Posts Tagged ‘self-awareness’

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.

Photo by Menage a Moi

Have you ever looked at someone else’s behavior and thought that it made no sense at all? Did your confusion over their reasoning lead you to criticize them? Did your criticism lead to conflict?

If you have ever gone down this path to conflict, I can certainly understand. I have done it, too.

I used to wonder why so many people did things that just did not make sense. Sometimes, this line of thinking led me to “help” the other person by attempting to “correct” their thinking.

This approach did not help them or me in very many situations.

So, I started to keep my mouth shut and carry my frustration with them inside. I found that this internal frustration with others also led to conflict in many situations.

Then, I learned something really powerful: everything that everyone does makes sense – to them.

From an innocent two-year old child to a serial killer, everyone’s words and actions make sense to them. In their view of the world, it makes sense. From their perspective, what they did or said made perfect sense at the time.

People might later reflect on their behaviors and wonder what they were thinking when they did or said something. Still, at the time they did or said it, it made sense to them.

Since learning this idea, I have learned a number of behavior models, communication strategies, and interaction processes to help me better understand other people’s perspectives. As I have learned these additional concepts, I have also learned to make sense of their words and actions even when their words and actions are completely different from my normal reaction.

While I have learned many tools to help me in this area, the real path to lower frustration and conflict with others began when I realized that everything other people do makes sense to them.

In The Phantom Menace, the great Jedi master Yoda says: “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

Fear in one or both parties is often the root of conflict, and we all fear something.

Some people fear losing control. Some fear looking bad in front of others. Other people fear confrontation. Still others fear having to make a decision with limited information. I could go on and on listing the fears we confront in our interactions with others.

To successfully resolve conflict, someone has to step outside the fear and get a handle on it so that it doesn’t lead to anger, hate and suffering.

The question for today is: What are you afraid of?

I have seen “problem” defined as “a situation that you want to change.”

Under this definition, if I don’t want to change the situation, I don’t have a problem.

If, I want to change the situation, then I have a problem.

Every situation that I want to change has something wrong with it. In general, I don’t want to change things that are running smoothly.

If something is wrong with the situation, then something either has happened or will happen to make the situation undesirable. To solve the problem, I have to consider that my thoughts, ideas, and feelings about the circumstances surrounding the situation just might be wrong.

There might be a different way to describe the situation that allows me to see a better solution than the first one that popped into my head.

Staying open to alternative solutions was one of the most powerful lessons I learned as a process design and development engineer. Since then, I have read numerous books, articles, and essays on how to keep my mind open to different problem solving approaches. I have watched videos and listened to audio programs on creativity.

I keep striving to quiet the voice in my head that says, “the first solution I found is the one and only right way to solve this problem.”

In working with people, I have learned that resolving conflict is just like solving a problem.

An interpersonal conflict is generally a situation that I want to change. So, it fits in the definition of a “problem.”

So, when I attempt to resolve workplace or family conflicts, I need to consider that I just might be wrong.

I really dislike this idea. It forces me to get outside my own perspective in the moments when I really do not want to make the effort.

Sadly, the same little voice I mentioned above often tells me that the source of the problem I face in resolving a conflict is the other person.

This morning, I read a great post titled Kill Your Little Darlings over at Women on Business. M.J. Ryan, the author of this post, starts this way:

William Faulkner once said that writers needed to “kill their little darlings.”  It’s a message about how, in order for inspiration to enter, we need to let go of the ideas we’re so in love with to make room for something better. It’s a willingness that everyone in business needs these days.

What a great concept! This idea applies to writers, to business owners, and to people attempting to resolve workplace conflicts.

In order to resolve a conflict, I have to be willing to consider ideas, thoughts, and feelings other than my own.

I have to set aside my perspectives, if only momentarily, to step into the world of the other person. To to do that, I need to “kill my little darlings” and consider the thought that I just might be wrong.

How we make decisions fascinates me, and it impacts much of what I do with regard to team dynamics and conflict resolution.

Over the last few months, I have had the privilege to work with Kare Anderson who writes the blogs Say It Better and Moving From Me to We on a collaborative group blog called Ugluu.

In the last few weeks, we have received fantastic posts from a wide variety of authors. Two that really struck me fit in the arena of how we make decisions.

Rather than restate what has already been well said by others, my Monday Momentum Message is a recommendation to read these two great posts over at Ugluu:

• On Being Certain
• Mistakes Were Made But Not By Me

In my last post, I offered three ways to Be a Victor, Not a Victim. In the context of conflict resolution, the thought is not about seeking victory during a conflict. Rather, the thought is about taking personal responsibility so that we don’t “play the victim” by blaming the other party.

Today, I’m offering a thought that goes with my last post. A thought that will allow you to own your piece of the conflict much more easily. Simply put, the idea is this:

Consciously assume that the other person had a positive intention for whatever they did or said.

If you are anything like me, this will take some work. On more than one occasion, I have assumed the worst of people and gotten angry only to learn later that the other party did not intend what I assumed they intended. I have thought that people were insulting me, only to find that I misunderstood some colloquial phrase. I have thought that people were angry, when they were actually in pain or frustrated by an event that had nothing to do with me.

Rather than assume that someone intends to harm me, I have learned to first assume that I misunderstood. I assume that they meant something other than what I heard, or that they are struggling to communicate their thoughts and feelings. By assuming the positive, I have found that I feel less stress, less frustration, and less irritation with others. Because I feel less stress, I am better able to work to understand their perspective without feeling compelled to force my perspective on them.

I am not perfect at applying this principle. Just read through my blog, and you will find examples of times when I did not pull this off very well. In fact, it is in the times that I failed to do this that I learned the lesson again.

When we assume positive intent, we have greater control over our emotional response, and we retain the power to control what we can control – ourselves.

In looking over the post before publishing it, I notice that it begs the question: “What if people really do mean you harm?” I acknowledge that some people really do have ill intent, and that opens a whole different sort of discussion. I find that starting with the presumption of positive intent, I am more often right about them than I am wrong. As a result, I have fewer real conflicts with people, and the ones I do have get resolved much more quickly. It is when I assume negative intent that I have more problems.

Thought for Thursday: Assume positive intent until they prove otherwise.

(I owe a hat tip to Kit Cooper for reminding me of this idea with his post over at Lifehack.

I have two colleagues. Both of them contribute something valuable to our personal and professional relationships. Both of them are good at what they do. Both of them have strong opinions. Both of them feel free to express their opinions. Both of them have direct and bottom-line communication styles. Both of them have a very strong task orientation. Both of them have a sarcastic approach to humor.

I respect what both of them “bring to the table.”

One of them makes a statement that I laugh at and accept as a joke. I might even reply with my own humorous sarcasm.

The other makes a similar statement that I take personally and accept as criticism. I might even directly challenge why they said something sarcastic to me.

What’s the difference? Why does one of them bring out a protective response and the other brings out a humorous one?

Is it them? Or, is it me?

While there are differences in their approaches. There are far more similarities than differences. The similarities make me wonder, “Could I be overly sensitive with one of them? Could I be looking for a reason to take offense?”

I’m not with you every day. I don’t know everything about every interaction you have. I am with me, and I know that sometimes (maybe  I should say “often”) the response other people get from me has more to do with my perception and my thinking than it has to do with them.

I think I need to check my thinking about some of the people in my life. I think I need to work on receiving them more openly and  less judgmentally so that we experience less conflict, our relationships can move forward, and our business ventures can prosper.

Over the next week,  I plan to focus on asking the question “Could it be me?” rather than assuming the problem is with them. Won’t you join me?

Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer

     Have you ever been absolutely sure that you were right about someone else’s bad thoughts, hostile feelings or harmful intentions only to later find that you were wrong? I have.

     During the time that you held this mistaken view of their perspective, did you act in ways that made the conflict worse? I did.

     When you later learned of their true thoughts, feelings, or intentions; did you then realize how harmful your own words and actions had contributed to the escalating conflict between you? That was my experience.

     The title of this post has become one of the most powerful conflict resolution concepts that I personally work to apply. Learning to question my perspective before judging someone else’s (my spouse, my kids, my colleagues, or clients) has saved me from speaking or acting in harmful ways on more occasions than I can now recall. Sadly, when I don’t question my perspective and rush to action based on my judgment of someone else’s intentions, I usually get it wrong.

     In an effort to offer some practical guidance to assist you in this process, I’ll give three questions you can ask yourself the next time a conflict starts to brew:

1) Did they mean what I think they mean?

Maybe they really are angry. Maybe they did mean to insult you. Maybe they want to harm you in some way.

Or, maybe they are hurt. Maybe they didn’t realize that you took their comment personally. Maybe they are reacting to fear with a desire to protect themselves but no desire to harm you. Before you get angry, find a way figure out what they really meant.

2) Is there something going on here that I don’t understand fully?

Are they angry, or are they tired? Did they have a tough night with their sick child last night? Are they sick? Are they frustrated over lack of progress on a project? Any of these issues could cause the stress to push people to say and do things they would not ordinarily say or do. Before you judge too harshly, find out what’s happening in their life.

3) Did I do something to trigger that response in them?

Do I owe them something that is now late? Did they have an expectation of me that I did not meet? Did I say something that they received as an insult or put down? Even if the action was unintentional, any of these could generate a negative response from they other person. Before you decide that they are the problem, check your own past actions.

     Learn to question your perspective. It can take the edge off of your response so that you resolve conflicts faster and more productively.

     Guy Harris, The Recovering Engineer