Marta’s impulse to act is ‘goaling while externalising’. The professional situation presented was: student. The student must study the subject, take it in and present it externally for the exam.
A suggested situation in which one could build on the work support mentor’s work with Marta was supporting Marta in her ability to conduct conversations.
Some time later, Marta asked me for a chat. There were problems at work. It dawned on me that this was a perfect situation. I could now practise with her how to structure and conduct a conversation. I set myself a few goals:
- The conversation must have a specific duration, e.g. half an hour. I made this clear in advance and at the start of the conversation.
- I wanted someone from Loidholdhof to be present during the conversation, because of the issues she wanted to raise. It wouldn’t be good if only I were talking to her about her problems as things could escalate. I discussed with Marta who we could bring in. She rejected two of my suggestions and agreed to two others. Andrea was available.
The conversation:
- Inspired by Marta’s suggestion, I began the conversation by asking what the goal of each of us was. Not to agree on a goal, but so that at the end of the conversation we could ask each individual to what extent they had achieved their goal, or whether anything about the goal had changed. We followed this up at the end.
- At the start of the conversation, I invited Marta to describe her situation in a minute, perhaps a bit longer, but no more than five minutes. Others were then also able to contribute.
- During the conversation itself, I helped her to clarify her question. She first described a problem that affected her entire workload. Then we moved on to a specific situation involving an hour early in the morning, and so on. We worked out an alternative way for her to approach this situation differently, but above all, in how she described the problem. The problem wasn’t actually solved at that moment.
- At the end of the conversation, I asked whether she had achieved her goal for the conversation. Marta confirmed that she had. I also asked Andrea and myself.
At the end of the conversation, Bettina came in through the door because I was supposed to take the bus back to the hotel with her. She said: “We need Albert.” She had been inspired by Marta, who had been looking for me repeatedly that same day, saying: “I need Albert”. After we had addressed all three goals, I intuitively said to Marta: “Am I dismissed now?” Marta confirmed. “Is Andrea released too?” “Yes.”
Two days later, as we said goodbye, Marta was beaming and thanked me once again for the con-versation. That made it even clearer to me that it wasn’t just about the content of the conversa-tion, but above all about the way the conversation was conducted.
Reflection
In hindsight, I was glad I’d asked Andrea to help. She helped me understand Marta. Because of Marta’s dialect and the speed at which she spoke, I often find it difficult to follow her. I was able to ask Andrea to translate time and again.
This had the unexpected effect that Marta was also able to hear what she herself had said. By repeating what she said, she was understood. Even though, or perhaps precisely because, the repetition was directed at me. Her problem was thus articulated. She was able to listen herself whilst her situation was being recounted by someone else. My actual reason for asking Andrea to do this was irrelevant.
Looking back, I realise that by asking whether I was dismissed, as in other moments too, I handed the reins of the conversation to Marta. This made the task of leading the conversation concrete, and thus also externalised it.
No one felt that the conversation had been cut short due to lack of time. My offer to continue the conversation the next day or the day after was not taken up.
In this conversation, I repeatedly went along with Marta’s impulse to act. Her impulse to act was thus present in the room as a given.
