People often avoid tackling tense issues head on because they fear they will make the situation worse. Negative past experiences have convinced them that direct communication is too risky, or that they lack the ability to navigate emotionally choppy seas. Rather than risk an explosive situation, which they fear they cannot handle, they resort to withdrawal, or backstabbing. However, in this chapter you will learn a potent, safe technique. You will never again have to sidestep an issue of importance at work or home. You can address tough issues, clear the air, and feed the dog of appreciation at the same time. It’s a very powerful experience.

We’ll go through an overview of the five steps and then you’ll have a chance to sketch out a dialogue about a situation you’d like to improve.

Let’s revisit three important pieces of information. John Gottman found that conversations end in the same energy they begin, 96 percent of the time. Harsh setups trigger harsh endings, and conversations that open in appreciation, almost always end in the same tone. Using biofeedback data, the HeartMath group found that when people feel and speak with appreciation their body rhythms become coherent, and they experience a synchronization of emotional, physical, and intellectual rhythms that allow them to perform at their best. In this physiological state, individuals are relaxed, clear, and receptive.

Think about the finding discussed in Chapter Two that feelings of shame, which are usually the result of an attack on the person, not a specific behavior, actually provoke more anger toward others and do little or nothing to bring about an improvement in behavior.

To be effective, in opening dialogue we will utilize the findings of these researchers: the power of warmth, calm, and avoiding shame.

I watched my friend Bob Larrington demonstrate the power of appreciation perfectly. Bob farms with his family in South Dakota, and he was one of the best parents I ever had the pleasure of observing.

Many years ago he was out in the yard with his 7-year-old son, Tommy. Bob was seated on the tractor, anxious to get to his work in the field, while Tommy was running around the yard playing with the family dog. Bob glanced in Tommy’s direction and gave him a warning about playing too closely to the auger, a dangerous, rotating conveyer belt that is used to move grain. Tommy paid no attention to his dad’s instructions, as he was entirely focused on his playful pal. Bob stopped the tractor, climbed down, sat on the edge of the tiller and called his son over.

My heart froze. I adored Tommy, and he had disobeyed his dad. I expected Bob to yell at him, scold him harshly, or even shake him. Instead, Bob put Tommy gently on his lap, circled his arm around him protectively and asked, “Tommy, what did daddy tell you to do?”

I was mesmerized. I had never observed anyone parenting in such a loving, gentle fashion. I witnessed the two of them wrapped in this warm connection as Bob calmly explained the dangers of Tommy not listening to his dad. Bob had Tommy’s total attention as Tommy melted into the curvature of his dad’s powerful arms.

Bob could not have claimed this child’s rapt attention if he had flooded. However, with a gentle approach, clearly based on Bob’s love for his young son, the father was building a strong connection and thus increasing the possibility that Tommy would respond to his dad’s concerns.

In the workplace, you can hardly sit down on the edge of the desk and invite a colleague to sit on your lap while you wrap them in a loving embrace! However, you can create a climate of relaxation and acceptance by starting with a positive statement of appreciation.

Remember, people need to feel accepted before they will change. As my friend and client, a vice president of IT (and a man with staggering intellect) said, “I became effective in dealing with other people after I realized I had the most impact when I was the least threatening.”

A project manager at a large construction firm, Fran, gave me this example of how appreciation can break through tension.

She and another project manager were in a meeting with two architects from an outside firm. The four of them were responsible for a joint project, but they had been unable to come to an agreement about a variety of complex issues. The meeting was not going well, and the tension between the two groups was increasing. Unexpectedly, the president of Fran’s firm, Steve, dropped in. Fran was thrilled, and thought, “Steve will take charge of this meeting and put these architects in their place!”

However, Steve is a master of warmth and appreciation. He greeted the visiting architects with a smile and shook their hands. He gave them a sincere compliment on a building their firm had just completed for a university. As Steve praised their craftsmanship, Fran said she could feel the tension melt on both sides of the table. Steve expressed his delight in having great people on the team from both firms and that he couldn’t wait to see their preliminary designs. He thanked them again, welcomed them to the company, shook hands, and left the room.

Fran said that the atmosphere in the room shifted from chilly frustration to warm relaxation. Within minutes of his departure they were on their way to resolution. Appreciation taps into the circuitry of the cortex where problems are solved.

This insight is priceless. When you open the dialogue, make your first statement a message that conveys your appreciation for the relationship. Note, I am not suggesting that you compliment the person. If you list two things that they do well and then move into a problematic area, they typically feel manipulated. Instead, express your desire to preserve your working relationship. If you didn’t value the relationship and want to maintain it, you wouldn’t be trying to fix the problem. Put your commitment, desires, and investment into words.

If you articulate sincerely how important someone is to you, the other person relaxes and is inclined to join you in fixing the problem. Fear or anger about the conversation will dissipate, and you will create an opportunity for joint collaboration.

With a child or family member you can say words similar to, “You’re one of the really important people to me. I want to talk to you about what happened last night because when things aren’t right between us, it troubles me throughout the day.”

In the workplace you can say something similar to, “We work closely together, and it’s important to me that we have a relationship based on honesty and trust. I’d like to talk with you about something that has the potential of getting in the way.”

Or, “Unless the nursing department has a good working relationship with administration, we can’t respond to clients efficiently. Would you help me with a problem that keeps throwing a monkey wrench into customer relations?”

The handshake that is used in almost all Western cultures evolved from a form of the appreciation ritual. When men were armed with swords, they would show their desire to talk peacefully by laying down their weapons. That ancient gesture evolved into the showing of an open palm, reciprocated and grasped by the other person.

In the first step of opening the dialogue, demonstrate that you have laid down your sword; you do not intend to blame, alienate, or shame the other party. Making a statement of appreciation conveys the message that you are there to preserve the relationship and you need their help in solving a problem that threatens it. Because we no longer carry swords, and since it is not appropriate to sit the other person on your lap, say what I used to tell my son when he was 3 years old and frustrated: “Use your words, Ben. Use your words.”

The ability to separate fact from interpretation is one of the most valuable skills in opening a problem-solving dialogue. Facts don’t determine how you feel, your interpretations and assumptions do. In the 1960s, Albert Ellis clearly differentiated the flow between facts, our interpretations of those facts, and our emotions.

Ellis recognized that there’s a split second after an event when interpretations and facts are mingled. If you are aware of this and can sort out the two steps, you will be very effective. This step takes practice because even what we pay attention to is shaped by what we deem important. For instance, a fashion designer might notice the blending of textiles and colors in people’s clothing as they enter a crowded room; and a psychologist or dancer might tune into the body language.

Here’s an example of how differing interpretations create differing emotions: Three people are walking down the hall at work and pass their boss, Emma, who is walking in the opposite direction. Although Emma is generally friendly, this particular morning she doesn’t say good morning or make eye contact with anyone in the group.

Although three people witness the exact same event, there are at least three different interpretations. When Pat interprets ambiguous behavior he usually assumes the worst about others. He thinks, “Boy is she ever stuck-up. Since she got to be manager, her nose has certainly been up in the air!” As a consequence of his thinking, Pat will feel angry.

Linda’s automatic interpretation is to blame herself. She thinks, “Wow, Emma must be mad! I shouldn’t have disagreed with her in the staff meeting yesterday! Why can’t I keep my mouth shut?” As a consequence of her thinking, Linda will feel anxious about their next interaction, assuming she will be reprimanded or treated with cold contempt.

Rhonda is aware that interpretations are tricky. The possibilities are endless. She’s learned to think about the reasons people behave the way they do, rather than jump to assumptions about personality. Her reaction might be, “Gee, Emma acted like she didn’t recognize us. I wonder if she has her contacts in.” As a consequence of her thinking, Rhonda’s emotional reaction would be negligible.

Although I’ve listed three interpretations of one simple behavior, there are obviously many more. Every time we interpret someone’s behavior, we select from an infinite number of possibilities.

Opening the dialogue doesn’t require that your assumption is correct. However, it is absolutely essential that when you make an interpretation, you know it is just that—speculation—not fact.

Ironically, self-confidence, which is really about our own state of mind, plays a significant role in how we interpret what other people are doing. You can see this in the following example. Imagine a young woman, Lora, enters a coffee shop after work to meet her coworkers. As she approaches the table, an attractive new employee, who just joined the company, gets up and leaves. If Lora feels insecure about herself, she might interpret his leaving as a sign that he wanted to avoid her.

If she feels self-confident, she’ll assume he is leaving for a reason totally unrelated to her, and may even take advantage of his absence by sitting in his vacated chair.

Self-esteem is a filter. If we feel self-confident and worthy, we see others’ actions in a neutral, or even positive, manner. When we feel lonely or unworthy, we view positive or neutral behavior as additional proof of our isolation.

Whether you’re insecure about your attractiveness, your competency, ability to parent, cook, calculate, make friends, influence, reason, sell, motivate, coach, or speak, in situations where you feel insecure you will interpret behavior differently than in situations where you feel self-assured and competent.

When people fail to differentiate between facts and interpretations, they often act on speculations as if they are real, and, as you know, they unwittingly play a role in bringing their fears to fruition.

Cole went in to see his boss, Mike, with a draft of a floor plan that Cole had volunteered to create. As Cole began to show Mike his work, Mike doodled, stared out the window, and checked his watch.

What could Mike’s behavior mean? There are endless possibilities: Mike hates the plan, he’s in pain and anxious about his doctor’s meeting at 4:30 p.m., he just got bad news from home, he always doodles, he has to cut 10 percent of his staff including Cole, and so on. Unless Cole is aware that there are many possible interpretations, he will make a very common error and assume his interpretation correct, and act accordingly.

Cole, who often interprets behavior as rejection, believes Mike is doodling due to a lack of interest in his ideas. Cole rushes through his presentation and walks out of Mike’s office muttering that he will never again volunteer. He tells his team that Mike is two-faced and doesn’t give a hoot about employee input. He throws the plan on a shelf and when Mike asks about it later, Cole mutters that he can’t remember where he put it.

Later, when Mike tries to follow up, Cole brushes him off, and Mike assumes Cole has lost interest. Mike draws the design without Cole’s input, muttering about how little initiative employees show. When Cole sees that Mike has drafted a design without his input, Cole believes that his boss really didn’t care about the team’s ideas. The next time Mike asks for input from the team, no one volunteers. Mike concludes that he’s tried to get the team involved, and his direct reports simply aren’t interested.

Without questioning his interpretation, Cole never learns that Mike was distracted because just before their meeting Mike’s director chewed him out about a report he had forgotten to complete. Mike’s nervous preoccupation had nothing to do with his dislike or disapproval of the plan.

There is a simple solution. Cole could have checked his interpretation by stating factually and accurately his observations of Mike’s behavior. Cole could say, “Mike, I’ve noticed you’ve glanced at your watch several times since I started my presentation.”

If it’s appropriate, use numbers. For instance, don’t say to your teenage daughter, “You never put gas in the car!” Try, “Honey, the last two times I’ve gotten in the car after you’ve used it, it’s been on a quarter tank or less.” Avoid exaggeration—it will be seen as dishonest and manipulative. State your facts in such a way that the other party will agree with the accuracy and impartiality of your statement.

If the behavior is a pattern, with a history of failed promises, start with an accurate statement of that reality.

In the past, I encouraged people to share their interpretations. For instance, Cole could say to his boss, “I think you’re looking at your watch and doodling because you don’t like my draft.” However, it is more efficient just to say, “Can you help me understand why...?” This simple question short-circuits the guessing game, and leaves the door wide open for the other person to reveal his or her hidden “baby.” Asking for help in understanding behavior is a respectful and neutral request for information, and is grounded in curiosity.

In general, individuals want to explain their rationale. Almost no one wants to be judged negatively by others. Even though I work with people who are often considered unpleasant by their peers and supervisors, in two decades of conflict resolution work I’ve never gotten a hostile response from asking, “Can you help me understand why....”

This is a powerful and important step that people often overlook. When people are flooded or defensive, they state and restate facts and interpretations. They don’t realize they must move to the future in order to solve the problem. Asking for what you want is like giving the other person a golden thread back into the relationship. You are stating what the other person or group can do to resolve the issue and restore the relationship.

Don’t be afraid to state what you want, and the change you would like to see. It’s not a demand. They can respond with their own request, or modify yours. Think of it as a starting point. Most people appreciate knowing what you want, especially if you’ve put your preferences in terms of specific behavior. Avoid global statements such as, “I wish you were considerate about time,” and substitute something more exact, “I wish you would call me if you’re going to be more than 10 minutes late.”

For instance, after learning that Mike’s focus was on other issues, Cole could have told Mike how he wanted to resolve the situation. He might have suggested, “Mike, I need your reactions to the floor plan design before the team moves ahead. Can we reschedule our meeting?”

Before you open the dialogue, spend time thinking about what you want from the other person. It might be as simple as setting aside time to talk, or a commitment to gather cross-functional data to work together on a problem. Don’t make the mistake of the two men in the following story who argued for years without being specific about what they wanted.

I was on a strategic planning retreat with the management team from a chemical dependency treatment center that I’ll call “Sobriety Plus.” Sobriety Plus developed coaching relationships with organizations. When a client suspected that an employee had a problem with alcohol or drug use, they utilized the resources of Sobriety Plus for assessment, referral, and if necessary, treatment.

While gathering background information before the retreat, I learned about a long-standing conflict. Paul, the polished marketing director and the person responsible for acquiring new corporate clients, had a longstanding conflict with his peer, Mack. Mack was the program director (and a recovering addict) who supervised the treatment groups and counselors. However, I hadn’t been hired to facilitate their conflict. Our goal for the weekend was to rewrite their strategic plan.

Midway through our first morning together, this long-standing conflict erupted, and the two directors commenced to argue. The rest of the staff pulled away from the table, or turned in their chairs. Some of them walked out of the room to take phone calls or get coffee. They had heard it all before and once this conversation began, it took center stage for quite awhile.

I stood listening for several moments, unsure what to do. Was there a way to get them unstuck within a few minutes, or did I need to request that they table their discussion and stuff their emotions?

As I listened, I realized that they were stating and restating facts and interpretations. Neither person was articulating what they wanted.

I interjected, “What do the two of you want from each other?”

To my amazement, instead of ticking off a list of requests, they both fell silent. This argument had been simmering for two years, yet neither person had identified what they wanted from the other to resolve the issue!

Finally, Mack, the program director, said to Paul, the director of marketing, “You don’t know anything about chemical dependency. You’re out there selling our program and you don’t know squat about addiction or how people recover.”

I prompted him again, “Mack, tell Paul specifically what you want.”

There was another pause, followed by a tentative, “I want you to go through the program as if you’re a client. I want you to attend orientation and sit in on groups.”

It was a pivotal moment. Everyone at the table froze.

Paul paused for a moment and then to my amazement he said, “Okay. Actually, I’ve wanted to sit in on group sessions, but I was afraid it’d be inappropriate.”

I turned to Paul. “Paul, what do you want from Mack?”

There was another moment of silence. It stretched on—and on. Finally, Paul gathered up his courage to say what he had held back for two years, “God, man, get your hair cut! When I take you out on sales calls I’m embarrassed by how you look.”

In his days of using drugs, Mack had hit bottom and remained there for a long stretch of time before he was able to maintain sobriety. Although he had been clean for many years, his days as an addict were reflected in his appearance. The clients that came to Sobriety Plus didn’t care. They knew Mack had walked their walk and recovered. However, when Paul took him on sales calls to corporate HR offices, his wild hair and worn clothes were a definite liability.

Mack’s reaction to Paul’s request was a stunner.

“Sure. I would have done it a long time ago if you would have asked.”

I have never forgotten that moment. When people don’t ask for what they want, they deny themselves, and the other party, the possibility of resolution.

Don’t let this happen with your important issues. Again, before you open the dialogue, identify the ideal behavior you want from the other person. Make it specific and make it positive.

You have just asked someone to alter his or her behavior. Are you willing to shift your behavior in return? For instance, Cole might say to his boss, “Why don’t I check in later and we can reschedule our meeting. I’ll call you tomorrow.” Or the statement may be a negotiation, “If you can give me two minutes on this one detail, I can wait until later in the week for a more thorough discussion.”

This statement can also be a consequence of what you will do if the other person doesn’t change his or her behavior. If you are in a position of authority, your statement may be similar to, “If this happens again, I will move to a written warning.”

In the situation of the daughter who brings back the car without gas, it may be, “If you continue to use the car without refilling the gas, it will be off limits for two weeks.”

The first time you use this approach I suggest you fill out the following outline before you have the conversation. It will give you time to sort out your thinking. You may want to open the dialogue with the situation on which you based your Cycle of Contempt.

Don’t start with the worst problem in your life. Begin with more manageable situations. As your skill and confidence grows, you can tackle more sensitive concerns. At some point, talking in this manner will come to you naturally and you won’t have to think about it ahead of time. This approach can become your best ally in maintaining relationships and resolving touchy issues.

In my line of work I have used this five-step outline on hundreds of occasions. However, one time in particular stands out. I was teaching the “Self-Defeating Habits of Otherwise Brilliant People” seminar at a manufacturing plant, when the operations director asked if I would facilitate a workshop for the third shift. We had accommodated the second shift during the day sessions, but the director wanted an offering at night for the last group. I groaned at the thought of delivering a workshop in the dead of the night, but the director’s commitment to his third shift won me over, and we set a date. The director warned me that it was a tough group, and difficult to engage.

When I arrived at the facility it was past midnight. The workers who clamored into the room were young, disheveled, and dressed in T-shirts with graphics that one might see on Saturday night at a biker’s bar. It was very clear that the supervisors cut this late shift group a lot of slack. We hadn’t been together 30 seconds before I knew that they bonded through crude humor. As I started introducing the material, the off-color remarks continued to float through the air, but I pressed on, assuming that they would calm down and focus on the material.

After the first 20 minutes, however, the humor continued. I looked at the supervisors for help, but they were enjoying their normal late-night banter.

I thought about my options. I could get indignant and scold them. Didn’t they know how immature they looked?! A scolding might stop their banter, but I would probably lose their cooperation and blunt any interest in learning. I could pull their supervisors aside, give them a short lecture on inappropriate behavior, and ask them to rein in their group.

Then I thought about analyzing their behavior by assuming it grew out of some lack of skill, insight, or courage. Maybe the third shift felt insecure about being in a classroom setting. Maybe some of this group was uncomfortable reading and writing. It wouldn’t be the first time someone had avoided work in a seminar because they couldn’t read. Or maybe they simply didn’t realize how uncomfortable I felt.

I decided to deal with the situation using an abbreviated version of the steps we just discussed: 1) a statement of appreciation, 2) facts, 4) what I wanted, and 5) what I was willing to do. I decided to delete the third step. In this setting asking, “Can you help me understand why...?” was opening a can of worms that would only take us further off task. I’d be satisfied if I could confront the issue in a respectful manner and ask for what I wanted.

I wasn’t sure what they’d do. I had been pretty darn direct. This was a fairly blunt confrontation for a fairly large group of men who I barely knew—all this at 1 a.m.! Perhaps they would react to my request with humor, or make a crude comment ridiculing what I’d said. However, I was taken aback by what actually happened.

I went back to presenting the material and during the next three hours no one made another inappropriate comment. When I left, two of the men came up to me and said, “It’s still dark out. If you’d like, we’ll walk you to your car.”

I was stunned. It was a wonderful experience of positive reciprocity. They had returned the respect with which I had treated them. On my way home, as the sun began to lighten the morning sky, I realized I had fed the other dog in this group of young men—and they had responded graciously.