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

Guy Answers the Question:
Is One Style Better Than the Others?

People often ask me if one DISC style is better than the others.

My answer is, emphatically, NO! One DISC style is not better than the others. All of the DISC styles have value. All of the DISC behavioral styles contribute something to businesses and families.

I would say that a particular behavior normally associated with any of the DISC styles can be either appropriate or inappropriate depending on the context and the situation.

For example, I am naturally calm, unemotional, and analytical. That particular blend of behaviors is really good for evaluating data and coming to rational conclusions based on the evaluation. These behaviors are not particularly helpful when I want to connect with another person or do a presentation in front of a group of people.

When I work with others, I have to apply more engaging behaviors so that they realize that I care about them, the situation, or my presentation. My “high-C” behaviors are not necessarily worse than typical “high-S” or “high-I” behaviors. While my natural style is really good for analyzing data, the behaviors that go with that style might not be effective (I should say, probably will not be effective) in connecting with others.

I have to learn to apply different behaviors in different situations. I do this to be effective in the situation, not because my style is “worse” than any other style.

One of the mantra’s we repeat in training is:

Not good. Not bad. Just different.

Related posts:

1. DISC Model FAQ’s: Could I Have More Than One DISC Behavior Style?
2. DISC Model FAQ’s: Can I Have One DISC Style at Work and Another DISC Style at Home?
3. DISC Model FAQ’s: Is Changing Your Behavior Phoney?

As a result of this perception of threat, we often get angry. Then, we behave in ways that they perceive as a threat, and the conflict escalation cycle begins.

Our natural responses to conflict often begin with this perception of threat. This perception triggers our “fight-or-flight” response, and our adrenal glands kick into high gear. At this point, our bodies get flooded with adrenaline and logical, rational thought pretty much stops (at least for a moment).

When we perceive others to be a threat, we generally act in two ways that can be incredibly effective at protecting us from physical harm and terribly detrimental when it comes to resolving most workplace and family conflicts.

How the “fight” response contributes to conflict escalation is pretty straightforward. With this approach, we usually come on too strongly and too aggressively for the vast majority of normal relational situations. As a result, the other person feels a direct threat from our response.

How the “flight” response contributes to conflict escalation is a little more subtle, and still just as powerful in its affect on the conflict escalation cycle.

The flight response often leads us to disengage, remain quiet, and withdraw from the person we perceive as a “threat.”

Depending on the other person’s perspective, withdrawing from the situation can signal a number of things that actually contribute to escalating rather than de-escalating the situation (if not immediately, then over time).

For example, they might view us as being unmotivated, unconcerned, or unwilling to engage. In any of these cases, they can feel compelled to pursue interaction in an effort to settle the issue. They pursue, we withdraw, they pursue some more, we withdraw further, etc.

Our withdrawal, rather than helping the situation, has escalated the conflict.

To avoid either of these negative responses, I suggest an approach that starts this way:

Question the story you are telling yourself about the other person.

For example, you can question whether or not they actually intend to be a threat to you by re-framing your internal dialogue this way:

• “Do they mean to harm me in some way, or did I just misunderstand?”
• “Are they really on the attack, or are they just tired and having a bad moment?”
• “Are they an evil person, or did I say something that offended them?”

Alternative stories can stop our perception of threat and lead us to a more positive, rational, and engaged response than either a heated attack or an icy withdrawal. We can act to resolve the communication breakdown rather than act to escalate the conflict.

Please share your thoughts on the steps you can take to move conflicts towards resolution and away from escalation.

Related posts:

1. Conflict Resolution Insights: Why Conflicts Escalate
2. Conflict Resolution Techniques: Question Your Assumptions
3. Exercise Your Power of Choice in Conflict Resolution

Guy Answers the Question:
Can Four Styles Really Describe Everyone?

One question that frequently comes up when I teach the DISC model is this:

“Can you really describe everyone with just four styles?”

The short answer is: yes, you can describe all the behaviors and perspectives of all people using information revealed by understanding the four DISC style descriptors.*

Sometimes people take exception to this simple answer. When they do, I usually get challenged with something like:

“There are 6 billion people on the planet, you can’t possibly define all of them with four letters/categories.”

To which, I reply: “You’re right. I can’t define all people with four letters or categories. I can, though, use four basic style descriptors to create a frame of reference that allows me to understand them better when we interact.”

Here are some observations to support this position.

We Regularly Use Only Two Categories to Describe All People

There are two broad categories that we use every day to describe all people on the planet: male and female.

The studies of male vs. female perspectives I have read indicate that men tend to share perspectives on certain issues, women tend to share perspectives on these same issues, and men tend to have different perspectives from women on the issues in question.

The results in the studies point to general perspective similarities only on the issues evaluated in the study. It would be a wrong application of the study results to say that all men or all women think, feel, or behave a certain way in all situations. It is okay to say that the studies reveal tendencies and similarities in the perspectives evaluated in the studies.

I am not a woman. When I read the study results about the perspectives many women have on certain issues, I frankly don’t get it. I understand it intellectually. I just don’t relate to the perspective.

When I interact with my wife, I can use my understanding of the study results to better understand the true intent of her words and actions. I can attempt to view her behavior through her lens rather than through mine. I don’t want to stereotype her with the results. I just want to use the study results to get an emotional hook that allows me to “get” what she is saying in a different way than I would “get” it if I had no way to reframe what I was hearing and seeing.

We Use Only 26 Letters to Define the English Language

I don’t know the exact number of words used in the English language. I have heard that it is greater than 1 million words. And still, all of them are fully defined with only 26 letters.

What Does All This Have to do With the Question We Began With?

I don’t want to categorize, label, or box-in anyone. I don’t want to tell people what job they are or are not qualified to pursue because of their behavior style. I don’t want to psychoanalyze them. I just want to understand them so that I can connect and communicate better.

The four DISC behavioral styles simply reveal tendencies and patterns in behaviors and perceptions. They do not neatly define another person.They do provide guidance and insight to understanding other perspectives that happen to be different from mine.

I see the DISC model as a sort of alphabet that helps me to understand people more fully than I would if I was stuck with only my viewpoint as a filter for understanding them.

When you really understand the model and it’s application, you learn that there are far more than four “categories” to use for that understanding. (I don’t really like the word category in this context. It’s just the simplest word I can find at the moment.)

When you consider the different simple combinations of the four DISC descriptors, you quickly arrive at 41 generalized style “types.”

For example, I have a strong blend of Cautious, Dominant, and Supportive traits. None of the three fully describes my viewpoint. The combination of the three traits gets pretty close. Likewise, my wife has a strong blend of Dominant, Inspiring, and Cautious traits. When I look at that combination of traits, it gets pretty close to describing how she usually responds to situations.

To take it one step deeper, you could consider the various levels of intensities of the four styles that any given person might exhibit. When you do that, you get 19,680 different Basic DISC style graphs. I don’t intend to go deeply into these subtleties here.

And, I haven’t even begun to comment on what you learn from the Environmental DISC style graphs or by understanding “low styles” like the “I” trait shown in my DISC profile graph to the right.

All of this simply makes the point that the simple little DISC model of human behavior has much more depth than most people see when they first encounter it.

When people use the model to define another person or to limit their potential, they use the model as a weapon. They are stereotyping and labeling. Both of which, I think, are wrong. These are really good strategies if you want to irritate someone with the DISC model.

When people use the model to create an understanding of another person’s perspective, they use the model as a tool. They are connecting and communicating more effectively. Both of which, I think, are good.

To me, the beauty of the model lies in its simplicity. Its simplicity helps me to remember it when the pressure hits. It helps me to quickly explain it to others when the time is right.

The depth of the model gives me confidence that I can, with study and practice, learn to use it to strengthen and deepen all of my relationships.

*When I say “all people,” I am referring to all people who fall into what you could call “normal human psychology.” Which means, people with no clinical psychological disorder. This would be something like 90-95% of the people on the planet. Not truly everyone, but most people I encounter on a daily basis.

Related posts:

1. DISC Model FAQ’s: Could I Have More Than One DISC Behavior Style?
2. DISC Model FAQ’s: Is Changing Your Behavior Phoney?
3. A DISC Model Question You Should Ask of Yourself

As I listened to the the news on both radio and television this Friday, nearly every mention of the switch to Daylight Saving Time brought on some mention of the “loss of one hour” we would experience on Saturday. It seemed that the entire focus during the time change weekend was on the loss. I don’t recall a single person speaking positively about the hour of daylight we would “gain” at the end of the normal business day.

Then, I thought back to the switch from Daylight Saving Time to Standard Time last fall, and I did not recall any significant mention of  “gaining one hour” during that weekend.

Here in Indiana, we just started observing Daylight Saving Time in 2006. So, it is still fairly well talked about when the time change happens. And, it seems to me, almost all of the talk is towards the negative.

Since I moved to Indiana as an adult, I lived for the better part of my life in states that observed Daylight Saving Time. So, I don’t really give it much thought one way or the other. It’s just “how it is” for me.

The point of this post is not to argue the merits or costs of Daylight Saving Time. I am just noticing a tendency that the time change reveals in human nature, and thinking through how I can learn from the behavioral tendencies surrounding this event. And here’s my observation:

People tend to notice loss more than gain and  to see the negative before they see the positive.

I recognize that this is a broad statement. Some people will argue that they don’t go negative. Well, maybe not. And most people do.

If you are interested in becoming a more persuasive and influential leader, communicator, or parent; the learning point is to realize that the people you are interacting with will likely notice what things cost, what they will lose, or how much your proposal will inconvenience them long before they notice the positive benefits or rewards of cooperating with you.

From a practical standpoint, this means that we must give people room to vent and express their negative reaction while we maintain a focus on the positive. They will likely go negative first. We need to anticipate and plan for this response rather than get caught off-guard and frustrated by it. Really, it’s okay. It’s normal. Almost all of us do it to some degree.

Highly effective leaders and communicators find ways to stay positive in spite of initial negative reactions from others.

Related posts:

1. Conflict Resolution Tips: Task Oriented People with People Oriented Individuals
2. “It’s cold in here” and Other Fighting Words
3. Effective Communication Skills: You Don’t Know Until You Ask

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. Conflict Resolution Tips: Task Oriented People with People Oriented Individuals
3. Why Your Natural Response to Conflict is Probably Wrong & What You Can Do About It

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. Conflict Resolution Techniques: Question Your Assumptions
3. Why You Shouldn’t Take Conflict Resolution Lessons From Politicians