How to turn a tiger into a vegetarian?

/0 Comments/in /by

Threats, passive agression and emotional blackmailing aren’t always as clear cut as you’d expect it to be. And when you do realise that someone is playing dirty tricks on you, you may be puzzled what the most appropriate response is.

Here are some thoughts on how to turn a hungry tiger into a manageable cat.

A writer I know well contacted me concerning her latest book. The collaboration is not going well. After a first popular book the writer was paid to write a sequel around a new theme. For the new theme she contacted a specialist in the field to deliver content. And it’s this specialist who is causing trouble.

The specialist has missed a couple of deadlines allready which has cost my client time and energy. And now this specialist has demanded the writer to change the outlooks of one of the characters in the book. Given the fact that this book is a sequel, changing characters is not that simple. Persuaded by some strong arguments the writer is nevertheless convinced that giving in to this demand makes sense. The publisher, though, is not convinced and argues that the alteration will confuse readers.

My client is in the midst of all of this. As a writer she cares about the experience of her readers and reconsiders the alteration of the character. After notifying the specialist she receives an e-mail from him insisting that the alteration is ‘essential’ adding that the original character is ‘in conflict with his values and moral compass’. The specialist requests the writer to pressure the publisher into another point of view.

The writer knows that that won’t work and urges the specialist to let go. Instead she receives a following e-mail saying:

Collaborating on this book is my Life Work, for which reason I can not concede. If the alteration is not granted then I will be forced to withdraw from this project.

My advice to the writer as an expert on conflict resolution:

If you give in to it, this will not be the end.

The characters were known to the specialist long before collaborating on this project. Insisting on an alteration now is out of proportion and is intolerable in a professional context.

Had the writer and the specialist been in a meeting face to face and had he raised his voice or slammed his hand down on the table, or had he sent a written sommation from his lawyer after the meeting was over, the agression would have been clear cut. But don’t let the talk about values, integrity and life work be misleading. This too is a threat.

If the writer gives in, she is feeding the tiger more meat. Don’t fool yourself thinking that a hungry tiger will stop growling afterwards. The only way to stop the agression is to draw the line.

Confronting the specialist with his behaviour (missing out on deadlines, not being flexible and receding to threats) is the only thing that will help. It is even more powerful is the writer has this conversation face to face without the use of agression, strong words or personal insults. This way she draws the line and is changing the game.

It will be clear to the passive agressor that the writer is not sensible to threats and having de-escalated the situation, both will be able to get back to work.

 

 

Gold rush

/0 Comments/in /by

The Dutch dream? To build your own house with a garden close to Amsterdam central station. The dream can become a reality, but only 19 couples or families are in the happy position. This priviliged position is bound to cause mayhem, and it did!

My husband and I, together with 39 other candidates, are in the race to purchase a plot in Amsterdam. The plots will be issued tomorrow. Three weeks ago the first candidates appeared on the horizon. To safeguard their spot in the line they have been camping outside the municipiality. Since then many other have joined them, as have my husband and I, a week ago from now.

Camping out here is no joke. Friends of ours lent us their eighties camper which sleeps comfortably but does not offer a shower or a toilet. Since we are not on an official campsite there a no facilities what so ever. And when we arrived we learned from the ‘plot-candidate-community’ that you can only safeguard your spot (we are 19th in line) by staying put.

As a result of this policy everyone has cancelled all their social engagements or invites friends to visit them at the campsite and we’ve all had to rearrange work. This is mostly to the benefit of the self-employed (like myself).

Now the scarcity of plots is taking its toll. The day before yesterday the guys occupying number 12, an Israelian twin, and their German friend, had left the campsite for several hours and were ‘caught’. The people queuing up behind them saw their chance at getting at a better spot and called a community meeting demanding that the guys be kicked out of the queue.

So we found ourselved at the heart of the improvised campsite deciding on the ill fate of people who had been camping with us for a week and who were not present to take part in the deliberation. Someone stated that the first eleven people in line would be less self-serving and asked them to form a committee and decide on behalf of everyone. They reluctantly agreed.

Fifteen minutes later their decision was made public: the absent campers had lost their number twelve and were kicked to the end of the queue!

For a little while the debate ended there, untill the missing guys returned ‘home’ to the campsite. The guys were furious aswell as in terror and demanded to be heard before the decision would come into effect. The next evening we gathered again and the Israelian boys were facing a Dutch crowd of fellow campers. The boys smiled bravely but I could see that their hands were shaking.

What happened next and how this related to conflict theory in general is for my next article, right now I must return to the campsite!

 

Say what you mean. Do what you say.

/0 Comments/in /by

‘The origin of all conflict between me and my fellow-men is that I do not say what I mean and I do not do what I say’: it is beautifully put by Martin Buber and it is spot on. I sinned against it recently and suffered the consequences.

People often ask me whether I lead a conflict-free-life as a mediator. I don’t offcourse. Just recently, an inspiring collaboration of mine turned into an argument that almost escalated into a conflict.

I was contacted by a fellow mediator with whom I had already collaborated in the past. She told me that she was about to take on the mediation of a dispute between more than thirty people and asked me to join her. I said yes right away. I hadn’t yet conducted such a group mediation before and our earlier collaboration had been successful. And last but not least, I really like and value her as a person and as a mediator.

Agreements about the financial investment by all parties are settled during the first mediation session. It was clear that the lead was hers and what my colleague told me before hand was that she wanted to pay me for any work I would take out of her hands. We didn’t agree on a fee, but she suggested to agree on what was ‘reasonable’ later on in the process.

After one of the mediation sessions we went out for dinner and talked about many other things beside work. When the check arrived my colleague wanted to pay my share too. When I said there was no need and offered to pay my half she insisted that it was only ‘reasonable’ considering the work I had taken out of her hands. All of a sudden I realised she meant to say that a dinner was a reasonable remuneration for the work I had done. I was shocked. When I protested our intimate conversation turned into an unpleasant and unexpected negotiation.

I felt deceived. Why did she wait so long to specify what she felt would be a reasonable fee for my work?

But then again, I had waited just as long as she did. What was my excuse?

This is why the English expression To assume (ass-u-me), makes an ass of u and me is so true. Assumptions are the mother of all conflict. And the longer you wait to speak things through the more every one fills in from their own experience and alienates from the other person involved.

Yet discovering just how different our expectations had been and how they may have evolved in the process did not solve this issue. I still wished to be paid a reasonable fee and my fellow mediator still considered a symbolic fee a good way to go about this.

Did we manage to work this out? Luckily we did.

What I had to do was be my own mediator and apply the Break Through Method. These are the important steps of the Method:

1. Go to the balcony
2. Go stand next to him or her (in this case)
3. Don’t say ‘no’
4. Build a bridge
5. Use your power to educate the other person but don’t let it escalate

In my next article you’ll read how I managed to solve this argument while using the Break Through Method, and I will teach you how you can apply the Method successfully yourself.

But for now, here is valuable advice: SAY what you mean and DO what you say.
It will save you from a lot of mishaps in your business and personal life.

 

 

 

 

Constructive confrontations

/0 Comments/in /by

Telling people you work with and value what you don’t like about them, how do you do that? By saying something nice first, bringing the criticism next and then ending with something nice again (also known as ‘sandwiching’)? Sure that helps, but it doesn’t answer the question how you say what bothers you. Well this is how.

Part one: Why it is absolutely necessary to have difficult conversations

Not only friendships stem from mutual sympathy, business does too. Assignments will only come your way if the client knows you, trusts you ànd likes you. And as soon as you have gained the sympathy of your client, employer or associate you want to hold on to it as much as you can.

From my own point of view I can say I have more trouble speaking my mind and criticising when it comes to valued business contacts, loyal clients and friends than I have speaking my mind to random people on the train or to a cheeky sales person. It seems the more there is at stake the more we are afraid to lose what we have, where in fact the more there is at stake the more we should dare to open up and speak our mind.

A bomb ready to explode

Having invested a lot to build a relationship it is common sense that you are not eager to put it at stake. But what happens to that relationship if you keep all frustrations to yourself? Bitterness and frustrations that are not dealt or met with in time will turn into cynism and are in danger of exploding. Such an unexpected outburst of emotions is usually a big shock to everyone affected.

Nevertheless it’s also remarkable how after the first shock the majority of people claim they did see it coming. Colleagues or business associates who are in the dark of what is going on, can sense nevertheless that something is not right. It’s a fact, every time one swallows bitterness or leaves frustration undiscussed those feelings grow stronger under the surface. And it will not take long before your voice, body language or the way you look or avoid to look at someone starts shining through.

The beauty of self awareness

Relationships go sour when people hide unpleasant feelings. This goes as much for professional relationships as for relationships in your private life. Having said that, my advice is not to adress every minor feeling of discomfort. You must choose your battles. How do you know when something is worth battling for and when it’s really not?

When something someone else has done something that keeps bothering you you need to address it. You are not always aware of it at first but there are plenty of signs.

Take a close look at what happens during a conversation with the person who bothered you prior, do you feel a rising tensity in your shoulders or jaw that you can not explain? Do you click away any updates you see from him or her on social media?

Avoidance is the clearest sign that something has gone wrong in the relationship. If you choose to email where as before you always spoke on the phone you should admit to yourself that something is up. If you are more often speaking about someone than to someone then that’s another sign.

So a first important step in sustaining your relationships is self awareness. Be aware of your feelings and admit it to yourself when something or someone continues to bother you.

Part two: This is how you go into a difficult conversation

While reading this article you might realise that in fact you are avoiding someone close to you because of something he or she has done. If the professional or personal relationship with this person is of value to you you may also realise that you can not let it go sour. What you need now to be able to address the problem is some extra courage and the rules on constructive feedback.

Constructive confrontations 

There are a couple of ways to prepare for a difficult conversation. It is best to realise that it is a particular behaviour that is bothering you. The person in itself has not changed. Realise also that whatever you feel is your perspective,. Is there a sensitivity on your side? Try to also imagine the roles were reversed: the other person is bothered by something you did and you are not aware of it. Wouldn’t you want to get a chance to clarify things?

The reasons to confront the other person are abundant.

Now these are the rules of thumb to do so without damaging the relationship:

  • ask permission

  • be specific

  • don’t give interpretations but only describe your observation

  • start with ‘I feel’; stay away from moral judgement

  • don’t give advise and don’t trying to persuade the other person

You can ‘ask permission’ in many ways. In any case make sure that you time your message well. Bring it without any bystanders present and check that the other person is not occupied or stressed out by something else. You can explicitly ask for a one on one and you can also start by saying that you want to discuss something because you value the relationship a lot.

Be ‘specific’ about what is bothering you. Say for instance: during the meeting with client X last Friday I was saying ‘we probably need a lot more time to get the job done’ and as I started a new sentence you raised your voice saying ‘in fact time is not a factor at all’. Being this specific is much more effective than simply stating: ‘I don’t like it when you interrupt me’. Giving interpretations is not a constructive way of giving feedback.

Then continue by explaining how the particular action affected you.  Start with the words ‘I feel..’. You are giving your perception here, not a lesson of universal ethics (those don’t exist anyway). Don’t force anything either and don’t give advice. Your message will across better if the other person is free to think of his or her own way to do things differently next time round.

Do take care that your message is understood by the recipient. Half measures are not worth your while. If you go into this conversation make sure you finish it by checking whether your were understood.

The result of it all?

Your frustration is out the door. And so is the risk of an emotional outburst or avoidance. If the other person values the relationship as much you do he will change his behaviour or try to avoid the pitfall.

The best side effect of constructive confrontations is that the fact that the two of you have collided, spoken openly about it and resolved the issue strengthens the mutual trust. So don’t worry about that next assignment, thanks to the constructive confrontation it will come your way.