It's The Truth. Isn't It?

On August 14th, the television program "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" did what I thought was a brilliant piece of political satire that has implications for conflict and collaboration in every facet of life.

Mitt Romney had just selected Paul Ryan to be his running mate. "The Daily Show" commentators demonstrated what this might mean to the Republicans and Democrats by running two mock political ads.

In the first ad, presented as though the Republicans had created it, we see a picture of Paul Ryan. A narrator with an upbeat voice says, "Paul Ryan favors cutting 70 billion dollars out of Medicare and supports a tax plan that would cut top taxes to 1%."  The mock advertisement ends with the same upbeat narrator reading the following tagline seen on the screen: "Paul Ryan. The Change America Wants."

In the second ad, presented as though the Democrats had created it, we see the same picture of Paul Ryan. A narrator, using a voice appropriate to a horror movie says, "Paul Ryan favors cutting 70 billion dollars out of Medicare and supports a tax plan that would cut top taxes to 1%." The mock advertisement ends with the narrator, using the same scary voice, reading the following tagline on the screen: "Paul Ryan. The Change America Wants?" (notice the question mark.)

Our reaction to these ads, of course, depends on our point of view. Cut Medicare by 70 billion dollars. That's a good thing. No wait. That's a bad thing. Would the top tax rate really go to 1%? Great. Or not. Are these numbers accurate? Depends on our point of view.

We are human and, therefore, inescapably have a point of view. We argue not because we have a point of view but because we believe our point of view is right and other points of view are wrong or, at best, misinformed.

When someone says, "I don't see a solution," they aren't kidding. From their point of view (that is, from their way of seeing), they literally can't see a solution.

We can tell we're speaking from a point of view when we use the words "are" or "is." For example, "My boss is..." "My spouse is..." My children are..." "The (other) political party is..."

Points of view are a truth but not the truth. Creative solutions to our problems emerge when we meld our different points of view into something unique, something that no one could have seen (literally) when viewing the world strictly from one point of view.

What can we do about this that will make a difference? Well, for starters we can recognize that what we call "the truth" is a point of view open to interpretation.

It's when we think our point of view is the truth and others' points of view are merely opinion that conflict goes from being a disagreement open to resolution to one in which no agreement is possible.

How To Transform A Difficult Person

I was coaching Jennifer, a special education teacher in an elementary school, who contacted me just prior to school starting on September 4th. She had read my book on resolving conflict and wanted some help.

Jennifer was worried because she knew she would be seeing Miranda, a coworker on the team of teachers who worked with the special education kids. Miranda had more experience than Jennifer but wasn't Jennifer's supervisor.

As school was ending last June, Miranda had shocked Jennifer when, completely out of the blue and with a threatening tone of voice, she had attacked Jennifer's teaching methods, telling her that the way she interacted with the kids was doing more harm than good. Jennifer was furious but was too stunned to say anything.

Jennifer remained furious all summer. She told me she wanted to give up her need to be right about Miranda (which I advise people to do) and just listen to understand Miranda's opinion in the hope of learning something, but Jennifer was too angry and judgmental to do so.

Further, she was afraid to confront Miranda because, "I'm not a courageous person. My brain turns to mush and I just don't know what to say." 

Here's what I said to Jennifer:

1.   1. You have plenty of courage. Being courageous means that you act in spite of your fear, not in the absence of fear.

2.  2. Giving up the need to be right has nothing to do with giving up being judgmental and angry. Of course, you're judgmental and angry. Don't try and change your feelings. You can't. If I were in your shoes, I would be angry and judgmental. However, you can feel angry and judgmental and not act that way. This may seem phony to you, but part of giving up the need to be right is to not return anger with anger After all, if you don't listen to Miranda, why should she listen to you?

3.  3. Because you're worried about your brain turning to "mush," I recommend you write down and practice what you want to say to Miranda. I suggest you bring that piece of paper with you and preface what you're going to say with, "I'm nervous and I wanted to be sure and say this to you in the way that I want to say it. So I'm going to read this."

af   4. After explaining why you're reading what you wrote, I suggest you say something like this: "First, I want to tell you what a great job you do with the kids. I know there's a lot I can learn from you. However, when you spoke to me as you did, I shut down because the way you said it made it difficult for me to listen. I want to hear what you have to say. I request that when you have something to say to me you say it with a calm tone of voice so that I can hear you without getting defensive. Will you do that?"

 Always end your request with "Will you?" not "Could you?" "Would you? " "Can you?" or any similar variation.

 After asking, "Will you?" stop talking and just listen. If Miranda hesitates before responding, do not fill the silence. Just wait for her to talk.

5. When Miranda does talk, do not give your opinion until Miranda knows that she has been fully understood by you. Do this by paraphrasing and asking questions. Your goal is to understand Miranda so well that you could explain her position to a stranger and Miranda would agree that she has been well represented by you.

I spoke to Jennifer several days after school had started and she was ecstatic because her conversation with Miranda had gone spectacularly well. They had cleared the air and created agreements for how they would communicate in the future.

Jennifer had, indeed, written down and read what she wrote. Jennifer was especially glad that she had begun by "thanking her (Miranda) for meeting with me and telling her how much I admired her." Jennifer could see that Miranda, who had appeared defensive, relaxed her shoulders.

When Miranda responded, Jennifer told me she did listen even though "I had to bite my tongue to keep from jumping in with my opinion."

When Jennifer gave up her need to be right and listened, Miranda reciprocated (which often happens) and admitted that she wasn't "very good at this relationship thing" and revealed some things that had happened to her in childhood that had caused her to be the way she was. The conversation ended with Miranda apologizing and promising to behave differently.

As they parted, Miranda, who had previously stated she wasn't comfortable with the "touchy feely stuff," hugged Jennifer.

This situation is, of course, different than circumstances in your life. However, this is a good template for how to transform a difficult person in any circumstance.

A Position That Doesn't Have To Be Defended Is Most Open To Change

"Above all, he learned how to listen, with a still heart, with a waiting, open soul, without passion, without desire, without judgment, without opinions."

         Hermann Hesse Siddhartha

Siddhartha is the story of a man finding enlightenment when he gives up trying to find it and just listens to the world around him. The story parallels the life of Buddha but is not intended as a recreation of Buddha's life.

I love the "Siddartha" quote because I believe it is a brilliant prescription for conflict resolution, both the conflict within ourselves (when we try, through an act of will, to change ourselves) and the conflicts we have with other people (in which we try and change them).

Hesse is suggesting that the very act of trying to change others (and ourselves) produces resistance to change and that, paradoxically, giving up trying to change others (and ourselves) is what makes change possible.

These thoughts were inspired by a story from the September 4th, 2012 issue of "The Daily Good," an online blog. The article was first published in the Harvard Business Review and was written by Peter Bregman, CEO of Bregman Partners, a "global management consulting firm."

The story Bregman tells doesn't appear to be about a conflict, but it is.

Conflict is, by definition, a disagreement. Basically, conflict exists because one person, one group, one nation wants another person, group or nation to change and encounters resistance.

That's what happens in the story Bregman tells.

Bregman writes about visiting some friends whose 9-year old daughter had just returned home from a swim meet where she had been disqualified for a "false start" (that is, leaping into the water before the starting gun had been fired). The girl was close to tears.

The parents tried to change their daughter's perception by telling her that the false start indicated she was really trying hard to win, that every swimmer at some point is disqualified for a false start and that she'd have many more chances to win at other swim meets that year and in the years to come.

The parents' words did nothing to change their daughter's despair.

Just then, the girl's grandmother entered the room, sat beside the girl, put her arm around her and said nothing. The girl put her head on her grandmother's shoulder. After a few moments of silence, the grandmother said, "I know how hard you work at this, honey. It's sad to get disqualified."

After a few more moments of silence, the girl got up, wiped her tears and said, "Thanks, Mimi" (her grandmother's name).

Notice that the granddaughter changed when the grandmother didn't try to change her but simply validated the girl's experience ("It's sad to get disqualified.") and just listened.

Why does not trying to change produce change?

Consider: from the moment we leave the womb, someone is trying to change us. Our parents, our teachers, our friends, our coworkers, our bosses and the advertisements we read and see are all on a mission to influence us to change (I'm not judging whether the changes are for the worse or for the better).

Is it any wonder then that we are distrustful of those who seem to want us to change? What we may hear under the surface of every conflict is, "There's something wrong here, perhaps with you" and that,"I can fix you if you just do what I tell you to do."

But suppose, instead, we just listened as Siddartha did, as Mimi did, not to change but to understand? There would be no reason to be defensive because there would be nothing we'd feel the need to defend.

When in a conflict, listening "with a still heart, with a waiting, open soul, without passion, without desire, without judgment, without opinions" will produce change in us and others because, as someone once suggested to me, a position that doesn't have to be defended is most open to change.

You can read Peter Bregman's article here.

Resolving Conflict: Who Deserves The Cookies?

Dr. Dachner Keltner is a psychology professor at the University of California who studies how "humans negotiate moral concerns." One of the experiments he conducted has implications for conflict resolution. 

Here's the situation:

Imagine you have been arbitrarily designated as the leader of a team of three people who have been asked to develop ideas about how to curb drinking on college campuses.

Or, if you prefer, imagine you've been arbitrarily designated the leader of a team with two other business colleagues who are crafting an employee handbook.

Or suppose that you've been arbitrarily designated the leader of a team consisting of you and two other parents who are drafting a proposal to deal with bullying at your children's school.

Make up a team of your choosing if you don't like any of these situations. Whatever you choose, imagine you have become the leader purely by chance.

Now imagine that after exactly 30 minutes of being together, someone enters the room with a plate of four of your favorite cookies, fresh out of the oven.

You and the other two team members immediately reach for a cookie. They taste as delicious as they smell.

But who gets that fourth cookie still sitting on the plate? The solution is obviously to divide the cookie into three, equal pieces, right? 

Except when this experiment was carried out by Professor Keltner, that's not what happened. The experiment was conducted repeatedly with the same result: The leader of the team took the fourth cookie for himself/herself and ate it with relish, clearly enjoying this second cookie in full view of his/her cookieless teammates.

I first heard of this experiment in a talk given by Michael Lewis, author of "Moneyball," "The Blind Side," and "The Big Short," among other books. He was speaking to the 2012 graduating class of his alma mater, Princeton University.

On one level, this experiment merely confirms the old adage that "power corrupts." But Lewis used the results of the experiment for a slightly different purpose and one that has implications for conflict resolution.

Lewis cautioned the graduates to remember that it is easy when one gets to a leadership position or to a position of authority to imagine one automatically deserves an extra "cookie." And that one, by dint of that position, no matter how lucky one may have been to arrive there, needn't find it necessary to share one's "cookies."

But we don't have to be in a leadership position to face this dilemma. By definition, our point of view is the only one we've got. It's easy from our vantage point to believe it's the only one there is and, therefore, deserving of extra "cookies."

As Dr. Keltner notes on his website, "opposing partisans tend to assume that they alone see the issues objectively and in principled fashion."

At the very least, if we're interested in living and working cooperatively, we should consider the implications of the choices we make about how to divide the cookies.

You can watch Lewis's 13-minute talk at:

There Is No Cause. There Is Only Effect

On August 27th, 2012, the New York Times published an interview with the mother of Jeffrey Johnson, the man who killed a coworker in front of the Empire State Building.

When asked why she thought he did it, the distraught woman was as baffled as the rest of us. Valiantly trying to answer the reporter's question, she attributed her son's behavior to a car accident that had put him into a coma when he was in the sixth grade, then suggested that it might have happened because Jeffrey was devastated when a beloved cat recently died in his arms.

When police investigators were asked about a motive for the shooting, they theorized that Jeffrey did it because he blamed Steven Ercolino, the man he killed, for his recent job loss.

Jeffrey's mother and the police were simply doing what we all do when tragedy strikes: We search for answers in an attempt to make sense of the senseless. Why did they do what they did? Why do we do what we do?

I'm reading a book called "What Is The What" about one of the "Lost Boys Of Sudan" who, along with thousands of other boys (and girls), became homeless and orphaned as a result of the most recent Civil War in Sudan (there have been others, but the Darfur genocide has made us particularly aware of this one).

Reading the book is like listening to the explanation for why Jeffrey Johnson killed Steven Ercolino. To explain the Sudanese Civil War, one must begin with, "Thousand of years ago, the tribes of Sudan...."

The explanation for why anyone kills anyone might similarly begin, "Starting with when his great, great grandparents first arrived in the country..." and even that doesn't go back far enough.

And just try to explain the causes for the famous Hatfield/McCoys family feud (I can't even explain the game show of the same name).

In other words, if we start looking for cause and effect, we must logically go back to the beginning of the Universe when the Big Bang led to the formation of the Earth, the creation of mammals, then human beings and, finally, Jeffrey Johnson at the Empire State Building.

Or consider the every day world of people we don't get along with. We search for reasons why they are they way they are and we review our interactions with them for clues. But the explanation for why any of us think what we think and do what we do must begin with the beginning of time.

This is not to excuse or condone violence in any form. We must do everything we can to be sure people are safe and that sometimes means using force to stop force.

But if we are to end the seemingly unending conflicts in our lives, we have to stop searching for causes to blame it on and, instead, commit to the phrase, "I'm responsible."

We are the way we are because we've chosen to be the way we are. Even though neuroscience, philosophy and psychology at least since Freud, all question the degree to which we freely choose our actions, believing that we do at least gives us the possibility of altering life on this planet for our children and for ourselves.

At the same time, recognizing our limited ability to freely choose, we can show empathy and compassion for those who are stuck in the paradigm of "I can't help myself." If I stop looking for causes and accept my responsibility, then I'm responsible for helping people who think they can't help themselves (and of course, sometimes they can't).

If Everyone Is Crazy, You'd Be Crazy To Be Sane

“If it’s just your belief, it’s autism. If it’s everyone’s belief,

it’s culture”

     Sheldon Solomon, Professor of Psychology, Skidmore College

 

It takes courage to challenge the prevailing culture. Indeed, the lesson many of us have learned is that when one finds out the Emperor has no clothes, it’s best to keep it to yourself or you’ll be thought of as crazy. In the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, a child cries out that the emperor is naked and the cry is taken up by all the townspeople. Adults know that’s not what happens in real life.

 

In real life, the whistleblower, the outlier (to use the title of Malcolm Gladwell’s book), the team member who objects, is often criticized and discounted. He is the “autistic” who disagrees with what everyone else “knows” to be true.

 

After all, when everyone is crazy you’d be crazy to be sane.

 

Even the term “whistleblower” suggests someone making a piercing, obnoxious noise and not someone simply disagreeing with what everyone else seems to agree with.

 

Yet it’s the failure to challenge cultural beliefs that can destroy a business (see Enron), a family (see Bernie Madoff) and, sometimes, even lives (see the story of Sally Ride and Roger Boisjoly below).  

 

Sally Ride died on July 22^nd of this year. You may remember that she was the first female astronaut, spending six days in space in 1983.

 

That was memorable enough to warrant a two-page obituary in the New York Times.

 

Just as memorable to me was that she hugged Roger Boisjoly when no one else would.  

 

When the Challenger shuttle blew up in 1986, Ms Ride was appointed to the panel investigating the reasons for the disaster.

 

Roger Boisjoly was an engineer who had worked for the company that made the shuttle’s rocket boosters. He had warned his bosses of problems with the rocket booster seals that, you may recall, turned out to be the reason for the explosion. Roger’s warnings had been ignored and, in fact, his colleagues shunned him when he reported to the panel that he had warned his bosses.

 

Sally’s hug, Roger recounted, “helped sustain (me) during a troubled time.” No one else on the panel offered Roger any support.

 

Think about that phrase, “a troubled time.” Why was it “trouble” for Roger and not for his bosses?

 

We often read of whistleblowers and “outliers” who are ostracized and thought of as pains in the ass. And they are pains in the ass to the prevailing culture. They are the ones telling us over and over again that it is insane to do the same thing over and over and over again and expect a different outcome.

 

As hard as it can be sometimes, it’s important to listen to those who disagree with us because they are our real teachers in life. Learning and growth are only possible in the presence of someone with a different point of view. By definition, learning requires a point of view that challenges our own.

 

And by that definition, we all have something to teach one another because we each have our own point of view.

 

After all, the prevailing culture is nothing more than what most people agree with and that culture may have some flaws. Perhaps those flaws won’t produce as tragic a result as with the Challenger shuttle explosion. But there’s no way to know if we ignore, ostracize and demean those who are imploring us to question what everyone “knows” to be true.

Everything We Do Alters The Future. It's An Awesome Responsibility

“It’s fearful to know we’re connected to everything in the universe, because then we’re responsible.”

          Glenda Taylor quoted in “Random Acts Of Kindness”

Have you heard the expression that when a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil, we get a hurricane off the coast of Florida? Glenda Taylor is suggesting that when we erupt in anger on this side of the world, war erupts on the other side. Similarly, a random act of kindness can have far reaching repercussions.

 

Everything we do has consequences whether we are aware of it or not. Every action affects the future. Everything we say and do makes a difference. The responsibility can be fearful and awe-full. There are no insignificant actions.

Throw a stone into a pond. The affect is obvious when we see the ripples that are very close to us. But the farther away, the more distant the ripples, the harder it is to see the affect.

My friend Brian Weigelt told me a story to illustrate this point. I apologize and ask Brian to forgive me if I don’t communicate the story perfectly in every detail.

Brian needed a part for his car. He had to go back three times to the same store because they kept giving him the wrong part. This happened even though Brian asked the second and third times, “Now you’re sure this is the correct part?”

After his third return to the store, in utter frustration, Brian said to the man behind the counter, “I can’t believe how uneducated you are.”

Instantly, Brian could tell that the word “uneducated” had triggered an intense emotion in the man. In a flash of anger he said, “You have every right to be upset, but don’t say I’m uneducated.”

Brian left the store (with the correct part this time as it turned out) but that interaction bothered him the entire day. He couldn’t get it out of his mind.

Like Brian, you may have experienced something that you have difficulty letting go of. It could be something that happened yesterday or it could be something that happened ten years ago. Some of these memories are like weights around our necks, dragging us down, drowning us in remorse or regret or anger and tiring us out. This is sometimes called “unfinished business.”

 

For Brian, this incident was his weight and he didn’t want to carry it. He went back to the store, found the man and apologized saying, “I had no right to insult you. Will you please forgive me?” (Brian didn’t just say, “I apologize.” He took the bigger risk and asked for forgiveness.)

The man said he would and Brian could tell that he had impacted that man profoundly.

 

Now here’s the “stone in the pond” part. We don’t know what happened after Brian left the store, but let’s speculate. Let’s imagine that the man went home and told his wife about Brian’s apology, how surprised he was that Brian had done so and how good it made the man feel. His wife was happy because her husband was happy. Yesterday, when her husband had come home furious because a customer had called him “uneducated,” both she and her husband had been unable to sleep. Perhaps his wife’s happiness caused her to be extra loving to their children who, the night before, had been afraid they were in trouble for something they had done since their parents had been grumpy the entire evening. Tonight, however, the children were peaceful, feeling loved and protected. Perhaps the children were nicer to their teachers the next day in school. Perhaps the teacher went home and…

How far might these ripples extend?

We can’t know the exact impact of Brian’s behavior but I promise you there was one. Brian’s action when he called the man “uneducated” altered the future just as the future was altered when Brian apologized. This is what happens when we realize how profoundly connected we are.

We’ve all experienced something like this when stuck in traffic because of an accident. Thousands of people are affected because one (or several) people were reckless. How did you feel as you sat in traffic? How did that affect your relationships with the people you saw after getting past the accident? Did you call on your cell phone and complain to someone? What impact do you think that had on the person to whom you were complaining? Now imagine the impact your complaint had on the person to whom you complained.

“And so it goes” as Kurt Vonnegut wrote. The more things change the more they remain the same because we don’t complete our unfinished business and get rid of the weight we’re carrying around as my friend Brian did.

Our actions have consequences. When we consider those consequences and take responsibility for them, we realize the importance of what we say and what we do. Who knows what affect our words and actions will have on the ripples at the far end of our pond?

Consider the kind of world we’d create if we each took on the awesome responsibility associated with being connected to every else on this planet.

Change Is The Easy Part. Then Comes Life

 “Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?”

title of a song by Carole King

Carole King’s plaintive question is really one that might be asked by anyone who is uncertain about how long love will last. Similarly, anyone who wants to maintain weight loss, stop smoking forever, quit drinking permanently or exercise regularly might also be wondering if they can sustain their commitment.

It’s a question participants in my seminars are continually confronted with. Will the change they’ve made in the classroom be the change they sustain at home and at work?

It’s a question that anyone might ask about any situation where they have taken on some new behavior and wonder if they’ll be able to sustain that new behavior tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.

A drug addict framed this dilemma succinctly. Well, actually, a drug addict on television.

I was watching reruns of a show called “The Wire.” The first season (which is all I’ve seen) is about cops chasing drug dealers.

In one scene, a drug addict who attended his first Narcotics Anonymous meeting later runs into a man who spoke at the meeting and who had been off drugs for 3 months. The addict mentions how hard it is to stay off drugs and the man responds, “Getting clean is the easy part. Then comes life.”

Exactly. When we first change our behavior, we receive lots of accolades. Anyone who has ever lost weight, stopped smoking or given up drinking knows what I mean.

Then comes life where, day after day, that new behavior has to be sustained. Life is what happens after the applause goes away.

When I coach people in seminars to listen rather than command, I notice that they become really good listeners in the classroom where I and the other participants cheer them on.

Then comes life in which they have to listen to family and friends at home and team members at work who may have very different points of view. 

So how can any of us be sure we’ll sustain the change we’ve committed to after the applause dies down?

Here are 4 steps that will make a difference:

1.   Practice integrity. A key reason you may not sustain change is that you don’t trust yourself to do so. Perhaps you’ve tried to change in the past, failed to sustain the change and now you’re afraid you’ll fail again. You have to learn that you can trust yourself to be bigger than your circumstances when life intrudes. The more you honor your word in the present the more you will trust that you can do so in the future. Practice doing what you said you’d do whether you feel like it or not. Be on time for appointments. Make that phone call when you said you would. If you promised you’d be somewhere, be there when you said you would.

1.   Declare publicly (to at least three people) the change you are committing to. The signers of the Declaration of Independence mutually pledged to each other “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” The signers knew that pledging their “sacred Honor” to each other would strengthen their commitment to independence.

Pledge your independence from your previous behavior to at least three people. If these are people who are committed to the same change as you, all the better. 

2.   Ask at least one of the people to whom you made your “declaration of independence” to hold you accountable for your new behavior until it is a habit. That’s the “secret” behind Weight Watchers, any 12-step program and, indeed, any behavior change. Select someone who won’t give up when you get angry at them for holding you accountable (it’s likely you will get angry. Few people like to be held accountable). 

3.   Be willing to tolerate the discomfort of change. Write your name with your non-dominant hand. Notice your discomfort and notice how quickly you want to go back to using your dominant hand. Is it any wonder that, no matter what the change, we want to return to the old, comfortable way of doing things as soon as possible?

You may wonder how long the discomfort will last. There’s no way to know. How long did it take before you could walk without falling down? Imagine the consequences of deciding that walking was too uncomfortable so you might as well give it up.

Now imagine how great you’ll feel when life intrudes and you sustain the change in spite of your circumstances.

The “secret” to sustaining change when the applause dies down and life intrudes is no secret at all: Sustaining change requires disciplined practice of the new behavior and, above all, the integrity to keep your word about what you promised to do tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.

Resolving Conflict Is No Fairy Tale

Imagine John is in a relationship with Mary and John thinks she is quite contrary about how her garden grows. She wants silver bells and cockleshells and pretty maids all in a row. John knows that gardens contain carrots and tomatoes.

In reality, as in every conflict, John and Mary simply have different points of view and points of view are always open to change (want proof? Move two feet to the right of where you’re currently located and you’ll have a different point of view).

But, as in every conflict that lasts more than a few minutes, one person (we’ll focus on John although it could be Mary) is certain he has the truth, not simply a point of view (in a conflict, thinking you have the truth won’t set you free. It will cause the other person to dig in her heels).

To confirm that he has the truth, John gossips about Mary with his neighbor and, because John is a credible source, she agrees that Mary is contrary.

A brief digression: What we call “the truth” is, in many instances, just a belief we’ve accepted because we’ve trusted the source we got it from. When enough people agree with the source, we call that “the truth.”

For example, few people believed that John Edwards was having an affair when the National Enquirer broke the story. But when the New York Times confirmed it, it became a “fact” because the New York Times is, for most people, a credible source. Depending on the credibility we attach to our sources, we do/do not believe in global warming, do/do not believe in evolution and do/do not believe that Elvis is really dead.

This is why gossip can be destructive. If the gossiper is credible to the people hearing the gossip, the gossip becomes the truth whether it is or not and could be harmful to the person being gossiped about.

Now back to our story: John tells Mary he knows he’s right because his neighbor agrees with him and, as “everyone” knows, because it’s “the truth,” gardens do not contain silver bells and cockle shells.

Both John and Mary can get what they want. How about a garden of carrots and a garden of silver bells? How about a row of tomatoes and a row of cockle shells? But, if John is certain he has the truth, which he is sure he does, he will never see these options.

Perhaps, John thinks, it’s not worth the hassle of being in a relationship with Mary. Perhaps they should break up. John certainly can’t be friends with Mary because, if Mary really cared about him, Mary wouldn’t be so contrary. How could John have been so wrong to think Mary might be someone to spend the rest of his life with?   

Far fetched? Change Mary and her garden to anyone you think is difficult to get along with: Joe in the next cubicle, your boss in the next office, a relative or friend you’re no longer speaking to or any relationship where you’re sure you have “the truth.”

Outside the world of fairy tales, people aren’t being contrary. They simply have desires that conflict with ours. We can get our desires fulfilled if we will:

1.   Talk to one another not about one another,

2.   Know that what we call “the truth” is a point of view,

3.   Be open to different points of view and

4.   Seek solutions that take into account our desires and theirs. The word “but” perpetuates the conflict. The word “and” offers the possibility of win-win solutions.

An Inspiring Story of Resiliency and Forgiveness

“Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else—you are the one who gets burned.”

                                                   attributed to Buddha

Want a template for resiliency and forgiveness? Or perhaps you could use a shot of inspiration. If so, I urge you to read the book “Unbroken” by Laura Hillenbrand whose previous book was “Seabiscuit.”

“Unbroken” tells the story of Louis Zamperini who,in the 1930s, was a track star in high school in Torrance, California as well as in college at the University of Southern California.  Some thought he would be the first person to run a mile in under 4 minutes.  Zamperini ran the 5,000 meters (a little over three miles) in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. 

In 1942, Zamperini volunteered for the Army Air Force. He was a bombadier and survived a horrific air battle over the Japanese held island of Nauru. 

Several weeks later, he and an 11-member crew crashed in the Pacific while searching for the crew of a downed flight. Three men survived the crash.

The men floated on a raft in the Pacific for 47 days. They subsisted on scarce rainwater, the occasional bird that landed on their raft and the livers from two sharks that they killed using only a pliers (take that “Jaws”).

One of the men, Francis McNamara, died after 37 days. Louis and the other survivor, Russell Phillips who had been the pilot on the doomed flight, floated 2,000 miles to the Japanese controlled Marshall Islands where they were captured and imprisoned.

Survival at sea is only the first part of this harrowing story. For the next two years, Louis and the other prisoners of war were beaten, tortured and starved. Because no one had heard from him in all this time, Louis was declared dead by the war department.

His ordeal as a prisoner of war ended when the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese surrendered.

Louis returned home, married and had two children. But his rage at his Japanese captors and, especially, a camp commander named Watanabe, produced horrific nightmares and alcoholism.

At the urging of his wife, Louis attended a revival meeting in Los Angeles led by the young Billy Graham. Remembering a pledge he had made while on the raft at sea to give his life to God if he survived, Louis literally ended his drinking that night and dedicated his life to helping others. His nightmares and his rage never returned.

Perhaps the most amazing scene of all is of Louis returning to the prisoner of war camp in Japan where he had been imprisoned and that now imprisoned the very guards that had tormented him. To their astonishment Louis forgave the guards and even tried to meet with Watanabe to forgive him although Watanabe refused the meeting.

Louis is still alive and is 95 years old.

I encourage you to make a list of the people in your life who have “wronged” you, the people in your life you just “can’t” forgive and the people in your life who you complain about. Let go of your “hot coals” and forgive these people. You may not condone what they did, but I urge you to forgive them. Not for their sake, but for yours.

Want A Great Relationship? Listen Like A Dog

I recently saw a show on PBS as part of their “Independent Lens” series called “We Were There” about the AIDS epidemic especially as it was experienced in San Francisco from 1970 to about 1990.

When the show was over, I called two gay friends to tell them that the show gave me a new, visceral understanding of what they had gone through. Each friend told me he had personally known (either as close friends or acquaintances) over 100 (or more) people who had died during the epidemic.

But my new understanding was still an outsiders understanding. I will never know personally the terror that the epidemic engendered among those who had AIDS and those who were in danger of contracting the disease (which, for awhile, seemed it could be anyone, gay or straight). 

By definition, I have an outsiders understanding of everything that is outside me (practically the entire world) and don’t even always understand what seems to come from inside me. I don’t think I’m alone in this although I don’t know because, as I wrote, you are all outside of me.

The only way I can get even an inkling of what life is like for another is by asking, “What’s life like for you?” and then listening to understand the answer without opinions or judgments.

Which reminds me of a great book called “The Art of Racing In The Rain.” The narrator is a dog named Enzo and, yes, it ends like many (most?) books about dogs (a dead dog in case you’re wondering) although this book ends with a moving twist on that theme.

Enzo’s quest is to become human (a step down on the evolutionary scale?). Enzo reveals why he knows he’d be a good person: “Because I listen. I cannot talk, so I listen very well. I never deflect the course of the conversation with a comment of my own.”

I had an imaginary dog when I was a child and I loved him. Like the four real dogs that have lived with me, he seemed to never judge me, never interrupt me and he never interjected his own opinions.

We get to experience perfect love with our animals, not because they love us (take away the food and who knows if they’d remain) but because we love them unconditionally which allows us to experience unconditional love.

We could extend this lesson to all of life: if we want to experience peace, be peaceful. If we want to avoid conflict, don’t argue. If we want to find perfect love be perfectly loving.

It’s so easy with an animal. Could it be that easy with a person? Perhaps we can follow the advice given in the Tao Te Ching: “If you keep your mind from judging, your heart will find peace.”

 Which kind of brings me back to “We Were There.”

Restore Integrity to Restore A Relationship

Have you seen the movie, “It’s Complicated?”

Meryl Streep is divorced from Alec Baldwin, the father of their three children. At the college graduation of one of their children, she begins an affair with her former husband with consequences that give the movie its title.

In reality, however, it’s not complicated at all. It only gets complicated because Streep and Baldwin’s characters don’t keep their agreements. They didn’t keep their agreement when they got married (they missed the “until death do you part” thing), they didn’t keep their agreement when they got divorced (their relationship as a couple is over) and they didn’t keep their agreement to remain divorced when they began their affair.

I suggest that people say “It’s complicated” to justify why they aren’t going to keep their agreements. Keeping agreements is not complicated. It’s the breaking of agreements that creates complications.

If you have relationships that aren’t as great as you would like them to be, the source is likely broken agreements. You don’t trust someone who is consistently late or cancels appointments or fails to meet a promised deadline or fails to love, honor and cherish you even though that was the promise.

By the way, it’s not a matter of morality. You’re not a good person if you keep agreements and a bad one if you don’t. Keeping agreements is simply what works. It creates trust and safety that will allow the relationship to move forward.

I’m also not advocating staying in relationships that don’t work just because you made an agreement to do so. Having an agreement to end a relationship may be as beneficial as an agreement to stay together.

I am suggesting that whenever you’re in a conflict and someone maintains that the explanation for why they behaved in a particular way is “complicated,” that person either has already broken an agreement or is about to.

If you break an agreement, restore integrity to the relationship to restore the relationship. Apologize. Make a new promise that you will honor the agreement and stick to it. Or request a renegotiation of the agreement.

If someone breaks an agreement with you, confront it as soon as you find out. The longer you wait, the more you give tacit approval to the broken agreement.

Here’s a possible sequence for doing so:

1.   1. Say, “I want to talk to you about something that’s bothering me. Is this a good time for you?” You’re getting permission to proceed to ensure that the person is ready to listen to you.

2.   2. “We had an agreement to do X and you instead you did Y.” Say what the person said or did not your opinion or judgment. For example, don’t explain why it’s important to you for the person to have kept the agreement. The more you explain, the more opening you give the other person to discuss your explanation versus the fact of the broken agreement.

3.   3. The other person will likely rationalize, justify and /or explain the reasons for why he/she broke the agreement. Listen with respect, paraphrase what he/she says, but don’t lose sight of the necessity to get a clear agreement for the future. Without adding your own comments, keep asking, “Is there anything else you want to say” until the person is done.

4.   4. Ask if the person “will” keep the agreement in the future. “Will” is the operative word. Change is an act of will. You want to find out if the person has the “will power” to keep agreements in the future. Don’t ask, “Could you? ” Might you?” or “Will you try?”

5.   5. There are only three possible responses to the “Will you” question: “Yes” in which case thank the person, “No” in which case realize that the agreement no longer exists and you may choose to renegotiate or end the relationship or some form of “Maybe” which calls for the conflict resolution strategies I outline in my book, “Everyone Wins! Playing The Game of Conflict Resolution In All Your Relationships.”

Remember: Keeping agreements is not complicated although some people will try to make you believe that it is.

Make A Real Difference Today. Ask For Help

“People are happy helping. It’s never hard to find help. It is only hard to know that it’s time to ask.”

Maurice Sendak,  Brundibar

As one who is reluctant to ask for help, Sendak’s quote struck home.

If you have children, you probably know who Maurice Sendak is. If you pay attention to the news, you probably know that Maurice Sendak died at the age of 83 on May 8^th. Sendak was a children’s author. Perhaps his best known book was “Where The Wild Things Are.”

I didn’t realize what an amazing man he was until I heard Fresh Air on NPR with Terry Gross on May 8th. Terry replayed four interviews she had done with Sendak over the years.

Brundibar” (2003), with text by the playwright Tony Kushner, is based on an opera performed by the children of the Theresienstadt concentration camp. The opera, also called “Brundibar,” had been composed in 1938 by Hans Krasa, a Czech Jew who later died in Auschwitz.

Now back to the quote I used at the beginning.

Many people, myself included, grew up with the myth of the rugged individualist who carved a path through the western wilderness all by himself. Think Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett and “Buffalo Bill” Cody. Imagine any western movie (“High Noon” is one of the better examples) where the hero, abandoned by the town, stares down the bad guy in a gun fight to the death.

Of course, those lone heroes are all anomalies. In the West in particular cooperation and helping one another were a necessity for survival. Living far from civilization required depending on one’s fellow human beings for help. This is true today as it was then. The next time you’re in an airplane going west at night, notice how few and far between are the lights between cities west of the Mississippi versus the fairly constant light show seen from the sky in the East.

But believing the myth of the individual acting alone, it may be hard to ask for help. Many of us have the belief that we’re weak if we have to ask for help.

As Sendak notes, the hard part is in the asking. People want to make a difference. They want to contribute to others. But no one can contribute unless someone is willing to ask for that contribution.

So the real difference is made not only by the person who provides the help but equally by the person who asks for it.

So make a contribution to someone today. Ask for help. Make a request. Make two. Or three. 

It's Better To Ask Permission Than Forgiveness

There is an old saying that it is better to ask forgiveness than permission, the idea being that if we wait for permission, we may hear “no,” but if we just do what we believe to be best and then ask for forgiveness for doing so, we’re more likely to get our way.
The old saying is wrong. If you review in your life the relationships that didn’t work out or contained a lot of conflict or where there was often tension and stress, you’ll find that those relationships ran into trouble because you (or the other person) did something before getting agreement (permission) and then apologized (asked for forgiveness) afterwards.
Trust is harmed when agreements are broken. In fact, I’d suggest that the basis for relationship trouble is broken agreements whether it’s the businessperson who didn’t keep her word, the service person who didn’t show up at the time he said he would or the son/daughter who returned home later than promised. All of these are broken agreements and all lead to a lack of trust.
Here’s one example where an individual asked for forgiveness rather than permission and it caused problems.
My wife and I own a piece of property near Olympia, Washington. We don’t own an RV, but the previous owner had created a space for an RV to hook up to and get water and electricity.
Recently, a friend had sold his home and moved into an RV while looking for another house. He asked if he could rent our RV space and store a generator in our garage. We said yes with the agreement that he would be gone by a certain date, that he put only his generator in our garage and nothing else and that the only vehicle he kept on the property was his RV.
We were gone while he moved in. When we returned, we discovered that he had moved a van (in addition to the RV) on to the property, and that he had stored several pieces of furniture, in addition to the generator, in the garage.
He apologized but it created a rift in our relationship. We’re gone from this property for long stretches and we were concerned about what else he might do in our absence. We also became concerned that he might not leave by the date promised.
The issue is not the furniture he put in our garage or the van. The issue is trust. Whenever agreements are broken, trust is harmed and relationships suffer. We don’t know what we would have said had he come to us to renegotiate the agreement, but by following the maxim that it is better to ask forgiveness than permission, he cut off any possibility of renegotiation and harmed our relationship.
If you look at any of your failed/failing/ less than successful relationships, you will find that there was a breakdown in trust because an agreement was broken.
If you want to have relationships that work, ask for permission and get clear agreements before you take action.

"Can't We All Just Get Along?"

The answer to Rodney King is “Yes,” but it takes a willingness to transcend our ordinary ways of behaving as exemplified by the following story I heard on the NPR program “This American Life” on April 14^th.

John Snid was the founder of Love In Action, an organization dedicated, in his words, to “curing” adult homosexuals. By his own admission, John had been cured of his own homosexuality while hearing God’s voice in Church. Subsequently, John got married.

John also created a ministry called Refuge to cure gay teens. While Love In Action had attracted little opposition, Refuge brought out protesters when one of the teens blogged about his rather unpleasant experiences.

Morgan John Fox was one of the leaders of the protest group that appeared day after day in front of the Love In Action offices, demanding to meet with John Snid.

After weeks of protest, John agreed to meet with Morgan. Both prepared their arguments (Morgan prepared a six page document) and got ready for the anticipated verbal battle between them.

Sitting across from John, Morgan looked down at his notes and, much to his surprise, started saying what he hadn’t planned on saying. He talked about being teased as a child because he was “different” and the disapproval he experienced from his parents, his father in particular. Morgan also talked about the love he experienced after coming out as a gay man and the loving relationships he then developed.

John was moved by Morgan’s unexpected vulnerability and chose not to deliver his prepared 6-page statement.

Morgan ended up attending an open meeting of Love In Action and, as a result of what he learned there, mended his relationship with his father. Morgan emailed John, telling him the difference that meeting had made for him even though he continued to disagree with much of John’s philosophy.

John emailed back and the two began meeting informally at coffee houses and restaurants. Friends of the two men kidded them that there was some kind of romantic attraction but that wasn’t at all the case. They genuinely enjoyed discussing their opposing viewpoints.

John ended up shutting down the teen program, Refuge. In March of 2008, John shut down Love In Action admitting, to many people’s dismay, that he had never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual. This statement got national attention and John was interviewed on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews.

John remains married to this day and refers to himself as gay. There was no comment from John’s wife.

My intention is not to comment on being gay, on the possibility of “curing” homosexuality or on the contradictions inherent in a professed gay man being married to a woman.

Rather, I want to comment on the possibility of living a life in which “Everyone Wins” the game of conflict as the title of my book suggests. It’s possible, but it requires an extraordinary willingness to give up the need to be right and make others wrong.

The goal of conflict resolution is not to change anyone’s opinions or judgments. The goal of conflict resolution is to create agreements to which everyone will commit. This is accomplished through listening for understanding without the intention of changing someone else’s mind. John and Morgan are the exemplars of what I’m referring to.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If argument begets arguing, might listening produce a very different outcome?

You can listen to this story here. 

Blind Spots

Years ago, my mother in law had cataracts surgery. After the surgery, she marveled at how green the grass looked. Of course, the grass had always been green, but the cataracts had prevented her from seeing its brilliance.

Similarly, a friend told me about two friends of hers who had visited India at about the same time. One friend who was afraid of snakes was appalled at the number of “snake charmers” she saw on the streets. Another, with no particular fear of snakes, was disappointed that she hadn’t seen any.

Several years ago, I was in Olympia, Washington and passed two side by side newspaper kiosks. Here were the headlines on the front page of the two newspapers:

“Rates Of Owning Homes Is Plunging.” USA Today August 6, 2009

“Housing Ready To Rally?” The Olympian, Olympia, Washington August 6, 2009

In the New York Times on December 7, 2010, David Brooks in his column, “Social Science Palozza” cites research in “Psychological Science” in which people were presented with evidence that undermined their core convictions. Rather than questioning their beliefs, however, these people attacked the evidence and argued forcefully for their original beliefs.

Go to http://www.blindspottest.com and take a test that will confirm what I’m sure you already know: Because of a hole in our visual field (a “blind spot”), we are unable to see what’s right in front of us. Our brains fill that hole with our best guess as to what is actually there based on our past experience with that object.

In our day to day experience, what we see and what we don’t see is largely determined by what we believe (based on our past experience). If we’re afraid of seeing snakes, we may see a lot of them in India. If we have our beliefs challenged, we might deny the evidence.

If we were to open our heads and look behind our eyeballs, we’d know that we are literally not seeing what is actually in front of us. For example, if you saw me as your eyes do, I’d be two feet tall and upside down. Some magic happens in our brains to correct for the image that is received by our eyes. The “magic” is based on what our past experience has taught us we should expect to see.

What else are we not seeing? What are we seeing that isn’t there?

A friend asked me the other day for advice in dealing with his “opinionated” brother.

I suggested that he was seeing something that wasn’t there. There is no “opinionated” brother. There is, however, a brother with opinions that aren’t the same as my friend’s.

My friend is not actually seeing his real brother. He’s seeing some story he has about his brother (based on his beliefs from his past experience) and it’s the story he thinks is real. In fact, the story is more real than his real brother.

What might happen if we gave up our stories about each other and just accepted one another as we are: human beings with different blind spots and alternate points of view? Might this be, then, an opportunity to learn from one another rather than a reason to make each other wrong?  

Interrupting Our Past, Creating Our Future

Have you ever said to yourself, “From now on, I will…(listen, be patient, be loving, take risks, etc.) and then find yourself behaving as you always have?

Do you find it fascinating that we say we want to change, we know what we need to do to change, we make plans to change and, yet, we don’t change? We keep repeating the same behavior over and over and over again which, of course, is the definition of insanity.

If so, this article is for you.

My thoughts are inspired by a remarkable documentary being shown on “Frontline” on PBS called “The Interrupters.” It’s the story of former gang members in Chicago who put their lives at risk by inserting themselves into situations where gang violence may occur in an attempt to interrupt the fighting.

What’s clear is that the cycle of violence will continue forever unless it is interrupted. This is as true of gang violence as it is of warfare as it is of any relationship that we kill off by refusing to forgive and declare “it stops with me.”

Ameena Matthwes is one of these interrupters. Ameena tells the story of how she had been molested by her mother’s boyfriend when she was a young girl. After that incident, Ameena said that if someone so much as inadvertently bumped into her at school, she would get furious and be ready to fight.

Ameena’s anger is, of course, perfectly understandable and not only because of the sexual molestation. If you’ve ever become furious when someone cuts you off in traffic, disagrees with a strongly held belief or doesn’t acknowledge a contribution you’ve made, you can relate to Ameena. Like Ameena who became furious when bumped in school, your anger may be out of proportion to the actual incident.

The reason it’s out of proportion to the actual incident is because it’s not the actual incident to which you are responding just as Ameena wasn’t responding to being bumped in a store. You are responding to something that happened in your past and you made a decision about how you would behave in your future to a real or imagined threat. As Laurence Gonzales notes in his book, “Everyday Survival,” When we do things that don’t make sense, we’re responding from our past.”

A common example may have occurred in school. The teacher asked a question. You were sure you knew the answer. You vigorously waved you hand in the air, desperate to be called on. The teacher called on you and…you gave the wrong answer. Your classmates laughed and, perhaps some of the less empathetic ones called you “stupid.” What decisions might you have made at that moment?

Well, if, today, you find yourself nervous about speaking in groups, you may have decided that you would never let yourself be embarrassed again. If you get furious at someone who cuts you off in traffic, you may have decided that no one would ever take advantage of you again. If you are angry because you weren’t acknowledged for something you did, you may have decided that no matter what you do, you’ll never get the credit you deserve. You may want to confront someone and you don’t do so because you made the decision that it isn’t safe to speak up. You may have trouble listening to feedback because you made the decision that what others say about you is painful to hear.

Who knows what decisions a seven year old may have made?

The reason we try to change and don’t is because we keep trying to change our past instead of creating a new future free from that past. Our behavior in the present may not make sense to us because it’s how a 7 year old would behave. A 7 year old is, literally, running our lives in certain instances.

The past, of course, can’t be changed. That’s why it’s called The Past.

In his book “Wisdom of the Ages,” Wayne Dyer notes that we have about 60,000 thoughts every day. The problem is that they tend to be the same 60,000 thoughts repeated over and over again. This is as good an explanation as any of how our past becomes our future.

Until they stop living their past over and over and over again, those Chicago street gangs will remain in a cycle of violence. Unless we stop reliving our past, we are doomed to endlessly repeat our own cycles of unresolved conflicts.

Change occurs when we create a future that doesn’t include a recreation of the past.

Conflict and The Confirmation Bias

Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist, and a professor at the University of Maryland whose book The Righteous Mind seeks to explain why we get along with some people but not others. I saw him being interviewed by Bill Moyers and subsequently viewed a TED talk he gave in 2008.

Simply put, according to Haidt, we don’t get along with some people because we are afflicted with “confirmation bias” which means that “searching for the truth” mostly involves finding evidence to confirm what we already believe. Therefore, when we are in a conflict, we start from the premise that the other person is wrong and that if they had the information we have, they would see the error of their ways. This stops us from listening and propels us into some form of persuasion or intimidation or avoidance or anything but actually resolving our differences.

“Confirmation bias’ happens so quickly and automatically that it’s often a blind spot for us. We see other people and just know that our judgments of them are accurate.

We can get insight into the blind spots of our confirmation biases by noticing how other people react to us. For example, if the people around us are being defensive it’s a pretty good bet that we’re acting in ways that cause those people to think there’s something to defend. If the people around us are arguing aggressively, it’s likely they think they must do so to be heard. If the people around us are cooperative, it’s likely we’re acting cooperatively.

In our daily lives, this can have enormous implications for our ability to achieve results. For example, think of someone you are very close to and get along with easily. What adjectives would you use to describe that person?

Now think of someone with whom you’re in conflict and have been for awhile. This could be a customer who isn’t buying from you, a boss who won’t listen to you or a spouse or child who disagrees with you. What adjectives would you use to describe these people when you are in conflict?

Consider that the adjectives you used are examples of your confirmation bias and they are driving your actions and, therefore, your results. You find evidence to confirm why your dear friend can be trusted and you act accordingly. You find evidence to be wary of that customer, boss or spouse and that drives other actions and different results.

I’m going to suggest something that you may consider radical so I ask for your indulgence: There is no reality to the adjectives you used. These people are not actually the way you describe them. You have simply been living within your confirmation bias long enough to believe that your reactions are “the truth.”    

The most limiting confirmation bias of all is the bias we have towards ourselves. Just complete the sentence, “I am… to see the effect of the confirmation bias on your actions and what has been possible for you in your life.

Yes the truth shall set you free. We just have to get beyond our blind spots to find that truth.  

Bringing Peace To Violence

Aqueela Sherrils is identified in the movie “Thrive” (available on DVD only) as the “coarchitect of the truce between the Crips and the Bloods in Los Angeles in 1992.” I didn’t know there had been a truce or even if it’s still holding, but I was happy to hear that there had been one. Any reduction in violence in this world is good for all of us.

This truce didn’t occur because Sherrils and others taught the combatants the 7 steps for resolving conflict. The truce occurred because there was a transformation in thinking. Until the parties to a conflict are willing to say, “enough,” no resolution will occur regardless of how versed people are in the 7 (or 3 or 10 or 17) steps.

In the movie, Sherrils is quoted as saying that conflict is healthy. It’s the way we allow for differences to emerge and it’s our differences that create the opportunity to learn from one another. No differences, no learning. No learning, no survival of the species.

Sherrils goes on to note, however, that “Unresolved conflict leads to violence.”

Some of us have our own variation of the Crips and Bloods battle. Usually it doesn’t escalate to physical violence. Usually it‘s a subtle kind of violence that people do to one another day in and day out.

It may be the violence that leads to families that are little more than armed camps, with the members of the various “camps” barely speaking to one another.

It may be the violence between parents and children who no longer listen to one another.

It may be the violence that leads to a loss of vitality when one fears honestly expressing oneself. 

It may be the violence of the workplace in which a boss, coworker or employee demoralizes those with whom he/she works.

But whether conflict leads to the violence of a quick death or the violence of the slow death of a relationship, no system for resolving conflict will make a difference unless there’s a transformation in thinking. Without a transformation, we are doomed to repeat the cycle of violence endlessly.

Here are some ideas about the kind of thinking that will make a difference:

1.   The internal monologue in our heads that tells us “this is the way the world is” will, for the most part, not help us to improve our relationships. That voice is designed to help us survive, not thrive. Survival too often means “keep doing what we’re doing” because what we’ve been doing has led to our survival. That voice comes from our past. That voice does not help us to solve new problems in the present or create a new future free from the constraints of the past. That internal voice can only tell us how problems were solved in the past which is fine if we live in the past. You may notice that we don’t (except in our memories).

2.   Responsibility for the success of relationships isn’t 50/50. It’s  100%/0. Have you noticed that you’re the common denominator in all of your relationships both when those relationships are working and when they are not?

3.   Listen without arguing to the feedback you get and especially the feedback you disagree with. What you’re being told is your access to great relationships. The feedback you hear may be a blind spot for you that may save your relationships if not your life. Blind spots cause accidents. Eliminating blind spots improves our vision.

4.   Give up believing that you are justified in being angry. Make up reasons (which is what justification actually is) to be loving instead.

5.   Continually forgive. Not condone, just forgive. Stop drinking arsenic and expecting the other person to die.

None of us are to blame for our way of thinking. Indeed, for the most part, our way of thinking isn’t actually our way of thinking. It’s how our ancestors thought. For example, if you are a man, you inherited certain ways of thinking that are common to men. If you’re a woman, you inherited thoughts that women generally think. These thoughts are evolving, but they are still inherited and aren’t original to us.

If we are to thrive, we have to invent new ways of thinking. When our way of thinking doesn’t work for us, we need to thank our ancestors for their help, but let them know, gently, that we plan to choose a way of thinking that brings peace to violence.

What You See Is What You Get. But You May Be Blind And Not Know It

Happy New Year (okay, so I’m closer to the Chinese New Year than the Western one, but the sentiments are the same).

How many times have you heard, “Perception is reality?” or that “What you see is what you get?” These statements have profound implications. What I think is there may not be. What I’m sure is not there, may be. I can’t be sure that my view of reality has any reality to it. This includes my view of other people as well as my view of myself.

If one of your resolutions is to have better relationships in 2012, consider that conflicts exist because we don’t see what other people plainly see or, conversely, we see what other people are sure isn’t there.

I submit the following as evidence:

You may have heard of the experiment in which six people, three wearing white shirts and three wearing black, are videotaped for one-minute tossing a basketball back and forth. Later, a group of people watch a recording of this action and are instructed to count the number of tosses made by people in the white shirts.

Afterwards, the observers are asked two questions:

1.      1. How many tosses were made by the white team and

2.       2. Did you see the gorilla?

Say what?

In fact, after 35 seconds of the one-minute recording have passed, a person in a gorilla suit walks into the circle of players, thumps his/her chest for nine seconds and then leaves.

100% of the observers correctly counted the number of passes. 50% of the people did not see the gorilla.

Another famous experiment is one in which Stanford University psychologist David Rosenhan had eight volunteers go to psychiatric hospitals on the east and west coasts and claim to be hearing voices for a brief period of time (by that definition, we all should be admitted. If you doubt it, just stop reading and listen to your internal monologue including the monologue that asks “What voice?”). All eight were admitted to the hospitals. One was diagnosed as manic-depressive while seven were diagnosed as schizophrenic. They ended up staying in the hospitals for an average of nineteen days (the range was from seven to fifty-two days).

Nurses generally reported that these patients seemed perfectly fine, but none of the hospital psychiatrists or staff agreed. All were eventually released with a diagnosis of schizophrenia “in remission”

When the results of the experiment were released, Rosenhan was contacted by a psychiatric hospital to explain that they would never be fooled as others had been. Rosenhan told these hospital administrators that, over the next three months, he would send them fake patients to see if they would be caught.

Three months later, 193 patients had been admitted by the hospital. 41 were classified as imposters.

In fact, Rosenhan had not sent a single fake patient to the hospital.

You may ask, “So what? How does this help me in my life?”

Simple. When a conflict festers, we of course believe we are right and “they” are wrong. Belief in the “rightness” of our position is the basis for all conflict.

If you have any interest at all in resolving those conflicts, you should at least consider that the gorilla that the other person is insisting is in the room pounding it’s chest just might be there but you are so focused on being right that you just don’t see it. Perhaps you’re not seeing that you really don’t listen, that your point of view is not the truth but only a point of view or that your opinion is not a fact.

So for this year and beyond, in order to improve our relationships, we all must be skeptical of our own certainties about ourselves and other people.    

Transcending "Groundhog Day"

“Groundhog Day” is a great film because it captures so well the dilemma of being a human being and also offers a way to transcend that dilemma.

You know the story. A pompous weatherman from Pittsburgh (Phil Connors) gets stuck in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania because of a snowstorm. He is also stuck in February 2^nd, Groundhog Day, waking up each day to the same day, over and over and over again until, finally, he wakes up to a new day.

In essence, this is our fate. We know what tomorrow will be like and, with some variation, it will be just like today. Few of us will wake up in the morning and completely alter the circumstances of our lives. The circumstances may alter without our active intervention, but we’re not likely to quit our jobs, end our relationships, leave our children behind and run off to Bali or wherever we have dreamed of being. Some people do but they are usually running from the law.

In fact, a change in our circumstances may cause us to yearn for “Groundhog Day.” For example, people who have lost jobs or homes probably wish to get their old life back. The uncertainty of this economy may have you wishing for your own “Groundhog Day.”

Even as the day changes to February 3^rd, nothing really alters for Phil Connors either. In fact, at the end of the movie as he is walking with the woman he loves he says, “Let’s live here forever.” But if he does, he will meet the same people, he will eventually hear Sonny and Cher singing, “I’ve got You Babe,” the song he woke up to every morning when it was always February 2^nd and he will likely return to his job predicting the weather. Even if he returns to Pittsburgh, he will mostly interact with the same people he did when he left for Punxsutawney.

So why is Phil Connors happy? You could say, as he does, that it’s simply change that has made him happier. But a little reflection proves the fallacy of that reasoning. For awhile, a new car, job or relationship makes us happy. But eventually the car, relationship and job become “Groundhog Day.”

I suggest that what alters Phil’s world is that he sees something that had been a blind spot for him. He sees that it really makes no difference if he has to repeat the same day over and over and over again. In essence, that’s all of our fates. Rather, he decides that while he can’t alter his circumstances, he can alter his attitude and that transforms everything.

 

Ultimately, this is how conflicts get resolved, relationships heal and we become happy. If our circumstances never change but our point of view about those circumstances changes, then life alters.

Paradoxically, altering our point of view requires that we see what has always been there. We will see what has always been there if we give up our commitment to being right about our opinions, judgments and assessments. We might, for example, see that our opinion of those family members we are dreading to see during the holidays bear no relationship to the reality of who they really are.

As Rabbi Alan Lew writes in his book, “One God Clapping,” “We don’t realize how much our subjectivity is involved in shaping reality. When we do become aware of this, the world seems remarkably malleable.”