Archive for the ‘relationships’ Category

This post is now here.

     Previously, I posted an entry about a challenge for Conflict Resolution Day.  This post is a follow-up on my progress towards applying this commitment: 

     This is a modification of a previous post:

   When two people find themselves in a conflict situation, the two parties usually focus trying to figure out what the other person is saying or what the other person wants. In the process, they can miss the point of the other person’s request or demand. They miss why the other person wants what they want.

   Focusing on what the other person is saying is important. It helps you understand their desires more fully. It helps you meet their immediate demands. However, addressing only the what without understanding the why can lead to continued miscommunication and unresolved conflict.   

   Consider these scenarios:   

   Scenario #1

When your spouse asks you to meet for lunch today, they have delivered a statement of what they want – lunch.

The questions to consider are these: Do they want to meet for lunch because they are hungry and they expect to be near your office at lunchtime?, or Do they want more time with you and this is the only way they know how to ask for it?

If their reason why is the former question, you can have lunch together some other time. If their reason why is the latter, you might be able to meet their request in a different way.

   Scenario #2 

The employee who asks for a raise has told you what they want – more money.

You should ask yourself: Do they have more cash demands because of something that happened at home?, or Do they want more money in exchange for tolerating poor working conditions?

If their reason why is the first question, a pay raise might actually address their concerns. If their reason why is the second question, a pay raise will not help the situation.

   Scenario #3

The co-worker who asks you to open a window has said what they want – an open window.

You should wonder: Do they want the room temperature cooler?, or Are they nauseated by some odor in the air?

If they want it cooler and you are comfortable with the temperature, you might find an alternative arrangement. If they are nauseated by an odor that you either do not smell or do not mind, opening the window may be the only way to help them.

   These simple examples illustrate the point. If you focus only on what people request without considering why they requested it, you could miss their real concern.

   I do not suggest that you analyze everything people say for deep, hidden meaning. I do recommend that you listen with discerning ears so that you learn to understand the why behind the what. I also recommend that you learn to question your assumptions about other people. Rather than snap to a judgment, ask a question. Seek clarification before you assume too much. Learn to search for their why without projecting your perspective onto their intentions.

   If you really work to understand the why behind their what, you will more effectively address the real clash of needs and desires that originally created the conflict.

   Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer
 

    As I write this post, I am sitting in an office in Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia. Tonight I speak to a group of business owners in Brisbane (about 2 hours by car). This is not my first opportunity to work with people in a different country. To date, I have worked in Canada, Germany, England, Scotland, Switzerland, Holland, China, Thailand, Taiwan and now — Australia. This trip has triggered a thought for me that directly affects our approaches to resolving conflict with people at work and at home.

     In driving through Queensland and working with various people here, I am struck by many things. The country side looks like other places I have been, and it is also different. The buildings look like other places I have been, and they are different. The businesses are like others I have visited in the past, and they are different.     

      The differences create energy and enthusiasm for me on this trip. They give me something to focus on as I work to gain greater understanding of this beautiful country, its culture, and its people. The differences provide learning opportunities.    

     In conversation, it’s even a bit fun to joke and laugh about the differences. I have enjoyed lively banter about how Australians and Americans are different.     

     In jest, it’s fun to talk about our differences. In conflict, focusing on differences can destroy the relationship and ultimately the team.

     As I look around Australia and reflect on my experiences in other places with other people and cultures, I realize that we have many more similarities than differences. If we have more similarities across the world than we do differences, I think the same is probably true with the people we work and live with on a daily basis.

     The differences between us bring spark and energy to the team. They show us different perspectives and approaches to the many situations we address every day. They provide opportunities to learn from each other. They can also create discord and strife if we focus on them too strongly.

     So, here’s my closing thought from “down under.” The next time you find yourself in a conflict with a co-worker, family member, or fellow volunteer — look for your similarities. The differences will be pretty obvious. You may feel tempted to focus on them because they frustrate you. Resist this urge. Look for similarities. Look for common ground. That’s where you will likely find the way forward to resolve your conflict.

      Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer 
 

     Conflicts often arise when people have unmet needs. People will do everything in their power to get their needs met. They often start the search to have their needs met with a “whisper.” The whisper can take many forms depending on the person. When the whisper is not heard, they often raise the volume until they begin to “yell.” Like the whisper, the yell can take many forms.

     Outgoing, task-oriented, dominant people may whisper by tapping their foot or finger. They may yell by demanding results and respect.

     Outgoing, people-oriented, inspiring people may whisper by joking or laughing. They may yell by becoming sarcastic and emotional.

     Reserved, people-oriented, supportive people may whisper by becoming silent and looking away. They may yell by withdrawing and avoiding contact.

     Reserved, task-oriented, cautious people may whisper by asking questions and appealing to rules or procedures. They may yell by criticizing and condemning.

     The expression of the search may be different for different people, the reason is the same: unmet needs. In any conversation, and especially in a conflict conversation, pay attention to the whisper, and do everything in your power to meet the other person’s needs. Do this, and you reduce the chance that they will begin to “yell.” 

     Is there anyone in your life that is whispering to you about their needs?

I owe the thought behind this post to Jeanine Fitzgerald. Jeanine is one of the most amazing people I know. She is a fantastic educator. This week, she sat in on a training session that I co-facilitated. During the session, she shared the thought captured in the title of this post.

If you want to know how to become a better parent, educator, or business leader; I strongly recommend that you read her book: The Dance of Interaction.

  Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer

Conflicts with supervisors or people in positions of authority seem to come up frequently in my work. People often ask me how to confront their supervisor or manager to address frustrations and irritations.

I start by recommending caution. Confronting someone who has the positional authority to retaliate against you presents some very real political risks. That being said, here’s one approach I have found that often works well, and it significantly reduces the risk of retaliation:

Use an apologetic attitude.

The apologetic attitude starts when you Deliver the invitation to meet and it continues throughout your discussion of the conflict. In practice, it goes something like this as you Deliver the invitation:

• “Apparently I have done something to create some frustration for you. I’m not sure what it is, and I would like to speak with you to resolve this frustration.” or
• “I think I might have done something to irritate you. I think I know what it might be, but I’m not completely sure. I would like to speak with you to get things smoothed out between us.”

Notice that the person in the subordinate position takes responsibility for the supervisor’s frustration and irritation in these situations.

The people who come to me with the question of how to address this type of situation often really do not know what has caused the frustration, irritation, or disconnect with their supervisor. That is why I recommend this type of approach. It creates the space for an open discussion without putting the other person on the defensive. This is a practical application of using the power of apology.

I have noticed that people usually have a very difficult time remaining angry with you when you are apologizing. When you use this approach, you listen to their frustration first and then you share your concerns. This apolgize and listen approach improves the odds that the other person will eventually be willing to listen to what you have say.

The approach will not work in every situation or with every person. It is often better than a more direct approach that runs the risk of triggering a negative or retaliatory response.

Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer

     According to research cited by Daniel Goleman in a video recorded at a TED conference last year, humans have a natural bent towards compassion. 
 
     Reflecting on this video, Tammy Lenski over at Conflict Zen says: