Archive for the ‘relationships’ 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.

While this blog is primarily about exploring thoughts, tips, techniques, and approaches for resolving conflict in teams, I thought it might be important to acknowledge that conflict can actually be a good thing in some situations.

Good conflicts are the natural result of people working together towards a common cause. Well-intentioned, hard-working people can have honest differences of opinion that can generate conflict.

As long as the involved parties avoid mean-spirited attacks, negative judgments of character, and act in ways that preserve the relationship rather than damage it; the conflict can be good. Under these conditions, conflicting approaches and thoughts generally lead to better, more thoroughly thought out solutions to problems.

So, as we continue to look for ways to deescalate and resolve negative conflicts, let’s also remember that not all conflict is a bad thing.

Photo by shuttermonkey.

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.

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

Redirected to http://businessrelationshiprx.com/2009/06/what-our-cats-taught-me-about-working-with-people/.

A few weeks ago, a situation developed between me and another person where they felt the need to apologize. In all honesty, I was a bit irritated with the person and their behavior prior to receiving their call asking if they could come to see me in person.

However, they did come see me in person. They did sincerely apologize. And they genuinely felt sorry for their actions.

During the conversation, they said: “I don’t know why I did what I did.” I said: “I guess it’s because you’re human.” I then reminded them of the scene in the Disney movie The Lion King when Rafiki hit Simba on the head. After receiving a whack on the head, Simba said: “Hey, why did you do that!” Rafiki replied: “It don’t matta’. It’s in the past.”

When I told the story, I smiled and the other person smiled. The tension broke, and we moved forward with our relationship.

In this case, the other person really did do something that required an apology. And, they genuinely apologized.

They apologized. I accepted. We moved on together. We have now been in several meetings since then where we have worked productively and positively together.

When people apologize, there is nothing to be gained by attempting to humiliate them further. Accept the apology. Honor their sincerity, and move on. Remember, “It don’t matta’. It’s in the past.”