Author Archive for Guy Harris

Face-to-face anger

The perception of threat is the primary cause for conflict escalation. The most important word in the previous sentence is perception. If you have no intention of causing the other person harm (either physically or emotionally) and they perceive that you do intend to harm them, your real intentions do not matter. With regard to the affect your actions have on the conflict, it only matters that they perceive you to be a threat.

The leverage point for de-escalating the conflict is their perception, and the strongest impact you will likely have on their perception is your tone and body language.

One commonly referenced study on the impact of non-verbal clues in the communication process comes from Albert Mehrabian. In this study, Mehrabian found that when we communicate about feelings and attitudes the received message (the receiver’s perception and interpretation of the message) is based on a combination of word choice, vocal tone, and facial expression. Meharabian expressed this observation with his “Liking Formula” that says:

Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial Liking

Mehrabian’s study has been misquoted, misapplied, and misconstrued by many people to say that 93% of every message we convey to others comes from our tone and body language, and that interpretation is simply not true. What is true is that in ambiguous situations where we are conveying like-dislike and other emotional context messages to others, people place more emphasis on the tone and body language than they do to the words. The practical implication of this observation is this:

If your words do not match your tone and body language, people will believe your tone and body language before they will believe your words.

To become a master of conflict resolution, you need to learn more than a basket of tips, techniques, strategies, and phrases. You need to develop the ability to observe your tone and body language to identify inconsistencies between the words you are using and the non-verbal messages you are conveying.

When you find yourself in a conflict and you are working to resolve it successfully, choose non-threatening tones and body language so that your words of resolution will match the non-verbal messages you send.

photo credit: Tambako the Jaguar via photopin cc

This article is from the De-escalation Tips series. Use the links below to read more from this series.

trust-crumpled

Like so many words we use commonly, trust has many layers of meaning. While most of us have similar general perspectives about what it means to trust another person, there are some subtle differences in how we view this simple word.

The words I often use to describe the two sides of trust are transactional trust and relational trust, and here is how I define the terms:

  • Transactional trust refers to the trust we have that another person will do what they said they would do or complete and assigned task.
  • Relational trust refers to the trust we have that another person can listen to and understand our emotional state without passing judgment, criticizing, sharing it with others, or using the knowledge to somehow harm us.

At different times and in different situations, both components of trust can come into play in our interactions and relationships with other people. While most people experience and rely upon both trust components as they make decisions about how to interact with others, there are subtle differences in the priority that people place on the two components as they make decisions.

Leaders who focus heavily on task issues often place a higher priority on transactional trust – do people follow-through on commitments and complete tasks – than they do on relational trust. As a result, they can often find ways to stay engaged and working with a person that they do not “like” because they trust that the person will get things done.

Leaders who see the world through a relational filter often place a higher priority on relational trust – do people act in ways that build and protect relationships – than they do on transactional trust. And, they can often stay engaged and working with a person they like even if the other person has challenges with meeting deadlines and completing tasks.

Likewise, team members with a task focus often place a higher priority on transactional trust between them and their leader than they do on relational trust. And, team members with a relational focus place a higher priority on developing relational trust with their leader.

As a leader, you need to understand both how you and your team members prioritize the two sides of trust so that you can focus your trust building efforts in the area that will create the greatest immediate benefit.

To build trust with task-focused team members, focus on task completion and follow-through issues first and relationship issues second. To build trust with relationship-focused team members, focus on showing support and building a relationship first and task completion second.

Both forms of trust are important, and building high levels of both will contribute to creating a high-performing, high-functioning, results focused team.  To get the greatest results in the shortest amount of time, know your team members and focus first in the area of greatest concern to them.

Your Now Step: Think about the people you lead. How do they view trust? How have you been working to build trust with them? Does your approach fit their perspective? If it matches, good job! If not, adjust your approach to better connect with them.

photo credit: birgerking via photopin cc

sorry-sky-writing

Apology is a powerful — and often under used — conflict resolution tool. One reason for not apologizing that I often hear in my work with clients is the concern that apologizing either totally admits fault for the conflict or reveals a weakness.

While these concerns may be legitimate in some situations, they are overblown in most cases.

The perception of threat is the primary reason for conflict escalation, and removing this perception is the leverage point for conflict de-escalation. Apology works so well because it makes you less threatening to the other person.

Here are three tips for apologizing in a way that leads to de-escalation…

  1. Only apologize for your behaviors, words and actions, and never apologize for the other person’s feelings or interpretations.
    While it can happen, I seldom see situations where a conflict starts and escalates due solely to the actions of one person. So, there is likely some word choice, tone, or action that you contributed to the conflict escalation. When you are willing to take responsibility for your contribution, you tend to reduce the perception the other person has that you are a threat to them.Likewise, when you apologize for the other person’s feelings, you subtly imply that you are in control of their emotional state. For many people, when you claim ownership for their feelings you convey a threat signal.
  2. Maintain appropriate eye contact.
    Appropriate eye contact conveys respect and trustworthiness. As a result, good eye contact is a critical component of an effective apology.
  3. Make sure your tone and body language match your message.
    In his often quoted (and misquoted) communication study, Albert Mehrabian found that body language and tone are the majority contributors to the received message in face-to-face communication. For the purpose of this post, the key observation is that when the message conveyed by tone and body language does not match the message sent by your word choice, the listener tends to believe the tone and body language in preference to the words.

With these tips in mind, here are some suggested ways to successfully phrase an apology…

  • “I apologize for the tone I used.”
  • “I am sorry that I spoke in a way that was offensive to you.”
  • “I am sorry that I said/did ______.”

Please add your tips and suggestions in the comments section.

photo credit: butupa via photopin cc

This article is from the De-escalation Tips series. Use the links below to read more from this series.

uderstanding-wordle

A common reason that conflicts escalate is the perception of threat one or both parties see in the conflict escalation cycle. Taking an action that makes you non-threatening to the other person is a powerful step towards de-escalating the conflict.

In many conflict situations I have observed a tendency by some people to minimize, criticize, or demean the emotions expressed by other people. I have also seen people attempt to tell other people how they should feel about a situation.

All of these actions trigger the perception of threat that tends to escalate conflicts.

If your interest is in de-escalating a conflict, I suggest that you do the opposite. I recommend that you accept and acknowledge the feelings other people express whether you agree that they should feel that way or not.

As I said in my post about Listening as a Way to De-escalate Conflict, the need to be heard and understood is a strong motivator in our relationships with other people. Accepting and acknowledging other people’s feelings goes a long way towards showing people that they have been heard and understood.

This article is from the De-escalation Tips series. Use the links below to read more from this series.

Warning Sign

Most supervisors deliver performance feedback to members of their team. A face-to-face meeting is the most common way to deliver feedback.

During this meeting, the words you use are only part of your message. Your full message is a combination of the words you choose and the emotion you transmit.

When you deliver performance feedback, the emotional part becomes particularly challenging. People receiving feedback are often at an elevated emotional state, and you run the risk of sounding like you are criticizing or threatening them in some way. This combination creates a potential minefield that even supervisors who are coaching people from good performance to excellent performance can find difficult to navigate. The situation becomes even more complicated when you need to deliver truly negative feedback.

By understanding the emotional filter of the person receiving feedback, you can adjust your delivery to improve your odds of delivering the message you intend to deliver. While the details and specifics will  change based on your past relationship with your team members, the exact nature of your message, and the environment you work in, there are some predictable response patterns you can use as a guide to help you craft your message so that you minimize the risk of an emotional confrontation.

Regardless of the other person’s particular emotional filter, all work performance feedback should be directed at objective, observable issues – behaviors, words, actions, results, etc. While you do not want your feedback to be emotional in nature, you do want to frame it based on their emotional filters.

To do this, answer two questions about the other person:

  1. Are they faster paced or slower paced? In other words, are they quick to speak or more are they more contemplative. And then…
  2. Are they more focused on data, information, results, and doing things? Or, are they more focused on interacting with and supporting people? In other words, do they focus on tasks or do they focus on relationships.

If they are faster-paced and focused on tasks, speak directly to how their behaviors, words, and actions impact how quickly they will see results. Avoid saying anything that might indicate you don’t respect them.

It they are faster-paced and focused on relationships, show them how their behaviors, words, and actions affect the way that other people might perceive them and how the new behaviors will create more recognition for them. Avoid saying anything that communicates that you don’t like them.

If they are slower paced and focused on relationships, tie their actions to how they can help others and how their contribution builds the team. Rather than focus entirely on what you want done, make time to discuss how you want it done (with their input). Avoid pushing too quickly for results. Give them time to process what you have said before asking for a response.

If they are slower paced and focused on tasks, speak to the value and quality of their work. Be prepared to back-up anything you say with data – quality reports, run reports, research data, etc. Keep your comments factual and observable.

As you speak with people, observe their response to your approach and then adjust using these suggestions as a guide to navigate the emotional minefield of performance feedback.

Your Now Step: Think about the people you lead. How do they perceive the world? What are their emotional filters? Use the tips above as a starting point to understand your team. Schedule a feedback meeting with someone on your team within the next 48 hours to practice applying these suggestions.

3 Categories : Leadership Skills

Information