Do you ever think back on a situation and ask yourself, "Why didn't I say_______?"
We humans have a tendency to want to make things "nice". So we rationalize by committing a sin of omission: not telling the whole truth.
How does this happen?I
There are certain people in our lives who make us feel like being completely honest would harm the relationship with them. So we smile and hold back the tougher parts of the truth. Then we walk away having to live with a sense of nagging disappointment.
But it can have even greater consequences.Because people are looking for boldness. (Aren't you?). We look for people who put a stake in the ground and say, "This is the way it is." People want the truth because they actually can deal with it. Heck, it's easier than dealing with a lie, isn't it?
I know what you are thinking: "If I tell (fill in the blank) what I really think, she won't like me anymore."
1. How do you know for sure?
2. Do you want to spend your time with colleagues, a boss, or others who want you to be someone else so that they can be comfortable? (It will drain you and make you unbelievably ineffective).
3. How long will it be before the entire truthfulness of the issues emerges and you look like the one who was untruthful?!
When you have a less than "real" relationship with someone who has a lot of power over you, the idea of putting that relationship at risk is scary. So it's important to deliver the truth with respect for the other person involved.
What You Can Do
Here are three sentences that model some ways to do this:
"I have some real concerns about our working relationship..."
"I sensed your frustration in that meeting, and here's how it impacted me. It may have impacted others in the same way"
"Let me tell you something that you may not have heard before..."
Honest relationships are energizing; hedging your bets will drain you.
The next time an opportunity comes up to be bold with the truth, remember that you have a choice.
That choice will live with you for a long time.
Great post, Steve. I think most of us have been raised to avoid/minimize confrontation. That's bad enough in the situations you describe. But it is corrosive if you have a supervisor who won't step up and call attention to behavior or performance that are not acceptable. Sadly, very few companies even consider this when they promote someone from individual contributor to a boss. Even fewer offer training in how to do confrontation well. This leaves us with a legion of bosses who are making things worse by trying not to make things worse.
Posted by: Wally Bock | May 17, 2009 at 04:59 PM
Hi, Steve,
A topic near and dear to my heart. My experience says few folks know how to have a conversation that may be uncomfortable...at work, at home, at play or in relationship...most avoid difficult conversations...the major reason being they never felt comfortable around conflict growing up..or learned how to "be" with conflict...and now as an adult, this "child-ish" reaction leaks out when the idea of conflict arises...leading to avoidance, excuse-making for not broaching it, or coming across like a sledge hammer....all defensive mechanisms.
So, some thoughts:
1. Be conscious of any type of "history" (bad blood, resentment, jealousy, etc.) between you and the person with whom you want to have this conversation. If there is history, creating a container of safety will be challenging. Building that container will take time and it's wise to do so before having the "conversation." You'll need to create a bridge of trust and respect before having that conversation.
2. If you have behaved inappropriately or have contributed to any aspect of the issue, then you need to own that.
3. It's important that your motives are pure and heart-felt. If you make this a right-wrong, me vs. you, win/lose type of experience, it won't work. So, you might ask three questions: (a) what do I want for me? (b) what do I want for the other person? (c) what do I want for our relationship? All responses should have some degree of mutual coming-together "for the good of the order" perspective. Else, just more conflict or misundertanding and mistrust.
4. Speak about specific measurable and observable behaviors...not attitudes or personalities.
5. Use a "soft" start-up. John Gottman, in "The Seven Principles that Make Marriage Work" (tools and principles that can apply as much to the workplace as home) speaks about the soft start up. Begining a conversation without any flavor of: contempt, criticism, defensiveness or stonewalling. A "harsh startup, on the other hand leads to emotional reactivity, emotional flooding and only creates distance between the conversants. So, it's not about being "diplomatic". It's about NOT being critical or expressing contempt, even in a masked or subtle manner. No subtle or overt attacking - making the other feel "bad" or "wrong."
6. Most conversations that deal with conflict end the same way they start. So, if they start "softly", they'll most likely end that way...ditto, "harshly."
7. There's a way to complain, without being critical, without blaming, evaluating or judgding. John Gottman's book as well as "Non-Violent Communication" and "Crucial Conversations" (Google, if interested) deal with this.
8. Do it now. Storing things up only serves to create cortisol and leads to stress and most probably a less-then-pleasant interchange.
A welcome post, Steve, and thanks.
Posted by: peter vajda | May 17, 2009 at 05:54 PM
Steve: Very insightful. I used to cringe when people would say we had "nice" daughters. That was never an objective of significance to me. We hoped they would make a contribution to this world, achieve some of their dreams, and have a few significant friends.
Similarly, I'm wary about "nice guys" of both sexes. Nice without competence can become assholes in their need to please everyone. Of course, competence without trust and warmth can be destructive.
Posted by: Dan Erwin | May 18, 2009 at 02:19 PM
Wally,
At the risk of going down Memory Lane, I'm going anyway.
There was a long period of time in the 1980's and early 90's when companies did invest in some very solid training to build managers' ability in this area. I seldom see or hear about anyone doing it now.
As for the promotion part of it: now I'm wondering if the awareness and/or value of the skill is so low that it's not even on the radar screen.
Posted by: Steve Roesler | May 18, 2009 at 02:32 PM
Peter,
Very helpful extension of the issue. I believe it would be useful for many to read and will make it into an add-on post.
Posted by: Steve Roesler | May 18, 2009 at 02:47 PM
Dan,
Succinct and well-put. As the father of a daughter I had the same reaction to those kinds of comments.
I don't know if I'm on super-solid ground with this one, but early on I suggested to our daughter: "Beware of people who always smile." She hasn't turned out to be cynical but castes a wary eye toward habitual backslappers.
Posted by: Steve Roesler | May 18, 2009 at 02:51 PM
Two comments, Steve. Thanks for reminding me, but yes there was a time when this issue was addressed. I think that Situational Leadership handled it. Then there were all those Transactional Leadership programs. We made fun of a lot of it, but a lot was good too.
It's now gone. Not only has awareness of the skills fallen beneath the radar, but the entire subject of supervision has gone there. It's become "Leadership is important. Management can be tolerated if you have leadership. And supervision? What's that? Oh well, it probably isn't important."
Do I sound bitter? Nah. But I weep for the generations of bosses who are thrown into a job they're not suited for because it's the only way to make a career and then not given the training they need for the most difficult parts of the job.
Posted by: Wally Bock | May 18, 2009 at 04:21 PM