When we take on the issues of others rather than keeping our own counsel

Some of the most challenging situations I faced as an organizational leader involved individuals who would call my office angry, unhappy, and irrational over issues they had no firsthand knowledge of. They had taken up someone else's problem and gone on a crusade.

The reason these are such difficult situations is this. First, because they don't have firsthand knowledge, one cannot have a rational conversation about what really happened. All they know is what they "heard" happened, and in the context of anger, hurt, and raw emotions. Thus, this is not a conversation about facts but perceived facts and emotional reactions. Conversations that cannot be focused on objective facts are usually conversations that cannot be resolved. 

Second, the conversations are crazy-making because those who take up others' offenses usually do not reveal that fact. It is clear from the conversation that there is an underlying issue (someone else's offense), but it is never stated, making it challenging to address. If I sense there is an underlying issue, I will often probe as to what it is and try to get to the heart of the matter. Dealing with side issues does not help one resolve the real underlying issues. Unless that is put on the table, there is no resolution.

Third, since these conversations are not about facts due to the absence of firsthand knowledge, they ultimately become about perceptions and anger. Perceptions of others are usually wrong, and anger cannot be resolved without dealing with facts. And facts cannot be established without those with firsthand knowledge present. 

Finally, these are no-win conversations because those who take up the offense of others have no way to move on because they cannot resolve "facts." So while the person whose offense they picked up moves on eventually, those who picked up the offense do not and cannot.

When there is conflict, the goal must always be to achieve reconciliation. The goal is to come to an understanding and achieve a level of peace. When I take up someone else's offence, however, I am doing just the opposite, enlarging the conflict rather than minimizing it: I cannot solve it for others; my own anger spills over to others; I have no objectivity in the situation, and because it is not my issue, I cannot find resolution. It is a no-win situation and does nothing to bring reconciliation or peace.

Picking up someone else's offense is foolish, demonstrates poor EQ, and causes relational havoc beyond what is necessary. It is one thing to seek to help resolve an issue in a healthy and productive manner. But once you take up another's offense, there is no good way out.  

One of the hallmarks of good emotional intelligence is that we can empathize with others without getting enmeshed in their issues. This does not mean that we do not care, provide counsel, and support. It does mean that we don't allow the problems of others to become "our" issues. 

A key to this is what I call "keeping my own counsel." Everyone has a perspective on issues, but they are not always accurate or fair. It is their perspective. This is especially true in relationships. I often hear negative things about others. In line with keeping my own counsel, I seek to listen and, when appropriate, ask questions, but ultimately I must make my own judgments based on my own personal experience rather than on the perspective of others. It is not wise, fair, or healthy for me to simply take the opinions of others when my experience does not line up with theirs or when I have no firsthand knowledge. 

In addition, I want to avoid enmeshment because I cannot solve other people's issues for them. I can encourage them to resolve their issues with whoever they have those issues. I can offer to mediate a meeting between them for resolution. But ultimately, I am responsible for my problems and not for theirs. All manner of relational chaos is caused when I take up the offense of others without firsthand knowledge and based on their information alone. 

Getting sucked into the issues of others takes a relational breakdown between two people and multiplies it among others, where they were never part of the original breakdown and have simply taken on the stuff of others rather than keeping their own counsel. This is often the stuff of organizational conflict and church splits. What was an issue between two parties becomes an issue between multiple parties, and what was a minor problem now becomes a significant issue. What was complicated now has become exceedingly complex. What might have been resolvable is now often not resolvable.

When we have issues with others, we always have the choice as to whether we draw others in and seek to influence their opinion of the one we have problems with, or whether we keep our own counsel, seek to resolve the situation, but not to influence the opinions of others. It is not my place to hurt the reputation of others, but to ensure that my own behavior is healthy. 

This is all about demonstrating wisdom in our relationships with others, living with healthy emotional intelligence, and being peace makers rather than stoking conflict.

TJ Addington is an executive and leadership coach, an organizational consultant, and a culture specialist. I am a certified master coach with Intelligent Leadership (John Mattone Global). You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com. My passion is to help organizations and individuals maximize their gifts and potential.

Six questions to ask in any reconciliation process

Trying to reconcile broken relationships is a tough job. In conflict, things are said, actions taken, motives judged, offenses given and received and by the time you are finished a great deal of damage has been done. Like divorce: If you were not enemies before the divorce you may well be when the contentious process is concluded. By that time, both parties see one another through a lens of suspicion, mistrust and often anger and even the most innocent actions are seen from a negative perspective. 

There is nothing easy about trying to bring peace to a broken relationship and those who try are to be commended. As Jesus said, Blessed are the peacemakers! It is a humbling, difficult process that involves our hearts, our minds and our future commitments. To say nothing of the necessity to forgive those who we believe have hurt us badly. In our humanity we want our pound of flesh even if we keep that private. 

In any reconciliation process it seems to me there are six questions that need to be explored. There is no guarantee as you enter such a process that reconciliation will be possible but working through these six questions gives it a chance. 

First: Do I truly want peace with the party I am in conflict with? Our natural response to that is "of course." But that is not necessarily true. Conflict brings with it pain and hurt and in the wake of that conflict it is often more comfortable to nurse our pain than to extend forgiveness for another's actions and ask for forgiveness for our part in the conflict. Often, one or both parties resist any reconciliation because they don't want to contemplate the forgiveness issue. 

Reconciliation is rarely successful until both parties desire to reconcile - to the extent that they can. Often this first question is the most difficult and requires the most work. No matter how bad the conflict, when both parties come to the conclusion they want peace, the outcome is usually positive.

Second: What are the issues? Because conflict creates relational chaos it is necessary to try to identify the issues that created the conflict and the further issues that ocurred during the conflict. Making a list of these issues helps to separate those issues from our emotions and give us a clearer picture of what happened and after it happened how one or both parties contributed to further issues. Usually it takes a third party to walk the two parties in conflict through this exercise - and those that come. 

Having identified the issues the third question: What can be resolved? When you can isolate the issues involved there are usually a number that can be resolved quickly. Often, they include assumptions one party made along the way regarding the actions of the other. Sometimes, a long period of conflict is found to have been the result of a simply misunderstanding that escalated because of incorrect assumptions. If two parties are open and humble, many issues can usually be resolved through honest conversation and careful listening.

The fourth question: What issues cannot be resolved? There are often issues that it is not possible to resolve. Often, because of the lens through which we see the opposing party and our inability to hear or believe their explanation. Sometimes the events are too murky and shrouded in emotion to resolve. This does not mean that these issues will never be resolved but only that they cannot be resolved at this time. Record these and leave them for another day or agree at some point to let them go. 

Question five: Where can forgiveness be extended or asked for? Here is where significant closure starts to take place. When we forgive we give up our offense and when we ask for the same we humble ourselves and admit that we too are fallible. Asking for forgiveness creates an atmosphere that breaks down barriers leading the other party to do the same. Asking and extending forgiveness often breaks the dam of animosity. It also often makes the issues that cannot be resolved mute. They no longer matter because a level of relational peace has been attained. 

Question six flows out of the other five: Can we agree to live in peace and without rancor? This is a decision to cease hostilities and agree to live at peace. This means that we will not speak ill of the other party, that we will no longer nurse anger or resentment and that we will lay down our animosity in exchange for peace. This can be a hard decision even after this process because it requires us to give up the bitterness we have nursed, the attitude of entitlement we have toward the hurt that has been inflicted on us and lay it all down. Like the first question this is an act of the will. 

None of this is easy. It is a choice and a hard choice but it brings amazing freedom and blessing. "Blessed are the peacemakers."

Creating cultures of organizational excellence
AddingtonConsulting.org

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.