The ConverSAYtion
The ConverSAYtion is simply a couple of middle aged men sharing company and conversation. Psych and K take their time sorting through so much to say about society, culture, relationships, education, finance, technology, health, and more. Inspired to find engaging ways to entertain and enrich the lives of their listeners is their primary pursuit. Join them as they invest themselves in providing value to their audience. Welcome to The ConverSAYtion.
The ConverSAYtion
Leadership Insights from the Conflict Resolution Playbook
What if every conversation held the potential to spark conflict, not because of contentious topics, but due to mere misunderstandings or differing word choices? Join us as we unravel the complexities of communication strategies with entertaining anecdotes from both the grocery store aisles and the boardroom. Expect to gain insights into how seemingly trivial disputes highlight the critical need for effective conflict resolution in any setting, including professional disagreements. We even humorously tackle the idea of "unilateral conflict resolution," all while offering practical strategies that can be applied in your workplace.
Leadership often demands a delicate balance between collaboration and authority, and here, we explore how critical thinking and active listening play pivotal roles. Learn from personal experiences about fostering an environment where all voices are valued, even in hierarchical settings.
Ever wondered how emotional regulation ties into managing workplace conflicts effectively? Discover the journey of stepping away from leadership to pursue true passion, and how upbringing can influence one’s composure in tense situations. We also delve into the limitations of traditional motivational strategies and the transformative power of active listening. With stories about managing seasoned team members and the delicate art of feedback, explore how these approaches can not only resolve conflicts but also build a more engaged and positive work environment.
You don't gotta do it if you don't want to. You don't gotta do it if you don't want to. You don't gotta do it if you don't want to. It's just a suggestion.
Speaker 2:Well cheers.
Speaker 1:There's to the end of the Milagro, which was really good it was it was it is.
Speaker 1:There's some left Smooth. Welcome back to the conversation. I'm Letter K With me, perpetually Psyche. Last episode we talked about communication and I think we had a really good conversation about ways to communicate problems that arise with communication. This time I think we kind of really did the core of communication well. But now I want to get into the nitty-gritty. The biggest part of communication conflict. Yes, everything that you do to communicate with somebody else has the potential to create conflict, to generate strife. Not everybody wants to hear what you're saying.
Speaker 1:And maybe you don't want to hear what they're saying. I totally dig it. So conflict resolution is today's topic, and I would like to start by asking you a question that was given to me by chat GPT. So what's the dumbest argument you've ever had?
Speaker 2:Oh well, there's been so many, I mean it's hard to pull just one. If you just reach into the middle of the pile, the dumbest argument I've ever had, reach into the middle of the pile, the dumbest argument I've ever had. So I'm assuming you're talking in my current adult life. I mean we're not going all the way back to childhood where he's looking at me. He touched me like that.
Speaker 1:You're not talking about that. That's silly Dom. Yes, yes, yes. Adult absurd conflict Mm-hmm.
Speaker 2:Yes, adult absurd conflict, Mm-hmm, I think. I don't think I have a specific example I can give you, but what I will say is it's probably those conflicts that you have, those disagreements that revolve around semantics. Basically, both parties have the same goal in mind, they have the same drive, they want to see the same outcome and it's really a matter of disagreeing about the names that they're using for certain things. Basically, they agree, but they don't know they agree because they're calling this this and they're calling that that and the parties don't understand what that thing means, that the other person's saying and the other person is the same.
Speaker 1:So they're going around in the circle about this thing that they agree upon without knowing that they agree upon, just because the name is different it's the tomato, tomato conundrum precisely precisely I got to have a lot of dumb arguments in my day because I was a grocery manager for 15 years and and oftentimes I did not handle it super well because you know me, I, I was a snarky little shit when I was younger, were you?
Speaker 1:Yeah, hard to believe, I know, but like I would get into arguments with cashiers all the time about stuff and I was I always felt like I was right, probably was always always right, because it was usually the technical aspects of the cash register. We, we argue about it all the time. And I remember there was this older lady who I used to when I was a young manager and she would always get mad at me for trying to teach her something or trying to show her something. And I'll never forget one time I'm trying to show her how to do something silly like add multiples to a scanned item, all right. And she was like that's not how you do it, you know. So we're sitting there, we're customer, right in front of us, they're arguing, and she just, she just stops, looks up at me and says I'm older than you, so I Okay.
Speaker 2:That's a great place to be.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but the core of it was and this is in front of the customers the core of it was we were not effectively engaging in the conflict resolution in real time while we're embarrassing ourselves and our company name with the customer standing right there. So that's what I want to talk. What I want to want to get your thoughts on is is uh, we know that it takes two people to create a conflict. That's you can't, you can't conflict, you can't. At least two, at least two and and it always and it also takes two people to create a solution. You know one person can't resolve a conflict unless you're uh, at war and you kill the other person, then problem solved. But you can't. If me and you are in an argument, if me and you are engaged in conflict and I bring my half of the solution to the table, you have to. If you, even if it's just you acknowledging it and stopping your end of the conflict, it still takes both of us to resolve that conflict.
Speaker 2:I see what you're saying. There could be another, there could be an alternative where, let's say, the conflict begins at the point where I assume all of your stuff is now my stuff, and of course you object, and so now we have this conflict and if I come to the conclusion, you know what. You're right, the stuff I thought was my stuff was never mine and it was always yours, and I return all the things that were yours. Well then, I at that point have unilaterally ended the conflict, right?
Speaker 1:you were. You were on purpose trying to subvert the core of this argument. That just added perspective. You stealing from me is not, is not the right kind of conflict.
Speaker 1:I would never do that, but as a rhetorical example. Yes, you have found a loophole in my argument almost immediately, and now let's talk about the real argument. All right, let's go. So we're scientists or we're coworkers and we disagree on how to engage. I mean, you obviously engage in conflict in your job, often About how to properly manage the nature of your service that you provide, service that you provide. So when you find yourself, when you find yourself arguing over a procedure or a path forward or some kind of way that needs to, you know, a decision that needs to be made, what are your like go-to toolbox tools for, for bringing that conflict into the professional scope and trying to engage in an active resolution?
Speaker 2:Great question. So I make it a habit to avoid arguing at all costs, almost treating it like if I'm a parent, I have children. I don't argue with my children, I don't. Okay. At the point the parent starts arguing with the child, the parent, in my opinion, is somewhat losing right. They're on their heels, they're backpedaling, they're treating the child as equals and they're not. The parent is the authority figure. The parent is older. The parent is in charge of caring for them and bringing them into this world and keeping them here safe and sound.
Speaker 2:So when I'm arguing with them, no, no, I don't do that, and so I take that same philosophy to work. If I'm in charge of this, I don't do that, and so I take that same philosophy to work. If I'm in charge of this and you're here, and you're here to provide a certain service, a role, a valuable one at that, which I acknowledge. But if I'm ultimately in charge of being responsible for the outcome, if I have to go and defend what happened, if something goes wrong, then I get the final say. So the tricky part is navigating through that to allow them whoever I'm trying to impart something to to own the decision or the direction that I would like them to own.
Speaker 2:So I do that with questions Mostly. I ask a lot of well-pointed questions to get the other party to assume my viewpoint, without them knowing that that's my viewpoint. It's kind of it's it's borderline manipulation, but it's it's artfully done so that I can meander their ideas and thoughts around. And then when they get there, because they're answering my questions, then they finally can assume that they can look through the world through the lens that I'm looking at it through. And then now we're aligned, aligned.
Speaker 1:It's all about getting them to align with my thoughts and ideas yeah, you're talking about basic, like socratic method, not arguing but asking questions to find answers together. That's yes, I do the same thing and I think that's a really good way to manage underlings. Well, I'll ask you. Your supervisor comes down to you and now they are arguing with you about something you're doing in your classroom, which I love yeah, I know you do, and you can't treat them the same way because they are not. You can't liken them to children because you're not in charge of them. How do you manage that? Conflict resolution.
Speaker 2:So I still start there. I still start there because I start treating everybody like children.
Speaker 1:That's my number one thing. Everybody starts being treated like children. Okay, and then we expand.
Speaker 2:All right, okay, all right, okay. So if we're thinking about this, if you think you're right, then by definition you think the other party is wrong, and if you think you're right, then you think whatever your idea is is smart and intelligent. So if they are not aligned with you, then what are they? My rules are not aligned with you, then what are they? So my room? So, yes, I start at the beginning, I try, I travel the simplest, the simplest course first and tried and tried to the very least. If it doesn't work, at least from them speaking and me listening I can get a better understanding of where they're, of where they're coming from.
Speaker 1:I love how the simplest thing for you is to just start by assuming everybody's less intelligent than you are.
Speaker 2:I think that you took a leap there when you were putting them together. I use it as an example to kind of get us started. But no, I don't assume everyone is children and then. So then from there, if I am in fact correct, then in most things in this world nowadays, at least you, there's evidence, you can look something up, I can present something, I can show them something, and so then I will do my best to display and demonstrate whatever it is that I am so adamant about and I think should be changed after I present all of that information.
Speaker 2:If they're the ones in charge, right. If they're my supervisor, my boss, if they're the owner, whoever it may be, if they're in charge, they're in charge for a reason, and part of that is they have to be held accountable for the decisions and the outcomes. If they're responsible for the things I do and they're going to have to go and accept the consequences for whatever happens in this arrangement or this circumstance, then okay, fine. If they want to go down the wrong path, if I see it happening and they insist, well, who am I to stop them? I'll let them go and I won't think twice about it. I'm not going to take it personally, I'll be a little frustrated in the meantime, but I understand what my role is in that interaction and if they want to completely come in and demolish everything that I'm doing and take credit when it goes, you know what my job is to do my job, and if I can still do that with all of this nonsense, then I'm happy to continue.
Speaker 1:So it's not so much conflict resolution as it is understanding the hierarchy of your bureaucratic structure and knowing that you can offer information and you can offer data, you can offer the benefit of your experience, but if they choose not to listen, you don't really have a hand in the game anymore.
Speaker 2:It gets really tricky when you're talking about peers, if you're talking about colleagues, if they're people on the same level when you work. If you had to argue with you in another department, I'd win, if you understand. If, if there, if you're have the same position, the same title and the same amount of authority that another person has in your, in your department. Assuming that you were just this is just pure imagination. But if you were to argue with the same person and you both were tasked with coming up with a plan and a solution that you can both agree with, what does it take to make that happen?
Speaker 1:A lot of concessions, some compromise maybe, which I don't like compromise very much, because it really means nobody gets what they want. Yes, yes, so. So ChatGPT's conflict resolution strategies align with a lot of what you're saying, and it does specifically mention collaboration versus compromise. If we are peers and we are working together, the solution isn't that we both get pieces of what we want, it's that we do something together. That's collaboration versus compromise. We live in a compromise-driven society. We can't get along well enough to collaborate on anything in this country. We have to compromise everywhere we go, but at the individual layer.
Speaker 1:If you are talking about peers, I think that communication in a collaborative environment should always be your goal. Communication in a collaborative environment should always be your goal, even with the guys that I work with. I mean, I'm technically their lead, but I don't really have much more authority over them. I'm just kind of their manager, and so I treat everything that we do as a collaborative environment. And it frustrates some of the guys, but I try to explain it in a way, because they come to me like I'm the expert and they are literally the subject matter experts for AV installation installation. I haven't put a tv up in four years. They know much more about than me, but they always come to me with questions and so I do as you're suggesting. I don't give answers, I ask questions and it's mostly to me I think it's mostly a confidence, that confidence issue that they need, the confidence to engage their ideas. And so I feel like by engaging them in a collaborative environment, instead of just being their boss and saying, yeah, that sounds good, go do it that it should instill this collaborative environment. It should help build confidence. It should give them the ownership, the permission to take ownership and to utilize their skills effectively.
Speaker 1:Like I said, not everybody does that. I have a couple of guys on my team who have come to me more than once and been like you know, you keep, you know, you change your mind about this every time I ask you about it and my question is always well, do both ways work? And then I'll ask them did I come up with these ideas or did I ask you questions and you drew conclusions based on your knowledge of the environment you're working in? Then you realize that I'm not making the choices. We're collaborating. So how do you take somebody in that situation where you're trying to be collaborative and they're frustrated because they just want you to order them around, but that's not sustainable. You to order them around, but that's not sustainable. How, how do you deal with somebody who doesn't understand what's going on here? Is it more communication, or is or? Or do you just not? Or do you understand that they don't want to collaborate? They just want you to give them an order so you can, they can get back to work.
Speaker 2:I suppose, if you have an understanding that that's what they prefer and if they're truly okay with it. A lot of people are not. When you talk about collaboration at some level, almost everyone fears failure, and so if they have to step out on a limb and offer something of themselves that other people might disapprove of or disagree with, there's fear, it's steeped in fear, and so if I have to collaborate now, I have to actually be vulnerable, share my ideas. I have to put myself out there. Aside from that, to collaborate you have to have the ability to think critically, consistently. Think critically. You have to be listening. You have to be actively listening. You have to be able to think and process the information that you have been exposed to, and then you have to put that into words. You have to communicate that clearly, and the thing is, everyone's going to fail. Everyone fails.
Speaker 2:The people that are typically the people that are most successful have found ways to have failed the most and have found ways to turn it around and learn from those, those lessons. So if, if I can explain it or frame it in such a way that, hey, you know what it's, it's, it's, it's okay. All of the thoughts are good If we're just throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks, that's fine. Not all of those are going to be good ideas.
Speaker 2:I joke around with my class all the time Like hey, that was a great thought, that's a bad idea. And I'll just tell them that it's a great thought, it's a bad idea and I'll explain why. But, going through the process of disclosing my method, I am not against sharing the exact method that I'm using or the process that I'm taking to bring people together and communicate and collaborate. I will sometimes, more than necessary, explain myself and explain why we're doing what we're doing, because many times the people that I encounter don't have a clear understanding of why are we even doing this to begin with? And if they don't know why we're in this boat to begin with and why we're all paddling together, then whatever happens after that is going to be lost, more or less.
Speaker 1:So back to treating people like children and this is how it feels to me, right. So and I'll tell you this so as a grocery manager, I always likened there's a certain kind of certain kind of cheerless pleasantry that you engage when you're a grocery manager, when you're in box retail, like that. You know you're, you're pleasant without being excited. That's kind of how it is, and I always likened it to treating everybody like you are the headmaster of an old-timey private school. You've got two kinds of people at the private school. You've got the trust fund kids, who are the customers. You have to treat them with kid gloves and you have to answer all their questions. And you have to, you have to, you have to, you have to answer all their questions. You gotta be super sweet to them and you know, you know they're, they're, they're funding your private school.
Speaker 1:Then you got the employees who are more like the like, the like the tradesman's son you know, you haven't the tradesman, like a blacksmith or something, made enough money to send their kid to school, to get some education before they start an apprenticeship somewhere? You can be a little bit more direct and serious with them. You know so. It's not the. You know two different kinds of people and so, but you're always treating everybody like kids. You know, you know and so and this is the problem that I have, when people keep coming to me asking me the same question over and over, because they don't, they've, they've got a childlike lack of confidence in their ability.
Speaker 1:Because now we're not talking about kids, we're talking about guys in their 40s and 50s who've been doing this for decades, asking me stuff that's their job. What I want to avoid is that parent kid dynamic where it's it's like, do it because I said so or yes, do it this way, and explaining it. That's a very parent-child. Those are the two major choices. I want to give them the confidence to say last time I did this, I went and talked to my boss and he gave me the runaround but we solved the problem. It's collaboration. I can do it the same way this time.
Speaker 2:It sounds like you want to lend them power and control. I do so. One way you can do to rise to the position that you are now currently in you see a project that you've done many times before, one which that you've tackled two, three, four times, or, I'm sorry, two, three, four different ways repeatedly, and you know that those ways will lead to a successful outcome. You could present four different options and allow them to select from them, and then I usually I usually.
Speaker 1:I usually act like Captain Picard on the, the enterprise bridge. I asked them for options and then we select an option. Okay, they have all the solutions.
Speaker 2:Are they presenting options?
Speaker 1:consistently. They are Because I make them. I don't Okay.
Speaker 2:So you are making them do something.
Speaker 1:I'm making them engage in a collaborative environment. Okay, because, like I said, they do this day in, day out. I do not Do I have a competency in what they do? Yes, am I better at it than they are?
Speaker 2:I don't think so so just because you're not currently practicing, it's a common, it's a comp.
Speaker 1:I think it's a confidence thing. Um, as far as you might be right, but to take it back, the conflict arises when they get frustrated that I'm not just giving them orders.
Speaker 2:They want the orders.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I was telling you before we started recording that I've recently changed some of my formatting to a more direct, point-and direct, point and shoot management style and they're responding to it much better. But they have so the confidence that they have in me. I think you're hit the nail right on the head. When it's not really confidence in my ability, it's just the you know. It's the comfort in not having to present their own ideas.
Speaker 2:You could try it. You could try it. But if, yeah, if they're coming back to you time and time again telling you, or at least showing you, that all they want is to work within this framework, where they know exactly what to do and when, then what's wrong with?
Speaker 1:that they shouldn't, they shouldn't need me. That's the that's the thing?
Speaker 2:yeah, but are you trying to put yourself out of a job?
Speaker 1:yeah okay, I never wanted to be in charge, you know this okay, I Okay, I do.
Speaker 2:But where would you go if you're not doing what you're currently?
Speaker 1:doing. I would do the job they hired me to do, which is high-level design engineering for the, so you're looking for your replacement.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, you want a demotion.
Speaker 1:I do and I've been pretty open about that. I've got a couple of younger guys on the team. You are an outlier. You want less.
Speaker 2:Actually, there are a great many people that have stepped aside. Stepped aside from more successful ventures to assume less responsibility. So I guess you're not allowed.
Speaker 1:When I went back to school to learn what I do now, and then I took the job that I have now. I just wanted to be one like. I've never been one of the team. I've always been the manager ever since I was.
Speaker 2:Well, you start. You start as a team member. Yeah, you start as one of the guys.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, when I was a janitor in 2000, yeah, yeah, but, and I did. But you know, I mean, I don't know, I don't necessarily want to want to just make this about me, because there's nothing to do with communication or conflict resolution that I have constantly had to accept more responsibility because I feel that there were leadership qualities lacking and that I could fill those because of all my you know education, experience on the subject. And that's what happened, yeah, you.
Speaker 2:this is all your fault and you communicated yourself to your current position, and now you're conflicted See communication conflict.
Speaker 1:The thing is, I took the position because the alternatives would have been bad for my company or my team, but management of the operations of my organization is not my job. They hired me to be a design engineer. Yes, and I still do that.
Speaker 2:Well, okay, so we can just say the character traits that you possess don't allow you to allow substandard work to persist, and so where you are now, you're going to be wherever, unless you truly divorce yourself from your, your character and your integrity. Be that as it may, you have things going on at work, like anybody else, things that need to be resolved with the personnel and the people.
Speaker 1:Yes, and so, yes, and I am frustrated constantly, which brings me to my segue. One of the hardest things about conflict resolution is emotional regulation, you know, because you can't so. So in groceries they used to say don't discipline mad, like if you're pissed at somebody and you and you're going to yell at them, you stop. You stop what you're doing and you walk away until you're in a better mindset.
Speaker 2:because you can't resolve a conflict by escalating it, escalating the argument, so I would say I mostly agree with that, and I would add to that that it is possible to discipline somebody when you are genuinely angry, so long as you're not acting in or acting out in that anger and that's the emotional regulation part.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but how many people do you know can just be welled up with fury and be like I'm gonna talk to you like a, like a human being right now? Yeah, yeah. So pick another one, because you know, you know I couldn't do it, uh they're they're.
Speaker 2:They're few and far between. It's a learned, it's a learned skill. It's not something that I mean. Some of it is temperament, Some of it is the one's upbringing and their experience. I know with my father I don't think I ever heard him yell. I mean it had to be serious right. So with seeing that, growing up and observing his patients and observing how he could navigate through difficult situations and conflict and keep his calm and keep his cool, I modeled. I modeled my current life after what I saw him and do.
Speaker 1:And I do that a lot professionally, where I regulate my emotions, and I do it very well I'm successful. But it is for me, it's a hundred percent learned and it is work like it is work like I will be driving home listening to death metal screaming because I'm so frustrated. But yes, it takes a toll on you, it super does. Um, and I, I mean I, I know probably one of the reasons why you're so good at it is because you, you authentically like conflict. You, just you, you get a grin on your face.
Speaker 2:Hopefully we're about to, we're about to engage some conflict so the way I, the way I view it, is anybody can get along with easy people right. If people are, if individuals are easygoing and likable and and lovable, if they're pleasant to be around, those people anybody can get along with right. So I view it as more or less a challenge and a it's. It's. It's like this award or something out there I can earn. If I can get along with them and almost nobody gets along with them, then somehow I've personally achieved something.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I think that's great, I think that's an interesting thing to strive to and it's funny because I have a, I have uh, I have a little bit of. I have a few problems on my team right now, even my boss. I find myself stopping him and correcting him Cause I see him wanting to lead into like negative comments. And for me I always try to keep everything positive because you can't change the lot that you're given unless you want to actively change the lot you're given. But for me, you know, you know there's always going to be some kind of conflict. You can't have a team of any number size and expect everyone to just be perfect and get along together. It just doesn't work that way.
Speaker 2:I want to comment on keeping everything positive. I think positivity is necessary. I think, if you can, if you can stay positive the majority of the time, that's great. I think we might be doing our teams a disservice to completely shelter them and scrub anything negative from our work environments, because it almost dulls the effect of the positivity that comes out later. There needs to be some contrast is what I'm suggesting.
Speaker 1:So I do agree, I do find that. So I do keep things like some of the high level bureaucracy, politics and such. I keep that from the team. Those are the biggest negative aspects of what we do. Our job is not hard, let's be honest. All we have to do is get along long enough to hang some TVs.
Speaker 2:You're understating that, yes?
Speaker 1:yes, it's a little more complicated, but that's essentially what's going on. It's just physical light construction work and everything else I do for them. But I do find that when I am more direct about things that aren't inherently positive, that the response rate is higher. And if we're consistent about you know, see, this went wrong, this went wrong, this went wrong, this is how we could do better next time, that kind of stuff. If I'm consistent about that kind of stuff, I find that the guys aren't startled by it, they're not defensive about it and they take it better.
Speaker 1:But it all goes down to the way that you present those negative aspects. You have to stay positive in your negativity. I could, I could be like yeah, so we fucked this up and this shit over here is not going to not going to work right unless we go out and rebuild it. And this customer is pissed off. I can say the exact thing hey guys, this right here we did it. It didn't come out the way we hoped. We got to go back and look at it again. I need you guys to go handle that for me. We have a situation over here where this customer lodged a complaint about this thing that we did. You know, you know there's nothing inherently negative in that language. It's just facts. And and by being just facts there's no, there's no need to be defensive about it, because I can say you screwed up or I can say we need to go fix this. And that's a big part for me. I get a lot, I have, I find a lot of success with that.
Speaker 2:So I do agree that just being bubbling positive and only dwelling on the happy thoughts is dangerous, but you do need to stay positive and subvert negative language whenever you are talking about negative things there needs to be some sort of agreement, at least, at least some, about the things that are negative, because if the people that you're working with don't agree that the thing you think is so bad is indeed undesirable and bad and not good for what we're trying to accomplish, then then you're not going to, you're not going to get there, like you could say it, but if they don't believe it, yeah, fortunately, we deal in technology, so if a connection is made poorly and it doesn't work, there's no arguing that fact.
Speaker 1:You can go see for yourself if you like. True, but yes, when you're talking about dealing with other people, especially customer-based, that's part of the. One of the things that I always try to do is give the guys more opportunities to engage with customers, because they've spent their lives as these white-collar construction workers. They don't really deal with people that often, so they find that to be very challenging. The only time where they might disagree with anything that I have to say about our business operations would probably be how we deal with our client base, especially at the lab. The lab is hard, because when you have customers, you have to treat the customer well. You've got to succeed to the customer. You've got that whole customer's always right concept.
Speaker 2:Which I learned about recently. It's from what I understand. It's false and it's been abbreviated over time, and the full statement was the customer is always right in matters of taste. Have you heard that so?
Speaker 1:it's an old retail expression. I can't remember who said it, I'll have to look it up. But yes, when I was in my snarky phase, customers would always say, you know, hey, isn't the customer always right? And I would always say, yeah, it's a common fallacy or misconception and oh my, she's in so much trouble. But dealing with people, I think giving people the opportunity to safely engage in conflict resolution helps them, but then again they don't want to do it.
Speaker 2:They have to want it.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So a couple of interesting points here. I mean knowing when to walk away. I just talked about that. You know, don't discipline mad, because only psych and the few and far between people on this planet can do that effectively or successfully. This one here that I found to be very interesting apologizing without losing power. So we're having a conflict and it goes back to the talk like you're right, listen, like you're wrong, philosophy. What if you're arguing that and you're starting to realize that some of your points are ineffective or they're incorrect? Now you could just be like hey, you know what You're right, I'm sorry, you're right about this. And now conflict is a power struggle, right? So now I'm starting to lose power because I'm admitting areas of defeat. So if you do want to engage in effective you know, collaborative conflict, this suggests here that apologizing without losing power includes things like saying oh, I see your point, or what's the other one? Now I understand why you're upset.
Speaker 2:But it sounds patronizing, yeah, when I say it like that.
Speaker 1:But the point is, the way we communicate is just as important as what we're communicating about. It goes back to my staying positive. When saying negative statements and this stuff. Here we can be having a heated debate. And for me to maintain your engagement in my side of the argument, I can't give you the impression that you're disclose whenever I'm incorrect right away. But how do you? But do you say, oh, I see your point, or do you say oh, no, I was wrong.
Speaker 2:No, yeah, more or less yes, the latter. I just let them know, and I'm in the habit of doing that. I'm consistent If I am wrong, if I am incorrect, and I let all of my staff know this. It's like hey, I'm not perfect, I'm human.
Speaker 2:Occasionally I'm going to be wrong, and when I am, and I realize it, I'm going to let you know Cause. And then I do that because it happens, we're having a conversation, or I'm coming from one point of view and somebody offers me new information and we're having the staff meeting. Oh, you know what You're right. Now that I think about it, I think you are more correct than I was. Or I, yeah, I was wrong, and now I have that new information.
Speaker 2:Thank you for bringing it to my attention, and we'll, we'll continue, we'll continue on, and I let all of my staff know if I lose my mind, if I'm suggesting something crazy, if I'm just not on it, for whatever reason, you can just let me know. Hey, you know what that idea is not going to work and you can tell me why. And the communication in my classroom is a two-way street. It's an open door policy, more or less. And please, please, please, please if I'm incorrect. I want to be, I don't want to be, and I want, I would like to know what is correct. So, please, we can help each other.
Speaker 1:So I have the exact same policy with my guys and I tell them the exact same thing that I'm human. It's like I can work for you, yeah I can work for you.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I can work where you work. Yeah, no, we would have too much creative conflict, so, but I do the same thing. So let me ask you this. So I do have this open door policy and I do tell them hey, if I'm wrong, you need to let me know that kind of stuff. But for whatever reason they treat, they treat me with such a reverence about my ability to always be right that when I am wrong, it's not like, hey, you know what can I? Can I quit talk about how you might be incorrect right there? Or hey, that's that's wrong, or or that's dumb, or whatever. It's always like huh, he was wrong. You know, they don't really know how to uh, how to engage me. They treat me more like a service than like a human being.
Speaker 2:So what can you do to make yourself more approachable?
Speaker 1:Well, I've always thought that I've been very approachable and when I was in groceries, um, I didn't have this problem. It's the changing industries and the people that are in the industry is part of the reason. I think that that's an issue for me.
Speaker 2:Is there anybody on your team that approaches you in the way that you're wanting, or is that?
Speaker 1:everybody. I got one guy who and I appreciate this about the team you know, and I do know that you know to effectively manage, you occasionally have to distance yourself from the, from the general staff population, and that's fine, it doesn't bother me. And we've got one guy who's kind of the spoke person for all the complaints. So what will happen is is if they disagree with something, they'll get together, they'll yammer about it and then he'll approach me, the one guy, and when they do that it's effective. You have a liaison, yeah. But the worst part is he'll come to my office. My door is always open. In fact, I have a giant AV rack blocking the door. You can't even close it and he will start to talk to me. And I can tell by the way he's looking out of the hallway that the other guys are there just out of my sight, waiting in the wings.
Speaker 1:Yeah, just like and uh and like. It's almost like you know, like, like, like the child behind mom's skirt. You know that kind of second deal, and so I will. I don't much care for that part of it. It's that kind of deal, and so I will. I don't much care for that part of it. And I will say things that I know will engage. Engage the other guys, cause they're right there, they're listening, done, and we'll see if we can get them to pop their head in my my door and join the conversation. Just come on in, guys. I've said exactly that more than once. I'm like hey guys, you know I might be having some issues with emotional regulation at that point.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I would say, if you continue to see this occur from now and future staff members and future employees that come across your way, then I mean, unfortunately, sometimes the problem is us right, we're the common denominator and we need to correct things about ourselves or not correct things, like there's something wrong with you or something wrong with me, even the things that we change.
Speaker 1:But if we're not getting the results that we're looking for, and I've been doing that because I've lost some of the confidence that I had in managing over the last few years with the team that I have now. I used to think that I was really good at it and I honestly should still think that because I am really good at it, but changing the way that I talk to these guys specifically to meet their needs. That's where I'm struggling, Because in groceries the problem is, I think, the smaller size. In groceries you got a store with 110 people in it, so of course you're going to find enough people who want to learn and grow to occupy all your time. Your sample size is too small. I only have five guys and none of them want to do that. So you're right. I've been reading nonfiction books about management for the first time in my life. Good for you, Trying to find new ways to engage these guys, and it's been successful. Some of it's been.
Speaker 2:It's been really successful podcast I was listening to this week. This gentleman was talking all about finding people's motivation. Find what they're, what drives them, what motivates them, and if you can, you pretty much have the keys to the kingdom at that point.
Speaker 1:And that's great, but I'm learning that not everybody is motive motivatable Like I've. I've got I've got a team of older guys who have been doing what they've been doing for a long time. They're setting their ways and I found that when I stopped trying to find their motivations and just allowed them to accept tasks and exist in the where they're at now, that they're much more responsive.
Speaker 2:But everybody has things that motivate them, even if their motivations are not connected to, or even if it's not apparent that those motivations are going to assist them in their daily tasks and their daily work.
Speaker 1:There might be a bridge to get there and if you can connect those dots, I usually find that bridge to be money, and so I try to explain to these guys you will make more money if you engage in this. Even that's not a great motivation motivator for everybody. Most people, most people have some kind of drive, like you're saying. But then again a lot of people find that getting through the day and getting home to that beer and wheel of fortune is a success and that makes them happy. So so I've got several guys who were like I'm just trying to get through the day, do what you tell me to do so I can get home to that, to Miller time, and is that in of itself its own motivation?
Speaker 2:Is there any way to actually make that a reality where you work? Hey, you've got this board people can pull things from, and if we accomplish so many things in this day, then there could be 30 minutes of comp time you can go, or so I can't do that.
Speaker 1:I mean, we, I told you I do have, uh, I have just recently implemented a ticketing board that's almost like a like an adventure video game quest board and that's been really successful. But it's more to keep them on task. When we don't have active work. We are working for one space, the, you know, the lab is this is one space and so we don't always have work like, like, like installation work, retrofitting that. We don't always have work. So to keep I I did that to keep them on task so they're not sitting around which might draw the attention and ire of others which could negatively affect them. So I'm trying to protect them. They they think I'm punishing them for something, but I'm, but I'm trying to not they all don't all think that, but some of them do that I'm trying to protect them from themselves have you explained why you did what you did?
Speaker 1:I have oh, okay, I have, I have, I have so you're making it.
Speaker 2:You're it sounds like you're making an excellent effort and I feel like I always have.
Speaker 1:it's just the fact that everything that I've tried to basically make these guys more money has, up to this point, failed, and it wasn't until I got back to the brass tacks of giving orders and letting people exist that they were like yeah, we can do that.
Speaker 2:Sometimes a conflict resolution that you need is a good firing yeah, well, yeah, maybe um so choose your next words carefully.
Speaker 1:I'm gonna I'm gonna choose to uh, go to your next question to segue.
Speaker 1:Yes, so one one of the things I think that we don't do when we're arguing with others and we're engaged in conflict is, you know, we're so, we're so worked, we're so locked in our own mind about what we want to say next, about what we know is right, that one of the biggest things that we don't do is even consider the other person's point of view or argument and I know this is one of your big things and the act of listening.
Speaker 1:I know that you've said it more than once Every time you engage somebody, you let them do their whole spiel and you listen intently. And so let me ask you this so active listening and I love active listening, I'm not the best at it, but I find that it's so much more successful if I can keep myself from trying to cut people off mid-thought for a lot of reasons, but for you, how much of letting somebody go first and say everything that they need to say is getting their point of view, versus how much of it is is, um, is, you know, figuring out the points that you can argue against?
Speaker 2:so when I enter into that interaction, I don't necessarily assume that there's going to be anything I need to argue against. I've purely, purely just. I'm expecting to learn something. I actually invite it. I want to know something I didn't know.
Speaker 2:If I know everything that you're thinking, if I know everything you're wanting, if I know your point of view completely or at least as best as you can explain it to me, then I have an advantage. That's an advantage to have so many times what I've experienced with people I've worked with. If they're just allowed to tell me what they're thinking and feeling, sometimes that's enough. Sometimes we don't even need to do anything else. Sometimes they just wanted to be heard. They were frustrated in this, you know, in a previous interaction frustrated them, some, some past circumstances upset them and they didn't feel like they were included, heard, or that their needs were, were valued, and just having that time to express that sometimes that's enough. Now, if it is not enough, if they want to express themselves and there's more, I need to make sure that I completely understand what they have just said. So I know when I used to take the masterclass, as you kindly invited me to join, and I liked it for a while and I've since stopped using it as frequently and discontinued their service. But I'll probably at one point, when they update their catalog a little bit more, jump dive back in and gets more value.
Speaker 2:But I know the ex-FBI crisis negotiator, chris Voss, liked to. Oh yeah, we can show him here. This guy is excellent. He was spent on Masterclass. He's got a lot of books. He's spent a lot of podcasts. He's excellent.
Speaker 2:One of the things I learned from him is and it was affirming to know that I had already been doing this, but I didn't really know how meaningful or effective it was is simply saying at the end, when the person is finished sharing, it sounds like you're saying, or worse's that effect. Basically, you, you briefly summarize what they have just imparted. It does a couple of things. One, it communicates with them that oh, he was actually listening, he heard what I said. Two, it allows them to object if you have the wrong impression about what they just communicated. So if they, if I misunderstood now, they can correct me and then we can do that again. Okay, so now I, what I understand is that it sounds like that you're getting at and then, if we are there, if we're both aligned with what the issue is. Now we can move on I am.
Speaker 1:I'm fond of telling people. Obviously and you probably can carry this as well when you're in a supervisory position, you do get people coming to you with complaints about others. That happens a lot. So I always tell people two things. The first thing is, if we took the ego out of the argument, how would it look? And I don't say it just like that because that's kind of arbitrary, but I explain it in a way where it's like you know it goes back to the emotional control. Can you take what's making you angry away and look at this from the perspective of an outside observer? You're taking your ego out of it. And the second thing and that ties directly into it is perspective.
Speaker 1:Everything that we do in an argument or in conflict, we do from our perspective, and so by actively listening to the other person in that conflict and reiterating to them that you listened and understood, you're now engaging in conflict resolution and not just conflict. I think that that's really important to mention and point out that conflict and conflict resolution are two separate things, because we can engage in conflict. We can yell at each other until we're throwing pans and I'm kicking you out of the house, or I can listen and you can listen and we take our ego out of it and we try to. It's the whole walk a mile in another person's shoes. Um, you know thought process. I need to listen to you and with an intent to understand your position. Not just to understand your argument, but to understand why you were thinking that way, why you were coming to those conclusions, why you are understanding the, the nature of our conflict from your perspective.
Speaker 2:Uh, although I wouldn't shy away from a good pan throwing, I could use some new cookware, yeah yeah, yeah, oh man, my uh still love my hex clans still love them.
Speaker 1:um, so that's a really good, good, cyclical way to stop this episode Next time. Let's pause. Let's pause to reflect. Did we successfully take the ego out of this argument? I think that I would like to talk a little bit more next episode about some of the what I just discussed about the needs for proper conflict resolution and the emotional aspects of it, and how. I would like to hear a little bit more about how you are able to keep your frustrations in check when people are just being obnoxiously stupid, because I know what happens.
Speaker 2:It's only because I find it so grossly entertaining.
Speaker 1:I know that's the thing. You're such a sociopath.
Speaker 2:I'm made for it you should have been a trial lawyer.
Speaker 1:I haven't ruled it out, still young, so like comment subscribe. Love that you watched this entire thing. See you next time. Cheers yes, new bottle next episode.
