Head On Read online

  A final technique is to maintain perspective on the situation. If you realize that the situation in the grocery store with your child and the sugary cereal is really not the end of the world as we know it and that children are hard-wired to be persistent, you just may find some grace in the situation, both for yourself and the child. In that moment of grace, you may find an alternate way to persuade them to let go (perhaps literally) of the sugary cereal. “Let’s go home and make your favorite muffins for tomorrow’s breakfast.” Or with your colleague’s toenails: while it disgusts you, it isn’t likely to take the company down financially. When we get a handle on the relative magnitude of the situation and place it in perspective, we might even laugh. That might not be appropriate given the situation, so laugh quietly.

  CONCLUSION

  We’ve looked at techniques for emotional clearing, including Phone-A-Friend, exercise, and organizing. We’ve also considered strategies for keeping your cool and making sure the conversation stays on track and at the appropriate stress level. Use the following exercises to help you expand your toolkit for emotional readiness as you prepare for difficult conversations.

  EXERCISES

  #7: Phone-A-Friend

  Rather than bring your emotional distractions into a conversation on a challenging topic, drop them off with a friend so you can be free from them. When you Phone-A-Friend, your friend’s job is NOT to give you the answer or help solve the problem. Instead, their role is first to listen attentively and really “get” what is bothering you and then to “hold” that problem, issue or set of experiences while you have the difficult conversation with someone.

  In choosing a Phone-A-Friend partner, there are several tips to keep in mind.

  Select someone you trust.

  It must be someone who does not have a strong desire to fix things in your life.

  It must be someone who can take your direction on how to listen.

  List several people you can “audition” to be your Phone-A- Friend:

  # 8 : Emotional Contagion: Inflaters and Deflaters

  Research shows that we are likely to “catch” the emotional state of someone else. Research by Dr. Sigal Barsade at Yale University, one of the leading experts on emotional contagion, found that not only does the mood of individuals affect other employees, it also unknowingly, can have a significant influence on their judgement and on business decisions.

  Positive people can infuse you with upbeat emotions. I call them “inflaters” because you can catch their good vibes and that can fill you up with optimism and confidence.

  Who are the people in your life who are emotionally contagious and consistently spread positive emotions?

  We are just as likely (and sometimes more likely) to “catch” the negative emotional state of someone else. Negative people infect others with their bad attitudes. I call these people “deflaters” because they have a tendency to deflate a good mood if we don’t prepare ourselves before connecting with them.

  Who are the deflaters – those who are emotionally contagious and consistently spread negative emotions – in your life?

  CHAPTER 5

  OPEN WITHOUT

  DEFENISIVENESS

  Amy was a new member at the YMCA, and she and her family made their first visit there on a recent Saturday morning. After Amy’s workout, she collected her children from the Kids Zone and went to the locker room to take a quick shower. Her children, ages four and six, played nearby, rolling an exercise ball back and forth. Unbeknownst to Amy, children under the age of 18 were not permitted in the women’s locker room. As Amy’s children played quietly and Amy toweled off and dressed, another woman angrily glared in turn at the children and their mother. A patron who took very seriously the “no children” rule, she looked ready to pounce.

  Amy had just finished dressing and the observer was about to swoop in to school Amy on the locker room rules. Sensing that trouble was brewing, another woman stepped in and addressed Amy.

  “Hi, I’m Michelle. Didn’t I just see you in the yoga class?”

  “Hi, I’m Amy. Nice to meet you. Yeah, I was in that class. My legs still feel a little wobbly from holding those poses so long!”

  “I know what you mean. I’m a regular in Beth’s yoga classes. She loves the balance poses. I don’t think I’ve seen you in class before. Are you new?”

  “Yes, my family just joined this week. This is our first time here,” Amy replied.

  “Well then, welcome. I’ve been a member for years and really like it. Those your kids?” Michelle asked.

  “Yes, they are,” Amy replied.

  “They’re adorable. And very well behaved,” said Michelle. It was true.

  “Thank you.” Amy beamed.

  “Word to the wise,” said Michelle. “This is the women’s locker room. Kids aren’t supposed to be in here. There’s a girl’s locker room next door where you can have girls of any age and boys who are younger than six. I think that’s where you’d want to be when you’ve got your kids along.”

  “Oh, thank you. I had no idea. We were going to go on a tour before yoga class but we didn’t make it on time. Kids, you know.”

  “No problem. Some people are really sticklers about the rules so I wanted to make sure you were aware.”

  “Great to know – and great meeting you. I’m sure I’ll see you in Beth’s class soon. Thanks again,” Amy said as she gathered her children and left the locker room.

  The woman who had been glaring at Amy and her kids stepped forward and spoke to Michelle. “I was going to say something about those kids too, but you beat me to it. And you said it so much more diplomatically than I would have. Thank you.”

  ◆◆◆

  This interchange has all of the characteristics of a well-executed conversation on a difficult topic. In fact, Amy, the rule breaker, thanked Michelle as the conversation concluded, as did the onlooker. As you will soon learn, the very words you choose to begin the conversation will not only set the tone but create a sense of freedom for your partner. With a successful opening, you may just find them thanking you at the end of the conversation.

  As we learned in Chapter 1, defensiveness and the associated stress hormones hamper the neocortex’s ability to reason (not to mention shutting down the prefrontal cortex – goodbye, critical thinking!). It is imperative then, to open conversations in a manner that does not provoke defensiveness. You want your partner to be prepared to listen well so they can understand you fully. This chapter explains, step by step, how to ensure that.

  This chapter is about openings. It first explains why it is critical to keep the other person from becoming defensive at the outset of a conversation, and why some popular methods of holding difficult conversations, commonly touted as useful, don’t actually work well. We will then examine how specific vocabulary choices create a productive dialogue where all parties can bring their best thinking forward. Finally, the chapter provides a concrete methodology for opening conversations – virtually guaranteed to keep defenses low.

  KEEPING DEFENSIVENESS LOW

  As we learned in Chapter 2, when the human body gets defensive, a hormonal reaction hampers the neocortex and the prefrontal cortex’s ability to reason, think critically, and be rational. It is nearly impossible to develop creative solutions when you go up the arousal continuum to the point that the prefrontal cortex begins to shut down. Thus, it is critical to open conversations in a way that does not provoke defensiveness. If the other person becomes defensive, they will not be able to listen, reason, or comprehend to the best of their ability. Nor will they be able to use their creativity and innovation to solve the problem at hand and reach agreement.

  The human brain loves order and consistency. Whenever new information is presented that conflicts with status-quo knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes, the brain invokes a level of high alertness that can easily escalate into defensiveness, especially when left unmanaged. When a person hears a bump in the night, for example, they involuntarily enter in
to “high alert,” or alarm on the arousal continuum, until the noise is sorted out and understood. Only then can they become relaxed enough to fall back asleep.

  When people encounter new information that makes them feel uncomfortable, the brain automatically invokes this same high alert state. This state leaves your mind predominantly “reactive,” operating in a stimulus-response mode. Your reactions are automatic and possibly not what you would choose if you were calmer.

  Recall from Chapter 2 that when this happens, you have literally no choice but to behave defensively. The autonomic nervous system governs the process. Even when the threat has passed, the stress hormones may take several minutes to several hours to dissipate from the bloodstream.

  It may be easier to be compassionate and understanding about another person’s defensiveness once you realize it’s an automatic response. To a large extent, that person’s reaction is beyond their control, especially if they are not aware of the body’s defensive response. This is precisely why it is imperative to open the conversation well.

  Intention Versus Impact

  A defensive reaction in a conversation can occur regardless of what you intended to happen. You may feel like you’ve just said the most innocuous thing. You might be surprised at the other person’s reaction, not understanding why they are upset. This is a case of classic misunderstanding and can easily be corrected provided you quickly realize that the intention and impact of your communication were actually quite different. With quick thinking and responsiveness, you can repair the conversation and the other person’s fight or flight state will likely dissipate quickly.

  When your partner is in a state of fear, the executive functions of the brain which control higher order thinking are, for the most part, inaccessible. Some of those functions include the ability to reason, make sense of ideas and behavior, moderate and regulate emotions, accurately assess risk, think critically and creatively, ask for help, self-reflect, and make plans. If you are going to discuss an important topic with a colleague, do you want them in a state where they can’t access those functions? Of course not. If they were in such a state, there would be little chance of truly connecting or creating meaning and finding solutions together.

  KEEPING DEFENSIVENESS AT BAY

  When one person gets defensive, the other person often gets defensive as well. It looks something like this situation:

  Lauren and Sam are managers in an in-house creative agency for a large company. They are discussing a high-profile project.

  Lauren: We need to send this to an outside agency.

  Sam: No. Our internal people need to learn how to do this work. This is the perfect opportunity. Defaulting to a private agency every time we have challenging projects doesn’t give them a chance to learn and prove themselves. How are they going to pick up any skills? Give them a chance.

  Lauren: Well, we’ve tried in the past and it just hasn’t worked out. I’m not willing to “give your people a chance” on such a high stakes project. We’re running a business here, not a design school.

  Sam: Stop, stop. Just because you have some “high stakes” project doesn’t mean that my people don’t get a chance to learn.

  Lauren: Actually, it does. Our business lines come first. If your people need some professional development to get them to a competitive level, send them to training. They can’t cut their teeth on our top selling product lines!

  When she began this conversation, Lauren wasn’t necessarily expecting Sam to protest. But by the end they were both defensive. After just a few turns in the conversation, what Lauren thought was a matter of fact request turned into a heated discussion.

  This is, in part, the product of our mirror neurons, a special class of brain cells that fire when we observe someone else performing a specific behavior. Italian researchers first discovered mirror neurons in the early 1990s.17 Researchers implanted electrodes in the brains of several macaque monkeys as part of a research program studying the animal’s brain activity while performing various motor actions. One day, one of the researchers reached for his cup of coffee while the monkey was watching him. The electrodes showed that the neurons in the part of the monkey’s brain that govern grasping were triggered nearly simultaneously, presumably an involuntary reflex on the part of the monkey’s brain. Research over the following decades has uncovered that our own responses to other people’s behaviors are not entirely governed by voluntary, logical thought processes either.

  Human communication is reciprocal. This major tenet of human communication was documented many decades before the discovery of mirror neurons. In 1975 Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese, researchers at University of California, Davis, published seven axioms of interpersonal communication and uncertainty reduction. Reciprocity was one of them.18 Human communication behavior is reciprocal and tends to mirror that of those around us.

  With both fear and mirror neuron activity being automatic processes, it is no wonder that difficult conversations escalate quickly.

  Clearly, starting a conversation in a manner that creates a defensive response does not serve the conversation or any of the parties in it. Let’s turn next to some popular methods for holding difficult conversations and examine their usefulness.

  I-STATEMENTS AND SANDWICHES

  During the morning break of a workshop I was leading, Judy came up to me and asked about “I-statements.” She explained, “I was taught years ago to use ‘I-statements’ when I have something difficult to share, so it doesn’t come across as blaming. Instead of starting with ‘you,’ I start with ‘I’ to keep them from feeling like I am blaming them for something. Isn’t that still the best policy?”

  The technique of using “I-statements” has been around since the 1960s, when Dr. Thomas Gordon, a clinical psychologist working with children, promoted it as an effective way of delivering difficult news assertively and without putting the listener on the defensive.19 If one says, “You had twelve typos in the final draft of the marketing copy you submitted,” the other person will likely feel the need to defend themselves. “I was in a hurry.” Or: “It was an impossible deadline. I’d like to see you do it with fewer errors under such a tight timeline.” On the other hand, an I-statement would be worded as follows: “I found twelve typos in the final draft of the marketing copy you submitted.”

  Like Judy, you may, in the past, have been told to use I-statements when beginning difficult conversations. For example, “I am concerned that your attire is too risqué for our clients.” But there are problems with this. The I-statement focuses on the person initiating the conversation, not on the person being spoken to. It’s an approach that intentionally redirects responsibility and ownership to the speaker-and as a result, it lets the offender off the hook. Furthermore, the I-statement does not always focus on the facts but on interpretation of the facts. If you initiated the conversation, the emphasis falls on your interpretation of how risqué said clothing appears, as well as your norms as to the generally accepted level of professionalism for office attire.

  This is not to say that I-statements are never appropriate or useful. They’re best used in areas where there is far more subjectivity, such as parenting and romantic relationships. The I-statement technique is especially useful when talking with children, as Dr. Gordon first intended. It effectively pairs emotion with a situation and works particularly well to explain an emotional response to a fact or set of facts. For example, when talking to my young daughter I might say, “I’m upset that I’ve had to tell you three times to brush your hair. We need to leave for school.” In the workplace, however, the focus should be on facts, not emotions.

  Another methodology that I am regularly asked about is the “sandwich method.” In the sandwich method, the person initiating the difficult conversation first says something nice (or innocuous); follows it with the substantial critique (the sandwich filling); and then caps off their remarks with another positive comment. It might go something like this: “Ben, congratulations closing the sa
le with that latest client. That is a big account and it really makes a difference for our end-of-quarter numbers. We do need to discuss your expense account, however. In courting this client, the expenses exceeded typical allocations by more than 25%. That doesn’t set a good example for our newer sales associates and it doesn’t sit well upstairs. You’ve got some other great leads in the hopper. I’m excited to see which of those clients you land next.”

  The biggest issue (and there are several!) with the sandwich method is that the critical information is lost in the sandwich of positive comments. If the objective is to have a discussion about Ben’s expense account, show Ben the respect he deserves by taking the time to actually focus on this topic. Get into the specifics of the situation, sharing with Ben the actual financial data that was out of bounds. Ideally, too, this conversation should have been initiated when Ben’s expenses on the account began to bump up against the upper limit of what is acceptable rather than waiting until senior management has noticed and become upset about it.

  Another issue with this method is that Ben may not fully comprehend the severity of the situation. He may leave the conversation and discus it with another colleague saying, “My manager is psyched that I closed that great account. Made his end-of-quarter numbers look great. Upstairs noticed that I spent a little more to reel them in but it doesn’t seem to be a big deal.”

  Further, Ben may know on a gut level that something is wrong. Whether he articulates it or not, Ben may feel uneasy because he senses his boss wasn’t completely straight with him. That erodes trust. When the critical feedback is literally sandwiched between other, innocuous comments, it is ambiguous at best and damaging at worst. As I am fond of saying, leave the sandwiches for the buffet table and take your difficult conversations straight up.