Excerpt from Dealing with Conflict, by Jean Lebedun

DEVELOPING STRATEGIES FOR HIGH-STRESS TIMES

[Derived from Managing Workplace Conflict, by Jean Lebedun, Ph. D.]

The basic premise of dealing with conflict is this: cooperate, don't compete.

In fact, one of the five possible outcomes of conflict - collaboration - is the logical extension of cooperation. The point is to work together rather than against each other. It's your responsibility to lead the way. When you listen first, the other person will probably listen to you. When you treat someone with respect, that person will probably treat you with respect too. 

Does it always work? No. Some people just won't cooperate even though you are doing everything right.

You'll need special skills for dealing with these people. They may fall into the category of "difficult people," those who are chronically (and predictably) hard to work with. Or they may be individuals who are having a very bad day. You'll know you're faced with challenges when someone does one or more of the following:

·         Attacks

·         Accuses

·         Calls you names

·         Manipulates

·         Exaggerates shamelessly

·         Demands

·         Threatens

GETTING THE RIGHT MINDSET

Imagine that you are out fishing on a lovely spring day. As you sit on the bank of the stream, you feel a tug at the end of your line. There's a fish down there! Now consider this question: Who or what caught the fish? Many answers are possible: the bait, the hook, the pole.

Consider another answer: The fish caught itself. Although all the other elements were present, the real cause was the fish itself. The fish opened its big mouth and took the bait.

Do you ever "take the bait"? Do you ever "get hooked"? Most of us would admit that this happens when difficult people use high-pressure tactics. In these cases, we usually say things like "He pressed my hot buttons!"

Take another look. Remember that the fish hooked itself. You press your own hot buttons. You hook yourself. Although the difficult person may say something extreme like "You idiot!" the choice to get frustrated is yours.

It's true that difficult people select tempting bait to dangle in front of you (they took notes in the past when you got upset). But the choice to get emotionally hooked - or not - is yours. 

This is good news. You can choose not to get hooked. You can choose to stay calm and rational. Yes, your heart may be racing, but you don't have to fall apart and become an emotional basket case.

Let’s compare the old way of thinking to the new way:

Old Way of Thinking	New Way of Thinking
She made me angry.	I became angry.
He upset me.	I was upset.
They humiliated me.	I felt humiliated when I heard those comments.
He insulted me.	I took it as an insult.
She manipulated me.	I fell for her attempt to manipulate.

The goal of the new way of thinking is twofold:

·         Taking responsibility for your reactions.

·         Gaining emotional self-control.

In a moment, we’ll look at five strategies that can keep you from getting hooked.

AVOIDING THE HOOK

You can avoid the hook. The following five strategies can help you deal with difficult people without getting caught in their negative traps. Those strategies are: 

1) Sorting (choosing words or other aspects of a communication to which you will not respond)

2) Fogging (stating a vague acknowledgment)

3) Time Out (stating an exact time to resume talking)

4) Broken Record (repeating your point in a calm, convincing manner)

5) Requesting (using an "I" statement to express what you want, need, or prefer)

Strategy 1: Sorting

What Might Happen

During a conflict, the other person says, "You idiot! Can't you just tell me who the client is?"

What You Can Do

You can choose to mentally sort out, or ignore, the ugly word "idiot." That word is the bait. It's the other part of the comment that's relevant to the conflict. So you choose not to respond to "idiot" and you say instead, "Yes, I can tell you that the client is Acme Trucking."

Be careful of your nonverbals. Say your statement calmly, with a level, even tone of voice. Keep your facial expression neutral rather than twisted with sarcasm.

Sorting is a skill that helps you identify what is worth your attention. You avoid responding to extreme language or tone of voice. You choose your priority in the communication.

Caution

When you're using the sorting technique, don't say you're in sorting. It might be tempting to say: "I'm not going to answer that last remark." Don't. When you explain, you show that you're hooked. You sound defensive. Just calmly and self-confidently answer only the part of the person's comment that you choose to consider important. You're in control of your own communication and your own emotions. 

Other Examples

Someone says: "You're lying to me. You didn't put that contract in the mail."

You say: "I put the contract in the mail on May 21."

Someone says: "Just quit your pathetic whining and tell me when the deadline is."

You say: "The deadline is today at 4 p.m."

Strategy 2: Fogging

What Might Happen

During a conflict, the other person says, "I demand an answer now! Do I get the 10 percent rate or not?"

What You Can Do

Sometimes people try to push you into a corner. It's hard to think straight in these situations. But when you realize that you need more time to make a decision - spread some fog.

Fog is vague and wispy. It's not a definite "yes" or "no" because you just don't have that kind of clarity yourself. Fogging uses statements like, "I'm going to bring this issue to the committee. I'll call you with that information by 3:30 tomorrow afternoon."

That's not an answer but it's a commitment to get an answer. It's the best you can do in some situations. Be sure to follow through exactly as you have promised. The purpose of fogging is to buy some time, not give the person the brush-off.

When you can give a definite answer, of course, you should do so. But don't feel forced to say something in haste that you'll later regret. Use fog when you need to:

·         Check the facts and figures.

·         Check with a person in higher authority.

·         Include other people in the planning.

·         Wait for other developments.

·         Receive a communication with updated information.

·         Think things over and weigh your decision.

Caution

Prepare for rejection. The person you're speaking to doesn't like fog. This is probably someone who has perfected pressure tactics and expects them to work. You'll get more pressure - a louder voice, stronger words. But if you have the strength of your convictions, you won't get hooked. After all, you're buying time to get the highest quality information you can. It's all in the other person's best interests anyway.

Strategy 3: Time Out

What Might Happen

During a conflict, tempers flare. The situation escalates. People lose their self-control. 

What You Can Do

Call a break before things get out of hand. Trust your good judgment. Whenever you think, "We're not getting anywhere. We need to get away and cool off" - you're right.

You can call a time out in a one-on-one communication or in a meeting involving several people. Just be sure you speak firmly when you announce the break. Don't sound tentative or unsure. And don't forget to specify a time to resume so everyone knows that you're not backing down from the issue.

Your announcement might be: "Let's take a break now. We'll resume in 30 minutes, right here in the conference room. I'll see you then."

Caution

Avoid adding a statement of attack. This kind of attack is common, so you could easily follow a bad example you've heard: "Let's resume in 30 minutes, when you've learned some manners."

The last part of that statement hits below the belt. Edit it out. Avoid saying "when you've settled down," "when you can discuss this calmly," or anything of the kind. These statements tend to make people defensive and put them in counterattack mode.

What you're hoping for, of course, is that the other side will calm down during the time out. Give this process a chance to work. If you feel doubtful, propose some ground rules when you get back together. Put these in terms that are specific and nonpersonal. For example:"From here on, I suggest we follow two ground rules: We'll keep our voices at a normal volume, and we let the other one talk without interruption. Would you agree to that? Are there any you would add?"

Strategy 4: Broken Record

What Might Happen

During a conflict, the other person refuses to acknowledge your statements or explanations, even after you have given complete details.

What You Can Do

Play a broken record. State your point calmly and repeatedly in spite of the opposition you hear. After all, at this point in the conversation, you’ve reached your bottom line.

If you use this skill too early, you’ll sound stubborn and pigheaded. The broken record is appropriate only after you have explained, explored, and taken ample time to answer all objections. Early on, you had hoped for collaboration. Now you realize that you must stand your ground.

Your reasons for being so firm may be ethical, legal, or procedural. The point is that you have nothing more to offer. So repeat your point:

YOU: I need your signature on the form.

OTHER: Oh, shut up. I don’t see why that’s necessary.

YOU: I need your signature on this form, please.

OTHER: Well, I’m not going to sign, and you can’t make me.

YOU: Please sign the form – that’s all I need.

Notice that you can vary the wording so as not to sound mocking. But you’re really saying the same thing. You’re not arguing, just being persistent.

Persistence pays off. After about the third or fourth time you’ve made your point, people will probably do what you’re asking – or at least consider it.

Caution

When using this approach, watch your nonverbal communication. Keep your vocal tone respectful, and don’t let that glaring, defiant look settle on your face. Keep your hands relaxed, not clenched into fists. These nonverbals make all the difference in remaining assertive, not aggressive.

Strategy 5: Request

What Might Happen

During a conflict, the other person engages in extreme verbal or nonverbal communication, such as shouting, name-calling, or fist-shaking. You decide not to use the sorting approach this time.

What You Can Do

Sometimes it’s best to state what you need, clearly and firmly. It’s honest, it’s straightforward – the essence of assertiveness. Be sure to use an “I” (not a “you”) statement:

“I want you to lower your voice.”

“I want you to call me by my name.”

“I want us to stay focused on the issue, nothing else.”

If “you” had been the first word of the sentence, it would probably have ended aggressively:

“You are being rude and offensive.”

Keep it responsible with the “I” opening. And keep it positive, asking for an improvement rather than directly blaming.

Caution

Leave out any disclaimers, such as “I hope you won’t be offended when I say this” or “Maybe I’m a little too sensitive about this.” Disclaimers can undercut the assertive behavior you’re wanting to display.

The Power of Empathy for Leaders

Empathy is a key skill for emotionally intelligent leaders. Here is a short (2:26) video that describes the value of empathy and the actions a leader can take to display empathy.

The Improvising Restaurant: Made (Up) to Order!

I was struck by an account I read in the book A Perfect Mess (by Eric Abrahamson and David H. Freedman) of a New York restaurateur named Danny Meyer – a classic Daily Improviser who has shaken up the very concept of dining out with his various (and wildly varying) Manhattan eateries.

Abrahamson and Freedman describe the loose operational philosophy instituted by Meyer for his enterprises – an approach, say the authors, that runs against the traditional notion of the top chef as “absolute, heavy-handed ruler, if not raging tyrant” in the kitchen. As they describe it: “Meyer wants the kitchens of his restaurants to be scenes of rampant and collegial improvisation, not dictatorial consistency and rigidity.”

This improvisational spirit applies even more to the wait staff, who interact engagingly with patrons and make spur-of-the-moment offers such as free samples of menu items (to help the wavering diner decide) and complimentary bottles of wine.

Sounds like a total “just-wing-it” sensibility as applied to an organization, right? Well, not exactly – because, as the authors observe:

“[A] restaurant can’t run well as a glorious mess of improvisation…. [D]ishes have to be completed and delivered to tables with impeccable timing – a mechanically complex process that, if marred in any way, will ruin a dining experience no matter how brilliant the menu or engaging the waiters.”

So how do improvisation and structure coexist in Meyer’s restaurants? As the authors say, Meyer realized that spontaneous “happy surprises” could only be delivered to customers in the following way:

“[W]aiters would need to be able to rely on a highly ordered, highly predictable system of preparing and delivering food, leaving them free to improvise with customers on everything else. And that notion of a measure of randomness supported by a layer of order is the final pillar in [Meyer’s] philosophy.” [emphasis added]

This “layer of order” in Meyer’s restaurants can be found in exhaustive, explicit systems for preparing dishes and assigning waiters to tables, with processes facilitated by an expediter who manages the interfaces between the randomness and the order. As an associate of Meyer's says, "Danny's model for a restaurant is a jazz ensemble. There's a background theme that's predictable, and the instruments can improvise around it."

For the leader who may be skeptical of how improv relates to the business world, Danny Meyer's restaurants serve as a model for what the improvising organization can look like. In a business organization, "layers of order" can include company mission statements, core values, processes and procedures, and other structures that serve to point the organization's members in a common direction. Those structures, however, just serve as the unifying theme within which people can improvise to serve the needs of the moment. Within the improvising organization, the leader can see her role as being an "expediter of the interfaces between randomness and order," thus maintaining the flexibility-within-a-framework approach that leads to "happy surprises" for customers and employees alike!

Saying "YES! And" to Impossible Requests

It’s Monday morning. You run a company that makes custom-designed magic markers for walk-up customers. A man rushes into your store holding a blue marker and a red marker and says, “I need for you to make me two markers that look exactly like this by 5:00pm tomorrow. I can pay you $10 for the job. How about it?”

Doing a quick mental calculation, you realize that it will take you three days to make the two markers. Even if you could make them in two days, it would cost you $15. The customer’s request is impossible to fulfill.

Now, let’s consider some possible responses you could give, and the potential impact of each:

a) “No, it can’t be done!” By saying this, you cut off all further conversation. The customer leaves unsatisfied, vowing never to bring you his business again.

b) “Yes, I’ll git ‘er done!” You say this in order to gain the customer’s business and to show a positive, “can do!” spirit. Even though you have serious doubts about succeeding, you maintain hope that things will break your way. However, when your original doubts are confirmed and you miss the deadline, the customer leaves unsatisfied, vowing never to bring you his business again.

So how can you maintain a positive yet realistic stance that will be more likely to satisfy the customer? By using the following response:

c) “YES! AND …”

We’ll reveal the rest of the response shortly. First, though, I’ll point out that saying “YES!” doesn’t mean that you Agree with the person’s Position – the “position” in this case being the exact terms of his offer (a blue marker and a red marker, by the end of Tuesday, for $10).  What it does mean is that you Acknowledge the Possibilities in the customer’s offer and Advance with Positive Purpose. And, in this situation, you have a powerful tool that lets you Acknowledge and Advance.

It’s called the Tradeoff Triangle. As shown below, the Tradeoff Triangle depicts the three components of any work effort: 1) The Outcome desired; 2) The Resources required to produce the Outcome; and 3) The Time it will take to produce the Outcome. The depiction of the effort as an equilateral triangle – all sides the same length – reinforces the fact that the “size” of any given Outcome must be supported by a proportionate amount of Resources and Time.

To apply the Tradeoff Triangle to the marker example, you would first mentally plot the stated Resources ($10) and Time (2 calendar days) on the appropriate sides of the triangle. But then you realize that you can’t then plot “one blue marker and one red marker” on the Outcome side, because that would throw your triangle out of balance.

Rather than give up altogether, though, you think: What Outcome could I generate with that combination of Resources and Time? Quickly mulling over the options, you realize that by 5:00pm Tuesday you can make one blue marker and give the customer an orange marker from your inventory on hand, at a break-even cost (which is acceptable to you) of $10.

So now you’re ready to give the complete response to the customer:

“YES, I understand your request, AND here is what I can do for $10 by 5:00 tomorrow: I can make a new blue marker and give you an orange marker from stock.”

By giving the customer an alternative, you are accepting his offer to engage in dialogue and advancing the interaction by making your own offer that builds upon his original request.

Now the customer can consider whether the revised Outcome you’ve offered is acceptable to him. And he might, for example, say, “Well, I guess the other marker doesn’t have to be red, and it doesn’t have to be custom-made. I only need a bright color for highlighting purposes, and orange will work just as well.”

This is how the Tradeoff Triangle helps you respond positively to even impossible requests: It allows you to think and act in terms of what you can do rather than what you can’t do! By keeping the dialogue open, you can reach a mutually agreeable result – one that never would have been discovered had you just said “No!” or “Yes!”

We're All Consultants!

What do leadership, sales, education, negotiation, and medicine all have in common? They’re all about moving someone toward a different way of acting or thinking.

In fact, as Dan Pink makes clear in his book To Sell Is Human, “moving” others may be the one core foundational skill that underlies all others in our business and personal lives. And it’s not “moving” them in the sense of being a dictatorial leader, a pushy salesperson, or a rap-on-the-knuckles teacher. It even goes beyond getting their “buy-in” to your predetermined solution. Yes, you probably have a solution in mind for them (an initiative, a product, a learning point, a health program), but it’s not about “pushing” that solution on them. It’s about truly listening to them, seeing the world through their eyes, being attuned to their ideas, and being open to their influence on you – even if that means adjusting your solution to meet their needs.

If this sounds like approaching leadership, sales, education, etc., as a partnership – being a consultant rather than a solution-pusher – you’re right! And that, I think, is the key insight in Pink’s excellent book. In fact, one of the frequently cited themes of the book – “We’re all in sales now!” – could just as easily be expressed as “We’re all consultants now!”

The type of “consultancy” to which I’m referring here echoes a distinction that Peter Block makes in his book Flawless Consulting about two different types of consultants, an Expert and a Collaborator.

An Expert Consultant determines the problem, decides on actions, and implements decisions to solve the problem. As Block notes, “Two-way communication between the Expert and the client is limited. The consultant initiates and the client responds.”

By contrast, a Collaborative Consultant’s interaction with the client is characterized by Block in the following way:

• ·         The consultant and the client work to become interdependent. They share responsibility for action planning, implementation, and results.
• ·         Decision making between consultant and client is bilateral. It is characterized by mutual exchange and respect for the responsibilities and expertise of both parties.
• ·         Collaboration is considered essential.
• ·         Communication is two-way.
• ·         The consultant’s goal is to solve problems so they stay solved. That is, the consultant establishes a helping relationship designed to broaden the competence level of the client to develop and implement action plans. Next time the client will have the skills to solve the problem.

I think that the Collaborative Consultant role described by Block tracks precisely with the roles and skills that Pink describes in his book as essential for “moving others.” In the sales context, for example, the “client” (the prospective buyer) no longer looks at the seller as “the expert,” since (as Pink points out) the internet makes available the type of information about products and services that used to be exclusively held by sellers. (Consider how easy it is to go online and find the invoice price of new vehicles and the maintenance history of used vehicles.)

For a variety of reasons, people tend to be more on guard than they were in the past to efforts to manipulate or coerce them to “move” in a certain direction. The classic quote “People like to buy but they don’t like to be sold to” comes into play here. Instead of being pushed into a sale, people want to lead themselves to the buying decision out of their own informed choice, with the seller playing the role of the guide. Similarly, class participants want to partner with the facilitator in order to self-discover learning, patients want to partner with the doctor in order to self-create a health program – and employees want to partner with their leaders in order to self-determine their work and career goals. All of these partnerships involve the seller / facilitator / doctor / leader playing the role of a Collaborative Consultant.

Boldly Go! (But Carefully Plan)

A well-known tenet of improvisational theater says: “Fall first – then, on the way down, figure out what you’re going to do next!” In other words, take action – any action – and trust that your native wit and intuition will solve the problem of what to do afterward.

This is probably the one improv tenet that prospective Improvising Leaders have the most trouble accepting. With visions of Wile E. Coyote firmly in mind, they might say: “What?! Throw myself into the void, without a net, no lifelines? Leave myself to the mercy of hope, luck, and the vagaries of the Universe and the Acme Company? You go first!”

Well, to take a "both-and" approach here, I think we can respect both sentiments – “fling yourself headlong into an uncertain future”AND “keep your ankle tied to a bungee.” Even performance improvisers don’t expect to splat against a blank canvas when they leap. They rely on multiple supporting structures – ideas they’ve used in the past, aspects of their character, rules of the game being played, guidelines such as "Yes And" – as a loose framework within which they can improvise a solution to their onstage challenges.

These thoughts were prompted by an intriguing Harvard Business Review article titled “The Institutional Yes.” The article comprises an interview with Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos in which he describes many ways in which Amazon keeps its sights on both imperatives: “leap” and “aim for the mattress.”

As to the Leap Imperative, Bezos says:

“One useful habit [in setting strategy] is to ask the question ‘Why Not?’ When something seems like an opportunity … you will always get asked the question ‘Why? Why do that?’ But ‘Why not?’ is an equally valid question.”

But if that sounds like the voice of the thrill-seeking, ready-fire-aim, leap-think-act personality, consider Bezos’s follow-on statement:

“And there may be good reasons why not …. In that case, if somebody asked ‘Why not?’ you would say ‘Here’s why not.’”

And even if you proceed, it’s not with reckless abandon, as Bezos makes clear:

“[S]ince the outcomes of all these things are uncertain, if you can figure out how to conduct an experiment, you can make more bets. So the key, really, is reducing the cost of the experiments.”

Experiments. Prototypes. Parallel processes. As you boldly go forth with your strategy, these are your supporting structures, your lifelines, your institutional mattresses. The Improvising Leader must not be afraid to take the leap, but, as Bezos indicates, she also needs to consider how to mitigate the possible dangers of the landing.

Saying "Yes And" to Idea-Chillers

From Day One of their training, performance improvisers are taught to say “Yes And” to onstage offers as a way to build upon each others’ suggestions and create interesting scenes in the moment. For example, if your partner says, “It’s pouring down rain today,” it’s better to respond “Yes, and I forgot my umbrella” than “What do you mean? The sun is shining!” Experience shows that audiences prefer to watch improv performers work together to create a scene, building on each other’s ideas rather than engaging in “Oh yeah?” “Yeah!” types of verbal duels.

Similarly, in business organizations, taking a “Yes And” approach can go a long way toward keeping possibilities open while also maintaining positive relationships. By contrast, adopting a “No” attitude can keep us grounded in the status quo while blocking teamwork right out of the gate.

There are many subtle ways for people to say “No” without actually using the word. Listed below are some phrases that people often use in meetings to immediately pour cold water on new ideas. Chronic use of these Idea Chillers – especially when accompanied by dismissive laughter and sarcasm - is guaranteed to stop innovation in its tracks, perpetuate Groupthink, and belittle and disrespect people. (To counteract the effect of Idea Chillers, try the responses in parentheses.)

“We tried that before and it failed miserably.” (Let’s look at why it didn’t work and do it differently this time.) 

“It's too expensive.” (How much do you think it will cost? What are the costs of standing still?)

“It’ll never work.” (How can we make it work?)

“We've never done it that way.” (The old way may have worked fine in the past – but maybe it’s time for a change.)

“Great idea, but not for us.” (Why aren’t great ideas for us?)

“People just aren’t ready for that.” (How can we gain acceptance for it?)

“Here’s why that won’t work …” (How can we address those challenges?)

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it.” (If we’re not moving ahead, we’re falling behind.)

“That won’t fly in our culture.” (Let’s consider if it will help us meet our strategic objectives and live our organizational values.)

“I don’t like it.” (What are your concerns, and how can we address them?)

“You have got to be kidding.” (It might sound a little “out there” – a lot of new ideas do.)

“It's all right in theory, but...” (How can we turn theory into reality?)

The British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once said, "Almost all new ideas have a certain aspect of foolishness when they are first produced."  Whitehead recognized that most creative advances grow from the seed of an idea that might seem strange and even outrageous at first (and thus susceptible to Idea Chillers) but can be nurtured and shaped through open-minded consideration of the possibilities. By taking a “Yes And” approach to ideas – that is, seeking to build on them rather than rejecting them out of hand – we can avoid the Idea Chillers that keep us from progressing as organizations and as individuals.

Resolving (Seeming) Contradictions: The Essence of the Improvising Leader's Art

What’s the one essential skill that any performance improviser must possess? Being quick-witted? Hilariously funny? Totally unflappable?

Many if not most people (especially those who have seen Whose Line Is It Anyway?) probably equate improv with thinking fast and making audiences laugh. When regarded this way, improv can seem as relevant to the lay person’s daily life (especially on the job) as the Three Stooges. But the entertainment factor is really a byproduct of the skills involved in improv – for example, listening fiercely, being completely present, and fully supporting troupe members. These types of skills are most definitely applicable to the everyday effectiveness of organizational “performers.”

But even more central to the improviser’s art (either onstage or in the meeting room) is a skill I call the ability to resolve contradictions.

On the improv stage, contradictions usually take the form of incompatible roles and situations that audiences pitch to the perfomers (e.g., a first-grade teacher as a master drill sergeant). Savvy audiences know that the entertainment comes, not from hearing wisecracks and jokes based on the situation, but from seeing how the performers weave the incongruities of the situation into a seamless scene.

Similarly, a leader’s effectiveness in his organizational performance is largely determined by how well he can resolve the jumble of contradictions presented to him each day. For example:

·         Being drivingly collaborative. Influencing the direction of events – while being open to the influence of others.

·         Being doggedly flexible. Being resolute in following a certain course of action – while staying alert to the need for course corrections as events warrant.

·         Being skeptically accepting. Showing trust in others at the start of a working relationship – before they’ve demonstrated how trustworthy they really are.

·         Being deliberately authentic. Flexing a natural behavioral style in order to adapt to certain situations and certain people – without becoming insincere or manipulative.

A leader’s success in navigating these shoals is largely a matter of shifting her responses between the two incongruous actions at different times to meet the needs of different situations. For example, she might follow her natural take-charge style when urgent action is needed but defer to another person’s ideas and judgment when she’s coaching the person to develop his problem-solving abilities. In most cases, this is preferable to taking the easier course of always applying the same style in all situations with all people – an approach guaranteed to fail at least some percentage of the time.

Just as the successful improv performer can resolve the incongruities of the situation without missing a beat, the successful leader can nimbly shift his actions throughout the day to effectively address each circumstance. At first, a new leader may have to stop and reflect (and often stumble) as he grasps for the best response. But with time, practice, and commitment, he can develop his own inimitable style that handles the ambiguities, dilemmas, and contradictions of organizational life without letting the seams show.