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.

Several years ago, my friend, client, and colleague, Tom Butera called my office shortly after driving by a billboard with the following statement on it:

Listen and silent have the same letters.

This statement struck me that day and has stuck with me ever since. I have thought about the implications of this simple observation. I have reflected on the times when I failed to listen well. I have observed what other people do that sends the message to me that they are not listening.

Too much talking, or lack of silence, is the common thread through virtually every conflict situation I have experienced that escalated quickly to anger and frustration by one or both parties. In this case, I am not referencing the type of silence associated with withdrawing from the situation. I am, rather, focusing on the type of silence that gives you the time to absorb and process information so that you can make an appropriate response to what the other person says or does.

In both my observations and my reflections, I see that silence is not just the lack of talking. True silence, for the purpose of listening, involves silencing the mind as well as the tongue. To be silent, we have to stop the desire to plan our response, look for what is wrong in the other person, defend our position, or justify our past actions.

To listen, we must be silent both externally and internally.

Thought for Thursday – Look for opportunities to practice intentional silence with the goal of understanding the perspectives of the people around you.

I just read a great post about the value of focusing on other people during communications over on Bert Decker’s Blog.

I recommend that you read this post. It is full of great insights about the power of focusing on other people when you attempt to communicate with them.

Successful conflict resolution revolves around and depends upon successful communication skills. The idea of focusing on others to understand their perspective, their needs, and their feelings forms the basis for many conflict resolution techniques and approaches.

Monday Momentum Message: If you want to master the skills of conflict resolution pros, find ways to understand and connect with the other person’s perspective.

I have been leading training or in meetings all week. So, I did not  create any original content for my Thought for Thursday.

I did, however, read a great post by my friend and colleague, Kevin Eikenberry, that I thought I would pass along.

Enjoy the perspective, Kevin offers some great thoughts in this post: Five Ways to Do Some Spring Cleaning to Your Life

This post is a follow-up to last week’s Monday Momentum Message.

A key tenet of effective conflict resolution is that conflict resolution discussions are more productive when they focus on finding future actions that will fix the current relationship problem.

Sadly, many of us gravitate towards discussing what has or has not already happened rather than talking about what we would rather see in the future. As a result, many conflict conversations become “he said, she said” discussions where emotions flare and conflicts escalate rather than “here’s what we agree to do in the future” discussions where emotions stay in-control and conflicts get resolved.

When we talk about the past, we tend to talk about things that neither of us can change. Nothing I do will change the fact that I hurt your feelings. Nothing you do will change the fact that I received your words as demeaning and disrespectful. We can talk about our feelings at great length, but no amount of discussion will undo what has already been done.

I see great value in understanding the impact of my words and actions on you and you understanding the impact of your words and action on me. I also understand the need to discuss our emotional responses until we both feel understood. I see no value in discussing the past in an effort to “undo” it.

Recently, I overheard a conversation about a misunderstanding between several people who were involved in the situation but were not present for the conversation. One party tried, on two or three occasions, to revisit why the miscommunication was not their fault and how it could have been avoided if so-and-so had done this instead of that. Basically, they invested their energy in placing blame rather than in resolving the issue. Fortunately, the other party quickly turned the direction of the conversation back to a future focus about how to make sure everyone involved had the right information in the future.

One party worked really hard to avoid taking the blame. The other party ignored blame altogether and focused on a solution. The conversation quickly moved from “he said, she said” to “what can we do together to fix this.” Emotions almost immediately calmed, and both parties had a productive conversation.

When we focus on the past, we generally focus on blame. When we focus on the future, we tend to focus on solutions.

Monday Momentum Message – Learn from the past, don’t stay there.

Habits are amazing. Just look at the definition from Dictionary.com:

habit – an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary

The last part of that definition really struck me this week. I think that “involuntary” is the key word in the definition of habit. In fact, I have noticed that habits can become so strong that even conscious thought may not override them.

Here is an example of how strong habits can become.

Because the winters in Indiana can be pretty dry, we keep hand lotion beside the soap dispenser at the lavatory in our bathroom. The hand lotion is opaque and light green. The soap is clear and yellow-orange. Both containers are about the same size and both have similar pump dispensers. Both dispensers sit to the right side of the faucet. Normally, the soap dispenser sits between the faucet and the hand lotion.

A few days ago, I stepped to this lavatory to wash my hands. I immediately noticed that the two dispenser positions had been switched. The lotion is normally to the right, but on this occasion it was to the left.

I consciously thought: “Use the pump on the right.” As I thought this, I reached down, and I pumped hand lotion into my palm.

The learning point is this: despite my conscious awareness of the right thing to do, my habit took control of my behavior.

In the realm of relating to people and resolving conflict, this observation has major implications. Just like I have a habit of using the dispenser to the left to get hand soap, we all have habits relating to the way we interact with others. Because interactions with people generally trigger emotion more than logic, these interaction habits are even stronger than my “hand washing” habit.

Because our words and actions contribute to the direction of a conflict situation, these habits can either lead to escalation or descalation.

If we tend to defend our position, attack the other person, or avoid the situation, we will probably escalate many conflicts.

If we tend to listen empathetically, calmly receive feedback, and engage in open conversation, we will probably descalate most conflicts.

Thought for Thursday – Work to develop interaction habits that lead to conflict resolution.

If you look through my blog, you will probably notice that Tammy Lenski is one of my favorite conflict resolution bloggers. She consistently has great content at Conflict Zen.

This weekend, I noticed this post where she mentions that she will be speaking at a Women’s Leadership Summit in Manchester, NH in June. Her post inspired my thinking for my topic today.

Here’s the short version of what she will be speaking about at this conference:

Too many negotiations get cluttered with baggage, sidetracks, pop-psych diagnoses and other traps that inhibit reaching resolution and minimizing debris in personal and professional relationships.

A professional mediator and negotiation coach will teach you how to unclutter negotiations and focus on the most important parts of the discussion. You will learn how to:

• Recognize what is really important in any negotiation.
• Keep the conversation on track.
• Set aside the garbage and prevent it from polluting the negotiation.

Reading the description of her talk reminded me of how often we let conversations get too complicated. We talk at length about past events that cannot be undone. We go off on tangents about what would have happened if:

• I had done this
• You had done that
• I had said it this way
• You had said it that way
• blah, blah, blah…

How many times have you found yourself “in the weeds” when speaking to your coworker, your boss, your spouse, or your child about a conflict? For me, I find that it happens far too frequently. When it does happen, focusing on the past is almost always the cause.

I find that getting off-track tends to come from an effort to discuss or fix things that either do not really matter to the future of our relationship or cannot be changed by anything we do in the future.

In writing this post, I find myself thinking about one of my favorite scenes from the Disney movie The Lion King. As Simba, the young lion, and Raficki, the wise, old monkey, walk across a field, Raficki hits Simba on the head with his walking stick. Simba says: “Hey, wha’d ya’ do that for?” Raficki replies: “It don’t matta’. It’s in the past.”

With that thought in mind, here’s my Monday Momentum Message: Focus more energy on what you can do to positively impact the future than you do on what happened negatively in the past.

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.