“We’re wired for compassion — our default setting is to help. But sometimes we turn off that part of ourselves.”

     Tammy’s comment and Goleman’s video got the wheels spinning in my head. I immediately thought of the concept of self-deception that I first learned from the book Leadership and Self-Deception by The Arbinger Institute.

     I’ll paraphrase from the book to set the stage for my observation:

• An act contrary to what I feel I should do for another is called an act of “self-betrayal.”
• When I betray myself, I begin to see the world in a way that justifies my self-betrayal.
• When I see a self-justifying world, my view of reality becomes distorted.
• I then become self-deceived.

     Once I am self-deceived, I:

• Inflate others’ faults.
• Inflate my own virtue.
• Inflate the value of things that I perceive will justify my self-betrayal.
• Blame others for my original act of self-betrayal.

     So, if we are “wired for compassion,” any time we act in a way that is not compassionate we betray ourselves. The act of self-betrayal then sets off the chain of events leading ultimately to self-deception. Once I am self-deceived, I get angry with others, blame them, etc. I suddenly find myself in conflict with someone, and the conflict started with me.

     Towards the end of the video, Goleman points out that we can turn off our compassion drive. He also says that we can choose to turn it on by simply noticing the needs of others.

     Let’s work this backwards. If I notice the needs of others. I then act on the drive to show compassion, and I never betray myself. Since I do not betray myself, I never need to justify my betrayal. If I do not need to justify my betrayal, I do not need to blame others. So, I find myself in fewer conflicts.

     If that is so, then maybe a key to resolving workplace conflicts starts with the choice to notice others’ needs so that we can show compassion.

     I wonder: if we are willing to make that choice, do we find ourselves in fewer conflicts that need resolution?

      Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer

         The Anatomy of Peace is another book that expands on this concept.
 

Harvard negotiation gurus Deepak Malhotra and Max H. Bazerman suggest that negotiators too often confuse hidden interests and constraints with irrationality.  The mistakes and solutions when this is the case?  

• Mistake No. 1: They are Not Irrational; They Have Hidden Interests — find out what they are and you may well be able to resolve the dispute and settle the litigation without putting any more money on the table or making any further concessions;
• Mistake No. 2: They are Not Irrational; They Have Hidden Constraints — keep one ear to the ground for hidden constraints, explore them with the mediator, opposing counsel or the opposing party; often those constraints can be problem-solved away;
• Mistake No. 3: They are Not Irrational; They Are Uninformed — listen and respond; respond and listen.  You will find that EACH of you is uninformed about something that will likely make a genuine difference in the manner in which the litigation is resolved.

This observation points to the tendencies of negotiators. That’s a key point, Malhotra and Bazerman reference the behaviors of people referred to as negotiators. Generally speaking, negotiators enter situations where they have the opportunity to research the other person’s position and to plan a strategy for the negotiation. While I have not read this particular work, I imagine that many of the situations considered as they wrote it involved a good number of experienced negotiators - attorneys, mediators, and business owners with training and/or experience that should help them overcome the natural tendencies the authors reference.

Negotiators with the time to research and prepare a strategy struggle to overcome the tendency to draw false conclusions about the other party’s rationality, ethics, or intentions. So, what hope does the average work team member with little or no training in negotiation and mediation skills and forced to respond to rapidly changing situations have to overcome this natural human tendency? If they insist on assessing other team members intentions when conflict arises, not much. If they focus on the specific behaviors they see in the other person, pretty good.

For the sake of clarity, I’ll define the difference between a behavior and an interpretation by quoting from another article I wrote:

• Rude, inconsiderate, disrespectful, arrogant, obnoxious, flighty, unfocused, smart aleck, and pushy are interpretations.
• Interrupting, rolling eyes, speaking loudly (or softly), shrugging shoulders, looking away, walking away, and tone of voice are specific behaviors. 

When you force yourself to focus on specific behaviors rather than on your interpretation of the other person’s intention, you stand much better odds of remaining in control of your emotions to find a reasonable resolution to most workplace conflicts.

 Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer

• Our emotional response to conflict is generally driven by our perception of the situation (Is this a threat or not?, Are they challenging me or not?, etc.)
• Since we have gaps in our perception, our perception may not reflect what really happened (what the other person said, did, intended, etc.)
• When we make quick judgments about other people’s intentions, we probably act on only partial, and quite possibly faulty, information. (As a mentor of mine told me: “There are three sides to every story: your side, my side and the truth.”)
• These quick judgments will probably lead to the two most common conflict strategies: avoidance and attack.
• In a workplace context, I usually see both avoidance and attack strategies that break the dialogue. I could comment at length on this one point. To keep it brief I’ll give one example for both:
  • Avoidance leads to distancing behaviors that keep us away from the other party. This one’s pretty obvious.
  • Attack leads to aggressive behaviors that damage the relationship: gossip, seeking allies, poison emails, etc.
• Broken dialogue virtually ensures that the two parties will not sit together for a face-to-face discussion about resolving the conflict.
• Failure to speak face-to-face almost guarantees that persuasion will not happen in either direction.
• Both parties get further entrenched in their positions. They begin to believe and act on their initial faulty perceptions even more strongly.
• The conflict gets worse with almost no hope of amicable resolution.

   That’s a pretty gloomy picture of conflict resolution. It seems to indicate that we are hardwired for failure in this area of life and relationships. Fortunately, I see a “low leverage solution” (to quote Peter Senge from The Fifth Discipline) that offers some hope: an attitude of curiosity. I wrote about this concept in my last post, and I see it as a way to break the negative spiral that conflicts can take. 

   I don’t work in the legal system. I don’t resolve marital disputes or contractual issues. I work with teams. Teams cannot afford to stay locked in conflict without resolution. Teams are by definition interdependent. To achieve maximum results, they must work together. Working together means that team members must trust each other. To trust each other we must fight the tendency to quickly condemn people during conflict. We must remain curious and willing to talk.

   I’ve grown in this area over the last few years. Now, I’m challenging myself to focus on and actively foster an attitude of curiosity about what the people I work with do and say. I want to recognize that my perception may be faulty, and that other people may not have intended what I perceived them to intend. I want to pursue face-to-face discussions whenever possible so that we can achieve excellence in everything we do. I encourage you to do the same.

    Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer

     An attitude of judgment says:

• “They’re trying to take advantage of me!”
• “Why are they doing that to me?”
• “They always get angry.”
• “They never listen to me.”
• “I can’t trust them.”

     An attitude of curiosity says:

• “I wonder what they want from this situation. I should ask them to clarify their intentions.”
• “I wonder what I did to trigger that response?”
• “Are they angry or are they passionate about this topic? I should ask them so that I understand better.”
• “I wonder if they don’t feel like I heard them? Maybe they are interrupting me because I didn’t communicate my understanding of their perspective properly.”
• “I wonder what they see that I don’t see? Maybe I don’t understand why they said (or did) what they said (or did).”

   Your attitude towards another person affects your tone, your word choice, and your body language. An attitude of judgement will probably communicate “I am a threat” to the other person. If they perceive you as a threat, they will seldom respond well. An attitude of curiosity communicates “I want to understand” to the other person. When people sense your desire to understand them, they seldom behave in ways that escalate the conflict. 

   I am not suggesting that people can always be trusted or that they never have harmful intentions. If you find someone like that, I recommend staying as far away from them as possible. The perspective that I am advocating applies to close relationships at work and at home. Very rarely do these people want to harm you. You may see things differently, you may have different desires, and you may want to see different outcomes. These differences do not necessarily imply bad intent. I suggest that you start your interactions and conversations about these differences with the “I wonder…” approach rather than the “I already know…” approach.

Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer