I was running late. My wife Eleanor and I had agreed to meet at the restaurant at seven o'clock and it was already half past. I had a good excuse in the form of a client meeting that ran over and I wasted no time getting to the dinner as fast as possible.
When I arrived at the restaurant, I apologized and told her I didn't mean to be late.
She answered: "You never mean to be late." Uh oh, she was mad.
"Sorry," I retorted, "but it was unavoidable." I told her about the client meeting. Not only did my explanations not soothe her, they seemed to make things worse. That started to make me angry.
That dinner didn't turn out to be our best.
Several weeks later, when I was describing the situation to a friend of mine, Ken Hardy, a professor of family therapy, he smiled.
"You made a classic mistake," he told me.
"Me? I made the mistake?" I was only half joking.
"Yes. And you just made it again," he said. "You're stuck in your perspective: You didn't mean to be late. But that's not the point. The point is that you were late. The point — and what's important in your communication — is how your lateness impacted Eleanor."
In other words, I was focused on my intention while Eleanor was focused on the consequences. We were having two different conversations. In the end, we both felt unacknowledged, misunderstood, and angry.
The more I thought about what Ken said, the more I recognized that this battle — intention vs. consequences — was the root cause of so much interpersonal discord.
As it turns out, it's not the thought that counts or even the action that counts. That's because the other person doesn't experience your thought or your action. They experience the consequences of your action.
Here's another example: You send an email to a colleague telling him you think he could have spoken up more in a meeting.
He replies to the email, "Maybe if you spoke less, I would have had an opportunity to say something!"
That obviously rankles you. Still, you send off another email trying to clarify the first email: "I didn't mean to offend you, I was trying to help." And then maybe you add some dismay at the aggressiveness of his response.
But that doesn't make things better. He quotes the language of your first email back to you. "Don't you see how it reads?" He asks. "BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT!" You write back, IN CAPS.
So how do you get out of this downward spiral?
It's stunningly simple, actually. When you've done something that upsets someone — no matter who's right — always start the conversation by acknowledging how your actions impacted the other person. Save the discussion about your intentions for later. Much later. Maybe never. Because, in the end, your intentions don't matter much.
What if you don't think the other person is right — or justified — in feeling the way they do? It doesn't matter. Because you're not striving for agreement. You're going for understanding.
What should I have said to Eleanor?
"I see you're angry. You've been sitting here for 30 minutes and that's got to be frustrating. And it's not the first time. Also, I can see how it seems like I think being with a client gives me permission to be late. I'm sorry you had to sit here waiting for so long."
All of that is true. Your job is to acknowledge their reality — which is critical to maintaining the relationship. As Ken described it to me: "If someone's reality, as they see it, is negated, what motivation do they have to stay in the relationship?"
In the email back and forth I described earlier, instead of clarifying what you meant, consider writing something like: "I could see how my criticizing your performance — especially via email — feels obnoxious to you. How it sounds critical and maybe dismissive of your efforts in the meeting."
I said this was simple but I didn't say it was easy.
The hardest part is our emotional resistance. We're so focused on our own challenges that it's often hard to acknowledge the challenges of others. Especially if we are their challenge and they are ours. Especially when they lash out at us in anger. Especially when we feel misunderstood. In that moment, when we empathize with them and their criticism of our behavior, it almost feels like we're betraying ourselves.
But we're not. We're just empathizing.
Here's a trick to make it easier. While they're getting angry at you, imagine, instead, that they're angry at someone else. Then react as you would in that situation. Probably you'd listen and let them know you see how angry they are.
And if you never get to explain your intentions? What I have found in practice — and this surprised me — is that once I've expressed my understanding of the consequences, my need to justify my intentions dissipates.
That's because the reason I'm explaining my intentions in the first place is to repair the relationship. But I've already accomplished that by empathizing with their experience. At that point, we're both usually ready to move on.
And if you do still feel the need? You'll still have the opportunity, once the other person feels seen, heard, and understood.
If we succeed in doing all this well, we'll often find that, along with our relationships, something else gets better: our behavior.
After that last conversation with Eleanor — after really understanding the consequences of my lateness on her — somehow, someway, I've managed to be on time a lot more frequently.
I think the author is barking up the wrong tree by focusing on the delayed dinner. How about focusing on the client who *caused* this mess by demanding an after-hours meeting?
The *client* is the one who is unempathetic by failing to realize that after-hours meetings disrupt family and personal life. Yet corporate cultures that encourage this practice escape from criticism unscathed.
Toxic advice as far as I am concerned. Did you set expectations? Did you call your wife to see if it was acceptable for you to stay late with a client? Why not organize your life so that you meet your commitments? Why not set client expectations. If you have a contract with your wife to meet her somewhere at 7 p.m., then meet her at 7 p.m.
There is the message that pleasing your client is more important than pleasing your wife. And your article makes you seem manipulative. As in, "I knowingly choose to do the wrong thing, but I empathize with you because my choice it impacted you."
I believe Dale Carnegie used a similar approach in his book "How to win friends and Influence people". But I've read it so long ago.
I'm just now introduced to you and your writings, and I appreciate what I've read, so far.
With this idea, you are showing, very nicely, how to empathize. I would love for you to address how to make use of this tool for communication and relationship building in the reverse--in business. An abbreviated example: You have sent any number of reports, price quotes/suggestions, or what-have-you to a client, and their response is, "I want to move ahead but I'm still waiting for your report/price quote/suggestion..." So, after self-empathy, what next?
The one thing I disagree about in this article is having a conversation like this via email! At a minimum this type of conversation deserves a phone conversation and the best practice is having a face to face conversation. I see too many professionals use email as a communication vehicle in situations like this which causes wasted time and energy.
Sorry to disagree with many comments (and I am often a fan of this blog), but my first reaction was, "How old are you, Peter?" It's hard to believe he got to be an adult, let alone a "thought leader," without having figured this out long ago. Of course his colleague, Ken Hardy, is right. Should we have to consult professors for this kind of advice?
Although the reality should be that anyone with some management background would understand this, I have to say that what I witness in actual practice is that many people at all levels of management and age have difficulty taking the other person's perspective. To add to that problem, lots of people "think" they do, but on closer examination this is often only the most surface acknowledgement of another as a possible stakeholder on a list.This happens much more frequently than you might initially think.
I don't believe that you can 'make' another person feel anything. Everyone chooses their own feelings. As Eleanor Roosevelt once said 'No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.', they can't actually make you feel anything without your consent. Yes, he was late, yes that shows a lack of respect for her time, but how she felt was her choice. He should apologize for being late, but not for how she feels. If he is late frequently, then perhaps he needs to work on his time management, or understand that it shows a lack of respect for her and others.
Beware of trite generalisation such as "you can't 'make' another person feel anything."
This just isn't true.... and opens the doorway to selfishness and arrogance.
Are you suggesting that you have conscious control over the unconscious processing of emotional responses?
Ever tried to turn off love, or grief?
I really like this article, but I agree with Sriniradhika. Sometimes you have to be late to do the job right. That does not mean you love or respect the person any less than if you had arrived early for the dinner. Just don't a habit of it, and apologize for making them wait.
As a girl , I′ve been empathic some times and others not, it depends on the frequency of the problem, and in this case, if I well understood the man use to arrive in late giving explanations and that was the point to make her angry not specifically the event of late arrival to the dinner.
Peter this is such a great article. It is such a knee jerk response to go to our excuses or our reasons for being late, being short with someone etc. All it does is aggravate and further upset the other person. I find a simple sincere apology is best. I personally don't like people to say to me "I see your are angry or upset" etc. Maybe that is just me!
Your by-default fantastic insight. I've been caught in situations like that! Its absolutely right when you upset someone, your intentions do not matter. The person just focuses on how 'You Made Them Feel' and its a loop. Accepting our fault is the best way to cut through it for that moment. However, no progress can be made in relationships until the person on the receiving end too makes a conscious effort to 'voluntarily' understand your intentions. That calls for a certain level of maturity and mutual trust. After all, there would be moments or situations where they would make you angry and would look for a similar handling of it. You can't build anything on empathy alone.
Disagreements and difference of opinion leads to anger and resent which can spoil relationships in the long term. The point made by the blogger here is very apt, instead of focusing on the intention, one must keep in mind the final outcome or the consequence resulting from one's actions.My glad my boss Kulwinder Singh at Synechron always guides me to take care of our actions instead of focusing on intentions
Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen any suggestion that the husband might have averted this argument by CALLING the wife as soon as he saw the meeting with the client was going to make him late. An ounce of prevention etc. I know I feel very devalued when someone is late for something we have agreed to meet at a certain time for, and one of my first comments would probably be, did you have your phone with you?? That said, I do like this piece a lot and generally agree with the approach that he puts forth.
Rahoul... your point is right but the issue is how you can change yourself rather than expecting others to understand you. That's the point anyways in the article. My take is that I and only I am responsible for my response to a stimulus. If I do not empathise, I have little right to expect from others.
This may work in a spousal/intimate relationship but what are you going to do in a workplace environment, especially when you dont know the person whom you've aggravated? Can you pull out the whole "I expect you to understand me" card? I highly doubt it.
In a workplace environment, Empathy is a priority. It also enables you to build up credibility and trust.
Isn't your logic exactly what the author's friend identified as "a classic mistake"? You're not willing to see the consequence, but still stuck on the intention, and that the intention should be accepted.
Sure, the wife could have averted the bad dinner date by accepting his apology, but that's not the ROOT CAUSE of the issue at hand.
It sounds like there's been a pattern of lateness, and he's only addressing it because of her feedback. I have the same problem, so I understand where he's coming from. My fiancee and I have had similar conversations, and I'm positive that I would not be learning to be on time if she had not expressed her hurt and exasperation. There are ways to prevent the lateness, and if I make it obvious that I am making every effort to do so and that I understand her frustration, it goes a long way toward helping her to have a gracious response to any (increasingly rare) justified lateness.
Not to mention that the times when I've been late and it's been MY fault tend to make these excusable moments far worse. That's not a lack of trust on her part. It's a lack of conscientiousness on mine. I'm accidentally the boy who cried "wolf"...
My girlfriend is frequently late meeting me after work. I understand that, I respect her commitments to her job, I'm an adult who is perfectly able to occupy my time in her absence, and I am always happy to see her when she gets home.
And she feels the same way about me.
Perhaps "Ken The Family Therapist" could learn a thing or two from us...
Yes in this example the man is more at blame because "he" was late and that is what caused the reaction. However, if the women was the one who was late and the man was waiting for her, she would have been more to blame. I have to admit, it is usually me that is late and I too try to justify why. The fact remains, being late affects other people. I have made a big effort to start being on time and this post brought the issue front and center for me. Being habitually late shows a disregard for the people who do the waiting.
I'm sure the man would have preferred to be with his wife eating dinner, than to work late. However, he felt obligated to stay and finish up to keep the client happy and to assure his income continue.
The wife, no doubt could have been more understanding, but it seems like this is a common occurrence. It may just have been the straw that broke the camels back.
~ Karen ~
http://karenkaro.com
Not logically, no.
If, in fact, the "only control we have over a situation or relationship is in our own behavior and response", then we have no control over the reactions of others.
The author here has addressed (poorly) the issues of intention and action, but has left out the issue of perception. And perception is the thing that most determines other's reactions, while simultaneously being almost completely outside of our control.
So ultimately, Eleanor is responsible for her reaction. Not Peter.
I believe the author stated that "your job is to acknowledge their reality." This covers the perception aspect.
Speaking of which, from your posts you seem to have a perception that this is all about "Femsplaining"?
Which in your view of reality (perception) is probably justified and logical.
However, I have noted that from the responses you are receiving not many others share that reality.
Not quite. If this were a case of a man being upset that his wife was frequently late due to business commitments, the story would be that his patriarchal attitude failed to respect her right to pursue his career.
This is an example of "Femsplaining". The act of interpreting a situation differently depending upon the genders of those involved.
I think you're mascu-anti-femsplaining. Kind of like antidisestablishmentarianism.
Great Post. We get so caught up in what we meant, we forget the importance of how we made the other person feel. This is obviously important in our personal lives but it is also valuable in our business life. http://karenkaro.com
It's not that hard to be empathetic. Babies cry when they hear another baby's cry, so we are born knowing how to feel what others feel. Read Frans de Waal or Simon Baron-Cohen for great books on empathy. You'll be glad you did.
Some really great points here. I would modify one example a little bit:
Instead of: "I see you're angry. You've been sitting here for 30 minutes and that's
got to be frustrating. And it's not the first time. Also, I can see how
it seems like I think being with a client gives me permission to be
late. I'm sorry you had to sit here waiting for so long."
How about: "I'm sorry you had to sit here waiting for so long. You've been sitting here for 30 minutes and that's
got to be frustrating. And it's not the first time. Also, I can see how
it seems like I think being with a client gives me permission to be
late."
Leave the projections about their feelings out of it, and start with the apology.
very great article. it's very hard to deal with people's emotions. some people are sensitive some people are complicated, some are emotional and this is really great article with beautiful reasoning.
My good friend and mentor would point out that of course you meant to be late, you made a choice to stay with your client instead of wrapping it up to see your wife. Your client didn't detain you with handcuffs, I assume. Own that and accept the consequences, and then clean them up.
Now, if you got stuck in unusually heavy and unpredictable traffic, you could still accept responsibility for the consequences, even though you made very reasonable attempts to be on time. If this happens to you often, you may want to own that you're not making reasonable assumptions about drive time and plan to leave even earlier.
That's what accountability is, did you uphold your commitment or not? It's not about intentions or unforeseeable circumstances. There are times, of course, when you choose to be out of accountability. I may choose to miss a client call if I need to take a sick child to the hospital, for example. No one would debate the correctness of that choice, but you still need to own the consequences and do your best to clean them up.
By the way, all of this is very easy to say, and much harder to put into practice. I'm nowhere near 100%. No one is ever in 100% accountability, but aiming high makes life better for you and the people around you.
David Kaiser, PhD
Executive Coach
ww.DarkMatterConsulting.com
I've found one of the most effective ways to deal angry people is to focus on the positives of the others behavior. For example, in your example of the e-mail exchange say, "I can see how that could be taken as a criticism. The reality is that I really enjoy hearing your perspective and find it very valuable. I'm sorry about any misunderstanding."
In the example with your wife I would say, "I'm really sorry that I was late. You have been so patient with me lately, I really have appreciated your patience and support. Maybe next weekend (or whenever appropriate) we can shut off our phones and have a quiet dinner alone." Or go away for the weekend and agree not to bring work phones, computers etc.
Everyone loves to hear how awesome they are. The danger in this approach is that you can't lie, meaning the positive has to be true or it will make things worse. If you can take some time, think about the situation and find the positive.
Even when sincere, in the heat of debate, an affirmation can come across as patronizing. I think it best to acknowledge the consequence that caused the other party's discomfort first, then after they have had a chance to respond, shift the focus to their positives.
I agree that in the heat of debate this may come off as patronizing or even sarcastic. I think this is best used before the conversation gets heated.
In both the examples that I used you are making an acknowledgment of how the other person feels before you say something positive. The offender also has to take responsibility for their part in the situation. That is done through an apology. If the offender goes into to much detail about why the situation happened that can be patronizing too. The wife likely knows why the husband is late and for the husband to over explain it is pointless and patronizing. The co-worker knows that e-mail can lead to misunderstanding you don't need to go into a detailed description about how e-mail can be misunderstood.
Anger is an emotion, emotions aren't rational. Rationally explaining why a situation happened is not likely to be helpful.
In both situations the wife and co-worker are saying "you don't value me". By the offender saying "You have been so patient with me lately, I really have appreciated your patience and support" and "I really enjoy hearing your perspective and find it very valuable" you are saying you are valuable to me and I really appreciate you.
It helps if you look for the positives in others all the time and express appreciation frequently. If you do this it is less likely that people will feel unappreciated, which leads to anger. People will be more likely to...
Quite useful for a reason not really made explicit: when you focus on impact and results, you prevent the other person from speculating on what you might have intended. That's to be avoided at all costs, because it gets both of you on a downward cycle of inherently unknowable factors.
Intentions can be really important and often act as part of our moral judgements. And, yes, agree that when the other person is angry, they can't hear the intention. And when we are defensive, we aren't being open to how one intention is in conflict with another intention. For example, an intention to love and honor and appreciate your partner is in conflict with the desire to have a successful business by having high client satisfaction. And acknowledging that and acknowledging and making adjustments for your real priorities in intention will help with the shift in behavior.
"I see you're angry. You've been sitting here for 30 minutes and that's got to be frustrating. And it's not the first time. Also, I can see how it seems like I think being with a client gives me permission to be late. I'm sorry you had to sit here waiting for so long."
Great points but I just can't see myself talking in this robotic armchair therapist manner with anyone, much less my wife.
Perhaps just a heartfelt apology and some self-restraint from justifying the mistake would work much better?
Sometimes the explanation is necessary to prove that you're serious. I'm guessing that "I'm so sorry I'm late" is a common occurrence, so to show that you really understand the problem and how it affects the other party has a lot of value.
You have a point but I probably wouldn't launch into the explanation while the missus is seething.
Perhaps later on when tempers have cooled over an excellent meal and wine...
Wow this could make a huge difference in arguments. Instead of being defensive all the time for your actions, try to be in the other person's shoes and admit that you've made a mistake. Tame your ego for a while, if you may. Love this post and most definitely sharing it!
I developed a model for dealing with angry customers called the C.A.R.P model and I believe it applies here. It's described at: What is the CARP system for defusing angry and difficult customers? -http://customerservicezone.com...
C for Control (Get the other person calm enough to listen and interact.)
A for Acknowledge (That's the empathy and listening you describe)
R for Refocus (Transition away from the anger to the issue)
P for problem solve (work to address the substantive issue IN THE PRESENT and to prevent it happening in the future.
I think it's important to treat angry situations as both interpersonal (the softer side), because emotions are important, but also to do the problem-solving. In fact that's why I created the model, because I was finding that some people were doing the empathy thing, but weren't getting to the "solving the issue", thing.
Ouch. "GET the other person" calm enough to listen and interact? Controlling someone else is not about getting to the solving part dude, it's about getting to the solution that suits me part. Cast-iron guarantee to make someone more angry is to tell them that THEY need to calm down. OUCH.
This should be part of school curriculum. Excellent piece. This also needs to be tagged for leadership as well.
Fabulous post Peter, could not agree more! I would add a small step... if after empathizing you still feel a need to clarify your intent, ask yourself why... if it is to make yourself feel better or heard arguably it is that is your ego at large and you need to take that up with yourself, not the person you have disappointed.
Another exceptional article, Peter. However, your consistent ability and willingness to share your mistakes, i.e., making yourself vulnerable, is even more critical in relationship success than the good points you make about handling anger. There is power in vulnerability and that is not an oxymoron.It seems to me that women have an easier time allowing themselves to be vulnerable than men. Would love to hear your thoughts.
聯(lián)系客服
