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

1. Tell them how they’re feeling or what they’re thinking.
2. Explain to them why they did what they did or said what they said.
3. Decide for them what they will want from a given situation.
4. Analyze them and their behaviors.
5. Help them to be more like you.

I could continue with the list, but I’m sure you see the point. Any time we do any of the above using the DISC model, we are using the model as a weapon against the other person rather than as a tool to understand them more completely.

I teach the DISC model. I use the DISC model. I like the understanding it gives me of people with other viewpoints and perspectives. And, I recognize that it only reveals general patterns of behavior that apply to populations of people rather than absolutes that apply to individuals.

The model and the terms used as descriptors in the model come from statistical averages of population behaviors and perspectives. Using it to define, label, or box-in another person violates one of the first things I learned in my college statistics class:

Never use a population statistic to describe an individual observation.

I encourage you to learn how to understand other people. I even encourage you to study the DISC model as a simple way to learn how to see the world from another person’s perspective. I strongly discourage anyone from using the model as a weapon to harm, judge, or manipulate others.

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 Model FAQ’s: Can Four Styles Really Describe Everyone?

As I sat in her American Literature class listening to a discussion of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s classic The Scarlet Letter, her teacher questioned the virtue of tolerance. In his brief comment on the topic, he referenced a talk he once heard by Elie Wiesel.

Elie Wiesel survived the concentration camps and Jewish persecution of World War II. On the day that my daughter’s teacher heard Wiesel speak, another member of the audience asked how he could be so tolerant of other people after all of the hardships he had endured. In his reply, Elie said that he used to try to be tolerant, and that he eventually realized that in his tolerance he was making himself better than other people. So, he now just wanted to understand.

Amen.

I often hear people speak of tolerance as if it is a high virtue. I acknowledge that tolerating someone is better than annihilating them, and I still don’t want to be a tolerant person. Like Elie Wiesel, I want to understand.

I’ll explain my reasoning by using some definitions from Dictionary.com.

Tolerant

1. inclined or disposed to tolerate; showing tolerance; forbearing: tolerant of errors.

In order to be tolerant, I must learn to tolerate.

Tolerate

1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.

When I look at these definitions, I see what Elie Wiesel spoke of in his answer. When I tolerate another person, I permit their existence. I endure their presence. When I permit someone’s perspective, I place myself in a superior position to them. When I endure something, I probably find it distasteful, painful, or annoying in some way.

I don’t want to permit other people to have their views. I don’t want to endure their presence. I don’t want to be tolerant.

Rather, I want to understand.

Understand

1. to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend: to understand Spanish; I didn’t understand your question.
2. to be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of: to understand a trade.

For example, my wife has a “female” view of the world and I have a “male” view of the world. These different perspectives often create different interpretations of events.

I want to live in peace with my wife. I want to live and work with her in a way that allows both of us to be happy with the relationship.

If I learn to tolerate her perspective, I will always carry a subtle judgment of it. I will permit her to be different. (As if she needed my permission.)

If, instead of tolerating her, I learn to understand her, I can live and work with her without the feeling that I am enduring something unpleasant. I can start to see and value what she sees.

In the realm of workplace conflict resolution, this concept applies equally well. When we tolerate other people, we are, in effect, judging them. We are filtering their views and perspectives in a way that says we permit them to exist. (Again, like they need our permission.)

When we understand people, we let go of the judgment, and we start to see people more clearly. We lower the filters and pretense that tend to mark tolerant relationships.

So, I don’t want to be a tolerant person. I want to be an understanding one.

Related posts:

1. Conflict Resolution Tips: Task Oriented People with People Oriented Individuals
2. Snow Drifts, Driving Lessons, and Conflict Resolution