Archive for the ‘Personal responsibility’ Category

I’ve written about the power of apology in the past, and today I was reminded of the power of the words “I’m sorry” by a short article I read in the November 23 edition of BusinessWeek magazine.

As part of a larger article titled 10 Ways to Cut Health-Care Costs Right Now, I found item number 10 under the heading: Aplogize to the Patient.

This short piece quickly describes the financial impact of a program initiated by the Sorry Works! Coalition. Sorry Works! suggests that hospitals immediately inform patients and their families of medical errors, investigate the cause, change procedures if necessary, and offer a settlement if the heath-care provider is at fault.

In effect, they promote saying: “I’m sorry.”

According to the article, the University of Michigan Health System and the University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago both reported significant (in the range of 40-50%) reduction in malpractice claims by applying the Sorry Works! program.

So, what’s the implication to workplace conflict resolution?

Just say, “I’m sorry.”

Very rarely have I ever been involved in a dispute with another person when they were totally at fault. In most situations, I have contributed to the situation in one way or another.

Rather than debate the what I did or didn’t say, what you did or didn’t say, what I did or didn’t intend, or what you did or didn’t intend points of the conflict, just say “I’m sorry.”

I’m sorry for what I said or did. That’s it. No justification. No rehashing of the events. No blaming.

Will this always work? No.

Will it usually work? Yes – the reduction in malpractice suits proves it.

“I’m sorry” flies in the face of our natural need to protect ourselves. It’s often difficult to say, and it works.

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.

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.

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.

My wife, Sandra, is awesome. We don’t always see eye-to-eye. We sometimes get frustrated with each other. Still, she is awesome,and she fully embraces an “I’m responsible” approach to life.

On May 27, we will celebrate our twentieth wedding anniversary. She intrigued me when we first met. She continues to intrigue and educate me after knowing her for nearly twenty-two years.

In addition to our anniversary, both of our daughters have birthdays in May. As the school year comes to a close, we also have many events to attend. The last few days have been incredibly full and hectic in our home. As a result, I don’t remember the exact day this event happened, which daughter was involved, or even the specifics of the behavior that triggered Sandra’s response. I just remember what she said and the powerful lesson in her words.

One of our daughters did or said something that disturbed Sandra. She didn’t like something that happened. Maybe it was the tone, the word choice, the slow response, or the failure to complete a task. The specific issue was minor enough that the details surrounding it don’t stand out among the other events of the last week. It’s how Sandra responded that really stuck with me.

After a moment of frustration, Sandra turned to me and said: “What have I done or said to teach her that behavior?”

In general, our kids are fantastic. We very seldom have cross words with them. However, we are still parents and they are still teenagers. The occasional tense moment happens.

In this situation, Sandra totally exemplified the communication and leadership principles that we both strive diligently to teach and model. She took full responsibility for the situation, and she looked to what she can control – herself – rather than to something she cannot – another person.

As you go through this week, I’m guessing that you will have at least one or two situations where communication breaks down and emotions escalate. When it happens, remember what Sandra did and ask yourself what you might have done to contribute to the situation rather than move to blaming the other person.

I met someone lately who I like and who, at the same time, has some behaviors that really frustrate me. He seems incapable of restraining his desire to speak, and he consistently acts in ways that draw attention to himself without regard for any other people present. In short, he talks too much, and he talks almost entirely about himself.

In speaking with him, I have noticed that he is very outgoing, and he seems to be highly concerned with relationships. Based on these observations, I would guess that his primary behavioral style is in the “I” quadrant of the DISC model of human behavior.

People with a heavy dose of “I” traits generally need (not want, but need) recognition, approval, and popularity.

Now, what do I do with these observations.

Option Number One:

Since I do not have much need for recognition, approval, or popularity, I can view his need to be liked as unimportant and ignore his efforts to get people to notice and like him. I can say that he is annoying, irritating, self-centered, inconsiderate, and rude. I could then move from that conclusion to decide that I should try to “shut him up” when we speak or avoid him altogether.

Option Number Two:

I can see him as a person with unmet needs who is crying out for someone to express an interest in him. I could then move from that conclusion to work towards developing a friendly relationship with him.

If I choose option number one, I protect myself at his expense. I ignore his needs, label him, and act in a way that probably drives him towards more of the behaviors that frustrate me.

If I choose option number two, I work in a way to meet his needs. If I am right about his need to be liked, acting in a way that communicates I like him could result in him listening more and speaking less. I might actually be less frustrated with him by changing my behaviors towards him rather than by expecting him to change his behaviors towards me!

Now, here’s the cautionary side of this approach. If he really is a person with long-standing unmet needs, he may be like a drowning man gasping for air. As a rescuer approaches the drowning man, the rescuer has to be careful not to get pushed under by the person they are trying to save. In the first moments of contact with the drowning man, the rescuer may have to push just a bit in order to save both of them.

So, as I approach this person with the desire to show him that I like him, I may need to take some precautions to avoid getting “drowned” by his desire to be liked and noticed. I need to communicate clearly with him. I may need to set realistic expectations about our relationship and how much time I have to invest in working with him. And still, I need to do this in a way that does not communicate that I do not like him.

To connect with him, I will have to take some risks. I will have to risk the frustration of listening to another story about him that I really do not want to hear. I will have to risk the frustration of having him interrupt me or watching him interrupt other people. I will have to risk not being heard because he is thinking about what he is going to say next.

If I really value people, see the importance of relationships, and pursue my goal of learning to work with people even when they are much different from me, then the reward is worth the risk. I need to approach with caution, and I still need to make the approach.

Monday Momentum Message: Do you have anyone in your life that is frustrating and still worth the risk? If you do and they are “drowning” in unmet relational needs, find a safe way to make the approach. Beware of choosing Option Number One above. While it often seems safer and more expedient, it often makes the situation worse rather than better.

This post is a follow-up to last week’s Monday Momentum Message.

A key tenet of effective conflict resolution is that conflict resolution discussions are more productive when they focus on finding future actions that will fix the current relationship problem.

Sadly, many of us gravitate towards discussing what has or has not already happened rather than talking about what we would rather see in the future. As a result, many conflict conversations become “he said, she said” discussions where emotions flare and conflicts escalate rather than “here’s what we agree to do in the future” discussions where emotions stay in-control and conflicts get resolved.

When we talk about the past, we tend to talk about things that neither of us can change. Nothing I do will change the fact that I hurt your feelings. Nothing you do will change the fact that I received your words as demeaning and disrespectful. We can talk about our feelings at great length, but no amount of discussion will undo what has already been done.

I see great value in understanding the impact of my words and actions on you and you understanding the impact of your words and action on me. I also understand the need to discuss our emotional responses until we both feel understood. I see no value in discussing the past in an effort to “undo” it.

Recently, I overheard a conversation about a misunderstanding between several people who were involved in the situation but were not present for the conversation. One party tried, on two or three occasions, to revisit why the miscommunication was not their fault and how it could have been avoided if so-and-so had done this instead of that. Basically, they invested their energy in placing blame rather than in resolving the issue. Fortunately, the other party quickly turned the direction of the conversation back to a future focus about how to make sure everyone involved had the right information in the future.

One party worked really hard to avoid taking the blame. The other party ignored blame altogether and focused on a solution. The conversation quickly moved from “he said, she said” to “what can we do together to fix this.” Emotions almost immediately calmed, and both parties had a productive conversation.

When we focus on the past, we generally focus on blame. When we focus on the future, we tend to focus on solutions.

Monday Momentum Message – Learn from the past, don’t stay there.

Misunderstanding and miscommunication cause many of the conflicts we experience in life. As a result, working to reduce misunderstanding and miscommunication forms the foundation for much of my work to assist teams in their efforts to reduce and resolve conflicts.

When we work for clarity of communication, clarity of understanding, and clarity of intention, we move in the direction of eliminating conflict before it begins.

A curious rather than a judgmental attitude, asking thoughtful questions, and listening intently to the answers, all pave the way for clarity. These actions also pave the way for a productive team environment.

Thought for Thursday – Strive for clarity in all of your communications.