Today is Friday, so this post is on interpersonal competence.
No matter how interpersonally competent you are, you will inevitably find yourself in a conflict situation that threatens the relationships that you have built. Interpersonally competent people know how to deal with and resolve conflict in a positive, productive manner.
I read a lot. My reading often yields some real nuggets that I have used over and over again to help me grow and succeed. I return to some books over and over again for advice and inspiration. Getting to Yes is one of those books. I first read it in 1981 when I was a student at Harvard taking a course in labor relations.
Getting to Yes is supposedly a book on negotiation. However, I think the ideas in it have much broader applicability. I have given this book to at least 25 of my coaching clients over the years.
I bring up Getting to Yes in this post because of one specific idea on interpersonal competence. I love this idea because it is simple but profound. And because it encourages you to do exactly the opposite of what most of us do when we find ourselves in a conflict situation. Here is this simple, but powerful idea.
When you find yourself in conflict with another person, focus on where you agree, not on where you disagree.
Our natural reaction when we are in conflict with another individual is to dig in our heels and attempt to convince the other person to see and accept our side of things. By so doing, we naturally focus on where we are in disagreement. You say black, I say white etc. etc. etc.
However, if you turn around this way of dealing with conflict, you’ll find that you will not only resolve differences more quickly and fairly. You will build stronger relationships.
Here’s a concrete example of what I’m talking about. A few years ago the NHL (National Hockey League, the professional hockey league in North America) missed an entire season. The collective bargaining agreement had expired, and the owners and players could not agree on a new one. The main issue was the imposition of a salary cap – a maximum amount of money any given team could spend on its player payroll. The owners insisted that they needed a salary cap to be able to be profitable. The players insisted that a salary cap would unfairly impinge on their ability to be paid at market value for their services.
The old season ended with no agreement. Both sides met over the summer and could not reach an agreement. As autumn began, there was still not an agreement, so the first part of the season was canceled. Finally, as an agreement could not be reached, the owners announced that there would be no season.
Both sides lost here. The owners lost all of the ticket sales, parking and concession revenue. The players had no salary for an entire season.
The irony is that during the negotiations, both sides had identified the critical points on which they agreed and on which they could have built an agreement. Through the entire ordeal, both the owners and players said “we just want to do what is best for the game”, and “we want to do what’s best for our fans”. Both sides were in agreement on these two points. However, they acted in a manner exactly the opposite of what they said. Missing and entire season was not in the best interests of the game (the NHL lost a contract with ESPN, and is now televised on the Outdoor Life Network – which has since changed its name to Versus), and it certainly wasn’t in the interest of the fans, the people who support the game. They didn’t get to see hockey for an entire year.
Had both sides focused on these points of agreement, I’m sure they would have found a way to resolve their differences. By focusing on the main point of disagreement, and digging in their heels, both sides created a situation in which everybody lost money and the support of many loyal fans.
The common sense point here is that the next time you find yourself in conflict with another person, take the time to identify where you agree and work on creating a solution from there. When you are buying a car and find one you want, focus on the fact that you want the car and the salesperson wants to sell it to you. You’ll find that it will be easier to work out differences in price.
When you are in conflict with a co-worker, focus on where you agree. In most cases, you will both agree that you want to do what’s best for the business. Even if you begin from this slight point of agreement, you’ll find that you’ll be able to resolve your conflict and build a solution together, much more easily that if you focus on where you disagree with him or her.
Try it – look for points where you agree with a person with whom you are in conflict. Use these points to reach an agreement on how you will proceed. It works because it’s common sense.
That’s it for today. Thanks for reading. Log on to my website www.BudBilanich.com for more common sense. Check out my other blog: www.CommonSenseGuy.com for common sense advice on leading people and running a small business.
I’ll see you around the web, and at Alex’s Lemonade Stand.
Bud
PS: Speaking of Alex’s Lemonade Stand – my fundraising page is still open. Please go to www.FirstGiving.com/TheCommonSenseGuy to read Alex’s inspiring story and to donate if you can.
Comment Preview