In my last post I wrote about how family relationships intrude into the workplace. When things get stressful at work people may respond by falling back into old patterns of behavior from their family history. These past experiences may be the underlying reason why colleagues don’t seem particularly cooperative, and decision-making gets bogged down.
When I step in to resolve a conflict, I rarely have the luxury of being a neutral facilitator. More often I may be the target for my colleagues’ negativity. That means I am subject to just the same kind of psychological issues that they experience, and I may be just as unaware. How do I avoid becoming part of the problem, rather than someone who can lead people through it?
Mediators and business coaches cope with conflicts all the time. They may be theoretically neutral, but if people feel stressed, the facilitator may not be experienced as neutral. Stober and Grant, authors of The Evidence Based Coaching Handbook write that when a client projects their emotions onto the mediator, it often provokes emotions in the mediator. The psychologists call this counter-transference. What can we learn from how mediators cope with this?
In an interview with Jo Faragher, the director of a mediation center, David Liddle says “One of the first things you can do when you act as a mediator is to know yourself. Be aware of your own responses and reactions – how you react when someone has been treated unfairly. We often take our own experiences of conflict as baggage, and this defines how we respond. They write that “Counter-transference reflects the consultant’s own subconscious response to the client.” Mediators, coaches and especially therapists are trained to become aware of this, and often attend workshops to become more aware of the ways that they react emotionally.
But what is something I can apply in practice as a workplace leader? The situations where I want to be most effective are often the ones which are most stressful, and in which a good share of the emotions and anger are directed towards me! Inevitably my emotional reaction will tend to follow a subconscious script as I seek to protect myself. It may well be me who is bringing my family history to work! One possible answer is to spend years in therapy and zen meditation until I can completely understand every emotion and always act rationally. It’s certainly helpful, but even after attending many workshops, I have known a facilitator lose their cool when things get heated up.
That’s why I like having a simple process to fall back on. A logical process is one way to keep myself in my head rather than get led astray by emotions. I find most people attending their first workshop on relationship processes admit that their usual way of operating is to listen, react and respond all in one fluid movement. There’s often no time to do anything else. I often feel the impulse to jump into the discussion quickly to refute an idea that contradicts my views, or even worse, has a negative impact on me.
A relational process breaks this activity down into steps. Leaders in this field like David Bohm, Peter Senge and William Isaacs have often used the word “Dialogue” to distinguish this type of process from a less-structured conversation. Usually in these dialogue processes, everyone is following the same rules. That’s nice, but doesn’t often happen. There is some value to just adopting the rules yourself, so that at least you can step outside of the emotional fray, and recognize what others in the conversation most need in order to reach a great result.
William Isaacs outlined a set of principles that characterized dialogue, and his list is similar to those of other authors;
- Slow down the inquiry.
- Listen to your listening
- Suspend assumptions and certainties.
- Observe the observer. Be aware of thought.
- Befriend polarization.
Principles are great, but they may get lost in the heat of the moment unless you can translate them into a set of practical steps.
The first step is to slow down the inquiry. When I find myself in a tough discussion, my natural tendency is to quickly respond to counter what is said. But the process can be slowed down by choosing to separate listening from responding. One of the best known techniques is “Active Listening” in which the listener actually repeats back to the speaker what he has heard. Many people groan when they first encounter active listening in its various forms. It feels so artificial to repeat things back. But with a little practice it can be done surprisingly naturally. “Let me just make sure I got that….” is often welcomed by an impassioned speaker and can change the whole flow of the conversation. When someone is really determined to get their view across, they can feel much calmer when they feel that is has been heard.
Active Listening also gives time for me to be more aware of myself, because I can step away from feeling I need to respond immediately. I have time to be aware of my heart beat rising, and my cheeks burning. I might choose just spending my energy to really understand the other person’s point of view, and then respond later.
The last point on William Isaac’s list is to “befriend polarity”. That is a reminder to react to an opinion that is different from mine with interest and excitement. Even if the information is challenging, it gives me insights into the other person’s way of thinking, and how we can work together.
Slow listening is the first step to making sure that I am part of the solution, and not the problem. In future posts I will look at processes to help lead the discussion to a conclusion.
Authentic Relationships Matter 
Posted on June 14, 2012
0