Life lessons sometimes hit me in a delayed fashion. Reflecting on two experiences in my life – separated by about two years – reminded me of a valuable lesson for leaders of organizations facing change.

Situation Number One:

About two years ago, I was walking through a convention center with my friend, colleague, and co-author, Kevin Eikenberry, and we came upon two people standing at the top of an unmoving escalator. As we approached, we expected them to start walking down it. They didn’t. They just stood there and stared at the unmoving steps.

They didn’t move, and we couldn’t pass them.

As I stood behind them, I grew frustrated with their inaction.

After 10 or 15 seconds that felt like 10 or 15 minutes to me, they looked at each other, shrugged, and began to walk down the “stairs.”

Situation Number Two:

Driving my car into the neighborhood where Kevin lives, I came upon road construction vehicles that slowed me down and partially blocked my view of the frontage property. Pulling to the left side of the road and slowly passing the paving equipment parked on the right, I had a fleeting thought that I had entered the wrong neighborhood. Despite having entered this neighborhood many times over the last few years, it suddenly looked wrong, and I briefly questioned whether I was in the right place or not. In that moment, I quickly considered turning around at the first opportunity.

Both situations reveal a common problem leaders face in times of change. When confronted with uncertainty or unfamiliarity – when a situation or surrounding looks different from what they expect to see – people freeze. They lock-up, stop moving, and impede progress.

Many leaders see this initial response, and grow frustrated with their team like I grew frustrated by the initially unmoving people at the top of the escalator.

The key point, though, is that the people in the escalator example eventually moved without prodding or prompting from me. Once they evaluated and understood the situation, they moved.

Wise leaders recognize, understand, and anticipate this response. Rather than push changes quickly and get angry with people, they make allowances for this normal human reaction. They do everything in their power to reduce uncertainty by communicating more often, more thoroughly, and more personally. They also give people as much time as possible to understand the change before resorting to “do it or else” strategies.

A little over a week ago, my wife and I drove our daughter from Indiana to Texas to begin her freshman year of college. On the return trip, we drove through Oklahoma. As is common this time of year, we encountered road construction marked with a sign similar to the one above, and I felt frustrated as I thought about the coming  delay.

We then saw another sign with additional information. The sign with additional information gave us an estimate of both the actual speed and the estimated time in minutes that we could expect to drive through the construction zone, and I felt relieved.

The actual speed was much slower than the posted speed. The estimated time we would drive in the construction zone was longer than I wanted to experience. The delay was the same, and, still, I felt relieved.

At that moment I gained a powerful insight into heading off conflicts before they start.

As I wrote previously about why your natural response to conflict is probably wrong and how conflicts escalate, we often feel angry or frustrated as conflicts get started — just as I felt frustrated when I first saw the construction signs.

In my driving situation, the frustration dissipated when I got further information. The speed I could drive and the time I would likely spend in the construction zone did not change. The delay I would  face did not change. Nothing about my experience would change.

The change in my frustration level came from knowledge about what to expect.  And that is the insight I had about heading off conflict.

When you communicate clearly about what people can expect in the future — even when they do not like what they will experience  — you will probably reduce the frustration and anger levels they feel as a result of the experience. By reducing their frustration and anger levels, you can reduce the emotional energy that they bring to their interactions with you about the issue in question. When you reduce the emotional energy, you reduce the risk that the communication will escalate to a destructive conflict.

Sometimes, life gets messy — as shown by the picture of the living area in my home this morning.

When I first walked through this area on my way to get a cup of coffee and some breakfast, I felt a bit stressed.

My family was still asleep, and I had a full day of work planned in my home office. The mess felt a bit overwhelming and out of control.

If you look carefully by the rocking chair near the middle of the picture, you will see an insulated coffee cup. That cup represents the time I spent reading, reflecting, and planning before starting my day.

My morning reading included Today We Are Rich by Tim Sanders, and my reflection included writing in my Gratefulness Journal (an idea I got from the book).

As I wrote a list of things for which I am grateful, I looked around the mess in my home, and I saw evidence of:

• One daughter’s recent high school graduation and the celebration that followed
• Another daughter’s four day HOBY leadership seminar experience
• Two daughters who love listening to and playing music
• My dad’s hastily celebrated birthday while my parents visited our home for graduation ceremonies
• A community service project that my wife helped to organize
• A wife who worked hard to keep up with laundry during the last three action-packed weeks
• The opportunity that my wife and I had to work at the HOBY leadership seminar
• People who came home at the end of long days of serving and working with others too tired to put away the mess
• Business projects and opportunities that I have worked on while my wife kept everything else moving forward

As I re-framed my view of the mess in terms of the lives, relationships, and experiences that it represented, it transformed from stressful to soothing.

The lesson in this for leaders is to, at least for a short time, embrace messiness because of what the mess represents.

Your mess might by physical, like the one in my home this morning, or more intangible, like a long to-do list or a hectic project schedule. In either case, learn to embrace the temporary disarray, disorganization, and messiness because of the growth and progress it represents.

You can’t live with the mess forever — eventually you’ll have to clean it up. In the meantime though, find a way to frame it positively so that you can find the energy and enthusiasm to lead positively.

Now, I think I’ll go take another look at the mess and the memories it represents before my wife and kids get it cleaned-up.

In conflict situations, many of us struggle to maintain a fair and objective perspective about the other person.

We assign all kinds of bad motives and intentions to their behaviors before we slow down long enough to really understand their perspective.

This weekend I found a quote that offers a way to avoid this problem.

Never ascribe to an opponent motives meaner than your own.

– J.M. (James Matthew) Barrie (1860–1937), British playwright. Rectorial address, May 3, 1922, St Andrew’s University, Scotland. Quoted in Times (London, May 4, 1922).

I don’t have much to add to this quote. I offer it today as food for thought the next time you find yourself in a conflict.

As I reflected on what he had to say and I considered some of the questions I receive in workshops, seminars, teleseminars, and coaching calls, I realized that part of what I hope to accomplish with my work is to help people get free of thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors that trap them in bad situations — bad work relationships, bad personal relationships, bad partnerships, etc.

So, I’m starting a series of articles targeted at specific things you can do to take charge of your life. I haven’t mapped out a detailed plan at this point. The series might be 6 articles or 16. I don’t know right now. I’m just going to write them and keep adding to the series until it is finished.

The general principles that come to mind as I start are:

• Control what you can
• Influence who you can
• Forget about the things and people you can neither control nor influence
• Stay focused on what you can do rather than what you can’t do
• Take responsibility for your situation.

I might think of some others as the series progresses. I would certainly be open to input on what to include on this list. Please let me know if you see a core, guiding principle for taking charge of your life that I missed.

The general principles are sort of like the airplane control panel in the picture above. They give you a way of looking at and evaluating your life to see what you either need or want to change. I’ll be exploring each of them individually and some related ideas in future articles. I hope you’ll stop by again and check the series out as it unfolds.

A few weeks ago, I read an interesting article titled On the Job, Nice Guys May Finish Last. The title immediately caught my attention, and I had to take a look.

In reading the article, I saw an immediate connection to my work and for other people interested in using the DISC model in their professional and personal lives.

The point made in this article is particularly significant for people with supportive tendencies (people who are people-oriented and reserved).

People with strong supportive traits are great at building relationships, easing tensions, helping others, and holding a team together. And, as Dr. Christine Riordan says in the article I mentioned above:

People with this natural personality trait may be less likely to face confrontation or other difficulties at work.

I’m not suggesting that having the supportive trait is a problem (it happens to be a strong secondary trait for me). I am suggesting that people with this trait commit themselves to learning the skills of assertive communication.

People with supportive traits often use passive communication strategies in an effort to ease tensions and reduce conflicts. While these strategies are sometimes useful and necessary, I recommend learning to use them intentionally when appropriate rather than as a default because they are more comfortable.

Consistently passive communication and conflict avoidance can create situations where conflicts go unresolved and continue to simmer under the surface until they explode and destroy a team or family. In addition, passive communication can make people, like the lamb pictured above, susceptible to “predators” in the workplace. Both scenarios can have  major negative impacts on your career.

Learning to apply assertive communication techniques can improve the odds of successfully confronting and resolving conflict situations at work by stopping the spread of destructive conflict and confrontation.

As I read about, study, and work to apply effective conflict resolution techniques, I see one common and overwhelming problem develop in workplaces, families, and social organizations. I see the same problem develop just about everywhere I see people interact.

What is this huge problem?

People make assumptions about other people’s intentions.

Sadly, they often make wrong assumptions about the other person’s intentions.

This behavior is so common and so prevalent, I have written about it on at least two other occasions.

In one post, I told the story of how I started down the path of wrong assumptions in an interaction with my daughter.

In another post, I shared an observation I made about an interchange where one person based their entire interaction with another person on their assumptions about the other person’s intentions without ever asking for clarification.

Recently, I had the opportunity to observe another interchange between two people who got seriously engaged in a heated conversation because one of the parties took offense to what he believed to be the other person’s intentions. For the purposes of this post, let’s say their names are John and Joe.

In a small meeting setting, Joe raised a question about something John had proposed in a previous meeting. I heard Joe question the proposed approach to solving a problem. Apparently, John heard Joe question the necessity of solving the problem.

John’s body went almost immediately rigid as he turned to face and lean toward Joe. His voice tone grew sharp, and his volume went up. In all fairness to John, I don’t really know what he was thinking. I did perceive his tone and body language to become aggressive.

The conversation got progressively more heated as Joe and John spoke.

As they continued, John made direct, negative comments about his view of Joe’s intentions. He used words like:

• “You just said that because you want to…”
• “You didn’t have the courage to speak earlier about…”
• “I knew you would do this to me…”

In rapid succession, John manged to:

• Negatively label Joe’s intentions,
• Attack Joe’s character, and
• Express his view that Joe was doing something “to” him.

It only got worse from there, and it all began with John’s assumption about Joe’s intention.

John immediately assumed that Joe had a negative intention. His response followed the classic conflict escalation cycle almost perfectly. From this negative interpretation, he went to anger (my interpretation of his emotional state), and both parties found themselves locked in a negative conversational spiral.

Had John been willing to question his assumptions about Joe’s intention and then to engage in conversation and dialogue rather than in attack and recrimination, the situation would likely have gone in a totally different direction.

The next time you find your assumptions about another person’s intention leaning towards the negative, stop yourself for just a moment and question your assumptions.

• Did they mean that as an attack or simply as a statement of their opinion?
• Are they attacking my character or are they just trying to understand my approach?
• Did they mean what I think they mean?

I’m sure you get the point. Take just a moment to slow down and question your assumptions before you dive into the conversation.

… And What You Can Do About It

Have you ever told yourself that you wouldn’t do something? Maybe you said you wouldn’t eat too much at a party. Maybe you told yourself that you wouldn’t speak too soon at a meeting. Or maybe you just told yourself that you wouldn’t break the speed limit on the way home from work.

Whatever it was, you told yourself that you wouldn’t do something that you either normally do, wanted to do, or habitually do, and you eventually “gave-in” to the temptation.

Well, there’s a good reason for this behavior, and Dan Heath gives more details about it in this article over at Fast Company. I suggest that you check out the article for more details. For now, here’s the short version: self-control eventually runs out. In other words, you can only resist so long before you “run out” of self-control.

Your limit might be different from mine, and we all have a limit.

So, what does this observation have to do with this blog?

Since one of the recurring themes here is “get over yourself,” the concept of depleting self-control is vitally important to understand.

Whether you are trying to change your behavior, your team member’s behavior, or your child’s behavior, remember that everyone has a self-control limit, and when you exceed the limit you invite failure.

You invite failure to comply with rules, failure to cooperate, and failure to do things in new and different ways.

This is an observable and repeatable psychological phenomenon. Like so many of the things I write and speak on, I don’t suggest hiding behind the behavior. Rather, I suggest understanding the behavior and then making plans that recognized the reality of life instead of wishing that things were different.

So, what do we do with this observation?

Here are three suggestions to get you started with applying  this principle in your efforts to change your behaviors or to influence another person’s behaviors:

1. Get away from tempting situations as quickly as possible.
   Since we know that self-control will eventually run out, if at all possible, remove the temptation to do things the old way or to partake in some forbidden behavior.
2. Give people (or yourself) a break.
   If you ask someone to change their behavior in a particular situation, make some time for them to get away from it for awhile so that they can replenish their “supply” of self-control.
3. Make big changes in small steps.
   Smaller steps do many things to make change easier to accept. One benefit of smaller steps is the reduction of effort required to remember the new way of doing things. If the effort to remember the new way is small, the time to “self-control” exhaustion is longer. This longer temptation resistance time increases the odds that the new way of doing things becomes easy to remember before our self control runs out.

Photo by NomadicLass.

Guy Answers the Question: Can I Have One
Style at Work & Another Style at Home?

One question that frequently comes up in my discussions of the DISC Model of Human Behavior is:

Can I have one DISC style at work and another DISC style at home?

- or-

I feel like I am one way at home and another way at work. Is that possible and is it normal?

The simple answer to the question is: “Yes. Differences between your home behaviors and workplace behaviors are not only possible, they are highly probable.”

The longer answer is a bit more involved, but not terribly complex.

When I hear this question or some variation of it, at least two things immediately come to my mind:

• Different environments call for different behaviors. So, you tend to adjust your behaviors to your environment.
• Let’s not confuse how we “behave” with who we “are.”

I’ll take these two thoughts one at a time.

First, let’s recall that very few people exhibit only one DISC style because most of us actually exhibit a blend of the four DISC styles in our everyday behaviors. Since we generally use at least two of the four DISC behavior styles, we can usually “shift” or “float” between our two (or three) primary styles depending on the situation.

Since the workplace environment is often quite different from our home environment (and we usually have different roles in the two environments), we adjust our behaviors to what is appropriate for both the environment and our role in it.

This is completely normal (and probably a good thing!).

The second point is, in some respects, even more important. Our behaviors are our behaviors. They are not who we “are” they are what we “do.”

Our thoughts and emotions reflect who we “are.”

In a full DISC profile assessment, you receive two different DISC behavioral style graphs. One reflects your basic or “natural” DISC style – who you “are.”  The other reflects your environmental or “adapted” DISC style – what you “do.”

These two graphs are often similarly shaped. Sometimes they are not. Regardless, they represent two different aspects of your behavioral style. What is happening in your head and emotions and what is showing up in your behavior. While your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are generally connected, they are not necessarily exactly the same (at least as far as other people can see).

For example, have you ever meant to say or do one thing and then said or done something totally different? I have. This doesn’t happen frequently. It does happen.

In the interest of brevity, I won’t go into all of the details of the distinction between who we “are” and what we “do” in this post. Maybe I’ll dig into that topic some other day. For now, I’ll leave it at this: it is normal, expected, and highly likely that you will exhibit different behaviors in different environments.

This difference does not necessarily imply that you become a different person in those environments. More likely, it’s just a reflection of what you need to do to succeed in the different environments.

Using the handout from this month’s Remarkable Leadership teleseminar as a discussion guide, we talked about some really powerful concepts related to communicating change.

This is one of the many ideas we discussed:

Change can be driven by facts, but people are driven by emotions.

As we discussed this observation, we spoke about the importance of connecting with the emotional response that people often have to change rather than ignoring or minimizing it. We also covered some practical tips for connecting with emotions more effectively.

You may have many opportunities to discuss change and the impact of change with your team this year. When you do, remember to acknowledge, address, and understand the emotional component of change in your comunications.

Photo based on work by Rennet Stowe.