Dealing with confrontation

Dealing with anger, abuse, and confrontation poses a new challenge; for many an insuperable one. As with so much of this chapter, the starting point is the determination to understand first what lies behind the apparent anger, the hurtful comments. The aim is not just to hear, but to profoundly understand, to search for the precise meanings and, by focussing on this objective effort, to avoid the habitual resort to automatic knee–jerk response and closed–minded defensiveness. These usually only escalate the anger. Remember, we need to use all our senses: hearing, understanding, feeling, seeing and, in this instance, we need also to look at our own wants from the solution.

This section owes a great deal to Rosenberg’s book on "Non Violent Communication". Rosenberg sets out a framework for dealing with confrontation that can be summarised in four steps:
  • Step 1: Observation discerning what is seen, heard, felt, without judgement or evaluation;
  • Step 2: Feeling discerning how we feel about the observation, discerning factually how we are reacting;
  • Step 3: Needs defining our own needs within the context of the argument;
  • Step 4: Request setting out a request for response or reaction from the other person.

Instead of the all–too–customary descent into an increasingly frustrated shouting match, the process becomes a managed to–and–fro. "What is the first speaker saying?", "How do I feel about that?", "What I am requesting?", and so on. Not so simple in practice. The key is for each to express himself clearly, practically and honestly, and also to receive from the other person just as openly and clearly. Difficult, but far better than useless argument. In managing this type of situation, we call upon all the levels of listening already discussed.

Avoid moralistic judgements: Look instead for what they need and are not getting, not at your own mind–set. For example, a colleague’s concern for details and minutiae should not be because "she is picky, compulsive, missing the bigger picture". If I am more interested in detail, he should not be "sloppy, disorganised". Is my priority really to sanction him or her? Should we not really be trying to understand each other, develop our relationship and build to a more robust conclusion?

Avoid making comparisons: Comparing with others is not a useful way of establishing your own standards. Above all, avoid saying how much better you can do it.

Take responsibility: Most important of all, avoid all cover–up. "I was following orders…". Never let your language cover up an opportunity to choose your words, to confront your needs and to explain your value. Rosenberg quotes the French moralist George Bernanos:

"I have thought for a long time now that if, some day, the increasing efficiency of the technique of destruction finally causes our species to disappear from the earth, it will not be cruelty that will be responsible for our extinction and still less, of course, the indignation that cruelty awakens and the reprisals and vengeance that it brings upon itself …. But the docility, the lack of responsibility of the modern man, his base subservient acceptance of every common decree. The horrors which we have seen, the still greater horrors we shall presently see, are not signs that rebels, insubordinate, untameable men are increasing in number throughout the world, but rather that there is a constant increase in the number of obedient, docile men." ("Non Violent Communication" Marshall Rosen PhD: Puddle Dancer Press 2000)

Non Violent Communication Faced by someone losing their temper in the office, the conversation can rapidly escalate to outright argument. "You’re always like this, you never listen, I might as well be talking to a brick wall." "Don’t be so stupid, of course I’m listening, you’re just not making sense." "Well, how many more times do we have to……" Instead: "I’m not sure that you want to listen to me right now, I can see that you have an enormous workload to get through. However, I feel that the budget figures still greatly overstate our capacity. I need the opportunity to go through them with you carefully one more time and to explain what they will mean for my team. Can we set aside an hour to do this?"

The more we can train ourselves to listen constructively, but with robust consideration and challenge, the more opportunity we will have to nip future chaotic thinking in the bud, and lead it empathetically into a more ordered and positive pathway.

Use positives: "You’ve got no sense of responsibility" is a sure start to "yes, I have – look what I did last week" etc – the bad argument is well under way.

Avoid vague words: "You’ve got no sense of responsibility." What does "responsibility" mean?

Avoid demands: We are trying to create the world of adult debate, not one of ultimatums. Imply no threats – use instead requests, invitations to listen and discern.

Avoid blame and punishment: The objective of adult argument is surely to establish common understanding, shared goals and see ourselves both benefiting from the outcome.

Domestic arguments often start, and eventually almost thrive, upon inaccurate and absolutist generalisations, rather than on specific and accurate observations:

He: "You’re always on the phone to Anne, talking about nothing at all" She: "I hardly ever speak to her; I’ve only rung Anne once today. Whatever is the matter with you?"

…is a sure start to a tense and unenjoyable evening. Most importantly, the absolutes and generalisations hide the real basis for his initial complaint (if there was one), and give her no chance to explain how important Anne is to her.

We all need to look for specific and accurate meaning, and be prepared to challenge the mixed–up thinking that distorts so much of debate and discussion. In particular:

  • Blaming
  • Vague exhortation
  • Impressive waffle
  • Opinions as fact
  • Stoppers and limiters
  • Unthinking absolutes
  • Self drivers
  • Distortion
  • Presumptive mind–reading.

Let’s now put all these points together and look at a live example. First, to summarise:

Confrontation is a regular part of life. It can rapidly escalate into an emotionally–charged and negative sequence of angry charge and counter–charge.

Look for clarity, precision and positive language. Avoid negatives, blame and, above all, vagueness.

In particular, think carefully before committing anything to writing. The Dear Sydney letter at the end of this chapter relates to the misuse of organisation diagrams, and points up how difficult it is to anticipate the varying interpretations that others will place on a new structure drawing. The Annual Appraisal is an even more fraught and dangerous minefield of potential misunderstanding. Rarely is the appraised so exposed and vulnerable. Their first reactions are inevitably defensive to any adverse criticism. They are likely to be highly emotional, and with good cause – their written appraisal will sit for ever on their personnel file. It is therefore vital that:

The appraiser and appraisee give each other time to prepare, to consider the appraisal and to put forward counter– or supporting argument;

  • All criticism, whether adverse or positive, needs specific, detailed accompanying support and statistics;
  • Each criticism needs no less detailed proposals for follow–up response and development work;
  • The appraisal write–up should set the context, the attainment, key result areas, major achievements, major issues;
  • Every appraisal should be checked for mixed–up thinking abuse against the checklist of nine above.

Alas, all too frequently, too little time is set aside by the appraiser(s). This is particularly true of 360° appraisals. In theory they are invaluable, pooling the thoughts of subordinates, peers and reporting officers alike. But, so often, they become so time–consuming that the end result is a hurried mess.

Printed overleaf is an annual appraisal. There was no further information provided. So it is necessary to set the scene. The architect in question had beaten his financial targets for the third year running. As a result of this, he had become hard–pressed to complete several key projects, recruit and develop the critically needed new staff, look after client relations and oversee quality of delivery. In fact he had done all this successfully, despite also moving house from Scotland to the north of England. However, he had been frustrated and eventually infuriated by the – as he saw it – waste of time involved with further tiers of design review that took days out of his schedule to visit the London headquarters. He had also been frustrated and eventually infuriated by the – as he saw it – excessively detailed financial constraints that hamstrung his recruitment of key staff. In registering his frustration, he had made enemies, in particular of some status–conscious senior staff. He and they had, it should be added, gone some way to resolving their differences.

The appraisal was delayed and then given by the Senior Partner of the firm, who knew little about the detail involved.

  1. The architect was given no prior view of this paper before the meeting. He therefore had no opportunity to prepare his response.
  2. Partnership Criteria: None of these criteria has been spelt out, described in detail or is measurable. How is the current performance measured? What is the standard? "Can come across as lacking in design awareness" When? Who says? In fact, this architect had just won a design award and another of his buildings had been selected as a model of quality. How do you "demonstrate care" – what precisely does he have to do? What precisely should be done, by whom, to "improve communication of design awareness". What does this mean? How can this be measured, tested?
  3. Management Skills: Why is there this discrepancy between managing his own team well, and others. What does "Needs to improve management skills of other members" actually mean? Does he have to train them?
  4. Presentation: "Offending people" When? Why? After all, this architect was one of the most successful. Where are the figures? He was well ahead of budget. Who says he "can offend people"? This needs detailed examples. Why were they not taken up at the time?
  5. IT Diary Management: this is more specific – but what is the role of his secretary? How should we check this is improved? What "people" need to know where he is?
  6. Cross–Sector Skills: What are the targets? What will spell success?
  7. Business Acumen: This architect had already beaten his year’s budgets for fees, profitability and bids won. What do the comments really mean. How will they be measured? Given his success, what else, precisely, should he be doing?
  8. Discussion / Debate / Negotiation: As for 7 above. No evidence, no precision, no record of who said what, what it related to.
  9. The remainder of the "appraisal" continues with a stream of un–evidenced and potentially highly damaging criticisms.

Does all this matter? Yes it does, hugely. In this particular instance the man in question became disillusioned, confused, hurt, and eager to leave. No less importantly, the unattributed vague comments masked serious issues to do with partner relationships, setting clear objectives, and management leadership.

Above all, for our purposes in looking at Communicating and Listening, the form, the process and the manner of the appraisal paid no attention to understanding the architect in question, to discovering his way of thinking and feeling.

Comment on this page