Change How You Deal With Difficult People

I've been presenting a program for clients on "How To Deal With Difficult People" for more than 20 years.

It sounds kind of grim but is really a lot of fun. Why?

Because everyone has someone who "bugs" them. And, when they think long and hard about it, what bothers people most is actually something they really don't like about themselves. There are lots of ways to have fun with this and learn a lot at the same time without navel-gazing.

What I like best about the approach we've developed is that it isn't about coping with jerks. Why settle for coping? It doesn't really change anything.

Do You Want To Change Something?

Good. Then here's a little synopsis that I hope will help.

1. What really drives your blood pressure north?

Identify the triggers are that push your buttons by thinking about past experiences in which your "favorite"  person finally got to you.

What did they do?  That’s different than why it bothered you. Simply identify their actual behavior.  Was it the way they approached you? Looked at you?  How did they look at you? Maybe it was a certain voice quality or tone of voice?

2. How did you react?

Do you immediately blame them for how you feel?  Do you act distracted or quickly find a distraction? Disavow what’s really going on? When they do their "special" thing, what do you do in response?

3. What do you want from yourself? 

What’s the very best you can bring to the situation? Regardless of what they did, what would you do to be delighted with yourself after the interaction?

4.  What do you really want from them? 

Yeah, I know: "Stop that stuff!"

Not going to happen. So, think about this relationship the way the Cheerios people do on their nutrition label. "What is the MDR (minimum daily requirement) of behavior you can hope for and accept? Then start expecting nothing more. (it's quite free-ing, really).

5.  Has someone else learned a way to deal with this person?

 How do they do it?  Who might know how to do it?  Describe your situation in a way that combines "behavior-then-how-I-feel." No need to dump on the offender; besides, it makes you less attractive and less of a good candidate for help.

When you've reached a point where you have an approach, use it. We train our muscle memories to play tennis, golf, and other sports in ways that become unconscious.  You can train your nervous system in the same way. Think about this: if you do just one thing differently you may change the entire pattern.

Most importantly: Life is not what happens to us. It's how we respond to what happens to us.

And you are in charge of your responses.

Go for it!

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Non Verbals Across Cultures: Start Teaching It

It's easy to misunderstand someone from a culture different than your own--especially when it comes to non-verbals. 

Despite this, there's not much intentional training on nonverbal behavior in global corporations. Perhaps there should be. I recall my initiation into this special "world" as a new  management trainer in Saudi Arabia in 1979. Since then, the whole idea of cross-cultural teams and travel has become the norm. I'm not so sure that the same is true with purposeful understanding. Here's my Day One experience; perhaps you've had a similar one:

Real Life

Our support staff was made up entirely of Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, and Thai folks. When addressing the group about an administrative problem, the silent responses ranged from a head shake (Indian) to downward stares (Pakistani and Bangladeshi) to a bright smile from our Thai guy. I took this to mean lack of concern or a misunderstanding--perhaps I wasn't speaking clearly. I finally left the discussion puzzled by what appeared to be a collective lack of concern.

By the end of the day the situation was, without fanfare, totally resolved. Huh?

It was only later that another native English-speaking manager with considerably more experience sat me down and gave me a million-dollar lesson in cultural non-verbals. He shared that the Thai smile signaled an apology; the Indian head-shake wasn't a "No" (a U.S non-verbal) but in fact a "Yes, I understand." The other two fellows were from cultures that didn't value constant eye contact while being engaged--but they were listening carefully and clearly engaged.

Teaching and Learning, Explicit or Implicit?

So: is non-verbal behavior something that can accurately be picked up by informal exposure to other people or does it need to be specifically taught?

A study by  Damnet & Borland (2007) (don't seem to be able to access this any longer) suggests it may be better to teach nonverbal behavior explicitly.

This study examined Thai university students learning English as a foreign language.

One group saw videos of native English speakers along with being taught the meaning of the words. While they were not explicitly taught the nonverbal communication, they were implicitly exposed to it.

A second group was purposefully taught about nonverbal communication in addition to learning the grammar and vocabulary. It was this second group that showed the best understanding of nonverbal communication.

In Organizations, It Matters

It can be tough enough during meetings and normal interactions to interpret the nonverbal cues from our own culture . Add the global nature of doing business and one would have to ask: Wouldn't it make sense to simply put this out there as a training program? It could be a lot of fun as well as highly educational in a way that would reduce unnecessary misunderstandings.

Add your own examples to the comments. It would be a big help to readers everywhere.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Even More: Honesty, Boldness, and Sins of Omission

It's clear that people do want to deal with truth, not a sanitized version of it.

Honesty, Boldness, and Sins of Omission generated comments that went below the surface to address, well, some truths.

Wally Bock and Dan Erwin weighed in with workplace and personal examples. I'm going to use both to hopefully shine even more light on the issues.

Dr. Peter Vajda  works with local business professionals in the Atlanta area on these issues quite frequently. Here is what Peter adds:

Few People Know How

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.

What To Do that Is Helpful

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 misunderstanding 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. Beginning a conversation without any flavor of: contempt, criticism, defensiveness or stonewalling. A "harsh start-up, on the other hand leads to emotional reactivity, emotional flooding and only creates distance between those involved. 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 judging. 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.

Thanks, Peter.

What are your experiences with honesty and discussions?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Right, Wrong, and Who Will Let Go First?

“When my daughter was about seven years old, she asked me one day what I did at work. I told her I worked at the college - that my job was to teach people how to draw. She stared at me, incredulous, and said, "You mean they forget?"--Howard Ikemoto

                                                _______________________________

Dr. Peter Vajda continues as our guest contributor today, looking into the deeper issues that impact influence, managing differences, and building relationships on and off the job.

Do You Want To Be Right or Happy?

“Why do I live from an “I’d rather be right than happy” perspective so much of the time?” 

That's the awareness-raising question that I left off with yesterday.

Here's a fact that each of us must reconcile: Somewhere along the path of our growth experiences we separated from the heart-felt and interconnected aspects of our child-like innocence and non-judgmental connectedness to others and began to focus on being separate — in psychological terms, the human and ego aspects of our selves. In this process we  created, and were indoctrinated with, beliefs, assumptions,
expectations and world views that we ultimately took on and which defined: “Me!”. 
 
As a result, we live in a world of assorted folks who have assorted beliefs and opinions. When we live life from an ego-directed place, then it’s “all about me.” In order to feel safe and secure as “me”, our initial reaction to a competing belief or opinion is reactivity — a fear of losing “me”, of feeling that “me” is being threatened. So, we start relating to other people based on our need to be right which means, being "me."  Let's be honest here: not being "me” is a very scary and threatening proposition.
 
Yet when we're able to let go of the need to be right, we are able to foster relationships that build harmony, give us a sense of connectedness, and ultimately allow us to be be more creative in the workplace. When I don't have to focus on being right or making you wrong, we can see things in new and different ways.

Steve's note: This flies in the face of many traditional workplace dynamics. Meetings are designed with goals and time limits. Many meetings are also designed to achieve a specific, pre-determined outcome regardless of other evidence that may exist in the room. If a senior person decides that something is "right," the options for exploration can become very limited. 

As you move through your day, take time to continually ask yourself about your underlying motivations in win-lose conversations. Do you need to “win” for selfish, manipulative or fearful reasons? That is, what’s your real intention when engaged in win-lose interactions?  
 
Different people latch onto different questions to reach a new level of awareness about this critical work/life issue. Here are some that have proven helpful in my professional practice:
 
• What will happen if I let go of my need to be right? 

• What won’t happen if I let go of my need to be right? 

• What will happen if I don’t let go of my need to be right?

• What won’t happen if I don’t let go of my need to be right? 

• What is threatening to me about not being right? 

• Do I ever feel enslaved by a need to be right? If so, how does this feeling affect me? Affect others? 

• How do I feel when I am “wrong?” Why do I feel this way? 

• What was it like to be “right” and “wrong” when I was growing up? What did “being right” get or not get me and what did “being wrong” get or not get me? How does that dynamic continue to play out in my life as an adult?  

• How do I deal with the “unknown?” 

• Would I rather be right or happy?

For a breadth of reading and insights, wander over to Wally Bock's Three Star Leadership for some of the best HR-related writing in this month's Carnival of Human Resources.

_______________________________________

Peter G. Vajda, Ph.D, C.P.C. is a founding partner of SpiritHeart, an Atlanta-based company that supports conscious living through coaching, counseling and facilitating. We thank Dr. Vajda for joining the discussion this week and point out that the material is (c) 2008, Peter G. Vajda, Ph.D. and SpiritHeart. All rights in all media reserved. 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Interaction At Work: Do You Need To Be Right?

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
— Mark Twain

 

Dr. Peter Vajda is our guest contributor today and tomorrow as we look at the deeper issues that impact influence, managing differences, and building relationships on and off the job.

I'm Right, You're Wrong

Take a moment and reflect on your relationships at work and at home.

Ask yourself:“How much does the ‘I’m right – you’re wrong’ dynamic govern my everyday interactions?”  Perhaps we’re not aware of it at the time, but we consistently encounter situations where we feel
not only need to be right, but  make another be or feel wrong.

Our ego personality is the culprit here;  it wants and needs to feel strong, safe and secure.

When the situation is reversed and we have the sense that we are “wrong”, our ego personality reacts in a way that has us feel afraid, bad, stupid, insecure, deficient, diminished, small and even invisible!

Does Someone Have To Lose?

There's a real problem with this dynamic: someone has to lose. As a result, these kinds of interactions breed mistrust, conflict, competition and separation — all based on fear. 

The solution is not to consistently live in the world of polarity, but perspective, to live in a world of differences, not in a world of debate, to live in a world of “both/and”, not “either/or”. 

The challenge for the ego here is how to relate in a way that transcends the personal in order to focus on commonalities. In the world of the ego, it’s all about being separate and independent — win-lose, “I vs. you”. In the world of commonality, it’s all about “you and me.” 

Here are a few questions to help uncover what's going on:

• “What excuse am I using to rationalize and justify a win-lose?

• “Why can’t I simply feel content about being right without needing to make someone else appear wrong?”

• “Why do I live from an “I’d rather be right than happy” perspective so much of the time?” 

In the next post we'll look at how people got to a point of right/wrong thinking and offer more diagnostic questions to help move away from it.

 ________________________________________________________

Peter G. Vajda, Ph.D, C.P.C. is a founding partner of SpiritHeart, an Atlanta-based company that supports conscious living through coaching, counseling and facilitating. We thank Dr. Vajda for joining the discussion this week and point out that the material is (c) 2008, Peter G. Vajda, Ph.D. and SpiritHeart. All rights in all media reserved. 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Differences, Transaction, and Transformation

I received this email relating to Making A Difference With Differences:

Steve: Have enjoyed your recent posts.  I would like to see an exploration of how to explore beliefs and assumptions in a meaningful way without destroying working relationships.  In particular, how does one become aware of the areas where your own assumptions are so deeply ingrained that you see them as "facts of life" rather than your own biases or personal quirks in action?

Good point.

I believe there is a process by which this can happen. As the writer notes, part of it rests within each of us as individuals. The other resides in the group and what the individuals have allowed it to become up to this point. That is: "Am I safe expressing my beliefs without fear of reprisal?" That's a legitimate fear when your livelihood depends on the answer.

I find myself rather frequently called in to facilitate conversations between executives who somehow have reached a point in their relationship where they are at a standstill. As a result, so is the company. I think this is a good starting point to address the question and to continue the discussion.

Transactional and Transformational Conversations

If you haven't thought of conversations in this way before, I hope you'll find this useful and productive.

Most conversations we have are transactional. They are all about exchanging information and reactions. They are also fairly predictable. We know what we want going in and in many cases know what to expect as a result.

Often, these can be dysfunctional because they sustain an already bad situation. (For those of you who are married or in a long term relationship, think of the habitual argument or the habitual silence maker).  Transactional conversations can be fruitful as well. Using negotiation techniques or Roberts Rules of Order, participants can exchange ideas that expand the common ground on which they are able to work together. Sweet.

Their real use: Keeping things as they are. They don't move people outside of the boxes in which they've placed themselves.

Transformational conversations are different. When we enter this kind of a conversation we don't know the outcome and may not even know what our world will be like as a result. It may even start off transactionally but something changes along the way.

In order to begin moving in a transforming way, there are at least four unknowns that are necessary:

1. Not knowing what the solution will be.

2. Not even being 100% sure of the topic or the problem.

3. Not knowing how we will "be" when we leave the meeting.

4. Not knowing "how things will be" when we are finished.

Can you accept those in order to begin having conversations that make a difference?

I'll dig a bit deeper as the week goes on and look forward to a transforming discussion.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Conflict and Resolution: On and Off the Job

Conflict is bugging people.

When I check out the search terms that have landed people here, I'm seeing an increasing number of "conflict" and "conflict at work" searches.

I've met people who claim that they like conflict. I don't think so. They might like competition; they might like winning; but the idea of liking conflict in and of itself seems unhealthy at best and perhaps evil at worst. And since none of these people I know is particularly fond of "losing"--(a possible outcome of conflict)--I think that they are exhibiting a bit of competitive bravado. Which, of course, could be a major source of conflict.

What is Conflict?

Well, we know it when we feel it, don't we?

Wikipedia has a lot of entires, info, and resources. They also offer here what I believe are good definitions and discernment of different types of conflict:

Definition: "When two or more parties, with perceived incompatible goals, seek to undermine each other's goal-seeking capability".

One should not confuse the distinction between the presence and absence of conflict with the difference between competition and co-operation. In competitive situations, the two or more parties each have mutually inconsistent goals, so that when either party tries to reach their goal it will undermine the attempts of the other to reach theirs. Therefore, competitive situations will by their nature cause conflict. However, conflict can also occur in cooperative situations, in which two or more parties have consistent goals, because the manner in which one party tries to reach their goal can still undermine the other.

A clash of interests, values, actions or directions often sparks a conflict. Conflicts refer to the existence of that clash. Psychologically, a conflict exists when the reduction of one motivating stimulus involves an increase in another, so that a new adjustment is demanded. The word is applicable from the instant that the clash occurs. Even when we say that there is a potential conflict we are implying that there is already a conflict of direction even though a clash may not yet have occurred.

What Does This Mean In Real Life?

1. Competitive conflict. We are at odds about the "what" question. "What" we want to do will diminish the other person's chance of success if we succeed.

2. Cooperative conflict. Now there's an oxymoron. This one is about the "how" question. "How" you want to do something conflicts with how I want to do it, or think it should be done.

These are classic because they reflect the ongoing tension between goals (what) and process (how).

3. Values conflict. An action or direction violates  "who" we are at our core. 

What Can You Do?

(The suggestions below assume that the people involved are people of good will).

1. Competitive conflict calls for the possibility of re-defining each others' goals. This is the notion of "win-win." It requires honesty about why you are trying to achieve something. Until you understand each other's "why" the "what" will seem conflicting and self-serving.  It calls for a willingness to have a conversation that exposes each person's vulnerabilities.  Someone has to go first.  If your conflict is about the "what," then why not go first? Heck, you're already in conflict anyway. What do you have to lose?

2. Cooperative conflict. This is where the control freak managers lurk in organizations.

Stay with me here.

I can't state this enough. Job satisfaction and personal motivation are closely tied to one's ability to bring one's uniqueness to the task or team. When we sign on for a job, we are saying implicitly that we pretty much agree with the goals of the organization. What we now hope to do is  "ply our craft." And that uniqueness comes in "how" we are allowed to perform the job to achieve the goals.

A manager who has gotten commitment to the "what" and then wants to be involved in everyone's "how" is killing his  people's spirit and undermining the talent that they offer. (Note: certain jobs focused on safety and security do not leave room for personal creativity. I have often hoped that the pilot flying my plane was not feeling in a very creative mood that day).

What to do? Gotta have another conversation. Explain that the over-management is doing two things:

a. It is taking time away from you actually doing the job.

b. It is getting in the way of your ability to stay committed to what your boss wants to accomplish.

Then ask about your results. If you have a wrong perception of how you are doing, this is the time to get it on the table. If your boss tells you your results are good, then your boss will hopefully have an Aha! moment regarding your contributions.

The worst that can happen? You'll find out sooner, rather than later, that this isn't a place you want to be over the long run.

3. Values conflict. When asked to do something that violates your beliefs, you're about to experience a personal growth moment. Do you know why you believe what you believe? If you aren't sure, this is a primo time to find out.

Did you find out that your value wasn't really a value at all, or not in the way that you thought? Then maybe you can re-consider the request.

Your value is rock-solid? Then "no" is the only answer of integrity.

Conflict and Forgiveness

You may not be able to resolve the conflict, whatever it is. But how you respond will determine your peace of mind and ability to move forward. The act of forgiving following a conflict is important to your well-being.

Twice in my life I have been wronged in huge ways by anyone's standards:

I was once actually accused of a hideous crime. After a 2-year investigation and the attendant legal fees and law enforcement interaction, it was discovered and affirmed that I had been the object of a conspiracy.

In the second instance a client unilaterally walked away from a contract. It cost me nearly 1 million dollars. It is the only client in 30 years of practice who has reneged on a contract or payment. I have never had to "go to collection." My attorney told me that I would receive full payment if I took it to court. However. . .his investigation of this company revealed that the president had done this before: contracted with "boutique" consulting firms the size of mine and knew that his legal "team" could keep appeals going far longer than my ability to pay our attorneys. He informed me that although I would win I would be financially broke by the time it got to trial.

In both instances the strangest thing happened: I "let it go." Now, I'm not a saint and I know very well how to get ticked off and stay that way longer than I should. But in these two overwhelming cases I literally forgave and walked away.

Why?

Because bitterness and self-justification will kill you from the inside out. My reputation was still intact and there was nothing stopping me from continuing to run my consulting practice. You can't live well and help others if you are filled with bitterness. Life isn't fair. But it's a wonderful life if you choose to live it that way. And that means emptying yourself of real and perceived wrongs.

Chances are, someone is going to bug you at work today.

What choice will you make to ensure that your personal joy is intact?

photo source: www.und.nodak.edu

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

The Business of Forgiveness

Downsizing. Corruption. Bullying. Harassment. "Do more with less." Reduced benefits. Add to that list some of the people with whom you have to work every day (see Bob Sutton's No Asshole Rule).

There's a lot of opportunity for anger and hurt on the job.

Where you find anger, you find the need for forgiveness.

Why?

It's good for you. For your physical and mental health. For your relationships. For your ability to move on peacefully and productively.

Why forgiveness instead of revenge?

Christina M. Puchalski, M.D. is the Founder and Director of the George Washington Institute for Spirituality and Health and Assistant Professor of Medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine. She says:

"On a personal level, forgiveness of self can help us achieve an inner peace as well as peace with others and with God. Wrongdoing against others and ourselves can result in guilt and resentment.  This can then lead to self-recrimination and self-loathing; it also can create a distance or disconnect from self and others. Resentment can give away to hate and intolerance. Forgiveness is the first stage of self-love and acceptance. It is also the basic building block of loving relationships with others."

It's not the offense. It's your response to it.

I confess, I'm not always a quick-to-forgive person once I've felt "wronged". I give people a very long leash and a long time to "get their act together" if things aren't going well. But there is some point at which I just say "that's it" and cut them off from my life. It is very infrequent, but the pattern is always the same. I decide that the differences are irreconcilable. So, the relationship in its present form is finished.

Does that serve me well?

Only if I genuinely forgive. It is both possible and imperative to do that and, at the same time, acknowledge that the nature of the relationship may not be productive. This is the harder part, I think. It begs the nagging question, "If I can forgive, why can't I just continue?"

Sometimes it's possible. More often, it becomes apparent that I wasn't seeing clearly to begin with and that continuing the relationship--without changing expectations--would not be peaceful or productive for either of us.

Dr. Frederic Luskin specializes in Learning to Forgive. He explains that:

"The practice of forgiveness has been shown to reduce anger, hurt depression and stress and leads to greater feelings of hope, peace, compassion and self confidence. Practicing forgiveness leads to healthy relationships as well as physical health."

Dr. Luskin's 9 Steps to Forgiveness

1. Know exactly how you feel about what happened and be able to articulate what about the situation is not OK. Then, tell a trusted couple of people about your experience.

2. Make a commitment to yourself to do what you have to do to feel better. Forgiveness is for you and not for anyone else.

3. Forgiveness does not necessarily mean reconciliation with the person that hurt you, or condoning their action. What you are after is to find peace. Forgiveness can be defined as the "peace and understanding that come from blaming that which has hurt you less, taking the life experience less personally, and changing your grievance story."

4. Get the right perspective on what is happening. Recognize that your primary distress is coming from the hurt feelings, thoughts and physical upset you are suffering now, not what offended you or hurt you two minutes--or ten years ago. Forgiveness helps to heal those hurt feelings.

5. At the moment you feel upset practice a simple stress management technique to soothe your body's fight or flight response.

6. Give up expecting things from other people, or your life, that they do not choose to give you. Recognize that "unenforceable rules" you have for your health or how you or other people must behave. Remind yourself that you can hope for health, love, peace and prosperity and work hard to get them.

7. Put your energy into looking for another way to get your positive goals met than through the experience that has hurt you. Instead of mentally replaying your hurt seek out new ways to get what you want.

8. Remember that a life well lived is your best revenge. Instead of focusing on your wounded feelings, and thereby giving the person who caused you pain power over you, learn to look for the love, beauty and kindness around you.

9. Amend your grievance story to remind you of the heroic choice to forgive.

If you would like to explore other resources, check out The Forgiveness Web  and Forgiveness Net.

Think about this today: Your workplace is a web of relationships. Being at peace with them can only make your own life a lot more satisfying.

photo attribution: www.thirdway.com 

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Communicating on the Right Wavelength

"The two words 'information' and 'communication' are often used interchangeably, but they signify quite different things. Information is giving out; communication is getting through."--Sydney J. Harris

Communication: Don't Mix and Match Your Verbal Wardrobe

I want to offer an easy, uncluttered model to use when you want to bump up your communication game.

Think about your levels of interaction on a scale of Nicety all the way to Intimacy. One of the keys to keeping your interactions on target is making sure that you "meet people where they are" and not try to take them where you want to go before they are ready. (They may never be ready).

Here's a way to look at it on five levels of increasing depth:

1. Niceties. "Hey, how are you?"

"Fine,how are you?"

"Ok."

Polite acknowledgment of another person is part of social graciousness. If you or the other person doesn't want to take it any further, that's fine. Just don't mistake it for anything other than what it is.  But don't discount the social importance of niceties, either. It' s amazing how many people get miffed when they offer a "Hey, waddup?" and don't get a response.

2. Facts. If the other person is into facts, stay with the facts until (s)he moves on. If that's where they stay, just ask if there is anything that you should do with those facts.

3. Thoughts and Ideas. These are different from facts. They reflect what's going on inside someone's head. This is also where we get into difficulty by passing judgment on someone in the middle of their personal brainstorm. Stay in non-evaluative brainstorm mode with them.

4. Feelings. When people start expressing how they feel, you've hit a pretty high level on their personal trust scale. The best way to keep it is to acknowledge the legitimacy of how they feel. The best way to lose it is to tell them they shouldn't feel that way.

5. Intimacy. Familiarity that reaches a deeply personal level.

In the workplace you may not reach this level inside the confines of the office building. In fact, it may be totally inappropriate. But highly relational people can have a tendency to unconsciously go here because it's so innately comfortable and meaningful (for them).

I can't tell you the number of coaching/advising engagements I've had with people who have gotten themselves into difficulty at this level. They've said things that were taken as "way too intimate" by others. Fortunately, most well-meaning people "get it" when they are coached regarding the distinctions in levels and how other people may interpret personal warmth or familiarity.

If you want to keep your emloyer--and yourself--out of litigation, save your intimacy-level conversations for home and friends.

How to Use This?

The next time you're engaged in a discussion, pay attention to where the other person is operating on the "depth" chart.

1. Listen and stay with them.

2. If you want to move from one level to another, say something like: "We've been talking about the factual data related to the Romanian project. Would you be willing to hear some thoughts and ideas I have about this?"

They'll tell you if they need to play with the facts some more. And your question will be appreciated because it acknowledges that you've really heard them and aren't going to automatically step on their "stuff."

3. Building trust takes place at levels 3 and 4. The more time you can spend there, the closer the working relationship can become.

Share this with the people around you. It may get you out of "mix" and into "match."

What do you think?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

When Does A Strategy Confuse Action?

The answer: When the strategy doesn't start with a sense of peace.

Yesterday's HR: More Implementation, Less Strategy, More Success generated comment and email activity as part of The Carnival of Human Resources.

You and I seem to recognize the need for "getting it done." Excessive discussion and strategizing can produce a sense of movement but not the real thing. We need to step out and start doing something. Hopefully the right thing.

But we won't know until we try.

That's why good managers, HR people, marketers, web designers, and leaders of all sorts make mistakes. It's also why they should be lauded when they make one, figure out what happened, and quickly re-direct their efforts.   

They did something!

In an imperfect world filled with imperfect people, mistakes are the norm.

Yet I think implementation difficulties actually emerge in part from faulty strategic processes and their follow-up. I've been involved in some pretty cumbersome ones myself (please note that my head is momentarily hanging in shame). Had I not, I would have no clue how clue where things might be improved.

See if this 3-step process comes pretty close to what you've experienced:

At least two potential glitches emerge in this somewhat standard approach:

1. We may have the best brainstormers in the world.

Is that kind of Strategy Session the best dynamic to use to deal with deep issues affecting every aspect of the organization in the years ahead?

2. Participants distribute strategy books or Powerpoint slides and encourage the troops: "Go ye forth and multiply Earnings Per Share, Return on Capital, and other things that are good to multiply."

As a result, I have developed (on the back of a cocktail napkin),

Roesler's Simple (but attractive) Diagram of Strategic Planning:

1. Start the process with an explanation of what the main issues really are. There are only a few. Really. But they are important.

2. Anyone involved has to have time to think clearly about how (s)he would approach those strategic issues.

I'm not naive. I know that people are laughing right now saying "Man, he doesn't know squat about how business really works." Actually I do. And I know my suggestion won't be acted on by the majority. "We have work to do." "My people don't get paid for deep thoughts." (Wow. But apparently they do get paid for shallow ones).

Find a way to give the principals enough time to think clearly, quietly, and uninterrupted.

3. Each person starts off by discussing the "what" and "why" of their strategic thinking. The only conversation involves clarifying questions. No comments pro or con.

Once everyone has been heard do the task at hand. Do it with the knowledge that the information came from thoughtfulness, not spontaneous combustion.

4. Context and Content. Meet with the employees. Depending upon the size of your company, the configuration and process will be a little different. Here is what needs to be common to all:

Explain what the strategy is, how it was developed, what they considerations were, what you argued about and why, and what each group needs to do to make it happen.

5. Align it and Do it. Once people have had a chance to ask for clarity about implementation let it roll, manage to results, learn from mistakes and, if necessary, stop. Re-align. Then start up again.

Help People Make Their Mistakes Working On the Right Things

This deserves it's own blurb.

The reason for Context, Content, and Alignment is to help other adults understand why they're doing something, what's really important, and how they fit into the grand scheme of accomplishment.

Really effective people make mistakes while they are working on the right things. That way they learn to do the right things the right way.

Managers: help your people stay focused on the right mistakes.

Starting with thoughtfulness and the peace that follows breeds a sense of quiet confidence about the work being done. That kind of peace gives all of us a little more willingness to try, fail, try again, and learn how to "do it better."

Please weigh in: What's your experience with strategic planning and the implementation that follows?
As always, your Comment may help someone at just the right moment.

If today is Strategy day for you, be sure and check out Ten seemingly logical excuses for clinging to failed strategies by Kent Blumberg as well as Mark Howell at Strategy Central.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Decision Making: Confused or Conflicted?

You and I go to meetings where the decision-making can
seem unbelievably confusing.

And how about those decisions where we just can't seem to arrive at a peaceful conclusion?

After giving it some thought and observation, I think I've got a way to look at this that I hope will be helpful.

Confused or Conflicted?

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the two this way:

Confused: being disordered or mixed up. 

The result is not being able to think at your usual speed.

Conflicted: (a feeling of) mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands.

The result is inaction, over-reaction, or both.

Yes, both are possible. We can react strongly to the conversation around the decision, but still not be able to make the decision.

Note: Each of these phenomena apply to individual as well as group decisions. Those self-conversations in our heads can get every bit as frustrating as the ones across the table!

What To Do?

1.Stop and diagnose.

(Please remember Steve's rule for everything: "Prognosis Without Diagnosis is Malpractice").

2. If the issue is Confusion, ask:

    a. Are we clear on the goal of the decision?

    b. Do we have the right information, and all of it--or as much as possible?

    c. Do we have the information organized in an understandable way?

    d. Does everyone involved have the same understanding of the goal and the information?

    e. Do we have a structured process for making our decision?

When you are clear that all of the above have been satisfied, then you're probably dealing with Conflicted-ness. (My spell checker is definitely conflicted trying to deal with that one).

3. If the issue is being Conflicted, then you'll probably experience silence or overt argument. You're  seeing the result of deeper issues--perhaps even at the personal values level--that need to be resolved. Whether silence or argument:

    a. Talk straight immediately. Say, "We've got a good understanding and a good process. But there's something else stopping us.What's really getting in the way?

    b. Don't speak again until someone offers a comment. After the first person responds, don't evaluate the remark. Thank them. Allow for everyone to respond without evaluation.

Principle: Until the real issue is named out loud, it will silently undermine the decision process. Once it's named and acknowledged, it is neutralized. When it comes out into the light of day, it can be seen clearly for what it is and discussed accurately. This is the most difficult thing for groups (and individuals) to deal with. Why? There's always the fear that "my issue" will be discounted, misunderstood, or seen as a blockage to "good teamwork."

Yet the person who offers the first bit of truth is the one who leads the group to a more satisfying decision.

    c. After 'b', you will know exactly how to proceed because the substantive issues will be out there in clear view. You'll see both an increase in both energy and collaboration.

Note: Organizations are usually pretty good at organizing. And even those of us with a more casual approach to life still have our own method of organizing it.

If you are really stuck on a decision, go with "Conflicted." In fact, I'll go out on a limb here and say that more often than not, we aren't confused. We usually know the right thing or best thing to do. It's facing up to our conflicting wants and needs that get in the way. "Having it all," whether in a business meeting or personal life, is a decision criterion that can only lead to internal conflict.

Thought for Today: Clear priorities offer the soundest foundation to decision making.

Related bonus for today: Check "What Do Peers Say About Your Smarts"  by Dr. Ellen Weber at Brain Based Business . The questions that she poses for self-development are really the kind of  "self-clarifying" questions that ultimately lead to better decision making.

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

How Are You Dealing With Workplace Conflict?

Conflict is bugging people.

When I check out the search terms that have landed people here, I'm seeing an increasing number of "conflict" and "conflict at work" searches.

I've met people who claim that they like conflict. I don't think so. They might like competition; they might like winning; but the idea of liking conflict in and of itself seems unhealthy at best and perhaps evil at worst. And since none of these people I know is particularly fond of "losing"--(a possible outcome of conflict)--I think that they are exhibiting a bit of competitive bravado. Which, of course, could be a major source of conflict.

What is Conflict?

Well, we know it when we feel it, don't we?

Wikipedia has a lot of entires, info, and resources. They also offer here what I believe are good definitions and discernment of different types of conflict:

Definition: "When two or more parties, with perceived incompatible goals, seek to undermine each other's goal-seeking capability".

One should not confuse the distinction between the presence and absence of conflict with the difference between competition and co-operation. In competitive situations, the two or more parties each have mutually inconsistent goals, so that when either party tries to reach their goal it will undermine the attempts of the other to reach theirs. Therefore, competitive situations will by their nature cause conflict. However, conflict can also occur in cooperative situations, in which two or more parties have consistent goals, because the manner in which one party tries to reach their goal can still undermine the other.

A clash of interests, values, actions or directions often sparks a conflict. Conflicts refer to the existence of that clash. Psychologically, a conflict exists when the reduction of one motivating stimulus involves an increase in another, so that a new adjustment is demanded. The word is applicable from the instant that the clash occurs. Even when we say that there is a potential conflict we are implying that there is already a conflict of direction even though a clash may not yet have occurred.

What Does This Mean To You and Me In Real Life?

1. Competitive conflict. We are at odds about the "what" question. "What" we want to do will diminish the other person's chance of success if we succeed.

2. Cooperative conflict. Now there's an oxymoron. This one is about the "how" question. "How" you want to do something conflicts with how I want to do it, or think it should be done.

These are classic because they reflect the ongoing tension between goals (what) and process (how).

3. Values conflict. An action or direction violates  "who" we are at our core. 

What Can You Do?

(The suggestions below assume that the people involved are people of good will).

Competitive conflict calls for the possibility of re-defining each others' goals. This is the notion of "win-win." It requires honesty about why you are trying to achieve something. Until you understand each other's "why" the "what" will seem conflicting and self-serving.  It calls for a willingness to have a conversation that exposes each person's vulnerabilities.  Someone has to go first.  If your conflict is about the "what," then why not go first? Heck, you're already in conflict anyway. What do you have to lose?

Cooperative conflict. This is where the control freak managers lurk in organizations.

Stay with me here.

I can't state this enough. Job satisfaction and personal motivation are closely tied to one's ability to bring one's uniqueness to the task or team. When we sign on for a job, we implicitly  are saying that  we pretty much agree with the goals of the organization. What we want to do is  "ply our craft."  And that uniqueness comes in "how" we are allowed to perform the job to achieve the goals. A manager who has gotten commitment to the "what" and then wants to be involved in everyone's "how" is killing his  people's spirit and undermining the talent that they offer. (Note: certain jobs focused on safety and security do not leave room for personal creativity. I have often hoped that the pilot flying my plane was not feeling in a very creative mood that day).

What to do? Gotta have another conversation. Explain that the over-management is doing two things:

a. It is taking time away from you actually doing the job.

b. It is getting in the way of your ability to stay committed to what your boss wants to accomplish.

Then ask about your results. If you have a wrong perception of how you are doing, this is the time to get it on the table. If your boss tells you your results are good, then your boss will hopefully have an Aha! moment regarding your contributions.

The worst that can happen? You'll find out sooner, rather than later, that this isn't a place you want to be over the long run.

3. Values conflict. When asked to do something that violates your beliefs, you're about to experience a personal growth moment. Do you know why you believe what you believe? If you aren't sure, this is a primo time to find out.

Did you find out that your value wasn't really a value at all, or not in the way that you thought? Then maybe you can re-consider the request.

Your value is rock-solid? Then "no" is the only answer of integrity.

Conflict and Forgiveness

You may not be able to resolve the conflict, whatever it is. But how you respond will determine your peace of mind and ability to move forward. The act of forgiving following a conflict is important to your well-being.

Twice in my life I have been wronged in huge ways--by anyone's standards:

Once I was accused of a hideous crime. After a 2-year investigation and the attendant legal fees and law enforcement interaction, it was discovered and affirmed that I had been the object of a  conspiracy.

In the second instance, a client unilaterally walked away from a contract. It cost me nearly 1 million dollars. It is the only client in 30 years of practice who has reneged on a contract or payment. I have never had to "go to collection." My attorney told me that I would receive full payment if I took it to court. However. . .his investigation of this company revealed that the President had done this before; contracted with "boutique" consulting firms the size of mine; and knew that his legal "team" could keep appeals going far longer than my ability to pay my attorney. He informed that although I would win, I would be financially broke by the time it got to trial.

In both instances the strangest thing happened: I "let it go." Now, I'm not a saint and I do know how to get ticked off--and stay that way longer than I should. But in these two overwhelming cases, I literally forgave and walked away.

Why?

Because bitterness and self-justification will kill you from the inside out. My reputation was still intact and there was nothing stopping me from continuing to run my consulting practice. You can't live well and help others if you are filled with bitterness. Life isn't fair. But it's a wonderful life if you choose to live it that way. And that means emptying yourself of real and perceived wrongs.

More Related Advice from a Respected Source

Actually two: Liz Strauss, blogger extraordinnaire, has a wonderful post titled Do Good Anyway, highlighting "The Paradoxical Commandments" of Mother Teresa.  Check it out...and return to Liz's blog often. She's the real deal.

photo source: www.und.nodak.edu

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Want to Build Trust? Say "No."

There's some twisted thinking going on about building trusting relationships. It goes like this:

"If I make people happy by not disagreeing with them they will like me more. Then they'll trust me more because I'm agreeable. Wow. Then when I need something or want something I'm more likely to get it. And if I'm a manager, that's good."

Right?

Think for a moment about the people--or person--you trust the most. Do they always say "yes? No. And that's why you trust them.

We trust people who have limits and beliefs, then care enough to state what they are. A relationship of "yeses" leaves us suspicious at best.

People don't have to be disagreeable in order to disagree. We often respect someone who tells us not only that (s)he sees things differently, but who then takes time to calmly explain "why." Taking time to explain "why" is a sign of respect toward us.

When you mean "yes" say "yes." When you mean "no" say "no." And share your reason.

In an era that seems to beg for leadership, become someone who people want to follow because they trust that you mean what you say. An honest "no" to others will get you an honest "yes" on their trust scale.

Photo source: www.tvacres.com/

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Help for Your Work Life AND Your Love Life!

Have you ever wondered why teasing doesn't always get the intended results?

Because it's ambiguous. And anytime we're ambiguous we risk being misunderstood. Our fun can turn into someone else's humiliation if it's misguided or misinterpreted.

Justin Kruger, a professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University, recently conducted research in this area. He asked roommates to tease each other and found that those who were teased almost consistently felt more antagonized than was intended. Instead of feeling a little "nudge" of teasing, they felt ridiculed.

Here's what really happens: The actual content of a tease is, by definition, negative. But seldom do the teasers intend it to be taken literally. So they try to temper it with body language or a tone of voice that implies "only kidding." Its too late. The person being teased is actually unaware or unmoved by the harmless intentions and perceives it as being malicious.

Teasing: A potential career-ending moment

During the past year I've intervened in two situations that were presented as harassment cases. In one instance the accused apologized immediately in front of a roomful of people. Not good enough--a complaint was issued and follow-up action prescribed. In the second, a similar tease took place but with no apology. Instead, an explanation was offered to explain the tease and why the recipient "shouldn't be offended." It was unbelievably difficult for the "perpetrator" to understand why the person was so deeply offended. In both instances the teaser was a high ranking executive and the recipient was a woman one level below in the hierarchy. Both situations were ultimately resolved. In the interim, both execs were in genuine danger of losing their jobs.

How to Tease

Kathleen McGowan of Psychology Today magazine offers these tips:

• Choose your subject carefully. Being ribbed about something silly you did or said is much easier to take than being kidded about a basic trait like weight or appearance. Harass your friend for bragging, for mispronouncing words or for being unable to parallel park—not about his big nose or her hefty legs.
• Tease up or across your social world, not down. Because teasing playfully punctures another person's sense of self, it is more wounding when directed at someone of lower status.
• Exaggerate the tease. Go for absurdity, not subtlety. Exaggerating your body language and your words clarifies that you're just joking and makes it less likely that your intent will be misread.

Bonus Love-life Tip

From Kathleen: "Beware the Gentler Sex. In the context of romance, women are more likely to feel insulted by teasing than are men, perhaps because guys are used to it: Young boys often express friendship through taunting and banter."

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Stringless In Seattle: "My Cellos Can Beat Up Your Tuba"

At best, Bad PR.  At worst, Dysfunctional Organization.

Here is a situation for you managers, board members, consultants--anyone interested in organizational analysis. It contains conflict, power, harassment, an Executive Director revolving door, inability to influence. . .

The Seattle Times reported a story titled Vandalism, threats strike sour note in Seattle Symphony. If you want to join in the organization analysis, read the full story and we'll continue.

Got it? We need to start with one assumption. Since we don't have the ability to go into the situation and do a proper diagnostic, let's first take the report at face value. Looking at some common diagnostic areas, here's what we might surmise:

Structure

The governance/management situation seems out of balance.  Does the structure actually support a strong Executive Director or does the Board make all of the managerial decisions?  The allusion to a 56-2 vote would indicate the latter, although on issues of Conductor tenure the Board would, in fact, be the deciding body. If all decisions are taken in that manner it would be more difficult to get a new coffee machine for the musicians' lounge than it would to have a small country admitted to the European Union. If I'm reading this correctly, are there really at least 58 people on the Board? Nice perk for big donors, unwieldy to govern in any meaningful way.

Systems

How are things supposed to get done? Is there a system in place that allows the orchestra (musicians) to be heard on issues that impact performance, including leadership and colleague behavior?  If there is, it would seem ineffective at best. I'm not sure what to make of the "survey" issue, but I can say this: It is the norm--and for most consultants an ethical "must"--to provide respondents with survey results. If the surveys are done using interviews the actual quotes don't have to be presented to protect anonymity. But the thematic issues do need to be fed back. The absence of this step discourages people from future participation ("Why bother?") and raises the question "What was so bad that we couldn't see it? (negative fantasy). "If we didn't see it, who did? And why them and not us?" The list could go on.

Note: The nature of the music world normally has musicians represented by a union. Not sure yet where their representation is on this one.

Communication

This can be a catch-all phrase. In this case, don't we have to wonder how this ended up in the newspaper? It seems that there is a clearer channel between someone(s) within the Symphony and the media than there is within the organization itself. If there is a communication system within the organization, who is responsible for accuracy, timeliness, and coordination? Does everyone get the same information at about the same time? Or are there some things left dangling so that different constituencies have to "fill in the blanks" on their own. They will. The world abhors a vacuum. In this case, the symphony may need a vacuum cleaner.

Leadership

Judging from the article, the Board exercises some of the leadership normally performed by an Executive Director. Not sure why there is turnover--that would be an area to explore. Experience with similar organizations has shown me that there are inherently different focal points for the internal constituencies. The musicians are concerned about performance quality, sitting under an effective conductor, tenure, and workplace issues: travel schedules, rehearsal schedules, and administrivia that can impact them.

Boards are concerned about generating revenue, endowments, reputation, etc.  They are frequently composed of donors (nothing inherently wrong with that) who are interested in the organization.

An effective Executive Director really manages the constituencies and keeps operational rules and guidelines as well as cooperative communication on track. This role is key to the healthy and successful functioning of this type of organization.

What if?

The above represents some stream-of-consciousness diagnostic thoughts, by no means complete. But  let's knock off the serious, navel-gazing stuff. There are some factors here that could lead us elsewhere.

1. The issue is about the continuance of the conductor. Conductors often leave or are asked to move on after a reasonable amount of time for creative reasons. In a creative industry you just need to renew your own batteries or bring someone else in to spark the creative juices. There is a time and a season for everything.
2. According to the article, the conductor hired the Principal Horn who is a main figure in this soap opera. If the conductor goes would he go, too? One of his colleagues notes that Principal Horn has a high self-opinion but that it is justified, implying that he is a good player. (For our readers in the U.S.A., this would equate to American footballer Terrell Owens with an embouchure).
3.  Principal Horn-guy is the only one being vocal about this "terrorism." The other alleged victim has refused comment.
4. Alleged acts that supposedly include razor blades and attack-by-killer-coffee-cup have not been reported to the police. But they have been reported to a reporter. I don't know about you but if I am being "terrorized," my first phone call isn't to a journalism school graduate.

And so on. Now I'm thinking:

What if this whole thing is really about trying to keep the conductor and keep one's job. What if the orchestra members don't have the kind of union representation that can actually give them collective clout when it comes to their collective wishes? What if the absence of a proven, trusted Executive Director produces enough of a leadership vacuum to allow mischief to get played out through the media instead of managed through a legitimate process.

The only thing that seems clear is that there is no honest, legitimate, and internally accountable management process to deal with this in an upright way.

The good news: Jerry Springer is tied up on "Dancing With The Stars." We won't see any white tie, tails, oboes, and flying coffee cups on our local stations.

Your armchair analysis is invited. Please don't key the blog.

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.