Posts Tagged ‘communication’

When people are physically uncomfortable, they generally have difficulty focusing on the work at hand, and they tend to become emotionally sensitive and irritable. Both of these conditions contribute to reduced productivity and higher levels of workplace conflict.

Here are three of the most common issues I see as I work with my clients:

1. Space Constraints

This constraint can take many forms, but it always adds some level of stress to the work environment. The constraints might be caused by file cabinets, equipment, physical limitations of the building, or just other people in the workplace.

Many business leaders do not have the spending authority necessary to build a bigger facility. Even if they do, the business income may not support the desire to add space. While you may not have the ability to increase the physical space, you can be sensitive to the issue and take whatever action is in your control.

For example, you might be able to:

• Give people more short breaks so that they can “stretch their legs” for a moment.
• Find ways to reduce or eliminate extra “stuff” that takes up space unnecessarily.
• Add mirrors or change the color so that the space “feels” bigger to people.

2. Resource Constraints 

In an ideal world, we could give our team everything they need to do the job, and they would completely understand when we cannot. They would also have a team-oriented mindset that would stop them from bickering with each other when they find themselves competing for limited resources.

Maybe you work in the ideal place. I have not seen it happen very often. In virtually every business where I have worked, some level of stress and conflict happens as the result of people competing for resources. The resource could be tools, the coffee pot, the copier, the department administrative assistant, or your time. Whatever resource is limited, it will generate tension between people and their environment. This tension creates emotional pressure that might relieve in unhealthy and unproductive ways.

Again, you might not have complete authority or sufficient budget to fix the problem entirely. You can acknowledge the problem and do what you can to mitigate it.

For example, you could:

• Help people develop better communication skills so that they can discuss the resource limitations without judging, blaming, and labeling each other.
• Work with people to develop an agreed upon schedule for resource use.
• Acknowledge the problem and make it safe to discuss.

3. Room Temperature 

This is a big one. I have seen some major workplace conflicts break out over room temperature. I have also heard leaders discuss how childish and immature this conflict can become. I acknowledge that the bickering created by stress over room temperature can look pretty silly to an outside observer. I also realize that the discomfort is very real for the people involved, and that physical discomfort creates emotional pressure that must be acknowledged and, as much as possible, relieved.

Again, completely fixing this problem or finding a compromise solution may be beyond your control. Here’s what you can do:

• Recognize that physical discomfort is a real source of frustration and emotional pressure.
• Make it safe to discuss by putting the issue in the open without judging, condemning, or criticizing the people involved.
• Work to resolve each person’s interest in being comfortable at work. Discuss the actions each person (including you) will take to find a solution that is as workable as possible for everyone involved.

If you can spend the money to remove these stressors, I encourage you to do so. In many cases, you cannot pursue that option. If you do not have the budget or the authority to truly fix the environmental issue, you can take action to provide safe, productive outlets for the emotional pressure that can build when these issues remain unresolved for a long period of time.

The first step to providing a safe, productive outlet lies with the leader recognizing and acknowledging the reality of the frustration without minimizing or criticizing it. You cannot fix the problem just by talking about it, but you can help to relieve the pressure so that it doesn’t “blowout” somewhere else.

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.

The well timed and disciplined pause can be a great conflict resolution tool. While conflict resolution nearly always requires a face-to-face conversation, knowing when not to speak can be just as important as knowing when to speak and what to say.

As Abraham Lincoln said: “I am very little inclined on any occasion to say anything unless I hope to produce some good by it.”

As you move through this week, keep in mind this Monday Momentum Message: Use the Power of the Pause.

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.

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 many cases, workplace conflicts result from unmet expectations. You have one set of expectations. The people around you have a different set of expectations. No one has any malice or ill intention towards anyone else. They just expect a different set of behaviors, actions, and results.

When expectations go unmet, emotions tend to rise. When emotions rise, conflict tends to happen. With that thought in mind, I offer these three practical tips to reduce the risk of workplace conflicts that spriral out-of-control:

1. Clearly Defined Roles

This idea normally shows up in a list of requirements for a well structured performance management system. Today, I will give you another reason to take positive steps to ensure that the people around you clearly understand their role in relation to you.

By defined role, I mean that both parties (you and the other person) have a clear understanding of what both of you will do with regard to any task or project that you work on together. So, this could apply to a supervisor-team member relationship or to a relationship between two co-workers.

Take the time to clearly define your respective roles, and you minimize the possibility of destructive conflicts later.

2. Clearly Defined Timelines

Take the time to ensure that both of you agree to and understand the delivery dates and timelines for completion on any task.

In my past life as an engineer, I worked on plant start-up projects of all sizes. The ones that went well had well prepared project completion milestone documents. The ones that went poorly, did not have the same level of preplanning that created the milestone documents. In other words, the ones that went well had a way to make sure that everyone on the project knew what was due and when it was due. The ones that went poorly did not.

These projects were usually pretty complicated with regard to the number of people and tasks that had to be coordinated to complete the project on time. So, they needed elaborate flowcharts, Gantt charts, and Critical Path diagrams to keep them on track. I am not suggesting anything this complicated for a one-on-one situation. I am suggesting that we learn from these projects, and that we apply the principles to our personal lives.

When I was a young engineer, I thought the planning and document preparation was all about scheduling the tasks. Now I realize that planning and scheduling on large engineering projects is about scheduling the tasks AND about creating clear lines of communication. I now realize, that the people part (communication) is actually the bigger reason behind the time invested in the planning process.

I do not want to go overboard with the idea and suggest that you need a Gantt chart for everything you do with other people. I do suggest that you take the principle of clear communication to avoid conflict and apply it to checking and double-checking with other people to ensure clear, mutual understanding about expected timelines and delivery dates.

3. Open Lines of Communication

In my work with clients, I see that miscommunication leads to a large number of workplace conflicts. When you recognize miscommunication as the source of many conflicts, you can take proactive steps to prevent conflicts by investing your efforts into clear communication practices.

Take the time to make sure you have created a safe environment for people to approach you. Go out of your way to create opportunities to connect with the people around you. If you will work diligently in this area, you will make the previous two ideas easier to accomplish. As a result, you will significantly reduce both the number of conflicts that occur and the time it takes to resolve them when they happen.

I wrote this post mainly from the perspective of application in a workplace scenario. I hope it is clear that these ideas, applied in slightly different ways, also apply to other areas of life.

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.

   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