Posts Tagged ‘understanding’

Recently, I participated in a meeting for an organization where I serve as one of the leaders. During the meeting, one person made a statement of opinion. Then another member countered with their opinion. Pretty soon, the two of them were engaged in a heated discussion. Both of them were arguing there positions relative to the other persons.

As I sat and listened to this interchange, it occured to me that the first person did not thouroughly understand the perspective of the second person. Because of the misunderstanding, he launched into a long explanation of his perspective and how the other person should adjust theirs.

Person number two realized that person number one misunderstood his point, and he attempted to clarify it.

Sadly, person number one was emotionally invested at this point, and he literally could not hear or understand the other person’s perspective. As a result, the heated exchange continued far longer than it should have.

If person number one had asked one simple question to begin the dialogue, I believe things would have turned out quite differently. If he had stated his understanding of the other person’s perspective and then asked if he understood correctly, I think the whole conversation would have proceeded in calmer, less emotionally charged direction.

Rather than launching into a monologue about how the other person viewed things wrong, he could have started this way: “If I understood correctly, your concern is _____. Is that correct?”

This simple statement of understanding followed by a question to allow for clarification could have prevented the whole ugly interchange.

As the scenario played out in our meeting, the elevation of emotion over a misunderstanding blocked the first person’s ability to hear the second person’s attempts to clarify.

Here’s the learning point, we don’t always understand what people intend to communicate just because we heard the words they used. Acknowledging that our understanding could be flawed, creates the emotional space for clarification that will head off many unnecessary conflicts.

I don’t propose that this approach will stop every conflict. I do suggest it will help eliminate many miscommunications that could easily escalate to conflict.

As you go through this week and interact with others, I encourage you to question your understanding. When you feel your emotions rise in response to what someone says, remember to ask for clarification. You just might have heard it wrong.

Image courtesy www.sxc.hu.

This post is more of a question than a statement. I’m looking for input and feedback on this question:

How does the nature of your relationship with another person affect the way you handle/view/approach resolving a conflict with them?

Like many things in life, I have an opinion on this topic. I would just like to hear your perspective as well.

Can you help me out by leaving a comment?

Thanks.

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.

My Daughters

I prefer to be alone. I value people. I respect people. I can appreciate people. I don’t necessarily like people.

I am doubly task-oriented. That means I have significantly more task orientation than people orientation. I don’t want bad things to happen to people. I don’t want people to be harmed. I just prefer to be alone and working than with people and interacting. Even relational activities tend to become tasks in my mind.

Some people will read this post (roughly 65% of all people are more people-oriented than task-oriented) and feel that I am a little bit rude and inconsiderate.

Other people (the other 35%) will read this post and think that they finally found someone who “gets” their perspective.

Potential conflict looms in that difference of perspective.

Here’s a story to illustrate my point.

Several years ago, my wife and I began taking our daughters to school on most mornings to have time to connect with them for a few minutes in the morning. One morning about 18 months ago, I came almost entirely unglued with them as we were leaving because we were “behind schedule.”

For clarity sake, let me explain the situation. If we leave home before 7:40 am, we get ahead of the school buses, and I get back home at about 8:10-8:15. If we leave home after 7:40 am, we travel behind the school buses, and I get back home at about 8:30-8:45. So, a 2 or 3 minute variation in departure time can make a roughly 30 minute difference in my total drive time. Either way, the girls get to school on time. The only issue is when I return home.

On the morning in question, I had no appointments or specific time commitments that would be impacted by the extra drive time. Still, I was ready to kill my daughters because they were making me “late” for appointments that I didn’t have.

Looking back, it’s really pretty funny. I chose to do something for a relational purpose and, for me, it became a task. I completely forgot the relationship side of the “drive the kids to school” plan, and I started to focus only on the task component (the time invested in it).

Fortunately, I realized my misplaced focus, and I apologized to my daughters that evening. We all learned from the experience, and we moved on to a higher level of mutual understanding.

Conflict can come from many different things. In my experience, a large number of workplace conflicts come from a difference in these perspectives. Task-oriented people viewing relational activities as tasks and people-oriented people viewing tasks as a chance to interact with people. When the two perspectives collide, sparks can fly.

In my case, I have to force myself to see the importance of investing time in building relationships with others. I have to quiet the voice in my head that constantly asks me what I am accomplishing every waking minute. I have to accept that building a relationship can actually be “doing something productive.”

I have learned that one of the keys to effectively resolving conflict is the ability to see both the people AND the task side of an issue instead of taking a people OR a task perspective. Both are important. Both bring value.

Which way do you naturally lean? What do you need to do to be more in balance? When you are in balance, you can be the catalyst for resolving many workplace conflicts.

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.