Posts

#Leadership : The Hidden Status Battles That Can Roil the Office…When #Bosses Offer Promotions & other #Rewards, They may Not Realize the #Conflicts they’re Unleashing on #Teams .

Every day, managers bestow perks they believe are positives—publicly giving awards and recognition, giving someone a desk with a window, increasing employees’ responsibilities, and so forth.

What managers don’t realize is the damage these acts do.

Sure, they may notice changes at the office. Maybe one employee suddenly begins to dominate the conversation at meetings, or people are interrupting each other more often, forming cliques or ignoring someone’s comments. It would never dawn on them, though, that their beneficent acts precipitated the changes.

MORE IN C-SUITE STRATEGIES

But that is exactly what has happened: Research reveals that the kindnesses to individual employees often unsettle the existing status order and lead to conflicts as the group tries to sort it out.

The answer, obviously, isn’t that managers should stop rewarding employees. But it’s crucial that managers recognize when they’re upsetting what might be called the status status quo, and be able to minimize the damage their acts can cause.

Few managers, of course, think about any of this when making decisions. That’s partly because the actual status hierarchy in the workplace often doesn’t follow the formal hierarchy of the organization. Status is socially conferred and is typically an unspoken consensual agreement over the relative amount of respect, esteem and regard employees have for one another. Upsetting that agreement often affects the relative standing of everyone in the group. As in a game of Jenga, moving one piece can topple the entire tower.

Like this Article ?  Share It !    You now can easily enjoy/follow/share Today our Award Winning Articles/Blogs with Now Over 2.5 Million Growing  Participates Worldwide in our various Social Media formats below:

FSC LinkedIn Network:   www.linkedin.com/in/fscnetwork

Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/pages/First-Sun-Consulting-LLC-Outplacement-Services/213542315355343?sk=wall

Google+:  https://plus.google.com/115673713231115398101/posts?hl=en

Twitter: Follow us @ firstsunllc

Question: Want the ‘the best/current articles/blogs on the web’ on Job Search, Resume, Advancing/Changing your Career, or simply Managing People?

Answer: Simply go to our FSC Career Blog below & type(#career, #leadership, #life) in Blog Search:  https://www.firstsun.com/fsc-career-blog/

What Skill Sets do You have to be ‘Sharpened’ ?

Continue of article:

More Damages

Such status conflict is more detrimental to group performance than other forms of conflict. A study by professors Corinne Bendersky and Nicholas Hays of the University California, Los Angeles, and Michigan State University followed 374 M.B.A. and executive M.B.A. students who were collaborating in 68 teams as part of their training.

They tracked interactions and noted when different forms of conflict—conflict over tasks, work processes, interpersonal struggles and status—emerged. Status conflict took many forms, including team members invoking their educational pedigree, devaluing another person’s contributions to the team, and accentuating their own contribution. When the researchers looked at which teams performed the worst on a series of tasks it was the teams that most frequently had struggles over status.

I first encountered status conflict when I was studying an effort by a large health-care organization to improve patient care. The effort increased the status and responsibility of nurses, though it didn’t formally change the nurse’s role. The nurse was still a nurse.

As part of the rollout, hundreds of nurses, doctors and medical assistants wore sensors, allowing me and Ingrid Nembhard, an associate professor at Wharton, to track the frequency and duration of interactions within teams, as well as the team’s conversational characteristics on a second-by-second basis.

What we found surprised us. Rather than translating into higher performance for the health-care teams, the change in the nurses’ status created discord within the teams. Everyone on the team started interrupting each other more frequently. The wearable sensors showed that they stopped listening to one another. Nurses and physicians simply stopped talking to one another. And yet none of the teams recognized the cause of the increased strife.

With the evidence from the wearable sensors, the organization successfully relaunched the program with additional interventions to improve nurses’ relationships with the care team and support their leadership role.

If teams don’t know they are engaged in a conflict over status, how can managers identify and avoid status conflict? Managers, after all, want to reward employees who are doing well, or may want to give certain people—such as in the nurses’ example—more responsibilities in an effort to improve performance.

The key is to do it in a way that achieves the desired result, without setting off a status-battle backlash.

For one thing, managers need to look for subtle signs that people on teams may be struggling to figure out their status ordering. Increases in nonverbal aggression, such as frequent interruption, individuals dominating conversations, interpersonal antagonism and disengagement, can be telltale clues. Managers may also notice cliques forming as people who feel like they’ve been slighted attempt to increase their sense of self by creating coalitions.

So what can a manager who notices this do? Generally, there are two approaches to conflict: either trying to reduce differences between team members or trying to increase tolerance of differences. The first approach works with many types of interpersonal conflicts. But not with status battles. With those, trying to resolve it by reducing differences, giving everyone equal voice or negotiating is likely to backfire and lead to even more conflicts over who does what job.

A much better approach is to try to get teams to recognize the necessity of status differences and increase their tolerance of them by creating transparency in how rewards are allocated and affirming the value that other team members bring to the team by frequently recalling past successes or highlighting what they bring to the team.

But the most important thing managers can do is to head off status conflicts in the first place. In cases where a manager wants to recognize one individual from a longstanding team, for instance, managers should get buy-in from the group and rely on peer-to-peer recognition systems, which allow all members of the team to recognize their colleagues for their contributions.

Even if the boss promoted someone who didn’t receive such accolades from his or her peers, the simple acknowledgment of the worker’s contributions would go a long way toward damping the status conflict. Much of the time people simply want to be recognized and employees want to be heard.

Perils of personality

When considering who to move to the corner office or to receive a public award, managers also should be careful not to rely on personality as a proxy for proficiency. Often, extroverts are prematurely given elevated status since their gregariousness and social fluidity are associated with competence. Research by Prof. Cameron Anderson and his colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, found that over time, extroverts tend to lose status since there is a disconnect between expectations and performance.

In contrast, people who seem anxious and withdrawn tend to increase in status as their unrealized talents become apparent. A misallocation early on based on personality, rather than performance, makes it more likely that teams will have to grapple with status conflict later when the disconnect between performance expectations and status becomes clear.

Greater gender diversity on teams can also help. A recent study led by Hun Whee Lee of Michigan State University found that teams embroiled in status conflict are less creative because team members do not feel safe to speak up or share new ideas. However, the researchers found that gender diversity substantially reduced the size of this effect by increasing psychological safety in teams. When teams appear stuck in status conflict, managers may want to consider balancing teams with an uneven gender composition.

It should be said that disputes over respect and standing in the group aren’t always a bad thing. In newly formed teams, status conflict actually improves team performance by helping members clarify the hierarchy.

Conversely, status conflict is most detrimental in teams of people who have a high level of familiarity with each other. In the case of the nurses we studied, bringing in someone from the outside and providing him or her with a differentiated formal title would have been less likely to disrupt the current status ordering within the well-established team.

Finally, beware of too much of a good thing. Given the opportunity, most managers would be thrilled to have the chance to create a dream team full of high-status stars. But research by Boris Groysberg and Jeffery Polzer of Harvard Business School along with Hillary Anger Elfenbein at Washington University found that having too many high-status members on a team can lead to decreased performance because of status conflict, as the team members become absorbed in sorting out who has the highest status.

Dr. King is a professor at the Yale School of Management. Email reports@wsj.com.

Appeared in the February 20, 2018, print edition.

WSJ.com | By Marissa King | 

#Leadership : Managing Conflict Is Essential to Success…A Functional Workplace of Diverse People and Ideas is Fertile Ground for Creativity — And for Conflict. Here’s How to Be a Good Referee.

Those of you who have read my articles before can probably envision me embroiled in numerous conflicts. To keep from being killed or killing someone, I have acquired fairly effective survival skills. I’m not a pacifist; in fact, people who say “fighting never solves anything” make me think they have been on the losing end of every fight they’ve been in. Or, it makes me think they have probably spent their lives running from fights.

networking

In my experience, fighting solves a lot, but let me be clear here, when I say “fighting,” I am not talking about slapping around Kenny in accounting because he shorted you $2.36! When I say fighting, I am talking about conflict. Conflict is neither good nor bad; it can be handled functionally or dysfunctionally.

You can’t say that!

We’re not on the playground anymore, and in a post-Columbine, post-going postal world, even joking about workplace violence can be a serious offense. I have worked at several companies that had incidents of workplace violence that ended in death; so I don’t want anyone thinking that I am making light of the very real threat of workplace violence. But there is a right way and a wrong way of addressing it, and in my opinion, the best way to avoid workplace violence, even mere workplace unpleasantness, is by de-escalating dysfunctional conflict before it becomes a problem.

De-escalation of conflict isn’t the same as conflict avoidance. De-escalation of conflict is the act of removing heightened emotion the antagonists are feeling about their disagreement. Disagreement is healthy in an organization; moreover, squelching it leads to dysfunction, from simmering frustration to malicious obedience. Malicious obedience is one of those terms I learned when I was working for a man I still affectionately refer to as “the Devil.”

 

Like this Article ?  Share It !    You now can easily enjoy/follow/share Today our Award Winning Articles/Blogs with Now Over 2.5 Million Growing  Participates Worldwide in our various Social Media formats below:

FSC LinkedIn Network: (Over 15K+ Members & Growing !)   www.linkedin.com/in/frankfsc/en

Facebook: (over 12K)   http://www.facebook.com/pages/First-Sun-Consulting-LLC-Outplacement-Services/213542315355343?sk=wall

educate/collaborate/network….Look forward to your Participation !

Continue of article:

You told me to!

Tired of having him second guess my every decision and then ordering me to do something that I knew would be a disaster, I would do exactly what he told me to, knowing full well that it would create chaos. Doing so made him incredibly angry and frustrated because I had in fact done exactly what he told me to do. I fully admit to doing in those days what I expect now of a benighted employee, escalating our dysfunctional dynamic.

Related: 3 Signs It’s Time to Fire the Boss

I would sit smugly in his office watching the veins in his temples bulge and throb, in hopes of seeing one burst, while he frothed at the mouth and sputtered his disappointment with my performance. I can see now I could have (should have?) handled things better. Mea culpa. But when dealing with a dysfunctional environment, it is hard to behave like an adult. Or, maybe I’m making excuses, but I know better now.

You talking to me?

It may seem silly, but de-escalation of conflict begins with the language we use. I used to work for an organization where so much as joking about violence was an offense for which one could be fired. For my money, the organization took extreme and ridiculous efforts to avoid any implication of aggression. There was an Alice Down the Rabbit Hole absurdity to its efforts.

We couldn’t use the term bullet point because bullet, it was believed, denotes violence. No, actually. In this case, the term bullet is derived from the word bulletin (a bulletin being a series of bullets), a usage that predates the invention of the gun. We had to call them dot lists. Predictably, this devolved into a bizarre workplace lexicon that would have made Aldous Huxley proud. We could say positive, but negatives became deltas. Ironically, we could say head shot; something I never understood because it seemed not only violent but graphically violent.

You can’t say that, either!

The thing is, mincing words and weaseling around the point is not really helpful when trying to de-escalate conflict. Quite the opposite, I find it tends to infuriate an already aggravated and aggressive dynamic between the parties. Clarity, understanding and resolution become impossible. And business people want clarity, and seek it intuitively. They coin graphic terms like “one throat to choke” (look it up) to express a common business concept, even as it may create the subtle impression that workplace violence is acceptable — or perhaps only upon outside vendors.

Related: 7 Ways to Have a Difficult Conversation Without Losing Your Client

So these things don’t work, what does? I found a simple formula work of the de-escalation:

1. Begin by a acknowledging each other’s frustration.

Conflict tends to build-up and as it builds so does frustration. The primate inside us wants to either fight or flee; neither are options that de-escalate the conflict. Vocalizing the knowledge that both parties are frustrated and potentially angry allows them to stop focusing on communicating how they feel and to start focusing on what they can do to move forward.

2. Assume goodness of intention.

When we assume that the other party is perfidious, escalation results. When I think they have the best intentions we can discuss our positions dispassionately and assertively. I admit it can be very difficult to give someone the benefit of the doubt, especially if they have screwed us over the past, but you really have to get beyond that if you’re going to achieve any mastery of conflict de-escalation.

3. Make sure all parties have expressed how they feel.

This may sound soft-headed, but it’s really important. Unless we talk about the emotions we’re feeling, they will always get in the way of trying to solve a problem. Maybe you have experienced, as I have, an exchange where the other person keeps deflecting or trying to change the subject, to rationalize their own dysfunctional behavior. As goofy as it may sound, too many people get so wrapped up in winning that they cannot see a compromise is anything but a defeat.

4. Apologize.

An apology can go a long way in mending a relationship, even when you’re too pig-headed to admit you’re wrong. You may actually feel as if you have done nothing wrong, and maybe you haven’t, but the fact remains that your actions created the perception of an attack or insult, and I think we can all agree that we want to prevent kind of this perception.

5. Fess up when you mess up.

Sometimes our egos prevent us from doing what’s right — in this case, admitting when we screwed up. Something this simple can greatly reduce the heightened emotional state.

You gotta give a little. De-escalation relies on both parties being able to see another person’s point of view. They must be willing to give a little bit. By becoming able to compromise, they free themselves and each other to work toward the win/win.

 

Entrepreneur.com | October 18, 2016 | Phil La Duke

 

#Leadership : Managing Conflict Is Essential to Success…A Functional Workplace of Diverse People and Ideas is Fertile Ground for Creativity — and for Conflict. Here’s How to Be a Good Referee.

You gotta give a little. De-escalation relies on both parties being able to see another person’s point of view. They must be willing to give a little bit. By becoming able to compromise, they free themselves and each other to work toward the win/win.

red-button

 

Those of you who have read my articles before can probably envision me embroiled in numerous conflicts. To keep from being killed or killing someone, I have acquired fairly effective survival skills. I’m not a pacifist; in fact, people who say “fighting never solves anything” make me think they have been on the losing end of every fight they’ve been in. Or, it makes me think they have probably spent their lives running from fights.

In my experience, fighting solves a lot, but let me be clear here, when I say “fighting,” I am not talking about slapping around Kenny in accounting because he shorted you $2.36! When I say fighting, I am talking about conflict. Conflict is neither good nor bad; it can be handled functionally or dysfunctionally.

You can’t say that!

We’re not on the playground anymore, and in a post-Columbine, post-going postal world, even joking about workplace violence can be a serious offense. I have worked at several companies that had incidents of workplace violence that ended in death; so I don’t want anyone thinking that I am making light of the very real threat of workplace violence. But there is a right way and a wrong way of addressing it, and in my opinion, the best way to avoid workplace violence, even mere workplace unpleasantness, is by de-escalating dysfunctional conflict before it becomes a problem.

De-escalation of conflict isn’t the same as conflict avoidance. De-escalation of conflict is the act of removing heightened emotion the antagonists are feeling about their disagreement. Disagreement is healthy in an organization; moreover, squelching it leads to dysfunction, from simmering frustration to malicious obedience. Malicious obedience is one of those terms I learned when I was working for a man I still affectionately refer to as “the Devil.”

 

Like this Article ?  Share It !    You now can easily enjoy/follow/share Today our Award Winning Articles/Blogs with Now Over 2.5 Million Growing  Participates Worldwide in our various Social Media formats below:

FSC LinkedIn Network: (Over 15K+ Members & Growing !)   www.linkedin.com/in/frankfsc/en

Facebook: (over 12K)   http://www.facebook.com/pages/First-Sun-Consulting-LLC-Outplacement-Services/213542315355343?sk=wall

educate/collaborate/network….Look forward to your Participation !

Continue of article:

You told me to!

Tired of having him second guess my every decision and then ordering me to do something that I knew would be a disaster, I would do exactly what he told me to, knowing full well that it would create chaos. Doing so made him incredibly angry and frustrated because I had in fact done exactly what he told me to do. I fully admit to doing in those days what I expect now of a benighted employee, escalating our dysfunctional dynamic.

Related: 3 Signs It’s Time to Fire the Boss

I would sit smugly in his office watching the veins in his temples bulge and throb, in hopes of seeing one burst, while he frothed at the mouth and sputtered his disappointment with my performance. I can see now I could have (should have?) handled things better. Mea culpa. But when dealing with a dysfunctional environment, it is hard to behave like an adult. Or, maybe I’m making excuses, but I know better now.

You talking to me?

It may seem silly, but de-escalation of conflict begins with the language we use. I used to work for an organization where so much as joking about violence was an offense for which one could be fired. For my money, the organization took extreme and ridiculous efforts to avoid any implication of aggression. There was an Alice Down the Rabbit Hole absurdity to its efforts.

We couldn’t use the term bullet point because bullet, it was believed, denotes violence. No, actually. In this case, the term bullet is derived from the word bulletin (a bulletin being a series of bullets), a usage that predates the invention of the gun. We had to call them dot lists. Predictably, this devolved into a bizarre workplace lexicon that would have made Aldous Huxley proud. We could say positive, butnegatives became deltas. Ironically, we could say head shot; something I never understood because it seemed not only violent but graphically violent.

You can’t say that, either!

The thing is, mincing words and weaseling around the point is not really helpful when trying to de-escalate conflict. Quite the opposite, I find it tends to infuriate an already aggravated and aggressive dynamic between the parties. Clarity, understanding and resolution become impossible. And business people want clarity, and seek it intuitively. They coin graphic terms like “one throat to choke” (look it up) to express a common business concept, even as it may create the subtle impression that workplace violence is acceptable — or perhaps only upon outside vendors.

Related: 7 Ways to Have a Difficult Conversation Without Losing Your Client

So these things don’t work, what does? I found a simple formula work of the de-escalation:

1. Begin by a acknowledging each other’s frustration.

Conflict tends to build-up and as it builds so does frustration. The primate inside us wants to either fight or flee; neither are options that de-escalate the conflict. Vocalizing the knowledge that both parties are frustrated and potentially angry allows them to stop focusing on communicating how they feel and to start focusing on what they can do to move forward.

2. Assume goodness of intention.

When we assume that the other party is perfidious, escalation results. When I think they have the best intentions we can discuss our positions dispassionately and assertively. I admit it can be very difficult to give someone the benefit of the doubt, especially if they have screwed us over the past, but you really have to get beyond that if you’re going to achieve any mastery of conflict de-escalation.

3. Make sure all parties have expressed how they feel.

This may sound soft-headed, but it’s really important. Unless we talk about the emotions we’re feeling, they will always get in the way of trying to solve a problem. Maybe you have experienced, as I have, an exchange where the other person keeps deflecting or trying to change the subject, to rationalize their own dysfunctional behavior. As goofy as it may sound, too many people get so wrapped up in winning that they cannot see a compromise is anything but a defeat.

4. Apologize.

An apology can go a long way in mending a relationship, even when you’re too pig-headed to admit you’re wrong. You may actually feel as if you have done nothing wrong, and maybe you haven’t, but the fact remains that your actions created the perception of an attack or insult, and I think we can all agree that we want to prevent kind of this perception.

5. Fess up when you mess up.

Sometimes our egos prevent us from doing what’s right — in this case, admitting when we screwed up. Something this simple can greatly reduce the heightened emotional state.

You gotta give a little. De-escalation relies on both parties being able to see another person’s point of view. They must be willing to give a little bit. By becoming able to compromise, they free themselves and each other to work toward the win/win.

 

Entrepreneur.com | October 18, 2016 | Phil La Duke 

 

 

#Strategy : How to Deal With a #Boss You Just Don’t Like…While telling a Boss you Hate to take a hike Might be an Appealing Notion, it’s Not the Most Professional Way to Deal with the Situation.

When your boss is giving you grief, here are five things you can do to cope.

Like this Article Below?  Share It !    You now can easily enjoy/follow/share Today our Award Winning Articles/Blogs with Now Over 300K+ Growing  Participates Worldwide in our various Social Media formats below:

FSC LinkedIn Network: (Over 8K+ Members & Growing !)   www.linkedin.com/in/frankfsc/en

Facebook:   http://www.facebook.com/pages/First-Sun-Consulting-LLC-Outplacement-Services/213542315355343?sk=wall

educate/collaborate/network….Look forward to your Participation !

 

Click below to Read Entire Article. Hope you enjoy the article. We welcome both your comments/suggestions

http://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/how-to-deal-with-a-boss-you-do-not-like.html/

#Leadership: 5 Secrets to Mastering Conflict…How you Handle Conflict Determines the Amount of Trust, Respect, & Connection you Have With your #Employees & Colleagues.

Conflict Typically Boils Down to Crucial Conversations–Moments When the Stakes are High, Emotions Run Strong, & Opinions Differ. And you Cannot Master Crucial Conversations Without a High Degree of Emotional Intelligence (EQ).

IMAGE: Getty Images

Between the two of us, Joseph Grenny (bio below) and I have spent 50 years studying what makes people successful at work. A persistent finding is that your ability to handle moments of conflict has a massive impact on your success.

How you handle conflict determines the amount of trust, respect, and connection you have with your colleagues.

Conflict typically boils down to crucial conversations–moments when the stakes are high, emotions run strong, and opinions differ. And you cannot master crucial conversations without a high degree of emotional intelligence (EQ).

With a mastery of conflict being so critical to your success, it’s no wonder that, among the million-plus people whom TalentSmart has tested, more than 90 percent of top performers have high EQs.

So how can you use emotional intelligence to master crucial conversations? There are five common mistakes you must avoid, and five alternative strategies you can follow that will take you down the right path.

Mistake 1: Being brutally honest.

You’ve suffered in silence long enough. Your colleague continues to park so close to your car that you have to enter through the passenger door. You’ve asked her before to stop. After a dozen more violations of your request, you decide you’ve suffered long enough. Clearly, she needs to know what you think of her intentional disrespect. So you let her have it. You get right in her face and tell her what an inconsiderate jerk she is.

How to beat this? Honesty without brutality. From a young age, we’re taught to believe that we have to choose between telling the truth and keeping a friend–that the only options are brutality or harmony. With emotional intelligence, you can speak the truth without burning a bridge.

Have you ever noticed how some conversations–even ones about very risky subjects–go very well? And others, even ones about trivial things, can degenerate into combat? The antidote to conflict is not diluting your message. It’s creating safety. Many people think the content of the conversation is what makes people defensive, so they assume it’s best to just go for it and be brutally honest. It isn’t. People don’t get defensive because of the content–they get defensive because of the intent they perceive behind it. It isn’t the truth that hurts–it’s the malice used to deliver the truth.

Like this Article ?…Share It !    You now can easily enjoy/follow/share Today our Award Winning Articles/Blogs with over 120K participates Worldwide in our various Social Media formats below:

FSC LinkedIn Network www.linkedin.com/in/frankfsc/en

  • Twitter: Follow us @ firstsunllc

educate/collaborate/network….Look forward to your Participation !

continue of article:

Mistake 2: Robotically sharing your feelings.

Some well-intentioned “communication” professionals suggest that when it’s time to speak up, the diplomatic way to do so is to start by sharing your feelings. For example, you tell your parking-impaired colleague, “I feel rage and disgust.” Somehow that’s supposed to help. It doesn’t. People don’t work this way. Robotically sharing your feelings only alienates, annoys, and confuses them.

How to beat this? Start with the facts. Our brains often serve us poorly during crucial conversations. To maximize cognitive efficiency, our minds store feelings and conclusions, but not the facts that created them. That’s why, when you give your colleague negative feedback and he asks for an example, you often hem and haw. You truly can’t remember. So you repeat your feelings or conclusions, but offer few helpful facts. Gathering the facts beforehand is the homework required to master crucial conversations. Before opening your mouth, think through the basic information that helped you think or feel the way you do–and prepare to share it first.

Mistake 3: Defending your position.

When someone takes an opposing view on a topic you care deeply about, the natural human response is “defense.” Our brains are hard-wired to assess for threats, but when we let feelings of being threatened hijack our behavior, things never end well. In a crucial conversation, getting defensive is a surefire path to failure.

How to beat this? Get curious. A great way to inoculate yourself against defensiveness is to develop a healthy doubt about your own certainty. Then, enter the conversation with intense curiosity about the other person’s world. Give yourself a detective’s task of discovering why a reasonable, rational, and decent person would think the way he or she does. As former Secretary of State Dean Rusk said, “The best way to persuade others is with your ears, by listening.” When others feel deeply understood, they become far more open to hearing you.

Mistake 4: Blaming others for your situation.

Your boss tells you she’ll go to bat for you for a promotion. You hear later that in the HR review she advocated for your colleague instead. You feel betrayed and angry. Certainly, your boss is the one responsible for your pain–right? Truth is, she’s not the only one.

How to beat this? Challenge your perspective. When we feel threatened, we amplify our negative emotions by blaming other people for our problems. You cannot master conflict until you recognize the role you’ve played in creating your circumstances. Your boss may have passed you over, but she did so for a reason. Half your pain is the result of her betrayal; the other half is due to your disappointment over not performing well enough to win the promotion.

Mistake 5: Worrying about the risks of speaking up.

It’s easy for crucial conversations to fill you with dread. Under the influence of such stress, your negative self-talk takes over and you obsess over all the bad things that might happen if you speak up. You conjure images of conflict, retribution, isolation, and pain until you retreat into silence.

How to beat this? Determine the risks of not speaking up. The fastest way to motivate yourself to step up to difficult conversations is to simply articulate the costs of not speaking up. VitalSmarts‘ research shows that those who consistently speak up aren’t necessarily more courageous; they’re simply more accurate. First, they scrupulously review what is likely to happen if they fail to speak up. Second, they ponder what might happen if they speak up and things go well. And finally (the order is important) they consider what may happen if the conversation goes poorly. Once they have an accurate understanding of the possibilities, saying something is their typical choice.

Bringing it all together.

The only way to win an argument is to never have one in the first place. Successful people know this–they don’t avoid conflict because they can do something productive with it before things get out of hand. Apply these strategies the next time you’re facing a challenging situation and you’ll be amazed by the results.

Please share your thoughts on conflict in the comments section below, as we learn just as much from you as you do from us.

A big thanks to Joseph Grenny for co-authoring this article with me. Joseph is a four-time New York Times best-selling author, keynote speaker, and leading social scientist for business performance at VitalSmarts.

 

Inc. com | June 16, 2015 | 

BY TRAVIS BRADBERRY

Author, ‘Emotional Intelligence 2.0’