I've been rereading The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn?t (Warner Business Books, 2007). Stanford Professor Robert I. Sutton argues that variations of terms like creep, jerk and bully don?t carry the same impact as the A-word, and he may be right.

But I wonder if it becomes too easy to slap the A-label on a boss or co-worker, when we don't see eye-to-eye, or simply don't like someone for vague reasons.

Everyone knows what Sutton's talking about. We?ve all experienced the nastiness of an unconstrained egomaniac who abuses power and intimidates others. Sutton defines two kinds: temporary and certified.

I think we get into trouble when we categorize someone as a real jerk, when he (or she) is having a temporary outbreak or a meltdown. Labels tend to stick, and color our perceptions forever after.

Raging maniacs are easy to spot. I think there's a more serious problem with borlerline jerks. Real damage occurs when someone engages in covert backstabbing and hypocrisy. I'm talking about when someone makes comments that are subtly demeaning. Some people even couch their insults in humor and hide behind sarcasm.

Jerk Behaviors

According to Sutton, everyday jerk behaviors include:

1. Personal insults and innuendoes
2. Invading one?s personal space or territory
3. Uninvited physical contact
4. Threats and intimidation, verbal and nonverbal
5. Sarcastic jokes, teasing and disguised insults
6. Email flames
7. Status slaps intended to humiliate
8. Rude interruptions
9. Two-faced attacks
10. Dirty looks, grimaces, eye-rolling
11. Treating people as though they?re invisible, keeping them out of the loop

I'll bet you can add to this list, especially if you've been on the receiving line. The problem is that jerk behaviors often go undetected, and they are contagious, worse than any H1N1 virus.

Especially when it comes to humor at someone else's expense. And it's hard to pass up a good wise-crack, isn't it?

Labels: chip scholz, communication

Years ago, scientists were studying nerve cells in Macaque monkeys' prefrontal cortices and found that specific cells fired when the monkeys threw a ball or ate a banana. To their surprise, these same cells fired when the monkeys watched another monkey perform these acts.

Fast forward to SuperBowl 2010, and you'll find millions of fans excited for the same reason when their favorite quarterback catches the football.

The brain has mirror neurons. When mirror neurons are fired, we have an ability to be transported into another person's mind, briefly making us feel what the other person is feeling.

These cells are the way nature causes us to care about other people. Scientist V.S. Ramachandran, in a 2007 article called "The Neurology of Self-Awareness" in Edge, calls these "empathy neurons," or "Dalai Lama neurons," because they dissolve the barriers between self and others.

The same neurons that make us feel like a successful quarterback make us capable of feeling another person's joy, but also their pain.

Therein lies the problem. We don't like our own pain, so how can we deal with someone else's? Instead, we avoid mentioning it. We don't bother recognizing what another person may be feeling. And we go around having conversations that avoid any vocabulary words describing emotions.

Psychiatrist Mark Goulston in his book Just Listen, suggests that we suffer a "mirror neuron receptor deficit." He says that many of CEOs and managers feel they give their best, only to be met day after day with apathy, hostility, or (worse!) no response at all.

This empathy deficit explains why we can feel overwhelmed when someone acknowledges either our pain or our joy. It's why we can tear up in a movie, even when it's not sad.

When you think about it, it's not hard to include words about feelings into our conversations with others, as in, "You must be feeling frustrated (angry, disappointed, confused, satisfied, etc.)?"

How hard is it? Try asking this question in your next important conversation:

"How does that make you feel?" Or, "Tell me how that must feel..."

The goal is to make the other person feel "felt."

It's a quarterback pass completion when you do.

Labels: chip scholz, communication

How well do you listen to your colleagues? Or for that matter, your close relationships in your family? Really? Maybe not...We don't actually listen because we think we know someone so well, we already know what they're saying and thinking... or so we think!

As a result, we mistake insecurity for arrogance, fear for stubborness, and legitimate anger for things like "he's just a jerk." We talk around people, over them, up against them, with very little actually talking with them.

In the work place, we often size people up instantly. We form some pretty good guesses from those first impressions. The problem is those impressions last forever, and many of them are a jumbled mix of fact, fiction, prejudice and unconscious intuitions. Those first impressions affect our conversations with another person for months or years to come.

Here are some filters that we use to put people into mental boxes before we know them:

• Gender (and all the stereotypes that go with that filter...)
• Generation, age
• Nationality, ethic background, names, skin color, etc.
• Education level, manner of speaking
• Emotion, emotional tone
  

Next time you meet someone for the first time, be aware of how you put people into these boxes, and of the assumptions you make when you have a conversation with them.

These filters are part of the GGNEE model suggested by Rick Middleton, founder of Executive Expression in Los Angeles, and mentioned in the book, Just Listen by Mark Goulston.

Labels: chip scholz, communication

You probably already know how to handle a tense situation intelligently. You wouldn't be in your position today if you didn't. At least subconsciously, inside your brain, you're already experienced in going from attack mode to emotional mode to smart mode.

Every difficult conversation involves all three of these parts: your snake brain, your rabbit brain, and your human brain. Unfortunately, much of your human wisdom is there but lies buried in your instincts.

You may not have access to what it is exactly that helps you manage tense emotions when you need to.

When anger strikes, you react. It's hard to switch to calm as fast as you need to.

Typically this happens: A few minutes after a stressful encounter, your pulse starts to slow down, you start breathing more slowly and you calm down a little. A good bit of time after that, you gain enough self-control to start thinking your options through. And later that day, you start thinking, "I'll bet there's a smart way to resolve this so that everybody wins."

Often, however, it's too late. And if you've reacted in the heat of the moment with harsh words, you may have already lost a sale, alienated a coworker, or lost esteem in someone's eyes.

What's the solution? In a stressful encounter, you may have about two minutes to get control and salvage the situation. Those two minutes can mean you'll have the advantage over everyone else in the room. You'll be the only person thinking straight.

I'm reading a good book on how to get through to people in a crisis.

Mark Goulston, author of Just Listen, (Amacom, 2010) recommends a five step mental process in times of stress or crisis. It doesn't matter if the situation is a fender-bender, a teenager at home, an argument with a lover, or a work situation, these steps in this order will get you back on track when you're upset.

1. "Oh F#@&" - The Reaction Phase: This is a disaster, I'm screwed, what just happened, it's all over. Oh fooey...
   
2. "Oh God" - The Release Phase: This is a huge mess, I'm stuck with it, why does this always happen to me?
3. "Oh Jeez" - The Recenter Phase: Alright, I can fix this, but it's not going to be fun.
4. "Oh Well" - The Refocus Stage: I'm not going to let this ruin my life/ my career/ my day/this relationship, and here's what I need to do right now to make it better?
5. "OK" - The Reengage Phase: Okay, I'm ready to fix this, let's go.
   

Goulston's not saying you can solve a crisis in two minutes. You can't. But you can think your way through to possible solutions quickly. These five mental steps give you a way to create a path out of panic mode into solution mode.

As a result, you'll be able to say the right things instead of making things worse by saying the wrong ones. What do you think? Next time you're in a crisis, try saying to yourself:

1. "Oh F#@%"
2. "Oh God"
3. "Oh Jeez"
4. "Oh well"
5. "OK"

Labels: chip scholz, communication

Every difficult conversation involves grappling with these three components:

• Facts
• Feelings
• Identity & context
  

Conversing successfully requires learning to manage all three simultaneously. When you consider each of these factors before having a difficult conversation, it?s a first step to better conversations.

Here are five more steps to consider when engaging in difficult conversations:

1. Decipher the underlying structure: what happened, what the feelings are, how identity is involved
2. Interpret the significance of what is said and what is not
3. Identify the erroneous but deeply ingrained assumptions that keep you stuck
4. Manage strong emotions, yours and theirs
5. Spot ways your self-image affects the conversation, and ways the conversation affects your self image

In what ways do you feel like throwing a punch at the person, instead of talking it through? Or, maybe you'd just like to avoid him or her altogether and wait for the problem to go away? Both these options are not available if you want to survive, because:

A. Nobody wins when a fight is over
B. Nothing is resolved when there is no conversation

Let's face it, those who "win" are those who engage, those who have the tough conversations.

Labels: chip scholz, communication

Fifteen years of research at the Harvard Negotiation Project has produced some interesting information about what goes on during conflict. The book, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most, is written by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, Sheila Heen and Roger Fisher (Penguin Books, 2000).

Given that we prepare ourselves extensively for almost everything including our educations and careers, it is surprising that we haven't studied conversations more.

All difficult conversations share a common structure. To see the structure, we need to understand what is being said, and also what's not being said. We need to see not only what people are thinking and feeling but also what they're not saying to each other.

There are basically three kinds of conversations, no matter what the subject. In each of these kinds of conversations, we make predictable errors that distort our thoughts and feelings.

1. The "What Happened?" conversation. There is usually disagreement about what happened or what should happen. Stop arguing about who's right: explore each other's stories and try to learn something new. Don't assume meanings. Disentangle intent from impact. Abandon blaming anyone and think in terms of contributions to the solution.
   
   
2. The "Feelings" conversation. Every difficult conversation also asks and answers questions about feelings. Are they valid? Appropriate? Should I admit them or deny them? What about the other person?s feelings, will I hurt them? What if they get angry? Often feelings are not addressed directly and so they interfere with the conversation even more.
   
   
3. The "Identity" conversation. This is where we examine what's at stake: what do I stand to lose or gain? Am I competent or incompetent, worthy or unlovable? What impact might this have on my career, marriage, self-esteem, our relationship? These issues determine the degree to which we feel off-centered and anxious.
   

Labels: chip scholz, communication

Some conversations are so difficult that we do anything to avoid them. Then, when things have really built up, we finally have no choice but to confront the issue, and along with it, the colleague, our spouse, or the other person involved.

"We need to talk," usually precedes an argument rather than a conversation. Why are such conversations difficult?

Because we are stuck between knowing what we really feel and knowing what we shouldn't say.

We are distracted by what's going on inside and we can be uncertain about what's okay to share. There's so much going on between you and the other person, it's confusing.

And, if you didn't care on some level about your relationship with the other person, you wouldn't be struggling with this in the first place.

Conversations are difficult because emotions get involved. Emotions are generated the brain in the amygdala. It is a more primitive part of the brain. When stimulated, it calls the body into fight or flight mode.

Humans are genetically hard-wired to react to emotional triggers by either fighting, freezing, or fleeing, actions which during cavemen times, had huge survival benefits.

However, we are now supposed to be socially conditioned in more "civilized" ways. It is no longer appropriate to throw stones or draw fists or guns. We are supposed to handle things with conversations.

Are we much different now than our ancestors? Genetically, no. We still have impulses to blast someone or avoid them altogether. We are not hard-wired to sit down and talk it over with someone when there's a problem.

It's actually amazing we don't have more fights in the work place. Actually, maybe we do, only instead of fists we use our words. And we mask our blows under the guise of "conversations..."

Labels: chip scholz, communication

Have you ever completed a presentation knowing it wasn't your best? I'm sure you have. At other times, I've really knocked myself out but fallen flat anyway. The difference is enormous. When you know you've done the best you could have with what you had to work with, you stand tall.

Don Miguel Ruiz states in his fourth and final agreement this important principle to live by:

Always do your best. Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse, and regret.

When we put forth our best efforts, our colleagues know they can rely on us. We appear fully engaged in our tasks and passionate about our work. Doing your best also brings out the best in others.

It's important to note that what is "our best" changes according to many factors. We may be busy or especially stressed. There is a difference in doing "just enough", the bare minimum, and the best efforts we can muster in spite of limitations such as time, health, and incomplete information.

Next time you complete something, ask yourself, "Is this the best I've got?"

Labels: chip scholz, communication

The third agreement written about in Don Miguel Ruiz' Four Agreements is this:

Don't make assumptions. Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness, and drama.

With just this one principle, you can completely transform your life.

We make assumptions about everything, believe them to be true and then act upon them. A better solution is to ask for more information so you can clarify what others mean and ultimately want.

We often assume the worst, creating a "reality" that erroneously becomes the gospel truth. We may know better, but it?s hard to consciously catch yourself making assumptions.

You do, however, have a choice: Clarify and question.

It may feel risky to admit you don't know something with 100% certainty, fearing you'll appear dumb. You may try to avoid conversations in which you must reveal your assumptions, leading others to perceive you as less than brilliant. Consequently, you miss opportunities to strengthen relationships.

Maybe we are more at risk for jumping to conclusion when we've been doing a job so long, when we're really expert at what we do, and when we've been dealing with the same people over a long period of time.

What do you think? The longer I do things and operate in the same environment with the same people, the more I tend to go on automatic pilot, making assumptions because it's expedient, and I like to get things done fast.

Instead of assuming you do this too, I'm asking you: Do you jump to conclusions based on assumptions, or do you take the time to ask questions, and clarify with your people?

Labels: chip scholz, collaboration, communication

I don't know about you, but I fall into this trap on occasion: Someone makes a critical comment, and I jump in to defend it, only to find out they were talking about something different that doesn't involve me at all.

I can hear a voice in my head saying "It's not about you, doofus, get down off your high horse."

In Don Miguel Ruiz' Four Agreements, the second agreement is Don't take anything personally.

Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering.

Each of us lives in our own world, in our own mind, set off from the larger worldview. When we take something personally, we assume others know what is in our world...and we then try to impose our world on theirs.

Even when a situation is personal, insulting you directly, it still has nothing to do with you. What someone says or does is merely his opinion, and has more to do with themselves than you.

When I remember this, I save myself a lot of defensive posturing, and I act cool, calm and collected.

If you buy into their opinion, you eat their emotional garbage, which then becomes your garbage. Refuse to take it personally, and you're free to act in accordance with your values and not theirs.

Similarly, your opinions of yourself are not necessarily true, so don't take them personally. The payoff will be greater freedom and renewed energy.

Labels: chip scholz, communication

At this time of year there are many occasions to get together socially with colleagues. Social conversations often involve talking about other people, and often not always in a positive light. We use sarcasm and humor to show our wit and to share amusing stories about one another.

I'm reminded of the first of Don Miguel Ruiz's Four Agreements:

Be impeccable with your word. Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using words to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.

Words are powerful, and our speech establishes (or undermines) our credibility and trustworthiness. With language, you express your creativity, knowledge and values.

The words you use in social conversations either build trust with your relationships or tear them down.

Unfortunately, we often speak too quickly, without thought. Speaking comes so easily and effortlessly that we fall into the trap of using clichés and automatic phrases that often don't do justice to our ideas. It is far too easy, in fact, to do harm with our words.

This first agreement means much more than not lying, cheating or stealing. It requires you to make honest, positive statements that reflect who you really are, letting go of the "fake" persona that may occasionally creep into your communication.

Just as your word can form solid relationships, it also has the potential to destroy them. When we abuse the power of words...spreading verbal poison as we express anger, jealousy, envy or hate...our gossip pulls others down, creating a climate of fear and doubt.

Remember: Your opinion is nothing but your point of view... and not necessarily true. It reflects your beliefs and ego. We spread gossip and opinions so we can defend our point of view.

Ironically, spewing destructive words can also hurt someone closer to home: you. How often do you speak against yourself, even in a semi-humorous, self-deprecating manner?

Self-judgment is one of the worst transgressions when we examine the first agreement. You cannot practice tolerance and patience for others if you are self-critical. Having high personal standards means developing a nonjudgmental attitude that chalks up mistakes to learning experiences. Take responsibility for your actions, but avoid self-blame.

Be as kind and appreciative of yourself as you would your best friend, because that is what you actually are.

Labels: chip scholz, communication

Hypothesis: "There is a great need for sarcasm font."

In The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz, one of the four agreements is "Be impeccable with your word". The jacket cover offers this short description of the agreement:

"Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love."

If you are really impeccable with your word, then is there a need for a sarcasm font? If you are saying what you mean, and not letting others infer meaning from what you say or write, should there be room for wild interpretation?

What may be confusing is that so much of what we find funny on television, in the movies and in life is sarcasm. Jerry Seinfeld and other comedians have made a career out of sarcastic humor. However, how often is sarcasm used to hide the truth because we are unwilling to speak with integrity.

Remember that there are four sides to every conversation:

What you said...and what you thought you said.

What you heard...and what you thought you heard.

The more that you speak with integrity and say what you mean, the smaller the gap between the four sides of the conversation. Nowhere is this more glaringly obvious than in email, texting or any of the myriad electronic forms of communication we use on a moment by moment basis. Many of us write as we speak, yet written communication demands so much more of us to explain to the other person exactly what we mean.

Sarcasm blocks understanding and widens the gap between people. Is that what you had in mind?

The next time you are ready to fire off an email and make it sarcastic, ask yourself these three questions:

• What is your intention in sending the message? Is it to help or hurt, add meaning or block it?
• Should you copy others in on the message? Before you copy God and everyone in on a message, ask whether they should be copied. What is your point? What are you thinking? Will the additional eyes help or hurt the situation.
• Does the message get you where you intentionally want to go? Ask yourself how the message is likely to be received. Does the recipient know you well enough to get the subtle subtext, or are you the only one in on the joke?

Labels: chip scholz, coaching, communication, scholz and associates

Here's an annoying habit we all engage in, some of us more than others:

Starting a sentence with "No," "But," or "However..."

Whenever you begin with "no," "but," "however," or any other variation of this, you send a message to the person that they are wrong. No matter how you phrase it, however you may throw in a polite phrase or two, it comes out as bluntly negating what the person has said.

Nothing productive follows. The only response to it is to dig in and defend your position. This is no longer communication, this devolves quickly into two people trying to win.

Another variation is "Yes, but..." It's also true for "That's true, however..." How many times a day do we say these phrases? All the time.

Here's a challenge: catch yourself the next time you utter no, but, however. Examine your intention. Do you really want to open up the discussion to finding solutions? Or are you trying to win, wanting to look smart?

Think about it. Put yourself on a no-but-however restrictive diet. See what happens.

Labels: chip scholz, communication, leadership

Here's another one: adding too much value. It's when someone comes to you with an idea, and you respond by telling them how it would be even better. Here's how the conversation goes.

Imagine you're the CEO. I come to you with an idea you like. You say, "That's a great idea, good suggestion." But instead of saying "Thank you for that," you can't resist adding value.

You say, "And it'd be even better if we do this, instead." You may improve the value of the idea by 5 percent, but you've just reduced my commitment to it by 50 percent. You've taken away my ownership of the idea. It's now become your idea, based on something I said.

Whatever the gain is in the form of an improved idea has now been lost in terms of commitment to executing it.

For bosses, this means it's really important to monitor how you hand out encouragement. The higher up in an organization you go, the more crucial it is to make other people winners. It's not about winning yourself.

Perhaps a way to become a better leader is to say less, add less. It doesn't mean you should stifle your ideas. But how can you get your people to come up with better ideas themselves.

Often asking a good question and remaining silent is an effective way of stimulating others to think and come up with ideas and solutions.

It's hard to remain silent when we are always thinking, always creating, always improving on ideas. Don't let your tendency to add value stifle someone else's creativity and commitment to execution.

Labels: chip scholz, communication, executive leadership

The habit of not listening is rampant and often goes undetected. It doesn't take much work to pretend we're listening, even give lip service by saying things like, "Oh really, that's interesting."

Not listening is a silent, invisible activity; all you have to do is keep your mouth closed, smile, maintain eye contact, nod at the right moments, and mutter agreements. Many times you can get away with it...maybe.

There are a lot of things to do instead of listening to what the other person is explaining.

1. You can prepare your response
2. You can make a list of why he's wrong
3. You can note the number of grammar errors
4. You can wonder why he's dressed like that
5. You can go over your list of things you need to do after he wraps up
6. You can decide what you're going to have for lunch and with whom

The list goes on. And because you're smart, you know exactly what not to do to tip him off you're not really listening. Just don't let it be known you're impatient, you're not really interested, and that you would rather be doing something else.

Here's a clue, if you're really that clueless (and I know you're not!)... Listening is far from a silent, passive activity. In fact, it's hard work.

So instead of not listening and letting yourself get bored, here's what you could be doing.

• Listen intensely for nuggets of wisdom
• Ask a good question that shows your respect and desire to find out more
• Ask yourself if disagreeing with the person is really worth it before you speak
• Look for the opportunity to build a relationship instead of shooting down an idea
  

This is probably harder to do at home than at work, but everyone's got their no-listening zones.

Want to try something out, just for fun? If you're spending extra time at home this week because of holiday time with family, try listening intensely to your least favorite relative. Go on, ask questions, invite them to "tell me more!" You might be surprised what that brings. I'm just saying, try it out...

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Labels: chip scholz, communication