sign up to get blog posts by email

Privacy Policy

Email cgreen [at] trustedadvisor [dot] com
@CharlesHGreen on twitter

Recent Comments

Trusted Tweets

Blogroll

Blogchive

Charles H. Green's Trust Matters
previous entry | return to blog index | next entry

Trust Tip #27-How to Prevent Useless Conflicts

by Charles H. Green on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 (post #7)

I want to make sure to get tactical and practical every few posts. This is Tip #27, but I'm publishing it first, out of sequence, because I think it's so provocative.

First the rule: then examples: then explanation. Here we go.

Rule 27a: get rid of the verb "to be" in all its forms;


Rule 27b: speak only in the first person, or in the third person impersonal.


That may sound a little weird; let me give you some examples.

Instead of, "That was a lousy movie," say, "I didn't like that movie." (rule 27a)

Instead of, "You're not getting my point," say, "what we have here is a failure to communicate." (rule 27b)

Instead of, "It will not be acceptable to them," say, "I'm concerned about the odds of them accepting it." (rule 27a, 27b)

Preventig Useless Conflicts

These simple rules help prevent useless conflict. 27a (if you'll pardon some philosophical jargon) basically says "all 'is' statements are metaphysical, and unprovable." They are bald assertions with the potential to inflame argument rather than to help collaboration.

27b helps us remember that the only inarguable statements we can make are those about our own feelings, or about inanimate objects. Statements about "you" or "him" invite unnecessary confrontation, because someone so inclined can read blame or judgment into it.

Combined, the two rules make us speak in a way that takes responsibility, and invites others to do the same. At the extreme, "You're an idiot!" becomes "wow, we really see this differently, don't we? Tell me more about your view?"

Then, as Portnoy's shrink finally said, perhaps we can begin.

Full disclosure: I didn't invent this, I heard it—as best I can recall—about 15 years ago on National Public Radio, and can't recall who the originator was. I'd be grateful if anyone knows the origin.

 


 

 

 

Over 12,000 people have taken our Trust Quotient quiz. Check out the NEW VERSION and learn your Trust Temperament.

Charles H. Green is founder and CEO of Trusted Advisor Associates LLC; read more about Charlie at http://trustedadvisor.com/cgreen/

You can follow him on twitter @CharlesHGreen

Tweet this post!


posted in Trust-based Selling, Building Trusted Advisors

1 Trackbacks

trackback url: http://trustedadvisor.com/trackback.php?id=8

» Cultivate GREATNESS | Personal Development, Cultivate Greatness Blog Success & Growth Carnival #5, Oct 29th 2006

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Here we are with the 5th edition of the Success Blog Carnival at Cultivate Greatness. I would like to thank each and everyone who submitted articles, we are consistently growing and sharing valuable information. ...


8 Comments

David (Maister) said

www.davidmaister.com/blog

How many years of practice does it take to live by these rules? don't get me wrong - they make all the sense in the world! I just don't know how long it would be to overturn a lifetime of language habits.

Do you know of any firms, Charlie, that teach their people to speak this way?

posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Charles H. Green said

First, welcome to guru David Maister, whose business blog is among the very best--check it out. 

His comment makes me hasten to add—this one ain't easy!

I don't know of any firm who is trying this on an institutional basis (apart from those who are hiring me and at least hear about it).

And it is a tough one.  Tougher than a lot of trust tips, like returning phone calls really fast.

But I find it easier than other trust tips--"don't take it personally," or "be self-aware (i.e. emotional intelligence)," or the biggie, "tell the truth."  Now, those are some tough tips to follow!

Further, I find it yields results from even partial efforts.

Finally, it is short-hand for advice you'll also hear in approaches to negotiation, giving and receiving feedback, or about offering advice. I find the shorthand version easier to remember.

For example:

I have learned to no longer say, "that's annoying." Now, I just notice that "I'm annoyed."

I have learned to no longer say, " you always do this, and..." Now, I just say, "when you do this, I notice that..."

Well, most of the time I do anyway.

This tip is all about noticing—the more we notice the way we talk, the more we can choose to get better at taking responsibility and communicating cleanly.

Astute readers will note I've violated the rule in this post itself a few times. But I find it provocative, and it sets a high standard.  For me, aspirational goals are helpful to mix in among the achievable ones. 

What about for you?

posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Sharon Horstead said

The communication strategies proposed by Mr. Green, albeit challenging, are not new. Just ask any couple in crisis who has turned to a counselor for help. Speaking in the first person displays openness and an acceptance of personal responsibility by the one speaking and invites the listener to remain receptive rather than defensive. I have found that most people, by nature, are collaborative and willing to engage in dialogue when they don’t have to defend themselves. They also tend to be more willing to help resolve conflict or find solutions to problems when they don’t feel they are being blamed. However, this level of integrity in our communication doesn’t always come easily and takes practice. What makes it easier is the desire and intent for real and honest connection with others.
 
Want to make this a little more challenging? While Mr. Green has learned to say “I’m annoyed,” rather than “That’s annoying,” a more self-aware response would be “I feel annoyed.” We are primarily feeling beings and not just thinking ones. I know that when I define myself by what are, in essence, feeling states, I tend to get stuck more easily. Feelings come and go and the recognition that I am feeling something rather than am something (remember that Mr. Green’s rule is to get rid of the verb “to be” in all forms), allows me to flow more quickly from one feeling state to another. Being aware of what my feelings are allows me to identify more quickly what the heart of an issue is and swiftly respond in an appropriate way. As a great deal of communication is non-verbal (body language, intonation), not giving voice to a feeling that is already being heard loud and clear by others is an incongruity that may lead to mistrust, certainly disharmony. Using third person or impersonal language is fine when talking about hypothetical situations or abstract concepts. I find that speaking in the first person tends to be more helpful when dealing with matters at hand.
 
Changing language patterns can be tricky, but what isn’t when it comes to human relationships, whether they be of a personal or business nature? There will be, however, great rewards for taking up the challenge of following these two rules to the best of our ability. Just like a marriage or family can be strengthened by the commitment to this level of communication, so can relationships with clients, suppliers and peers.

posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Charlie (Green) said

www.trustedadvisor.com/blog

I couldn't have (and, in fact didn't) put it any better than Sharon Horstead just did.  I feel graced by the comment (how's that, Sharon?).

posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Sharon Horstead said

Thank you, Charlie.  My first ever comment on a blog.  I greatly appreciate your praise.  I just received your book, The Trusted Advisor, yesterday from my boss.  I'm looking forward to delving into it over the next couple of weeks.

posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Charlie (Green) said

www.trustedadvisor.com/blog

Welcome to the blogosphere, keep on raising the bar Sharon!

posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Andrew said

The idea of eliminating the verb 'to be' originates in Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics. General Semantics points out that certain uses of 'to be' (identity and predication) can cause problems. After Korzybski's death one of his students (D. David Bourland, Jr.) observed that most people find it exceedingly difficult to avoid the identity and predication forms, while still using the others (auxillary, existance, and location), and so proposed E-Prime, english without the use of any form of 'to be'. If you're interested in more details, wikipedia has decent pages on both General Semantics and E-Prime.

posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Charlie (Green) said

www.trustedadvisor.com/blog

Thanks Andrew, that's it.  E-Prime was the "language" I heard about some years ago, many thanks for helping to properly give credit where credit is due.

Interesting also to note that English has a particular difficulty in this area.  Other romance languages, e.g. Spanish, have separate words for some of the concepts ("ser" for "he is strong," "estar" for "he is next door").   The relationship between thinking and language can be complicated. 

posted on Wednesday, November 1, 2006



Post a Comment

Note: This blog uses a 2-click comment system to combat spam. After you submit your comment below, you will be prompted to click a second button to complete the posting process.