People Based Solutions: January 2014

Sunday, 19 January 2014

The 8 key steps to effectively address a difficult conversation.

Most of us, at some time in our lives, have responded to conflict or disagreement in a way that we have later regretted. Also, many of us may feel that we don’t always handle conflict or disagreement as well as we should? In my last blog, the ABC of interpersonal-conflict: why we often struggle when stepping up to a difficult conversation, I wrote about the ABC of interpersonal conflict. I explained how we often filter the objective facts through our own values and beliefs. This has consequences for us, as we can perceive difference or opposition as a threat. When we are faced with threats, real or imagined, we frequently revert to our most basic and primitive selves. The primitive responses of fight, flight or freeze, are often employed to deal with difference or opposition. When we are in this primitive state, our emotions of fear and anger drive our behaviour. When fearful or angry we are unlikely to handle difficult conversations effectively.

In this blog I outline how to step up to a difficult conversation, handle it effectively, and get the outcome you desire.

At People Based Solutions we believe there are 8 key steps in addressing a difficult conversation:

1. Understand your problem

2. Focus on the facts

3. Identify the Gap

4. Use active listening to show empathy and understanding

5. Tentatively outline your concerns

6. Look for win-win

7. Agree an action plan with clear accountability, targets and due dates

8. Follow it up and act

Understand your problem:

To understand your problem you have to “put your own mask on first”. During the pre-flight safety checks they tell in the event of loss of cabin pressure that you must attend to your own mask before dealing with anyone who is dependent on you. It is the same with a difficult conversation. If you’re not in control of your feelings and emotions, how can you expect to manage a difficult conversation?

To understand your problem, remember your ABC’s. You should ask yourself the following questions:

· What’s actually happened ?

· What is that you believe that’s making you react this way?

· What are the consequences for you, how is it making you feel?

Having remembered your ABC’s, you should add D to AB and C

· Dispute the beliefs and conclusions that are driving you to make the fools choice of clamming up or coming out fighting

· Decide to be calm and assertive

· Don’t get emotional, get the outcome you want

Focus on the facts:

When having a conversation about another person’s performance or behaviour, we need to focus on what they have done, not who they are. For example, if a person submits a report not to the standards required, it is reasonable to say: “There was a lot of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors in that report, I couldn’t submit it.” However, it is not helpful to criticise them personally by saying something like: “You have no pride in your work.” This will be perceived as a threat, to which they are likely to make a primitive response of fight, flight or freeze.

Identify the gap:

When addressing performance or behaviour that isn’t acceptable, it is important to be clear about the standards that have been set, how the behaviour or performance being observed doesn’t meet those standards, and to understand how the shortfall has occurred. For example, the following question could be asked: “That report you gave me was of such a poor standard, I couldn’t submit it. Can you explain what happened?”

Use active listening to show empathy and understanding:

When conducting a difficult conversation it is important to encourage the other person by showing you are interested in what they have to say. You should seek clarity by restating what they have said and by asking questions to help you understand. Where you’re not sure you should encourage the other person to explain further. You should show you understand the person’s feelings or reasons by reflecting what they have said or the emotions that have expressed back to them. You should show you have understood what they are saying and their point of view by summarising what they have said. It is important to validate the other person’s concerns and contribution.

Tentatively outline your concerns:

It is important, when stepping up to a difficult conversation, to address any concerns that you have with what the other person is doing. However, these concerns must be stated honestly, respectfully and sensitively. Initially any concerns should be stated tentatively. For example: If you are concerned that you’re being taken advantage of, rather than saying: “ Because I’ve let it go in the past, you now think I’m a bit of a soft touch” you would be better saying: “this is the 3rd time you’ve been late in fortnight. I am beginning to think because I let it go a few weeks ago, you now think you can get away with coming in when you like. Is there another explanation?”

Look for win-win:

Look to solve your problems by finding mutually acceptable outcomes that meet your needs, rather than defending positions. In my recent blog: The purpose of a productive negotiation is not to successfully defend your position, but to effectively meet your needs… I write that win-win is when both parties focus on their interests, and identify what they really want. The objective then shifts from winning the argument, to seeing if there is a way to find a mutually satisfactory resolution to the problem or difference.

Agree an action plan with clear accountability, targets and due dates:

If actions are agreed as the result of a difficult conversation, it is important to assign accountability. Accountability will be expressed as outcomes that state specifically, what each party is required to do. These outcomes must be unambiguous and describe exactly what’s wanted in detail. These clear and unambiguous outcomes must have precise deadlines.

Follow up:

Depending on how crucial the outcome of the difficult conversation is, how much trust there is, and how able the parties are perceived to be to deliver the agreed outcomes. There should either be proactive follow up that anticipates and controls the outcome, or reactive follow up that audits what’s been done.

This article has been posted by Sean McCann, the Managing Director of People Based Solutions an HR consultancy specialising in developing emotional intelligence at work, team building, and workplace conflict resolution. If you would like to know more about how we can help you develop an assertive approach to workplace differences by:

· Ensuring your managers are skilled with people

· Helping you to recruit people who have an assertive approach to conflict and difference

· Helping you to develop a culture where differences are acknowledged and addressed courteously

· Train your managers to handle conflict effectively

· Delivering workplace mediation

Sunday, 12 January 2014

The ABC of interpersonal-conflict. Why we often struggle when stepping up to a difficult conversation.

In my recent blog 4 common responses to workplace conflict that can damage your business. I stated that we often deal with work place conflict unproductively. In this blog, I will explain why so many managers and leaders find it difficult to effectively manage a difficult conversation. Some choose to ignore the issues, hoping they’ll go away, they rarely do! Others choose to confront the other person and put them in their place. This can often make things worse. In my next blog, I will outline strategies to adopt when having to step up to a difficult conversation. However, I am aware that on some occasions avoiding or confronting is the right thing to do. Appropriate conflict modes will be the subject of a blog in the near future.

Sometimes disagreeing with or correcting other people can be difficult. These conversations are often difficult due to differences of opinion about what is the appropriate thing to do. We may also have strong feelings and emotions regarding the matter being discussed, and often the outcome of the “difficult conversation” will be important to us.

It is worth remembering, when we step up to a difficult conversation, it isn’t other people who annoy or upset us. We annoy and upset ourselves! On the face of it that sounds crazy! But to quote Hamlet: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” In other words the facts don’t speak for themselves. It isn’t the objective reality that winds people up, but their subjective interpretation of the objective facts. It is how we feel about an event that cause the emotional and behavioural response rather than the event itself.

I call it the ABC of interpersonal conflict:

A: The actual event. The facts, what was said and done. The objective reality.

B: The beliefs that filter the facts. The subjective “reality”, the stories people tell themselves. The “spin” they put on the facts.

C: The consequences of the beliefs, which create feelings and emotions. These feelings and emotions create physical responses that drive behaviour. Behaviour is what we say and do in response to a particular situation or event.

To give an example a team member is late for a meeting called by the team leader:

A: The actual event. It’s five past nine, the meeting was due to start at nine. The team member hasn’t arrived yet.

B: Potential beliefs that filter and interpret the facts, i.e. he (the team member) is 5 minutes late:

· He’s lazy,

· He’s trying to take advantage of me.

· He’s got no respect for my position.

C: The consequences of the beliefs on the emotional response of the team leader.

· Anger

· Frustration

· Fear

· Confusion

These emotional responses may create a physical reaction: adrenaline, stomach churning, nausea. These physical reactions drive behavioural responses:

· Avoiding

· Confrontation

· Passive-aggression

Unfortunately, when we are wound up or upset, we are likely to be ill prepared to step up to a difficult conversation. When angry, frustrated, fearful or confused, we are no longer our normal selves. When faced with a perceived threat, our primitive self feels under attack. When this happens, our basic instinct is to either kill the threat or avoid it.

When dealing with conflict, we are often at our most primitive and least effective. Consequently, if we interpret another person actions or behaviours, as some form of threat or challenge, our emotions of fear and anger will often drive our behaviour.

When faced with a perceived threat or challenge we often choose to deal with it in one of two ways:

· Clam up: We try to avoid the difficult conversation. We hope if we ignore it, it will go away. We choose to avoid the conflict or repress our differences. When we do this we never have our needs met, and the problem is never properly acknowledged or resolved.

· Come out fighting: We choose to confront the difficult conversation. We believe the way to sort it out is to attack, insult or belittle! We may “win” the encounter, and get what we want, but it will often be at the expense of trust and the long term relationship.

Ensuring your managers are skilled with people
Helping you to recruit people who have an assertive approach to conflict and difference
Helping you to develop a culture where differences are acknowledged and addressed courteously
Train your managers to handle conflict effectively
Delivering workplace mediation

Monday, 6 January 2014

The purpose of a productive negotiation is not to successfully defend your position, but to effectively meet your needs…

At People Based Solutions we believe that negotiating is a key skill for life and work. However, some people approach negotiations less effectively than others. Research has shown that those who focusing on interests when negotiating, are more productive than those who choose to defend positions

POSITIONAL NEGOTIATION

Positional negotiation is when each party takes a position and argues for it. For example, a team member may make a request to take a day’s leave; the Manager may refuse to agree the leave request. In such circumstances, they may both choose to adopt positions. The team member stating “you can’t refuse my leave request just like that….” To which the manager may retort: “I am responsible for staffing this office, and I want you in on that day.” Once this process starts, they can lock themselves in. As the dispute continues, it becomes harder for each change their stance. They can then start to invest in that position. If this happens, it can become about saving face, and reconciling future actions to past positions. Reaching a settlement becomes increasingly difficult. Once this process starts, it becomes about winning the argument, rather than finding an outcome that both parties want. People start to change their goals to save face, avoid embarrassment, win the argument, or to punish the other party. They will push hard, making the argument stronger than they actually believe it is, and doing anything to win. The objective shifts from trying to agree leave, to trying to win an argument.

INTEREST FOCUSED BARGAINING

Interests are the needs, desires concerns and fears of the disputants. What they really want, the need that will be satisfied. In the example above the interest being met by taking a days’ leave maybe to enable the team member to attend a family event. The Manager’s interest maybe to have the office covered. It may be particularly important to the Manager that the office isn’t without cover even for a relatively short period.

WIN/LOSE NEGOTIATION

When both parties had taken positions, i.e. they decide to act in a particular way. For example, the team member may demand leave to attend the family event. The manager, however, may respond by refusing even to consider the leave request as it interferes with the office rota. The outcome of both parties taking their positions is conflict. What emerges is a dispute over positions, which, on the face of it, appears intractable. One party cannot get what it wants, unless it is at the expense of the other. If the leave is granted the rota is no longer in place. If the rota is in place the employee can’t attend the family event. It is a zero sum negotiation, for one party to get what it wants; the other party must forgo what it wants. It is a quintessential win-lose encounter.

WIN/WIN NEGOTIATIONS

However, if both parties focus on their interests, they can identify what they really want. The objective shifts from winning the argument, to seeing if there is a way for the team member to attend the family event, and to make sure the office is covered. By moving away from positional negotiation, and moving towards interests based negotiations, those involved in the negotiation, can adopt a collaborative approach to solving the problem.

In positional negotiations, the assumption is, it’s a choice between getting the result you want and keeping a relationship. Positional negotiations don’t consider the option of achieving both. When the negotiation is driven by interests, collaboration becomes possible, as the disputants seek mutually satisfactory outcomes. This win-win approach allows for solutions that meet the underlying interests of both parties. A win-win solution, not only solves the problem, but does so in a way that is satisfactory to both parties.

In the example above, the manager and the team member may work together to agree an outcome that meets the needs of both parties. A solution such as rescheduling rotas, or swapping shifts, that allows the team member to take the leave day (while accepting the manager’s right to operate the rota), and for the manager to ensure the office is covered.

Ensuring your managers are skilled with people
Helping you to recruit people who have an assertive approach to conflict and difference
Helping you to develop a culture where differences are acknowledged and addressed courteously
Train your managers to handle conflict effectively
Delivering workplace mediation