Have you ever taken an action – either immediately or at some later time – based on what you heard someone say only to find out after you acted (or spoke) that you did not accurately understand their statement or request?

So far, everyone I have asked this question in a face-to-face conversation answers pretty much the same way. In effect, they all say: “Yes, of course I have.” And, the truth is, so have I.

As the Irish playwright, George Bernard Shaw, said:

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

The illusion that you accurately understand another person’s intended message based solely on your interpretation of his words, tone and body language is a trap that can hinder your desire to become a truly remarkable communicator. You certainly have an interpretation of what he intended to say, and you never really know if you understand correctly until you confirm it with him. Confirming mutual understanding is the feedback loop often missing in situations that lead to misunderstanding and frustration.

When you develop the ability to check your own understanding of the messages you interpret from what another person says by consciously inserting a feedback loop, you improve the odds of effectively communicating with her. Well phrased confirmation questions can help you do this gracefully and with ease to improve the odds that you get positive replies rather than snarky comebacks.

Here are five ways you can phrase a confirmation question:

•  “Let me say back to you what I think you just said, so that I can be sure I understood you correctly…”
• “Please correct me if I am wrong. I understood you to say ________. Is that correct?”
• “If I hear you correctly, you are saying _____________. Is that right?”
• “I hear you saying ____________. Is that right?”
• “It sounds to me like you feel/think ____________. Did I understand you correctly?”

If you look closely at each question, you will see a common thought:  if a miscommunication happened, it’s my problem and not the other person’s.

You can probably find other ways to express the same idea, and I encourage you to do so. You do not want to say the same thing over and over again in the same conversation to the point that you sound like an inauthentic automaton.

This list is a good place to start your own list of confirmation questions.  I suggest that you think of others to add to your communication toolkit so that you can have many of them to pull on when you find yourself in the middle of a high-stakes conversation.

If you have other ways of confirming that you understood correctly, please add them in the comments section below.

The diagram above shows a simplified model for better understanding what drives behavior.

Since people often spend their lives studying and understanding what really drives our behavior, I am pretty confident that I cannot hope to fully cover the topic in this short post.

I can provide a quick overview you can use to diagnose what’s happening in your interactions with other people and how you might be able to modify your approaches to get better results, have more fun, experience more satisfying relationships, and make sense of what you see people do.

Here’s a simplified description of what the model shows:

1. We enter a situation.
2. We anticipate the outcome we want from that situation.
3. We choose the behavior that (we hope) gives us that outcome.

This description leads to the following implication:

We choose our behaviors based on what we expect to happen after we do them.

The consequence is what we expect that we will experience as a result of our behaviors. In this context, a consequence is anything that we experience as a result of our behavior. A consequence might be some external thing we receive or get because of our behavior. A consequence can also be the feelings we get from the behavior.

As you might guess, we tend to avoid negative consequences and to pursue positive consequences.  As a result, negative consequences (like punishments) tend to discourage repeating behaviors and positive consequences (like rewards) tend to encourage behaviors to repeat in the future.

Part of the challenge with applying this model in practice comes from a common error known as perception error. Perception error happens because not every person sees every consequence the same way. What one person sees as a reward; a different person might see as a punishment.

You can use the  DISC model to gain insights to avoid perception error.

For example, public recognition might be a reward for an outgoing, people-oriented person and it might be a punishment for a reserved, people-oriented person.

You can also apply the 5 Be’s of Motivation as you work with other people to encourage better interactions and results.

Remember, this is a very quick, very simplified description of this model and it’s implications. I’ll offer more insights in future posts.

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.

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.

These situations caused me to reflect on what happens in conflict:

• How it gets started,
• How it escalates, and
• What you can do to de-escalate it.

I was also wondering if these situations happen in your life. Here’s what I mean, you know what you should do in a given situation, the situation occurs, and then you do exactly the opposite of what you knew to do.

Since I’m guessing that I’m not alone in this struggle, I thought I would interrupt my series of posts on Frequently Asked Questions About the DISC Model by mixing in a few posts on understanding the dynamics of conflict escalation.

Using this post as a starting point, we can then look at how to avoid or minimize this problem in our lives.

In this post, I will quickly show a model of what often happens during conflict escalation. By understanding the model, we can plan positive steps to back conflicts down after they start. I’m drawing some of this post content from a video course I am developing on resolving personal workplace conflicts. I’ll share more on that later.

The escalation cycle generally starts with one person (I’ll call them Person A) doing or saying something that the other person (Person B) perceives as a threat. Notice the key word: perceives. It doesn’t really matter if Person A meant their words or actions as a threat. It only matters if Person B sees the words or actions as a threat.

This perception of threat can take many forms, and it is likely linked to the anger process I wrote about previously.

Once Person B perceives a threat, they will probably move to anger and then behave in a self-protective way out of that anger.

Person A now perceives Person B’s behavior as a threat.

Person A follows the same perception-anger-behavior pattern and further contributes to the conflict escalation as shown in the video above and the image below. (Click on the image for a larger view.)
I plan to revisit the specific things we can do to reverse this cycle in future posts. For now, I’ll leave you with this observation: either person can take steps to de-escalate the conflict.

They can either:

Recognize the problem and change their behavior so that the other person no longer perceives a threat.

— or —

Question their perception in order to get their own anger under control.

In practice, the person taking responsibility would likely do both.

In an ideal world, both parties would take responsibility, stop blaming, and move to resolution. Even in our less than perfect world, either party can take the right actions and move to resolve the conflict with or without the other person’s cooperation.

Just yesterday, I had an interchange with someone close to me (not in my family, but still close) that didn’t go very well. This person asked me a question that I perceived negatively, and I got angry.

His wording was a little off, and he got mildly put-off with me as well. However, he didn’t mean to irritate me. He had no intention of asking the question that got me going in a way that I would perceive as an attack. Still, I perceived it as an attack, and I got mad.

Yes, I was a bit tired from working some late nights. It is true that I have been sick for the last two days, and I wasn’t feeling well. It is also true that his request came to me when I was working under some deadlines to get projects done that were rather pressing. All of these pressures probably made me a little more on edge than usual. And still, I overreacted.

Fortunately, we met face to face shortly after our text/phone interchange, and we quickly resolved the issue. That was good.

Here are the key learning points for all of us (me included):

• Pick the right time and place to confront a miscommunication – on a cell phone while both of you are driving is probably not a good idea.
• Be on guard at all times for misperception – yours and theirs. (In this case, I should have been doubly on-guard given my physical state at the time.)
• When things go astray, be ready to meet personally with the person to work it out.
• Be willing to apologize for whatever you did to contribute to the conflict.

The reality of life is that you will have conflicts and that knowing intellectually how to resolve them will not make you immune to them. They will often happen when you let your guard down and allow your emotional “buttons” to get “pushed.”  That is certainly what I experienced in this event.

As I get farther away from the event, I begin to wonder: “How did I let myself get so angry so quickly?” The answer, I think, is that I was reacting to a question rather than thinking about the person asking the question and the whole situation. I was judgmental rather than curious. In short, I let my buttons get pushed by someone who had no intention to do so.

So, as I work to get over myself, I encourage you to do the same. Know your emotional triggers, be aware of how they could get unintentionally triggered, and watch your step in communications with others. I don’t propose that you or I will ever be perfect at doing this. We can work at it and attempt to get better.

A few weeks ago, I was standing in an airport waiting for my return flight to Indianapolis when I overheard a woman (“Mary”)* complaining about a flight attendant’s (“Sue’s”) behavior on a previous flight. At the time, I was trying not to overhear Mary, but her emotional investment and volume were too high to ignore.
As Mary spoke about Sue’s behavior, she said something like this: “Sue did it on purpose just to irritate me.”

I remember thinking: “Maybe she did. Maybe she didn’t.”

I was not on the flight in question, and I did not personally observe the interaction between the two people. So, I don’t know exactly what transpired between them. I only know that Mary believed/perceived that Sue had behaved in a particular way with the express intent of irritating her. Based on Mary’s further description of the events, I also know that her behaviors towards Sue:

1. Came from her belief that Mary had intentionally irritated her, and
2. Served to escalate the conflict between them.

From what I could hear of the conversation, Mary never asked Sue about her thoughts, feelings, or intentions. Mary simply made some quick assumptions about Sue and then launched a tirade against her that significantly escalated the conflict.

Mary believed certain things about Sue. She did not know these things. Sadly, she acted on her belief without confirming it in any way. She just got angry and attacked (verbally in this case).

Later, as I sat on the flight and reflected on what I had heard, I recall thinking:

You never know another person’s intentions until you ask.

The point of this blog is to learn how to get over yourself and to get out of your own way when it comes to interacting, building relationships. leading, and communication with others.

My personal approach to the challenge of quickly judging other’s intentions is to keep an attitude of curiosity. For example, rather than assuming someone intentionally did something to irritate me, I work to ask myself a question like:

• “I wonder if they meant that the way I heard it?” or
• “I wonder what they see in this situation that I am missing?”

I’m far from perfect at avoiding the tendency to make wrong conclusions about others. So, I’m asking for your input:

What tips/techniques/suggestions have you used to better understand others and their intentions?

Please leave your responses in the comments section below. (If you see this post at some other site like facebook, please come on over to my blog to leave your comment.)

*Mary and Sue are totally fictitious names. While the event is real, I do not know, nor would I share if I knew, the real names of the parties involved.

Guy Gives a Quick Overview of
The DISC Model of Human Behavior

As a teenager and young adult, I thought people were totally irrational and unpredictable. In my thirties, I learned about patterns of behavior that people tend to follow in many areas of their lives and in many situations.

Understanding these patterns helped me to realize that people are not totally irrational. Most people simply see the world, prioritize their activities, communicate with others, and act according to relatively predictable patterns of behavior.

The model I learned, and eventually studied to the point of becoming a master trainer, is the DISC model of human behavior.

Before we even get into this post too deeply, I want to emphasize the statement that people tend to do things in predictable ways. I do not mean anything in this post to box people in, label people, or to imply that any of us can know everything about any other person merely by understanding their primary behavioral style (actually styles). Still, understanding the model can form a strong basis for learning to communicate with and understand other people in better and more effective ways.

That being said, here’s a brief overview of how the model describes our behaviors. I’ll be writing more over time. I hope you’ll check back in the future for more posts on this topic.

The foundation for the DISC model comes from the work of a Harvard psychologist named Dr. William Moulton Marston in the 1920′s. He developed a theory that people tend to develop a self-concept based on one of four factors — Dominance, Inducement, Steadiness, or Compliance. This idea forms the basis for the DISC theory as it is commonly applied today.

Later psychologists and behavioral specialists developed a variety of practical tools to apply Marston’s theory. Currently, there are many assessment and measurement tools based on the DISC model.

Dr. Robert Rohm — founder and president of Personality Insights, Inc of Atlanta, Georgia — has developed the best collection of practical application tools using the DISC model that I have found. Through his work, his publications, the work of his team, and a network of Human Behavioral consultants certified to teach his material; he has reached millions of people around the world.

In the DISC model as taught by Personality Insights consultants, the full range of normal human behavior is defined by a circle divided into quadrants as described below.

Divide a circle in half horizontally. The upper half represents outgoing or fast-paced people. The lower half represents reserved or slower-paced people. Outgoing people tend to move fast, talk fast, and decide fast. Reserved people tend to speak more slowly and softer than outgoing people, and they generally prefer to consider things thoroughly before making a decision.

The circle can also be divided vertically. The left half represents task-oriented people. The right half represents people-oriented people. Task-oriented people tend to focus on logic, data, results and projects. People-oriented people tend to focus on experiences, feelings, relationships, and interactions with other people.

Combining these two circles completes the model description…

This post is intended as a brief introduction to the DISC model. I’ll be writing more in the future. If you would like to get an estimate of your primary behavioral styles, check my Free DISC Profile site.

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.

When we passed each other, he looked at me sheepishly and waved. Clearly, he did not see my car. I’m guessing that he did not intend to create a heart stress moment for me. It just happened. He’s human.

After I waved to him to let him know that I understood, I thought of the times I have seen other people react totally differently. In fact, I thought of times when I have reacted totally differently. I thought of people yelling, honking the horn, and offering a one-finger salute rather than a friendly wave.

At that moment, I saw a connection to workplace conflict. The anger and escalation of road rage often begins by misinterpreting another person’s actions.

When someone pulls out in front of you, cuts you off, or stops short; they either did it for the purpose of annoying you or they didn’t. If they didn’t do it to annoy you, they probably just reacted to what they thought they saw as they decided to pull out, change lanes, or stop.

Since I have pulled out, changed lanes, and stopped in ways that frustrated others without meaning to do it. I think it’s fair to say that not everyone who does something to cause you stress in traffic intended to do so. In fact, I don’t recall ever intentionally driving my car in a way that annoyed another person. I’m guessing that most people don’t intentionally annoy others either.

What, you might ask, has this got to do with workplace conflict?

Everything.

It’s all about the interpretations we place on other people’s words and actions. In the situation I mentioned at the start of this post, I assumed that the other person did not see me. I assumed that he had good intent and just made a mistake. As a result, I didn’t get angry with him.

In other situations (when I have been less under control), I have thought that the other person saw me and pulled out despite the fact that they saw me coming. I assumed negative intent, and I got angry.

The same thing happens in the workplace. Someone does or says the wrong thing. Or, they don’t do or don’t say the right thing. Whatever the situation, it happens, and we assume that they “meant to do that.” With that assumption about their intention, we get angry, and conflict begins to grow.

I have noticed that the vast majority of people seldom do things for the purpose of causing other people frustration and aggravation. It usually happens unintentionally.

When things go wrong in our interactions with others, we have a choice. We can choose to assume that they meant to frustrate us, or we can assume that they made an innocent mistake.

I suggest starting with the later assumption.

I’m not talking about naive, polyanna type assumptions. I realize that some people actually do enjoy frustrating others. I’m just saying that most people don’t.

Why not start with the assumption that applies to most people, and minimize the risk of conflict even beginning? You can always adjust if necessary rather than starting with the negative assumption and escalating a conflict without reason.

Image by wherisat on Flickr.