Learning trumps blame in organizational conflict

We are wired, it seems, to assign blame when something has gone wrong, there is conflict in the workplace, or groups are not getting along with one another. After all, someone is responsible and must take the blame!

Not so fast. I would ask two questions.

Question One: Are there alternative explanations for what has gone wrong or the conflict we are experiencing? In most cases, the answer is yes. Conflict can arise from many organizational issues: unclear job descriptions and overlap of responsibilities, the wiring of the people involved; organizational systems that create conflict, attitudes of individuals or groups, practices of the organization, and I could go on. 

Blame is easy and often wrong.

Too often, we immediately assign poor motives to those we are unhappy with. In most cases, motives are not the issue. We are also prone to demonize those we feel are responsible (in our minds) for the conflict. This is a dangerous practice as it simply divides further and reinforces our belief that we are right and others are wrong.

In most cases when there is organizational conflict, there are reasons for that conflict that lie in the structure of the organization, its processes, or a lack of organizational clarity. Before we play the blame game -  which is inherently counterproductive, ask yourself if there are alternate explanations for the conflict you are experiencing.

Question two: Are we more interested in assigning blame or in learning from the situation we find ourselves in? Blame is easy. It absolves us and points the finger at someone else. We don't need to do any hard analysis or work, and it is not about us. In fact, blame is so easy that it prevents us from finding the real source of the conflict we are experiencing and, therefore, perpetuates the conflict.

We can blame, or we can learn. Blame perpetuates the status quo while learning makes us better. I recommend a culture that practices autopsy without blame when something goes south. We want to know the source of the problem or failure, but we want to learn from it, not assign blame to someone.

This kind of attitude creates a culture of nothing to prove, nothing to lose, and nothing to hide. We are about getting better. Not protecting ourselves, not trying to prove anything or hide anything. It is a posture of humility rather than pride. Of learning rather than blame. 

In my consulting, I have rarely encountered people who were bad people or who had bad motives. I have encountered people who needed to learn and develop, who were in the wrong seat for their wiring, and have seen many organizational issues, all of which can create conflict. Sometimes, hard things need to be said or done, but with the right attitude, we can learn, develop, and appreciate one another. 

Two key reasons for confict within organizations

Think about these equations:

Healthy people + wrong role = conflict

Unhealthy people + wrong role = conflict

Unhealthy people + right role = conflict

Healthy people + right role = effectiveness

These equations illustrate three truths. First, it explains why conflict is so prevalent within organizations. Second, it illustrates the importance of hiring healthy individuals who have good EQ and understand how to relate to others in healthy ways. Third, it reminds us that even healthy people when they are in the wrong role can create conflict with people around them.

The keys to avoiding conflict are having healthy individuals in a role that is consistent with their wiring. When this is compromised, conflict is likely to result.

Unhealthy individuals, especially in leadership roles create conflict regularly. It can be a result of poor or non-existent people skills, inability to resolve differences or conflict, poor self awareness, hubris and a quest for power or any number of EQ (Emotional Intelligence) issues that leaves a wake of relational issues behind them.

When hiring, pay close attention to EQ skills and deficits. If you miss something and find that an individual leaves relational issues in their wake, get them coaching and if that does not work, move them to a position where they will not cause conflict. Don't allow an individual to create ongoing issues within your organization. It is counter productive, will hurt your return on mission and is unfair to staff who are impacted.

What about conflict with healthy individuals who are cast in the wrong role? This is conflict based in the skill set of the individual and not in their Emotional Intelligence. For instance, you can have a leader who does not know how to delegate, who micromanages, who changes their minds on a regular basis, who has no definable strategy and we could go on. This is not because they are unhealthy people. It is because they are in a job that is inconsistent with their wiring.

Getting the right people into the right role is absolutely critical to building a healthy organization. If you need to make adjustments for this to happen - do it. The alternative of conflict is a trade off you don't want to make.

The cost of elephants and the cost of transparency

Elephants are those issues that a team or organization knows is present but no one feels that they can talk about. That fear comes from knowing that the leader is not willing to put those issues on the table and you will be met with resistance, pushback or retribution. The number of elephants in any organization is a direct indicator of its health. The greater the number of elephants, the more unhealthy the organization. A low number of elephants indicates a healthier organization. 

Here is what we forget. There is a high cost to elephants. Elephants represent issues that ought to be addressed because they are negatively impacting the organization or team. Choosing to leave elephants alone means that these issues cannot be solved. And the ironic thing is that everyone is aware that the elephant exists even as they try to pretend that it is not present which of course they know it is. Elephants breed cynicism and mistrust when unaddressed.

There is an alternative to letting the elephants be but it also comes with a cost. The alternative is transparency, what I call in my writings Robust Dialogue. Its definition is that any issue can be put on the table with the exception of a personal attack or hidden agenda. 

The cost? The cost is that Robust Dialogue means that there will be uncomfortable conversations from time to time. Yet without uncomfortable conversations there is no significant progress, there are no paradigm shifts and there are no game changers. Elephants keep progress from occurring while Robust Dialogue forces the conversation and drives change in the process. So the cost of elephants is stagnation while the cost of Robust Dialogue is hard conversations and progress. 

Both elephants and transparency have a cost attached. And a result. The question is which result do we want? If you are a leader at any level, which culture are you creating? If it is a culture of not rocking the boat you will allow elephants to exist and guard the status quo. It is a comfortable place for you to be. If it is a culture of transparency you will drive progress at the cost of hard conversations. It may be uncomfortable but it will be far more successful. 

You may think there are no elephants on your team or in your organization. There is one good way to find out. Ask your staff what elephants exist that need to be named? They will tell you and once an elephant is named it is no longer an elephant but simply an issue to be discussed.

When there is not adequate organizational clarity

If there is one thing that many organizations lack it is crystal clear clarity about who they are, what they want to accomplish and how they are going to get there. This is especially true of non-profits and ministries as the profit motive is not the driving factor. In fact, clarity is the glue that holds the organization together as it grows. In my consulting with numerous non-profits I have observed four related consequences of poor or no organizational clarity.

Conflict
I am speaking here of conflict between leaders and departments. Why? Because a lack of clarity from the top results in leaders one level below creating their own clarity and going in their own direction. When there is a vacuum, someone will fill it. The problem is that we fill it with our version of clarity rather than a shared version of clarity, find ourselves at odds with one another, create silos and find ourselves fighting over direction, finances, resources and strategy.

Relational disconnect
This conflict creates relational disconnect and we often assume that the conflict is a result of people with bad motives or who are not team players. More likely the disconnect is a result of the senior leader not developing a shared clarity about who the organization is and how it will get to where it wants to go. The relational disconnects are a result of poor leadership at the very top of the organization.

Lack of alignment
In this situation, senior leaders and departments are not aligned with one another. Each may be doing good things but often they are working at cross currents with each other. If each were an arrow, the arrows would be pointing in different directions rather than all in the same general direction. This lack of alignment creates conflict and relational disconnect and is deeply frustrating to good leaders who often leave if the situation is not solved. 

Dispersed energy and compromised impact
Because the arrows are not pointed in the same direction and departments and leaders are working at cross purposes with one another the energy and impact of the organization is severely compromised. In fact, leaders are often trying to negotiate issues within the organization rather than focusing on the mission of the organization. There is nothing more distracting and discouraging to people who have bought into a mission than to be fighting intermural wars when they could be delivering on the mission.

Organizational clarity matters...a lot. 

Staying away from those whose presence brings with it controversy, conflict and division

As you read the following description, think about whether you have met people like them. 

When they are present, they bring with them controversy, conflict and dissention. They seem to be most interested in themselves rather than in others and in their wake they leave broken relationships, confusion and people taking sides. They can be brilliant, visionary, persuasive and win the debate but when they are gone things get much more peaceful. You don't get the full affect of their presence until they are gone. 

Paul talks about these kinds of people in 1 Timothy 6:4-5. "He is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction..."

Whether clothed in great vision, God talk, or success, stay away from people whose presence creates envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction. Why? Because none of these character traits come from God. They come from selfish individuals and the Evil One, but not from the God of peace. They are not healthy!

Usually these individuals suffer from narcissism. The very fact that they are willing to create controversies and divisions is that they believe themselves right, want people to agree with them and marginalize those who don't. Often the conflict and division they bring revolves around them getting their way.

Healthy individuals are people of peace, are gracious, speak kindly, are not naturally suspicious and don't create strife. Nor do they divide people. In fact, they do all they can to bring people together.

I love to hang with the latter. I have learned not to hang with the former. One brings life and the other diminishes healthy relationships. And that raises the question of which category we fit into.

Ways that we unintentionally create or contribute to conflict and misunderstanding

None of us sets out to create conflict with others. Most of us truly dislike conflict and will go to great lengths to avoid it. However, it is also true that we can contribute to conflict unintentionally through our attitudes, responses and words. Being aware of these issues can help us do a better job of lessoning or avoiding unnecessary conflict.

Our responses and conflict

A significant contributor to conflict and misunderstanding can come from our responses to others. For instance, if someone makes a suggestion, offers a differing opinion or even takes a shot at us, a defensive reaction will contribute to ratcheting up conflict in the relationship. Contrast that with an open response like "Tell me more about why you think that?" which invites response and dialogue rather than shutting it down. 

Other responses like anger or impatience will have the same negative effect so learning to control our emotions and responses with people who irritate or words that irritate is a key to lowering the possibility of conflict or misunderstanding. Staying calm, collected, friendly and approachable in the face of people or situations that punch our buttons lowers the temperature. When we don't control our responses we invariably raise the temperature.

Our attitudes and conflict

More subtle than our actual responses to others is that of our attitude toward others who challenge us. If I have a dismissive, impatient, disrespectful, angry, haughty or irritated attitude with those interacting to me (justified or not) it raises the temperature. 

Early in my leadership life I was not very skilled in hiding or controlling my responses and it hurt me with others. It was unintentional but it caused issues nonetheless. It really comes down to treating all people and ideas with respect whether those ideas will fly or not fly. If our attitude is always one of respect we will respond well to people regardless of the merits of their ideas or even sometimes poor attitudes.

Our words and conflict

We are stewards of our words. They can build relationships or destroy them. They can raise the level of conflict or lower it. They can encourage or discourage. The diplomacy of our words and the respect we show others makes all the difference.

I intentionally placed this after our responses and our attitudes because harmful words come from uncontrolled responses and poor attitudes toward others. And those harmful words create misunderstanding and conflict. 

Learning to control our words is a learned discipline. I have been known to silently say to myself "KMS" numerous times when I am with people who push my buttons. It stands for "Keep Mouth Shut." It is a reminder that my words are going to matter so think about what I am going to say and how I am going to say it before responding.

When misunderstanding and conflict occurs we ought to ask ourselves whether we contributed to it through our responses, attitudes or words and become aware of how all three can contribute to conflict or lower the temperature. 

The use of "normalizing conversations" to de-escalate conflict in relationships

There are many things that can introduce conflict or awkwardness into relationships: disagreements; words spoken; actions or even second hand conversations that come back to us. It can cause us to back away from a relationship, suspect that others don't have our best interests in mind and create an invisible wall between two individuals. It happens in families, among friends and in the workplace - anywhere we have key relationships.

This is where normalizing conversations come in. Rather than live with our perceptions or assumptions about where the other individual is coming from, or the awkwardness that has been introduced into the relationship, normalizing conversations can clarify and remove relational walls that have been created. It is a courageous decision we make to seek peace, clarity and understanding by candidly talking to another about the events that have transpired.

Unaddressed issues between individuals create walls and distance while discussing those issues can remove those walls and bring parties closer together.

A normalizing conversation is very simple. It is taking the step to initiate a conversation in order to understand one another and remove the invisible wall that has been created by words, actions or assumptions. Choosing to initiate a conversation with another to clarify issues and create understanding  is a courageous and peacemaking practice. And too rare.

A normalizing conversation is not a confrontation but a conversation. It may or may not result in agreement but it can result in understanding. Because you have invited the other individual to be candid with you as you are with them, it removes future awkwardness in the relationship even if you did not come to agreement. It is simply a conversation to "normalize" what has become problematic.

The major barrier to such conversations is our own fear. In my experience, our fear is usually unfounded and we find the other party relieved to be able to lower the walls and understand each other. Even if the conversation is hard, it opens up the ability to communicate and creates greater understanding and that by definition almost always lowers the relational walls. It is about calming the relational waters.

Learning to disagree and remain relationally connected

Being able to disagree with another individual and remain relationally connected is a unique skill that gives one greater influence. Too often, we allow different opinions to separate us from others, which limits our influence and creates unnecessary conflict. Unfortunately, when two people disagree and allow their differing opinions to create division, others often line up behind one or the other, and the result is a division of many rather than of two. Thus, learning to disagree and remain relationally connected is even more critical if we desire to be people of peace.

Fundamental to this skill is the ability to separate our opinions, however strong, from relationships. Ideas and convictions are things that define us as us. They allow us to be self-defined people rather than defined by others. Self-defined individuals understand who they are, what they think, and what their convictions and values are. However, just as they do not allow others to define them, they do not insist that others also agree with them. They know who they are and allow others to be self-defined as well. 

For many, agreement on issues is the basis of a relationship. But this is a fragile basis for any friendship or working relationship. First, because there will come a time when there is a major disagreement that will compromise the relationship. Second, it does not allow both parties to be self-defined. Usually, it is the dominant individual who will define the relationship with weaker individuals simply agreeing. Third, this kind of relationship fundamentally ignores the healthy boundaries of self-definition that allow individuals to be who they are rather than to be what someone else is. Finally, it does not respect the opinions of others but requires them to agree with us. In this respect, there is not the humility to allow others their own convictions.

Collegial relationships should be based on mutual respect, common interests or goals, and the conviction that we need one another to achieve the best outcomes. It should not be based on the need to agree with one another all the time. If I can separate my convictions from the ability to remain relationally connected, I can retain the ability to stay connected, have influence, and keep others from taking sides and dividing the group. 

In my own consulting, I make it a high priority to stay connected to those who might disagree with my recommendations. I want to unite others rather than divide them. And I want to remain connected whenever possible.

Don't allow divisive politics to cause conflict in your congregation

The election season is upon us with its typical vitriol, charges, counter charges and of course the whole destiny of our nation is at stake, never mind we've seen this all before and it is repeated every four years. What is true is that with the 24 hour news cycles the differing visions of governance get raised to a new level.

I have often observed that the conflict in the nation over its elections has a spill over into the church especially when different sides claim God's blessing on their party - as if God is a card carrying member of any party other than His own.

It is at times like this that we have an opportunity to remind our congregations of some central truths.

First, what brings us together in a common community is nothing less than a vision of Jesus who is the ultimate hope of the world, our nation and our community. Politicians come and go but Jesus remains the same yesterday, today and forever. The more we focus on Him the fewer divisions we have over politics or a host of other issues.

Third, any time we align the church with a political party we do a disservice to the Lord of the Church and set ourselves up for grave disappointment. The concerns of Jesus are far broader and overreaching than the interests of any political party: righteousness; justice; fairness; seeing that all people are treated as made in His Image; truthfulness; compassion; care for the poor and needy and the least of these and the list could go on. Political ideas matter for any nation but ultimately our highest priority must be the values that emanate from the character of God.

Fourth, the vitriol of campaigns has no place between believers who are to treat one another with kindness, respect, patience and the Fruit of the Spirit. I expect the kind of behavior we see in campaigns - it is the nature of political clashes but they have no place between believers in the church where the standards for relationships are higher.

The political season is a great time to remind people of some deep spiritual truths.

TJ Addington (Addington Consulting) has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com.

"Creating cultures of organizational excellence."

Three reasons to be reconciled with those we have had conflict with in the church

There is no way around conflict in the local church. In fact, it is only the presence of the Holy Spirit that keeps churches from devouring themselves. Coming from all kinds of backgrounds, with our own dysfunctions and issues, it is the Cross of Jesus that gives us a common bond - which we would not otherwise have. And it is the common Holy Spirit that unites us as members of the family of God. 

So why should we be reconciled to one another when there is conflict in the church? We may violently disagree with one another, we may hold grudges against each other. And it is very easy to pick up the offences of others and carry them ourselves. And those we disagree with don't deserve our favor or forgiveness unless they "repent" and choose to agree with us. So why should we be reconciled to each other?

Let me suggest the following reasons to consider. I don't do this lightly as I have been at odds with others in the local church. In fact, I need to do this with great humility. I have had to forgive and be forgiven too many times so this is not a treatise from strength but one from having to face myself too many times. And one from having faced truths from Scripture that I have had to grapple with.

First: We forgive because Jesus chose to forgive us. Ephesians 4:32 says it this way: "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." No matter how much animus I have, I cannot get around the fact that Jesus chose to forgive me and therefore commanded me to forgive others. 

Such forgiveness is not predicated on the confession of others (and in conflict we are often all guilty in come way). Nor is it predicated on having hashed through all the issues (it is often not possible). What it is predicated on is that Jesus forgave us when we did not deserve it and by implication we are to forgive others even if they do not deserve it (in our view).

I fully believe that Christ will hold us accountable for every unresolved relationship we choose to live with when we see Him. What do we say to the one who bore our sin and failure on Himself and chose to forgive us against the fact we chose not to forgive others? The truth is that we will have no answer in the face of his amazing and unmerited forgiveness of us. How can we not forgive others when we have been the recipient of so much grace?

Second: In church conflict we often do not know the full story. There are always two sides and we often are privy on only one. We need to remember that we only know what we know and frankly we usually don't know the whole story. 

Third: Forgiveness and reconciliation do not mean that we need to be best friends with those who we extend it to. It does not mean that we agree with the course of action that was taken. Nor that we must stay in the church. 

It does mean that whether we choose to stay after conflict or leave that we do either with a happy heart and a clear conscience based on reconciled relationships and the lack of unfinished business. Living with ongoing animus or anger is both unbiblical (do not let the sun go down on your wrath) and it is a prison of our own making that we live with and that separates us from others. What reconciliation and forgiveness does mean is that we are willing to live at peace with those we had a disagreement with.

TJ Addington (Addington Consulting) has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com.

"Creating cultures of organizational excellence."

So bad things have happened in your church!

Well, first, lets be clear - you are not alone. It has been happening since the time the church became a reality in the New Testament which is why we have a good number of the Epistles. In other words, you are in good company and it is precisely because your church is made up of redeemed but flawed people that bad things have happened. While we don't like it, be of good cheer, you are not alone.

Second, you need to do what you can to clean up whatever mess there is. Facing the truth and looking in the mirror is the only way we avoid the bad things from becoming a trend - and often they already are. This may mean an "autopsy without blame" to figure out why what happened happened. That may lead to admitting fault and seeking reconciliation where that is possible. Certainly it means that we understand why bad things happened and deal with whatever we need to deal with.

Third, when bad things happen it is not usually that there was a bad person afoot (although that is possible). Usually there is a confluence of events that led to whatever we must deal with. This may include leaders inattention to issues they knew were present, a lack of leadership acumen on the part of a leader, a DNA within the congregation that prevented the issue from being dealt with or other factors. Here is my point. When bad things happen in  your church there is rarely one reason but rather multiple reasons and all of them need to be factored in.

Fourth, you cannot "resaw the sawdust." In other words, what has happened has happened and apart from dealing with issues one needs to deal with (above), leadership needs to focus on the future rather than focusing on the past. This will irritate some people who desire that leaders resaw the sawdust and recreate what was! That will not happen. The past is over. We cannot recreate the past but we can re-envision the future. I learned a long time ago that some things don't get solved this side of heaven. 

Fifth, crisis in one's church is a great opportunity to address issues that have probably been present for some time but have not been dealt with. This is the upside of crisis. The question is whether we will take the opportunity to deal with the situation so that we don't repeat the cycle in the future. This is where courage from leadership is needed. This is not a time to spin, to ignore or to cover up. It is time to take an honest look, be transparent with the congregation and act to ensure that the church moves toward greater health. Crises can be opportunities if seen in that light.

Finally, if the crisis is significant, get a coach from the outside to walk you through a process to handle it. If leaders were in any way liable for not acting when they should have or ignoring issues that got you to where you are there is a loss of credibility already so finding an outside coach to help you negotiate the situation can save the church greater pain and help leadership move in a healthier direction. An outsider can also speak to the congregation without being perceived as having a personal agenda which is critical if "sides" have formed and positions taken.

Crises can be opportunities if you choose to see them in that light.

TJ Addington (Addington Consulting) has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com.

"Creating cultures of organizational excellence."

Can you disagree with me as your leader?

As a leader of others I always want to know that those who join my senior team or cabinet are able and willing to disagree with me. Too many leaders define loyalty as agreeing with their position and therefore surround themselves with "yes" people. In my mind this is not loyalty - but disloyalty to the good of the organization. Thus I will not put someone on my senior team who does not have the courage and willingness to disagree with me as their senior leader.

It surprises many people to find out that I do not make unilateral decisions for ReachGlobal. Rather, we say we are team led and team driven and all issues that impact staff go through the ReachGlobal cabinet or the Directional team. People ask, "Do you always get your way?" I say "no." They ask, "Do you care?" I say "no." Then they ask "Why." My answer is that I believe the very best decisions are made when you have the right people in the room and are able to think through the decisions together. It is in the multiplicity of gifts that the best decisions are made.

I find that many senior leaders are threatened when people disagree with them and I find that sad. It is a reflection of their own insecurities and need to prove something rather than truly wanting the very best for the organization. One of our values is that we engage in Robust Dialogue, where "Any issue can be put on the table for discussion with the exception of personal attacks or hidden agendas." It makes for a culture of freedom where together we can work toward what is best for the organization.

This is all done in a collegial atmosphere where are differences are not personal and do not become personal. Rather we have learned how to stay in relationship while differing in our perspectives, to have candid dialogue and then to support the decision with one voice once it is made. The fact that I submit to this process as a leader also means that when I do feel strongly on an issue, it is taken seriously by the team. Leaders actually gain influence when they bring others into the decision making process. I know that when the decision is made that all support it and key people have had the chance to speak into it.

So the actual question is: Can you disagree with me as your leader and stay in relationship with me?

Posted from Oakdale, MN

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

Negative voices are empowered because they talk with one another

Why can a few negative voices make such a difference in an organization? It is really quite simple. People with negativity find each other, talk to one another and create bonds with each other around their unhappiness. Of course others are left out of the conversation but the negative voices reinforce themselves and it feels like they represent the majority. Usually they do not.

These alliances often create significant dysfunction. For instance, a negative staff member of an organization finds a receptive ear with a board member (going around the leader) and they start back channel discussions around their concerns. All of a sudden this board member has "information" (tainted as it may be) but none of the other board members are in on the conversation or can bring balance. The leader is also in an unfair place as he/she does not know where the negativity is coming from.

These alliances reflect poor EQ. We should be able to disagree with one another and stay connected rather than needing to connect over what we don't like. Relationships built on common enemies or "concerns" are not true relationships. They are simply alliances built around an issue. And when the issue is a negative one, the relationship gets it fuel from the negativity, never a healthy fuel.

What is interesting is that those involved often lose their ability to truly see reality. They assume that there are far more people who are in agreement with them than is actually the case. That is because negativity is reinforced by talking to others who agree with their position. Often in church conflicts this is the case. People will tell me that the vast majority of folks agree with them when in reality it is actually a few. But negativity feeds their reality until they don't see accurately.

When I hear common negative language or mistrust I assume that there are folks allied around a common issue. I do not assume that it reflects the majority opinion even though it is loud. These are times when it is important that those who don't agree speak up and not stay silent. Silence contributes to the negativity. Being self defined can change the equation. Don't get caught up with others where the relationship or common interest is a negative one. It is rarely healthy or productive.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.

The most difficult conversations

The most difficult conversations that we need to have often fill us with anxiety and angst. The possibility of conflict or anger can give us knots in our stomach. Yet, the most difficult conversations are often the most important and most people can learn how to navigate them. This is what I have learned about that navigation.

First, it is important to separate our relationship (good or bad) with the individual we are talking to from the issue at hand. Issues are neutral, just what currently is and it is the issue that we want to focus on. This takes it out of the realm of relationship and focuses the conversation where it really belongs.

Second, It is important to be clear on what issue(s) one is going to address. Clarity in these conversations is very important. Rather than beating around the bush it is important to clearly state the issue in a definitive way. "My concerns are that you are not paying attention to the team you are leading which is causing conflict among team members," for example. Before you talk, be sure that you can clearly articulate what your concerns are and that we have thought through how you will present the concerns in a way that will be clearly understood.

Third, manage your emotions. This is not always easy but to the extent that one can have a conversation around issues without it becoming emotional on your part you are far more likely to have a productive conversation. Emotions elevate the tension in the room while keeping them under control brings the tension down. The one we are talking to may get emotional but our job is to keep our emotions under control.

Fourth, state facts as you see them but do not go to motivations. We never truly know motivations and even if we suspect they are problematic it is best to keep to facts. When addressing things that you suspect to be true but don't know say something like, "My perception is that you do not enjoy leading a team which is why you have not paid it proper attention, is that correct?" This gets at the issue but avoids making a definitive statement that may or may not be true and it invites a response which should lead to a dialogue.

Fifth, invite a response. You might say, "These are the issues that concern me, how do you see it?" This allows a conversation to begin which can lead to some kind of clarity through the next strategy.

Sixth, ask questions, listen carefully and don't interrupt. Questions invite exploration of the issues at hand. Listening shows respect - and it may take some patience. If you don't agree with the perspective of the other individual don't debate them, Rather, simply restate how you see it. Unhealthy individuals will often try to rope you in to a debate because they can manipulate through wearing you down. Don't go there. Simply restate what you believe to be true. One interesting question to ask is, "If you were in my shoes, how would you handle this?"

Seven, ask them to think through your concerns and that you desire a further conversation to bring the issue to resolution. If you have already thought through the options you are willing to put on the table state these clearly. Don't beat around the bush, just clearly state the options you see as possible. If what you want is a resignation, make the options as unattractive as possible.

If I could name one thing that is absolutely critical in these conversations it is maximum clarity. We often fail to be absolutely clear out of fear but clarity is what the other party needs if there is going to be resolution. Ambiguity on our part invites an ambiguous response.

All of T.J. Addington's books including his latest, Deep Influence,  are available from the author for the lowest prices and a $2.00 per book discount on orders of ten or more.