. And so actually, when I have relationship in my life, I can then have lots of different, I can have my finger in lots of different pies. My husband might hold the logistics and I might hold the dreaming.

Marita Fridjhon (17:29):And you can feel how even there we begin to, because we are as humanity, we often, at the lowest level, we’re very simplistic as well. So if somebody always holds the logistics or do the consensus reality, and then they suddenly start dreaming, we go, wait a minute, that’s my job. Or if you start putting out trash or whatever, go, well on that one, they may go, oh, great, you’re picking that one up as well. But you can see how we tend to. For predictability, we tend to dream one another into solids. And the invitation of relationship and relationship systems is to become fluid. Don’t dream me into being solid. Don’t allow me to become just one thing. Help me and I will help you. How do we design that we can more fully express and use all the voices that live inside me? And then, because when I then bring out the voice of the system, I bet you I’m a little bit more sophisticated in doing that.

Katie Churchman (18:38):So would you say that all the voices that live inside of me live inside of the systems within which I.

Marita Fridjhon (18:43):Exist in different complexities and in different versions? Yes. And how it expresses and how it manifests there, again, is uniquely different. We can recognize patterns, but there are colors and dimensions, is very different. But all of it, evolution occurs to the extent that we can express and hold and create from all of it. And that’s, I think, our consensus reality. Systemic struggle at the moment, globally, when we cannot hold the difference, we cannot hold what is different as belonging to the same system that I am part of and born into. And if we can hold the difference, that is expansion and that is evolution. Not being able to do that boxes us back into simpler forms.

Katie Churchman (19:44):Yeah, I love the sense that we are fluid. It feels very expansive, but it also feels like it’s not just me and my solid body and you. We’re kind of more connected than we realized.

Marita Fridjhon (19:55):That interdependence. And again, when we. When we think of the pandemic and we think of the things, if we just begin to also hear that, that too is the voice of the system. The chaos that’s happening in our climate, the chaos that’s happening political, that, too is an expression of the system. We can’t fathom what it’s trying to say, but it is an expression of something. Our challenge and invitation is to figure out what is trying to be expressed through that. Because in the end, on the global, and we now go into a much bigger complexity. But in the global pieces, when the crisis continues to get bigger, it’s because the signals have been there all along. Whether you think climate, whether you think racism, whether you think any of these, the signals have always, the expressions have always been there, their voices have always been spoken. But because it didn’t get integrated well, it then becomes stronger and stronger and stronger until it becomes a crisis, because then we have to focus on it. That’s the brilliance and the bane of systems. It will continue to push for evolution, it will continue to push for change. It cannot stay the same. It can’t.

Katie Churchman (21:19):It’s interesting, when you describe these big things as voices of the system, they seem less reactive. It feels more like information. In the same way that if I say something controversial in a group, as a voice of the system, it’s not so personal, then it feels the same with these big, big issues.

Marita Fridjhon (21:35):Yeah, yeah, no, I think so. And that’s why during the. I don’t even want to say the height of the pandemic, because we’re going into a new height of the pandemic. When we had those kinds of conversations, that’s when people were pointing to that underneath all the negative and traumatic of the pandemic, there is. Don’t you see what’s happening to nature? Because you don’t drive so much. Don’t you see what’s happening to human relationships and to families? When I force you to gather different, it’s like, then we can get some of those. The caveat that I’m going to put out here is that, and it’s part of our human complexity, is that we can literally take anything and use it as a weapon. We can take everything and use it as a weapon. So I can’t tell you the number of times when I was either coaching or in my own life experience where somebody would say something really nasty and I. Or somebody else would say, is that the impact that you wanted to have? And some. And the person would go, I’m just a voice of the system. So there’s something about voice of the system, and expression of the system doesn’t necessarily give us legitimacy to be nasty and destructive.

Katie Churchman (22:54):Yeah.

Marita Fridjhon (22:55):So it’s that dance. You can use everything as a weapon. You can use democracy as a weapon. We can. I mean, that’s the. But that there is, if we really listen to our teams, if we listen with our families and we really hear what is being said as an expression of what is happening in that web, of our connection. The web may say it more skillfully than the individual did, but there is a two percent truth in what is being said that we need to pay attention to because it’s an expression of the usness. It’s an expression of the we ness of us, and that we need to pay attention to.

Katie Churchman (23:37):It’s fascinating. Marita, thank you, as always, for being a voice of this system today.

Marita Fridjhon (23:42):Thank you so much. I love the way in which it goes from the simple to the complex in a nanosecond. It was fun talking with you. It was fun. Thank you. Thank you.

Katie Churchman (23:51):Thanks to Marita for that deep dive into principle two, every member of a relationship system is a voice of that system. Takeaways are as a voice of the system is saying something on behalf of the web of connections that make up that system. This principle advocates for the practice of deep democracy, the belief that the only way to navigate team and organizational realities is to hear all the voices, even the unpopular ones. While deep democracy means that all voices need to be heard, not every voice is equal. Organizations do have hierarchies, and realistically, the voice of the CEO probably carries more weight than that of his or her assistant. Next time, Marita will be deep diving into the third principle of RSI. Relationship systems rely on roles for their organization and execution of functions. Roles belong to the system, not the individual that inhabit the system. So look out for that episode. It’s coming very soon. In the meantime, make sure you subscribe to the Relationship Matters podcast wherever you get your podcast to make sure you never miss an episode. And for more articles, resources and information about ORSC courses, do check out crrglobal.com. From the boardroom to the living room, we believe relationship matters.