Earlier this week, I was in Chicago leading a Bud to Boss Workshop. During the workshop, I told a story I often tell about a situation in my life where, as a leader of a team, I was confronted with large scale changes that impacted me in ways that I could not change or control.

Without going into all the details here, the main point of the story came from a decision I made and I encouraged the other members of my team to make. The decision was to do a “cost-benefit analysis” of our new situation.

Did it offer us more positive or more negative?

If it was more positive, we needed to go forward without complaining about the negative because we had chosen to accept it into our lives for the moment.

If it was more negative, we needed to develop a plan to leave the situation. And, having made the decision to leave, we needed to quit complaining because we were taking action to fix our frustration.

In my case, I chose to stay. I decided to fix what I could. Attempt to exert positive influence on those things that I couldn’t directly change. And to forget about the rest.

Another person asked for my help in finding another job. I did that, and he was happy.

After telling the story, one of the workshop participants shared a variation of the thought that she had read elsewhere. If I knew the original source, I would give credit. Since I don’t, I will simply acknowledge that this terminology didn’t come from me even though I really like the simplicity of it.

Here’s the thought.

When confronted with a frustrating situation (job change, buy-out, merger, etc.), do your “cost-benefit analysis” and choose one of these options:

Take It

Accept the change with all of its good and bad components, and realize that it is your choice to stay.

Leave It

If the negative outweighs the positive for you, get out. Life is too short to stay (for very long) in a situation you hate.

Change It

Take action to fix the things that you can fix or change. Do everything in your power to make the situation better while recognizing the difference between those things that you can control, the people that you can influence, and everything else that you can neither control nor influence.

After you make your choice, quit complaining about it.

My experience with this approach has taught me this: I still might not like parts of the environment, but the choice to take responsibility for being there rather than blaming others for my situation greatly reduces the daily stress and frustration I might feel from being in the environment.

Related posts:

1. Task-Oriented vs People-Oriented: A Common Source of Conflict

Yesterday, my daughter, Alexandra, showed one of our cats, Merlin, in our county 4-H fair.

Generally, Merlin is the cat you see in the picture above. He lounges on our deck. He sleeps on the steps. He stays with us in the yard. He insists that we pet him when we are in the garage. He is a really friendly cat.

At the fair, he was in a cage in a hot building surrounded by other cats, people he did not know, and smells he did not recognize. And, he had to wear a harness.

During the judging, a person he had never met before held him and inspected him in front of about 30 onlookers.

He hissed at the judge.

When I took him from the cage to put him in the carrier for the trip back home, he hissed and growled at me.

When I got him into the garage and opened the carrier, he growled at me and ran away.

After I got him back to the garage, he growled and hissed at me as I removed his harness.

As he was lying on the steps from the garage to the kitchen, I petted him, and he growled and hissed at me.

Merlin was not a happy kitty.

In case you haven’t been around cats very much, they can have what is called redirected aggression. Basically, this means that when they cannot directly address something that is irritating them, they just might express their aggression in a different direction against another animal or a person who had nothing to do with their initial frustration.

And, people often respond the same way. They feel stress, frustration, or irritation in one area of their life or in one relationship, and they vent it in a different area of their life or in a different relationship. I’m not saying this is a good thing. I’m just observing that it happens.

In Merlin’s case, I didn’t take him to the fair, and I wasn’t there during the judging. I didn’t do any of the things that stressed him. I just took him home.

Can you believe the nerve? He was mad at me — his rescuer!

When he growled and hissed at me, I didn’t get angry with him. I could see that he was hot, scared, and stressed. He was losing large quantities of hair (that’s a sign of stress in cats). I could tell that he was not angry with me directly. He was simply displaying redirected aggression.

So, I was nice to him. The cat that was growling at me got kind words and petting in return.

It worked like a charm. Within a few minutes of getting home, hearing kind words, and getting his head scratched, he was back to his normal, loving self.

I recognize that people are far more complex than cats. And, can’t we learn a lesson from Merlin?

When people are stressed, tired, frustrated, irritated, scared, or hungry; they just might display some redirected aggression. As long as no one is getting physically hurt, why not try to understand rather than criticize or confront?

Calming words and an understanding attitude just might be what it takes to help them, like Merlin, return to normal.

Related posts:

1. Resolving Conflict Lesson: Watch Your Step
2. Conflict Resolution Techniques: Question Your Assumptions
3. Conflict Resolution Tips: Task Oriented People with People Oriented Individuals

I was helping my wife clean our living room, and I was, as I often am, thinking about what I could write here. I was not thinking about my wife, my kids, or my professional colleagues.

I was just thinking. (Remember, I am a recovering engineer. I am almost always “thinking.”)

I started thinking about how we often misinterpret other people’s meaning, and this little rhyme popped (almost) fully formed into my mind.

So, I share it here with you today:

I’ll never know your real intent,
Until I ask you what you meant.
And, if you choose, in your reply,
To then, tell me the reason why.

Related posts:

1. Effective Communication Skills: You Don’t Know Until You Ask
2. Resolving Conflict Lesson: Watch Your Step
3. Effective Communication: Begin With The End In Mind

One of the most common questions about using the DISC model is this: “How do I know another person’s personality style?”

Well, the short answer is: you can’t know another person’s style without assessment results.

You can, however, make an educated guess about their primary style (or at least how they are interacting in the current situation) by observing their words and behaviors and answering two simple questions (phrased in the language of the DISC model):

1. Are they more outgoing or more reserved? and
2. Are they more task-oriented or more people oriented?

Or, stated another way:

1. Do they speak more quickly, loudly and emphatically or more slowly, softly and monotone?, and
2. Do they speak in more factual, “thinking” language or in a more relational, “feeling” language?

Answer those two questions and you’ve got your starting point for connecting better with them.

If they are:

• Outgoing and Task oriented, use Dominant language.
• Outgoing and People-oriented, use Inspiring language.
• Reserved and People-oriented, use Supportive language.
• Reserved and Task-oriented, use Cautious language.

Related posts:

1. Communication Tips: Connecting With Reserved, People-Oriented People
2. Get Over Yourself To Develop Effective Communication Skills
3. Communication Tips: Connecting With Outgoing, People-Oriented People

In one way or another, I have commented on this common difference between people in this blog and in other articles. It seems that I have, in many cases, made the point in an indirect way. Today, I thought I would make a more explicit observation about one of the common differences between task-oriented people and people-oriented people (from the DISC model):

• Task-oriented people generally “think” about things (including relationships).
• People-oriented people generally “feel” about things (including tasks).

In a previous post, I shared the story about calling home while I was traveling. That story illustrated my task nature and how I made a relational effort (calling home) into a task. That story also illustrated how the way that I defined the task led me to ignore the relational aspect of calling home. I called home and I was done. No conversation. No real listening. I checked out when my task (calling home) was checked off my list.

A similar mental barrier can creep into the approach that people-oriented people take with regard to tasks.

For example, I once worked with an extremely people-oriented person on evaluating a potential business investment. As we talked through his options, we came to a logical conclusion about what he should do next. After we came to our conclusion, he paused and said that he had some reservations about being able to invest the money needed to move forward.

I said: “How much money do you have?”

He said: “I don’t know for sure. I just don’t feel like I have enough.”

I wanted to say (but, thankfully, I didn’t): “How much money you feel like you have was not the question. I asked, how much do you have?”

At that moment, we could have had a major communication breakdown. He felt rather than thought about a factual, data-driven issue.

My colleague in this story is a very intelligent person. We did not get into a conflict over this situation because we were both able to adjust our communication styles (word choice, tone, etc) to better connect with each other.

What if, instead of holding back my initial thought, I had said what was in my mind: “…how much do you have?” (With the accompanying sarcastic tone.)

How would our relationship have progressed from that point?

I think it would not have gone well.

The misinterpretation of intent that often comes from this simple difference in perspective and approach can create some pretty intense conflicts.

Task-oriented people can think that people-oriented people are not rational.

People-oriented people can feel that task-oriented people don’t care.

And both assumptions are often wrong.

Related posts:

1. Conflict Resolution Tips: Task Oriented People with People Oriented Individuals
2. Conflict Resolution Tips: People Oriented Individuals with Task Oriented People
3. Better Relationship Tips For Task Oriented People: Redefine Your Task

What’s Not Happening Today

In the last two weeks, I have written so much that I don’t really have the energy, clarity of thought, or focus to come up with something that seems to me like writing about. So, I thought that rather than share my somewhat clouded thoughts, I would pass along some of what I found today as I looked through my RSS feeds.

Here are some posts worth reading:

• And the Wall Came Tumbling Down by Kevin Eikenberry
• Wonder What’s Really On Their Mind by Kare Anderson
• Organizational Conflict: Benign Intentions Don’t Cancel Bad Impact by Tammy Lenski
• What’s Logic Got to Do With It? by Lisa Haneberg
• The Sound of Silence: The Power of Listening Between the Lines by Diane Levin
• Managing the Toxic High Performer by Dan McCarthy
• We’re All Recovering Somethings by Amber Naslund
• Kindness, Present and Past by Angie Thompson

No related posts.

Wayne Turmel

Yesterday, I had a lively conversation with Wayne Turmel of Great Web Meetings for his Cranky Middle Manager podcast show. We spoke about a number of issues related to the transition to leadership people make when they take their first supervisory role. (This is the topic of the Bud to Boss  workshop that Kevin Eikenberry and I developed).

During our conversation, we covered a number of important issues:

• How to deal with the role and relationship changes you face as a new supervisor.
• How to think about the relationship changes you face in the transition.
• The big issues facing new supervisors.

We had a great time together, and I hope you enjoy listening.

To hear the full interview, check out From Bud to Boss at The Cranky Middle Manager.

We have a calendar of upcoming workshop dates for the Bud to Boss Workshops here.

On another note, Kevin and I just finished the manuscript for the book we co-authored on this topic.  We expect publication early next year. Check back later for updates on our progress towards publication and release.

Related posts:

1. Better Relationship Tips For Task Oriented People: Redefine Your Task

In many cases, the path from conflict to resolution is like traveling down a dirt road in the country.

It’s a little rough. Dirt might get in your eyes so that you don’t see clearly what lies ahead. You have to go more slowly than you do in other situations. Once you are on the road, you have to keep going. It is too narrow to turn around and go back the other way.

At some point, you come to a fork in the road and you have to make a choice.

In the first few moments of a conflict situation, many of us (close to all of us) are prone to say and/or do things that make the conflict worse. When we perceive a threat, we go into “fight or flight” response and adrenaline takes over our brains. We do not act as calmly and rationally as we do at other times. This response often leads to an “I don’t know why I said that” experience.

When you have an “I don’t know why I said that” moment, you are on the dirt road.

You are on the dirt road before you even know what happened. You were in a conversation with someone, and, suddenly, the conversation turned and it got a little rough. You’re not really sure what’s going on.

Eventually, you regain your bearings. You start to realize that you’re now on a dirt road (under the influence of adrenaline). The adrenaline rush makes it hard to see and think clearly, but you are now aware of where you are.

Then, you come to a “fork in the road.” You reach a point in the conversation where you have to make a choice to stay on the road or to take the right fork that leads you back to the main highway of resolution and positive interaction.

The moment of choice might not happen immediately. It might, in some cases, take a day or so to calm down enough to realize that you can choose a different path in this relationship.

Even if it takes awhile, the adrenaline will wear off. When it does, you cannot continue to claim: “I don’t know why I said that.” You are no longer in the automatic and reactive mode.

After the heat of the moment passes, you can exercise your power of choice to act in better and more constructive ways. You can:

• apologize
• forgive
• explore alternative solutions
• listen
• engage in conversation, etc.

Human nature can make us prone to rationalize and justify our bad behaviors by blaming others and claiming that we had no other choice. The truth is that we almost always have a better and more positive option we can choose.

Remember to exercise your power of choice in conflict resolution.

Related posts:

1. Conflict Resolution Techniques: Question Your Assumptions
2. Snow Drifts, Driving Lessons, and Conflict Resolution
3. The 7 Deadly Sins of Conflict Resolution

Get ready, this is a bit of a rant.

Nothing happened to set me off. There was no “precipitating event” this morning.  This is just a frustration of mine that has been building for some time. Ready? Here goes…

Why do we blame other people when we don’t do everything we can do to fix or change a bad situation?

Parents blame teachers and teachers blame parents for poor test scores. Managers blame employees and employees blame managers for poor business results. Parents blame teenagers and teenagers blame parents for misunderstandings.

I completely support the idea of holding people accountable for their words, actions, and responsibilities. I believe that people are responsible for both their actions and their failures to act.

I also believe that you cannot hold someone else accountable if you have not, first, done everything in your power to fix the situation.

Doing my part has nothing to do with you doing your part. It’s my responsibility to do everything in my power to make things better whether you choose to cooperate with me or not.

The moment that I make my contribution to making things better contingent on you doing your part, I abdicate my responsibility.

Yes, I understand that people get frustrated and give up when other people don’t eventually cooperate. I get that.

I’m not suggesting that we should keep pursuing relationships that have no hope of reciprocal effort or that we continue to work in environments that are toxic or dangerous (either emotionally or physically) beyond our ability to change them.

I am suggesting that we make sure we have done whatever we can do before we even begin to think about pointing our fingers at other people.

Here’s my personal responsibility pledge:

From this day forward, I pledge to always give my best and fullest effort to a business, organization, cause or relationship that I am involved in before I start blaming other people for its failure.

Will you join me today in taking the personal responsibility pledge?

Related posts:

1. Victim or Victor – You Decide

Last week, an important leadership lesson played out on the world stage between General Stanley McChrystal and President Barack Obama. The wikipedia article about General McChrystal says:

Following insubordinate remarks about Vice President Joe Biden and other administration officials attributed to McChrystal and his aides in a Rolling Stone article, McChrystal was recalled to Washington, D.C. where President Barack Obama accepted his resignation

I have not seen the article containing the reportedly insubordinate comments, and I am not attempting to make any political statement concerning General McChrystal or President Obama. I am simply observing the outcome of a leadership act: a high level leader who reports to a higher level leader within an organization took his discontent public and he had to leave the organization as a result.

On one side, some commentators have criticized General McChrystal for harming the Army’s mission in Afghanistan. On the other extreme, I heard speculation that General McChrystal may have made a public statement as a way to make his concerns known and to drive policy changes to protect his soldiers with full knowledge that it would lead to his removal from command.

Frankly, I don’t know General McChrystal’s motivations, and I’m not going to speculate about them.

I do know what happened, and I believe it demonstrates a valuable leadership lesson:

Disagree in private and agree in public.

Here’s what I mean by that statement. As a leader with the responsibility to carry out policy decisions made by others, do your arguing, debating, and persuading in private. When you are in public, show your support and commitment to the organization’s vision and mission.

If you see a moral or ethical dilemma, get out of the organization. If you cannot find a way to support the organizational direction, get out of the organization.

You simply should not stay in an organization, especially as a leader, if you do not support the organization’s goals.

As my friend and colleague Kevin Eikenberry says, “Vegetarians probably shouldn’t be servers in a steak house.”

You might survive for a while by hiding or suppressing your dissatisfaction and discontent, but it probably won’t last for long. You will likely say or do something eventually to hurt your leadership effectiveness.

Learn from the lesson demonstrated in the case of General McChrystal, get onboard with the organization’s mission or get out of the organization.

No related posts.