Interaction between Two People
Let’s return to our ongoing case study regarding Sheila and Kevin. They might begin to meta-communicate by discussing the appropriate nature of their working relationship. They might determine which areas of their lives and which ideas, values and feelings should (and perhaps even must) be shared if they are to do an effective job in helping to lead the institution about which they both care. Given that Kevin has some legitimate concerns about privacy, there is certain material in his Quad Three that Kevin has every right to keep in Quad Three (with regard to his interaction with Sheila).
These boundaries are perfectly clear and appropriate. Other boundaries may be less defensible. What about Kevin’s concerns that he might not be doing an adequate job? What about Sheila? Certainly, she should share some of her expectations regarding the work that she wants Kevin to do. On the other hand, Sheila has the right to keep to herself some of her hopes and fears regarding her institution and her role as leader of this institution. She has no obligation to share these thoughts and feelings with Board members. As in the case of Kevin, there are other parameters regarding Quad Three disclosure that are more debatable. What about her past reliance on the financial expertise of other people? Shouldn’t Kevin be aware of this past history?
As I mentioned in an earlier essay, these more controversial disclosures by either party require considerable trust (all three kinds) and could increase tension between Sheila and Kevin. The challenge for these two people is to meta-communicate about potential disclosures—without disclosing specific Quad Three content. This is not easy to do and a dilemma is often posed in seeking to engage in this level of disclosure.
