26 August, 2020
Words That Generalize
Word choice is often discredited as a major element of good communication, in favor of other elements such as body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice. But the words you use play a crucial role in causing and in resolving conflict. If you introduced your friend to a colleague by saying, “This is my best friend,” it would likely be met with a very different reaction than if you said, “This is my idiot friend,” even if you delivered your introduction with the exact same body language, facial expression, and tone of voice. In essence – words matter.
In fact, there are certain words that can play an outsized role in causing conflict and they mostly fall into one language category. Words that generalize often create or escalate conflict. These troublemakers distort the truth by taking information related to what is happening in this situation and applying it to all situations.
Example: “always…” / “never…”
“You always criticize me.” or “We’ll never get through this.”
A frustrated manager might declare, “you always come in late,” to an employee who showed up late to work today (or even several times). Even if the truth is that the employee did arrive late today and has arrived late three times in the past month, when the manager says, “you always come in late,” what they communicate is, “you always come in late, every single day, and you have never been on time, not even once.” The employee will then likely react to the word “always” by defending their own actions and providing every example of when they did arrive to work on time. So, “you always come in late,” escalates conflict and likely shuts down the communication between the manager and the employee because it is not true. It is false or exaggerated information, packaged in inflammatory language like “always” and “never.”
If the manager’s goal is to instead focus the employee on the topic at hand – the employee’s attendance – then it is much more effective to omit generalizing words like “always” and “never,” and to instead stick to the facts. Saying, “You’ve been late three times in the past month,” is much more likely to keep the conversation on a productive track because it avoids blaming the employee for being late on days when they were, in fact, on time. Additionally, the employee is less likely to feel defensive because the facts of the situation, that the employee was late three times, are clearly stated and provide a basis for discussion.
Example: “All” / “Every” / “Any”
“All politicians are corrupt.” or “Every manager here only cares about performance.” or “There isn’t any money in the budget for this.”
Just like always and never, words like all, every, and any escalate conflict by generalizing information beyond the current situation. Someone might declare, “All politicians are corrupt” and there are likely many who would disagree with that statement. There are countless examples of politicians who perform with integrity, yet the message received is, “all politicians, throughout history, in every office and in every country, are all corrupt, and not one of them has behaved ethically.” The word all does not even have to be used to communicate the same thing. If someone said, “politicians are corrupt,” then the listener would likely infer that corruption applies to all politicians, and likely would not ask in return, “to which politicians are you referring?”
Declarations that use the words all, every, and any are often untrue, as in the example, “Every manager here only cares about performance.” This statement ignores the fact that some managers might also care about things other than performance and that some leaders may prioritize many other employee qualities just as highly as performance.
Phrases like, “There isn’t any money in the budget for this,” might be based in truth, but still limit options in a way that is unrealistic. There might be practical limitations to the budget, but saying, “there isn’t any money,” discourages exploration, when, there might be some money available or other creative ways to explore options that don’t tap into dollars and cents.
As a best practice, it is wise to avoid words that generalize. They distort the truth, create confusion, and can put people on the defensive. Instead, focus on the facts of the specific situation by starting with phrases such as, “In my experience…,” “I’ve noticed that…,” and “The facts of this situation are…” Because words do matter, it is important to choose them carefully.
Rick Buccheri
Director of Programs
20 August, 2020
When I first became a trained mediator in the mid-90s, brainstorming was all the rage. Management journals touted the benefits of hosting in-person, group brainstorming to promote creativity in organizations. Leadership associations sponsored trainings on how to lead visual brainstorming activities in meetings. In fact, mediation course curriculums always included a robust section on assisting disputants to verbally brainstorm to help resolve their conflict. I loved it!
As a self-described extrovert, I love anything that helps me to visualize a problem. So, I was naturally drawn to group brainstorming techniques – writing colorful lists on a white board at the front of the room, shouting out project ideas in team meetings, and the back and forth energy of collaborating with others in the moment to build from one idea to the next. Brainstorming became my favorite new habit. In fact, it came so naturally to me that I never stopped to consider the notion that some people might not love the idea of sharing their ideas out loud or may not do their best thinking on the spot. I also didn’t consider that perhaps group brainstorming isn’t the most effective way to innovate or to reach true consensus when faced with a conflict.
Decades of research actually show that traditional brainstorming methods are often unsuccessful. In his Harvard Business Review article, The Problem-Solving Process that Prevents Groupthink, Art Markman states that when people “start throwing out ideas, they actually come up with fewer ideas overall and fewer novel, actionable ideas than the individuals in that group would have come up with had they worked alone.” When one person throws out an idea it tends to influence the thinking of others in the group in ways that make everyone start to think similarly to one another. Thus, limiting the framing of the conflict and often then limiting the creativity of possible solutions.
One way to avoid this “groupthink” tendency, is to maximize the time individuals have to work independently on resolving a conflict situation. Start by having each person work on their own to draft a list of possible options for resolving the problem at hand. Then share those lists with others on the team, so each person can still work on their own to respond, add to or edit the list. At this point, everyone is still working on their own rather than in a group setting and has a better opportunity to build on each other’s ideas without being influenced by the group. Once everyone has had a chance to generate their own ideas and independently respond to the ideas of others, you can bring the group together to discuss the options.
Group brainstorming isn’t necessarily a bad habit. It can still be a fun way to build team rapport and energize a group, but it may be best for deciding something simple like where to go for the next office lunch. When it comes to big team decisions, tough office conflicts, or other problems that require next level innovation, try giving independent time to think to each person on your team and you’ll be more likely to maximize creativity and outcomes!
Tara B. Taylor, MPA
Managing Director
18 August, 2020
Language is a key factor in both causing and resolving conflict. A useful phrase that helps resolve and reduce conflict is “Can you help me understand”.
Example: “Can you help me understand how you think that would help our reputation?”
It is all too easy to attack another person by asking why. When another person does something you do not like or don’t agree with, you might feel the urge to bombard them with questions like, “Why did you do that?” or “Why did you think this was okay?” or “Why should I trust you again?” This interrogative approach can make the other person feel like they are in the spotlight and on trial for behavior that they may or may not even know how to explain. When you use why it tends to put the other person on the defensive and shut down productive conversation instead of building better communication and a collaborative relationship.
We’ve found that a much more effective approach is to start with the question, can you help me understand, as in “Can you help me understand what motivated you to do that?” or “Can you help me understand what led to that decision?” Rather than demanding a response and setting up a one-way exchange, the way why questions often do, asking “Can you…?” invites the other person to say more and sets the stage for a more collaborative discussion. Professor Paul Argenti from Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business states that “authentic communication requires curiosity and empathy.” Even when you are frustrated by another person’s actions or can’t possibly understand why they are acting a certain way, it always benefits you to initiate a conversation with curiosity and a genuine openness to understanding. People want to feel heard and be understood and asking a question from a place that invites that understanding can make all the difference in whether you will have a quality conversation or just more defensiveness and frustration.
Notice how the question also encourages collaboration by defining a role for each of you. Their role is to help you, and your role is to listen for understanding. This makes it less of a one-way exchange, and instead demonstrates that you share responsibility in the discussion.
The phrase, “Can you help me understand,” also helps equalize the relationship. The other person did something that you do not like so they might enter the discussion feeling that their status has diminished. When you put them on the defensive with why questions, you reduce their status even further. However, when you invite the other person to do something that can help you understand, then you re-elevate their position by making them feel helpful and valued. From there, you can continue the conversation as equals, even if it is still a difficult discussion.
Words have power, so making small changes to the way you ask questions can radically transform your relationships.
One caveat to the question of “can you help me understand?”, especially when discussing diversity, difference, or identity, is to be thoughtful about what you are really asking from the other person. Be careful to not place the burden of explaining or educating you on someone else if you have not done any of the expected groundwork for that conversation first.
Rick Buccheri
Director of Programs
12 August, 2020
If you are responsible for an item on a meeting agenda, apply these simple criteria to make sure the time you are given is productive for everyone attending the meeting.
Do you want discussion?
NO: If the answer is no, be sure to advise attendees right away that this part of the meeting is meant to be a presentation, not a discussion, otherwise they might be eager to offer input. It’s best to use a one-directional presentation format only when time is limited in the meeting, when there are many people attending the meeting, or when the people in the meeting are not likely to be significantly impacted by the information being presented. Otherwise, it may be useful to allow everyone time to discuss the topic.
YES: If you know that the topic is one that people are eager to discuss, be sure to build ample time into the agenda. Let participants know that they will have the opportunity to discuss the topic openly and that any input is welcome.
Do you need to collect information from the meeting attendees?
NO: If the answer is no, simply let attendees know that this particular portion of the meeting will be a presentation only.
YES: If you need input from others in the meeting, let them know what kind of input you need (e.g. “It would be great if you could let me know what resources you have to contribute to this project?” or “Please share any input you have about how this change might affect your team.”)
Does a decision need to be made by the people attending the meeting?
NO: If no decision needs to be made during the meeting or by those attending the meeting, let participants know who will make the decision and when they can expect an update informing them of the decision that was made.
YES: If you do need participants to decide something during the meeting let them know as soon as possible, preferably when the meeting is announced, so they have time to prepare and conduct any necessary research or collection of information to inform their decision-making. Clearly state what decision you are asking them to make and inform attendees of what process you will use to make the decision (e.g. majority rule or unanimous consent).
Rick Buccheri
Director of Programs
