Commentary: The work place has become a challenging place today. People are on edge, tempers flare, and in some cases the competitiveness has taken a hostile direction. Good communication skills is simply not enough. Professionals must become skilled at handling difficult people and in many cases corporate psychopaths.
This series of postings will discuss using communication methods to gain control of circumstances and reduce your chances of becoming a target. We will cover the chapters in the book "Comebacks at Work" over the next several weeks. I'll attempt to couple these when appropriate with other authors works such as Dale Carnegie.
Assessing the Situation
There are a lot of subliminal rules at work in any setting; public, work, and/or group interactions. These rules only become visible when you or potters break them. Thus, only three months on the job rarely is sufficient time to reveal these rules. By not assessing the situation before deciding to respond, can cross the line of these subliminal rules creating awkward and tenuous situations. The one's station in the relationship can be leveraged to expose the ground conditions, relief the tension, and movement the engagement in a positive direction. For example, if a new employee then this can be used to express bewilderment at a stressing situation. Remember Comebacks at Work require curiosity not defensiveness. Bewilderment is both a state of confusion and curiosity that asks the question of 'why'. i.e. Why are you behaving this way? Why is this happening? Why is this email so abrasive? If you are not asking why then you are most likely doing something defensive or taking something as a personal affront.
The Beauty of a Process Comeback
Personal attacks are often perceived as such due to the timing of the message. These are known as process errors. Comebacks at Work seek to disarm and diffuse the situation. The process comeback is useful because it distances a person from the error. The comeback can frame the violation or offense as outside normal practice, missing the company goals, or as an obstacle to a positive relationship. For example, "I think we are going off course." or "We got the cart before the horse." or "We have a solution without defining the problem."
Whenever a senior person does something that is a procedural error consider positioning your comeback to address the issues. This can be effective at disarming a potential confrontation and begin correcting the process error. Then personal errors can be addressed if still important by using a caveat, "There is one more thing and its can be easily corrected."
Comment: Post-modern America has produced an increase in character challenges. Post-modernism began in late 1950's. Despite debates about post-modernism being over the effects are still ever present. The underlying principles of Post-modernism include questioning everything and relativism as a reaction to certainty specifically of the Judeo-Christian worldview and its principles. The paradox is that by questioning everything and realizing a sense of relativism, post-modern thought has placed itself at peril of self destruction which is one argument for its demise; recursive skepticism resulting in a downward spiral.
Due to the undermining of widely held Judeo-Christian principles and practices held in America at the beginning of the period, a host of other characters are now in the workplace. Deceit, lying, bullying to the top, selfish preservation, and other behaviors are becoming more prevalent. Corporate speak, colloquial conversation with its own jargon and phraseology unique to corporate culture, has followed suit becoming personality based character ethics which are relative to each person and do not aspire to common principles. Misuse or the extreme use of Dale Carnegie principles can lead to this situation of personality based ethics as well. For example, your boss is always spinning things to his personal advantage using carefully placed language involving ambiguity, innuendo, projection, and a host of other methods. Personality character ethics are only short term and the truth quickly becomes exposed, if only for a brief moment. Principle based character ethics are durable and people see a person centered on common principles as true and trying. People tend to relate better to other in common.
Personality based character ethics show quickly, usually within the first two or three weeks. When offended the situation is different than ComeBacks at Work because people who use personality based ethics cannot be trusted due the selfish focus. Once that confidence and trust is lost then the game is over. You will need to assess your circumstances and determine if you want to move on immediately or sort of hang on until other goals or objectives are met first.
Having performed a lot of contract work over the years, I have had both in my experience and its does get old. I call personality based ethics, buffoonery as it often results in a circus show people acting on their ever changing values during operations. In most cases the staff becomes cog in a wheel not knowing the business and how it makes money. Organization with a high degree of this activity tend to have gaps in management demanding reports without proper operational accounting design behind them. Overall, poor management and leadership are an indicator of the potential for personality based ethics. Thus, people with weak or poor principles fall back on personality based character ethics which become pervasive through out the organization. In most cases, the people are unaware of their conduct acting as automatons in the culture. A principle based person can appear odd to them or even lack competency as they highlight perceived faults and leverage humility to their advantage. It is not uncommon for personality based people to demonize and conduct vicious attacks on a principled person. A principle based person can be misfit in these places as much as a beacon or pillar of strength. Station and ground conditions relative to the personality based conduct set the opportunity and outcomes. The bottom line is that in a situation where personality based ethics are operative the eventual outcome is that a principle person moves on unless the situation has a significant change.
Due to the undermining of widely held Judeo-Christian principles and practices held in America at the beginning of the period, a host of other characters are now in the workplace. Deceit, lying, bullying to the top, selfish preservation, and other behaviors are becoming more prevalent. Corporate speak, colloquial conversation with its own jargon and phraseology unique to corporate culture, has followed suit becoming personality based character ethics which are relative to each person and do not aspire to common principles. Misuse or the extreme use of Dale Carnegie principles can lead to this situation of personality based ethics as well. For example, your boss is always spinning things to his personal advantage using carefully placed language involving ambiguity, innuendo, projection, and a host of other methods. Personality character ethics are only short term and the truth quickly becomes exposed, if only for a brief moment. Principle based character ethics are durable and people see a person centered on common principles as true and trying. People tend to relate better to other in common.
Personality based character ethics show quickly, usually within the first two or three weeks. When offended the situation is different than ComeBacks at Work because people who use personality based ethics cannot be trusted due the selfish focus. Once that confidence and trust is lost then the game is over. You will need to assess your circumstances and determine if you want to move on immediately or sort of hang on until other goals or objectives are met first.
Having performed a lot of contract work over the years, I have had both in my experience and its does get old. I call personality based ethics, buffoonery as it often results in a circus show people acting on their ever changing values during operations. In most cases the staff becomes cog in a wheel not knowing the business and how it makes money. Organization with a high degree of this activity tend to have gaps in management demanding reports without proper operational accounting design behind them. Overall, poor management and leadership are an indicator of the potential for personality based ethics. Thus, people with weak or poor principles fall back on personality based character ethics which become pervasive through out the organization. In most cases, the people are unaware of their conduct acting as automatons in the culture. A principle based person can appear odd to them or even lack competency as they highlight perceived faults and leverage humility to their advantage. It is not uncommon for personality based people to demonize and conduct vicious attacks on a principled person. A principle based person can be misfit in these places as much as a beacon or pillar of strength. Station and ground conditions relative to the personality based conduct set the opportunity and outcomes. The bottom line is that in a situation where personality based ethics are operative the eventual outcome is that a principle person moves on unless the situation has a significant change.
All Comebacks are Situation Specific
Given that situations vary, the comebacks are structured different. The trick is to quickly pulse the situation, assess your position or station in the event, and determine the nature or character of the environment. Once this is achieved the comeback process is centered on curiosity. Although, some attacks or events may require a measured defensive posture to the extent of stabilizing the situation.
When Insulted: When the goal is to not only insult the person but also humiliate them rather than some benign objective, that plain rude. Often it is never seen coming. Derogatory comments with a slight element of truth can certainly hurt. There are three general responses: 1) say nothing which is the default, 2) humorously quip, or 3) bite back with an edge. Taking self-importance out of the response is critical as the focus is not you. Dr. Reardon stresses to sparingly use aggressive retorts because they lack a couth or an absence of wittiness. Nonetheless, there are some people who need to be brought up short publicly. Some of the responses may sound similar to these:
- Humorous with an edge, 'Are you this kind to all your guests?' You are smiling during delivery.
- Sharp and to-the-point, 'This is when most people respond in kind!' You are smiling during delivery.
- Concerned with recovery in mind, 'That was not like you at all!' You show bewilderment while smiling.
Insulting Someone Else: There are times when something on the edge or uncomfortable can be taken as an insult and there are times we are not up to par letting something slip that causes a problem. Situational cues often indicate something is wrong. When this happens, you need to apologize quickly and ferociously as Dale Carnegie says. Sincere apologies are the best option.
Comment: Apologies in themselves can create problems as they can be interpreted as an admission of wrong doing or guilt creating a host of other issues both social and legal. For this reason, many people either avoid or dislike apologies. Instead they use other phraseology such as 'I regret...' or 'Please forgive me...' as oppose to 'I apologize...'. All phraseology has some implications with varying degrees of back wash. Some people will demand an apology as anything else is not sufficient. You will have to gauge the use of an apology verses other methods keeping in mind the scope and moving things forward.
Comment: Apologies in themselves can create problems as they can be interpreted as an admission of wrong doing or guilt creating a host of other issues both social and legal. For this reason, many people either avoid or dislike apologies. Instead they use other phraseology such as 'I regret...' or 'Please forgive me...' as oppose to 'I apologize...'. All phraseology has some implications with varying degrees of back wash. Some people will demand an apology as anything else is not sufficient. You will have to gauge the use of an apology verses other methods keeping in mind the scope and moving things forward.
When to Let it Go: There are some circumstances that require no action. People pickup idiosyncratic behaviors in life that are annoying to others from hugging to the use of colloquial jargon such as 'honey' at awkward moments. If the behavior is infrequent then let it go. If you are aware of the tendencies then soft peddling your interaction may be appropriate. For example, let's keep this professional or let's downplay the folksy mannerisms.
When to Poke a Bear: Occasionally there is office bully, difficult person, or a corporate psychopath. Poking the Bear is a technique of anchoring behavior to an innocuous object in order to carefully send a message. They often get the message then shift tactics anchoring to something more tangible themselves. Anticipating this shift, the wind can be taken out if you have been attentive. Dr. Reardon gives an example of a combat helmet worn to a meeting and passed to people taking blows from a bully. When the Bully shifted to the lack of use of a report. They pulled out their reports with notes all over them.
In some instances, an individual is simply way over the top in their conduct. They make attempts to humiliate another or use methods such as mobbing to undermine someone else. Mobbing can be quickly identified as they are on the hunt for something to exploit in front of others. Thus, during the hunt initial conditions can be setup to bring them down.
Comment: On a contract project, I dealt with a woman who spent a 10 hour day badgering me on every minor project detail. I was receiving successive IMs, phone calls, and emails in the order of about 30 to 40 for the day. She was simply on the hunt. To make matters worse, my boss insisted that I build a professional relationship with this woman. It takes two people to build any relationship and both have to be willing. She had no intention of building a relationship. By the end of the day, I was tired and ready to go home but knew I would receive a call as close to leaving as she could make it. So I planned what I would do, as I knew she would go out to the world with an email immediately if she found something. I poked the bear. The call came as expected and I gave her some fodder from a problem already solved. As expected, she sent an email out to world that she caught something I had missed and everyone needs to jump on this. She editorialized the email as expected since she was attempting to mob, a technique to build animosity against the target person. Everyone else responded that they had already worked problem and it was done. I never had another direct incident from her after that.
Comment: On a contract project, I dealt with a woman who spent a 10 hour day badgering me on every minor project detail. I was receiving successive IMs, phone calls, and emails in the order of about 30 to 40 for the day. She was simply on the hunt. To make matters worse, my boss insisted that I build a professional relationship with this woman. It takes two people to build any relationship and both have to be willing. She had no intention of building a relationship. By the end of the day, I was tired and ready to go home but knew I would receive a call as close to leaving as she could make it. So I planned what I would do, as I knew she would go out to the world with an email immediately if she found something. I poked the bear. The call came as expected and I gave her some fodder from a problem already solved. As expected, she sent an email out to world that she caught something I had missed and everyone needs to jump on this. She editorialized the email as expected since she was attempting to mob, a technique to build animosity against the target person. Everyone else responded that they had already worked problem and it was done. I never had another direct incident from her after that.
When someone is disrespecting deliberately you, do not ask them for respect. Instead, poke the bear to get its attention. Respond with, "I am going easy on you which is more than you can say. Be clear on this. I only do that once." Or attempt to expose them as I did. The subsequent course of action may be a formal grievance, legal action, or some other action that deals with the injury.
Learn the Taboos
Most organizations and people have pet peeves, harbor forbidden topics, and morays for conduct. Assessing the situation is important in order to know when approaching taboo. Some common taboo items are:
- Brown nosing and being a 'YES' man.
- Stealing someone else's ideas.
- Possessive actions, ownership, can be mistaken for a control or power grab.
- The use of 'I' instead of 'We' or visa versa.
Comment: I once had a boss who insisted on team. The jargon was We and not I. After leaving that contract, I went to another in which the boss mistook 'We' as being deceptive since there was no We in his investigation. My use of 'We' was in the context of We the people or We, in the trenches need and not as me and some other specific person. I assessed this second boss was solely a tactical thinker who could only deal withimmediate factuals. I had to adjust to the new taboos and that problem did not arise again.
A Fool's Paradise
Suffering fools may be a part of assessing the situation when necessary according to Reardon. Fools may need to be tolerated for short periods and on rare occasions. There are people in positions within companies that will never be released and no one enjoys dealing with them. Often they become marginalized and sent off into a corner until retirement or they are promoted to somewhere else; upward failures. Unless these folks are creating a direct issue, targeting you, or causing an ethical issue then avoid them and keep all contact to a minimum. Reardon suggests the following actions:
- Walk away slowly.
- Change the subject of discussion, as if the person attacking doesn't exist.
- Reflect the attackers conduct, mannerisms, and language in order to annoy.
In closing, the next time a comeback becomes necessary, begin by observing, consider the environment and significance of the violation, the character of the person, and the advantages of responding. With practice, in time this will become second nature.
Reference
Reardon, K.K., (2010). Comebacks at work: using conversation to master confrontation. (1 ED.). Harper Collins publishers, New York
No comments:
Post a Comment