Managing Conflict

Tag Archive for: managing conflict

Train the Trainer: Dealing with ‘difficult’ participants – part 1

,

At Target Training we’ve been delivering “train-the-trainer” solutions for over 20 years to a broad range of clients across industries. Without fail, one of the most common personal training goals we see is “I want to learn to deal with difficult participants”.  No matter whether you are delivering on-boarding, technical, safety  or skills training, training starts and ends with your participants. As a trainer you want to deliver training which is engaging and useful … and as all experienced trainers know, a single difficult participant can impact this.  This blog post shares our advice and experience, so you are better prepared to deal with difficult participants in the training room.
Go to the eBook

What do we mean by a “difficult participant” and how common are they really?

Training is about adding value to your participants and organization, by developing their knowledge, skills and behaviours.  You want your participants to have a rewarding learning experience – and you have designed your training to achieve this.  You’ve identified and considered the learning goals, you’ve considered the flow so it is smooth and ties together, and you’ve designed varied activities to keep the training engaging and rewarding. A “difficult participant, is a participant who hinders or prevents the above – intentionally or not. Difficult participants diminish the impact of the training for the other participants and reduce your organizations return on investment.

All participants have the potential of being difficult, and this depends upon a variety of factors – ranging from the context of the training to the training design, and from personalities to an individual’s situational circumstances.  We all have bad days. However, truly destructive participants are thankfully rare. I’ve been involved in delivering training for over 23 years, and looking back I can only think of a handful of “difficult” individuals.  Unfortunately, I remember them clearer than the rest. So, what can you do? Before the training starts, you can minimize the risk of participants becoming difficult before the training even starts, through some simple steps.

Know who the participants are

If you are delivering internally, then get a list of the participants in advance and make the time to speak with their line managers.  By doing this you can learn more about the “perceived” context for the training, and the participants knowledge, experience, needs and attitudes. If somebody is cynical, silent or a talker, then the line manager may flag this. Alternatively, just ask straight out “Are there any participants I should keep an eye on?”.  You can also encourage the manager to speak with her participants and reinforce that they value training and have expectations.  Line manager involvement is key to successful training (Clemmer 2008) and ensures your organization makes the most of its training investment.

If you have a chance to meet the participants before the session, you should take it. Give them an impression of who you are. Build rapport before they enter the training room. Introduce yourself, find out what they expect from the training and set their expectations (“yes, unfortunately, there will be some role-plays”), or just make small talk for a few minutes. For you, the trainer, it makes a huge difference to walk into a room with ten strangers (not knowing what they want), or to walk into a room with five strangers and five people you already know (whose expectations you’ve already set).

Design the training so it respects and engages everyone

Use what you’ve learned from speaking with the line managers to ensure your training content is appropriate, relevant and challenging. By doing this you can minimize the likelihood of a wide range of difficult or disruptive behaviours – from boredom to frustration to challenging. You also want to ensure that your training respects the range of personalities and learning styles. Give your participants the opportunity to reflect, consider and contribute both as individuals and in groups.  Plan “loud” and “quiet” times so both extroverts and introverts get what they need– not everyone enjoys brainstorming and discussions. Do consider the flow of energy within the training day and consciously design your training around this e.g. after lunch will you energize the group, or give them some reflection time to look back on the morning?

Anticipate tough questions, difficult learning points and likely areas of resistance

If this is a new training solution, then take the time to play “what if”.  Write down all the questions that you hope they will ask, know they will ask, don’t want them to ask, and dread they ask. Then think about your answers. Practice your responses out loud and ensure your answers are brief, to the point and authentic. As the trainer you have a lot of knowledge and experience – and synthesizing all this into a clear and brief response can be tough.

If you’ve delivered the training before than you’ve already spotted the areas which raise questions or provoke discussions.  Again, step back and consider what you want to say, how you want to say, and how much time you want to invest in which topics.

If there’s an elephant in your training room, then know how you want to tackle it

Keep your training human and keep it real. The circumstances surrounding the training can and will influence behaviours. If the organization is going through change, restructuring, laying off staff, or merging then you can expect this to impact attitudes and behaviours. You probably cannot influence these circumstances, but you can acknowledge them and prepare for possible resistance, push back or disassociation.

I remember delivering a 2-day leadership program to an automotive company where everyone knew that at the end of day 1 a major announcement would be made on the future of some plants.  The training content was fixed and “motivating and driving performance “was a major part of the first day. We spoke about the circumstances openly, acknowledged that the topic was awkwardly timed to say the least, and agreed to reframe the training as practical management skills for the future, wherever they may be. Keeping the pace fast, the energy high and the themes as “archetypical” helped the training make a personal impact.

Reframe how you see difficult participants

Embrace the challenge of difficult participants. At its heart, training is about people, and we learn more about working with people from difficult situations than from “everything going to plan”.  You want participants to be engaged and challenging you is actually a good thing.  You want your participants to let you know if something isn’t going right for them during the training and not afterwards. And you want your participants to be themselves.  I’ve only ever met one participant who I couldn’t work with at any level whatsoever, and even this was a learning moment – I learned that was ok, to accept the situation, and to focus on the other participants who clearly wanted to be there.

Always open the training in a way that sets out mutual expectations

Creating and agreeing on ground rules and shared expectations is essential. This then gives you and others the framework to hold each other accountable and have difficult conversations with difficult participants about difficult situations. Experienced trainers do this naturally and each trainer has their own style, but the core you need to agree on is

  • Timing (start, finish, breaks and length of breaks). Even the most experienced trainers can forget this, and participants want and need to know what to expect. You don’t need to lock yourself in to a schedule if you don’t want to but telling them you’ll break for lunch “around 12.30” helps.
  • Laptops open, closed, or even in bags. Phones are the bane of a trainer’s life, and when one person takes a call during the training everyone is impacted. Possible approaches could be
    • at the front on a desk
    • must be on silent
    • in bags and only check in breaks
    • take calls but leave the room before start speaking

Effective approaches to managing the pull of phone calls that I’ve seen/heard/ done have included:

  • make a joke of it e.g. “Is anybody expecting a child to be born they know about? No, well in that case do we really need our phones on?”
  • be direct e.g “Put your mobiles on silent and in your bags (not your pockets). You can check them during breaks, and if something is truly urgent your colleagues know where you are and how to find you.  And if they can’t be bothered to come to the training room it can’t be truly urgent!”
  • charity box “Everything you take your phone out you put X in the bowl up front”
  • choosing a venue with no phone reception

And if none of the above are acceptable, then at least get agreement that people respectfully leave the training room when on the phone.

  • Communication. If the training topic is likely to be contentious or difficult then it is worth taking time to agree on expected communication styles. e.g. try not to interrupt, ask question to learn and not to show what you know, ask if something isn’t clear, close the loop by asking clarifying questions back etc.

Agreeing on ground rules allows you as the trainer to refer back to the agreed expectations and have awkward conversations safely. And of course, all of the above approaches are much more powerful when the training participants build them themselves!  This allows the participants to hold each other accountable and take responsibility for ensuring the dynamics are healthy.  You can expect that colleagues can self-regulate behaviours to some extent!

Start the training by keeping it real and keeping things human

The final tip is that positioning yourself above your participants will create unnecessary resistance and provoke difficult behaviours as participants try to prove something wrong, reject messages because they reject your credibility, or fight to show they know more. You are the trainer and you are human. Use this to build authenticity, credibility and trust from the outset and reduce the risk of difficult behaviours derailing the training. Share your experience, build your credibility and also show that you know how it can be challenging at first to get to grips with the specifics (“ I remember when ..”).

If you are delivering soft skills, customer service or leadership training, then avoid presenting yourself as the example to be followed. Tap into meaningful stories, share experiences and connect with the participants on a human level. My own approach is to open our Practical toolbox for managers program with “ I strongly believe in the value of everything we’ll be covering in the next 2 days, and many of your colleagues have fed back that they found it practical. Saying that, as a manager, I do not do everything we’ll be covering myself. I’m human and I have my strengths and my weaknesses”.  I then see the participant’ physically relax and open up.

 

by

The Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse at Work: Contempt and Stonewalling

, ,

The third post in our series exploring John Gottman’s Four Horsemen in the workplace. This post looks at contempt and stonewalling — why they happen, how they can affect working relationships and psychological safety, and what we can do to break these patterns.

  • Reading time
  • 10 Minutes
  • Target audience
  • Managers, team leaders and professionals who want to build more open, constructive and productive working relationships — particularly when conversations become difficult.

In the first post of this series, we introduced John Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse — criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling — and explored how these behaviours can gradually undermine trust, communication and collaboration in the workplace. In the second post, we took a closer look at criticism and defensiveness: why they happen, how they can reinforce each other, and what we can do to break the cycle.

In this post, we turn to the remaining two Horsemen: contempt and stonewalling.

These behaviours can be particularly damaging because they can signal that a working relationship has moved beyond a disagreement about an issue. Contempt attacks the relationship itself, while stonewalling withdraws from it. Both can make it increasingly difficult to have the open, constructive conversations that teams need.

So, why do contempt and stonewalling happen? What impact can they have on working relationships? And, if you recognise these behaviours in yourself, a colleague or your team, what can you do to change the pattern?

 

Why do we show contempt?

Contempt is when our behaviour communicates that we see someone as inferior, unworthy of respect, or simply not worth taking seriously. As it has been built brick-by-brick over time, it is tough to dismantle, and is probably the most destructive behaviour amongst Gottman’s “Four Horsemen”.

    • We’re frustrated. We may have reached the point where we feel that the same issues keep happening and nothing seems to change.
    • We’ve lost respect. Repeated disappointments or difficult interactions can gradually change how we see someone. We may start to question their judgement, competence or commitment.
    • We’re making assumptions. We might begin to interpret someone’s behaviour through a negative lens — assuming they’re simply “not getting it.”
    • We feel superior. Sometimes contempt comes from believing that we know better or that our way of doing things is the only sensible approach. This can make it tempting to dismiss or belittle another person’s ideas.
    • We’re trying to protect ourselves. Sarcasm, mockery or dismissiveness can sometimes be a way of covering up our own frustration, insecurity or vulnerability.
    • It has become a habit. In teams where sarcasm, eye-rolling or dismissing opinions has become normal, we may not even realise how disrespectful our behaviour has become.
    • We don’t know how to express our frustration constructively. When we haven’t found a productive way to address an ongoing problem, contempt can become an outlet for emotions that have been building up.

New Call-to-action

How does contempt show up in the workplace?

Contempt can be surprisingly easy to miss, particularly when it is disguised as “just the way we talk to each other.” It can manifest itself as ongoing sarcasm, cynicism, and aggressive, belittling or mocking humour.

Sometimes it appears in small gestures rather than words: an eye-roll when a colleague starts talking in a meeting, a smirk at the mention of a project, or a quiet “hah” when a colleague’s name is mentioned. Contempt can also be much more direct. It might involve dismissive comments about someone’s ideas, mocking their mistakes, questioning their competence, or making insulting statements about their character.

It can also show up in the way we treat someone’s work, time or requests. Repeatedly ignoring a colleague’s emails or requests, failing to deliver something we have agreed to do, consistently missing deadlines without explanation, or treating another person’s priorities as unimportant can all communicate a similar message: your needs, your time or your work don’t matter enough to me.

And contempt isn’t necessarily directed at people. We can also develop contempt for ideas, decisions, processes or the organisation itself. We might routinely dismiss a particular process as “ridiculous”, roll our eyes whenever a certain procedure is mentioned, or talk about leadership, policies or other teams as though they are inherently incompetent. A degree of healthy scepticism is important in any organisation, and processes should absolutely be challenged when they aren’t working. But when criticism becomes habitual cynicism or blanket dismissal, it can have a similar corrosive effect.

This matters because contempt towards a process or decision can easily become contempt towards the people associated with it. “This process makes no sense” can gradually become “the people who designed this process have no idea what they’re doing.” Once that happens, it becomes much harder to have a constructive conversation about how the process could actually be improved.

Again, context is important. Everyone misses a deadline occasionally, forgets an email or has competing priorities. These behaviours become more significant when they form a repeated pattern.

The important thing is to look at the pattern and the message behind the behaviour. Healthy teams can use humour, challenge each other and disagree. Contempt is different because the humour or criticism is being used to diminish another person rather than address the issue.

When contempt is high, psychological safety is low

One of the challenges with contempt is that it can be easy to mistake it for a sign of a close, comfortable team. A team can look relaxed, confident and full of laughter on the surface while psychological safety is actually declining underneath.

A dismissive or cynical comment gets called “banter” or “team dynamics” and these comments can give the impression that psychological safety is high. After all, people are comfortable enough to joke, tease and challenge each other. But there is an important difference between banter that everyone enjoys and using humour to put ideas down or make people feel uncomfortable.

When contempt becomes part of a team’s culture, people start to censor themselves. They may stop sharing an idea or avoid asking a question because they don’t want to look foolish. If people feel they have to laugh along, stay quiet or avoid difficult conversations to belong, psychological safety is already low — however friendly the team might appear.

And this is where contempt becomes particularly damaging. It doesn’t just affect the person on the receiving end. It can change the behaviour of everyone watching. People learn what happens when someone speaks up, gets something wrong or challenges the status quo — and they adjust their own behaviour accordingly.

Contempt: How can we change our behaviour and mindset?

Treating someone with contempt and explaining it away with “Well, I was frustrated with him because of how the meeting went” is a tempting trap. We may have good reasons to be frustrated or disappointed but someone else’s behaviour does not make contempt inevitable — or excuse how we choose to treat others. Contempt comes from the way we see others and the way we choose to behave towards them.

Changing contempt is about choosing not to reduce a person or situation to our frustration. The first step is to separate the person from the problem. We can be deeply frustrated by someone’s behaviour without disrespecting or dismissing them.

That shift matters because it moves us away from judging the person and towards addressing the behaviour.

It also helps to challenge the story we have built around the other person. When repeated frustration turns into contempt, we start filtering everything they do through what we already believe about them. For example: A missed deadline becomes evidence that they are unreliable. Once we start seeing someone this way, it becomes much easier to respond with contempt.

It also means challenging our own assumptions. If we find ourselves thinking, “They never listen,” “They don’t care,” or “They often make things more complicated,” we can pause and ask ourselves whether we are responding to what is actually happening now or to a story we have built up over time.

We can also make a conscious effort to replace contempt with respect. Respect doesn’t require us to agree with someone, like their approach or overlook problems. We can challenge, disagree and hold people accountable while still treating them as someone whose perspective and dignity matter.

Changing contempt starts with recognising when frustration about someone’s behaviour has become a judgement about the person.

The mindset shift is from judgement to curiosity, and from the person being the problem to the problem being the problem.

Why do we stonewall?

  • We feel overwhelmed. Difficult conversations can trigger strong emotions, and sometimes our instinct is to shut down rather than risk saying something we will regret.
  • We’re trying to avoid conflict. If previous conversations have ended badly, avoiding the conversation can feel safer.
  • We feel criticised or attacked. When we feel blamed or judged, we may retreat as a way of protecting ourselves rather than continuing a conversation that feels threatening.
  • We don’t know what to say. Sometimes we genuinely don’t have an answer or don’t know how to respond, so silence feels easier.
  • We’re frustrated. If we believe we’ve already explained ourselves or that the other person isn’t listening, we may decide that there is no point continuing the conversation.
  • We want to regain control. Withdrawing from a conversation can sometimes be a way of taking back a sense of control when we feel powerless or uncomfortable.
  • It has become a habit. If withdrawing has worked for us in the past, we may start doing it automatically whenever a conversation becomes uncomfortable.
  • We’re using silence to punish or control. In some cases, stonewalling is deliberate. We may ignore messages, refuse to respond or deliberately withhold engagement because we want the other person to feel frustrated, excluded or powerless.

The important distinction is between taking a healthy pause and refusing to engage. Saying, “I’m getting frustrated and need 20 minutes to clear my head. Can we come back to this afterwards?” is very different from simply walking away, going silent and leaving the other person wondering whether the conversation will ever happen.

How does stonewalling show up in the workplace?

Stonewalling is the repeated pattern of withdrawing from communication or cooperation in a way that makes it difficult for the other person to move the conversation or work forward. When that happens, stonewalling becomes more than taking a break — it becomes a barrier that negatively impacts everyone in the team.

As with the other Horsemen, context and pattern matter. Not responding in a meeting doesn’t mean someone is stonewalling. Nor does taking a while to respond to an email. People get busy, need time to think and sometimes need a break from a difficult conversation. The difference is what happens next. A healthy pause has a way back in. We might say, “I need some time to get my thoughts straight on this. Can we pick it up tomorrow?” Stonewalling leaves the other person with no clear route back into the conversation.

Stonewalling can be obvious. Someone may simply refuse to engage in a conversation or make it clear that they are not prepared to discuss an issue. They refuse to answer when a question is asked or an issue is raised, walk away from a meeting when something difficult comes up, or shut down the conversation with comments such as, “I’m not discussing this,” “There’s nothing more to say,” or “Whatever.” They may deliberately stop speaking to a colleague altogether, or refuse to participate in a discussion, meeting or problem-solving process because they don’t want to engage with the person or the issue.

However, in the workplace, stonewalling can be much more subtle and can easily be mistaken for being busy, distracted or simply not interested. It might look like repeatedly putting off responding to messages or requests, particularly when they involve a difficult issue or a colleague we are frustrated with. We say, “Let’s talk about it later,” without ever making the time to do so. We might technically respond to a colleague, but give only one-word answers, vague replies or just enough information to end the conversation.

Stonewalling can also show up in how we collaborate. Following a disagreement, we stop offering ideas, contributing in meetings or engaging with a colleague’s work. We might withhold information, fail to provide input or delay completing something another colleague needs, without a legitimate reason.

Sometimes, nothing needs to be said at all. Avoiding eye contact, no longer acknowledging someone, or becoming noticeably colder towards them can communicate displeasure and create distance without a single word being spoken.

Stonewalling: How can we change our behaviour and mindset?

If we recognise stonewalling in the team, the first step is to understand what is happening before we try to change it. Are we genuinely overwhelmed and in need of a pause, or are we avoiding a conversation because it feels uncomfortable? Are we taking time to think, or are we using silence to punish, frustrate or control the other person?

If stonewalling has become part of a team’s way of dealing with conflict, changing it starts with creating a different expectation around difficult conversations. Taking a break from the situation / conversation shoFuld create space to think, not become a way of avoiding the issue. The goal is to create a team where people can take a pause, ask for time to think and step away when necessary — but where there is always a route back into the conversation.

The mindset shift is from avoidance to  engagement: “We need to find a way to stay engaged, even when the conversation is uncomfortable.”

This means making “I need some time to think” an acceptable response, while making sure that “I’ll get back to you” actually means something. If someone needs to step away from a difficult conversation, agree when and how it will be picked up again. A manager can model this themselves: “We’re not going to resolve this right now. Before everyone gets more frustrated, let’s take a break and come back to it at 3pm.”

 

Key takeaways

  • Contempt is more than frustration. It happens when frustration turns into judgement, dismissal or a belief that someone is not worthy of our respect.
  • Look for patterns, not isolated incidents. An eye-roll, missed deadline or delayed response doesn’t automatically mean contempt or stonewalling. Context and repetition matter.
  • Contempt is ours to own. Other people’s behaviour may frustrate or disappoint us, but it doesn’t excuse treating them with contempt. The change starts with the person showing it.
  • Healthy challenge isn’t contempt. Teams need to question decisions, challenge processes and disagree. The difference is whether we are addressing the issue or diminishing the person behind it.
  • A pause isn’t stonewalling. Taking time to calm down or think can be healthy. The important thing is to create a route back into the conversation.
  • Both behaviours affect more than the people involved. Contempt can undermine psychological safety, while stonewalling creates uncertainty and makes it harder for teams to communicate and collaborate.
  • The goal isn’t to avoid difficult conversations. It’s to stay respectful and engaged when those conversations become difficult.

 

by

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse at Work: Criticism and Defensiveness

,

This post explores the patterns behind the two “Horsemen” criticism and defensiveness— and offers practical ways to break the cycle.

  • Reading time
  • 8 Minutes
  • Target audience
  • Managers, team leaders and professionals who want to build more open, constructive and productive working relationships — particularly when conversations become difficult.

In our previous post, we introduced the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse — criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling — and looked at how these behaviours can undermine trust, communication and collaboration in the workplace. In this post, we’re going to take a closer look at the first two: criticism and defensiveness, and the relationship between them. We’ll explore why criticism and blame can so easily trigger defensiveness, and what we can do to break this pattern and have more constructive conversations at work.

Changing patterns of behaviour is about much more than finding the perfect words or following a set of communication rules. It starts with a shift in mindset — noticing our instinctive reactions and choosing a more constructive way to respond.

For criticism and defensiveness, that mindset shift can be summed up in two simple principles:

  • Criticism: Focus on the issue, not the person.
  • Defensiveness: Get curious before getting defensive.

New Call-to-action

Why do we criticise?

Often, criticism comes from perfectly understandable instincts:

  • We want things to improve. We notice a problem and point it out because we believe doing so will help.
  • We have high standards. We see what could be better and feel responsible for making sure standards are maintained.
  • We want to prevent mistakes. After something goes wrong, identifying what someone did incorrectly can feel like a way of stopping it happening again.
  • We’re frustrated. When the same problem happens repeatedly, our patience wears thin and our language can become more personal.
  • We feel threatened or challenged. Someone else’s mistake, different approach or disagreement can make us question our own position, competence or authority.
  • We’re trying to make sense of what happened. When something goes wrong, finding someone or something to blame can give us a simple explanation, even when the reality is more complicated.
  • It’s become a habit. Some people are naturally more focused on problems and gaps. If pointing out what’s wrong has worked for them in the past, it can become their default response.

Criticism: when does the pattern emerge?

1. When someone feels criticised

Criticism often starts with something legitimate. Someone misses a deadline, makes a mistake, doesn’t follow through on an agreement or approaches a task differently from how we expected. Raising the issue is perfectly reasonable. Having the conversation is necessary.

You don’t need to be communicating badly for the other person to experience criticism. Criticism is much more subtle — your words can be experienced as criticism even when you believe they are simply addressing a problem.

Imagine saying to someone: “The report was due yesterday, and I still haven’t received it. We need to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

On the surface, this is a reasonable conversation about performance and expectations. But imagine that to someone who already feels under pressure, it sounds like critisism: They think I’m unreliable. They don’t trust me to do my job.

That is an important distinction. Criticism is not only about the words that are used; it is also about the judgement the other person feels is being made about them.

The pattern can emerge when a person begins to feel that individual mistakes or behaviours are being interpreted as evidence of a wider problem with who they are, their competence or their commitment. Once that happens, even legitimate feedback can feel personal — and the receiver may become more concerned with defending their reputation than addressing the original issue.

2. When criticism becomes part of the team dynamic

Criticism can also emerge as a pattern between team members. It may start with legitimate differences of opinion, frustration about how work is being done or repeated problems with a colleague. Raising concerns and challenging each other is perfectly reasonable. In fact, healthy teams need people who are willing to do this.

The pattern emerges when criticism becomes a regular part of how people interact. One person may frequently point out another’s mistakes, question their decisions or focus on what they could have done better. The comments may not always be unreasonable, and the person making them may genuinely believe they are helping the team improve.

But when someone is repeatedly on the receiving end, the dynamic can change. They may start to feel that their work is being scrutinised, that their colleague is looking for faults, or that whatever they do will be judged. They become more cautious, less willing to share ideas or admit mistakes — and may start anticipating criticism before it even happens.

This can create a cycle. The more criticised someone feels, the more defensive they may become. The more defensive they become, the more the other person may feel that they are unwilling to listen, take responsibility or improve. And that can lead to even more criticism.

Over time, what began as an attempt to address individual issues can become a relationship pattern. The conversation is no longer simply about what happened; the people involved have developed expectations about each other.

The mindset shift here is to recognise when challenge has become criticism. Healthy teams need people who question, challenge and give feedback. But when one person consistently becomes the focus of another person’s criticism, it is worth stepping back and asking: Are we actually addressing the issue, or are we simply following a pattern that has developed between us?

3. When criticism is a personal habit

There’s probably someone in every team who has developed a habit of spotting what’s wrong. The person who is quick to point out the flaw in an idea, the mistake in a report or what could have been done better. They may be the first to ask, “But what about…?” or to explain why something won’t work.

And sometimes, they are right. They may a good eye for detail or a genuine desire to help the team avoid mistakes. Their intention may be to improve things, not to criticise people.

The pattern emerges when pointing out what’s wrong becomes their default response. Whatever the situation, the focus tends to go to the problem, the omission or the mistake. Over time, colleagues may start to anticipate the criticism and become less willing to share ideas, take risks or speak up.

The person doing the criticising may not even realise that this pattern is impacting the team. From their perspective, they may simply be contributing, being honest or making sure standards are maintained. But if the first response to an idea is always to find the flaw, it can have an impact on how others experience working with them.

The mindset shift is to become aware of that instinct and create some space before responding. Do I need to point this out right now? What else is worth noticing? And will what I’m about to say help the person or the team move forward?

When does criticism become one of the Four Horsemen?

It’s worth making a distinction here. Criticism isn’t the same as raising a concern, giving feedback or pointing out something that needs to improve. Teams need people who are willing to do all of these things.

Criticism becomes problematic when a concern about a specific behaviour starts to become a negative judgement about the person. Instead of focusing on what happened, we start making assumptions about who they are, their character, their competence or their intentions.

This is what makes criticism one of Gottman’s Four Horsemen. The problem isn’t that we notice faults or disagree with someone’s actions. It’s when the message shifts from “There’s a problem with what happened” towards “There’s a problem with you.”

That shift can be obvious, as in “You’re unreliable,” but it can also be much more subtle. A person can feel judged even when no explicit personal criticism is made. Context, tone, history and the relationship between the people involved can all influence how a comment is experienced.

And once criticism enters the interaction, it can easily trigger another of the Horsemen: defensiveness. When people feel that their competence, intentions or character are being questioned, protecting themselves can become more important than addressing the original issue.

Defensiveness: when does the pattern emerge?

Defensiveness is often an understandable response. When we feel criticised, blamed, misunderstood or unfairly judged, our instinct may be to protect ourselves. We explain, justify, correct the facts, point out what someone else did wrong or try to prove that we are not responsible.

The problem in teams is not necessarily the first defensive reaction. We all have moments when we feel the need to explain ourselves. The pattern emerges when protecting ourselves becomes more important than understanding what the other person is trying to tell us.

1. When we feel criticised or blamed

Defensiveness can be triggered surprisingly easily, particularly when we hear something that threatens our sense of competence, professionalism, good intentions or sense of self.

Any explanation that you give in defense may be completely valid. But if the conversation continues with more explanations, justifications or about whose fault it was, he original issue can quickly get lost. This is where defensiveness can become unhelpful. Instead of hearing the feedback and considering what might be useful in it, we become focused on not taking the blame or proving that we are not at fault.

And the more we feel the need to defend ourselves, the less space there is to be curious about the other person’s perspective. The mindset is to pause before defending and ask yourself: “What can I understand from what they’re saying?”

2. When defensiveness is part of the team dynamic

Defensiveness can also become a pattern between people. If one colleague regularly feels criticised by another, they may begin to expect criticism and automatically prepare to defend themselves. A simple question can then feel like a challenge. A request for an explanation can feel like an accusation. Feedback can feel like an attack.

The other person may notice this and become frustrated: “I can’t say anything without them getting defensive.” They may then become more direct, provide more evidence or push their point harder. In response, the other person becomes even more defensive.

Over time, both people can become locked into their roles. One becomes the person who is always “raising the issue”, while the other becomes the person who is always “making excuses”. Each sees their own behaviour as a reasonable response to the other.

The mindset shift here is to recognise when you’re no longer responding to what is being said, but to what you expect the other person to say. Before reacting, ask: “What are they actually saying right now?”

3. When defensiveness is a personal habit

There’s probably someone in every team who finds it difficult to receive feedback. Whatever the issue, they have an explanation. If something goes wrong, there is a reason. If someone raises a concern, they can quickly explain why it isn’t really their responsibility. Again, the explanations may be perfectly legitimate. Sometimes we genuinely are being misunderstood or unfairly blamed.

But if the instinctive response is always to explain, justify or counter, it can become a habit. Other people may eventually stop offering feedback because they expect a defensive response, or they may feel they need to build an increasingly strong case before raising an issue.

The person themselves may not recognise the pattern. From their perspective, they may simply be making sure the facts are understood or defending themselves against unfair criticism.

The mindset shift is to create some space between hearing something we disagree with and responding to it. Try asking a question before offering an explanation: “Can you tell me more about what you mean?” or “What was the impact from your perspective?”

You don’t have to agree with everything you hear. Getting curious simply gives you the opportunity to understand before you defend.

When does defensiveness become one of the Four Horsemen?

It’s worth making the same distinction here. Defending yourself isn’t necessarily a problem. If you’re being unfairly blamed or misunderstood, explaining your perspective is perfectly reasonable. We all need to be able to clarify facts, correct misunderstandings and challenge unfair assumptions.

Defensiveness becomes problematic when protecting ourselves takes priority over engaging with the issue. Instead of listening to what the other person is saying, we immediately justify our actions, explain why it wasn’t our fault, shift responsibility elsewhere or point out what the other person has done wrong.

This is what makes defensiveness one of Gottman’s Four Horsemen. It’s not simply about disagreeing or standing up for yourself. It’s about responding to a perceived criticism in a way that closes down the possibility of taking anything from the conversation.

And, like criticism, defensiveness doesn’t always have to be obvious. It can be subtle: “Yes, but…”, “I only did that because…”, “Nobody told me,” or “Well, you did exactly the same thing.” Each response may contain some truth. The question is whether we’re using that truth to understand the situation or to protect ourselves from having to engage with the feedback.

There is also a strong connection between the two behaviours. Criticism can trigger defensiveness, and defensiveness can trigger more criticism. One person feels judged and starts defending themselves; the other experiences that defence as unwillingness to listen or take responsibility and pushes harder. Before long, both people are responding to each other rather than addressing the original issue.

The mindset shift is therefore not “I must never defend myself.” It is: “Can I stay curious long enough to understand what is being said before I decide how I need to respond?”

What can a manager do when they see criticism and defensiveness within their team?

When criticism and defensiveness become part of a team dynamic, it can be tempting for a manager to step in and decide who is right. But this rarely solves the underlying problem. The more useful role is to help people recognise the pattern, understand what is happening and find a more constructive way forward.

Name the pattern, not the person

If you notice the same interaction happening repeatedly, describe what you are seeing without assigning blame. For example: “I’ve noticed that when this issue comes up, one of you raises the concern and the other immediately starts explaining why it happened. Then the concern gets repeated more strongly, and the conversation goes around in circles.”

This makes the pattern visible without labelling either person as “the critic” or “the defensive one”.

Bring the conversation back to the issue

When people become caught up in criticism and defensiveness, the original problem can disappear. Help them return to the specific issue: What happened? What was the impact? What does each person see differently? What needs to happen next?

Keeping the conversation grounded in facts and future actions can make it easier to move away from personal judgements and self-protection.

Give both sides space to be heard

It’s important that the person raising the concern feels able to do so, while the person receiving it has an opportunity to explain their perspective. One shouldn’t automatically cancel out the other.

Ask: “What do you need the other person to understand?” And then ask: “What would you like them to understand about your perspective?”

The aim is to make sure both people understand what the other is experiencing.

Challenge the behaviour when necessary

Sometimes the manager needs to be more direct. If criticism becomes personal or dismissive, address it. If someone repeatedly refuses to engage with legitimate feedback, address that too.

The message can be simple: “It’s okay to challenge the feedback. It’s not okay to dismiss the person giving it.”

Or: “You can explain your perspective, but I also need you to consider the feedback rather than immediately explaining why it isn’t your responsibility.”

This reinforces an important distinction: being accountable and being blamed are not the same thing, and being challenged is not the same as being attacked.

Help people change the pattern

Finally, don’t expect one conversation to fix an established dynamic. If criticism and defensiveness have become habitual, people may need to practise responding differently.

Encourage small mindset shifts: focus on the issue rather than the person; get curious before becoming defensive; ask questions before making assumptions; and pause when emotions start to take over.

The manager’s role is to create a team where people can notice these patterns, interrupt them and get back to having the conversation that actually needs to happen.

Key takeaways

  • Criticism isn’t the same as feedback. Healthy teams need people who can raise concerns, challenge ideas and address problems. Criticism becomes problematic when the focus shifts from the behaviour to a judgement about the person.
  • Criticism can be experienced even when it isn’t intended. Context, tone, history and relationships all influence how feedback is received. A reasonable comment can still feel personal to someone who already feels under pressure or judged.
  • Criticism and defensiveness can create a cycle. One person feels criticised and becomes defensive; the other experiences that defensiveness as unwillingness to listen and pushes harder. Recognising the cycle is the first step towards breaking it.
  • Defensiveness is often a protective response. Explaining yourself or correcting a misunderstanding isn’t inherently defensive. The problem comes when protecting ourselves becomes more important than listening to what the other person is saying.
  • Patterns can become automatic. Criticism and defensiveness can develop into habits within individuals, relationships and teams. Once a pattern is established, people may start reacting to what they expect rather than to what is actually being said.
  • Curiosity creates space for a different response. Before defending yourself, try to understand the other person’s perspective. You don’t have to agree with the feedback to be curious about it.
  • Managers don’t need to decide who is right. When criticism and defensiveness become a team pattern, a manager can help people name the pattern, return to the issue and find a more constructive way forward.
  • The goal isn’t to eliminate disagreement. Successful teams need challenge, feedback and accountability. The goal is to make sure these don’t become personal — and that people can address difficult issues without damaging the relationships they depend on.
  • The mindset shift is simple, but not always easy: focus on the issue, not the person; and get curious before getting defensive.
by

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse at Work: 4 Behaviours That Can Damage Relationships

,

This post explores the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse — four behaviours that can quietly undermine teamwork — and shares practical tips for recognising them and turning difficult conversations into more constructive ones.

  • Reading time
  • 7 Minutes
  • Target audience
  • Team leaders, managers and professionals who want to build healthier, more effective teams.

Beyond clear goals, good processes and effective leadership (among other things), the quality of the relationships within the team is fundamental to its health and success. Healthy teams are able to disagree, challenge ideas and have difficult conversations. When people feel able to speak openly, listen to different perspectives and address problems constructively, disagreements can lead to better decisions and stronger relationships. When those interactions become personal, defensive or dismissive, the same conversations can gradually erode trust and collaboration.

Of course, communicating well is relatively easy when things are going well. Most teams can share information, coordinate tasks and have constructive conversations when there’s little at stake. The real test comes when the conversation is difficult — when someone has made a mistake, expectations haven’t been met, opinions clash or emotions start to run high. It’s in these moments that the quality of our working relationships really shows.

New Call-to-action

Psychologist and relationship researcher John Gottman identified four behaviours that can be particularly damaging to relationships: criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling. He called them the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.”

Gottman developed this framework through research into intimate relationships rather than workplace teams, so we shouldn’t assume that his findings automatically apply to the world of work. However, the four behaviours themselves are surprisingly familiar in professional settings — and they offer a useful way of recognising patterns that can undermine trust, communication and teamwork.

This 2-minute video introduces them nicely.

So, what are the Four Horsemen — and what do they look like in a workplace?

The Four Horsemen are four patterns of behaviour that can gradually undermine relationships: criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling.

They don’t necessarily appear in every difficult conversation, and seeing one of them occasionally doesn’t mean a team has a serious problem. The concern is when these behaviours become habitual responses to disagreement, frustration or conflict.

So, what do they look like in practice?

The Four Horsemen can show up in surprisingly ordinary workplace conversations. Often, they’re not dramatic. They can be as simple as the way we phrase a comment, respond to feedback or react when someone challenges our point of view.

Criticism turns a discussion about a problem into an attack on the person. Instead of addressing what happened, we focus on what’s supposedly wrong: “You never listen,” “You always make things more complicated,” or “You’re not taking this seriously.”

Defensiveness is what happens when we respond to a perceived criticism by protecting ourselves rather than engaging with the issue. We make excuses, shift the blame or explain why it wasn’t really our responsibility: “It wasn’t my fault,” “Nobody told me,” or “What about the three times you did the same thing?”

Contempt goes a step further. It communicates that we see ourselves as superior to the other person. Sarcasm, ridicule, eye-rolling, dismissive comments, etc.

Stonewalling is withdrawing from a conversation rather than engaging with it. In the workplace, this can mean going silent, avoiding a difficult discussion, refusing to respond to concerns, or simply disengaging when things become uncomfortable.

Why the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse matter in the workplace

We have all probably displayed these 4 toxic behaviours at some point. We’re human, and difficult conversations can bring out the worst in us, particularly when we’re under pressure, frustrated or feeling challenged.. And whether you want to call them “the 4 horsemen” or “the 4 team toxins”, these behaviours matter in the workplace – and in a very tangible way.

The problem isn’t an occasional moment of criticism, defensiveness, contempt or withdrawal. The real concern is when these behaviours become patterns — ways of responding to disagreement or difficult conversations that people come to expect from one another.

And those patterns matter.

When the quality of interpersonal relationships starts to deteriorate, communication usually suffers too. People become less willing to speak openly, share ideas or raise concerns. Collaboration becomes harder, misunderstandings increase and problems that could have been resolved quickly are left to grow.

Over time, this can affect much more than the atmosphere in the team. Tasks and projects can take longer, quality can suffer and productivity can decline. Motivation, commitment and team spirit can erode, while frustration and destructive conflict become more common.

At its worst, a team can reach a point where people no longer feel respected, heard or valued. Stress increases, good people disengage, and eventually some may decide that they’ve simply had enough.

If we want teams to perform at their best, we need to pay attention not just to what people are saying, but to how they communicate when things get challenging. The Four Horsemen give us a useful framework for recognising those patterns — and, importantly, for doing something about them.

What can managers do about the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse?

Identifying these behaviours is a useful first step. The next step is to learn to shift your mindset when necessary and respond differently.

1. Focus on the issue, not the person

When you’re frustrated, it’s easy to turn a specific problem into a judgement about someone’s character. Instead of thinking “Why are they always so defensive?”, try asking: “What exactly is the problem here, and what do we need to resolve?” This helps you move away from criticism and towards a conversation about facts, impact and solutions.

2. Get curious before getting defensive

When someone challenges you or gives you difficult feedback, your first instinct may be to explain, justify or defend yourself. Try pausing and asking: “What can I learn from what they’re saying?”

You don’t have to agree with everything you hear. Staying curious simply gives you a chance to understand the other person’s perspective before you respond.

3. Assume positive intent — but address negative impact

Not every difficult comment is meant badly. And even well-intentioned people can have a negative impact. Rather than judging someone’s motives, consider: “What might they have intended, and what was the impact?” This can help prevent conversations from becoming personal while still allowing you to address behaviour that needs to change.

4. Stay respectful when you disagree

Disagreement doesn’t have to mean disrespect. In fact, successful teams need people who are willing to challenge ideas and offer different perspectives. Try separating the idea from the person. You can strongly disagree with a proposal while still showing respect for the person who made it.

5. Don’t confuse taking a break with walking away

Sometimes a difficult conversation becomes too emotional or unproductive to continue. Taking some time out can be a healthy choice — provided you come back to the conversation. Instead of shutting down or avoiding the issue, try: “I think we need a bit of time to cool down. Can we come back to this at 3pm?” The mindset shift is from “I need to get out of this conversation” to “I need to pause so we can have a better conversation.”

6. Ask yourself what you are contributing

The Four Horsemen aren’t just something we need to spot in other people. We should also be willing to recognise them in ourselves. When a conversation starts going badly, ask yourself: “What am I doing right now that is helping — or making things worse?” That small pause can be enough to change the direction of a conversation.

7. Replace “winning” with “understanding”

Difficult workplace conversations can easily become about proving that we’re right, defending our position or getting the other person to admit they’re wrong.

A more productive question is: “What would a good outcome for both of us look like?” That doesn’t mean compromising on everything. It means approaching the conversation as a shared problem to solve rather than a competition about who’s right.

Key takeaways

  • Healthy teams don’t avoid difficult conversations. They create an environment where people can disagree, challenge ideas and raise concerns respectfully.
  • The Four Horsemen are behaviours, not labels. We can all become critical, defensive, dismissive or withdrawn when we’re under pressure. The important thing is to recognise the pattern and change our response.
  • Pay attention to patterns, not isolated incidents. An occasional difficult interaction is normal. It’s when unhelpful behaviours become habitual that they can start to damage trust and collaboration.
  • Focus on the issue, not the person. Address what happened, its impact and what needs to change rather than making it about someone’s character or intentions.
  • Stay curious when you feel challenged. You don’t have to agree with someone to listen, understand their perspective and consider what you might learn.
  • Disagreement and respect can coexist. Successful teams need different opinions. The goal isn’t to eliminate conflict, but to handle it constructively.
  • Take a pause when necessary — but don’t avoid the conversation. Stepping away can help people reset. The important thing is to return and engage.
  • Look at your own behaviour too. The Four Horsemen aren’t just something to spot in other people. Ask yourself what you are contributing to the conversation.
  • Aim for understanding, not winning. The best difficult conversations aren’t about proving who is right. They’re about finding a way forward that allows the team and the working relationship to succeed.
by

What is active listening, how do I develop it and should I be making little noises?

Listening skills are an integral part of many of our training solutions, e.g.  Influencing, Managing Conflict and Facilitating meetings all include practical components on listening skills. However, we had a rare request from a pharmaceutical client seeking training focusing solely on active listening for their senior managers.  The new board member strongly believed that improving her manager’s listening skills would have a major impact on the quality of relationships and the effectiveness of her team. And she was right … the seminar started and almost immediately, one manager asked me, “Active listening – that’s just when you make little noises, right?”

Writing emails that people read: Free eBook download

What is active listening?

Our tactful answer was “not quite”.  Active listening (as the name suggests) is when you actively and fully concentrate on what is being said, rather than just passively hearing the words.  Communication theory breaks what is being said into two elements – the content and the context. Content is the what – the data, the facts, the information etc. Context refers to everything else that is going on when somebody speaks with you – the relationship, the background, the situation, the emotions etc.  Active listening involves paying close attention to the content being shared AND the contextual components between the listener (the receiver) and the speaker (the sender). Skilled active listeners can hear the what PLUS interest, emotion, concern, energy and other contextual factors from the speaker’s perspective. And they can hear what isn’t being said.

Why invest energy and effort in building your active listening skills?

The benefits of active listening are many.  To start with you’ll hear more … much more. You can enrich your understanding through gathering information and understanding the emotions. You will ask better questions through noticing the speaker’s possible intent, and not only their words. It helps you avoid or diffuse conflicts. Better listening means that solutions and discussion are stronger. Active listening is a building block for open, trusting and accountable relationships.

7 practical tips for active listening

Pay attention

I mean REALLY pay attention to what is being said. Put aside distracting thoughts, try to block out environmental factors (side conversations, people watching etc) and listen holistically.

Know your obstacles to listening

Everyone is guilty of having “inner conversations” when listening – and whether it be judging, dreaming, solving or rehearsing what you want to say these common obstacles get in the way of active listening. Check out this blog post for more information or download the .pdf version here.

Develop countermeasures for your obstacles

Self talk to interrupt your distraction and refocus and internal paraphrasing can help. Basically, this sounds like you telling yourself “Stop it and focus on them not you”

Listen for context

Approach a meeting with listening tasks such as learning the interests of others in the room and listening for the valued being created in the conversation.

Dialogue approach

Listen with a mind to understand what is being said and not judge what is being said.

Listen with your eyes

Listen to what they are saying, how they are saying it, “listen” to their body language and “listen” to their eyes.

Provide feedback

It is incredibly difficult not to filter, assume or judge when we listen. As an active listener your role is just to listen. Reflecting, restating and asking questions are essential – just make sure you are doing this to check you are understanding the content and context and not to discuss, negotiate, argue, influence, correct etc.

So should I be making little noises when I actively listen, or not ?

Of course we also send messages when we listen IF we listen actively and affectively. In western cultures we expect some feedback from our listeners that indicates interest, from non-verbal messages such as nodding, smiles, eye contact and posture to small verbal comments like “uh huh” or “ “I see”. Do keep in mind thought that not every culture listens in the same way – and likewise not every individual listens in the same way.  A lack of “ums” and “aahs” doesn’t always mean somebody is not listening.

To wrap up

Active listening helps you to create an environment that supports deeper, more honest and authentic communication. Whether you are managing people, negotiating, discussing, influencing, problem solving, why wouldn’t you invest the energy and effort in becoming a better listener?

FOR MORE INFORMATION

by

DEEP accountability conversations – How to hold your colleagues accountable

According to Shelly Setzer of the Table Group, peer-to-peer accountability is “probably the toughest behavior to master on a team”. And as cross functional, matrix and virtual teams are becoming the norm, holding each other accountable to team goals and commitments is becoming even more challenging.. As a team member, you aren’t “the boss”, which means you don’t have the levers of reward and coercion and in some cases, your team may just be one among many for your team members. So how exactly do you approach conversations with colleagues who aren’t doing what they said they would do, without the benefit of formal power ? This is where the DEEP model comes in. The DEEP model is designed to help you have a clear approach to tough accountability conversations. It helps you and your team focus on solutions when accountability problems arise. These kinds of conversations are rarely easy, but with DEEP you can approach them with confidence.


Contact us now

hbspt.cta.load(455190, ‘7813087e-b095-4d57-a251-222b117a6cc4’, {});


Requirements for the DEEP approach

You need clear commitments with the team (not tacit, unconfirmed agreements). Your colleagues need to trust your intentions and believe you have their and the projects interest at heart.  You need to foster a climate of creative conflict so everyone can be heard and see themselves reflected in team decisions. AND most of all, you need the courage to have what is often a tough conversation. Tough conversations are … tough. There are no tricks or techniques that make them less so, but here are 3 fundamentals to consider:

  • Turn up – Be present in the conversation, shut out unhelpful self-talk, keep control of yourself and focus on the conversation and the outcome.
  • Stay there – Show you are committed to the conversation. Don’t cut it short when things get awkward.
  • Speak out – say what you think and feel and take responsibility for your words.

The DEEP model, step by step

Step 1 – Describe the situation – What happened as I see it

This is a review of the commitment and shortfall without judgment.  Stick with “I” statements rather than “you” statements and try to describe the process that led to the commitment. If you can’t bring up the shortfall without becoming too emotional and judging your conversation partner, then ask yourself 2 questions:

  • Is the timing right?
  • Am I the right person to have this accountability conversation?

Step 2 – Explain the consequences – The result of what happened

The consequences of the shortfall you mention here should be concrete and observable. What actually happened because they didn’t meet their commitment is far more important than what could happen. Finding consequences your partner already cares about adds impact.

Step 3 -Explore options – What we can do about it

Generate at least three options when considering what to do. The “at least three” is very important – is helps you to avoid binary thinking and unnecessarily taking a position.  Brainstorming options together is critical.  The together points you both in the same direction, reaffirms the “team” and ensures you are on the same page before assessing your options, Make it a distinct step with a marker e.g. “Ok, together let’s now brainstorm what we can do” – this moves your conversation forward.

Step 4 – Problem solve together – What we will do about it

Decide and commit to new behaviors. It can be important to find ways you too can commit to the correction of the shortfall and the development of your relationship. Accountability for behaviors is tough so why should only one person carry the weight? Finding ways to help each other will not only help you to implement a solution, it will also help you to increase your level of trust.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

We offer a range of leadership and team building seminars, for example:

These posts might be of interest to you:

by

Apologizing via email – phrases

,

Being wrong doesn’t feel like anything, and there’s nothing wrong with being wrong. It happens to everybody. Realizing you’ve made a mistake can be difficult and perhaps embarrassing – I’ve been there – but letting others know that you got it wrong is important to healthy relationships. You can do this in person, on the phone, by email, WhatsApp, a personal note or a post-it. Every medium has a different impact, every person has different preferences on how they want to receive/give an apology. In the end, just remember, apologizing is going to make you seem human, regardless of the outcome.


Writing emails that people read: Free eBook download



When is an apology via email appropriate?

It’s not always possible or practical to meet someone in person. Apologizing on the phone can be difficult if you don’t know the other person, or if you’re just not very good at apologizing over the phone.

But, when: …

  • Time is of the essence
  • You want everyone to get the same apology at the same time
  • You have a lot to say
  • Your apology is formal
  • You want or expect very little to nothing in return

…then an email might be appropriate.

The perfect apology

I found this via Google. If your apology contains the following…:

  • give a detailed account of the situation
  • acknowledge the hurt or damage done
  • take responsibility
  • recognize your/the company’s role in the situation
  • include a statement of regret
  • ask for forgiveness
  • promise that it won’t happen again
  • provide a form of restitution (if possible)

… it’s pretty much a perfect business apology. Here are a few phrases to get you started, related to some of the above categories:

Apologize

  1. Please accept my apologies.
  2. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to..
  3. (I’m) sorry. I didn’t realize the impact of…
  4. Please accept our deepest apologies for…
  5. Please accept my sincere apologies for…
  6. Please accept this as my formal apology for…
  7. Please allow me to apologize for…
  8. I would like to express my deep regrets for…
  9. I would like to apologize on behalf of our company.
  10. Please accept my apology for…
  11. I apologize for my failure to…
  12. I’m particularly sorry for…

Acknowledge/recognize

  1. We appreciate that this caused you inconvenience…
  2. I understand that our actions meant…
  3. I can imagine that you felt like…
  4. We see that our actions impacted you unnecessarily…
  5. As a result of our decision, our relationship was affected…

Explain

  1. In our efforts to optimize our distribution process, we overlooked…
  2. The defect/problem was caused by…
  3. The error was due to…
  4. Our internal communication failed. As a result…

Promise

  1. We’re convinced that the changes we’ve implemented will prevent this from happening again.
  2. In the future, our focus will be on…, so that this situation won’t repeat itself.
  3. We’ll be increasing our efforts when it comes to…, so that in the future…
  4. We’ve increased our efforts to ensure that…
  5. I can promise you that the highest quality standards will be met going forward.

The SPASS model

When it comes to writing the email, structuring your email can be difficult. The SPASS model is perfect for email apologies. It’s simple and easy to remember. SPASS = Situation – Problem – Action – Say Sorry. That’s it. Finally, I apologize for keeping you from what you were doing, with another very long post.

Be great!

 

by

Don’t sweat it – everybody’s wrong sometimes, even your boss

In this video, Kathryn Schultz tells us that by the time we’re nine years old, we have already learned that the best way to succeed in life is to never be wrong. You should watch the video if you want to know how she came to that conclusion and a few others – when you have ten minutes.

Everybody’s wrong sometimes

Some of Kathryn’s words (if you don’t have time to watch it right now), and main points are:

  • Realizing you’re wrong can make you feel embarrassed or stupid, but being wrong itself doesn’t feel like anything.
  • The first thing we usually do when someone disagrees with us is we just assume they’re ignorant.
  • The second is that they’re idiots.
  • Then we move on to a third assumption: they know the truth, and they are deliberately distorting it for their own malevolent purposes.

There’s nothing wrong with being wrong

Assuming that Kathryn’s assumptions are correct, you can see why telling someone that they’re wrong could prove to be the biggest mistake you’ve ever made – all depending on who is on the receiving end of course. Now, let’s say that person is your boss, your teamleader, or anyone in your company with more authority. Speaking for myself and my conflict avoiding personality – Difficult conversations always have a moment or two where I say completely the wrong thing. To others, determining to even speak to the boss about being wrong is enough to bring on sleepless nights.

Before you do decide to confront the person who was wrong, consider this:

Don’t pick the wrong battles

To speak up or not to speak up about it? I don’t know, is it worth it and/or important?

Don’t talk about the wrong thing at the wrong time

Stick to the topic, make the time to have a proper conversation (in private) and give your boss time to prepare.

Don’t say the wrong things

It’s just not the right time to say things like “I told you so” or “I knew this would happen” and to place blame. It’s already done, who cares? How can we fix it?

The DESC model

Once you’re ready to have the conversation, you can use the DESC model to structure your message – positively. This assertiveness model is perfect for giving negative feedback or criticism. It’s simple and it works. It’s for this reason that participants in our “Practical Toolbox for Managers” seminars often highlight DESC as one of the most valuable tools they take away.

Description – In a private setting, start by describing what you have observed. It’s important to be objective and concrete at this stage. Take responsibility for the feedback by using “I” statements.

Effect / emotion – Once you have described what you observed, move on to the effect or impact this has had. If the effect was an emotion, share this openly. Feedback is always personal in the sense that it is between people about people. Emotions play a part in interpersonal relationships and by naming them and getting them out into the open, you can deal with them in an professional manner.

Solution – Now move on to what you like to see happen. This could be directive e.g. “What I would like you to do next time is …”. Even better, build the solution together using a participative approach e.g. “What do you think we can do to avoid this next time?”.

Conclusion (commitments and contract) – End your feedback conversation by building a “contract of commitment”. Check you have a mutually common understanding of what has been agreed, and get commitment for the future. Then conclude looking forward.

The 6 most horrific bosses of all time

I did some Googling on this topic. With any luck, your boss is nothing like these bosses were...so go ahead and have your conversation – you have nothing to loose. And finally, here are 10 things a good boss would never say. Enjoy.

 

 

 

 

 

by

Practical questions for analysing and resolving conflict at work

A study in Europe, the US and Brazil revealed that 67% of employees avoided colleagues due to bad feelings lingering from conflicts and that 27% of employees have witnessed workplace conflicts turning into personal attacks.

Over the years working with project managers on resolving conflicts, I’ve developed simple and practical approach to handling conflicts at work. The dictionary defines conflict as ‘a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one’. A conflict at work is more than just a difference of opinion with a colleague. There is an emotional component and you feel a tightness in your guts, a knot in your stomach.

The 4 main causes of conflict

“What triggered the conflict?” is the most important place to start. Here are the 4 largest causes of conflicts in the workplace.

  • Goals The cause of the conflict is mainly about goals. Imagine a strategy discussion where one manager wants to focus on client relationships, the other on improving on the website.
  • Resources Here we are talking about resources, often people and budget. Manager “A” wants people for a project team, Manager “B” does not want to release anyone. Or this budget increases, whilst another is cut.
  • Processes It’s not unusual the managers will often disagree on methods and procedures. One manager wants to run the project on Prince2 principles, the other on the principle of whatever works, works.
  • People This is about people and relationships. If you have a good working relationship with the other party, you probably do not have a conflict. If you disrespect or dislike the other party, you will have conflict. And this problem isn’t necessarily resolved – even when agreement on goals, resources and processes is possible.

Using a practical format for analysing conflicts

Here’s a simple preparation format for analysing a conflict and preparing for the discussion. In other words, you buy time before addressing the issue and “the other party”.

Consider the following questions:

  1. What’s it all about and how did it happen? (History)
  2. Who is involved and affected, apart from you and the other party? (Stakeholders)
  3. How far has the conflict gone? (Escalation)
  4. What triggered the conflict? (Causes)
  5. Has anything been done to settle the issue? (Potential solutions)
  6. What do you (and the other party) want to achieve? (Goals)
  7. Do you have any ideas for approaching the other party? (Strategy)

Solving conflicts starts with reflecting and analysing…

Solving conflicts is tough and draining for everyone. Managing conflicts is a concrete and valuable skill – and one which you can develop. Analysing a conflict may help you see that it is more a difference of opinion and judgement, not necessarily a conflict. But it can also make you see discussing resources and procedures is a smoke screen and a diversion from the root conflict, your relationship to the other party.

…and it finishes with engaging, listening and resolving

Practical issues are more easily addressed; relationship issues are trickier to talk about. The above analysis questions will always clarify where the conflict is coming from and therefore make it easier to generate solutions. It will often indicate that the root cause is personal, i.e. resentment, envy, or even chemistry. So can you put your emotions on the back burner and seek a common solution that benefits your organisation? Are you prepared to talk frankly with the other party and clear the air?

 

by

Tips and tricks for delivering bad news from a famous baseball coach

,

Is it ever possible to give bad news in a good way?

Some would argue not. Having started my working life around three months before the Global Economic Crisis hit, and watching colleague after colleague being made redundant throughout the media industry, I certainly would never have wanted to swap places with the people who had to give the bad news to their employees over and over during that time.

But while over time, some colleagues remembered the action of being made redundant, for others the way they were told stuck in their minds longer than the pain of having to pack up their things and reconsider their lives at a moments’ notice. If you have to deliver bad news, it will always be tough, but the aim is to do it in a way which leaves the bad memory without you in it.

Some of my participants are controllers. Delivering bad news is one of the challenges they find extremely difficult to overcome in English. While one popular theory is that giving negative feedback to English speakers might follow a hamburger approach – i.e., give some positive feedback (the top bun), followed by the negative (the meat), and finished with a positive plan for the future (the bottom bun), in my experience most employees value honesty far more than any trick designed to make them feel better. There is a need to be respectful, but a positive bun full of too much sugar won’t cut it when the negative meat needs to be delivered hard and fast.

xmas

Free Download

33 ways of saying Merry Christmas to colleagues, customers, suppliers and close contacts

“Would you rather get a bullet in the head or five to the chest and bleed to death?”

Billy Beane summed it up well in the movie Moneyball, when he taught his intern Peter Brand how to cut players from their team. “Would you rather get a bullet in the head or five to the chest and bleed to death?”, he asks when discussing the prospect of firing someone. There are a number of things to be learned from the tactic Billy uses throughout the movie, who in real life was lauded for his business sense within the sport of baseball. They would include the following:

1. Understand who you’re talking to

When giving negative news to a baseball player, you might need to sweeten it less than when giving it to a secretary renowned for being slightly sensitive to change. What are the main personality traits of the person you are talking to from your experience? Are they culturally inclined to handle the truth quickly? Do your research first on who they are are you will get a better idea how to handle the situation.

2. Sugar coating the truth doesn’t make it better

Saying nice things around the bad news won’t make the person feel better. Some cultures don’t use imperatives nearly as often as others (i.e. I hear German clients saying ‘do this please” while British clients might say “could you do this please?’), but all cultures value honesty. Keep your wording polite but also keep the sentences short and to the point.

3. Don’t mislead in the hopes of saving someone from bad news

At all times, the aim should be to give all the information you have and in the simplest way to understand. Like ripping off a bandaid, it will hurt less in the long run. People always find out the truth one way or another if you try to embellish the reasons behind the bad news. If you don’t know the answer to something, say so!

4. Keep it short

People don’t appreciate receiving emails with three paragraphs giving them the important news right in the last paragraph. They don’t appreciate the meetings that go for what feels like an eternity before having bad news dropped right at the end like a bomb. Give the bad news quickly and succinctly and then allow time afterwards for explanations and questions. In my first job, when we found out 30% of our department had been made redundant – explaining why they weren’t in the meeting – I certainly appreciated getting the news first up without a long winded explanation first.

5. Be confident

Billy oozes confidence throughout Moneyball and it’s one of the reasons he was so successful at his craft; and he shows in this clip that the second you are on the back foot after giving negative information, you will fall into a hole that is difficult to get out of. Be confident in what you are delivering and why you have to say it, even if you are faking it. Practice beforehand if you find it difficult.

How do you deliver bad news?

An exercise I often do with my clients is to watch the video and discuss whether they think it’s a good way to deliver bad news to their English speaking co-workers and how they think this method is effective or ineffective. While it is certainly an extreme way to deliver such news; direct, honest and without any flowery language around the sides as Peter quickly learns and applies; it is a good example of showing that cultural stereotypes don’t always apply when you need to tell someone something they don’t want to hear.

What tactics have you found to be helpful when delivering bad news? Would you give it like Billy does in Moneyball? Comment below with your feedback.

by

Change Management: 3 Tips on Dealing with Resistance

Change management is something we all have to deal with on a daily basis.  It would be nice if all of our ideas were easily put into action without any people resisting the change.  These “resisters” can fight change for many reasons: they are comfortable with how things are, they have different ideas, they don’t see your issue as a priority at this point, etc.  No matter the reason, we have to find ways to get the resisters on our side in order to implement the change we feel will benefit our department, or company as a whole.  You may think it is easier to ignore these people, but that may lead to problems in the future.

3 problems that can arise if you don’t deal with resisters

  1. The transition is slowed down.  When you are looking to implement a new process, the speed of transition is important.  The longer it takes to implement the new process and get people trained on how to use it, the more expensive it is.  The sooner everyone is on board, the better.
  2. People working against you and your change.  If you don’t get buy-in early from people, some may make it a point to make the change difficult to carry out and work with the new process.  This will cause the change to be seen as something that made things more difficult, instead of bringing about positive results as planned.
  3. Future buy-in issues.  If someone resists change on one project, they are likely to do the same for future initiatives you may introduce.  Things may become personal and what may seem to be small issues, can turn into regular resistance in the future.

So, not addressing those who are resisting change early enough can lead to a number of negative outcomes.  How do we deal with resisters, then?

3 solutions to deal with resisters

  1. Use another tactic.  Take the time to listen to the “resisters” and find out what is important to them.  Take this information and shift the focus of your change a bit to take their preferences into account.  If you make an effort to show them you are working together, they will be more likely to buy in and support your efforts.
  2. Start low.  If upper management is resisting your change, then start from the bottom and move your way up.  Building support at levels below you, as well as at your level, may allow you to gain strengths in numbers.  Then you can go to management and restate your case.
  3. Make friends with those closest to your resisters.  By befriending administrative assistants, co-workers, and people who report directly to those who are resisting your change, you can share your ideas and increase the chances of getting your message across.  People listen to and trust ideas coming from close colleagues or friends.

Once you try one, or more, of the possible solutions, you will start to see some positive results.

3 possible outcomes from dealing effectively with resisters 

  1. You will turn adversaries into allies.  The more people that are working with you, as opposed to against you, at work will allow you to get more things done.  Plus it provides for a more comfortable working environment.
  2. You will be seen as more credible and competent.  If you can implement change quickly and effectively, you will be seen as a good leader and someone who can get things done.  This can lead to a number of great career opportunities in the future.
  3. Your company culture will be more open to change.  People naturally resist change, but once they embrace some change, it is then easier to embrace more and more.  A company culture that is open to change is open to progress which can lead to better business results.

Change management will always include dealing with those who resist change.  Try a few of the solutions above and let us know what worked for you in the comments area below.  Also, click here for more information on Target Training’s seminars designed to help you handle conflict within your organization.

 

by