[Advice] An Easy Dismissal…

To dismiss positions, parties, and interests that we’d rather not acknowledge exist in the first place, is a sign of the inability to negotiate deeply.

The terms that are used to dismiss those positions, parties, and interests that we’d rather not acknowledge exist in the first place, include (but aren’t limited to) “Well, the consensus is…,” or “The conventional wisdom says…,” or my personal favorite “Everybody knows that…”

When a dismissal is preceded by any of these three statements, it reveals a lack of empathy, curiosity, or even ability, to get inside another party’s mental model of how “the world” works. Such dismissals also reveal a deeper fear: That maybe our own position really isn’t as black and white as we think that it is; and, that disagreement, dispute, or dismissal of our own position by the other party, might be on the horizon.

A dismissal in a negotiation, indicates that we have made the negotiation less about accomplishing goals, getting to agreement around interests, and establishing common ground. Instead, a dismissal shows that we have made the negotiation content personal, the desire for a favorable outcome for us paramount, and that there is emotional residue that we must address on our own part.

Hiding behind conventional wisdom, making appeals to “what everybody knows” to be “true,” or drawing on consensus to persuade, is not a sign of confidence in our own position. Instead, it’s a rallying cry for someone to come and support our right position and to negate the other party’s wrong position.

In negotiations around value based interests, the ability to empathize (but not agree) with the other party, and to do so using language that elevates supporters and reassures detractors, is the sign of a true statesman.

How many statesmen are in your workplace?

-Peace Be With You All-

Jesan Sorrells, MA
Principal Conflict Engagement Consultant
Human Services Consulting and Training (HSCT)
Email HSCT: jsorrells@hsconsultingandtraining.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HSConsultingandTraining
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/Sorrells79
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jesansorrells/

[Opinion] “It’s Too Hard”

“It’s too hard.”

Yep.

It’s supposed to be.

At work, it’s difficult to start becoming competent at a new way of approaching conflict (say switching from avoiding to engaging) and to have success at it immediately. When employees, managers, and supervisors are challenged to switch approaches (either through feedback, evaluation, or training) they respond by rejecting the premise of the challenge entirely and returning to their old ways.

When we consciously realize that we are unskilled, we have the opportunity to go toward initial ineptness, and forge a new path toward competency. However, many of us at work, when faced with conflict scenarios, challenges, disagreements, fights, and other disputes, default to what we know rather than pursuing new knowledge. This tendency is based in fear and the overwhelming human need for reassurance in the face of risk.

In our post-industrialized work culture, reassurance, avoidance of risk, hiding from outcomes, and fear of taking a chance to make a change in the ways that we respond to each other when we don’t, can’t or won’t get along will have fewer and fewer outsized rewards attached to it. Being consciously emotionally uncomfortable to gain competencies in a different way is the emotional labor of the 21^st century. In an organizational context, the way to ensure that employees, managers, and supervisors follow through on their challenges is to provide three consistent supports: encouragement, positive feedback, and monitoring of implementation of the new way.

The worst part of the hangover that organizations are suffering from the end of the heady days of the Industrial Revolution, is that the inner, emotional, response that we believed did not matter that much, matter now more than ever. And empowering, encouraging, and developing consciously skilled employees, managers, and supervisors in their approach to conflicts in organizations, is the only way to end the hangover.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Advice] The Dysfunction in Your Workplace

In any discussion of conflict competence in the workplace, damaging communication patterns come up as an issue. Damaging communication is preceded by its forefather, dysfunctional communication. Dysfunction leads to damage as surely as water makes things wet. And at work, dysfunctional communications typically begin through “the grapevine” and come about in five different forms:

Gossip—includes idle talk or rumor, especially about personal or private affairs of other employees, co-workers, customers, etc.

Rumor—involves some kind of a statement whose veracity is not quickly, or ever, confirmed. Depending on the organizational structure and history, and where rumors originate in the hierarchy, rumors spread intentionally can serve as propaganda to manipulate employees or teams.

Innuendo—an innuendo is an insinuation or intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature. Most innuendo’s start as “innocent” jokes, and tend to fall in the gap between what people think about other people’s behavior, and the reality of that behavior.

Tall Tales—a tall tale is a story with unbelievable elements, related as if it were true and factual. In the workplace, tall tales almost always involve whispers and can seem like rumor, but usually they are driven by external factors or pressures on the organization.

Myth—a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind assumed their present form, although, in a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story. Myths are at the bottom of many organizational models and serve to explain occurrences that people otherwise think they have no explanation for. The fact is, myths do the most long-term damage to an organization, because of their corrosive nature on innovation and through creating stubborn resistance to change.

When people become engaged in any of the above communication styles at work, they may interfere (innuendo) or damage (rumor, gossip) relationships, stymie innovation (myths) and creating situations ripe for lawsuits (innuendo) without being aware of it. In essence, when employees, managers, and others are unconsciously, unskilled at communicating effectively, they are displaying competency (at the novice level in most cases) at passive-aggressively creating conflict.

There are a few ways out of this:

The way to get out of this is to role model the behavior that you would like to see in other people at work, particularly if you are a boss, manager, or supervisor.
The other way out of this is to monitor your communication style to determine if you’re engaging in any of the five forms.
The last way out of this is to build a culture on open communication, getting information right the first time, and trusting adults to behave in a mature fashion—and removing those who don’t (or can’t) from positions in the organization quickly.

However, if your organization can’t do the steps above, then the only other solution is to train the people that you already have.

H/T to David Burkus on this one.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Advice] What Collaboration Would Look Like in Your Organization

In the workplace, employees, managers, and supervisor all say they desire more collaboration overall, but in particular when conflicts arise. The desire for greater collaboration is often conflated with more teamwork, or strong team bonding, or building better teams at work, but collaboration is not any of these things. And, much of this stated desire is based in generating more productivity per person in order to generate larger bottom line profits.

The other drawback to collaboration is that the rewards for engaging in it (in the majority of organizations) are not outsized, but the losses in the event of failure are. Collaboration is still viewed by many organizations as The Alamo; that is, the place to make an organizational “last stand” when the resources run out.

However, when what matters is internal (employee) and external (customer) organizational trust, workplaces would be well advised to consider collaboration as a key metric of moving an organization forward and past conflicts and disagreements. This metric becomes even more of the platinum standard when an organization is in an industry space of rapid change and uncertain outcomes. Both of these factors create stressors on internal and external constituents and can lead to conflicts—places where collaboration actually is a useful tool.

We have an idea of what the collaboration mode should look like in actual practice, but as a behavioral choice in conflict, here are some high points:

The novice collaboration mode is marked by initial mistrust of other parties in the conflict (based on past relationships, current secondary conflict issues, the nature and content of the conflict at hand, etc.); but, is also based in the strong desire to work with the other party to get to resolution for the self, rather than the organization.
The advanced beginner collaboration mode is marked by growing trust and belief in the efficacy of individual personal emotional strengths in addressing the conflict scenario. This mode is also marked by growing resiliency and confidence in the resolution process itself (negotiation, mediation, arbitration, etc.).
The competent collaboration mode is marked by a desire to grow other parties in the conflict to the level of collaboration that this mode has already achieved. This mode of competency is also marked by frustration when parties refuse (or are incapable) of growing out of their own modes and toward collaboration.
The proficient performer collaboration mode is marked by a determination to allow other parties in conflict the autonomy to choose whatever mode they would like to choose to get to resolution (e.g. assertiveness, avoidance, accommodation, competing/controlling, etc.) but to not get “caught up” in those modes. Other party self-determination (and preserving that self-determination) becomes key at the proficiency stage.
The expert collaboration mode is marked by open communication, authenticity, honesty, as well as positivity and patience. This mode allows for other parties in the conflict to determine their own path through the conflict, but also advocates for collaboration as the ultimate mode of addressing issues.

In the workplace, collaboration is rarely seen, and is mostly associated with individuals who have attained emeritus status in an organization. Freed from the daily competition based in an organizational cultural perception of resource lack, those individuals become organizational ambassadors and diplomates in this mode.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Advice] What Competing-Controlling Looks Like in Your Organization

The entire history of humanity shows that responding to a complex conflict environment with the competition/controlling mode generates outsized rewards, and little downside, to the individuals who choose it as a mode of addressing conflict.

Wars, battles, fights, riots, pogroms, demonstrations, marches—all are forms, shades, and methods of competing with other people and groups and “winning” control over resources that may have been scarce in the past, but may be more abundant now.

In workplaces, competency at controlling other people, the space of conflicts, and even the resources that go into conflicts, generates outsized rewards in status, money, and position for individuals. In workplaces, competition is fostered (either through overt messaging or through covert cultural conditioning) as a way to separate “winners” from “losers” or “A” players from “everyone else.” The rewards for engaging in these types of competitions are outsized, as are the losses—of face, reputation, authority, and status.

Many of the other responses to conflict scenarios that people are competent at—including accommodating, passive-aggressiveness, assertiveness, and avoiding—are, at their root, responses to organizational work cultures that value competition and controlling in a conflict scenario over other potential responses. Those other responses are deemed organizationally useful as downsides, for situations where “everyone else” fights over the leftovers from the “A” players’ tables.

We all know what competency at controlling and competing looks like, but here are some behavioral high points:

The novice competitor/controller mode focuses on hiding competitive desires and manipulates behind the scenes. Sometimes this behavior will be confused with passive-aggressiveness, or hostility.
The advanced beginner competitor/controller mode focuses on developing elaborate plans to deceive other parties in conflict, and even to involve other people who have little to nothing to do with the actual conflict itself, but who have access to outsized resources.
The competent competitor/controller mode manipulates parties in conflict at a high level, and can also mask intentions through avoiding direct confrontation, using others to accomplish goals, and spread gossip and rumors without accountability.
The proficient performer competitor/controller mode advances through an organization by engaging in ignoring and minimizing past mistakes when confronted with them and removing people from positions that could report previous poor performance, bad judgment, or choices.
The expert competitor/controller mode attains outsized rewards, (i.e. personal, financial, organizational, etc.) but role models this behavior as a cultural response to conflicts in the organization, thus setting the table for future repeating of the same behavior.

If this all reads like the HBO show Game of Thrones to you (or a description of the political process in many contemporary countries) you would be correct. However over time, many organizations have developed crisis and resource poverty mindset-based cultures, focused around varied degrees of competition/controlling when faced with conflict scenarios, and many more will be focused in that way in the future, as communication and information increases transparency globally.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] The Down-Sides of Assertiveness in the Workplace

When there is a confrontation at work, the competency type we most envision others being in (and ourselves) is that of the assertive type.

People who demonstrate assertiveness advocate for what they want, look out for other people on the team, and are aware, but are not bound by, the restrictions of the organization. They are perceived as honest brokers, and sharp communicators who can get what they want, when they want it, how they want it, while also recognizing the reactions and responses of other people.

Assertiveness in response to conflicts at work is viewed as a net plus overall (there’s even assertiveness training on the market), in the face of the other types we’ve explored for the competency model. This type is celebrated and most written business advice is provided for the perspective and growth of the assertive type rather than the other types.

Of course, there are three down-sides to this way of thinking:

People are rarely assertive all the time, whether in their daily communication or in their approach to workplace conflicts and issues
People who communicate indirectly are sometimes not perceived by direct communicators as being assertive, ever though they really are—but just from behind the scenes.
People who demonstrate assertiveness sometimes give the impression of being bullies, manipulative, or even being controlling, to other competency types who would prefer to either avoid conflict entirely, or to accommodate it and move on.

Healthy, positive assertiveness in the workplace is a tactic, not a strategy, for overcoming workplace conflicts and can be dynamite when used sparingly. However, in the hard charging, profit driven world of business, a lack of assertiveness is interpreted by others as being weakness.

In the conflict competency model of the 21^st century, assertiveness will matter both more and less than it did before.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Strategy] Avoiding Conflict is an Appropriate Response

Avoidance is the “mother’s milk” of conflict competency.

In the American workplace culture, avoidance is viewed as both a nicety for “just going along to get along” but it is also viewed as a weak response to conflict situations.

Many times though, avoiding conflict situation is appropriate when:

You have nothing at stake in the fight.
You are not directly (or even indirectly) affected by the outcome of the fight.
You are looking to preserve a relationship over attaining a goal (i.e. winning, beating your opponent, etc.)

Where the trouble lies for the novice, the advanced beginner, the competent practitioner, the proficient practitioner, or even the expert in avoidance is figuring out the gossamer levels of difference between the three above options.

And since no conflict is “pure” and there are many mixed-motives and levels of relationship involved in conflict behaviors, sometimes avoidance looks like the best (out of a series of bad) policies.

But in a workplace, picking the best choice out of a series of bad choices, can sometimes lead to even worse outcomes, such as bad behavior, poor decision making, organizational apathy, and confusion.

In order to create a new competency model, we have to acknowledge the presence of avoidance, the differences between it and accommodation, and recognize it as a valid choice for many people in a conflict scenario. Once we do that, we can decide what kind of culture we want to have, and who to hire, fire, and promote in order to get that culture.

-Peace Be With You All-

[Advice] What Passive-Aggressiveness Looks Like in Your Organization

A predominance of passive-aggressive responses to organizational conflicts indicates that people inside an organization are competent at depression, apathy, excuse making, (otherwise known as playing the “blame game”) and navigating the gossip/rumor mill.

Passive-aggressiveness as a mode of addressing conflict “fits” into a competency model, because the people engaged in that response mode are able to effectively mitigate the hazards of responsibility, accountability, risk taking, and positive confrontation. By the way, the “designated” person who is competent in passive-aggressive responsiveness is typically very entrenched in the organization and serves as the vital glue binding together other modes of addressing conflict, either in opposition to itself, or in support of itself.

There’s levels to this, of course:

The novice passive-aggressive mode of response is characterized by mild complaining or by demonstrating a minimal lack of task oriented motivation among people in the organization.
The advanced beginner mode of response is characterized by people initiating rumors and gossip and then claiming not to be the source of such information or acting in such a way as to deflect examination.
The competent practitioner mode of passive-aggressive response is characterized by full-fledged defeatism, expressions of disbelief at organizational announcements meant to be uplifting and positive, and a general sense of pessimism.
The proficient performer mode of passive-aggressive response is characterized by those rare individuals in an organization, sometimes described by others as “black holes,” which curiously enough, no supervisor can remove due to their seniority or positional authority in the organization.
The expert mode of passive aggressive response is characterized by those individuals who rarely show up for team/organizational functions, contribute little to the forward momentum of an organization, and yet somehow still get compensated (either through money or goodwill) for the little work they actually do.

The key to success in developing passive-aggressiveness in the competency model is that people in organizations who are allowed to ascend to the highest levels of competency in this mode, often have their behavior characterized by others as bullying, manipulative, conflict prone, and coercive. Yet bosses and supervisors are continually placed in positions over them, with little change in the individual or the organization’s response to the individual.

The thing is, passive-aggressiveness as a response to unresolved organizational conflicts is based in one thing only: fear. Fear of choosing something different; fear of changing the status quo; fear of not accomplishing/accomplishing organizational goals.

Who carries the most fear in your organization?

-Peace Be With You All-

[Opinion] Sometimes Accommodation Works in the Workplace

In the workplace, accommodating bad behavior, poor decision making, and the outcomes of both of those processes leads directly to accusations by others of organizational apathy and confusion.

When we talk about competence though (or write about it) the general idea seeps through the page that somehow being conflict competent requires abandoning accommodation as a strategy. But it makes sense as a strategy when:

The organization is so entrenched in whatever conflict choices they are making that the only way to resolve them all is to tear the organization down and start over again
The individual who is engaged in accommodating conflict choices has little to no positional authority and views their own power stance poorly in relation to the organization’s power stance
The groups or teams that function inside the organization actually run more fluidly with accommodation as a method of choosing how to address conflicts, because the people who are at the top of the organizational chart have role modeled accommodating as a perfectly valid choice.

If these all sound like terrible conflict modes, you would be correct. But most competency models focus on overcoming accommodation to match the dominant communication style that many organizations mythologize in the United States. Which is one of direct confrontation and attack.

In order to create a new kind of competency model, we have to acknowledge that competency at accommodation is not only a valid choice, but also one that creates space for outcomes to occur that may be suboptimal inside an organizational structure.

As a matter of fact, it would look like this:

-Peace Be With You All-

[Strategy] A New Model For Conflict Competency

There are few subjects more boring to read about online than how to attain competentcy in any area, from leadership to instructions on plumbing. And it doesn’t matter if that reading is directly from an organizational HR manual, or from the very informative HBR.org website.

Reading about watching paint dry might rank higher.

Typically, such articles are drily written and are rarely brought to life in any way that’s going to help you in a “real life” scenario.

Or, the advice contained in them comes off as “pie in the sky.”

Part of that is the way that these articles are written.

The other part is that you make a choice about what to remember and what to forget after about 8 seconds when you skim an online article or blog post.

So do I. So does that guy over there.

The real issue with such writing is not lack of reader understanding about the levels of competency or the modes of conflict. It’s not even the epidemiology of conflict, the fact that your boss may be a conflict incompetent, or even that there are really very few tangible KPI’s for reducing conflict in the workplace, other than emotional ones (and emotion in the workplace is a “no-no” as “everybody” knows).

The real issue is that there is very little robust measuring or tracking of the links from competency in any given situation to addressing how people actually behave when placed in a situation they find to be uncomfortable, distracting, irrelevant to accomplishing their goals, or that they have no interest in. There’s also very little robust descriptions of such situations to buoy the writing along.

Competency is the combination of observable and measurable knowledge, skills, abilities and personal attributes. Competencies are demonstrated by real people, who are able to recognize hazards associated with a particular task, and have the ability to mitigate those hazards witin a set of defined standards, consistently and over time in an organizational setting, from their home to their workplace.

This definition is so narrow and specific (and dry), that OSHA requires jobsites to designate a person on the site as the individual who is competent enough to perform safety tasks in a suitably repetitive manner. And by the way, merely appearing to be competent isn’t good enough when OSHA shows up on a jobsite.

Imagine if such thing were required in every workplace?

There are five levels of competency: the novices, the advanced beginners, the competent practitioners, the proficient performers and the experts. Competency used to be sexy and interesting in an Industrial Era focused on the metric of maximum production out of the maximum number of people, but that has shifted as fewer people can do more work. And in the Information Economy, even at the highest levels of many industries, competency (whether HR defined or emotional) is still confused with expertise—and rewarded.

So, it seems as though it is time to propose a new model for the workplace; or at the very least, initiate a mash-up of several research areas and to explain why a new direction is needed.

Who’s the “designated competent person” in your workplace?

-Peace Be With You All-