Archive for the ‘relationships’ Category

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.

As I was reading through some other blogs this week, I found this post on Empathy, Apology and Forgiveness by Arnold Zeman at Dialogic Mediation Services.

Once again the power of apology surfaces in the context of resolving conflict. I really liked this post because it derives from research and not just from a single person’s opinions.

The full citation for both the underlying research and the chain of reporting is in the post at Dialogic Mediation services.

As Arnold Zeman reports in his post, the key learning point of the research is:

Empathy must be experienced by, and communicated by, both parties to the conflict, not simply one or the other. In other words, to be effective in resolving conflict, apology and forgiveness are best viewed as interactive processes, not simply one-sided speech events.

In the context of workplace conflict, here’s the bottom-line: for an apology to have any significant impact on the situation, you need to allow some processing time for both parties to realize (preferrably on their own) that they both contributed to the conflict.

I seldom see conflicts where one party is clearly wrong and the other party is totally “right.” I’m sure that it happens from time-to-time but not very frequently.

When you find yourself in a conflict, you should offer a well intentioned apology. You should also give the other person time to reflect on the situation before you “force” them to accept it. It seems that the reflection time is critical for the development of “mutual empathy.”

Thought for Thursday: Be willing to apologize for your contribution and then give people time to reflect.

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.

Last week, my wife and my youngest daughter experienced a communication breakdown. In short, my daughter, at age 13, changed her plans without consulting my wife. This created a problem for two reasons:

1. My daughter moved to a different location than the previously agreed upon location for pick-up, and
2. My daughter’s schedule directly impacts my wife’s schedule.

Understandably, my wife felt frustrated and angry. Rather than address the issue while she was angry, she waited until we could speak about it on Saturday morning.

As we discussed the appropriate parental response, my wife’s frustration from the previous day came to the surface. For a brief moment, she considered “punishing” my daughter. As we spoke, I asked one question: “What is your objective? Do you want to punish her because you are angry or do you want to make sure this behavior does not happen again in the future?” (I’m not convinced that I phrased this question in the best way for her in the moment.)

She stopped briefly. Then she said: “When you put it that way, I suppose I want to make sure this does not happen again in the future.”

In that moment, my wife’s intended actions began to move towards appropriate and natural consequences for my daughter’s behavior and away from consequences that would likely communicate vengeance and anger.

My daughter did not intend to cause problems for her mother. She just did not think through all of the implications of her decision. She has some things to learn. My wife and I need to help her learn them.

My wife did not intend to harm my daughter, she wanted to protect her from making poor decisions in the future. In the emotion of the situation, she initially had a difficult time seeing past her anger.

I had the “emotional upper hand” in this situation. I was not emotionally involved in the events of the previous day. I could easily, in this case, make an objective, third-party observation. My wife lived the situation, and her emotions were directly involved. She had a more difficult time making the switch in thinking because of her emotional investment. She did it. It just was not easy for her to do.

After my wife shifted her thinking about the situation, we then discussed it  further. After a few minutes, we came to an agreement about how to handle the situation in a way that would improve our odds of achieving our real objective – teaching our daughter a life lesson that will serve her well beyond the time she lives with us.

Monday Momentum Message – Be clear about your real objective before you confront another person.

On Monday, I offered Three Tips for Heading Off Conflicts Before They Start. My third tip was to work to ensure open lines of communication.

In situations where you work closely with people over a long period of time, it is easy to start getting a bit “relaxed” in your communications. This relaxed communication approach has both good and bad implications. It can be good because it can foster openness. It can be bad when we lose the communication discipline to carefully consider what our words and actions communcate to others.

For example, my wife tends to communicate in a direct, bottom-line, high-energy fashion. When she gets really worked-up on a topic, I have difficulty telling the difference between passion about the topic and anger directed at me. Even after nearly twenty years of marriage, I still cannot easily distinguish between these two emotional states.

She is aware that her passion sometimes looks like anger to me. She works to control her expression and to tell me in words what state she is in rather than leaving it to me to interpret her tone and actions. She works hard to communicate more clearly, and she is still a human being. Sometimes she is tired, in a hurry, pressured, or otherwise distracted, and she forgets the discipline she normally works so diligently to apply to her communications.

Because we know that these moments will happen despite her best efforts. We have agreed to two code words that help me to quickly understand her thoughts and feelings. In our case, we have agreed that I can ask: “Sandra, are you angry or are you just passionate about this topic?” When I ask that question, she tells me her mental state in one word. As a result, I know exactly how to interpret the situation and how to best respond to her.

In about 95% of the situations where I would naturally interpret her behavior as angry, she is actually just passionate about the subject. In most situations, anger never even crossed her mind. Using these code words has helped us head off more conflicts than I can now count.

You can apply this same concept with the people in your life either at work or at home.

Thought for Thursday: Discuss this idea with some of the people close to you. Identify potential areas of misunderstanding or miscommunication between you, and develop code words that you can use to immediately clarify the situation for both of you.

In much of my work, I see a tendency that many people have (including me) to play the victim during interpersonal conflict. I encourage my clients, and I strive myself, to overcome this tendency to blame every conflict on the other party.

I call this tendency to blame others a victim mentality. When I am blaming others, I am a “victim” of their behavior with no power to change things. I don’t really like to be a victim. So, I prefer to shift from “victim” mentality to “victor” mentality by focusing on three specific things that are completely under my control.

I strive to:

1. Own my piece of the conflict.

This idea leads directly from my posts over the last few weeks about questioning my perspective, changing my perspective, and, fixing the problem. I have seldom seen or been involved in a conflict that was entirely one party’s fault. Rather than play the victim, I take charge of my fate by identifying and owning my piece of the conflict.

2. Initiate discussion

I rarely see a conflict resolve itself, and I nearly always see open, honest discussion precede the resolution. Many people will flee from conflict rather than confront it. If I want to be a victor and not a victim, I need to take the responsibility to initiate the discussion.

3. Forgive the other party

One of my colleagues, Dr. Robert Rohm, says: “Being bitter and angry is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.”

Harboring negative feelings towards another person does nothing to fix the situation and does much to damage the relationship. These negative feelings actually give the other person power over me. If I want to be a victor and claim control of my thoughts and actions, I have to forgive the other person so that we can get the issue resolved and agree to a suitable action plan that meets both of our needs. I could write on this one point at length, and I may at some point. I won’t go any further with it today.

I encourage you to be a victor and not a victim when you are in interpersonal conflict. Focus on these three concepts to take control of your thoughts, feelings and actions. When you are a victor, you position yourself to build momentum in all of your relationships.

Yesterday, my wife had an interchange with my oldest daughter that did not go very well. I only heard part of it, but I heard enough to know that they experienced a brief conflict.

As I took my daughter to school, I managed to “unpack” her frustration so that we could solve the problem. Through discussion with my daughter, I learned that my wife had offered a solution to a situation at school that my daughter heard as critical of her actions. Please catch this key point: my wife offered a solution, my daughter heard a criticism.

Neither one of them wanted a conflict. Both of them wanted the day to start smoothly. In the rush of getting out the door early in the morning, their communication wires got crossed. No bad intentions were involved. It was just a case of poor communication.

One person thinks and speaks in a direct, bottom-line, “solve the problem” fashion (my wife). The other person thinks and speaks in an indirect, step-by-step, process oriented fashion (my oldest daughter). Both of them want the relationship to work. And both of them have moments of frustration with the other. It’s just a normal, everyday situation.

When I returned home from taking my daughters to school, I discussed the situation with my wife. She openly embraced my observations about our daughter’s perspective without becoming defensive, and she took action to correct the miscommunication as soon as she saw our daughter in the afternoon. My wife took responsibility for the communication breakdown rather than blaming my daughter.

This learning point ties directly to this Monday’s Momentum Message where I asked you to question yourself and your results. My wife did not get the result she wanted, and she immediately questioned her perspective. She looked for ways under her control to correct the situation. As a result, she is building positive momentum into her relationship with our daughter.

Thought for Thursday: Identify the areas in your interactions with others where you subtly (maybe even unintentionally) blame them for problems between you. Then, take the responsibility for fixing the breakdown.