Schott Resolutions - Produits, offres, nouvelles

“Self talk” is the term used to describe the conversations that we have with ourselves in our minds. Motivational coaches usually encourage people to use positive self talk to get psyched up for an event or to develop a better outlook on life. Golfers may have a “swing thought” to help them focus on better technique. However, self talk also has some big implications with respect to how we listen to others and how we perceive them.

Stanford University studied self talk in the early 1980’s. What they discovered, after interviewing thousands of people, is that most of the automatic conversations we have with ourselves are negative, judgmental, and full of fiction. Unfortunately, it appears that most of us then believe these inner conversations to be true and we experience life and other people accordingly. We seek or interpret evidence to validate our opinions. If one or two other people seem to agree with our perceptions we say to ourselves, “Ah ha, I told you so!”, and our negative thoughts are transformed into “facts”. To make matters worse, we then start presenting these “facts” to others. When more people agree with us, these incorrect opinions become even further entrenched in our fact bases and theirs. Untrue stories disguised as facts can spread like a virus and do irreparable harm to any individual who is the subject.

In a lot of personal interactions we judge a person’s motives or the content of their statements before they have even opened their mouths to speak to us. Our automatic assessment of them kicks in and it may colour anything they have to say according to the fact base we have established for them. We have trouble listening for anything new, if we are able to really listen to them at all.
Care to try a test? Get a pen and paper and find a quiet spot where you won’t be interrupted. Pick a person that you will be meeting sometime soon. For this exercise, this person should not be a close family member. Choose a friend, a work associate, or your boss. Imagine meeting the person and then spontaneously write down everything that comes into your mind about them. Do not censor your thoughts. No one else is going to see this work so don’t worry about what is “right” or “wrong”, just write down all of your self talk, word for word, as it occurs in your mind. When your pen stops moving you are done. Take a few minutes to read over your notes. Your comments define your “fact base” for this person. At this point, you might start to question the truth of some of these comments but that isn’t the purpose of the exercise. The test is about what you perceive the next time you interact with that person. It is almost guaranteed that you will find yourself automatically judging them and assessing their comments based on your fact base of them. As an experiment, when you meet them, try to turn off your automatic self talk for a while and then really listen in an open and unbiased way to what they are saying. It might change your opinion of them and their ideas; hopefully for the better!

Awareness is the first step in any improvement process. With this new knowledge of how perceptions might be formed, there is a much better chance that the listening techniques we will discuss next month will be more effective. In the mean time, if you have any questions or comments about this article, please email greg@schottresolutions.ca. Oh, by the way, if you did complete the above exercise, destroy your written notes now. We don’t want any accidental misunderstandings of your intentions. You will remember what you need to know when you next meet that person.
 

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) describes possible behaviours between two people in a conflict situation. It uses two dimensions, assertiveness and cooperativeness. Assertiveness describes the extent to which each person attempts to satisfy their own concerns. Cooperativeness describes the extent to which each person attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns. Based on these two dimensions, five behaviour modes for handling conflict have been developed. They are described below:

Avoiding - “Leave well enough alone.”
When avoiding, an individual does not address the conflict. One might postpone a discussion on an issue until a better time or simply withdraw from a threatening situation. This behaviour may be appropriate if the potential costs of confronting an issue outweigh the benefits of its resolution. However, a person who consistently avoids dealing with minor interpersonal issues should be aware that failure to deal with those issues may lead to a much more serious dispute.

Accommodating - “Kill your enemies with kindness.”
When accommodating, an individual neglects their own concerns and focuses only on satisfying the concerns of the other person. This behaviour may be helpful when allowing an employee or family member to experiment and learn from their mistakes. It could be problematic if it deprives one party of influence, respect and recognition.

Competing - “Might makes right.”
When competing, an individual uses whatever power seems appropriate to pursue their own concerns at the expense of the other person. This behaviour is necessary in an emergency or when an unpopular course of action must be implemented. However, it will prevent others from voicing their opinions and it may inhibit the generation of optimal solutions.

Compromising – “Split the difference.”
When compromising, each party gives up something to the other party in order to achieve a solution. This behaviour is fine when goals are moderately important and not worth the effort required for a more assertive mode. Conversely, if every problem is solved with a compromise, the values and long-term objectives of both parties will suffer.

Collaborating – “The win-win solution.”
When collaborating, individuals work together to find a solution that fully satisfies the concerns of both parties. A collaborative solution is truly a win for both parties. It certainly takes a lot of time and energy. Therefore, it is not the behaviour mode to use for a trivial problem. An overuse of collaboration may diffuse responsibility for decisions and postpone necessary actions.

There is a time and place for each conflict handling behaviour. Unfortunately most people tend to use the same one or two modes in all situations. As they develop competence with their preferred modes they begin to rely heavily on them to the exclusion of other options. When looking for optimal solutions, one should always consider the most appropriate behaviour for a particular situation.

It is fairly easy to have an individualized Thomas-Kilmann Profile done on yourself. You will receive an unbiased assessment of which behaviours you will likely use in specific conflict situations. This awareness could be extremely helpful for you. If you are interested in having this profile done, please contact greg@schottresolutions.ca.

Next month we will begin a discussion on techniques for better communication.

*These comments are based on the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument Copyright 2007 by Xicom, Incorporated, a subsidiary of CPP Inc. The two-dimensional model of conflict-handling behaviour is adapted from Conflict and Conflict Management by Kenneth Thomas in The Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by Marvin Dunnette, Rand McNally 1976.

 

Basic Trust
As infants, we begin life by trusting. We trust our parents to provide food and shelter. We trust that the sun will rise and that gravity will hold us to the ground. As we grow older we realize that our family and career experiences can be quite complex. Although we still have basic trust in the laws of physics, we can no longer maintain our youthful innocence with respect to matters of trust in relationships.

Simple Trust
The adult version of basic trust is simple trust. We assume that others always have our best interests at heart and we have no desire to question or test that assumption. This naïve approach ignores all four of the trust characteristics discussed in January.

Blind Trust
We are aware of the awful truth about a situation but we are unable to confront and deal with that truth. Our response is to ignore the facts, hoping for a simpler view of reality. Blind trust is self-deceiving. We are unable to be honest with ourselves and others. We do not have the competence to handle the situation. We need help.

Conditional Trust
When we set certain limits regarding the extent to which we trust someone, we are practising conditional trust. We trust an airline pilot to safely land the plane we are on. We would not necessarily trust that same pilot to perform neurosurgery on a loved one. Conditional trust is experiential. It relates to the competence and reliability of the parties involved.

Self Trust
Distrust in a relationship may result from the inability of one or both parties to believe in themselves. Without self respect, a trusting relationship cannot develop.

Authentic Trust (The Ultimate Form of Trust)
Rather than insisting that another party earn our trust back over a period of time, we could choose to accept and forgive a mistake or betrayal and extend trust back to that person. This technique is quite contrary to the normal way we have learned to deal with a breakdown in trust. It can have extremely powerful results. When we learn to complete the past, accept an apology, forgive, and commit to the future, we can build meaningful relationships based on a foundation of trust. Consider the positive impact this kind of approach might have on the teen we discussed in January.

What happens if you continue to extend trust and you continue to be disappointed in the results? Rather than being blind to the circumstances, you may have to make a difficult decision about the future of that particular relationship. If you find yourself in this situation and you wish to discuss some options, please contact greg@schottresolutions.ca.

In March we will discuss several modes of behavior which might be exhibited during a dispute resolution process.
 

*These comments are based on the book Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships and Life by Robert C. Solomon & Fernando Flores, Oxford Press, 2001.

Trust exists and grows in relationships as a direct result of actions taken by both sides to make and keep commitments. When we act with integrity, we build trust. However, when there has been a breakdown in a relationship, the task of rebuilding trust is not as easy as making some new commitments. Our actions may now be strongly influenced by our perceptions about what went wrong. Our speech, our listening (or lack thereof), and our emotional state strongly come into play. It is how we manage the interaction of all these items that determines our ability to restore trust to its former level.

The classic case of a teen losing the trust of a parent illustrates this point well. In this circumstance, the parent usually requires that the teen “earn back” the parent’s trust by following some rather strict rules for a period of time. Unfortunately, while the teen is attempting to follow the new rules, the parent might be focused on looking for evidence that the teen is failing to measure up to the new standards. During this time the parent might also try to emphasize the impact of any new incident by replaying the drama of the original one. Rather than rebuilding trust, this process could very well breed more distrust and create further alienation between parent and teen.

So how then should one go about rebuilding trust? Here are four characteristics that are essential for both parties to exhibit and understand about each other when issues of trust are at stake:

Honesty
An honest person is sincere about their intention to keep a promise that they have made.

Competence
A competent person has the skill, knowledge and capacity to produce results in a certain area of expertise. Trust breakdowns are inevitable when one party is operating outside of their competence zone.

Reliability
A reliable person consistently works to fulfill the promises that they make. When a promise is in jeopardy, they act immediately to communicate the nature of the problem and explore the options available. A decision is then made to either recommit to the original plan or to make another commitment to a mutually agreeable alternate plan.

Respect
A respectful person cares about themselves as well as the people around them. They consistently demonstrate compassion. They can accept the existence of different values, beliefs and behaviours. Respect must always be present before trust can grow.

Are you experiencing a breakdown of trust in a relationship? Consider whether the absence of one or more of these characteristics might be the cause. Hopefully the above comments will give you some new insights. However, if you want to have a more detailed discussion about a specific situation, please contact greg@schottresolutions.ca.

In February we will examine several different types of trust including: simple trust, blind trust, conditional trust, self trust and authentic trust. We will revisit the parent teen example at that time.

*These comments are based on the book Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships and Life by Robert C. Solomon & Fernando Flores, Oxford Press, 2001 and the coaching of Kathryn Grad, KG&A Consulting, Clarksville, Maryland.