Difficult Conversations: Nine Common Mistakes!

Mistake #1: We fall into a combat mentality.

When difficult conversations turn toxic, it's often because we've made a key mistake: we've fallen into a combat mentality. This allows the conversation to become a zero-sum game, with a winner and a loser. But the reality is, when we let conversations take on this tenor – especially at the office – everyone looks bad, and everyone loses. The real enemy is not your conversational counterpart, but the combat mentality itself. And you can defeat it, with strategy and skill.

Mistake #2: We try to oversimplify the problem.
If the subject of your argument were straightforward, chances are you wouldn't be arguing about it. Because it's daunting to try and tackle several issues at once, we may try to roll these problems up into a less-complex Über-Problem. But the existence of such a beast is often an illusion. To avoid oversimplifying, remind yourself that if the issue weren't complicated, it probably wouldn't be so hard to talk about.

Mistake #3: We don't bring enough respect to the conversation.
The key to avoiding oversimplification is respecting the problem you're trying to resolve. To avoid the combat mentality, you need to go further – you need to respect the person you're talking to, and you need to respect yourself. Making sure that you respond in a way you can later be proud of will prevent you from being thrown off course if your counterpart is being openly hostile.

Mistake #4: We lash out – or shut down.
Fear, anger, embarrassment, defensiveness – any number of unpleasant feelings can course through us during a conversation we'd rather not have. Some of us react by confronting our counterpart more aggressively; others, by rushing to smooth things over. We might even see-saw between both counterproductive poles. Instead, move to the middle: state what you really want. The tough emotions won't evaporate. but with practice, you will learn to focus on the outcome you want in spite of them.

Mistake #5: We react to thwarting ploys.
Lying, threatening, stonewalling, crying, sarcasm, shouting, silence, accusing, taking offense: tough talks can present an arsenal of thwarting ploys. (Just because you're trying to move beyond the combat mentality doesn't mean your counterpart is.) But you also have an array of potential responses, ranging from passive to aggressive. Again, the most effective is to move to the middle: disarm the ploy by addressing it. For instance, if your counterpart has stopped responding to you, you can simply say, "I don't know how to interpret your silence."

Mistake #6: We get "hooked."
Everyone has a weak spot. And when someone finds ours – whether inadvertently, with a stray arrow, or because he is hoping to hurt us – it becomes even harder to stay out of the combat mentality. Maybe yours is tied to your job – you feel like your department doesn't get the respect it deserves. Or maybe it's more personal. But whatever it is, take the time to learn what hooks you. Just knowing where you're vulnerable will help you stay in control when someone pokes you there.

Mistake #7: We rehearse.
If we're sure a conversation is going to be tough, it's instinctive to rehearse what we'll say. But a difficult conversation is not a performance, with an actor and an audience. Once you've started the discussion, your counterpart could react in any number of ways – and having a "script" in mind will hamper your ability to listen effectively and react accordingly. Instead, prepare by asking yourself: 1. What is the problem? 2. What would my counterpart say the problem is? 3. What's my preferred outcome? 4. What's my preferred working relationship with my counterpart? You can also ask the other person to do the same in advance of your meeting.

Mistake #8: We make assumptions about our counterpart's intentions.
Optimists tend to assume that every disagreement is just a misunderstanding between two well-intentioned people; pessimists may feel that differences of opinion are actually ill-intentioned attacks. In the fog of a hard talk, we tend to forget that we don't have access to anyone's intentions but our own. Remember that you and your counterpart are both dealing with this ambiguity. If you get stuck, a handy phrase to remember is, "I'm realizing as we talk that I don't fully understand how you see this problem." Admitting what you don't know can be a powerful way to get a conversation back on track.

Mistake #9: We lose sight of the goal.
The key in any tough talk is to always keep sight of the goal. Help prevent this by going into conversations with a clear, realistic preferred outcome; the knowledge of how you want your working relationship with your counterpart to be; and having done some careful thinking about any obstacles that could interfere with either. (Remember, "winning" is not a realistic outcome, since your counterpart is unlikely to accept an outcome of "losing.") If you've done the exercise described in #  7, this should be easier. And you'll be less likely to get thrown off course by either thwarting ploys or your own emotions.

When we're caught off-guard, we're more likely to fall back into old, ineffective habits like the combat mentality. If you're not the one initiating the tough conversation, or if a problem erupts out of nowhere, stick to these basics: keep your content clear, keep your tone neutral, and keep your phrasing temperate. When disagreements flare, you'll be more likely to navigate to a productive outcome – and emerge with your reputation intact.


Source:Sarah Green @ HBR

How to Stay Focused on the Important Things!

"I want to pass something by you," I said to my friend Jori* who has lost 80 pounds over the past six months. "Our ability to lose weight is based on our willingness to suffer through discomfort. To be a little hungry and yet to resist the temptation of eating."

"You're wrong," he said. "You don't know what my hunger is like. It's painful. Withstanding it might work for a week or two, but not for the long term."

I immediately knew that Jori was right. Discipline, willpower and self-control are unsustainable. Eventually, we weaken.

I've tried to lose weight in many different ways. Only two have worked:

One, I cut refined sugar out of my life. I threw out all the ice cream, candy, cookies, and cake and restocked my shelves with healthier alternatives.

Two, I signed up for The Fresh Diet. Each morning, for a month, they delivered all my carefully portioned meals and snacks for the day. The food was delicious and satisfying and I only ate what they gave me, nothing more.

In both situations I reduced my need for discipline. I changed the environment around me so that it was more likely that I would make the choices that were in my best long-term interests.

"So, how did you lose your weight?" I asked him.

Jori had Lap-Band surgery which physically constricted the top of his stomach. As Jori eats, his upper stomach fills up, trickling food to the rest of his stomach. That makes him feel full sooner and for a longer period of time.

In other words, Jori didn't lose weight by withstanding the discomfort of hunger. He lost weight by eradicating the discomfort of hunger. Jori's surgery created a situation that made his desired behavior — eating less — not just more likely, but inevitable.

"When will you take off the Lap-Band?" I asked him.

"Never," he told me.

The Lap-Band can be tightened to create a smaller opening to the stomach or loosened, allowing people to eat unconstricted. Some patients choose to loosen their Lap-Bands when they want to enjoy unrestricted eating, like during vacations or holidays.

You would think that after years of eating smaller portions with an tightened Lap-Band, people would have developed new eating habits they could sustain when the band is loosened.

But that's not the case. According to Jori's doctor, people easily gain 20 pounds or more in a month.

In other words, it's great to learn new habits, but if we want to sustain them, we need to change our environment, and then maintain that new environment, for as long as we want to maintain our change. In other words, if you want to keep the weight off, don't put sugar back in your cabinets. Or loosen your Lap Band. Or consider food outside your agreed-upon portions.

One of my clients, Lisa, was having difficulty with one of her direct reports, David, who wasn't communicating clearly or frequently enough. We created a list of questions that Lisa and David went through each day to help him communicate better. Questions like, "Is there any one you need to update today? Anyone you need to thank? Anyone to whom you need to ask a question?"

After three weeks of answering those questions daily, his communication improved greatly. So Lisa stopped asking the questions. Within a few days, David fell back into his old uncommunicative patterns. The questions didn't fix David; they merely shaped his behavior while he was using them.

So the question is: Have you structured your environment — your life — so that you are more likely to accomplish your most important priorities?

For many of us, the answer is no. We start a day with great intentions. But then people start calling and emailing, asking and directing, and soon we can hardly remember what we wanted to focus on in the first place — if we ever knew. Our days begin to look like frenzied, attempts to get traction while making little headway. By the end of a week, we've forgotten what it was we were hoping to accomplish at the beginning of the week. And by the end the year, we're frustrated that we haven't moved forward in our most important priorities.

The solution isn't willing yourself to focus better. That won't work. Discipline and self-control are unsustainable because in most of our environments there are too many distractions, too many things other people want us to do, too many opportunities and temptations that draw us away from lives that reflect our true values and priorities. It's like trying to lose weight while living in a candy store.

We need to restructure our environments — like constricting our stomachs or emptying our cabinets — so we are more likely to move forward on our most important priorities.

Here are three ways to do that:

1. Empty your cabinets of sugar. Identify up to five things — no more — that you want to focus on for the year. Those are where you should spend 95% of your time. Take anything that doesn't fit into one of those areas of annual focus and get it off your to-do list. I've created a to-do list that's made of six boxes — one for each of my five areas of focus and the 6th labeled "the other 5%". That other 5% box is like sugar — a little might be OK but your day should never contain more than 5% of the activities that don't fit into your five areas of annual focus.
2. Constrict your stomach. Each morning, take a look at your six-box to-do list and transfer the most important items to accomplish for the day into time-slots in your calendar. That way, you'll make strategic choices about fitting the most important items into the limited space of your day.
3. Make a firm agreement with someone about what you're going to eat. Sit down with someone else — your manager, a colleague, your partner — and show them your six box to-do list and your calendar for the day. Tell them what you plan to accomplish and how it fits in with your plan for what you want to focus on for the year. Saying it out loud and having another person hear you and reflect back what they hear creates a deeper level of commitment and accountability.

Because, like Jori's success losing weight, your success focusing on the things that matter most to you, will only happen — in the long term — when you create the environment that supports it.

Source: PETER BREGMAN @ HBR

The Art of Asking Questions

How well do you ask questions? From my experience, most managers don't think about this issue. After all, you don't usually find "the ability to ask questions" on any list of managerial competencies; nor is it an explicit part of the curriculum of business schools or executive education programs. But asking questions effectively is a major underlying part of a manager's job — which suggests that it might be worth giving this skill a little more focus.

We've all experienced times when we've failed at being good questioners, perhaps without realizing it. For example, not long ago I sat in on a meeting where a project team was reviewing its progress with a senior executive sponsor. During the presentation it was clear from his body language that the executive was uncomfortable with the direction that the team was taking. As a result, without any real questioning of the team, he deferred approval of the next steps until he could have a further discussion with the team leader. When he met with the team leader later, he ripped into him for allowing the team to go off-course. Eventually the team leader was able to explain the thinking behind the plan, convinced the executive that they would indeed achieve their objectives, and was given the go-ahead to proceed. But in the meantime the team had lost its momentum (and a week of productivity), and began to focus more on pleasing the sponsor rather than doing the project in the best way.

This is not an isolated incident. Many managers don't know how to probe the thought process of their subordinates, colleagues, and bosses — and instead make assumptions about the basis of their actions. And when those assumptions are wrong, all sorts of dysfunctional patterns can be created. In a financial services firm, for example, a major product upgrade was delayed by months because the product and IT managers had different assumptions about what was to be delivered by when, and kept blaming each other for delays. When a third party finally helped them to ask the right questions, they were able to come up with a plan that satisfied both, and quickly produced incremental revenue for the product.

There are three areas where improved "questioning" can strengthen managerial effectiveness; and it might be worth considering how you can improve your skills in each one.

First is the ability to ask questions about yourself. All of us fall into unproductive habits, sometimes unconsciously. Good managers therefore are always asking themselves and others about what they could do better or differently. Finding the right time and approach for asking these questions in a way that invites constructive and candid responses is critical.

Second is the ability to ask questions about plans and projects. The examples mentioned above both fall into this category. The challenge with questioning projects is to do so in a way that not only advances the work, but that also builds relationships and helps the people involved to learn and develop. This doesn't mean that your questions can't be tough and direct, but the probing needs to be in the spirit of accelerating progress, illuminating unconscious assumptions and solving problems. This is in contrast to some managers who (perhaps out of their own insecurity) ask review questions either to prove that they are the smartest one in the room, or to make someone squirm. On the other hand, many of the best managers I've seen have an uncanny ability to engage in Socratic dialogue that helps people reach their own conclusions about what can be done to improve a plan or project, which of course leads to much more ownership and learning.

Finally, practice asking questions about the organization. Although usually unspoken, managers have an obligation to always look for ways that the organization as a whole can function more effectively. To do this, they need to ask questions about practices, processes, and structures: Why do we do things this way? Is there a better approach? Asking these questions in a way that does not trigger defensiveness and that is seen as constructive is an important skill for managers.

Most of us never think about how to frame our questions. Giving this process some explicit thought however might not only make you a better manager; it might also help others improve their inquiry skills as well.

Source: Ron Ashkenas @ HBR

Seven Seconds to Make a First Impression

You meet a business acquaintance for the first time – it could be your new boss, a recent addition to your team, or a potential client you want to sign up.

The moment that stranger sees you, his or her brain makes a thousand computations: Are you someone to approach or to avoid? Are you friend or foe? Do you have status and authority? Are you trustworthy, competent, likeable, confident?

And these computations are made at lightning speed. Researchers from NYU found that we make eleven major decisions about one another in the first seven seconds of meeting.

In business interactions, first impressions are crucial. While you can’t stop people from making snap decisions – the human brain is hardwired in this way as a prehistoric survival mechanism – youcan understand how to make those decisions work in your favor.

First impressions are more heavily influenced by nonverbal cues than verbal cues. In fact, studies have found that nonverbal cues have over four times the impact on the impression you make than anything you say.

Here are seven nonverbal ways to make a positive first impression:

1. Adjust your attitude. People pick up your attitude instantly. Before you turn to greet someone, or enter the boardroom, or step onstage to make a presentation, think about the situation and make a conscious choice about the attitude you want to embody.

2. Straighten your posture. Status and power are nonverbally conveyed by height and space. Standing tall, pulling your shoulders back, and holding your head straight are all signals of confidence and competence.

3. Smile. A smile is an invitation, a sign of welcome. It says, “I’m friendly and approachable.”

4. Make eye contact. Looking at someone’s eyes transmits energy and indicates interest and openness. (To improve your eye contact, make a practice of noticing the eye color of everyone you meet.)

5. Raise your eyebrows. Open your eyes slightly more than normal to simulate the “eyebrow flash” that is the universal signal of recognition and acknowledgement.

6. Shake hands. This is the quickest way to establish rapport. It’s also the most effective. Research shows it takes an average of three hours of continuous interaction to develop the same level of rapport that you can get with a single handshake.

7. Lean in slightly. Leaning forward shows you’re engaged and interested. But be respectful of the other person’s space. That means, in most business situations, staying about two feet away.

Every encounter, from conferences to meetings to training sessions to business lunches, presents an opportunity to meet people, network, and expand your professional contacts by making a positive first impression. You’ve got just seven seconds – but if you handle it well, seven seconds are all you need!

Source : Carol Kinsey Goman @ forbes.com 

Why I'm Unemployable

Recently, I realized I’m unemployable.
Not employable in the conventional sense, anyway.
The good news is that being unemployable doesn’t mean you have to be unemployed.

1. I don’t fit in a box

I have never fit in, really. I have been a freelancer for 15 years. I have covered some unusual subjects in my career. I am six-foot-one. I grew up in Berkeley, California. In other parts of the country, the goal is to fit in. In Berkeley, the goal is to not fit in.

It’s seven months later, and that never happened.

When I got downsized, I panicked. That panic led to wishful thinking. I started to believe that if I just got my resume right, if I just sent my resume to the right person, if I just said the right thing in an interview, I would get a real job, just like everyone else.

2. If you are different, others may fail to recognize you

This is not to say I am unemployed. I am full-time self-employed. Given the economy, the unemployment rate, and the Great Recession, this is something of a miracle.

Currently, “the average worker who is unemployed has been searching for a job for 40.4 weeks.” If you have never been unemployed in a tough economy, you might think people who spend 40 weeks looking for a job are lazy. They are not. It’s hard out there for an unemployed person.

I was fully self-employed within four months. People who dole out career advice for a living will claim they can tell you why this is the case, but nobody knows, not really. I did not seek to be self-employed. In fact, as I recall, not long after I was downsized, I hollered at someone it would be “impossible” for me to be self-employed. It wouldn’t happen with my skill set in this economy.

I became self-employed, and then it took me a while to realize what I had done. I thought I was piecing together a few jobs so I wouldn’t end up homeless. In reality, I had created an alternative to unemployment. Maybe unconsciously I knew that no one would ever hire me for a full-time “regular” job. They never had. Why would they now?

3. Break out of the system before it breaks you

Not long ago, I made a dedicated attempt to get a certain full-time “real” job. Eventually, though, I got a call, and the answer was no. But before that call came, I had been feeling not right about it. After all, while the amount of work I do now is overwhelming at times, I am supporting myself, as best I can. To do that job would have meant giving up what I have.

For what? The middleman is being cut out of the marketplace, consumers and creators are learning how to develop relationships that serve both sides better, and the big companies are failing to understand how to work right in the new economy. To be a part of that was not what I wanted.

Since I had that revelation, I have been working on projects I’m passionate about. I am remembering who I was before some things got me off track and I started to forget who I was. I am working on giving up on getting a job I will never get.

Of course, none of this is easy. But it is better than trying to fit into a box.

Source: Susannah Breslin@www.forbes.com

Embrace Four Thinking Styles To Save Your Sanity

Managers who recognize and support different thinking styles can leverage the diverse talents and perspectives of everyone around them  
Before you try to change the way your colleagues, contacts and customers act, learn how they think. Culture involves multiple dimensions that often remain invisible, but the most important to grasp is the way different people process information and approach problems. Not everyone thinks the same, and not everyone likes the way you think
.This is a good thing. Managers who recognize and support different thinking styles can leverage the diverse talents and perspectives of everyone around them. Different brains ask different questions, which creates the potential for different answers and different results. 

Mindful managers first must gain awareness of their own thinking biases. Thunderbird School of Global Management uses the Cultural Orientations Indicator, a self-assessment that helps managers identify their cultural preferences in 10 categories. Thinking is just one dimension, along with communication, space, power, individualism, competiveness, environment, time, action and structure.

Like spokes in a wheel, each dimension works together to support a person’s overall identity. The Cultural Orientations Indicator does not place one dimension above another, but I always explore thinking first when debriefing managers on the instrument.

Frustration and division result when managers assume everyone in their organization thinks like them — or ought to think like them. The first thing I consider when analyzing cross-cultural tension is the thinking preferences involved.

Generally these preferences solidify during a person’s formative years and do not change over time, but effective cross-cultural managers can learn to adapt their communication style. These managers discover they can change how they communicate without changing what they say. They can switch styles without switching the message to be communicated.

The Cultural Orientations Indicator describes four basic thinking processes that every global manager should master.

Deductive Thinkers
Deductive thinkers need to know why. They ask: Why is one project more important than another? Why are we doing this? Why the sudden urgency? Why should I care? These thinkers are looking for the logic of actions in an organization.

Knowing why makes all the difference with deductive thinkers. Every time they encounter a new idea or project, they lose interest quickly if they do not understand why. They already have stopped reading this article if I have not explained persuasively why it matters to recognize and embrace different thinking styles.

Mindful managers who work with deductive thinkers must explain why. “Trust me, I’m the boss” simply does not work with this audience.

Inductive Thinkers
The critical question shifts from why to how with inductive thinkers. How did we decide? How did we crunch the numbers? How will we change? Their decision making process also involves looking at history. They often ask: How did we do this in the past?

When inductive thinkers analyze a problem, they need data on how things have been done in the past. They want to see reports, review history and double check results before deciding anything. Methodology matters most.

Deductive and inductive thinkers can lose patience with each other when their problem-solving approaches clash. “Who cares how,” a deductive thinker might say. “I can tell you why.”

Linear Thinkers
Linear thinkers worry first about things like when, and in what order. When is it due? What needs to happen first? Who does what?

They dislike ambiguity or gaps in the process. They need to see how A connects to B and then C and D — like a Google Map route that provides step-by-step instructions. Lofty vision statements mean little to linear thinkers unless an organization outlines concrete plans of execution.

Systemic Thinkers
Systemic thinkers have a tendency to keep an eye on the end goal, paying less attention to the details of the different steps to be taken in order to achieve the goals. In other words these are the people who have a tendency to create vision in an organization and make sure goals are attained.

“I don’t care what you do or how you do it,” a systemic thinker might say, “as long as the job gets done.” Such managers cringe when linear thinkers on their team follow up with e-mails seeking guidance on procedures. “That’s your job to figure it out,” a systemic thinker might respond.

A classic example of systemic leadership comes from Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs, who gave his research and development team only three requirements for the iPod mp3 player. He did not care what they did as long as they delivered a product that 1. Uses no screws, 2. Is controlled with the thumb, and 3. Changes the way people carry their music. Engineers responded in 2001 with a sleek tool that revolutionized the industry.

Most of the time the combination of thinking styles works best — but only if managers remain mindful of differences and work to build inclusive environments. Airbus overlooked some of these differences and paid a price with the A380 commercial jet. French engineers approached the design with a deductive and systemic mindset, while their German counterparts applied inductive and linear thinking.

The result was often costly miscommunication. In one case, visionary French designers added three centimeters to the diameter of a conduit to accommodate the potential of additional wiring. The more practical German designers looked at the plans and saw unneeded costs. They trimmed three centimeters from the pipe’s diameter to save money, but then ran into problems when additional wires did not fit.

The inaugural A380 flew out of Toulouse, France, after nine months of delays with duct tape holding some wires in place. The problem was not French or German engineering, but differences in thinking preferences and the failure of managers to cross-cultural communication.

Managers who embrace all four thinking styles save their organizations time and money. And they save themselves considerable stress.

Denis Leclerc, Ph.D., is a clinical professor of cross-cultural communication and negotiation at Thunderbird School of Global Management in Glendale, Arizona. A native of Normandy, France, Dr. Leclerc has taught at the Institute of Tourism and Transport Studies in the Netherlands and the IMC Fachhochschule in Austria. He also has taught in Mexico and the Czech Republic. He has debriefed thousands of managers all over the world on the Cultural Orientations Indicator. This article is based on a presentation he made June 21, 2011, with Thunderbird International Consortia participants.