Archive for Communication Skills

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

Listening intently

 

Recently, I read this statement: “They keep yelling at me that I’m not listening.” I would love to give credit to the person who said it, but I’ve lost the source. I think I saw it as a tweet in my twitter stream. I’m just not sure of that. In any case, I thought it was funny.

Funny? Yes. A good perspective for conflict resolution?  No.

When said in a tongue-in-cheek way while observing the irony, the statement is, at least to me, really funny. When said as a way to escape responsibility,  to  deflect the damage we do to others and to our relationships, or to blame the other person when we fail to listen, the statement reveals a pretty natural consequence of not listening to what others have to say.

In fact, failing to listen actually invites the other person to “yell at you.” Why?

Because failing to listen violates a need almost universally expressed by people in all cultures: the need to be heard and understood. Failing to meet another person’s need — or worse, violating a need — sends a threat signal through the other person’s mind that triggers the conflict escalation cycle.

In Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior Ori and Rom Brafman reference several studies that point to the need to be heard and how it affects people ranging from convicted felons to venture capitalists.

The specifics of the people’s lives and the events they are evaluating are different, and people on both ends of this cultural spectrum report higher levels of satisfaction with events — without regard to the quality of the objective outcomes — when they feel that the other person involved in the situation with them spent time with them and listened to their concerns.

For the prisoners, the other person was their attorney. For the venture capitalists, the other person was running the company where they invested money. Two completely different situations with completely different measures of success, and one primary human need cited as the driving force for satisfaction with the outcome: the need to be heard and understood.

In a previous post, I listed listening as one of Five Ways to Ee-escalate a Conflict. The reason that listening works so well is that it meets a human need. Looking for ways to meet the other person’s needs helps to take the perception of threat out of your interaction so that you can move the conflict towards resolution.

Will listening guarantee conflict resolution? No, it won’t.

Not listening, though, virtually guarantees conflict escalation.

Become conflict confident!

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

Delivering a package

If you lead others, you are in the change business. When you are in the change business, you will eventually have to deal with resistance to your ideas, the direction you want to go, the new behaviors you are expecting, and more. Dealing with resistance is a normal part of leadership.

When you attempt to create change that involves other people, they will inevitably ask the question: “What’s in it for me?” Until they get a satisfactory answer to that question, the odds that they will stay locked in resistance are pretty high.

In order to transform resistance into acceptance, give people an answer to this question as soon as possible. When you give the answer, deliver it in a way that people see the personal, positive benefits of the change from their perspective.

If you have been reading leadership development resources for any time at all, this concept is probably not new to you. While the idea is not necessarily new, many new leaders fail in their efforts to answer the question effectively for a very simple reason – they fall prey to what behavioral analysts call “perception error.”

Perception error is the tendency most people have of misreading other people’s perspectives and motivations by assuming that other people do things or are motivated by the same things that motivate the leader. For example, I am very factual and data driven. If I am not very careful, I tend to give people far more information than they care about. When I do that, I give them what’s important to me rather than what’s important to them – I fall victim to my own perception error.

The simple solution to this challenge is to match your word choice, tone, pace, level of detail, and energy level to the person receiving the message. When you do this well, you improve the odds that they hear “what’s in it for them” in your message rather than “what’s in it for you.”

Here are some tips to help you do this more effectively:

  • Match your vocal pace to theirs. If they tend to speak quickly, then speak quickly. If they speak more slowly, then slow down.
  • Use words the they would use. For example…

    If they talk about how they feel about the change. Then talk about feelings and emotions. Make sure you smile and use more stories than facts to relay your vision of the post change situation.

    If they talk about what they think about the change, then talk about thoughts and facts more than about feelings. Stay focused on projected results, data, and value created by the change.

In any case, do the best you can to make the communication clearly state how the change will affect them rather than how it will impact the organization.

Your Now Step:  Think about a change you hope to create within your team. Now, think about a person that you need to communicate with about this change. Do they speak quickly or more methodically? Do they focus on results and facts or emotions and relationships? Practice tailoring your delivery to match them.

The Food Table

Last month, my wife created  a miracle. She planned and pulled-off a wedding reception in seven days.

Yes, you read that correctly — seven days from decision to wedding and reception.

Many things happened leading up to the decision, but the simple answer for the question “Why would you do that?” comes down to my daughter’s fiance (now husband) receiving orders to Germany following the completion of his training as an Army medic in March. Since she is a sophomore in college who intends to finish school before joining him permanently in Germany, the break between semesters was the best time for them.

The lessons from the family decision-making process reveal some great communication, conflict resolution, and leadership lessons; and those are stories for other posts on other days. For now, I’m focusing on what happened in the seven days starting December 16th and ending on December 22nd.

We chose to keep things fairly simple, and still it was amazing. There was a wedding dress for the bride, a bridesmaid’s dress for her sister, and a new dress for my wife. There were flowers for the bride, the bridesmaid, and the groom’s best person (his twin sister). There were church sanctuary and fellowship hall decorations. There was a cake. There were heavy hors d’oeuvres chosen to match the first meals as married couples for the new couple, my wife and I, my parents, and my grandparents. There were photographs. There was special music. The beautiful bride (yes, I’m biased) danced with both her husband and her father.

As one friend said, “If you didn’t know the story behind this wedding, you would think you had been planning it for months.”

It was amazing. It was beautiful. And despite the many opportunities to have conflicts and arguments caused by the stress and pressure of the short timeline, everyone came through the process with relationships intact.

At one point during the day of the wedding, another friend asked me how we managed to pull it all together so quickly. I replied: “Some people say this wedding came together in seven days, and it really took fourteen years.”  The comment that came to me spontaneously in response to my friend’s question gets to the learning point of this experience.

You see, we have lived in this rural, Indiana community since 1998. In that time, we have made great friends in churches, businesses, and community organizations throughout the county. We have no immediate family here. We do have great friends.

The wedding reception came together in seven days because of the depth of relationships built up over the course of those fourteen years.

Yes, my wife is great at organizing and delegating. And, her skill would not have mattered without the willing, discretionary effort of the people around her. No amount of ordering and coercing would have gotten the job done. Good will, common focus, and strong relationships did.

The lesson for leaders is this:

To accomplish great things in a short amount of time, invest in relationships before you need something done.

This post would not be complete without saying thank-you to our friends from all over Montgomery County. To us, it doesn’t seem like enough to just say thank-you, and we are so overwhelmed with your generosity, we don’t know what else to say. Thanks.

(If you’d like to see the wedding, there’s a video and pictures at www.adamandlydiawedding.com)

Many people rise to leadership positions because they can solve problems. That was certainly true for me. One of the reasons I quickly moved from an individual contributor role to a supervisory position in my first civilian job after the Navy was that I knew how to solve the technical problems my team faced.

I’m guessing that you have a similar experience. You have a history of solving problems well, and that ability created an opportunity for you to become formally recognized as a leader. As you become a leader, though, your responsibility is less about your personal ability to solve problems and more about your ability to work with others to solve problems.

While the skills of the individual problem solver and the group problem solver are similar, there are also some major differences. The individual problem solver can assess a situation and jump to action. As long as the problem gets solved, everyone is happy. The group problem solver has to build consensus, encourage and inspire others, and create buy-in for a proposed solution.

This consensus/inspiration/buy-in piece is often where leaders go wrong as group problem solvers. They see the problem, they identify a solution, and they go to work trying to get everyone onboard with the solution. Then they hit a brick wall.

  • People question the solution.
  • People doubt the need to make changes.
  • People hold on to old ways of doing things. And,
  • The leader gets frustrated.

There are lots of great tools and techniques you can apply to become a better communicator, to build your influence, and to develop your persuasion skills. All of these tools and techniques have their place in your leadership tool box, and you will probably use them all as you work to solve problems with a group. However, these tools and techniques are secondary to a fundamental premise of group problem solving behavior:

When people don’t agree on the problem definition, they will never agree on the problem solution.

For example, your company has low revenues one quarter. If you think the problem is a failure to close on new leads and Joe thinks that the problem is a failure to get qualified leads, your proposed solution will be totally different from Joe’s.

As a result, you will waste time and energy trying to convince each other of the “right” way to solve the revenue shortfall with very little likelihood of reaching a mutually agreeable solution.

As you work with your team, resist the urge to propose solutions before you have invested the time on the front-end of each problem solving effort to ensure that everyone has a common definition of the problem. Set aside your desire to leap to action in the interest of building consensus. In the end, you will get greater returns and better results as you release all of the creative energies of your team in a common, focused direction.

Clearly define the problem. Then, work to create buy-in for the problem definition before you even begin to discuss possible solutions.

 Action Step #1: Think about a recent group problem solving effort that went well and another where your team struggled. Did your team have a clear and common definition of the problem in both cases? Reflect on what you can learn from comparing these two efforts.

Action Step #2: Think about a current group problem solving effort. Do you have a clear and commonly understood definition of the problem? If not, meet with your team in the next 24 hours to create a clear problem definition statement.

Votaire

Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire, 1694-1778

In a conflict, it is often tempting to go on the attack in an effort to make your point. In fact, it’s a natural response to a situation you perceive as physically or emotionally threatening in some way.

In most workplace situations, none of us will be in an imminent physical threat situation when we are in conflict. Most of us will, however, experience what we perceive as an emotional threat.  We feel threats to our position, our expertise, or our experience. We feel disrespected, disliked, or unheard.

All of these situations feel threatening, and they are not physically threatening. Thus, our natural response is not likely to be the best response.

This weekend, I read about a situation where the French author and philosopher Voltaire was in actual physical danger, and he used the power of relating to his opponents to turn the situation.

In 1726, Voltaire was exiled to England as the result of a conflict he had with a powerful and influential French family.  At the time of his three-year stay in England, there was a great deal of friction between France and England. This friction between the two nations occasionally put Voltaire at odds with the people he met in his new host country. Sometimes, he was in truly physically threatening circumstances.

One day, he found himself caught in an angry street mob1 that shouted things like: “Hang him. Hang the Frenchman!”

Confronted with this challenge, Voltaire replied: “Men of England! You wish to kill me because I am a Frenchman. Am I not punished enough in not being born an Englishman?”

The crowd then cheered and escorted him back to his home.

In a moment of physical threat, Voltaire won the crowd and his safety by connecting and relating with them. If it worked for Voltaire, it just might work for you in much less challenging situations.

Learn to use the power of tact and relationship to turn conflicts towards resolution and away from escalation.

1 Fadiman, Clifton; Editor. The Little, Brown Book of Anecdotes. Boston. 1985. 566. Print.

“What religion are you?”

The question hung in the air between the two teenagers engaged in a conversation about family rules and expectations. While I do not know this to be true, it appeared to me that they come from families with different expectations and limits in the area of movie and media consumption.

As I observed the interaction, I heard a question asked out of genuine curiosity. I thought that it was just a question with no other implications attached to it. It was merely part of the young man trying to understand the young lady’s family perspective.

Considering his tone and the context of the conversation though, I realized that it might be perceived as carrying an element of criticism or judgment.

I watched, listened, and waited for the young lady’s response.

Would she hear a threat and respond defensively? Would she flash anger and go on the attack? Or, would she simply answer the question?

“I’m a Christian,” she said calmly and confidently.  No sign of defensiveness. No indication of aggression. Just calm assurance.

The conversation continued without incident. It stayed friendly and interactive. No one became angry. No one argued. It came to a friendly conclusion.

Success – a potential unnecessary conflict avoided.

I was impressed. While I do not know exactly what was going on inside this young lady’s mind or exactly what she felt, I do know what I observed.  She dealt with the question as a question and not as a threat.

Many conflicts begin or escalate because one person or the other perceives a threat in the interaction. Once our natural threat response kicks in, most of us do not respond well. Often, our response is downright negative:

  • We get defensive.
  • We get angry.
  • We attack.
  • We retaliate.

We can all learn from what I observed in this interaction between two young people. In the end, they both showed a level of emotional maturity I often see lacking in people twice their age.

Not every question is a threat. Questions are often just questions.