What Makes You Say That?

Some of you have been practicing the last few techniques I’ve posted – GOOD FOR YOU. Communications is something that you practice frequently so that when you need it, you are confident in your abilities. One friend likened it to CPR in this way – if, when you need the skills, you have only an academic understanding and are under-practiced, you may choose not to use them for fear of doing it “wrong”. I suppose that is true, and I salute you that are practicing and sending me email.

A common question asked has been “What if one’s emotions boil over during a talk?” Some conversations can have a high emotional content, and by using the right skills the CONVERSATION needn’t become emotional – needn’t cause defensiveness. Right now, we are exploring the model for a straightforward business discussion and examining its parts and protocols as if neither side becomes emotional while the topic at hand is being discussed. In later lessons, once we have some mastery of these skills, we will examine how to conduct a more “charged” discussion.

So far, we have:
- Identified the underlying resolution in a controversy
- Categorized the resolution into one of four categories of claims
- Learned four ways to identify the issues that need to be addressed to support the resolution

Today we will learn what to do with those issues, and what work they are expected to do. We will be building on the examples we have been using all along (“Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”). For the moment assume that the key questions (issues) can be asked straight out, without any “shaping” as we might if there were some emotional charge associated with them.

Let’s agree to a limited set of issues that would be required to support this claim.
- How many kids are engaged in cheating?
- How many kids do the teachers think are cheating?
- How many more would be “Far More” than teachers think?
- Are that many more kids cheating?

We would ask the claimant (that is the person making the claim) one of these questions and expect some kind of answer. The answer needs to be based on something and we call that basis “evidence”. There are three kinds of evidence that we will listen for; Objective Evidence, Social Consensus, and Credibility of the Speaker.

- Objective evidence is anything that can be examined further. Statistics, documents, testimony, opinions, and examples are all types of objective evidence. Evidence of this type can be examined and questioned until it is accepted.
- Social consensus is a belief that can act as a fact. Common knowledge, shared values, previously established facts, and stipulations are all types of social consensus. Evidence of this type must be agreed to by both sides before it has any real power.
- Credibility can substitute for evidence and we allow it to do so frequently. If the person has a good track record for being honest, is an authority on the subject, can point to a clear basis for their conclusion, does not have a bias or vested interest, and if other credible sources agree with them, it is very likely that they are credible.

Using our example, let’s imagine that we’ve asked the claimant “How many kids are engaged in cheating?” Let’s imagine that they respond with “Practically every single one of them”. We ask “how do you know that?” and their response is, “I just know it”. They are asking you to accept their credibility as evidence. So look back at the criteria for credibility; track record, expertise, clarity of basis, bias, etcetera. You would have to ask questions about those items before you could accept their credibility as evidence.

What if they would have responded differently? Let’s imagine that they respond with “Practically every single one of them”. We ask “how do you know that?” and their response is, “Everyone knows that”. They are now asking you to accept Social consensus as evidence. So look back at the criteria for social consensus; common knowledge, shared values, previously established facts, stipulations, etcetera. Did you stipulate (or are you willing to stipulate) that ‘practically every single student’ is cheating? If not, could you find it to be a widely held belief? Is it a previously established fact? If not, it isn’t suitable evidence and you would reject the claim pending stronger evidence.

Finally, let’s imagine that they respond with “Practically every single one of them”. We ask “how do you know that?” and their response is, “I have a survey here that shows it”. They are now asking you to accept statistics as evidence. This is a form of Objective evidence. So what does this mean? It means you can examine the data further if you wish. If you don’t accept it at face value, you should ask a few questions about the survey to see if it is relevant. Is it from the same population of students that we were originally talking about or a different population? Is it from a prison school located in Madagascar in 1760?? Is there a sufficient sample size and a sufficient variety and range of respondents? Can it be fact checked? Can the source data be reviewed?

These rules can be applied as stringently as is needed to guide the course of the discussion. For instance, if this was a discussion about something very risky (“should we launch the shuttle in cold weather?”), you would have a higher standard of evidence than for something that was low risk. If you have done some independent checking and you feel you know about how many students are cheating and the claimant has a similar number, you may accept it as Common Knowledge and move on. If your numbers are significantly different, you may accept their number based on their credibility or survey. Or you may reject it until a number is found that is mutually agreeable based in the evidence.

You should understand now that in order to engage in a critical discussion, the tools used are questions and answers. The answers are called ‘reasons’ and the process is called ‘reasoning’ – exchanging reasons back and forth until we can agree on one. You should also recognize that if YOU are the one making the claims, you would be well-advised to use the Topoi to analyze the issues surrounding your claims and be prepared with some compelling evidence. This is how you develop that good track record required for using your own credibility as evidence.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Aristotle’s Issues

In the last few weeks, we have gone over the following:
· Finding the resolution in a controversy
· Finding the issues inherent in the controversy (3 out of the 4 ways)
· The four types of claims that are made to answer the issues raised
The resolution and issues both ‘flow’ from the controversy, the claims flow from the issues and are analyzed to see if they support the resolution. Graphically, it looks like this:

I mentioned a fourth way to formulate the issues for a given controversy. This method was described by Aristotle. As I mentioned before, I always try to develop issues using two or more methods and this method (the Topoi) is the one I rely on most.

Topos is a Greek word for ‘place’. The plural is topoi and refers to ‘places in the mind’ where questions are kept. There is a story that goes with this, but for now just recognize that this is a method to formulate issues based on the type of claim being made. Again, the four types of claims are:

1 - Claim of Fact – presented as a plain factual statement like “Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”

2 - Claim of Definition – presented to offer a definition or characterization like “The kid wasn’t cheating; he was just harmlessly cutting a corner”

3 - Claim of Quality – presented to make a value judgment about something like “Those teachers are incompetent”

4 - Claim of Policy – presented as a suggested course of action like “They should allow the kids to work together and share ideas like they’ll have to in the workplace”

For a claim of fact, there are two topoi; 1) ‘How would we know if the claim is true?’ and 2) ‘Have those conditions been met?’ So going to our example (“Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”), some issues suggested by those topoi are: How many kids are engaged in cheating? How many kids do the teachers think are cheating? How many more would be “Far More” than teachers think, and are that many more cheating?

The degree to which you can answer those questions indicates the strength of your position. NOTE – (this is important) - It is usually NOT PRACTICAL (or even possible) to answer the issues with absolute proof. If it were possible, then there would NOT be a controversy! There are three kinds (and a few subtypes) and we will talk about how you weigh supporting evidence in the coming weeks. For now, just know that there is seldom “incontrovertible evidence” for anything that is controversial in business.

For a claim of definition, there are three topoi; 1) ‘Is the definition relevant?’, 2) ‘Is the definition fair?’, and 3) ‘How do we choose between competing definitions?’ So going to our example (“The kid wasn’t cheating; he was just harmlessly cutting a corner”), some issues suggested by those topoi are: Does it matter if we share a common understanding of what ‘cheating’ is? Is it important not to cheat in school? Is there a difference between ‘cheating’ and ‘cutting corners’? Would the activity that the kid was engaged in constitute what we consider cheating? How are ‘cheating’ and ‘cutting corners’ different? Can we agree on enough differences between ‘cheating’ and ‘cutting corners’ so that we can differentiate between them?

You may see why the topoi are my favorite method – it offers guidance in creating issues. This was always a problem for me when I started out in business. People would say something that didn’t seem quite right, but I never knew what to say to challenge them. Learning the topoi helped me a great deal.

A claim of quality is similar to a claim of definition. It is presumed, however, that we agree on the definition of the quality. If not, then we would handle it like a claim of definition until we agreed on the definition of the quality and then proceed. For a claim of quality, there are three topoi; 1) ‘Is the value true?’, 2) ‘Is the value generally relevant or specifically relevant?’, and 3) ‘How do we choose between competing values?’ So going to our example (“Those teachers are incompetent”), some issues suggested by those topoi are: How do we judge if the teachers meet our definition of incompetent? Are they incompetent in all things, some things, or just in some specific thing that may not be relevant to the resolution? If we characterized their incompetence as ‘stupidity’ or ‘laziness’, would we feel that those (competing) values better describe our perception of them?

Claims of policy are common in business, because we are constantly trying to correct problems or create opportunities. For a claim of policy, there are four topoi; 1) ‘Is there a problem (reason to change from the current state)?’, 2) ‘What is the problem?’, 3) ‘Does the proposal solve the problem?’, and 4) ‘Is the proposal better than the problem?’ So going to our example (“They should allow the kids to work together and share ideas like they’ll have to in the workplace”), some issues suggested by those topoi are: Is there a problem with kids competing? Is there a problem with kids competing in school differently than they will at work? Is competition the problem? Is there enough collaboration going on so that kids learn both working styles? Does allowing kids to collaborate keep them from cheating? Are there other impacts (expense, curriculum, facilities, teacher training, etc.) that would have to change in order to permit collaboration? Will it be worth it?

Now, you know a lot more about questioning claims made by people; how to categorize those claims, and how to define the key issues needed to resolve them. As always, you need to practice these techniques as often as possible until you are doing so automatically. It is critical that you practice when the stakes are low so that you are comfortable if the stakes are raised.

Next we will learn how to answer issues and by extension, learn what to expect for answers when someone else is responding to your questions.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

We Have Issues

Last week, we started to explore some details in having a critical discussion. We talked about defining the resolution of the discussion (that is, the main claim) and expressing it. I asked you all to practice doing so. While I am certain you ALL practiced, I will cover what you may have encountered in a brief dialog before moving on to identifying issues (the questions that flow naturally and must be answered in fully exploring the resolution). Here goes:
Tom – “I am so upset with my kid. He got in trouble at school!”
Me – “Sorry to hear that. What was it about, if you don’t mind my asking?”
Tom – “He has a terrible history teacher. He tries hard, but can’t really follow all of the details for this class.”
Me – “So how did that get him in trouble?”
Tom – “He borrowed some ideas from another kid’s homework, just to get some ideas. They’re making a mountain out of a molehill.”
Me – “How did they know he did that?”
Tom – “Well, he copied the other kid’s words exactly! All the kid’s copy from each other – but he got caught”
Me – “So, you’re saying that what he did was alright?”
Tom – “No…of course not. I just don’t think he should be singled out”
Me – “So, you’re saying that he shouldn’t be punished?”
Tom – “No – I am just saying that cheating in school is common and punishing my kid won’t help”
Me – “So, you’re saying far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”
Tom – “That’s exactly right”

In this conversation I had to try three times to actually gain agreement on what the resolution is, but I finally made it. The resolution is “Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think” and that gives us a starting place for a critical discussion.
The first thing we may ask is: do we ourselves know this to be true? Do we KNOW with certainty that “Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”? I DON’T know that so I may want to test the truth of that claim a bit. In order to test a claim, one must identify the issues underlying it.

The resolution is a special claim. I called it the “main claim” earlier. Even though it is the main claim in a controversy, it is still just a claim. There are four kinds of claims. That’s right – In all the controversies you have ever been involved in, there have only ever been four kinds of claims in play. Our resolution (“Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”) is called a “claim of fact” – a statement one makes that is presented as a plain fact. We will examine all four kinds as we progress, but for now we will just define them:
1 - Claim of Fact – presented as a plain factual statement like “Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”
2 - Claim of Definition – presented to offer a definition or characterization like “The kid wasn’t cheating; he was just harmlessly cutting a corner”
3 - Claim of Quality – presented to make a value judgment about something like “Those teachers are incompetent”
4 - Claim of Policy – presented as a suggested course of action like “They should allow the kids to work together and share ideas like they’ll have to in the workplace”

The underlying issues for each kind of claim can be found in four ways:
1 – Breaking down the key words and phrases in the claim, and asking questions about them
2 – Reviewing the context of the claim, rather than simply breaking down the phrases
3 – Reviewing all that we both agree on about the subject, and questioning that which we do NOT agree on
4 – Using an ancient model (called the Topoi) to determine the underlying questions based on the kind of claim being made.

We will illustrate method number one, two, and three in this article, with special attention to the fourth next time.

In breaking down key words or phrases, we would view the resolution in parts and ask questions about those parts. See the table below.

Key word or phrase	Issues
Far more kids	How many kids? How many more is “far more”?
are engaged in cheating in school	What do we mean by engaged in cheating? What does one have to do to be “engaged in cheating”? What does it look like? What exactly is “cheating” in school? Does this exclude cheating in other places? Is it only in academic subjects, or can one cheat in art or physical education?
than the teachers think	Do we know how many kids the teachers think are cheating? Are the teachers in a good position to know? What would make the teachers think that kids are cheating?

If we were to examine the context, we might ask questions about the pressure put on kids to do well in school; the erosion of ethics in society in general; the temptation of a “quick fix” approach over longer term and deeper education strategy; or the incongruent emphasis between individual achievement in school and team achievement at work.

In reviewing all that we agree on within the topic, we might stipulate that kids do cheat and teachers can’t be certain as to how many do it, and that cheating means turning in work for credit for which you were not the original creator. We would still have discuss the teachers’ estimate of how many cheaters there are and how may cheaters there actually are, and would the difference in the two numbers qualify as “far more” or not.

When I review a claim I like to use at least two of the four methods, which ever seems more appropriate at the time, in order to make sure I have a good perspective of the resolution. Practice it this week – first, question until you have the resolution defined to the other party’s satisfaction and then develop all the salient issues you can. You don’t have to ask them all (I never do) but identify as many as you can and see if you can ask the most important ones. You will never be at a loss for something to ask about a claim again!

Next Week – the topoi!

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Learning to Identify the Resolution

A critical discussion is one in which something is being criticized – that is, evaluated from multiple perspectives for the purpose of coming to a shared understanding. These discussions are vital if we are to come to an agreement about the nature of something, or to agree upon a definition, or to agree on what should be done in a given situation. Fortunately for us, some of the great minds of the ages have put a good deal of thought into this process and have refined the process into something simple enough for me to understand and relate to you all. It is my intention to do this over the next few newsletters.

Let’s start with the model of a controversy. We start there because, if there is no controversy, we already have a shared understanding and have no use for critical discussion. However, if we choose to challenge presumption (reference my newsletter from August 31st), then we need to acknowledge controversy.

First we start with a simple statement describing a point of view (“Capital punishment is murder”, “We are products of our environment”, or “We should bail out Wall Street firms”). There is no thought at this time whether or not these statements are correct – they just represent one side of a controversy. It doesn’t matter if we believe them or not because in examining them, we are IMPARTIAL. We do NOT advocate a position. Rather, we assume only that they are issues complex enough to require analysis in order to be fully understood. This is challenge #1 and runs contrary to our training to “have the right answer”. We recognize here that we are seeking the answer and no more. This simple statement is called the “resolution”. It is not the ANSWER to the controversy (although it certainly could turn out to be); it is just the place we start our analysis.

So, when we begin feeling a disagreement brewing, we immediately try to formulate a resolution. We may ask “So, what you are saying is…..” and then express the statement a simply as possible in a neutral and temperate tone, and without adding charged language. If someone indicated that the Wall Street bail out was a reasonable course of action, your attempt to express that position as resolution would be expressed “So, what you are saying is we should bail out Wall Street firms?” and not “So, what you are saying is we should let the criminals on Wall Street off scot free?” The latter is clearly adding charged language that was not originally there. If possible, it is best to express a position without any charged language because it is more objectively analyzed.

I am going to close for now because it is critically important for you to understand just this much:

1. A critical discussion is one in which we are trying to explore various perspectives surrounding a given controversy.

2. A resolution is the principal claim to be explored in a controversy. It is a simple statement that expresses a point of view.

3. The resolution should be expressed in one or two simple sentences. If it cannot, then you should try to view the subject as multiple controversies to be resolved serially.

4. PRACTICE formulating resolutions for the next week. When you find yourself in a disagreement, ask the question “So, what you are saying is….?” to practice clarifying your understanding. Keep track of how many times the other party amends or adjusts the resolution. It is interesting to see that many times, we really didn’t understand just what the other party meant when we started our disagreement.

5. After you both agree on the resolution, refrain from expressing your opinion. Instead, ask them to tell you more about theirs. Simply say “What makes you say that?”, “What do you have to go on?”, “Tell me more” or whatever is natural and appropriate for you in the circumstance.

The reason I want you to do #4 and #5 is because it is important to practice when there is no great emotional load in the disagreement. If we practice the skills on a regular basis, we will have little problem calling on them when the stakes are a little higher. Get in the habit of clearly understanding the topic being discussed and exploring the other party’s position first.

We’ll discuss more next week.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Decisions, Decisions

Thank you all for being so loyal in reading the newsletters. There are almost 1,000 people reading them now and it is very gratifying for me to read the email you send in. Many of your emails would be of interest to others that read this blog. Feel free to leave them as comments. I always come back to answer any questions left in a comment, and you can be sure that if you are unclear on something here, you are not alone. If for any reason you feel your comment is sensitive, feel free to email it to me. I will not share anything that is emailed to me without your express permission.

The motto for Pathfinder Communication is “Better Communication, Better Decisions, Better Results”. I have dedicated most of the articles to communication. This one is about decisions.

There are generally four ways to make a decision in business, with minor variations depending upon which text you read. Here are the four:

1. Command (We are told what to do)
2. Consultation (We are asked for input before someone else decides)
3. Vote (Majority rules)
4. Consensus (Everyone agrees to a decision)

A Command decision is the kind that is typically handed down (“we need to work this weekend”) from a superior to a subordinate. It is distinguished by the fact that there is no give-and-take to between the superior and the subordinate in it formulation. That is its greatest weakness. Its greatest strength is the speed at which it can be made – instantly. It can be used where it is very unlikely that more information is going to influence the quality of the decision (if the boat is sinking, there is likely no amount of debate that will yield a decision other than “Abandon Ship!”). This is best for simple decisions needed quickly in which buy-in is not a great concern, or is automatic (like the sinking ship example).

In order to make a command decision a bit easier for a subordinate to accept, the decision maker should try to leave some elements flexible (what hours we will work this weekend, splitting shifts, bringing kids to work) and the subordinate should always ask which elements are flexible.

A Consultative decision is one in which the decision maker gathers ideas, evaluates the options, makes a choice, and then reports the decision. This is another way to arrive at a decision quickly and has the added strength of utilizing more than just the decision maker’s information. This is best when 1) the consequences of the decision will lie solely with the decision maker 2) buy in is not the highest priority 3) the problem is more complex; 4) the topic is not strictly in the decision maker’s field of expertise, and so on.

In deciding between a consultative or command decision, remember NOT to pretend you are consulting when you have already made up your mind. Likewise, do not use intimidation to drive a person to give you a certain opinion. The people with whom you consult will not feel valued if you do either of these things. Also, announce that you are consulting from the beginning so that others don’t feel that your decision has to include their point of view. They are just providing ideas and offering options – you are deciding.

Voting is a familiar way of making a decision, but not widely used in business. It is most likely to produce a good result when the team that is voting is responsible for the consequences of the decision, and when the team is well-versed in the differences between the options being voted on AND share a vision of what a desirable end result would be. It is important that all options are pre-screened so that they are all acceptable. That is, there is no option that any team member would not support if it were selected. Voting is a fast way to get a group decision on a subject with a few, roughly equivalent choices. Remember that after a vote, there are winners and losers. The losers should not be made to feel like outcasts for not agreeing with the majority opinion.

A Consensus decision is one in which everyone agrees to support the final decision. It is used for high stakes and complex issues. Consensus requires debate and, as a result, is not about everyone getting their 1st choice. It is about UNITING a group behind a decision and usually is the slowest of all of the methods. Its great strength is that all members of the group contribute to the collaboration and end up with an equal share of the responsibility for the consequences of a complex decision. Its great weakness is the relatively long time it takes and the high level of communication skills required to arrive at a consensus.

In the making of a consensus decision, there can be no “martyrs”; each consensus is independent and each participant in the final decision must participate actively in the collaboration. After a consensus decision is made, there can be no private post-decision lobbying, and no “I told you so”.

Who should be involved in making decisions? Just answer the following four questions:

1. Who has a stake?
- Don’t involve people that aren’t affected or don’t care
2. Who has information?
- Invite people with expertise or information
3. Who must agree?
- Those whose cooperation is beneficial and relevant
- You do NOT want influential people to be surprised by a decision and then be openly resistant
4. How many to involve?
- The minimum set to get a good decision and sufficient commitment

Finally, after the decision is made, understand the WWWF (Who, What, When, and Follow-up). Document a plan that is only as formal and complex as needed. Include interim follow-up actions so that as you implement the decision, you can see that it is unfolding as expected. Surprises in the implementation may be an indicator that the decision needs further consideration.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

'Tis the Season

Lately, I have had more than the normal amount of difficult conversations at work and home, with peers, elderly parents, and impossible children. Let's see if I can recall the more grievous mistakes I have made in them:
1) Withdrawal - I recently had a conversation in which I felt sufficiently attacked that I chose to withdraw. That is, I chose to ignore my true feelings and just agree rather than try to share my side of the story. This is a fairly significant mistake because the relationship is one that is very important to me and by choosing not to tell my side, I am choosing not to make it better.

What should I have done?

I teach in the classes that the right thing to do is to take a break; to express that the conversation is very important and the issue must be addressed, but I really can't right now. I need to sort through what I think, separate it from what I feel, and talk more later. I really wish I would have followed my own advice.

2) Assumption - I have assumed that I knew a person's side of the story when i didn't. There was a subtle shift in language and BANG! I was engaged in a full scale verbal war without warning. In the end, we agreed with each other and worked through our differences, but this is a "rookie" mistake that I should never have made.

What should I have done?

I teach that you need to be, above all things, seeking to understand the other side. I let up for just a minute (long enough for my collaborator to process more information and change their opinion) and actually lost track of their position....in SECONDS. When I sensed the change in language, I should have asked "What makes you say that?" or "Tell me more" but I didn't. They had just gotten that piece of information that changes everything and I didn’t catch it.

3) Misjudging my collaborator - I engaged with someone that has a history of pure advocacy - seldom thinks through a conversation critically, and tends to keep score as "wins" and "losses" rather than "good decisions" and "poor decisions". I felt they were going into a situation only partially prepared and was questioning their strategy. I was dealt with as if I was attacking them. In this relationship, I am expected to offer this kind of input.

What should I have done?

This one was tricky. I teach that you need to have the right "purpose, position, and clarity" formulated when you begin, and I believe I did. I actually made two mistakes: a) tried to convince them of my position in one conversation (almost never happens) and b) tried to hold a critical discussion with someone not usually open to critical thinking. I needed to preface my remarks FAR more carefully, to build safety, and to be crystal clear that I was not challenging but trying to help. I could have done all of these things better.

So there are a few lessons here. First, we all make mistakes and need to look hard to learn from them. Second, the classes teach all we need to know to have great communication BUT you have to APPLY what you learn to get the benefit. Third, if you ever think that the other party is the ONLY contributor to your communication problems, think again - we almost ALWAYS have some hand in the problem AND the solution.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

SO Many Differences

I am speaking on October 29th on the subject of “Working with Difficult People” and spent some time this weekend working on that presentation. If you have been to a Pathfinder class, you know that I teach that what makes people appear difficult are the differences between them, which I categorize loosely as Rules, Perceptions, Beliefs, Preferences, and Styles. It always surprises me (although it shouldn’t) at how little we believe these impact us. We acknowledge that there are differences, but feel most of them are trivial and really don’t interfere with our ability to communicate. I will say here for the first time that this is probably the single largest mistake we can make!

These differences may usually be small, but they invade our communication in such numbers that they quickly combine to overwhelm almost any serious discussion except for the most logical (for instance, discussions about math or science) and can cause us to lose sight of the facts. Here is what I mean – imagine that you and a sibling are sitting in a class with me. I ask you both to write ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a series of questions like this one:
1 – Is a sofa a piece of furniture?
2 – Is a chair a piece of furniture?
3 – Is a wooden stool a piece of furniture?
4 – Is a wooden cube a piece of furniture?
5– Is a wooden crate piece of furniture?
6 – Is a cardboard crate piece of furniture?
7 – Is a piece of cardboard a piece of furniture?

Around questions 4, 5, & 6 the concept of a piece of furniture is raised. You and a sibling may agree on this. Maybe not. Would you and all your peers at work match up? You and someone from another country?

Remember, this is a question about the concept of furniture – something we form very early; something very familiar and concrete. Are we all on the same page? How about with something a more abstract – would you expect that you and your peers agree on what comprises professional behavior? Freedom? Art? Business results? As the subject gets more abstract, the more radical the differences between people becomes. Even on fairly concrete things, we vary widely.

We also have differences in the way we think things will play out over time. If you have a general rule that "things usually work out for the best", your boss has a general rule that "what can go wrong, will", and your peer has the idea that "nothing we do is really important", do you think it might affect the way you approach projects and your impressions of each other's work?

These differences exist within nearly every concept that we hold. What I think is assertive leadership, you may feel is bullying. With so many differences it is difficult for me to see how we EVER get past them. The answer is, we usually don’t and many of us just “put up” with what goes on, believing that we are right and others wrong. The thing is, keeping score that way is pointless and counterproductive.

If you want to understand “Working with Difficult People”, recognize that they are only difficult until you understand them. I mean understand them in a way that they KNOW you understand them, which generally means you can explain their position TO THEM and have them say “Yeah….you got it!” If you do that, you have asked questions, listened carefully, let them talk, considered what they had to say, and repeated it back to them. You asked them to correct you if you had it wrong. You made their point of view important – not right or wrong, but important enough to work to understand.

If someone did that for you, how difficult would you be?

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication