Archive for the ‘working with people’ Category

For the past several months, I have been working with my friend and colleague Kevin Eikenberry on a number of projects. As part of my responsibility in working with Kevin, I serve as a coach on the monthly group coaching call for Silver Members of Kevin’s Remarkable Leadership Learning System.

While this post doesn’t specifically address resolving conflict, the ideas in it relate directly to the much broader topics of leadership and leadership development.

Last week, we had our monthly Group Coaching call, and we discussed Enabling Process Improvement. We had a great, lively, informative call. Here are some of the highlights of the call:

Keep it simple

In keeping with Kevin’s description of a “non-denominational” process improvement approach (Plan – Do – Check – Act) during his monthly teleseminar, we discussed the importance of focusing on the basics. Keep it simple, and keep going back to foundational principles so that you can get a “ground-up” approach to process improvement. This approach will make your life as a leader much easier.

Set constraints up front

If you know that certain approaches are “off-the-table” with regard to what is or is not acceptable in the context of your process improvement efforts, tell people up-front. Openly sharing what is not acceptable can help people to focus their efforts on what is.

Ask questions

Question, probe, and investigate early and often. The more you work to surface concerns and frustrations with the current situation, the better you can communicate the need to take action and the better you can define your desired outcomes.

Clearly define the problem

If we define the word problem as a “condition that you want to change,” then we have to agree on the problem statement before we can agree on the solution statement. Working to make the problem definition clear (the current condition that we want to change) will help you reduce resistance to change that might occur as you work to improve the process.

Make it safe to fail

We don’t want people to fail in ways that will destroy the company. We do want people to learn and grow in order to get better. Planning for the future. Taking reasonable steps to avoid failure. And then, allowing small failures to happen without negative consequences can create an environment that enables process improvement.

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.

Recently, I was working through an issue with another person. They were distressed over the results of a process that affects both of us. I helped to create the process. I have authority to change the process if necessary. And I have knowledge of the system to troubleshoot and fix a fair number of problems.

As we were discussing the issue, they kept talking about their concern without giving me the details I needed to fix it for them. Since I was trying to fix the problem, I started to get a bit frustrated.

They talked.

I grew frustrated.

The talked some more.

I grew more frustrated.

The cycle continued until I said: “I get that you are concerned. I totally understand that you have a concern. Is it okay if we discuss how to solve the problem so that your concern can get resolved?”

They immediately said, “Yes, that would be great.” Their emotional level decreased. They focused on giving me the information I needed to fix the problem for them. And we had the situation resolved in less than 5 minutes from that point forward.

The other person is not a bad, difficult person. They are committed to their work. They want to do a good job, and they had a genuine concern. Because they had a concern, they became emotionally invested in the situation, and their emotional investment became a barrier to our communication. They needed me to understand that they had a concern.

Until I acknowledged their concern, they could not see past it to help me solve the problem. Their need to be heard and understood outweighed their ability to focus on the details of the problem.

The learning lesson in this is pretty simple. When you engage in a tense or emotionally charged conversation with another person, hearing, understanding, and acknowledging their emotion about the situation often creates the right environment for moving on to joint problem solving.

The converse is also often true. Failure to hear, understand, and acknowledge their emotion can create an insurmountable barrier to effective communication and joint problem solving.

Just in case you would like to have some fun with another person in your next disagreement, here are some tips for quickly escalating a minor miscommunication to a full-blown conflict.

1) Tell them what they’re feeling

When you want to get a strong emotional response from somone, just tell them what they are feeling. For example, you could say “don’t get angry with me.” This comment is just about guaranteed to get an angry response even if they were not already angry.

You might also try something like this, “why are you so defensive?” I love that one. It almost always puts the other person on the defensive so that their emotions elevate to the point that we can really get into a good argument.

2) Tell them why they did what they did (or said what they said)

This is a sure fire way to get under someone’s skin and escalate a conflict. When you tell another person their motivation for their words and actions, you can easily spin them up. Little comments like “you just said that because you’re jealous” or “you did that because you want to get even with me” are great for making a conflict worse.

If you’re determined to fan their emotional flames, mix in some amateur psychoanalysis. You could say something like “you are so OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder)” or “you must have relationship issues or something.”

3) Raise your voice

If you’re ready for a good knock-down-drag-out confrontation, raise your voice. This technique is great for getting their emotional juices flowing. Add a little finger-pointing and leaning forward to the recipe, and you just might push them over the edge. It’s great fun!

4) Focus on the past

As you start to get into a good conflict, focus on something that they have no power to change: the past. Refuse to discuss actions for future behaviors or ways of interacting. Insist that they deconstruct and defend their past words and actions.

You don’t have to look too far in the past for this technique to be effective. You can work with what they just said. If you push hard, you can spend a good 10 or 15 minutes telling them:

Since they cannot change what has already happened, you can lock them into a conflict with no way out.

Raise your voice while you focus on the past, and you can have even more fun with them.

5) Walk away

Just as you get the other person really frustrated and upset, turn and walk away.

If you add some sort of sarcastic comment like “you’re always so difficult” or “I’m not going to talk with you about this anymore,” you can plant the seeds of a conflict that goes on for days. This is a fantastic tactic for keeping the conflict ball in the air for an extended period of time.

Hopefully, you see the tongue-in-cheek message in this post. I don’t actually advocate any of these behaviors, and I work every day to keep them out of my communication practices. However, I am human, and sometimes one or two of them will creep in on me.

Take a look at yourself. Do any of these behaviors ever show up in your conflict communication style?

If you want to learn the skills of effective workplace conflict resolution, I suggest that you work to do just the opposite of these five conflict escalation practices.

Photo by jsaneb on flickr.

Last week, Amanda Bucklow left a comment on my blog about a video that I discovered on another website.

I didn’t do an exhaustive search of my followers and friends at various sites, but I am sad to say that I did not recognize Amanda’s name when I got the comment. I have no idea how she found my blog.

So, I decided to take a look at her blog – The Mediation Times -  to learn a bit about her. I immediately liked what I saw, and I started to look around a bit.

In the process of looking over her blog, I found one of Amanda’s posts titled Language, linguistics, and mediation. In this post Amanda, referenced a post by Lera Boroditsky titled How Does Our Language Shape the Way We Think.

Being a student of how we think and how our thinking affects our behaviors, I was instantly hooked. I just had to read further. So, I clicked over to Lera’s post.

I really enjoyed the reading.

In the process, I observed two very interesting things.

One, Lera’s research seems to confirm something I have suspected for a long time – the language we speak both reflects and affects how we think.

While I have learned some Latin, Spanish, French, and German, I am not fluent in any language other than English (although I’m pretty good with HTML and PHP).

As I learned these smatterings of other languages, I noticed both the different ways that things are described and the different ways the cultures that speak them tend to “do” life.

Here’s a funny side comment. My mother-in-law was German. In German, “cat” is a feminine word, and she always called our male cat “she”. Mama’s behavior seems to fit Lera’s research.

Back to the main point. If you want to work out a conflict with another person, pay careful attention to how they describe the world. If your words don’t fit theirs, you’ll likely have a difficult time connecting in a way that resolves the conflict. This observation may be obvious if you speak clearly different languages like English and German.

Consider this additional thought though, what if they seem to speak your language but you notice that their version of it is slightly different from yours?

For example, I often say that task-oriented people speak a different flavor of English (or any other language) than people-oriented people. If language both reflects and affects the way that we think and we want to resolve a conflict with a person who speaks a different “version” of our native tongue, we need to take extra care to make sure that we understand what they really meant rather than run with what we thought they meant. We need to consider that the words they speak might mean something slightly different to them than what they mean to us.

Second, I found it interesting that I learned something from someone I have never met, Amanda, because she led me to another person that I have never met, Lera. Both of them have great things to say. Amanda and Lera, thanks to you both.

Image from www.sxc.hu

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 really enjoy looking for good examples of conflict escalation, poor communication, and personality style clashes. A few months ago, I saw this episode of The Apprentice, and I thought it perfectly illustrated a common people-oriented vs. task-oriented conflict scenario. It also shows how NOT to resolve a conflict.

The interesting action for this post starts at the 3 minute 40 second mark where we see the interaction between Scott Hamilton and Tom Green begin. The part I’m commenting on runs for a little more than 2 minutes.

Just guessing from their behaviors, I would say that Scott has lots of task traits and that Tom has lots of people traits. My best guess is that Scott has really high “Cautious” traits and that Tom has really high “Inspiring” traits. If I’m guessing right, their primary behavioral traits are complete opposites of each other.

I don’t know everything about these two men.  I’m just basing my guess on what I see in this short clip.

Tom frantically tries to get noticed. A common “Inspiring” trait is to seek recognition. He makes a comment about “keeping himself entertained” and he complains that “they’re not listening to me” as he waves his arms in the air and says “they’re so focused on the task they don’t even know I’m there.”  Also common “I” traits.

Scott’s goal is to be “calm and organized.” A common “Cautious” trait is to seek structure. He makes reference to Tom as the “derailer” and he tells Tom to “sit and relax.”

I also notice that Tom pushes harder for interaction and that Scott withdraws more into the task as the conflict escalates. Two common signs of a task vs. people conflict.

I think both of them behaved in ways that made the conflict worse instead of better, and I’m not really trying to comment on who was more or less “right.” I want to keep the focus of this post on their interaction dynamics.

Notice that as each of them fights for what they want, the conflict gets worse and neither of them gets what they want.

The lesson we can learn from this interaction is simple to say and difficult to do: slow down to understand the other person’s perspective so that you can move towards resolution and away from escalation.