Category: Health and Wellness

Potential conflict lurks around every corner. Over the weekend, I found a surprise in my inbox, which turned into a good lesson in two-way diplomacy and proactive problem solving.

It was an email from Jeff Hayzlett, co-founder and chairman of the C-Suite Network and the Hero Club. He was responding to a couple of questions I had asked, and at the bottom was the following comment:

“On a side note— I got feedback that when asked you had mentioned that the experience with Hero was not good— so was that wrong feedback or is this [program you are putting together] another run to make it work?”

I’m not sure which dropped further – my jaw or the pit of my stomach.

These are the kinds of scenarios that tend to trigger people’s fight-or-flight reflex. They either run away in embarrassment – even if the allegations aren’t true – or they react angrily and defensively, neither of which is conducive to productive discussion and problem solving.

My mind raced, simultaneously trying to figure out who had given him that “feedback” and what on earth I had said to that person that would have left the impression that I had a negative overall experience with the organization. Plus, I didn’t want some misrepresentation to tarnish my relationship with Jeff and the C-Suite Network.

However, one thing I did notice was how he chose to bring it up to me. On the one hand, he didn’t passive-aggressively write me off and give me the silent treatment, leaving me completely in the dark, but he also he didn’t attack me with accusations. After all, upon hearing that kind of rumor through the grapevine, most people’s reflex would probably have started with “WTF?!”

Instead, he neutrally and unemotionally stated the nature of the information he had received. There was no direct accusation, insult, or attack. He then equally objectively asked if what he’d heard was accurate (it wasn’t), and made an effort to try to understand my current position, giving me the benefit of the doubt and a chance to give my side and set the record straight.

What mattered most to me was to maintain that tone throughout the exchange, however long it took, in order to get to the bottom of things while keeping our relationship intact.

I responded showing my surprise, and wanting to set the record straight, while indicating my continued support for the organization and mending any fences that may have been damaged:

“??? I have no recollection of saying that. Can I ask what the context was?  Be good to know who that came from, not for gossip, just for context. And if I can reach out to clarify to them I’d be happy to. I want to promote HC, not disparage.”

Although he didn’t reply directly to my email, we saw each other the next day at the C-Suite Network Thought Summit in New York, which he had organized. I approached him first.

Knowing that if our roles were reversed, I would have felt betrayed upon hearing such a report, I apologized for any potential miscommunication on my part, and repeated the request for more information to try to figure out where things got lost in translation.

The story he received was that I had sent an email responding to an invitation his team had sent me about speaking on his panel, allegedly saying I didn’t want to because I’d had a bad experience with the Hero Club. This already sounded odd to me, because I love being on stage at his events (heck, at just about any event), and we both get great feedback afterwards, but I wanted to see what I had written.

I took a moment to scroll through every email I had sent to him or his team in the past few weeks, and the only one I found that remotely addressed the issue was a response I had sent to the original invitation saying that (a) I’d love to; (b) in full transparency I couldn’t address [XYZ] exactly as requested and explained why, but (c) suggested another angle from which I could approach the topic, and asked if that would work instead.

I showed him the message, and wanting to confirm that he hadn’t inferred something unpredictable from it, I asked him sincerely if it sounded like I had declined the invitation.

“No,” he agreed unequivocally.

“Does it sound like my reasons for [XYZ] implied that my experience with the Hero Club was not good?”

Again, he shook his head and said, “No.”

I also pointed to the thread and showed him that I had not received a response regarding whether or not my alternative solution was an acceptable one. I wasn’t trying to be antagonistic, or throw anyone else under the bus. I simply wanted to show where my current understanding of the situation ended, and hopefully restore my reputation with him, not at anyone else’s expense, which I also stated outright.

What was important in the exchange was that we both kept objective and neutral in word, tone and body language, and shared what information we had with each other, staying open-minded and seeking mutual understanding, all of which is critical to problem solving.

A little while later, he came back to me after a bit of his own digging and shared what he had discovered regarding what had fallen through the cracks on his end as well. I was relieved, knowing that my reputation and our relationship had been restored, which was my main priority, regardless of whether or not I had a formal speaking role at the event.

He said to me, “(when I realized what happened), I told my team, fix this.”

Sure enough, a little while later we were both on stage together. And truthfully, I think the result was even better than what either of us had originally envisioned.

But what made the greatest impression on me was how powerfully smooth the process was. At the end of the day, I asked him how he’d feel if I blogged about the experience and how we worked through it. He nodded. “Go for it.”

When both parties address concerns directly but diplomatically, share all relevant information, listen openly, take responsibility for whatever went wrong on their respective side, and collectively seek to find a remedy, that’s where positive change occurs.

******

Do you struggle with how to navigate conflict, or know someone who does? Contact me at laura@vocalimpactproductions.com or click here to set up a 20-minute focus call to discuss it with me personally.

 

At some point or other, we all have to have important conversations that have the potential to get ugly and uncomfortable. When in doubt, I say do your best to avoid the conflict.

I’m not talking about avoiding people in the hallways, refusing to answer the phone or saying “yes” to everyone – whether or not you mean it – so that you don’t have to say “no.”

There will always be disagreements and necessary discussions about difficult or unpleasant topics. But these conversations do not need to degenerate into round after round of browbeating to try to get your point across.

Ideally, the goal is to address the issue in a way that gets to the heart of the matter, and reaches a mutually agreeable resolution quickly and efficiently without raising voices or blood pressure. There is one intuitive – and yet commonly overlooked – key that can keep most disagreements in the realm of civil, productive discussion.

The key is consciously listening to understand. This is where most people fall woefully short in both their efforts and their outcomes. Listening to understand is critical to avoiding real argument for one crucial reason: most people continue to argue a point because they feel like they have not truly been heard or understood.

Most people think that they listen, but the short answer is that they don’t do it right. Let’s look at the difference and key strategies for listening in a way that gets to a peaceful, positive, and productive result.

 

Listening “wrong”

In disagreements, most people “listen” in order to find an opportunity to interrupt, contradict, or defend. This isn’t sincere listening; it’s more like scanning the horizon for the best time to retaliate.

When both parties are simultaneously focused proving why they are correct and the other is wrong, what they are both (rightfully) saying is, “You’re not listening to me!”

This quickly leads to an impasse with one of two outcomes: The first is that both sides leave feeling frustrated, with no resolution to the issue at hand. In the second, one side “wins” by forcing the other side to concede, i.e. lose. This leaves the winner with a bitter-sweet “victory,” and the loser feeling resentful, a combination that will have a variety of negative repercussions down the line in the form of morale, work quality, and office politics just to name a few.

The irony is that when people are able to voice their concerns, and truly feel like they have been heard and understood, they are often willing to accept “no” for an answer. So how does that work?

 

Listening “right”

When you listen to understand, you start by erasing any presuppositions and assumptions that you already know what they’re going to say and why. Instead, you enter the conversation from the perspective that there’s a missing piece, something you don’t yet know or understand about their position, priorities, interests or concerns. Be curious.

Invite the other person to share first. A good strategy is to take notes as you listen, which serves several purposes. First, you can record any key points so that you don’t forget them, which serves as a good future reference resource.

Second, you can jot down any questions or other thoughts you want to share. Don’t get me wrong – the idea is not to list all the points you disagree on just so you can launch into a point-counterpoint debate when it’s your turn to speak. That feels litigious, not collaborative or respectful.

Writing down your ideas as you listen has a variety of benefits. First and foremost, it keeps you from interrupting. When people aren’t interrupted, they feel more respected and less stressed or frustrated, which helps to keep the peace. But it also gives you a chance to reflect and organize your thoughts before you do finally speak, which can streamline the process, avoid clumsy and emotionally-charged knee-jerk responses, and help you prioritize issues to address.

 

*********

In part 2 we’ll address Talking from Listening: once you’ve heard them out, what do you say to keep things moving in the right direction?

********

Do you have questions or comments about the issues in today’s post, want to know how to apply them, or how to help others with them? If so, contact me at laura@vocalimpactproductions.com or click here to schedule a 20-minute focus call to discuss them with me personally!

In my previous blog, we looked at the difference between “Listening Wrong” and “Listening Right” as a part of “Listening to Understand,” a fundamental principle in laying the ground work to have a potentially difficult conversation in a way that is constructive rather than combative.

Now, let’s look at strategies for when it’s your turn to talk, after you have successfully demonstrated listening to understand. 

Once the other person has finished sharing their perspective, don’t sabotage the exchange by launching into a “now it’s my turn to talk and your turn to listen” monologue. Remember that you entered the conversation with the initial goal of understanding their perspective. So the first step you need to take in line with this goal is to confirm your understanding.

A great segue can be as simple as, “Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me. I want to make sure I understand the key issues. Can I run through my main takeaways based on what I heard, and you can correct me if I’m off somehow?” Who would say no to such a request?

Once you have the go-ahead, start by paraphrasing your understanding of their key points. You should use simple, reporting language such as, “You said that your budget _____,” or “Did I understand correctly that in your department _____,” or “Your primary concern is that _____, right?” Whatever you do, do not comment on anything yet.

This step also serves multiple purposes with mutual benefits. From the other person’s side, they are happy to know that you are valuing their input enough to take time to ensure that you understood it. Plus, it is reassuring for them to have you confirm that whatever they said was received as it was intended. This builds trust and facilitates further discussion.

More importantly, paraphrasing this way ensures that you actually did understand all of their key points. Misunderstandings could be due to missing or improperly stated information in their initial explanation, or perhaps you were writing something down and didn’t catch something else they said at the time.

Regardless of the cause, once you have had a chance to confirm the facts, then everyone is satisfied that all key information is on the table, and, most importantly, they feel relieved to know that they have been heard and understood.

From there, you can transition into sharing your side of the story with something like, “Okay, well, let’s start with _____.” It’s important to keep your language objective, and if you feel like their view on something is incorrect, keep your explanation fact-based, calm and impersonal. There’s a big difference between saying, “There are a few details I don’t think your team is aware of,” and, “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

If the other person does not play by the same rules and interrupts you when it’s your turn, you can explicitly draw their attention to the contrast and make a respectful request: “I’m sure you’ll have some comments and questions, which I welcome, but I listened to you without interrupting, and would appreciate the same courtesy in return.” You can offer them some paper to take notes on while they listen, for their own benefit, and ask them to paraphrase what they understood when you’re done, so they can follow your model more completely as well.

At best, once you have heard each other out, and truly sought to understand each other’s objectives and reasons, you can come to a solution that meets everyone’s needs. But at the very least, if the answer still has to be “no,” there is still potential for positive outcome.

At that point, “no” can sound more like, “I truly appreciate the fact that/your concern about ___. For now, we have to prioritize _____ because of _____, but I understand the impact that it will have on your situation, so…”

Even though the other person might not be happy with the immediate result, it’s much easier for them to accept the outcome because they understand why, and are emotionally satisfied that they have been respected as a person and a professional.

In the end, difficult topics are addressed productively without fighting and casualties of war, and respectful relationships are not only maintained but strengthened. You’re not avoiding the issue, you’re avoiding creating a mess.

More importantly, you’re leading by example, and fostering a healthy culture of open communication, transparency, and mutual respect.

That’s the difference between someone who has a leadership position, and someone who is a leader.

********

 

Do you have questions or comments about the issues in today’s post, want to know how to apply them, or how to help others with them? If so, contact me at laura@vocalimpactproductions.com or click here to schedule a 20-minute focus call to discuss them with me personally!