Effective Communication » teams

Disagreements At Work Need Not Lead to Conflict

Azriel Winnett — Fri, 08 May 2009 07:54:28 +0000

Every week I read numerous email newsletters published by a variety of business consultants, trainers, life coaches and other professionals working with human capital. I subscribed to most after visiting their websites and being promised weekly or monthly mailings replete with the very latest tips and cutting-edge strategies relevant to the writer’s particular field of expertise. (Often, as an additional incentive to subscribe, I’m offered a free “special report” or white paper - comprising information easily obtainable elsewhere!)

Unfortunately, to put it bluntly, most of these self-serving and heavily promotional e-publications fail to deliver the goods.

One of the relatively few exceptions is written by trainer Shaun Belding. Shaun’s regular Winning at Work mailings – as brief as they are – do deliver the goods. His publication offers “techniques and tools for dealing Coworkers, Bosses, Callers, Customers and Clients” and excels in showing us how to handle difficult people in each of these categories.

The conflict has less to do with the idea and more with the way it is presented

Disagreements among colleagues in the workplace are the subject of the latest issue. Differences of opinion among people working towards a common goal are not only inevitable but healthy. After all, sharing and examining different ideas and contrasting viewpoints leads to progress and growth. What is certainly not desirable is the unnecessary acrimony and conflict that is often an offshoot of such debates.

As Shaun Belding points out, what creates the conflict has less to do with the idea and more with the way it is presented. He presents us with two useful techniques for minimizing the potential for conflict when offering a different opinion:

I think in this case…

This technique involves first validating the premise behind the other person’s assertion, then offering a new or different perspective that leads to a different conclusion. For example:

Sally: I think we need to have a full team meeting for an hour every Monday and Wednesday morning.

Bob: (validating) That makes sense. The more frequently we communicate, the less likely we’ll have issues like the ones that cropped up in the last project. (new perspective) I think in this case we have a challenge with availability. Not everyone is in the office every Monday and Wednesday. Perhaps we should just say we’ll meet twice a week, and on the Friday before set mutually convenient meeting times.

Yes, and…

Undoubtedly the most common way for people to express differences of opinion is with the ubiquitous “Yabut” (”Yes, but”). “Yabut, we don’t have the manpower,” “Yabut, we don’t have the time”, ”Yabut we tried that once before”, etc. Yabut is a universal trigger for conflict, because it sends the message that you are discounting everything the other person says. Try changing Yabut to “Yes, and…” and see the difference in how people respond to you. This acknowledges the other person’s position and then augments it. So, for example, instead of saying “Yabut we don’t have the manpower”, you could say, “Yes, and we’ll have to increase our staffing levels to accomplish this.”

You can subscribe to Winning at Work here.

Beware the Blank Stare: Signs Your Message Isn’t Getting Through

Azriel Winnett — Sun, 03 May 2009 14:46:29 +0000

It’s something that happens in the best of organizations. The boss drafts a report and asks a staff member to proofread it. The assistant brings the report back with a section marked and says, “I don’t understand what you mean here,” to which the boss replies, “Oh, that’s technical–it’ll be clear to the lawyers when they review it.” Two weeks later, the lawyers ask for a rewrite of the same section.

To consultant Dianna Booher, this is a scenario that’s all too familiar, as she points out in her Communication Tip of the Month e-newsletter: ” People always assume the confusion happens on the other end of the communication–that what they themselves say is perfectly clear and that the other person just missed it somehow.”

Very nice – at least for your ego. But in business communication, you may be asking for trouble if you assume too much. Wise communicators never take their skills for granted.

Want a good gauge of your own clarity, or lack of it? Beware the blank stare!

Need additional signs that your message just might not be getting through? Booher offers the following:

Lack of questions. (You call for questions at the end of a presentation, and there are none. Or, you bring up an idea in a meeting and you’re greeted with only polite smiles.)

Unexpected responses. (People respond irrationally to what you say, such as with anger, withdrawal, silence, or denial.)

Lack of coordination. Things “fall between the cracks” in coordinating projects.)

Low morale. (People feel discouraged that they can never “get it right” when, in fact, projects are frequently delegated without essential elements for successful completion.)

Rework. (Projects have to be redone because the instructions weren’t clear the first time. Or, extra work was completed “just in case” to “cover all the bases” because somebody wasn’t sure what was needed.)

Bottom line remains as always: fuzzy words lead – at very best – to fuzzy action. Only with clear words canyou expect clear action.

Myths of Career Success: Staring Cold Reality in the Face

Azriel Winnett — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:27:03 +0000

There are categorically no secrets and no certainly no short cuts in working your way to success in your career, and anyone who promises otherwise is a liar. So insists veteran career coach Ramon Greenwood of CommonSenseAtWork.com

Greenwood is fed up with those ubiquitous online ads and email solicitations, guaranteeing, in return for a small financial outlay, such enviable accomplishments as being able to “radiate magnetic charm and command the balance of power in every situation” or becoming “an expert persuader in 20 days or less.”

Baloney, he says, and doubtlessly he would say no different even if the advertisers would reduce their exaggerated claims by 50%.

In the latest issue of his popular free e-newsletter The Career Accelerator© (well worth signing up for -it’s free), Greenwood decries a myth that abounds in today’s workplaces: the credo that everyone is entitled to the rewards of success. The world of work simply doesn’t work that way, he stresses. The only way to be reasonably sure of reaping such rewards is to work for organizations that provide opportunities and recognize effort and results. (Even then, there are no guarantees, as he goes on to explain.)

Another myth that flies in the face of reality is one asserting that the workplace is a democracy.

“Not so. Organizations cannot be successfully run by committees of equals where the majority rules. Organizations that survive and prosper require a chain of command at the top of which sits someone who is empowered to make decisions. Successful organizations are meritocracies, systems in which winners emerge and are moved ahead on the basis of their achievements..”

Further, “one of the cruelest myths of all is that organizations are warm and cozy places that provide security. If you believe that myth you are exposing yourself to disappointment. Security occurs only when you have prepared, planned and worked hard so you can have confidence in your ability. Security comes when your employer needs you more than you need him. Security comes when you have options.

“A companion myth is that your boss is your friend. Your boss is your boss. You cannot rely on friendships for lasting, fulfilling success. The way to maintain a positive relationship with your boss and enhance your opportunities is to excel at your job, make him look good.”

In other words, you cannot assume that your accomplishments speak for themselves and you will as a matter of course be rewarded accordingly. if you believe this is the case, you have fallen victim to another myth!

“The recipe for success is simple”, Greewood concludes “Achieve results that pay off for your employer; make sure your employer knows what you have accomplished that contributes to his bottom line. Only then will you be rewarded for your true worth.”

Bottom line: no need to fall prey to despair and conclude that success is beyond your grasp. It is within your reach! The real secrets are hard work, initiative and patience.

And common sense. Just a pity that’s not a little more common!

The Root of Miscommunication in the Boardroom: Four Fatal Assumptions

Azriel Winnett — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:00:41 +0000

It’s a common enough occurrence in any organization in the minutes immediately following a high-level meeting.

Two of the participants leave the boardroom together and as they travel down the hallway they begin discussing that report by the CEO, the sales managers forecast, a fellow executive’s proposal and the ensuing discussion, or anything else they happened to hear at the meeting.

After a minute or two of comparing notes, the two colleagues suddenly stop in their tracks, turn towards each and sigh. It’s clear from their identical, somewhat pained, expressions that they’re both thinking the same thing: “Were you in the same meeting I was?”

Australian consultant Ron Crossland writes that whenever he addresses a group of managers he always asks them if they have experienced this scenario, and every time he gets unanimous assent. He stresses that he’s not talking here of the more understandable occurrence where one executive’s opinion of what the speaker had been saying differs from that of his colleagues. This is another case. What one participant at the meeting actually hears the speaker say, is different from what his or her colleague hears.

This kind of experience, laments Crossland, is the inevitable outcome of four mistakes – “common, ordinary and understandable things”, as he call them – that people in the echelons of power make when they are leading and communicating. These errors, are at the “root of most miscommunication, most continuing disagreement, and most inaction or alternative action, some of which may cause considerable rework”.

These mistakes, which are so frequent that they’re often made without any conscious thought, take the form of four fatal assumptions that leaders automatically make after they have communicated something, or at the end of a meeting. These leaders honestly believe that:

Constituents understand what has been communicated
Constituents agree with what has been communicated.
Constituents care about what has been communicated.
Constituents know how to act against what has been communicated.

Fortunately and interestingly, once these same leaders become conscious of what they are doing and begin to realize the big mess that their faulty assumptions have created, they are easily enough able to work out appropriate solutions. Crossland’s own analysis and suggestions are well worth reading in full.

One thing is for certain: there’s no greater enemy to effective communication than the human tendency to take things for granted. Who says that the intended act of communication has taken place at all?

When Too Much Co-operation Can Drive a Workforce Nuts

Azriel Winnett — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:58:37 +0000

Are you a member of a work team? Or is the team concept redundant in your particular workplace, because everybody is meant to work together
as one team?

The “one-team approach” seems to be gaining traction rapidly in the corporate world today, as organization structures are redesigned with the aim of breaking down the “silos” that stop people cooperating laterally across the organization.

What management often doesn’t appreciate that too much emphasis on communication and cooperation within an organization carries the seeds of many unanticipated stresses and strains, and productivity is often the first casualty. The confused and weary faces in this graphic probably say it all:

Kevan Hall, author of “Speed Lead: Faster, Simpler Ways to Manage People, Projects and Teams In Complex Companies” and CEO of Global Integration points out: “If you find your ‘one team approach’ leads to unnecessary teams and meetings and to everyone being involved in everything, then you have gone too far. It is a very common symptom of matrix management problems and surprisingly hard to recover from.”