Archive for the ‘Mindset’ Category

Last week, Amanda Bucklow left a comment on my blog about a video that I discovered on another website.

I didn’t do an exhaustive search of my followers and friends at various sites, but I am sad to say that I did not recognize Amanda’s name when I got the comment. I have no idea how she found my blog.

So, I decided to take a look at her blog – The Mediation Times -  to learn a bit about her. I immediately liked what I saw, and I started to look around a bit.

In the process of looking over her blog, I found one of Amanda’s posts titled Language, linguistics, and mediation. In this post Amanda, referenced a post by Lera Boroditsky titled How Does Our Language Shape the Way We Think.

Being a student of how we think and how our thinking affects our behaviors, I was instantly hooked. I just had to read further. So, I clicked over to Lera’s post.

I really enjoyed the reading.

In the process, I observed two very interesting things.

One, Lera’s research seems to confirm something I have suspected for a long time – the language we speak both reflects and affects how we think.

While I have learned some Latin, Spanish, French, and German, I am not fluent in any language other than English (although I’m pretty good with HTML and PHP).

As I learned these smatterings of other languages, I noticed both the different ways that things are described and the different ways the cultures that speak them tend to “do” life.

Here’s a funny side comment. My mother-in-law was German. In German, “cat” is a feminine word, and she always called our male cat “she”. Mama’s behavior seems to fit Lera’s research.

Back to the main point. If you want to work out a conflict with another person, pay careful attention to how they describe the world. If your words don’t fit theirs, you’ll likely have a difficult time connecting in a way that resolves the conflict. This observation may be obvious if you speak clearly different languages like English and German.

Consider this additional thought though, what if they seem to speak your language but you notice that their version of it is slightly different from yours?

For example, I often say that task-oriented people speak a different flavor of English (or any other language) than people-oriented people. If language both reflects and affects the way that we think and we want to resolve a conflict with a person who speaks a different “version” of our native tongue, we need to take extra care to make sure that we understand what they really meant rather than run with what we thought they meant. We need to consider that the words they speak might mean something slightly different to them than what they mean to us.

Second, I found it interesting that I learned something from someone I have never met, Amanda, because she led me to another person that I have never met, Lera. Both of them have great things to say. Amanda and Lera, thanks to you both.

Image from www.sxc.hu

I’m running a bit behind in my preparations for a trip today, and most of my blog readers are not my newsletter readers. So, I’m posting my most recent newsletter article here today. I’ll be back for my next scheduled post this Thursday.

________________________________

When you have explained something a number of times to the same person or group of people, it is really easy to allow your frustration with the communication process to build. It’s a small step from frustration to anger, and another small step from anger to an escalating conflict.

A failure to understand generally indicates only a few possible scenarios:

1. I haven’t explained it properly or in a way that makes sense to them.
2. I haven’t yet explained it enough times (most people need to hear new concepts something like 5-7 times to grasp and remember them)
3. They don’t have the capability to understand the concept
4. They simply don’t care to understand or remember.

Let’s consider each of these possibilities.

In the case where I haven’t yet explained it properly, the fault lies entirely with me. So, I have no reason to get angry with the other person.

If the concept is new or complicated, having to explain it several times is normal. Why should I get angry when it takes several explanations for it to make sense to them?

When people don’t have the capability to understand a concept for some reason, I am asking them to do something beyond their skill or maturity level. Again, the fault lies with me and my expectations and not with them. And, again, I have no reason to get angry with them.

If the other person simply does not care to understand or remember, I have to evaluate the relative importance of the task/concept compared to the value of the relationship. If the balance tilts towards preserving the relationship, I have to place the task or concept as a secondary priority. If the balance tilts towards the task or concept, then I have to find a way to get the task done with or without the other person. In either case, I have to ask myself if getting angry will accomplish the desired results. 

As a parent, I get the frequent opportunity to “practice what I preach” with regard to this conflict resolution tip. In working with my children (now 14 and 16), I often experience situations where we are discussing the same problem, issue, or overlooked task for the third, fourth, or fifth time.

Now that we are firmly into summer vacation season and my kids are home all day, I get these opportunities pretty regularly. I have to keep reminding myself that getting angry because they do not understand will probably not help the situation.

In the vast majority of situations, I find that the real cause for the problem lies within me. I have not yet explained it properly. I have not yet explained it enough times for it to “sink in.” Or my expectation of their comprehension is beyond where they are at the time.

Seldom do I experience situations where people simply do not want to understand. Even in those rare situations where I have experienced a total lack of concern, I often find that there is something I can do to make the issue important for the other person. In these cases, I find myself back at scenario number one: I haven’t yet explained it in a way that makes sense to them.

As you work with people on your team or in your family, remember not to get angry because they don’t understand.

Photo by Zen Sutherland.

Photo by Menage a Moi

Have you ever looked at someone else’s behavior and thought that it made no sense at all? Did your confusion over their reasoning lead you to criticize them? Did your criticism lead to conflict?

If you have ever gone down this path to conflict, I can certainly understand. I have done it, too.

I used to wonder why so many people did things that just did not make sense. Sometimes, this line of thinking led me to “help” the other person by attempting to “correct” their thinking.

This approach did not help them or me in very many situations.

So, I started to keep my mouth shut and carry my frustration with them inside. I found that this internal frustration with others also led to conflict in many situations.

Then, I learned something really powerful: everything that everyone does makes sense – to them.

From an innocent two-year old child to a serial killer, everyone’s words and actions make sense to them. In their view of the world, it makes sense. From their perspective, what they did or said made perfect sense at the time.

People might later reflect on their behaviors and wonder what they were thinking when they did or said something. Still, at the time they did or said it, it made sense to them.

Since learning this idea, I have learned a number of behavior models, communication strategies, and interaction processes to help me better understand other people’s perspectives. As I have learned these additional concepts, I have also learned to make sense of their words and actions even when their words and actions are completely different from my normal reaction.

While I have learned many tools to help me in this area, the real path to lower frustration and conflict with others began when I realized that everything other people do makes sense to them.

In The Phantom Menace, the great Jedi master Yoda says: “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

Fear in one or both parties is often the root of conflict, and we all fear something.

Some people fear losing control. Some fear looking bad in front of others. Other people fear confrontation. Still others fear having to make a decision with limited information. I could go on and on listing the fears we confront in our interactions with others.

To successfully resolve conflict, someone has to step outside the fear and get a handle on it so that it doesn’t lead to anger, hate and suffering.

The question for today is: What are you afraid of?

I have seen “problem” defined as “a situation that you want to change.”

Under this definition, if I don’t want to change the situation, I don’t have a problem.

If, I want to change the situation, then I have a problem.

Every situation that I want to change has something wrong with it. In general, I don’t want to change things that are running smoothly.

If something is wrong with the situation, then something either has happened or will happen to make the situation undesirable. To solve the problem, I have to consider that my thoughts, ideas, and feelings about the circumstances surrounding the situation just might be wrong.

There might be a different way to describe the situation that allows me to see a better solution than the first one that popped into my head.

Staying open to alternative solutions was one of the most powerful lessons I learned as a process design and development engineer. Since then, I have read numerous books, articles, and essays on how to keep my mind open to different problem solving approaches. I have watched videos and listened to audio programs on creativity.

I keep striving to quiet the voice in my head that says, “the first solution I found is the one and only right way to solve this problem.”

In working with people, I have learned that resolving conflict is just like solving a problem.

An interpersonal conflict is generally a situation that I want to change. So, it fits in the definition of a “problem.”

So, when I attempt to resolve workplace or family conflicts, I need to consider that I just might be wrong.

I really dislike this idea. It forces me to get outside my own perspective in the moments when I really do not want to make the effort.

Sadly, the same little voice I mentioned above often tells me that the source of the problem I face in resolving a conflict is the other person.

This morning, I read a great post titled Kill Your Little Darlings over at Women on Business. M.J. Ryan, the author of this post, starts this way:

William Faulkner once said that writers needed to “kill their little darlings.”  It’s a message about how, in order for inspiration to enter, we need to let go of the ideas we’re so in love with to make room for something better. It’s a willingness that everyone in business needs these days.

What a great concept! This idea applies to writers, to business owners, and to people attempting to resolve workplace conflicts.

In order to resolve a conflict, I have to be willing to consider ideas, thoughts, and feelings other than my own.

I have to set aside my perspectives, if only momentarily, to step into the world of the other person. To to do that, I need to “kill my little darlings” and consider the thought that I just might be wrong.

My Daughters

I prefer to be alone. I value people. I respect people. I can appreciate people. I don’t necessarily like people.

I am doubly task-oriented. That means I have significantly more task orientation than people orientation. I don’t want bad things to happen to people. I don’t want people to be harmed. I just prefer to be alone and working than with people and interacting. Even relational activities tend to become tasks in my mind.

Some people will read this post (roughly 65% of all people are more people-oriented than task-oriented) and feel that I am a little bit rude and inconsiderate.

Other people (the other 35%) will read this post and think that they finally found someone who “gets” their perspective.

Potential conflict looms in that difference of perspective.

Here’s a story to illustrate my point.

Several years ago, my wife and I began taking our daughters to school on most mornings to have time to connect with them for a few minutes in the morning. One morning about 18 months ago, I came almost entirely unglued with them as we were leaving because we were “behind schedule.”

For clarity sake, let me explain the situation. If we leave home before 7:40 am, we get ahead of the school buses, and I get back home at about 8:10-8:15. If we leave home after 7:40 am, we travel behind the school buses, and I get back home at about 8:30-8:45. So, a 2 or 3 minute variation in departure time can make a roughly 30 minute difference in my total drive time. Either way, the girls get to school on time. The only issue is when I return home.

On the morning in question, I had no appointments or specific time commitments that would be impacted by the extra drive time. Still, I was ready to kill my daughters because they were making me “late” for appointments that I didn’t have.

Looking back, it’s really pretty funny. I chose to do something for a relational purpose and, for me, it became a task. I completely forgot the relationship side of the “drive the kids to school” plan, and I started to focus only on the task component (the time invested in it).

Fortunately, I realized my misplaced focus, and I apologized to my daughters that evening. We all learned from the experience, and we moved on to a higher level of mutual understanding.

Conflict can come from many different things. In my experience, a large number of workplace conflicts come from a difference in these perspectives. Task-oriented people viewing relational activities as tasks and people-oriented people viewing tasks as a chance to interact with people. When the two perspectives collide, sparks can fly.

In my case, I have to force myself to see the importance of investing time in building relationships with others. I have to quiet the voice in my head that constantly asks me what I am accomplishing every waking minute. I have to accept that building a relationship can actually be “doing something productive.”

I have learned that one of the keys to effectively resolving conflict is the ability to see both the people AND the task side of an issue instead of taking a people OR a task perspective. Both are important. Both bring value.

Which way do you naturally lean? What do you need to do to be more in balance? When you are in balance, you can be the catalyst for resolving many workplace conflicts.

Today, I read two really good posts concerning the work of Albert Mehrabian. I enjoyed reading and comparing the two interpretations of Mehrabian’s work by both Bert Decker and Olivia Mitchell.

There seems to be some good-natured contention about what his research actually indicates, and I don’t know enough about the details of the research to add my two cents to the discussion. I do want to draw attention to both his research and the discussion about it from a workplace conflict resolution standpoint.

When we are in conflict with people close to us (at work, at church, at school, or in our family), we generally have ample opportunity to observe them in all sorts of situations. Over time, we start to pick-up on little non-verbal clues emanating from their body language.

Here’s what I draw from the discussion about Mehrabian’s work with regard to its application to resolving conflict in teams: the non-verbal message conveys a significant portion of the emotional message communicated.

I won’t even begin to discuss what percentage of the communication it represents. I’m not going to offer any interpretation of whether his study represents the listener’s feelings about the speaker, the listener’s thoughts about the speaker’s feelings, or the listener’s feelings about the speaker’s feelings. I haven’t read the actual study. I’ve just read other people’s interpretations of his findings.

Here is one point that seems to be pretty well accepted (I think), when non-verbal messages and verbal messages are inconsistent (or perceived to be inconsistent), the non-verbal message trumps the verbal message.

I’m sure that all of us have been on the receiving end of an “I’m just fine” said with a sarcastic tone and a roll of the eyes. In those moments, most of us realize that “I’m just fine” actually means “I’m really irritated, but I don’t want to tell you that.”

So, my thought for workplace and family conflict resolution is this: watch your non-verbal messages. People have a sense for your real emotional state no matter what words you use in an attempt to cover it up.

Instead of insinuating your true emotions with non-verbal clues, develop good conflict communication habits that honestly express your thoughts and feelings so that you don’t leave them open to interpretation (or misinterpretation) by others. Learn to use assertive communication techniques that clarify emotions in place of passive or aggressive communication techniques that tend to escalate rather than resolve the conflict.

Photo courtesy of www.sxc.hu

If everyone that you work with is an idiot, I have a suggestion for you:

Check your attitude.

Or, as I heard a speaker say one time, “Give your head a shake.”

In Winning with People, John Maxwell defines what he calls the Bob Principle: “If Bob has a problem with everyone, then Bob is the problem.”

We all have days when we struggle in our communication and relationship with others. I have them, my friends and colleagues have them, and I’m pretty sure that you have them too.

It doesn’t happen often, but I do have days when nearly everyone around me is an “idiot.” On those days, virtually everyone frustrates me, and, if I am honest, I find that I am the real problem. I am tired, hungry, distracted, or stressed. Something is usually going on in my life that reduces my ability to interact calmly, sanely, and professionally. On those days, I am Bob.

So, when you have a day where everyone is an “idiot,” I suggest that you check your attitude and “give your head a shake.” Step back, figure out what is really bothering you, and deal with that. When you do, other people will cease to be “idiots.”

Image from www.sxc.hu.