Archive for the ‘Listening’ Category

Recently, I was working through an issue with another person. They were distressed over the results of a process that affects both of us. I helped to create the process. I have authority to change the process if necessary. And I have knowledge of the system to troubleshoot and fix a fair number of problems.

As we were discussing the issue, they kept talking about their concern without giving me the details I needed to fix it for them. Since I was trying to fix the problem, I started to get a bit frustrated.

They talked.

I grew frustrated.

The talked some more.

I grew more frustrated.

The cycle continued until I said: “I get that you are concerned. I totally understand that you have a concern. Is it okay if we discuss how to solve the problem so that your concern can get resolved?”

They immediately said, “Yes, that would be great.” Their emotional level decreased. They focused on giving me the information I needed to fix the problem for them. And we had the situation resolved in less than 5 minutes from that point forward.

The other person is not a bad, difficult person. They are committed to their work. They want to do a good job, and they had a genuine concern. Because they had a concern, they became emotionally invested in the situation, and their emotional investment became a barrier to our communication. They needed me to understand that they had a concern.

Until I acknowledged their concern, they could not see past it to help me solve the problem. Their need to be heard and understood outweighed their ability to focus on the details of the problem.

The learning lesson in this is pretty simple. When you engage in a tense or emotionally charged conversation with another person, hearing, understanding, and acknowledging their emotion about the situation often creates the right environment for moving on to joint problem solving.

The converse is also often true. Failure to hear, understand, and acknowledge their emotion can create an insurmountable barrier to effective communication and joint problem solving.

Recently, I participated in a meeting for an organization where I serve as one of the leaders. During the meeting, one person made a statement of opinion. Then another member countered with their opinion. Pretty soon, the two of them were engaged in a heated discussion. Both of them were arguing there positions relative to the other persons.

As I sat and listened to this interchange, it occured to me that the first person did not thouroughly understand the perspective of the second person. Because of the misunderstanding, he launched into a long explanation of his perspective and how the other person should adjust theirs.

Person number two realized that person number one misunderstood his point, and he attempted to clarify it.

Sadly, person number one was emotionally invested at this point, and he literally could not hear or understand the other person’s perspective. As a result, the heated exchange continued far longer than it should have.

If person number one had asked one simple question to begin the dialogue, I believe things would have turned out quite differently. If he had stated his understanding of the other person’s perspective and then asked if he understood correctly, I think the whole conversation would have proceeded in calmer, less emotionally charged direction.

Rather than launching into a monologue about how the other person viewed things wrong, he could have started this way: “If I understood correctly, your concern is _____. Is that correct?”

This simple statement of understanding followed by a question to allow for clarification could have prevented the whole ugly interchange.

As the scenario played out in our meeting, the elevation of emotion over a misunderstanding blocked the first person’s ability to hear the second person’s attempts to clarify.

Here’s the learning point, we don’t always understand what people intend to communicate just because we heard the words they used. Acknowledging that our understanding could be flawed, creates the emotional space for clarification that will head off many unnecessary conflicts.

I don’t propose that this approach will stop every conflict. I do suggest it will help eliminate many miscommunications that could easily escalate to conflict.

As you go through this week and interact with others, I encourage you to question your understanding. When you feel your emotions rise in response to what someone says, remember to ask for clarification. You just might have heard it wrong.

Image courtesy www.sxc.hu.

This post is more of a question than a statement. I’m looking for input and feedback on this question:

How does the nature of your relationship with another person affect the way you handle/view/approach resolving a conflict with them?

Like many things in life, I have an opinion on this topic. I would just like to hear your perspective as well.

Can you help me out by leaving a comment?

Thanks.

I really enjoy looking for good examples of conflict escalation, poor communication, and personality style clashes. A few months ago, I saw this episode of The Apprentice, and I thought it perfectly illustrated a common people-oriented vs. task-oriented conflict scenario. It also shows how NOT to resolve a conflict.

The interesting action for this post starts at the 3 minute 40 second mark where we see the interaction between Scott Hamilton and Tom Green begin. The part I’m commenting on runs for a little more than 2 minutes.

Just guessing from their behaviors, I would say that Scott has lots of task traits and that Tom has lots of people traits. My best guess is that Scott has really high “Cautious” traits and that Tom has really high “Inspiring” traits. If I’m guessing right, their primary behavioral traits are complete opposites of each other.

I don’t know everything about these two men.  I’m just basing my guess on what I see in this short clip.

Tom frantically tries to get noticed. A common “Inspiring” trait is to seek recognition. He makes a comment about “keeping himself entertained” and he complains that “they’re not listening to me” as he waves his arms in the air and says “they’re so focused on the task they don’t even know I’m there.”  Also common “I” traits.

Scott’s goal is to be “calm and organized.” A common “Cautious” trait is to seek structure. He makes reference to Tom as the “derailer” and he tells Tom to “sit and relax.”

I also notice that Tom pushes harder for interaction and that Scott withdraws more into the task as the conflict escalates. Two common signs of a task vs. people conflict.

I think both of them behaved in ways that made the conflict worse instead of better, and I’m not really trying to comment on who was more or less “right.” I want to keep the focus of this post on their interaction dynamics.

Notice that as each of them fights for what they want, the conflict gets worse and neither of them gets what they want.

The lesson we can learn from this interaction is simple to say and difficult to do: slow down to understand the other person’s perspective so that you can move towards resolution and away from escalation.

Several years ago, my friend, client, and colleague, Tom Butera called my office shortly after driving by a billboard with the following statement on it:

Listen and silent have the same letters.

This statement struck me that day and has stuck with me ever since. I have thought about the implications of this simple observation. I have reflected on the times when I failed to listen well. I have observed what other people do that sends the message to me that they are not listening.

Too much talking, or lack of silence, is the common thread through virtually every conflict situation I have experienced that escalated quickly to anger and frustration by one or both parties. In this case, I am not referencing the type of silence associated with withdrawing from the situation. I am, rather, focusing on the type of silence that gives you the time to absorb and process information so that you can make an appropriate response to what the other person says or does.

In both my observations and my reflections, I see that silence is not just the lack of talking. True silence, for the purpose of listening, involves silencing the mind as well as the tongue. To be silent, we have to stop the desire to plan our response, look for what is wrong in the other person, defend our position, or justify our past actions.

To listen, we must be silent both externally and internally.

Thought for Thursday – Look for opportunities to practice intentional silence with the goal of understanding the perspectives of the people around you.