I am not always “on my game.”  Teaching conflict resolution, problem solving, interaction dynamics, and leadership skills does not make me perfect at applying them. It does make me aware, and that awareness helps me to correct my thinking more quickly. It also makes me work on practicing the skills so that I keep getting better.

And still, I have moments of insight about myself, my thinking, and my conflict approaches that are new. I’ll share a recent insight with you that I hope also helps you. First, two quick scenarios to frame the insight:

Scenario Number One:

A few days ago, a colleague of mine received a request from a customer to address a challenge, and she did not have all of the information necessary to fix the problem. As she sought information to solve the customer’s problem, she contacted a third person who she thought would have the information and authority to correct it, and she got, from her perspective, no real assistance.

Out of frustration and near desperation, she called me to see if I could offer any insights or perspective that could help her to address the customer’s issue.

As we talked through the scenario and the various techniques she could use to move the situation towards resolution, I had what my father calls “a blinding flash of the obvious”:

I could fix the problem for her!

Scenario Number Two:

I received an email from a person who had some challenges accessing information at the Bud to Boss Community for leaders. This is the community that  Kevin Eikenberry, my co-author, friend and colleague, and I launched to support readers of our book, From Bud to Boss. I really like tech stuff, like building websites, so I take care of many technical details related to that community.

As I was composing the email to let the person know how to fix her problem, I had another blinding flash of the obvious:

I could fix the problem for her!

In both cases, I entered the situation with a “Here’s the information you can use to fix your own problem” mindset. In both cases, moving to a “How can I fix this for you?” approach lead to quick resolution, clearer communication, and less conflict as I took a few immediate actions to correct the problems.

There are many situations — in coaching, parenting, and performance management for example — when the approach I started with is a better long-term answer. And, there are many situations where this approach can lead to further conflict because it fails to address the real frustration felt by the other person. Most situations have a bit of both the need for an immediate fix and some coaching about how to avoid or correct the problem in the future.

The first scenario fell in the category of having elements of both quick fix and long-term solution thinking. The second one only needed an immediate fix.

Both scenarios illustrate two key concepts to remember if you want to head-off conflicts before they start:

1. Beware of using your strengths to excess

I am logical, analytical, and relatively patient. I am good at collecting information, analyzing it, and recommending solutions to problems. I like to help other people solve their own problems so that I can equip them to better handle similar situations in the future.

That same strength, carried to excess, can sometimes stop me from taking immediate action to solve the problem and move on.

2. Ask yourself better questions

In both situations, I was initially thinking “How can I help them fix their problem?”

Somewhere in the middle of both interactions, I shifted to “How can I fix their problem for them?”

The first question probably relates to the first point I made about my strength carried to excess, and it reveals a subtle flaw in my thinking. While I wasn’t consciously thinking this way, I now realize that the first question carries a bit of  “How can I avoid getting involved so that they will go away and leave me alone?” thinking in it.

The second question is a deeper level of personal responsibility than the first. It implies personal involvement and action rather than detached analysis and suggestion.

Here are the questions I ask you to consider as you work to apply the lessons from my insights about myself:

1. Where are you using your strengths to excess so that they become a source of conflict rather than a resolution for conflict?, and
2. How can you rephrase the questions that you ask yourself so that you become an active problem solver before conflicts escalate?

Until people talk through their perspectives to the point that they feel heard and understood, they will find it difficult to come to a collective decision that they can all live with and act upon.

There where 18 powerful leaders from across the state of Indiana in this meeting – business leaders, educational leaders, and leaders of not-for-profit organizations. Eighteen people with different perspectives, different backgrounds, different view points, and strong opinions.

This organization is facing some pretty stiff challenges in both funding and organization. Each of these leaders is committed to the survival of the organization, and they each have different views of what their collective future looks likes.

In preparation for the meeting, I put together an agenda with a structured process designed to allow the time necessary to talk through issues with an eye towards driving decisions and commitments rather than just talk.

As we began the meeting and I led the group through the initial discussion steps, I could feel myself getting anxious. I began to get worried that we would spend too much time talking and not enough time deciding.

Remember – I built the agenda, and I started to get frustrated with the process.

And then, near the end of the meeting, we did an exercise designed to identify and rank obstacles the group needed to face in reaching their desired future. Quickly, in less than an hour, we listed, ranked and developed specific action plans for overcoming their biggest challenges.

It took us nearly four hours to reach the point that we could make a group decision. Four hours of talk about different perspectives and viewpoints so that we could drive to a conclusion in just a few minutes.

And that’s the observation that reminded me of the lesson I mentioned above.

The talking, even though it felt slow to me, was a vital part of the overall process. I’m pretty sure that if we had tried to rush or bypass those steps, we would not have been able to come to the final decisions with the unanimity of purpose and perspective that we did that day.

I believe that the process we used supported the group in coming to a conclusion, and the time to talk it out was a big part of the final success.

The next time you lead a group problem solving session, make sure you allow the time necessary to let everyone have their say. The time you invest in the process will come back to you many times over in the increased energy and productivity that the meeting generates.

As I look at the health care reform debate, I see a number of these behaviors in the way the discussion(s) is (are) proceeding. And, frankly, it makes me sick.

I am not a doctor, pharmacist, attorney, drug company executive or any other person who has deep insights into the intricacies of our health care system. I am, though, a person who can observe the process and see how the current discussion has virtually no hope of arriving at a good conclusion.

Virtually all of the discussion that I have seen mentions or implies that the system itself is broken. Then, the debate turns to how we should redesign the way we pay for the broken system. Almost no substantive discussion about how to fix the system. Just discussions, arguments and rants about how to pay for it.

Excuse me! How does that make any sense at all?

Do I have an opinion about what needs to happen to make the system better. Well, of course I do, and that’s not the point of this post.

The point of this post is to learn from the communication, conflict resolution, and problem solving failures present in this discussion.

Problem number one: Discussing solutions before reaching agreement on the definition of the problem.

If we disagree on the definition of the problem, we can never agree on the solution. When people jump to discussing solutions before they discuss their respective viewpoints about how to best define the problem, they lock themselves into a negative spiral of conversation that rarely, if ever, leads to resolution. It might lead to one party “beating” the other. It does not lead to resolution.

Problem number two: Discussing symptoms rather than root causes.

A former co-worker of mine once received a call from a family member for help with a leaking water heater. As my co-worker entered his family member’s home, he found his brother-in-law frantically mopping water from the floor trying to stay ahead of the leaking water heater. My co-worker, also my friend, approached the scene and then reached over his brother-in-law’s head to shut the supply valve on the water heater. Once the supply of water stopped, the leak slowed and they could clean-up the mess. My friend’s brother-in-law was so focused on the symptom (water on the floor) that he didn’t stop long enough to fix the root cause (water flowing through the water heater).

Failing to clearly identify root causes forces you to spend inordinate amounts of effort on “fixing” the symptoms rather than dealing with the real problem.

When you’re trying your case in the court of public opinion, attempting to preserve your chances for re-election, or hoping for a powerful sound byte for the evening news; the tactics employed by politicians may be useful. Just don’t use them in your personal or professional life. They are almost destined to fail.

In the picture above, the desired goal is somewhere on 9th Street. At the moment, the normal or shortest path down 9th Street is closed. That does not mean that we should change our destination because the original road we wanted to travel was closed. We just take the detour, enjoy the scenery, and move on towards our goal.

Similar situations strike us as we move through life. It could be a college choice – which college to attend and what to study. It could be a career choice – what to do, where to do it, etc. It could be a business direction decision – what product to launch ( or cancel), how to offer a service, or what market to enter ( or leave). These situations hit us over and over again as we go through our lives.

Here’s what I’ve learned at this point in my life: stay focused on the end goal and take the detour.

The detour might take longer to follow than your originally intended path. The detour might make you do some things you had not planned to do and may not enjoy doing.

The detour might also show you some things you would not have otherwise seen. The detour might give you a chance to learn some skills or insights into yourself that you would not have learned on your original path. The detour might actually be a little bit of fun to follow.

I’m not suggesting that you should look for detours. I’m not even saying that I’m always good at accepting detours with a positive attitude. I am saying that re-framing the detour as a learning experience or as an adventure rather than a road block can make it valuable.

Some of my greatest lessons in life have come from detours. So far, I have always found a way to use the lessons I learned on the detour to help me move closer to where I really want to be.

For the past several months, I have been working with my friend and colleague Kevin Eikenberry on a number of projects. As part of my responsibility in working with Kevin, I serve as a coach on the monthly group coaching call for Silver Members of Kevin’s Remarkable Leadership Learning System.

While this post doesn’t specifically address resolving conflict, the ideas in it relate directly to the much broader topics of leadership and leadership development.

Last week, we had our monthly Group Coaching call, and we discussed Enabling Process Improvement. We had a great, lively, informative call. Here are some of the highlights of the call:

Keep it simple

In keeping with Kevin’s description of a “non-denominational” process improvement approach (Plan – Do – Check – Act) during his monthly teleseminar, we discussed the importance of focusing on the basics. Keep it simple, and keep going back to foundational principles so that you can get a “ground-up” approach to process improvement. This approach will make your life as a leader much easier.

Set constraints up front

If you know that certain approaches are “off-the-table” with regard to what is or is not acceptable in the context of your process improvement efforts, tell people up-front. Openly sharing what is not acceptable can help people to focus their efforts on what is.

Ask questions

Question, probe, and investigate early and often. The more you work to surface concerns and frustrations with the current situation, the better you can communicate the need to take action and the better you can define your desired outcomes.

Clearly define the problem

If we define the word problem as a “condition that you want to change,” then we have to agree on the problem statement before we can agree on the solution statement. Working to make the problem definition clear (the current condition that we want to change) will help you reduce resistance to change that might occur as you work to improve the process.

Make it safe to fail

We don’t want people to fail in ways that will destroy the company. We do want people to learn and grow in order to get better. Planning for the future. Taking reasonable steps to avoid failure. And then, allowing small failures to happen without negative consequences can create an environment that enables process improvement.

I’m guilty myself. I see a problem. I assume other people see the problem and that they will define it the same way that I define it. I assume that we all understand what the criteria for a “good” solution will be. And I dive head-first into a conversation where I try to “sell” my solution to the problem as I see it.

Here’s a thought: stop discussing the solution until we agree on the definition of the problem.

In the process, you might ask questions like:

• Do we both agree that there is a problem?
• What is the problem?
• What is the scope of the problem?
• What is causing the problem?
• What would a good solution look like?

Until we reach agreement on these starting questions, we can never agree on the solution to the problem.

How many conflicts could we resolve, reduce, or even eliminate if we all stopped talking about the solution long enough to understand our different ways of defining the problem?

Photo courtesy of www.sxc.hu.

On Halloween, my mother-in-law passed away in our home. She lived with us for nearly eight years. During the final weeks of her life, my wife (Sandra), my two daughters (Lydia and Alexandra), and I provided 24×7 care for her. Early in the month we had a fantastic 85th birthday celebration for her that included family from South Carolina and friends she made while living in Indiana for the last six years. With all of the events of the month, I lost track of time and realized that it was November before I had written the October edition of Positive Principles. Everything is now under control and I’m back in the game. I am thankful for the experience and for the trust Mama placed in us to take care of her. This month’s tip is drawn
from my experiences in the final days of her life.

On the Friday before she passed away, Sandra arranged for us to receive help from a local hospice as it became clear that Mama had lost the will to continue fighting her chronic, terminal lung disease. The hospice responded quickly and immediately sent a nurse who provided medication to make Mama more comfortable, medical advice about what to expect during the dying process and help in providing comfort and care for our patient. Everyone we dealt with from the hospice was a wonderful person with a truly caring attitude. Despite all of the positives, part of the experience was frustrating.

Our hospice nurse was quick to help, quick to offer advice, quick to provide support, and quick to respond to our every call. She was and is a wonderful person. She has a loving heart. She always had the right answer. She always cared. But, she didn’t slow down enough to listen before responding to fix the problem.

Due to another commitment, Sandra had to leave Mama in my care over the weekend. When the hospice nurse arrived on Friday evening, she was quick to assess the situation and to take action to make Mama comfortable. As we spoke, she often answered my questions before I finished them or cut our conversation off to move on to something else. Because I knew her heart was in the right place and I understood that she had other patients to care for, I understood her situation and chose not to let myself get irritated. From a logical standpoint I knew then and I know now that she really cared for both Mama and me during the three days that we worked together. But try as I might, I had a hard time “feeling” like she really cared.

My logical, analytical nature is probably the saving grace in this situation. I can’t really take credit for controlling my response. I just responded the way I naturally do – based on logic. The potential problem for leaders lies in the fact that most of the world does not respond primarily from a logical basis. The DISC model of human behavior shows that only about 35% of the population has a predominant task-oriented drive like I do. The other 65% of the population has more of a people (or feeling) oriented drive.

Let’s go back to the interaction I had with the hospice nurse. The above statistics show that about 65% of the population will tend to respond from feelings over logic – especially in a high stress or highly emotional situation. In my interaction with the nurse, I knew that she cared but I didn’t “feel” that she cared. Because of the emotional nature of the situation, my feelings almost took over my response. If that had happened, I might have said or done something that caused a serious conflict between me and the nurse.

Guy Harris, Mr. Logic himself, struggled to get past his feelings to view an emotional situation from a logical standpoint. So how likely is it that a people-oriented person will get past their feelings and give you the benefit of the doubt when they don’t “feel” like you understand them? I think the chances are slim to none.

As leaders, you will encounter changing business climates, organizational shake-ups, downsizings, disciplinary actions, and a host of other high stress situations where you will need people to choose to follow your lead. Remember that most people will act based primarily on their feelings during those times. Most people will not willingly follow you if they don’t feel that you care. As stated in the first quote for this month, “Listen and silent have the same letters.” Be still, be quiet, and listen to your people. You can connect with their feelings and show that you care by slowing down long enough to listen to them before you act.