Beyond Comfort Zones: Empowerment Through Self-Discovery and Growth
Claire Payne explores the significance of stepping beyond comfort zones to achieve empowerment, the essential role of self-assessment in personal growth, and the transformative impact of recognising emotions and fostering genuine inclusivity.
Welcome to Inclusion Bites, your sanctuaryfor bold conversations that spark change. I'm Joanne Lockwood,your guide on this journey of exploration into the heart ofinclusion, belonging and societaltransformation. Ever wondered what it truly takes to createa world where everyone not only belongs, butthrives? You're not alone. Join me as weuncover the unseen, challenge the status quoand share stories that resonate deep within.Ready to dive in? Whether you're sipping your morning coffeeor winding down after a long day, let's connect,reflect and inspire action together.Don't forget, you can be part of the conversation too. Reach outtojo.lockwood@seechangehappen.co.ukto share your insights or to join me on the show.So adjust your earbuds and settle in. It's time toignite the spark of inclusion with InclusionBytes.And today is episode 138with the title Embracing FullPotential. And I have the absolute honour and privilege towelcome Clare Payne. Claire is a partnerin an international law firm, a tribunal judge,a non exec director and an academic.And when I asked Claire to describe her superpower, she said that she isfascinated by people, their stories and potential,and that she holds space to allow people to explore whothey are and step into their own power. Hello,Claire, welcome to the show. Hello, nice to be here.Absolute pleasure. We chatted a couple of weeks back, I think, andI've twisted your arm to come and come on the show, so I'm looking forward
Joanne Lockwoodhost
to this. So, Claire, tell me a bit more about embracingyour full potential and your passion. So I think for me
Claire Payneguest
this probably goes back if I can take youback to 2016. With myself, I'd gone upquite a fast career path in the corporate world, madeit up to partner in the legal capacity very, very quicklyand I'd done all the things that you were supposed to do to besuccessful. And I think at or around that time I sort of gotto the stage where I was getting increasingly frustrated at amanagement level with going around in circles with the sameconversations and meetings. And I'd also got this feelingof, you know, having got to where you're supposed to get to, was that it.And everything felt very much constricted. And Ithink for me, I sort of looked around myself and I'm always somebody who looksaround and thinks, well, surely there's a way we can do this better, what'smissing? And around about that time Ibecame very heavily involved with the Chartered Management Institute and inparticular looking at diversity. And one of the things I wentout and started having conversations with otherorganisations about was what does diversity mean toyou and what impact does it have in your organisation?And now statistically at some of them, I wasfinding on paper they had the samecredentials, they had the same numbers of people from differentbackgrounds, but some of them were seeing huge benefits fromthis and others, absolutely not. And that was sortof stepping off on this journey of realising, what's the differencehere? And it actually all came down to the culture, it came downto how much they allowed people to be themselves and bringthemselves to work. And so that set me offon what's been a whirlwind of a journey which after manyyears of doing lots of work with lots of different people, landedme sort of a couple of years after that in a field surroundedby wolves, looking at. So whereexactly did humans learn to collaborate and where didthis idea that we needed some diversity in our groupsin order to be able to innovate and reach our full potential come from?And the answer actually comes from about 100,000 yearsago, when we first started interacting with wolves.
Joanne Lockwoodhost
Because when we think about wolves, we think about a veryhierarchical society. But that's not what you found, is it?
Claire Payneguest
No, it's an absolute myth. There is no such thing as an alphawolf. The way that the wolves family groupswork is very much that they havespecifically bred different personalities anddifferent perspectives into the group. So each animal that is born intothe group has specificallyset rules. And they're very, very different intheir vision of the world and how they view things and how they deal withthe world. They're good at some things, they're worse at other.But collectively, when you slot the whole together,they're stronger for the fact that they've got such a variation indifferent perspectives and that capability to innovate and togather that much information for making decisions. And that really iswhere the heart of their success comes from. I read somewhere that
Joanne Lockwoodhost
when you go back to our prehistory, that theNeanderthal species, because we're Homosapiens, Neanderthals, different species, the Neanderthal was bigger,stronger, faster, more intelligent than Homosapiens. But the Neanderthalsdied out because they weren't collaborators, whereasthe Homo sapiens, what we are today, we weremore community tribal based. So again, the strength innumbers, the strength in the diversity of the skill set wasNeanderthals very much individualistic. It's exactly
Claire Payneguest
that. Back looking at the Neanderthals, whenthis change, this split first started happening, theywere very much like Primates, which is all about dominance, which is all aboutme as an individual. And the problem with an individualis you're then restricted by your own view of theworld and your own capability. And the sum of one isone. Whereas what we discovered, obviously, as Homosapiens, is that. And what we evolved into is agroup that looked at diversity and went, you know what? The sumof the group is bigger than the sum of the individuals involved init. And what we can achieve as a group is far superior to anythinganybody's ever going to achieve on their own. So weactively started looking towork with the strengths of the different individualsand started looking at how we can collaborate togetherin order to achieve something bigger. And that's what ultimately allowed usto progress. So where did we as humans go wrong then?
Joanne Lockwoodhost
Because if that's how we evolved, what we are seem tobe now as a species is based on alphas.We talk about this bell curve of normality wherewe have to sort of gravitate towards the centre of that bellcurve. And if you're an outlier, you're seen as lessvaluable. It is interesting how we've ended up here. I mean,
Claire Payneguest
the best explanation that I've had actually comesfrom a lot of stories that you see in the indigenous people around the world.For them, you see, there's a big difference betweenhow we in the west, few wolves, we've got our stories of, youknow, the Three Little Pigs, the Big Bad Wolf, the Little RedRiding Hood, we've got, you know, the wolves and the horror stories thatchase people through the woods and. And we've got a very negative view of them.Whereas if you go back to the indigenous people, they see them very muchstill with this view that they are teachers, that they are guides, that theyare to be looked to as a source of wisdom. Andacross the world, there are variations within indigenouspeople of the same story, which is about humans breaking withwolves and this hope that one day that we will rejoinwith them. And the point at which we broke with them was around about thetime that we started agriculture, because prior to that, wewere very much in tune with our environment. So we were in tune with eachother, and we were also in tune with the environment that we were living in.We worked with the seasons, we worked with what was available to us. Weforaged, we hunted, and that's very much how we survived.The change came when we started agriculture,when we started manipulating our environment, when we startedsaying, actually, we're not going to do with what's Actually therenaturally occurring, we're going to start cultivating things to serveus. And at that point the wolves also split. And that's howwe ended up the domesticated dogs, which are the ones that stuck with usas we almost domesticated ourselves and the wolves who carriedon being the wolves. And the more we've domesticated ourselves,I mean, we've had huge leaps forward in terms of what we've achievedas a species, huge leaps forward in what we are capableof. But unfortunately, somewhere along the line we also lostsome bits of the operating manual. So I think we forgotabout the benefit of having that diversity and of having thoseoutliers and realising that quite often that's wherethe innovation comes from. That's where the interesting challengeor the different way of seeing a problem or seeing asolution comes from. That lets us leap forward. Butwe also lost a number of other things that help us reach our potential.So for example, now we are, we are particularly poor at regulatingour own neurological systems. I mean, wolves are anabsolute master of ensuring that they keep inregulation. So what, what's happened with us iswe've, we've got this system and you probably hear people talk aboutpolyvagal system, butessentially in a nutshell, if we are in aregulated state, we are in the ventral vagal system, which means we're open and wecan connect to lots of people. It means we're in connection, we can seeopportunities, we're ready to take in board information, we can takein lots, lots of different ideas and we can makedecisions much quicker. The difficulty about modern lifeis it keeps us in the parts of that system that are our fight, flightor freeze. Because a lot of us are overstimulated and we're notregulating ourselves. And what that does is when you pullyourself down into that stressed part of yourneurological system and you start permanently living there, youstart finding it more difficult to connect with people. Youstart wanting to focus on where's the threat coming from as opposedto where's the opportunity. And at that point,things that are different from us or ideas that are comingin are at best seen as a bit overwhelmingor at worst seen as being something of a threat. And atthat point we actually actively stop collaborating with each other.So it's not just been about as wanting tocontrol, it's also been about this gradualdisconnect. We've almost started programming intoour neurological system. But the really good thing about it isall the hard wiring is still there and we are perfectly capableof reversing that if we just bring some consciousness around how we'remanaging ourselves and how we're interacting with each other, particularly in theworkplace. I think it's fascinating.
Joanne Lockwoodhost
I agree with completely. And our vagus nerve, whichis, I guess what you're talking about here is when you're referring to it, it'sconnected directly to our adrenaline glands, our digestivesystem and that fight flight freeze mechanism. And we areoften in a state of heightened alert. And it's very difficultto live in modern societywithout being on that lookout. I guess you've got to go cheque outof, of the modern world, live in a commune, goback to nature in order to step out those stresses whichwe're all facing. I mean, you work in the legal profession,that's a very, well, traditionally maledominated alpha type environment, especially if you're in thecity. It is, absolutely. And I think this is
Claire Payneguest
why I became so acutely aware of this as well. Because very muchin the legal environment you don't show weakness.And I think particularly as a litigator,when I'm working in conflicts, there is thisidea that you are out there on your ownand that you are fighting the good fight and thatquite often there is, there is no room for compromise. And this ishow parties end up at loggerheads. Of course, a more modernway that we're, that a lot of people are coming around to in terms ofconflict resolution is thankfully these days we'reseeing a lot more things like mediation and like people havingconversations and bringing each, you know, bringing parties to the tableto actually see how they can collaborate and finding a solution rather than justdigging themselves into a trench and hurling things at each other from eitherside until one of them gives in. Yes, I think that'ssomething I'm a lot more sensitive to being in the legal profession,particularly being a litigator where I'm dealing with contentiousenvironments because people become very entrenched and they don't wantto talk to each other, they don't want to communicate, they don't want to collaborate.And they become very stuck in this,in this world where they've closed down and everything is athreat and everything is taken in anegative way. And actually one of the joys of
Claire Payneguest
the direction in which modern legal sort oflitigation work is going is that we're seeing a lot moremediation now, a lot more people willing to get intoa meeting and lawyers willing to get their clients to thetable to have a discussion where they can start collaborating about howthey can Find a solution and find a way forward.That's not to say people's viewpoints aren't entirely valid, that's notto say their emotions aren't entirely valid, but finding away in which they can release those in a positivefashion, gain some understanding between each other, and actuallyget to the point where they've got a solution which would be far better thananything a court could ever order is really,really helpful. So I think there is definitely arecognition now, certainly within legal, the legalindustry, of moving away from this being it's allabout me on my own. And I can't show any weakness to being able tosay, well, hang on, maybe it's a case of just having a bit of understanding,of perspective. I'm not sure I would say it's gone as far as havingsome empathy yet, but it's certainly starting totake steps in the right direction. And I think the solutions that peopleare seeing in terms of being able to craftanswers to problems and being able to find ways forward thatdon't end up costing a fortune and years oflitigation in court are making a significant difference to the businessworld. That must be a change in strategy from
Joanne Lockwoodhost
within the judicial system, I guess, because the judicial systemeffectively breeds its clients. And if you're engagingwith an advisor, a solicitor, a lawyer, andthey want you to litigate, they want to earn their fee,then they're going to push you in that route because it's thatfeudalistic conflict that the legal system seems to thriveon. And you look at divorce, you look attribunals, you look at companies and individuals,the first stop hasn't always been talk first, has it? It's alwaysbeen build your army and getsupport. It has. And I think, I think certainly in the legal world it's
Claire Payneguest
changing for a number of reasons. One of them is that the courts are nowvery much looking at promoting mediationfirst with parties. There is an expectation there thatparties should have had those conversations. So we sawback in the 1990s the introduction of preaction protocols, which required parties to set out their cases totry and get some level of understanding and encourage them to starttalking. That's now progressing to the pointwhere we've got ordered mediation in certain cases and we've alsogot judicial mediation. So, for example, in my tribunal, there's anumber of us that are trained mediators and if we say, seea case where we think, actually, do you know what would be really helpful isactually these parties just need to get in a room and talk to each other.We can order that and facilitate that before we sendit to anybody to start making orders for them to do disclosureand make judicial decisions on what's presented to us. Because
Claire Payneguest
actually quite often that means that there is a much better long term solution forthose parties. Particularly because I work in the area of property where people have tocarry on living with each other or working with each other afterwards.That's increasingly important. I think from the other side,the day of the traditional law firm where everything ison billable hours is numbered. There are still somefirms out there where the solicitors working forthem or basically all of their targets are based on how manyhours have you stuck on the clock and how many hours have you billed theclient. And for them, that does drive very mucha culture where they will geteach individual case to last as long as it possibly can and they wantit to go to court because they're going to make more money out of itbluntly, and they're going to get more hours on the system. The difference that youhave when you start pushing back at that model,and it's certainly something that Gunnar Cook, which is the firm that I'mpart of, has done. The reason we're called a challenger firm is becausewe don't run on hourly. We don't have targets ofhours on the clock or hourly rates that we've billed or anything.What we judge ourselves on is the net promoter score,which is at the end of a case, we ask a client,on a scale of 1 to 10, how likely are you to recommend us tosomeone else? I have, we done a good job. And as long asthey've said we've done a good job, we're happy with theoutcome and we do fixed fees as much as we can. And when you'redoing fixed fees and when you're looking to get the best outcome for aclient, it changes very much how you come atmanaging that dispute. Because what you're looking for is an earlysolution. And you know, it might soundcounterintuitive, but actually that's when you see clientswhere you build a real long term trust relationship with them. That's when they comeback to you time and again because you solve the problem. So they come backto you with the problem after that and the problem after that, and the problemafter that. The other thing is you do an awful lot lessmarketing because they're delighted with the work that you've doneand they tell everybody that they know that they should instruct you.So actually it's not curtailed the amount of profitthe law firm can make. If anything, it makes the profitshigher and it makes it more sustainable. But it is counter to howlaw firms have worked for a long time. So there's a push from both sidesto recognise that. And I think there is also a big push fromclients who are waking up to see that actually they don'twant their businesses stalled whilst we have arguments with eachother. So I think in the legal industry thingsare starting to change. I think what I see from my,with my non exec director hat on is in the boardroom things arestarting to change as well because I have noticedthat there is less box ticking going on with a lot of theorganisations that I work with. So they're not just looking for somebody whoticks a box for diversity, they're also looking forsomebody who brings a very different perspective to the table. They wantsomeone who's had different life experiences, they want someone who's got adifferent background, they want something who's got a different skill set and they wantall of that to be at the table in the boardroom so that when they'rehaving discussions about solving problems, again, it's notjust groupthink with one viewpoint going around in circles,they're actually genuinely getting a number of different solutionson the table and they're genuinely getting the right questions asked toexplore things from different perspectives. So I think we are, we are in avery exciting time where, you know, as I said, theindigenous people have got this story about this time when we almost come backround to the way that the wolves think. And forme, I think I'm starting to see that curve naturally startingto happen in the way that we are driving ourselvesnow. But the world at large seems to be getting worse. I
Joanne Lockwoodhost
mean, we've just, we're recording this mid November, in fact,Armistice day on the 11th, the 11th.And we've just come off the back of a US presidential election where it's verymuch driven by divisive politics. And ourown two party system in the UK is also adivisive in government and opposition. The oppositionhave to oppose everything the government do. We're not a collaborativegovernment in the uk, are we? No, I agree, I agree. And it's
Claire Payneguest
very divisive and I think politics, modern politics, does breed thatin some ways. But I think it isinteresting in the way in which weconsume our news, because we consume our news focusedon the negative. What we don't consume our news on is focused onhow many people perhaps voted for something that was a bit moreliberal and a bit more collaborative. And I think,you know, because of the way we are wiredto look for threat, people who are selling newspapers, whoare selling, you know, social media stories and everything elsewill promote the thing that is a threat. What theywon't do is tell you the hundred good news stories, thehundred little moves here, there and everywhere else, the things that have happenedday to day in the lives of real people and the shifts that are happeningand the thinking and the way in which people interact with each other on apersonal basis in favour of looking at thesebig. These bigger stories. Now, I'm not belittlingat all or suggesting you ignorethe seismic shifts that are happening, but I think it's a case ofgetting some perspective on it. And I think you get a choice of how youget to view the world and you get a choice of how you want tointeract with the world. And you can choose to view it asdoom and gloom and there's no hope, or you can choose to look for thehope and to continue making the change in your own sphere ofinfluence. And if we all keep doing that, imagine what we could achieve betweenus. Yeah, you're preaching to the choir here.
Joanne Lockwoodhost
I completely converted. I'm seeing a lot ofpushback on edi, dei, whateveracronym you want to use. And what you're saying is you'reseeing a shift in the legal profession towards mediationin the EDI space. People are kind of dismissing it.It's become too entrenched in identity politics, become too entrenchedin this, that the other. It's not delivering any benefitsanymore. We need to cancel all the EDI budgets, fire all theEDI teams. Was EDI everdoing anything worthwhile in business? I think. And I think
Claire Payneguest
this comes back to what I was saying about the box ticking.And, you know, there are organisations, and there are a lot of organisations outthere that are dealing with so much regulation now thatactually EDI has just been put on the regulation pilots. Another hoopthat they need to jump through. So they need to collect data, they need totick boxes, they need to make sure things are worded in a certainway. And what they're doing is they're jumping through hoops withoutreally looking at why this would be of benefit to them as anorganisation. And I think at that point itdoes become a chore, it becomes something that actually losesthe meaning behind it. Whereas I think thoseorganisations that are smart, those organisations that arereporting that huge seismic shift in the. In thebottom line. Those huge impacts on workplace cultureare the ones that have actually understoodthe underlying driving principle of our own, whyhaving equality, diversity and inclusion is so important. Andit is about having all of thosepoints all together. One of them doesn't work. You know this.Having equality doesn't work if you haven't got inclusionand you haven't got diversity in there. You've got to have all three ofthem as part of this mixture. And what it's about is, it'sabout creating that diverse group ofpeople where everybody is empowered tobring themselves to the table and included in the discussion sothat you can get the absolute best from them. And it's not just,
Claire Payneguest
you know, we're not just talking about in the boardroom, we're talking abouteverybody from, you know, your cleaners, your receptionstaff, right up to your senior managers,because they will all have input,ideas, things that they notice, things they realise. And if they've gotten avoice, a voice and that empowerment to be able to contribute, that you arethen harnessing the potential of your people, which is your greatest asset inthe business. And I think if people started treatingEDI like that consistentlyacross the board, then this idea that it's this sort oftired piece of regulationbook ticksing work would change. And I think that,I think that is where organisations are going wrong. It's not about thered tape, this is about how do you get yourorganisation into a situation where, you know,where can innovate. This is one of the biggest things that people complainabout. There's no innovation in our organisation. Nobody is looking at better waysof doing things. Well, they won't be if you haven't got thatinclusive culture. It's all about the culture. The other thing that theycomplain about is, you know,how do we get to the point where we'regetting potential out of everybody? How do we get to the point where we've notgot people disengaging and doing the bare minimumAgain, that at the heart of it has got to be in a culture thatempowers people to feel included, to feel they've got a voice, to feelthat they are part of the vision, that they are part ofthis community that is driving forwards towards a commongoal. And so the heart of it is really going to come in cultural change.And the organisations that are nailing that are going to get the benefit ofedi, the organisations that aren't are going to be therescratching their head, going, I don't understand why we have to keep going through this.
Joanne Lockwoodhost
So how do we get our leaders to wake up to thisprehistoric wolf, ancient humanmodality, where we're. We're focusing onthe right side of our vagus nerve, rather the wrong side of our vagusnerve. How do we get leaders to shift their perspectives on that?
Claire Payneguest
I think one of the things that I have found is, sadly, you cantalk to people about this until you blew in the face,but the best way they can pick it up is to actually feel it, isto actually experience what it's like. And that's eitherby going into an organisation, which is nailing this andwhich is getting it right and seeing how that culture works andlooking at best practise, or in my case, what Ifound is actually I take groups of leaders outand I teach them what that regulated state feels like. Itake them in to meet the wolves, to feel what it feels like to bepart of that pack, part of that community. And you feel it atsuch a visceral level. And people are sosurprised at how calm it makes them feel, howcontrolled they feel, how empowered they feelto be able to then bring their own strengths to the fore. And I thinkit's one of those things that empowerment very much starts withthe individual leader. If they areputting on a mask to try to fit a mould that somebody hastold them, you've got to be this way in order to be an executive, inorder to be a director, a CEO, a manager, whatever position they'rein, if they're masking in order to try and do it and not bringing theirwhole self to the table, they're going to struggle to do that with the restof their team. So it is one of those things where it does comeback to that personal development, that reconnection withthemselves and that ability to empowerthemselves to bring everything to the table. And then what they will naturallyfind is they will see the benefits for them and they will naturally startbringing that to their team and the culture will start changing aroundthem. It's. It's like ripples in a pool. You start one and it doesstart going out. Because one of the other things that we've got, which is aphenomenal capability for humans,is we can regulate ourselves. But because we havethis neurological system throughout our entire body, with mirrorneurons, we can also influence and co regulate other peoplearound us. So that feeling of regulation, that connection, thatempowerment, you can, when you're really tuned into it,actually push that out into a group when you're working with them as well.
Joanne Lockwoodhost
You work leaders and Teams and I also work with many leaders.One of the biggest barriers is this fear of getting it wrong. Becauseedis team is such a minefield. So many differentidentities, so many politics gets involved,conflict, us versus them, me versus you, all this kind ofstuff. How does the leader overcome that fearof getting it wrong? And it is. That fear of failure is
Claire Payneguest
absolutely huge. And it does come back to this idea of, you know,I've got to be out there on my own, I can't show any weakness. Ithink, I think there are huge benefits to failing,huge, huge benefits to failing, because if you never fail, you neverprogress, you never learn, there's a cycle toprogressing. And what we get stuck in is we get stuck in the first twosteps of it. We plan and we do. We plan and we do. We planand we do. What we very rarely do in the modern world is
Claire Payneguest
reflect. And actually, if you want to up your game,you plan it, you do it and then you reflect on it. Andeven things where things, everything's felt like it's gone really well,there will be certain bits that you could have done better and there's neveranything, there's never a situation which is a completefailure. And the reason for that is because even when it's gone wrong,there will be absolute nuggets of gold to be gathered therethat tell you how to get it right next time, what can we do betternext time? What can we do to make sure that the next time we givethis a go, it's a bigger success? And I think if you comeat that idea of failure as being a learningopportunity, you open yourself up to the opportunityto innovate and to progress. And I think in the EDI spaceas well, I think it's giving each other permission to get it wrong.And I think, you know, with political correctness, a lot of peopleare very worried to actually ask the questions, toactually put themselves in a position of saying, you've got aperspective and an experience. I don't understand. I would like to knowmore because they're so worried about offending somebodyif they do that. Whereas I think, you know, the key to a lot of,a lot of inclusion is understanding. And so I think,you know, there is, there is something there to having anorgan, to having an organisational culture where you can say topeople, I I'm not sure I understood where you were coming from.I'm interested, please, could you explain that? Or if somebodydoes get it wrong and says something that perhaps isoffensive, is to have that unconditional positive regardfor people, that was very clear that that was their intention.It's a question of a lack of knowledge, not a question of them intentionallytrying to be offensive. And actually a quiet conversation thatsays, you know, taking them off to one side and saying, I don't know ifyou realise, but actually when you mentioned that, that was quite upsetting forme. And this is why, because if you do it in that way with people,most people will say, oh, my goodness, I didn't realise, I didn't know. Butnow that I do, I'm aware of that. And that's how they learn, that's howthey develop, that's how the understanding grows. And I think we've gotto not be scared of talking to each and realisethat for the most part, everybody is doing the best theycan with what they've got. And everybody does have adifferent background and a different knowledge. And most people are willingto learn and are willing to try, but you've just got to give each othera bit of a chance sometimes. Yeah, I think
Joanne Lockwoodhost
we set ourselves up in this. Men versus women,white versus black, straight versus gay, transversus not trans, neurodiverse versus neurotypical. All this kindof. You've either got it or you haven't got it. If you haven't got it,you don't understand what it's like to have it and vice versa. And thenthe poor person who's in the middle of the bell curve of normality isgoing, what about me? I feel left out here. There's nothing for me tobe normal. Everybody else gets all the benefitsby being something and I don't. And I think we need to take
Claire Payneguest
it back to our shared humanity in a lot of ways, because,I mean, there's two things we're always going to have far more in common thanwe have different. And there's some lovely exercises you can do when youstick a bunch of people in a room who think they've got nothing in commonand start talking to them and you realise they've got loads in common, apart frommaybe one or two things that they disagree on. So I think we've gotmore in common than we have, that's different, but also converse tothat we're also all individuals and there is noway that I would ever fully understand theperspective of another individual, whether they are in one of thoseboxes that have been ticked or not. And I think in a waywe've got to stop putting people in boxes and start recognising peopleas individuals rather than trying so desperately tocategorise everybody, because somebody isnot their, you know, neurodiversetag or their sexuality tag or their gendertag. That is one aspect of ahugely complex individual who will have so manyother different things about them. That's just one thing. It happens to beabout them. And I think, you know, if we start viewing each other like that,about these complex, fascinating individuals andknowing that there are going to be things we have in common and other thingsthat are different, and my goodness, doesn't that make life exciting? Because if we wereall the same, it would be blooming boring then. I think that, youknow, that is the key to us starting to be able to have a betterunderstanding and to be able to work with each other more. That's kind of the
Joanne Lockwoodhost
fundamental route of mediation, isn't it? It's trying to work out what ourcore common objective is, what we have in common. In fact, weboth want to resolve this in some way and we don't want tokeep fighting the battle forever. We want to move on. We want to be ableto get on with our lives, our businesses, and Ialways call it things like destination planning, where we're trying to work out,where we're trying to get to. And whilst we have to acknowledge thepast, we don't need to keep bringing the past up, putting it back on thetable all the time. You just have to say, in order to move on, wehave to accept the past has happened and now we need to work on thesteps to get to where we're trying to get to. Whilst acknowledging the past doesn'tgo away. Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean, as a mediator,
Claire Payneguest
when I'm sitting as a mediator, it's a hugely privileged positionbecause you get to see right inside both sides,or sometimes three, four sides of the argument, which the other peopledon't have the privilege of having that perspective. And I thinkthere's a couple of things that we do need to recognise. One of them isemotions. We all have emotions.Particularly in the uk, we are very much trained from an earlyage to ignore our emotions. We push them down, we don'tprocess them. Whereas actually, emotions need to be processedthrough. They're there, they're indicators. You know, you get angry because aboundary has been challenged, you get fearful because you're out of yourcomfort zone. You know that these. These are natural emotions thatare there in our body, they're there for a reason, forus to then trigger thinking, to trigger being ableto then manage the situation. I'm scared of this. Am I out of my comfortzone? Am I actually in danger? No, I'm not. But you've got to be ableto process it in order to have that conversation with yourself. And Ithink part of the problem that you get to is, you know, if you justget to the point where you say, well, let's just forget the pastwithout letting people voice the emotion that was attached to itand get it through their system, all they're doingis pushing it down below the surface, and it's still there trying to erupt. Soit does just keep coming back up and it's. And. And so one ofthe things that, you know, in mediation, there is a certainbenefit there at the. At the beginning to letting people just get it all outthere on the table. I mean, you know, it's just, you know, andwhether that's, I need to have a rant where the other party canhear it, or I just need to have a rant at someone and beheard, get it out of there. And then you draw theline and say, yeah, exactly what you just said. Okay, whatdo we both want? And the joy of being the mediator is be able tosit there and go, I've heard from both of you, and actually there is commonground. There's this playing field in the middle here whereboth of you are actually willing to step onto it, and there's this. This
Claire Payneguest
almost golden space where there is a solutionhere. And, you know, it's seeing how far eachparty where they're willing to come to and what that space looks like.And it's very interesting because part we also make huge amounts ofassumptions about other people, huge amounts of assumptions. Andof course, we need to be able to do that in order to navigate theworld. But quite often ourassumptions about what the other person wants, what theiragenda is, what they're trying to get to, you know, what's in it forthem is quite different to their perspective.And actually, when you come down to it, it's thisidea that people are doing the best they can with what they'vegot. And they have emotions too, and they havedrivers behind them, and they have reasons as to why they'veresponded that way or why they're looking at things that way, whether it'sintrinsically part of their personality or it's part of their background,their experience of the world and so on, butrecognising that they're doing the best they can withwhat they got and having that unconditional positive regard asA starting point means that you get to that common groundso much faster. But sometimes it just takes someonestanding in the middle to see it, to step back as a neutralobserver and go, do you actually realise that there isa common ground here? You know, if we canjust share this information and understand the perspective,you're already there. I spent a good chunk of my life
Joanne Lockwoodhost
providing IT support to customers. Most of thecustomers were in a position where there was something wrong and theywanted it right. Whether it was their backups weren't working, their server had died,they lost all their data, whatever it may be, machines broken.And I learned quite quicklythat you almost might start the conversation, what are you lookingfor out of this situation? And most peopledon't actually know what they want. They know, they know they want aresolution, they know they want to be right, they know they want the other personto be wrong and they want some sort of compensationor something. But when you say, okay, what would asatisfactory resolution look like to you?I don't know. I'm so caught up in my emotion here, I don't actually knowwhat I want. So it's a very good way of disarming people to say,pour the emotion out, let me hear your vent andrant, and then say, okay, what does good look likefor you from here on in? What can I do to resolve this for you?
Claire Payneguest
Absolutely. I mean, I've, I. And in my work as a. As a lawyer,mediator, judge, business consultant, it's always thesame. It is always the same. People are.They can see all the problems, they can see all the issues, theycan see how unfair the world is, they can see how unreasonable someone is.And when you get through all of that and say, yes, but, you know, weare where we are, what. What do you want to wake up totomorrow? And you do get that pause and you go,and I think again, if people were able to put thatpause in for themselves when they hear something from someone elseor feel uncomfortable or feel unsure and justgo, what outcome do I actually want from this interaction?What. What do I actually want to get out of the end of this project?What is the, you know, when I'm looking at the culture of how we dealwith things in this workplace or in this team, what isit? I'm actually trying to get out of this? And if you went fromthat end goal backwards, then how youreact to things and how you decide to deal with things would changedramatically. Sometimes actually, what people want
Joanne Lockwoodhost
without realising it is just de escalation to Better lay downtheir arms to better lay down the argument and walk away withfaith without feeling they've lost. But they settletheir disagreement by being heard. I think is probablyrestorative justice, as I would call it, rather thanactually wanting to punish somebody any further. Justacknowledgement of your perspective,maybe. I mean, that's absolutely true because
Claire Payneguest
that, that whole holding all that emotion in andstaying angry and fighting isso exhausting. It is absolutelyexhausting. And you know, particularly, I mean particularly in conflictsituations or, you know, in, in high pressure situationsin business where you're trying to get projects across the line and so on.It's, it can, it can take over your entire life if you get yourselfinto that loop. And this is when, you know, people find themselves waking up atthree in the morning with their head racing. And, and actuallywhen it comes down to it, you say to people, what do you really want?I would really like a good night's sleep and to not have to be thinkingabout this every time. Every time I pause, every time Ihave a cup of tea, every time I sit down, this comesback into my head again and I'm thinking, how am I going to solve this?It's hanging over me. I just don't want it there anymore. I want asolution. I want it moving forward. I want to feel like we're making someprogress towards something. And that's what most people do want.Absolutely. But again,I think a lot of people feel very vulnerable to admitthat because we've still got this hangover of this idea ofyou need to be out there on your own, you need to be fighting. AndI think, you know, it, particularly if you are talkingabout, you know, a very, a very sort of masculinecorporate world where, you know, the testosterone is there and it's allabout pushing through. You can't back down. It'snot, you know, and, and actually it's not about backingdown, it's about getting to where you want to getto. And, and I think that that is a,is a, is a shift that is still, is still not quitethere. It's still not quite there in a lot of corporate environments. I, I was
Joanne Lockwoodhost
unfortunately the recipient of a bit of a hate crime.I don't know if this is Shades of Grey. Can you have a bit ofa hate crime? It's either it's probably quite binary. It either is a hate crimeor it's not. And the police told me it was a hate crime. So Iguess it is a hate crime that someone has sent me some quiteQuite nasty emails, unsolicited emails, quite personal, quiteattacking. So I reported the police online like youdo, and the police officer came around, we had a goodchat, took all the evidence away and a few weeks later he came back andsaid, look, we're pretty sure we tracked down this person, but we'rereluctant to take it any further because this person has a history of mental health,poor mental health, and we don't think that anything's going to beserved by progressing it with them, other thanpotentially them reacting badly and having more goes at me or whateverelse. And they said, what do you want to do? And I said, look, allI was ever after in this process was for the personinvolved to be made aware of the fact thatwhat they've done is wrong, it is a hate crime. And I wasjust after restorative justice, an apology, and then the officer at thetime explained to me that they did. The court system didn't work on restorativejustice anymore, they had to punish hate crimes. SoI thought, well, actually, all I really want is a. Just, you know and Iknow and you know and I know that this is wrong and I'm happyto drop it, but the system, the judiciary system at that pointwas pushing me down to an argument. And when they said this person,it's not worth pursuing because of all these mental healthscenarios, do you really want to pursue it? Because if you do, we will.Although I've never, after beingvindictive or punishing anybody, I just wanted that person to wake up andknow what they did wasn't acceptable. And you're sayingthat this, anything I do now isn't going to result in anythingproductive, then I'm happy to move, I'm happy to step out of this. Shedoes it again, fine. But if nothing ever happens again, I'mhappy to drop it and. But the system is set up for me to pushthat button for more bigger argument.
Claire Payneguest
It is, absolutely. And it is, it is very sad because oneof the things that can, can never be really ordered in the court is anapology. There is an order for someone to do something or topay something, but there will not be an orderto apologise because,wish as you might, you can't make someone else feel something,so you can't make someone else feel sorry. And I think youknow that it's a very natural feeling when somebody hasdeeply hurt you. You want them to understandhow you're feeling and to empathise with it. And youcan't, but you can't make that happen. And that is, andthat is quite difficult. And I think, I think one of the bestconversations I've ever had around this was with a ladycalled Dr. Jane Lewis, who, she is
Claire Payneguest
an academic and an expert in Hawaiianculture. And of course in Hawaiian culture, they have a bigculture of forgiveness. And forgiveness for them is notabout the other person. It's not about turningthe other cheek, it's not about making the other person feelingbetter. It's about saying, what you've done no longerhas any power over me. So I am going to let it go. I'mforgiving you because I don't want what you'vedone, said act, how you've acted, to have any power over mewhatsoever going forwards. And I thinkthat's where the distinction has had to land for mein that, in terms of justice, ifthis person was persisting or they were likely to do it again, then inthat case the court system can very much put a stop to it.If it was, it's happened and it'snot likely to happen again. You're never going to be ableto get that person because they could. Even if they were told they had towrite a letter of apology, whether they meant it or not,you're never going to be able to make them feel something that you want themto. So unfortunately, the best thing to do though, is to, isto put it down and say, I'm going to let go of the power thatyou've got over me with this. I am going to several times tothis and I'm going to forgive you in that way. And it is, it is,it is a hard thing to do because you want, you don'tfeel like your emotions have been validated andthat's difficult. It is very difficult. It is.
Joanne Lockwoodhost
But I think you're right. I think that's the key. It's.It's taking that emotion, the screwed up bit of paper, popping it in a binand saying, you no longer have power over me. Whatever you say from here onin doesn't matter to me anymore. Your opinion is youropinion, not mine. Yeah, it takesthe strength of character to get to that point, doesn't it? And it's, it does.Especially if you've got some PTSD or, you know, trauma as a resultof it. Yeah, and it does. And again, it
Claire Payneguest
comes back around in circle to two things that the wolves are exceptionally goodat. One is the regulation. Because if you can regulateyourself, you can put that pause in to go before Ireact to this. What Do I want. What do I want the outcome to behere? What am I going to achieve by doing this?The other thing is having thatabsolutely unconditional positive regard for yourself and being sosecure in your own personality. The wolves don't haveany judgement of each other. Their responseto everything is, that's interesting. You know, they've got somebody in thegroup that's really good at this, but they're not very good at that. They've gotsomebody in the group that messes something up. They're shown what they've donewrong. That's interesting. It won't happen again.They just have this view of themselves, of regardlessof what happens, it doesn't take away from their own intrinsic value.It doesn't take away from who they are, what they are, what anybodyelse says, thinks, looks at them funny. They.They're just not bothered about it. They're just like, oh, that's interesting. It'sinteresting that you think that. It's interesting that you do that a different way.It's just information. It's not, it's. It's not apersonal reflection on who I actually am orwhether I've got any value or not. And I think, you know, in aworld where we're reduced to likes onsocial media and needing to people please and needing tobe liked and accepted and feel likewe fit in all the time, we're pushed to do that.It's very, very hard to do that as a human being in this modernworld. I mean, it was very interestingsome of conversation with somebody else the other day about this. Thisidea that the difference between the opposite of fitting in isbelonging and actually truly belonging is being socomfortable in your. In your own skin thatno matter whatever anybody else thinks, wants, does, judges you,anything else, you still know that you've got your intrinsic value.And it's very hard to find your intrinsic value when youare trying to fit, you know, a mask overyourself every day to fit a certain mould that someone's told you, this is whata successful person looks like, or this is how you aresupposed to be, or this is the line you've got to tool. And not lettingyou be yourself, it does make you doubt your ownintrinsic value. And that starts right from when we're in school.So it's a challenge. It really is a challenge.
Joanne Lockwoodhost
Yeah. Fitting in is changing yourself. Belonging is being acceptedfor who you are. Yeah. It's a fundamental difference.You put in the show notes about fire walking, glasswalking and breaking arrows, and the difference between breaking through andpushing through. Do you want to expand on that a little bit? Yeah,
Claire Payneguest
there is a huge, huge difference. There's thisidea, again, it's come from, particularly in corporateculture, of this idea of when the going gets tough, the tough getgoing. So, you know, when things get difficult, manup or chin up, however you want to put it, andyou're just going to push through, you're just going to put yourself throughthat stress. You're just going to be exhausted. You're just going to, you know, geton with it, because you need to get on with it. And actually,in a crisis, yes, that might be the appropriate thing todo. In a life or death situation,that is something we've got the capability to do because in that splitsecond that would save our lives. But we're not meant to livein a crisis. We're not meant to spend, you
Claire Payneguest
know, 99% of our lives in a burning housetrying to escape that. That's not what our system was builtfor. So the difference between breaking throughand empowering through is that breaking through is going,where is the edge of my comfort zone here? Where is the edge of mycapability now? What do I need to support myselfto get through that? And it can be.Whereas, you know, sometimes it's a sense of inner strength,sometimes it's a what limiting belief have I got here that is holding meback? Where is my energy at right now? How am I feeling right now?Is there emotion around this that I need to have a think about and addressbefore I can move forward? Am I just plain flippingexhausted? And what I actually need is a good night's sleepand then to look at this in the morning and it is, it isslower, but actually, if you start getting into the habitof having that neuroplasticitywhere you stretch your comfort zone in a waythat allows room for growth without putting you understress, you find that you're able to continue stressingit. And so one of the things that I do withclients is we play with that. And it is very much playing withthat elasticity and it's doing things that can be quite scary. I mean,it is quite. There is something in your, you know, your, your,your really primal brain that says putting my foot ona pile of broken glass and deciding to walk across it mightnot be the best idea I've ever had. But actually, when
Claire Payneguest
you slow yourself down and youtake stock of the situation and give yourself thatpause to think, what do I want to get out of this? Where am Igoing with this, how am I going to approach this? What do I need? DoI need a shoulder to lean on whilst I walk across this?Do I need some support? Do I need someone to talk me through? Do Ineed to express how I'm feeling? You suddenly findthat actually something you thought was incredibly difficult becomesvery easy. And the sense of empowerment you get from that, becauseyou feel it in your system, you feel it in yourbody is huge. And then the next time youget that feeling of, oh, I don't know if I can do this,instead of pushing through, you gather yourresources and look at where you are and you,you expand and have that expansive feelingrather than having that pushing through and putting my body understress feeling. And as I say, yeah, so I have lots of fun with walkingacross glass, getting arrows and breaking them, where you put the pointin your throat and the other end on a wall and you walk towards itand it snaps, which, yeah, people cringe when they hear me saythat. But if you have a look on social media, there's some videos of medoing it. These are all things that are possible and they're in a verycontained, specific way of doing it,which is very, very empowering and a lot of fun, actually. Andthat's. And that's the thing, you know, if life isn't fun, then what's the point,really? You know, we put ourselves under so much stress. You only getone, you know, we get one life here to enjoy it.We should be making the best out of it and seeing what we can experiencealong the way. I agree completely, Claire. What a fascinating
Joanne Lockwoodhost
conversation. How do people get hold of you? So the best
Claire Payneguest
ways of getting hold of me is you can have a look at our website,which is orthelion.com or have alook for me on Facebook under Clare Payne. It's P A Y N Eor I'm on LinkedIn as well. And I put out lots of things on anear daily basis with hints and tips and little things that people cantry. Play around with it, see what works for you, Take the bits that doand leave the bits that don't. And that's very much our philosophy of how wework at Orthelion. Fantastic, Claire. That's absolutely superb.
Joanne Lockwoodhost
And I love talking about the wolves. I've loved talking about yourmediation and your view of the world. And I'm sure ourlisteners will be in touch. Thank you so much. Thank
Claire Payneguest
you. As we bring this conversation to
Joanne Lockwoodhost
a close, I want to express my deepest gratitude toyou, our listener, for lending your ear andheart to the cause of inclusion. If today'sdiscussion struck a chord, consider subscribing to InclusionBytes and become part of our ever growing communitydriving real change. Share this journey with friends, family andcolleagues. Let's amplify the voices that matter.Got thoughts, stories or a vision to share? I'mall ears. Reach out tojo.Lockwood@seechangehappen.co.ukand let's make your voice heard. Until next time, thisis Joanne Lockwood signing off with a promise to returnwith more enriching narratives that challenge,inspire and unite us all. Here's to fostering a moreinclusive world one episode at a time. Catch you on the next bite.
In this episode of The Inclusion Bites Podcast, Joanne Lockwood welcomes Claire Payne to explore the journey of embracing one's full potential. Claire, a partner in an international law firm and seasoned tribunal judge, delves into the dynamics of stepping beyond comfort zones as a route to empowerment. They discuss the significance of self-assessment, addressing emotions, and the power of fun and experiential learning in the pursuit of personal growth. Claire is a multifaceted professional with rich expertise in law, mediation, and academia. Her career has seen a meteoric rise as she quickly ascended through the legal ranks. However, she felt constrained by traditional expectations and ventured into understanding how organisational culture impacts diversity and inclusion. Claire's unique journey led her to uncover historical collaborations between humans and wolves, which she uses as a powerful metaphor for effective teamwork and innovation in modern organisations. Claire is passionate about helping individuals and leaders unleash their true potential by fostering inclusive and authentic environments. Joanne and Claire examine the practice of gradually expanding comfort zones to facilitate growth without overwhelming stress. Claire shares her fascinating approach of using metaphorical and literal exercises, such as walking on glass, to illustrate empowerment and reinforce the importance of fun and experiential learning. They touch on leadership authenticity, the fear of failure, and the necessity of creating inclusive cultures where individuals feel safe to express uncertainties. Claire's insights into mediation and emotional processing further underscore the importance of recognising and addressing emotions in conflict resolution, promoting a shift from adversarial to collaborative approaches. The conversation also addresses societal pressures of fitting in versus the comfort of true belonging, emphasising intrinsic self-worth and non-judgmental peer interactions. Claire and Joanne highlight the potential for restorative justice to acknowledge wrongdoing and prioritise emotional strength and resilience in handling conflicts. They advocate for a shift towards genuine goals and collaborative problem-solving in corporate cultures, moving away from aggressive posturing. A key takeaway from this episode is the profound value of stepping beyond comfort zones and fostering authentic, inclusive environments for personal and organisational growth. Listeners will be inspired by Claire Payne's unique perspectives and practical tips for embracing their full potential, making this episode a must-listen for those eager to drive positive change in their lives and workplaces.
The views and opinions expressed by guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Inclusion Bites, SEE Change Happen Ltd or Joanne Lockwood. This episode is shared for general interest and discussion; we accept no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any statements made.
