Archive for the ‘working with people’ Category

This post is now here.

This post is now here.

This post has been moved to my new blog here.

This post is now here.

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.