I have noticed that people often state their ideas in a factual way when they are actually only opinions or perceptions.

Here are some examples of perceptions stated as facts:

• “It’s cold (or hot) in here.”
• “The iPod (or some other brand) is the best mp3 player on the market.”
• “Ford (Chevy,Honda, etc) is the best car maker.”
• “Avatar (The Hurt Locker, The Blind Side, etc.) is the best movie of the past year.”
• “The best way to solve this problem is to _____________.”
• “The best technology for _____________ is __________________.”

Let’s take a closer look at these statements.

It’s cold (or hot) in here.

It may be a fact that you or I feel cold or hot in a particular environment. It is not a fact that it is hot or cold in that environment. The temperature measurement is a fact, and the existence of our feelings about the environment is a fact. At extremes of temperature, most people would probably agree with an “it’s cold” or an “it’s hot” statement. But what happens in the mid-range where a temperature that feels hot to you feels cold to me (or vice-versa)? If we argue as if our perspectives are factual statements, we can never reach resolution.

I say, “it’s cold” because I feel cold. You say “it’s hot” because you feel hot. We will never reach resolution if we stay locked in that cycle of discussion.

The iPod is the best mp3 player on the market. — Ford is the best car maker. — Avatar is the best movie of the year.

If you and I have agreed on some objective and measurable criteria for making these judgments, these statements may be factual. If we have not agreed on objective and measurable criteria, we are merely stating our opinions.

With regard to mp3 players or cars, I’m looking at range of features. You are focused on cost.  When evaluating a movie, I look at special effects. You look at the story line. When we use different criteria and discuss our conclusions before reconciling our criteria, we will never reach a resolution

The best way to solve this problem is to _____________. — The best technology for _____________ is __________________.

Most problems have multiple “good” solutions. Depending on the application, any given technology might be the “best” solution. In most problems and in most technology application decisions, “best” is simply a judgment based on a number of criteria. If we do not first agree on the criteria, we cannot agree on the definition of “best.”

Sadly, these examples of “fighting words” come from situations I have either been party to or observed in my work over the years.

Arguments of perspective rarely end well. They tend to become highly emotional with no good way to resolve the conflict. You have your opinion. I have mine. We discuss, push, prod, cajole, attempt to persuade, and then move to open argument without resolution in sight.

My point is not to dissuade you from having or stating your opinion. My point is that you should clearly know when you are speaking about your opinion or perspective. In those cases, make it clear by your words that you are stating a perspective.

For example,

• “I’m cold” as opposed to “It’s cold.”
• “I think the iPod has great features.” as opposed to “The iPod is the best mp3 player.”
• “The fastest (cheapest, longest lasting, etc.) solution to this problem is ___________.” as opposed to “The best way to solve this problem is ____________.”

In most of the situations I have seen, clearly distinguishing between facts and perspectives has reduced the frustration level and lead to faster conflict resolution. I have also seen that people who are unwilling or unable to admit that they are arguing a perspective rather than a fact tend to escalate and prolong conflict conversations.

Related posts:

1. Conflict Resolution Mistakes: Stating Opinions As Facts
2. Why You Shouldn’t Take Conflict Resolution Lessons From Politicians
3. Conflict Resolution Tips: Task Oriented People with People Oriented Individuals

I can accept it is a fact that they have an opinion. I just struggle with accepting their opinion as a fact when all they have to support it is their assertion that it is true.

As I said in Why You Shouldn’t Take Conflict Resolution Advice From Politicians, this behavior would hit my top five list for mistakes to avoid in conflict resolution discussions.

Since this blog is about getting over yourself and learning to take a critical look at how your own behaviors might contribute to the communication, conflict, and relationship problems you face in life; I have to come clean. I am guilty of this behavior on occasion, and I hate it when I do it as much as I hate to see others do it. With that confession out in the open, let’s take a look at the problem.

Stating opinions as facts can be a subtle and insidious conflict conversation practice. It can sneak into your communication patterns in little ways. For example, you might state your viewpoint and support it with “I think everyone would agree that…” (At least that’s how it sounds when I say it. A more people-oriented person might say “I feel like everyone would agree that…”)

With that one little statement, we rope everyone into our perspective and we attempt to use the weight of majority rule to make our opinion a fact.

At other times, we might state our opinion and then follow it up with a “That being the case….” With one comment, we build a whole argument on our perspective.

I believe that each of us has a perspective and that each person’s perspective needs to be heard. It’s just dangerous to assign factual status to an opinion statement.

In my experience so far, I have never observed a conflict conversation that turned out well when both parties insisted on arguing their respective perspectives as if their opinions were facts.

If you want to win the argument, go ahead and state your opinion as a fact. If you want to resolve the conflict, carefully consider which of your positions are based in fact and which are based in your opinion or perspective.

It’s okay to have an opinion. I just encourage you to recognize that it is your opinion and not necessarily an objective fact.

Related posts:

1. “It’s cold in here” and Other Fighting Words
2. Why You Shouldn’t Take Conflict Resolution Lessons From Politicians
3. Snow Drifts, Driving Lessons, and Conflict Resolution

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.

Related posts:

1. Conflict Resolution Lessons From A Lifeguard: A Drowning Man Doesn’t Care About You

Try as I might, I could not get my mind to focus on what she was saying. I could only think about what I still had to do to prepare for the next day before going to bed. Sadly, this is not the first time I have struggled to have a fruitful conversation with my wife while I am traveling for business.

After we ended our phone call and I hung-up the phone, I finally realized the cause for this problem. My wife was not the problem. The topic of conversation was not the problem. My desire to engage in the conversation was not the problem.

I really wanted to engage, and I couldn’t because of the way I had defined the task of calling home. (Since I am a pretty task-oriented person, even relationship issues become tasks in my mind.)

Here’s the way my mental task list looked:

• Check my course notes.
• Confirm I have all training resources ready to go.
• Call home.
• Press my clothes.
• Read to relax.
• Go to bed.

Notice that the way I defined the task of calling home did not include listening to my wife and engaging in a conversation. And therein lies the problem. As soon as she answered the phone, my task was complete.  I had called home.

When I mentally checked “call home” off my list, my task-oriented mind immediately shifted to the next task – press my clothes. As a result, I couldn’t force myself to listen despite my desire to do so.

Now I realize that in order to keep myself under control, I have to redefine the task to include listening and engaging in conversation.

If you’re as task-oriented as I am and you want to build strong relationships at work and at home, you might consider looking at how you define your relationship related “tasks.” Make sure that you include the relationship parts of the task in your definition.

If you’re more people-oriented than me, my struggle may not make any sense to you at all. I totally understand. You may, though, have the opposite challenge. You might define task issues by their relationship impact and that definition just might get in your way at times.

Here’s the bottom-line: if you encounter situations that frequently cause you to trip up in your relationships, take a close look at how you’re defining the situation. Your definition might be the source of your problem.

Related posts:

1. Conflict Resolution Tips: Task Oriented People with People Oriented Individuals
2. Conflict Resolution Tips: People Oriented Individuals with Task Oriented People

In this time of Olympic competition, I wonder about these sorts of questions.

Evan Lysacek beats Yevgeny Plushenko by playing the scoring system to its fullest, and he wins. Then Plushenko plays the victim. In my opinion, he lost – end of story.

Maybe Plushenko is more daring. Maybe he is the better physical skater. Maybe the scoring system should reward the quad more highly than it does. Maybe the system should be changed to better reward risk and daring.

These issues are far beyond my knowledge of skating. I don’t know how to address the systemic issues. I do know that Lysacek understood the rules of the game he was playing better than Plushenko. Lysacek applied the rules to his program, and he was the victor.

Now Plushenko plays the victim and cries foul. Well, he’s a poor sport as far as I’m concerned. Plushenko blames, criticizes, and ridicules Lysacek. Is it Lysacek’s fault that Plushenko didn’t know how to play the game? I don’t think so.

It’s not Lysacek’s fault that Plushenko didn’t plan his program to take full advantage of his athletic ability to gain as many points as possible. The fault is Plushenko’s.

What, you might ask, has any of this got to do with the topic of this blog?

The answer: it’s about personal responsibility.

When we blame our circumstances or outside factors for our behaviors, we abdicate responsibility for our actions. We give away the only control we really have – the control over our words and actions.

Earlier today, I read a post by my friend and colleague Kevin Eikenberry titled: Who Is Responsible, Really? In his post, he calls it a rant, he makes an argument for why we need to take personal responsibility for our actions. I could not agree more.

Do outside events affect us and drive our behaviors to a certain extent? Of course they do.

Do other people’s behaviors affect us and our emotions? Of course they do.

Do we often overlook the influence of environmental factors when evaluating the behaviors of others (Fundamental Attribution Error)? Absolutely we do.

None of this takes away from the point of this post: If we want to win, we have to take responsibility for ourselves. If we want to be great communicators, leaders, parents, spouses, friends, family members, and co-workers; we have to take responsibility for ourselves.

Playing the victim, blaming others, and looking for others to fix our situation are futile efforts. As I heard in the Navy, you need to “man up” if you want to win.

Just for comparison, take a look at the definitions of victim and victor:

vic·tim (n.)¹

1. One who is harmed or killed by another: a victim of a mugging.
2. A living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice during a religious rite.
3. One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
4. A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.
5. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.

vic·tor (n.)²

One who defeats an adversary; the winner in a fight, battle, contest, or struggle.

External events can happen outside my control. Other people may treat me in ways that I cannot control. Economic turmoil and business conditions are usually beyond my control. Winning or losing a particular event, situation, or circumstance might be beyond my control.

Thinking like a victor or a victim is in my control. Victors defeat adversaries. Victims have no control. In the battle to become a better parent, leader, spouse, and co-worker; the battle is with myself. The battle is to overcome my own self-limiting thoughts and emotional responses.

There is no Fundamental Attribution Error when I evaluate myself. There is either the honesty to confront my failures and to learn from them or the dishonesty of blaming others when I didn’t control myself.

Plushenko didn’t learn the rules of the game well enough. He did what he wanted to do rather than what would bring him victory. Lysacek played the game based on the rules as they were given to him.

In working with people, we can either try to change human nature, or we can learn to work with it. We can say that people shouldn’t behave the way they do, or we can learn to understand the way they do.

I cannot control how other people behave. I cannot control many circumstances and events. I can control how I respond to them.

In working with people, you can take the Plushenko approach (this is how it should be) or the Lysacek approach (this is how it is). Plushenko lost. Lysacek won.

In the battle to make yourself a better person, you can be either a victim or a victor. You can’t be both. The choice is yours.

Related posts:

1. Decision Making 101 – Check Your Emotions Before You Decide

In summary, his research found that we tend to make poor decisions when we have recently experienced a negative emotion. That makes some intuitive sense related to the short-term impact on our decision making. Surprisingly, he also found that we tend to repeat those bad decisions when we are faced with them again in a later situation that was not preceded by a negative experience or emotion.

Here’s the impact of his findings, if we make a snap or quick decision in the heat of the moment while we are angry, upset, or frustrated, we just might repeat that decision at a later date when we are not under the influence of a negative emotion. So, that one time snap decision can have a lasting impact on our businesses, families, and relationships.

Here’s where I see the practical upshot of Ariely’s findings, always check your emotions before you make a significant decision. Before writing that performance appraisal, evaluating those budget numbers, confronting poor performance, disciplining your child, or speaking with your spouse; check yourself.

Are you still angry from an earlier conversation with someone else? Are you irritated by the traffic on your drive to work? Did you just learn that you need to invest money you don’t have to repair your car?

If so, be careful. You might want to take a few extra minutes to get your emotions in check. Take a walk, read something positive, or just get away from the situation for a moment to carefully consider your emotional state and it’s possible impact on your decision making.

The issue is bigger than the one decision in front of you at the moment. The issue is the potential to sow the seed of a pattern of decision making that could have a long-term negative impact on your relationships and performance.

Related posts:

1. Communicating About Change – Connect With Emotions
2. Victim or Victor – You Decide
3. Better Relationship Tips For Task Oriented People: Redefine Your Task

After the webinar, I was speaking with my friend and colleague Kevin Eikenberry. We discussed the webinar, and, as we spoke, I remembered an event from a training class I lead on this topic one time. During the training class, I made the point that only positive reinforcements encourage people to give high-level, maximum effort.

A class participant challenged me on this point, and our conversation went something like this:

Participant: “Are you saying that I have to keep giving people positive reinforcement for their workplace behaviors?”

Me: “Yes, that’s exactly my point.”

Participant: “Why don’t they just do what they’re supposed to do. I told them they were doing a good job once. I shouldn’t have to keep telling them.”

Me: “Well, you’re probably right about that. Is it ok if I ask you a question?”

Participant: “Sure.”

Me: “Do you have to keep paying people for them to keep coming back to work?”

Participant: “Of course I do.”

Me: “Well, you paid them once. Why do you have to keep paying them?”

Participant: “You’re kidding, right? I have to keep paying them because the money eventually runs out. If I stop paying them, they’ll go somewhere else.”

Me: “It’s exactly the same thing with reinforcements and high-level performance. If you stop giving encouragement, praise, and other positive input to people; eventually the positive runs out.”

Related posts:

1. How To Get People To Do What You Want

Picture a drowning man. He is flailing in the water. He is grasping at everything and everyone within reach. He has little or no visible concern for others. He may, at other times, be a kind, loving, considerate person. While he is in the process of drowning, he thrashes, lunges, and swings his arms and legs wildly.

If you get in the way of a drowning man, you just might get hurt.

He won’t necessarily hurt you because he is unkind, rude, or inconsiderate. He might hurt you in his effort to get air.

And what has all of this got to do with communication, conflict resolution, leadership, and parenting. Well, everything.

Picture a person (adult or child) who really needs to feel some control over their choices and environment. If they don’t get this control, they will fight against the organization, people, or person who they perceive is limiting their ability to control their own environment. In a different situation, they might be a really nice person. Catch them in the moment that they are fighting for their emotional needs and they look just like a drowning man. They are fighting to get their needs met.

Emotional needs are no different from physical needs. They are needs. They are not wishes, wants, or desires. They are needs. When they go unmet, people lash out.

Here’s a challenge, not everyone has the same blend of emotional needs. Some people really need control, challenges, and a feeling of being respected. Other people need fun, excitement and to feel liked. A significant portion of the population, though not all people, need to feel supported, encouraged, and appreciated. Another segment of the population needs to understand the reason behind decisions, what data entered into the decision, and to be valued.

The person who needs respect may not totally understand the idea of appreciating someone. The person who needs to have fun may not understand the importance of verifiable facts. The person who needs support may not see the need to move quickly and to create a feeling of forward momentum. The person who needs to be valued may not understand the need to be liked.

At some other time, I’ll comment on the basis for these observations. For now, I just want to make the point that all of us have certain emotional needs. There are some commonalities between us, and their are some differences. Often, we just don’t “get” why someone else needs something that we don’t need. When we fail to understand, validate, and, to the best of our abilities, meet the needs of other people, we just might put them in the state of the drowning man. When we do that, they really don’t (should I say can’t) care about us.

We can change this dynamic when we throw people a life preserver by working to understand and feed their needs. When we do this, we help them get to a place where they can also hear and understand us. We communicate, resolve conflict, lead, and parent more effectively when we meet needs rather than challenge them.

Related posts:

1. Conflict Resolution Tips: Task Oriented People with People Oriented Individuals
2. Snow Drifts, Driving Lessons, and Conflict Resolution
3. Why You Shouldn’t Take Conflict Resolution Lessons From Politicians

The thought behind much (not all) of what I was asked in my role as seminar leader and expert panelist basically reduced to this:

How do I get people to do what I want them to do.

My short answer: you don’t.

People do what they want to do and not what you want them to do.

There are some things you can do to create situations where people want to do what you want them to do. Still, in the end, they did it because they wanted to not because you wanted them to.

You can do some things to improve your communication skills. You can work on controlling your body language, modifying your tone, and choosing the best words for both the situation and the person you’re speaking with. Short of overt coercion, you cannot make another person do anything. (Even then, you just made not doing it painful enough that they wanted to do it to avoid the pain of not doing it.)

Assuming that you want to have a productve relaitonship with the other person in this question, the real question is not “How do I get them to do what I want them to do?” The better question to ask is: “How do I get myself to do the things that will connect with this person so that they will want to cooperate with me?”

In the process of changing your behaviors, I have another thought to offer. Working to control your words and actions will require you to pay close attention to the other person. When you do this, you just might learn that they have some good ideas as well.

Related posts:

1. Get Over Yourself To Develop Effective Communication Skills
2. Conflict Resolution Tips: Task Oriented People with People Oriented Individuals
3. The Positive Runs Out

I didn’t say anything at the time. Other people were around, and it just didn’t make sense to make an issue of the mis-communication. I was frustrated, but it wasn’t important enough to embarrass the other person by confronting them in front of others.

Later, as I reflected on the event, I started getting really irritated. I played the scenario in my mind again, and I started to ask myself how I could make them stop interrupting me.

Almost immediately, I realized that my thinking was flawed. I was focusing on something that I could not control – the other person’s behavior. I got all wrapped up in how wrong they were and I looked right past an obvious answer. I failed to see that I might be communicating in a way that led them to believe I was finished when I wasn’t. Maybe, just maybe, they didn’t even know that they were interrupting me.

I thought about that perspective for a moment, and I started to ask myself a new question. I started to wonder how I could change my communication approach and get to the point faster so that it was more clear to the other person the difference between commas and periods in my speech.

The person in question is very outgoing. They process fast. They speak fast. They decide fast.

I am more reserved and analytical. I analyze before I speak. I carefully consider my words. I strive to make sure that my answer is “correct.”

I study effective communication skills. I teach and coach others on developing effective communication skills, and I wasn’t really using them. I was so focused on covering all the details of my answer to make it “correct” that I failed to condense it so that it could be heard. I got in my own way.

Eventually, I realized that I had to get over myself and my frustrations if I wanted to communicate effectively with this person.

They are different from me. They will always be different from me. I could label them as rude and inconsiderate, but I know them better than that. They’re not rude. They’re just fast paced.

I get in my own way when I get too analytical. How do you get in your own way? Do you speak too directly? Do you laugh when you should be focused? Do you avoid when you should confront?

We all have our own struggles. The next time you have a communication challenge you might consider this thought:

Get Over Yourself to Develop Effective Communication Skills

Related posts:

1. How To Get People To Do What You Want
2. Conflict Resolution Tips: Task Oriented People with People Oriented Individuals