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.

Related posts:

1. Communication Tips: Connecting With Reserved, People-Oriented People
2. DISC Model FAQ’s: Could I Have More Than One DISC Behavior Style?
3. DISC Model FAQ’s: Is Changing Your Behavior Phoney?

A Question to Ask of Yourself:
How do I better control myself?

I often hear people ask questions about the DISC model that indicate a desire to use the model to somehow change others.

Rather than using the model to label, categorize, or stereotype people, I suggest a different approach: use the DISC model to find ways to connect with other people in better, more effective ways.

Towards that end, one question that I suggest you ask yourself is this:

How can I use the DISC model to better understand other people and change my behaviors so that I communicate more clearly?

My message is pretty simple: get over yourself.

Learn to adjust and modify your words and actions so that they are heard and understood more quickly and more clearly by other people.

This is what I strive to do every day. I’m not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. The more I work at it though, the better I get. And you can do it, too.

Do this, and you will significantly improve your effectiveness as a leader, team member, or parent.

Related posts:

1. DISC Model FAQ’s: Is Changing Your Behavior Phoney?
2. DISC Model FAQ’s: Could I Have More Than One DISC Behavior Style?
3. DISC FAQ’s: Can I Change My Personality Style On Purpose?

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.

Related posts:

1. Why Your Natural Response to Conflict is Probably Wrong & What You Can Do About It
2. Exercise Your Power of Choice in Conflict Resolution
3. Conflict Resolution Insights: Why Conflicts Escalate

… 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.

Related posts:

1. Being Too Nice Can Hurt You
2. A DISC Model Question You Should Ask of Yourself
3. DISC Model FAQ’s: Is Changing Your Behavior Phoney?

Guy Answers the Question:
Can I Change My Personality Style on Purpose?

People often tell me that they believe that they have changed their personality style, and then they ask me if I think this is possible.

My general answer is this: It might be possible. I don’t think it is probable.

In short, I don’t think that your core, inner, basic personality style changes unless you experience some type of major psychological or brain trauma.

I do think that you can learn to behave differently in different situations. I think that you can learn to adapt, mold, and shape your behavioral style to increase your effectiveness in a broad range of situations.

However, changing your words and actions does not change your personality style.

Further, why would you want to change your personality style? Assuming that you fall in the range of normal human psychology, your personality style is just another expression of “normal.”

Wanting to change your personality style implies that there is something wrong with your natural one.

In the vast majority of people, there is nothing wrong with their personality style. So, why try to change it?

As we consider the question raised in the title of this post, we have to carefully distinguish between who we are and what we do.

Personality style relates to our perceptions, interpretations, priorities, and reactions to the world around us. Behavior style is often related to our personality style, and it is influenced by many other things. Personality style is part of who we are. Behavior style is merely what we do. They are definitely related. They are not exactly the same thing.

So, can you change your behaviors in response to the world around you? Absolutely you can!

Can you change your personality style? Not real likely.

Related posts:

1. DISC Model FAQ’s: Can Your Personality Style Change Over Time
2. DISC Model FAQ’s: Is Changing Your Behavior Phoney?
3. A DISC Model Question You Should Ask of Yourself

Guy Answers the Question:
Is Changing Your Behavior Phoney?

As I teach, train, and coach using the DISC model, people hear me say that I encourage them to change their behaviors to fit the situation and to better connect with other people.

Sometimes, people ask me if consciously changing behavior is phoney or fake. This concern raises another common question about the DISC model, and how I recommend people use it to connect and communicate more effectively.

In answering this question, I often refer to a Thomas Jefferson quote:

In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

As I see it, choosing a behavior, word, or tone that will improve your communication effectiveness is not a moral or ethical issue. It is just a matter of style.

We often change our behaviors for different environments. For example, most people recognize that appropriate behavior during a wedding ceremony is likely to be different from appropriate behavior at the celebration party after the ceremony. Different environments call for different behaviors.

As long as your intent is not to defraud, manipulate, or somehow deceive the other person, behaving in a way that might be uncomfortable or unnatural for you in the interest of connecting with them is not fake or phoney. Rather, I see it as working to create a better environment for the other person.

Related posts:

1. A DISC Model Question You Should Ask of Yourself
2. DISC Model FAQ’s: Could I Have More Than One DISC Behavior Style?
3. DISC FAQ’s: Can I Change My Personality Style On Purpose?

I don’t know about you, but I often get frustrated in conversations when the other person simply will not slow down long enough to hear what I have to say.

On a number of occasions lately, I have had the opportunity to work through these types of conversations with other people. We both wanted to be heard, and both of us were talking.

In reflecting on the situations, I recall some things I learned as a practicing engineer. I remembered concepts from the physical world that paint a clear picture by way of analogy for how we can better connect and communicate with others.

Imagine that you have a sealed container of some kind. It could be a pressure cooker on the stove or a carbonated beverage bottle on a warm day. They both demonstrate my point.

The sealed container has pressure in it greater than the pressure exerted on it by the environment. As a result, venting the container causes the liquid inside to vent out of the container.

If you want to put something new into the container, you can either let what’s inside it vent to reduce the pressure before pouring in the new contents or you can push the new contents in at a high pressure.

The first approach takes a little patience, but it doesn’t take much energy.

The second approach can seem faster in the moment, but it takes lots of energy and it creates the risk of rupturing the container.

I think that people are sort of like the containers in my example above.

When they have pent up emotional pressure inside (anger, frustration, pain, etc.), they have to vent what’s inside of them before they can receive any new information. They have to be heard and understood before they are ready to hear and understand.

Keeping this thought in mind, here’s a communication tip for you. The next time you are confronted by a really agitated person, give them a chance to vent before you attempt to deliver your message. Once they relieve the pressure inside of themselves, they just might be willing to listen to what you have to say.

Related posts:

1. DISC Model FAQ’s: Is Changing Your Behavior Phoney?
2. How To Control Your Anger: Two Questions To Ask Yourself
3. One Way To Guarantee That Your Suggestion Is Ignored

This week, I traveled to Boston to lead a Bud To Boss Workshop for first time supervisors. On my return trip, I connected with a flight in Chicago.

I ran between gates to catch the flight to Indianapolis only to wait at the gate because this flight — like the one I had just taken from Boston to Chicago — was delayed.

Upon boarding the plane, I settled into my seat beside a nice young woman who was also connecting on this flight, and I made a comment about the commuter jet we were on not being built to accommodate people of my height. She replied with a soft laugh, and we struck up a conversation that lasted until we landed in Indianapolis.

During the conversation, I learned that she had gone to school in Indiana and that she now lived out-of-state as a result of her husband’s job. I also learned that through her husband she knew a fairly prominent public figure, and I asked a question about this person’s public versus private persona’s. She responded kindly. I acknowledged her response, and the conversation took another turn.

Seeing each other again at baggage claim, we waved and said good-bye. I enjoyed our conversation and the opportunity to meet this rather interesting person.

My wife picked me up, and I told her about the nice young woman I had met on the plane. Arriving at home, my wife went to bed, and I stayed up a bit to unwind from the trip.

While I checked my email, I began to get curious about the full connection between the person I met and the prominent public figure. With less than two minutes of searching on Google, I learned that she was the prominent figure’s daughter-in-law.

Reflecting on our conversation, I was really happy that I had not said anything derogatory, negative, or judgmental about her father-in-law. Like many public figures, he has a strong personality that can create both strong allies and strong detractors, and it would be easy to pass judgment on him as a person because of his public persona.

In the days that have passed since my interchange on the plane with a person I will likely never see again, I am pleased that I both remembered and followed advice I received long ago:

You never know what the person you just met may have experienced or who they might know. So, just be nice.

Related posts:

1. Being Too Nice Can Hurt You
2. Effective Communication Skills: You Don’t Know Until You Ask
3. Memorial Day Reflections: Let’s Keep Things In Perspective

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
3. Communication Tips: Connecting With Reserved, 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
2. Why You Might Eventually Do Something You Don’t Want to Do…
3. A DISC Model Question You Should Ask of Yourself