Tag

Difficult Conversations Archives - How to be Awesome at Your Job

1035: How to Create Stronger Connections by Disagreeing Better with Bob Bordone

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Bob Bordone discusses the importance of building conflict resilience and how it can help you navigate the tough conversations.

You’ll Learn

  1. How conflict resilience brings people together  
  2. The key to raising your conflict tolerance 
  3. How to face any conflict head-on in three easy steps 

About Bob 

Robert Bordone is a Senior Fellow at Harvard Law School, founder and former director of the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program, former Thaddeus R. Beal Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and founder of The Cambridge Negotiation Institute. He is co-author of Designing Systems and Processes for Managing Disputes, and co-editor of The Handbook of Dispute Resolution. 

Resources Mentioned

Thank You, Sponsors!

Bob Bordone Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Bob, welcome.

Bob Bordone
Pete, great to be here. Thanks for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, I’m so excited to talk about conflict resilience, how to negotiate without giving up or giving in. Could you kick us off with a riveting tale, no pressure, but extremely exciting, high-stakes negotiation that you were in the midst of? And tell us what went down.

Bob Bordone
Oh, man. You know, there are many, and I think one thing I want to say also is that anyone who’s in a negotiation, for them, it is high stakes and riveting. But the one that immediately comes to my mind is actually one that I mediated, and it was a family of means that had lots and lots of property to be divided between them, and went on for many months.

I mean, there are so many fascinating aspects to this, but, for me, what was most interesting was folks were, and I think this actually comes up a lot in conflict, folks who are fighting over things, but the truth of the matter is that most of the actual fight was about feelings and emotions and stories that people told about each other.

And so, a lot of the work, this may or may not surprise your listeners, was getting folks to actually put aside the fight around the things, to talk about what was actually going on. And once we were able to do that, it didn’t make the fight about every single property easy, but it made it much easier and helped us to bring it to an end that not only resolved it, but also actually helped this family stay together.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes. Well, Bob, you’re giving me a flashback. Wow, this was a weird day. But, one time, I remember I did a Myers-Briggs workshop for a group, and then someone said, “That was awesome. You should come do that for me and my co-authors because we’re kind of working on a book together, and this would be really great for our team dynamic.” But as I got into it, what became clear was, “Oh, your conflicts are way deeper than just these personality difference stuff.”

Bob Bordone
Oh, wow.

Pete Mockaitis
“And, like, I don’t even know if I’m the man for this.” But, yeah, there was some family and some history and some emotions and about being appreciated or taken advantage of, or, like, historically, and it’s, like, wow. And just talking about who’s going to write what chapters and how their personality will help or hinder certain sections of who’s writing what isn’t going to cut it.

So, tell me, how do you make that that pivot, that transition, because in their mind, it’s like, “Okay, this the personality guy that’s going to help us write our book.” In their mind, “Okay, you’re the mediator guy helping us divide the property.” And then I say, “Well, no, actually, let’s talk about how you feel your sibling treated you as a teenager.” It’s like, “What?”

Bob Bordone
Yeah, Pete, this is a great question. It sounds like you’re not a therapist. I’m also not a therapist, and also this isn’t therapy. At the same time, I will say that one of the things that I have come to really appreciate, you know, my background is in law. People do not come to lawyers for therapy, but it is often the case that what’s most convenient to talk about is who’s right and who’s wrong, and who gets the thing and what the legal rules are.

But so much of, I think, the work of really being good at conflict to ourself and also being good as a mediator, a facilitator of conflict is getting people to do some of their own work first. And we imagine, my co-author and I in writing our book, that people will come to it, and in their mind, they’ll be thinking about, like, “How do I deal with this unhinged person at work?” or, “Like, my mother-in-law or someone on I’m in conflict with a, whatever, at the local church?”

But the first step, I think, is always doing like an internal audit, because I think, often, part of what makes conflict hard, like, across a proverbial table is that we also often have lots of internal conflicts and ambivalence in ourself. And when we’re triggered in a particular conflict, it’s kind of bringing up what’s happening in that moment. And then a big narrative and our history and our family background, and “Do we need to unpack all of that, like, to figure out who gets what?” No, I don’t think so.

It’s also the case that, I think, the more self-aware we are of those dynamics, the quicker we can move from that, what we call kind of period of limbic irritability, where we’re kind of being emotional or maybe irrational or running.

Pete Mockaitis
Limbic irritability, I can go into that.

Bob Bordone
Yeah, I love that. I would like to take credit for limbic irritability, but that is very much my co-author, who brings a brain science piece to this book. And it’s really just this moment, or actually more than a moment, when someone says or does something in a conflict and the frontal lobe, like the rational part of our brain that makes good decisions, is overridden, it’s irritable, if you will, by chemicals that are coming from the amygdala.

And we know that it’s like the adrenaline and the cortisol, and that’s kind of making it harder to make really good decisions at the negotiation table. And so, the quicker we can name what’s going on to ourselves, and there’s actually research about this, we’re looking at fMRIs, the quicker people are able to kind of name it to tame it, naming those emotions and feelings and those stories, the quicker the limbic irritability actually goes down, and allows us to be more constructive.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, now this is sparking some remembrance of a nonviolent communication. Is that Marshall Rosenberg?

Bob Bordone
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
In which he nails it, like, to be able to say, “I’m feeling angry because my need for respect doesn’t seem to be being met in this situation.” It does worlds for like, “Oh, okay. It’s no mystery, that’s what’s going on here.”

Bob Bordone
“That’s what’s going on.”

Pete Mockaitis
“I felt like when he said that, that was disrespectful to me, and so I got angry about it. But, I guess, I don’t need to let that impact my thousands of dollars of whatever negotiation here. I can just kind of let go of that,” or maybe say, “No, actually, that’s pretty important, given brand, or reputation, or whatever. That’s got to get addressed here. Let’s do it.”

Bob Bordone
What you just did there, Pete, is, I mean, so critical because it’s, first of all, it’s being able to name yourself, the feeling and the need of what’s not being met, and that is important. I mean, I don’t know any relationship, whether it’s a boss, supervisor, colleagues, parent, friend, you name it, that works well in the long term where one person isn’t feeling respected.

So, the real difficult conversation is “What does respect look like? And how can we change the dynamic?” So, to be able to name that and say, “That is important. What might be less important is whether I’m getting paid $3,000,” or you’ve moved your fence six feet to the right, or whatever it may be. That might be one way of conveying respect, and there might be 22 other ways. But until we actually get at what’s really the real rub, which is, “I feel disrespected here,” it’s going to be actually hard to even have a conversation about the right thing.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s dead on. And I’ve heard that there is some research, and, Bob, maybe you have it top of mind. When it comes to medical malpractice type situations, one of the biggest drivers is the extent to which the physician is being caring and honest and helpful as they go and say, “Hey, so this is what happened, and we’re so sorry. Humans make mistakes, and we made a mistake, and here’s what we’re going to do to fix it,” as opposed to silence, lawyer up, be difficult. It’s, like, that actually is a worse approach for mitigating liabilities and losses.

Bob Bordone
Amen, yeah. And this research you’re talking about is really kind of fascinating because what it shows is that people are more likely to want to sue in a situation where they don’t feel that the doctor has been willing to kind of has actually met those interests in listening and sharing their contribution, where they’re just in a defensive stance, than if actually there is that listening and that kind of meeting the interests of feeling hurt, and even apology.

And I think where it’s really interesting from a conflict perspective, and someone who is also trained in law, is there’s this interesting sweet spot of, if people can just actually be honest, like doctors make mistakes, that causes damages for sure that need to be compensated. But the moment of acknowledging that goes a long way to me not wanting to destroy you.

I might need another surgery, and, yeah, I kind of expect the hospital to pay for that. But, like, I don’t need to destroy you. But that defensiveness, and what’s weird is law would come in and say, “Don’t say anything because if you say anything, that will be used against you and then we’re doomed.” And so, what ends up happening is we miss an opportunity there. We miss an opportunity that I think is unfortunate from a conflict perspective.

And, I mean, here we’re obviously talking about medical error, but on a day-to-day basis in, like, relationships, I think similar dynamics come up where the act of apology or the act of sharing some vulnerability doesn’t happen because we’re afraid that the other person is going to take advantage of us. Both sides fearing that do the kind of least good thing, the thing that’s like least in their actual character, and then they tell a story about how terrible the other person is.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, so coming back to your situation with the wealthy family, you noticed, “Hey, there’s some emotional history stuff going on here,” what happened next?

Bob Bordone
And so, just a piece of that, it is not to relitigate that, for sure, and one of the, I think, core things we talk about in our book, it’s not even to get people on the same page. But the process, I think, of just effectively listening to each other’s stories and experiences, having it validated as, “This is how you experienced,” just can go a long way in, I think, changing the narrative and, particularly, like changing the idea of what might be possible.

Like, another domain of work where I’ve done this is working across lines of difference with, like, Israeli and Palestinian young people. It’s not typically the case that ongoing dialogue across a line of difference changes people’s view on the substantive issue, but it powerfully changes their view on the way they tell the story about the other person, and that’s really valuable for what they might be able to do going forward.

And even if they can’t do all that much, being able to say that, “This is a three-dimensional complicated, interesting person that I can identify with,” is better than “They’re the enemy/subhuman/fill-in-the-blank,” right?

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. Okay, so with your book, it’s called Conflict Resilience, what does that mean?

Bob Bordone
Yeah, so what we want to make really clear that it’s not a fancy word or a catchy word for conflict resolution, but it’s actually quite different. Conflict resilience is really the kind of capacity to sit with the discomfort of disagreement, meaning that it’s both this ability to listen very well and effectively and generously, and also assert your own viewpoint authentically, non-avoidantly, but in a way that increases the chances that the other side could hear you. And it’s independent of whether or not we might be able to actually problem-solve, agree, or find common ground.

So, in a sense, it’s a little bit like emotional intelligence. It’s a set of skills, but it’s like a capacity or a quality that, I think, in this case, is prerequisite to being able to do conflict resolution or negotiate or mediate. Because if you can’t stand the heat of the fire of the conflict, then you really can’t resolve it. You can run away from it but you can’t resolve it.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, it’s funny, you’re sparking some memories for me. I remember I was dealing with an issue and I was chatting with a lawyer, and he said, very matter of fact, “Well, either they give that money back or you sue them.” I was like, “Oh, just like that, huh?”

And then someone else was talking about the same issues, like, “You know, unfortunately, it sounds like, I know it’s a huge pain, but if they don’t play ball, I think you’re going to have to actually, you know, contact a lawyer and do that whole thing, file a complaint with the county, all that stuff.” And it was so noticing how that juxtaposition there, two people talking about the same thing, one just like, “Hey, whatever, sue. No big deal.” And the other one is like, “Oh, yeah, it’s got to be a real big thing.”

And I think that that is reflective of personality or emotional capacity or something, because to one person, it’s no big deal, and to the other, it’s, “Oh, man,” a huge ordeal is about to unfold.

Bob Bordone
Absolutely. One of the things we talk about in our book is kind of these five Fs: fight, flight, freeze, fawn, or fester. I know I said that very fast. Fight, flight, freeze, fawn, or fester. But they’re kind of like our, as you were saying, Pete, like default tendencies that we have in that moment when we’re feeling conflict. And the brain, the way it’s kind of set up is, in the moment it feels this discomfort, it will go to the thing that relieves it most quickly.

And for some of us, it might be fighting. It feels like we’re doing something. And others, it might be fawning, which is like, “Oh, my gosh, I’m so sorry. I didn’t mean to. Oh, please forgive me,” or fester, I kind of just kind of sit there and stew quietly, or flee. And the truth of the matter is, though, I think that if we can become more aware of that default, and it does differ, as you say, for different people, it gives us this moment of opportunity to choose something that might be more purposeful, that might actually advance our goal. And it might be very different from you either sue them or avoid it.

I think the other thing, Pete, that you’re bringing up, and tell me if this seems right to you, is that just our individual experience of what might register as conflict just varies. So, just an example with my co-author, since you were asking about co-authors earlier, right? I’m somebody, I’m trained in law, I love to get into a policy discussion, right? We can, you know, whatever. You pick something, Pete, I’ll, like, get into it with you, and it’ll be super fun.

I’ll be like, “I had so much fun, it was great.” My co-author might be like, “Oh, my gosh, Bob’s really upset.” Like, sleepless nights. Like, “Is our friendship in danger?” And I’m thinking that was fun. And so, there’s just a way in which what each of us registers as conflict, so we call this conflict tolerance, in our book, varies.

But the problem is if we if we’re not able to even have the conversation about “How do we handle that difference?” I will come away thinking “This person just caves in all the time. They’re obviously not that smart. They clearly agree with me.” And the other person comes away thinking I’m aggressive, a bully, you know, fill in the blank.

And so, part of it is how do we identify these differences? How do we find ways to talk about how to handle even the difference in which we experience conflict?

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, lay it on us. How do we do that?

Bob Bordone
Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think, so part of it is doing some work around your own, understanding your own defaults. So, with around the idea of conflict tolerance, we actually break it into two pieces, what we call conflict recognition and conflict holding. So, recognition is, “What is the moment at which I would describe our interaction as conflict?” Holding is, “Once I feel like I’m in a conflict, what is my ability to stay with it versus going into one of the defaults?”

So, doing some self-assessment, I think, is really important. I think the second piece is if I’m in kind of an ongoing interaction with, whatever, a sibling, where I continue to see, like, a shutdown around an issue. Instead of bringing the issue back up, there’s an interesting conversation to say, “Can we talk about what is happening for each of us when this issue pops up? Like, how do you experience a conversation? How do I experience a conversation?”

In other words, we’re going meta on the dynamic. And that may sound, I mean, to some listeners like, “Oh, my gosh, who’s going to do this? And are you going to do this every day, all the time?” No. But if it’s the kind of conflict issue that keeps you up at night, that’s tearing at a relationship that matters to you, that kind of you’re spending a lot of time around a proverbial water cooler or on a Slack channel, going on and on about how horrible they are, yeah, well that’s the time to actually engage this.

And that’s what people tend to avoid, and that’s what we hope our book can really be helpful with because that’s the productive thing we need to do better.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly. And I’m thinking that, for any naysayers out there, I think that this is a tremendously valuable activity. Yes, not every day, and with not every issue. But because it really can be quite illuminating in terms of it registers for one person, it’s like, “Oh, my gosh, you’re enraged. You think I’m a terrible husband.” Like, whatever.

It’s like, “Oh, no, no, no, no, not at all. I just kind of preferred that we do it this way. I just kind of like it a little better. That’s all I was asking.” It was like, “Oh, really? Because it felt like judgy or whatever,” fill the blank. And so, I think those conversations are valuable. I think maybe some level of avoidance, resistance that we feel towards that is just straight up fear. Like, we’re worried the other person’s going to be like, “Oh, you softy. Come on. You always make me the bad guy.” Like, whatever.

It’s like there are, it feels as though that conversation could go very wrong. So, Bob, tell us what’s our risk prognosis and how do we do it well?

Bob Bordone
Yeah, I love that you’re bringing this up, right? So, I feel like there’s some good news and bad news in what I’m going to say here. The good news is that my own experience is, often the fear of what might go wrong in one of these conversations is like way more destabilizing, exhausting, and tiring than the actual conversation itself. I mean, it just is.

So frequently, I’ll work with somebody or coach somebody and they’ve practiced and they’re worried, and then after they do it, they’re like, “You know, I mean, it wasn’t perfect, but, like, I’m so glad I did it. Or it helped advance the ball. We didn’t get to Z. We got to F. But since we were at A, getting to F was like progress.”

But the other thing, here’s the bad news, because, I mean, I think there is bad news, and I think this does have people hold back. There is a chance, it’s like whenever you change the script and do something different, there is a chance you’ll get the worst possible answer. There is a chance that if you put yourself out there in a somewhat more vulnerable way to engage something that matters to you, in a way that’s really inviting to the other side, that they might be like, “Meh, I don’t really care.” “Meh, sounds like it’s your problem.” And, therefore, we avoid it.

We avoid it in service of the relationship, but the reality is that, if they really were to do that, in most cases, I’d rather know that now than engage in some kind of farce with you or wait for the slow kill on the relationship. And so, does that makes sense? Or what do you think about that?

Pete Mockaitis
No, that’s resonating. And, I mean, you might give him a second chance.

Bob Bordone
You might give him a second chance, oh, for sure.

Pete Mockaitis
Like, if they give you blowoff, it’s like, “Hey, you know, last week, I brought up this and you said that, but this is actually pretty important to me so I’d love to schedule time to dig into it.” And you might get a second blowoff, like, “No, I don’t think this is worth a second of our company time to dig into.” Well, you’re right, I think you know, it’s like, “Okay, this relationship will never be great. We may be able to endure to put our heads down and get something done, but we’re never going to have a trusting, excellent, world-class collaboration, so long as they are this way.”

And, it is, it’s good to know that earlier, rather than to be blindsided six years down the road, it’s like, “Oh, I thought we were really simpatico, but, no, we’re not at all.”

Bob Bordone
Yeah. Amen to that, right? And one of the things that I really do think, I mean, you touched on something when you said, “Give it a second chance,” right? For sure. And also, later in our book, we kind of offer some of our, hopefully, useful advice on kind of “How do you make this decision to have the conversation and when to not have the conversation, when it’s time to, like, exit in some way?”

And our overriding argument is that we tend to exit too quickly. We tend to go to that convenient, “Let’s just tell a negative story about them, we’re just the best it could be.” But there are some times when either it’s time to exit, or like, I mean, if it’s your boss and you like, you otherwise like the job, you’re going to have to figure out how to manage that relationship.

But, one, I think, important diagnostic part of that, it can’t be whether the other person in the conversation is going to be skillful, because people, as they don’t have some training in it, maybe they’re just not that skillful for whatever set of reasons. But I think you can say, “Can the person at least come to this with a degree of goodwill? Like, do I have to 100% trust them?” I don’t think so. But do you have to feel like they can enter into this with at least some good faith? That’s probably enough, at least to try. At least to try a few times.

And one of the things I always say is, I can’t ultimately change them, but before I make that decision of “This is not going to be the world-class collaboration that I hope for,” I want to have done all that’s in my power. I want to be as effectively assertive and as curious as I could have been. I want to make the conversation as inviting and as kind, but also as authentic as I could have been.

Then, you make your decision based on, after that. I mean, if it’s your sister, you’re probably going to have to have some relationship with your sister. If it’s your boss, well, for the time being, you might, but you might decide it’s time to look for a new work, right? If it’s like your golfing buddy and it’s so bad, you might be like, “Yeah, I’m going to find a new golfing buddy.” You make that decision depending on also what’s in your power to influence.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. Now you’ve got a three-step framework: name, explore, commit. Can you walk us through this?

Bob Bordone
Sure. So, the name piece is, broadly speaking, what we would say is the internal work, meaning understanding what are the different internal kind of conflicts or stories that are perhaps making it hard for you to engage the conflict or making you tend to be very argumentative or fighting. So, name is, at both a kind of emotional level, a substantive level, and relational level, what are your interests? What are the kinds of default patterns you have? It’s a lot of self-work.

And we kind of break that into, we call mirror work, which is doing some of the self-examination of your own kind of history and story in this particular conflict. And then the next piece is the chair work, what we really call bringing into some integration, even internal stories or conflicts, and kind of naming them, giving them some voice.

So, just to give you an example, I think, that’d probably be most helpful. If there’s something you want to raise with, let’s just say, your boss, it’s kind of like, “Well, what are the reasons why it’s important to raise this? And what are the reasons why I’d rather not?” And, actually, like giving, naming all of those reasons.

And the reason why that’s worth doing is it’s often, and then practicing giving them voice, is because, often, once we get into the room, we tend to only have one or two of the sides actually get voiced. And the next piece, which is what we call the table work, is actually representing all of the sides in the conversation. So, that’s name.

Explore, I would say, is probably the most at-the-table pieces. So, what does it look like to actually open up and understand, like, “What are the interests of the other side? What is the story they’re telling?” So, a lot of listening, “How am I assertive about my views or needs?” And then the third piece, is commit. And with commit, there’s kind of two pieces in there.

One, we’ve kind of referenced this already, Pete, which is “How do I decide whether, if it’s a negotiation, like, is what’s being offered just something I want to say yes to?” If it’s an ongoing, let’s just say, conversation about, I don’t know, a political difference or a strategic difference, like, I don’t know, “How are we going to agree on an advertising budget for the next quarter?” do I want to kind of continue to engage on this, or do I just think it’s not worth it anymore?

And then, lastly, just from a relational interest, kind of as we were saying, is this a relationship that I might say, “I want to continue in this relationship, but it can only go so deep”? Or, “Gosh, we did something here, we did some work here that was pretty transformational, and we’re actually closer.” Or, like, “Now that I’ve learned what I’ve learned, it’s time to kind of move on.” So, there’s that piece.

But the other piece we really talk about in the commit is, “How can we try to build organizational structures in place?” Like, if we’re a leader, “How do I commit to building an environment that actually encourages people to be conflict resilient, meaning that encourages people to kind of come forward with their different viewpoints, that isn’t a cancel culture, that isn’t a, ‘If you disagree with us or me, you’re a troublemaker’?” So, we kind of offer some advice on how to build a greenhouse that helps people be more conflict resilient.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Understood. So, I’d love to hear, let’s talk about the internal stuff, mirror work, in terms of, if we’re generally averse to conflict, it makes our necks feel uncomfortable, and there’s a lot of fear, trepidation, whatever, like, across the board, numerous relationships, numerous issues, any pro tips for how we can, generally, get better at this stuff?

Bob Bordone
Yes. So, part of in a situation where someone finds themselves more avoidant than engaging, my coaching on this would be like, “Okay, so let’s make a list of maybe what are the fears you have about engaging this?” and they’ll come up with whatever the reasons are, “It’ll go poorly, the person will get hurt, I’ll get hurt, it’s not worth it. Nothing will change. It’s not that important to me anyway,” blah blah blah. I always love that last one, “It’s not that important to me anyway.”

It’s like, “Okay, you’re paying me to spend time on this, but it’s not that important. I don’t even believe it, but, okay, let’s make that list.” But then, and this is the real coaching piece, “Why is it important? Why might you want to actually raise this?” And they’ll say, “Well, maybe something will change.” “Well, if we don’t, the relationship’s going to end up in the trash, anyway.” “Well, it’ll be hard to work with them,” “Well, it brings morale down,” “Well, how can they get better if I haven’t told them?” They make a list of all those things.

That work, just having them look at those two things, and then be persuaded, not that the first piece is not possible, but that the second piece is as legitimate and important as the first. And so, the kind of work there is embracing, this is the kind of mirror work, both of these are true. And if your tendency is that you tend to let all the fear side win the day, the side of you you’re letting down is all of the reasons why it’s really important to have a conversation, and you can’t do that consistently over time and actually be authentic and connected in relationship with anybody because they’re only seeing one piece of you.

They’re not seeing you. You’re letting something down here. So, if you’re worried about disappointing them, you’re actually disappointing a part of yourself. So, it’s interesting, some of this, I don’t know if any of your listeners, or you, Pete, have any interest in internal family systems, but some of this actually draws on internal family systems work, identifying, “What are the parts of us? Then how do we find ways to not evaluate or silence or overvalue certain parts and undervalue others? But each of these is useful and has served us.”

But when we consistently silence one because of fear, we are losing something, and I think the most important thing is we’re losing the possibility for connection. The possibility for actually a better working relationship. So, we think we’re doing something in service of preserving something, but we’re just setting up the slow kill.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, you know, maybe I’m a dork who majored in finance, and I am. But that makes me think about risk and money. It’s like you could take zero risk and have your money hang out in a checking account. But then there’s the slow kill of its value from inflation. Or you can take some risk, put it in the stock market. Like, it could go down. It absolutely could. But over the long term, historically, things work out a lot better for you if you park it there as opposed to a checking account.

And I think about that, similarly with these conversations, it’s like, you could play it safe and never raise it, and it’s true, you won’t be rocking the boat. You will not cause the potential damage that conversation could cause, but you will also not unlock the greatness that could be possible within this relationship.

And I have been delighted by how, like, sometimes relationships can go into amazing places when you say exactly what’s up. I remember my friend, Anne, in college, and I was maybe a little bit less guarded and flippant, say whatever was on my mind at the time before being chastened by things that went wrong, conversationally.

But I remember she said she was dating this guy, and I said, “Oh, yeah, I know him. You know, he’s funny. He’s funny, but sometimes I wonder, does he ever kind of occasionally strike you as maybe a little bit of an asshole?” And she laughed, and said, “Yes, he does! We’ve been trying to work on that, and we’re probably breaking up soon.”

Bob Bordone
Oh, my gosh!

Pete Mockaitis
And so, like, I had just met her, like, “Oh, I haven’t seen you around,” but then that immediately catapulted to, like, “This guy, Pete, like, he’ll share what he thinks, and so I trust him.” And then I went to great places and, likewise, I’ve heard of therapists who challenge powerful executives in their sessions, it’s like, “Nobody else talks to me this way,” and because of that, there’s just tremendous trust.

Bob Bordone
Tremendous trust, yeah. You know, one of the things I like to do, Pete, I used to not do this. I’m somebody who kind of came to this work largely because I think I was really bad and conflict-averse and wanted to learn more. But one of the things I do now, I think people will find this surprising, it’s I’m supposed to be a mediator, right, but people will be in a room and someone’s saying X and someone’s saying Y and someone’s saying Z and then someone’s like, “Oh, I’m really glad we’re aligned,” or like, “I hear you saying this.”

And I’m listening, I’m thinking, like, “There’s literally no alignment here. What are these people talking about?” And the convenient thing to do would be like to nod my head and say, “Oh, I’m so delighted we’re all in agreement,” and, like, walk out. But I tend to do now, and I used to not do this, I used to be a head-nodder.

But I actually think it’s so much more valuable to be like, “You know, I don’t want to be troublesome, but I actually don’t think you’re all saying the same thing. I think you’re saying really different things. And I think should dig in on that because, otherwise, we’re missing something important here.” And they’d be like, “Oh, I guess you’re right.”

But it goes back to that, like, yeah, as soon as you do something like that with somebody, I just think there’s a level of realness, and it can be done in a way that’s not mean-spirited, that’s not cruel, and it should be done assertively, like, “From what I’m observing, you know, whatever, from what I’m observing, like, this guy sometimes seems like a little bit of an asshole to me. I’m surprised and interested what you like about him,” or whatever, you know. “I’m glad you like him. I don’t want to take that away. I just don’t see it.”

I mean, you know, am I going to do that? Does it make sense to do that with someone’s spouse of 50 years? No. But I think here’s the other thing, Pete, because, one of the things, like, sometimes I worry that our message is that “You should be doing this always and everywhere all the time,” and that’s just not what we’re saying. What we are saying is this skill, this conflict resilience skill, if you want to be a successful leader, if you want to grow professionally and earn people’s respect, it has to be in your toolkit to be deployed at the right times and in the right space.

But to somehow think, “I am going to make it by avoiding everything, or taking out my sword and lopping everyone’s heads off in my path,” I mean, you could get so far, but at some point, that only works for people who don’t care at all about relationships.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, and soon you run out of heads. It’s like, “I’ve lopped off all the heads.” Because like fill in the blank in terms of like if you’re looking within any community, right, you know, people talk. And so, it’s like if we’re talking about real estate agents in the Nashville area, it’s like, “Okay, lop off all the heads. None of them want to work for you anymore.” Or, top engineering talent in Silicon Valley. It’s like, “All right, I’ve lopped them all off.”

Bob Bordone
Yeah, that’s right, and, like, no one wants to work with you, you have no trust. And then, what ends up happening, now we’re kind of in just plain negotiation land. It’s like somebody who, let’s just say, there’s 10 points of value to be divided, they’re consistently getting seven, and they’re going around, saying “I won, I won. Look how good.” And, like, they are except for the fact that, with some more skill and an ability to actually handle conflict better, that 10-point pie could be 20 points or 100 points or 200 points.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, totally.

Bob Bordone
And if it’s 20 and you’re getting 10 out of 20, you ain’t beating them. It’s just a 10 is greater than seven.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, I’m right with you there, in terms of the creative, collaborative, win-wins. That’s just like my default. And it’s funny, like, you cannot even begin to play that game until the emotions, the limbic irritability, is soothed in terms of like, “All right, let’s see what we can figure out together.” It’s just impossible, in my opinion, to get there when they’re like, “Bob is a jerk. I hate him, and I’m going to make him pay. And also, we’re going to find a creative, collaborative solution together.”

Bob Bordone
Right. Right.

Pete Mockaitis
No. No.

Bob Bordone
It just won’t work, right? And the other interesting thing about just the brain science aspect of that is when you are in that emotional refractory period, that limbic irritability time, your ability to actually, at a cognitive level, identify the interests of the other party goes down. When people are made to feel anxious, they think, “Oh, let’s make them feel anxious and then we’ll get more concessions,” it leads to quicker exit, lower trust, lower joint gains, lower interest in working together again.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, and your reputation takes a hit too.

Bob Bordone
Yeah, and your reputation.

Pete Mockaitis
Your counterparties talking smack about you.

Bob Bordone
Yeah. So, it’s incredibly short-term thinking. But again, like thinking about that kind of existential brain of ours, that’s like going back to whatever thousands of years when you bang into me on a dark path and you’ve got to make a quick decision of whether I meant it or not. And if you decide I meant it and you’re wrong, you still take your club out and beat me and you’re alive and I’m dead. If you decide I didn’t mean it and you’re wrong, I take my club out and beat you and you’re dead, I’m alive right.

I mean, there’s a way in which the brain is, like, it’s not all washed up. It’s just that most of the things, like, this is we’re talking about conflict resilience. We’re not talking about existential. This is like your boss again, this your direct report, or your sister, or your brother, or like someone, or the real estate agent also goes to the Chamber of Commerce, and has to have a series of ongoing relationships.

So, you have to have a better command of yourself and a set of skills that are not going to put you into this, again, the 5Fs that are going to just make things worse for you, maybe in the short term, but certainly in the long term.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Bob, tell me, anything else you want to make sure to mention before we hear about some of your favorite things?

Bob Bordone
No, except this has been fun. I love it, I love it. So, thank you, yeah.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Me, too. Let’s hear about a favorite quote.

Bob Bordone
So, my favorite quote is a scriptural quote, actually, from Micah, and it is, “This and only this does the LORD require of you, to act justly, to love tenderly, and to walk humbly with your God.”

Pete Mockaitis
That’s pretty good and that’ll do it.

Bob Bordone
I hope that some of the principles in the book honor that.

Pete Mockaitis
Cool. And a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?

Bob Bordone
For me, I mean, I’m a big fan of all of, like, Daniel Kahneman’s stuff. I particularly love some of the research on self-serving biases, and also on fundamental attribution error. It’s like a fancy word, but fundamental attribution error, basically, the idea that, “If something goes well, it’s because I’m obviously brilliant. And if something goes poorly, it’s because they’re jerks in any way Mercury was in retrograde.”

And so, that tendency to not have a learning loop, I think, if more of us were aware of that, I think it would probably lead to a better conflict handling.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite book?

Bob Bordone
My favorite book is actually a fiction book. I mean, there’s lots of negotiations in it. It’s just really fun. I love “The Count of Monte Cristo.”

Pete Mockaitis
You know, Bob, this might blow your mind, it did me. Did you know that the story of “The Count of Monte Cristo” is based on a real human’s life?

Bob Bordone
I did not know that.

Pete Mockaitis
I was like, “That’s too crazy. That’s too crazy. No way, it’s a real human.” And, of course, there’s embellishments and literary, you know, whatever. But like, there was a dude who was in prison who escaped and exacted vengeance.

Bob Bordone
I did not know that. I like books that really make you feel like you’re transported to a different time. But another one that I really like is The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton because it’s another book that makes you feel like, in that case, that you’re like in high society, at this particular period in New York City. Anyway, so those are the books that really kind of draw me in.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite tool, something you use to be awesome at your job?

Bob Bordone
Ah, favorite tool, which is actually in our book, it’s called The Ladder of Inference, developed by Chris Argyris and Don Schoen, who are of Harvard Business School. It’s a wonderful tool for all sorts of things, but particularly if you’re in a conflict situation, when somebody says something like, for example, “You really messed up here.”

That, we would say that the top of the ladder, it is a conclusion. It is drawn by, at the bottom of the ladder, an ocean of information or data that we don’t all have access to, we only have some access to some. And then each of us picks some piece of information from that ocean, that’s a piece of data in an ocean, and then we put a story on it, our reasoning and inferences, and that’s how we reach the conclusion.

What the ladder enables you to do is have a much more productive conversation where instead of me saying “You messed up,” and you saying “No, I didn’t,” we can walk down each other’s ladders, talk about data, talk about reasoning. Sometimes it shifts opinions. Even if it doesn’t, it’s just a much more edifying conversation.

Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite habit?

Bob Bordone
You know what? What I’m going to do when I get off this call, a daily 45-minute walk with my golden retriever, Rosie.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And is there a key nugget you share that really seems to connect and resonate with folks; they quote back to you often?

Bob Bordone
So, not to be redundant, but I will be, which is that just the power of the first no makes all of the other yeses actually meaningful. So, to the degree you are in a conflict and you’re avoiding and you’re trying to be nice-y-nice, etc., and you think you’re serving the relationship, finding a way to kind of say, “You know, I pretty much don’t agree with this part, or I have concerns about this,” that is deeply connecting because it, first of all, makes all the yeses seem sincere and it’s an opportunity for connection.

Pete Mockaitis
And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Bob Bordone
Yeah, so you could learn more about our book and, hopefully, buy it at our website, which is ConflictResilienceBook.com. That’s ConflictResilienceBook.com. You could also learn more about me and my website, which is BobBordone.com.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Bob Bordone
Yeah, I would just say, if you have any kind of difficult conversation or conflict that keeps you up at night, that’s worth engaging and not avoiding. And if do it well, no matter how it ultimately turns out, I think you’ll feel better about yourself.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Bob, thank you.

Bob Bordone
Pete, thanks for having me. This was really fun.

1029: How to Tell Stories that Inspire and Influence with Anjali Sharma

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Anjali Sharma reveals why some stories fail to influence or inspire—and shares her top tips for creating stories that do.

You’ll Learn

  1. Why “amazing” storytelling isn’t the end goal 
  2. The critical question that generates more effective stories 
  3. Why to think like a journalist–not a novelist 

About Anjali 

Anjali Sharma is the Managing Director of Narrative: The Business of Stories. Anjali works with private and government organisations to determine what their individual and unique business challenges are, and by incorporating Story Skills, she crafts individualised solutions to help solve those challenges. 

Anjali has helped companies to increase Staff Engagement and Performance, increase Client Satisfaction and Sales, define Company Values and effectively Position Brands by embedding Story Skills into their organisations. 

Resources Mentioned

Thank You, Sponsors!

Anjali Sharma Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Anjali, welcome!

Anjali Sharma
Thank you. Thank you for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m so excited to chat storytelling. And I’d love it if you could kick us off by telling us a particularly surprising or counterintuitive discovery you’ve made about us humans and story over the course of the last 20 years.

Anjali Sharma
I think the most wonderful thing about storytelling is that, no matter where you go, there is room for storytelling everywhere, whether you go into someone’s life, whether you go into someone’s work, whether you go into relationships with your family, but the most effective storytelling is the one that actually really deep dives into a particular domain.

What do I mean by that? What I mean by that is that what I used to think, roughly about 12 years ago about storytelling is, storytelling is everything, it’s everywhere, and that was the beauty of it, but it was also the disadvantage of it, because you could start telling stories to people who work in corporations, which is where I largely kind of played the work that I do, and they would be like, “Yeah, it’s a great story, but how does it matter to me?”

So, I think the hyper-target-ness of the story is what makes it resonate, where people listen to it, and go, “Oh, my God, that’s exactly what happens to me.” That thing that people say can only come when you really target the story to the audience that you’re telling the story to. Stories are great, but the best storytellers know how to flex their narrative according to who they’re telling the story to. So, I think my biggest discovery was that.

Pete Mockaitis
Intriguing. Well, could you give us a really quick example of what’s a generic story that’s not really going to “wow” someone versus what is that same story sound like in a micro-targeted way?

Anjali Sharma
Okay. So, I think I’d like to sort of make a little correction to that because, even though the story can go “wow,” we don’t tell just for them to be like, “Wow.” We want people to get up and take an action, and it is not necessary that whatever I will say “wow” to, I will actually act upon. I’ll demonstrate this to you.

So, say I want people to challenge the status quo for better innovation, and I say, “You know, we must challenge the status quo,” and I tell them the story of the founder of Body Shop, Anita Roddick, and Anita Roddick tells this story. She’s no more, but when she was around, she told this story to a magazine interview in which she says that, “When I was all of 12 years old, I remember the day when my father passed away, and my mother, in the house, was cleaning the floor, and there was this bucket of dirty water next to her.”

“And she looked quite sort of anxious and stressed, but a large part of her anxiety and stress was coming from the fact that my parents didn’t get along with the local priest, and she wasn’t sure that my father was going to get a Catholic funeral or not. And a few minutes later, the doorbell rang and my mother opened the door, and the priest was standing there. And the priest looked at my mom and said, ‘You’re very lucky. We’ve decided to give your husband a Catholic funeral.’”

“And my mother picked up the dirty water and splashed it onto the priest. Now when you’re brought up with a mother like that, you would challenge status quo.” Because for her, as a Catholic, it was right to get her father to get that funeral. It wasn’t a favor that the priest was doing.

Now, a lot of people get moved by that story, and they go, “Wow,” and “Amazing.” But as soon as you walk out of that place where I have told you the story, you’re walking out with a colleague of yours, you would say, “It’s a lovely story, but if I did that to my boss, I just, you know, I don’t think I’ll have my job. I’ll lose my job,” right?

So, a lot of the stories get, like, “Amazing,” but they don’t get an action in the right direction. Therefore, you have to choose the story very, very correctly because a job of a corporate professional is to remember that, more important than the re-marketability of the story, that this is an amazing story, is the resonance of the story. Resonance of the story will drive an action. Remarkability will give you claps.

Pete Mockaitis
I like that a lot. That’s a really handy distinction, and I think it’s possible to go a whole lifetime without making that distinction because the claps feel good, you say, “I’m a master storyteller. People, they cry, they applaud, they tell me I’m amazing.” If you’re a speaker, they keep telling their friends, “And I keep getting booked.” But in terms of, if you’re being after a specific activity or action from your audience, that’s not adequate.

Anjali Sharma
Certainly. So, my success in a corporate world is not determined by the amount of claps and tears I get in a boardroom. It’s determined by how I moved people to take the action in the right direction and how much innovation we get, how we enhance the productivity, how we motivate people to come up with the best possible campaign next. So, I think that’s a very important distinction. You’re absolutely right.

Pete Mockaitis
And then I guess, specifically that context, in terms of if you’re just looking to make phenomenal content that gets a lot of podcast downloads or even if it’s like a full-blown movie or something, then a wow can be fine. But if we’re after a particular action on the part of the people we’re telling it to, then, yes, that’s one key thing to look out for, is, “Can they receive that? Is it relatable?”

So, lay it on us, how do we go through a process by which we can craft stories that are effective at bringing about the action-taking we’d like from the people we’re telling the stories to?

Anjali Sharma
So, we’ve kind of, over the last 12 years or so, tried to make this approach extremely practical, simply because of the reason that, if I walked into a corporate boardroom and I asked people, or into any workspace and asked people, it’s like, “What is it that is your biggest challenge?” almost everyone will say time, right? 

The really traditional format of story and the creative format of story that actually relies on high character, high emotions, kind of built over time, you write, you go away, you let your creative juices flow. In corporations and workplaces, we don’t have time. So, the way I look at it is like this. Before even you tell a story, I say to people, the audience that you’re talking to, first determine, “Are you influencing them or you are inspiring them?” Those are two very different things. I mean, if I’m going to be speaking to the board or I’m going to be speaking to the senior leadership team. I need to influence them. But if I’m speaking in a town hall and getting 450 staff members to join an AI-upskilling program, then I need to inspire them.

So, the key way to differentiate whether I’m inspiring or influencing is, “Am I asking these people to take an action that affects many people? Or am I asking them to take an action that just affects them?” If it is affecting many people, like, “Let’s adopt that, buy that new technology,” it’s going to affect many people. That’s an influence decision.

But if I’m asking people to go and join this one-week upskilling AI hackathon that we’ve got, then that’s an individual’s decision that I’m going to go and join it, right? It’s a little bit like getting people to be fit, getting people to read more. These are individual decisions. I’m not disrupting an ecosystem. It’s my individual decision. Those are primarily inspirational messages.

So, very simply, “How do I target the story right?” You first think, “Am I influencing? Am I inspiring?” If I’m influencing, I’m asking people to take an action, make a decision around things that sort of influences, has an effect on many people. But if it’s an inspirational message, it’s likely to be an individual who’s going to have to take that action.

Okay, once I’ve determined that, very simply, I go, “If it is inspiration, then I have to give them a nudge to a new identity.” Because what we often do is we give people goals, but I learned this from James Clear in his book, the Atomic Habits, and then I’ve brought that learning into storytelling.

When we talk about goals, for example. Writing a book is a goal. But why do people write a book? Because they want to be called authors. That’s a new identity they want for themselves. Running a marathon is a goal, but being called a marathoner is an identity. People want to be known like that.

So, when you are developing an inspirational message, you have to give nudge to a new identity. If I bring it down to the corporate world, I’ll give you another example. When I bring it down to the corporate world, we worked on a program back in 2016 where we were asked to build a story around a factory that was going to become a smart factory with automation, robotics, etc.

And the whole proposition of that story was productivity, and I was like, “This is not going to work for people on the ground. This is not inspirational for them,” right? So, we built a new identity for them – supervisors of robots. Because somebody’s got to program them, somebody’s got to charge them, somebody’s got to roster them, and “Do you want to be the supervisors of robots?” And that was inspirational for them.

So, that’s how you kind of look at an inspirational message. And then when you come towards the influence style of messaging, I think your hyper-target-ness comes from, really, looking at three areas. Most messages that are influential have a story that anchors on time, which is efficiency. So, can you make a proposition for being more efficient? Or, they come to an image or a reputation, which is, “Can this story help build better image or a reputation?”

And then, lastly, if you’re working for a profit-making company, which most people are, “Am I able to, through this story, save money or make money?” So, I often joke around and say, “What is the TIM you’re angling?” T-I-M, you know, time, image, money. So, if you want influential stories, story that influences, then time, image, money are my anchors. But if I’m building an inspirational story, then a nudge to a new identity.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I think this is a fantastic distinction between inspiring or influencing. And I’m reminded of, I think in my early days, I was doing consulting for a strategy consulting firm, Bain, and we would make these slides that were so dense with numbers, numbers, data, charts, all this stuff, and effectively we were influencing corporate executives and boards in terms of, “Take this course of action and you will see tremendous profit.”

Like, that was always, we talked a lot about our story, “What’s our story?” And, basically, that was always the story, like, “Hey, do this thing we say and you’re going to make a lot of money, if you boil it down.” And so, those slides had a whole lot of data, a whole lot of charts to paint a compelling picture that was, “Hey, here’s the proof, here’s the evidence, here’s the argumentation like a debate, that this is, in fact, the optimal pathway relative to your alternatives.”

But then, at the same time, on my downtime, I’d be watching TED Talks, and I think, “Man, their slides look so much cooler and more beautiful and inspiring than what we do.” I felt like we were sort of we spent all the time with these slides, and I thought they don’t feel as awesome as the TED Talker slides, “What’s up?”

And I think this is a really handy way to think about it. It’s like, we are attempting to accomplish completely different objectives. If you trot out 20 fancy data charts to your TED audience, they’re like, “Yeah, okay. That wasn’t very much fun for us. Thanks.” And vice versa, if I just showed a picture of a seed in a hand to a board, it’s like, “All right, I hope you’ve got some data coming because this isn’t going to cut it for long.”

Anjali Sharma
Exactly. Oh, my God, you sort of distilled it beautifully. And I love the fact that I have taken you back to some time in your career because that is exactly what resonance is. I’m reminding you of an experience you have already had. And when that happens, you know that what I’m saying is resonating with you. So, you’re absolutely right, the objectives are very, very different, and that’s where the hyper-target-ness works really well.

I’ll add one little piece of information. There’s always this sort of war between the technicality of what we do and the emotions that are embedded in the way we communicate. And what I have learned is that time, image, and money, although seems like a sort of a very transactional way of influencing. In fact, rooted in it is an emotional thing.

Look at that boardroom and see all those people who are seated there. Their next career move depends on whether they are making that company efficient, whether they’re making that company profitable, which is money, and whether they are protecting the reputation of the organization or not, or they’re building the reputation of the organization or not.

So, I used to think, “Why is it so transactional and so dry and distilled in influence area?” But then when I started looking at the people sitting there, I was like, “No, this is also emotional because their next career step is dependent on those three things. So, their connection comes from that.

Leaning upon the definition of connection from Dr. Brene Brown, the exchange of energy that happens when people feel seen, heard, and valued.

When those people sit in that boardroom and you tell them a story that anchors itself on time, image, and money, they feel seen, heard, and valued, because that is what their job is all day in and out, to make more profit for the company, to enhance the reputation image of the company, and to make sure they’re efficient all the time. An inspiration, a nudge to the identity, new identity, is what’s the connection for the person who’s listening to you.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s really resonant. And it’s funny, like if you apply the same sort of debater, data-driven argumentation approach to be very compelling about a thing they don’t care about, and I’m not making value judgments either way, but if a board doesn’t care a hoot about climate change or whatever, and you have just fantastic statistics about the carbon emissions of a thing and how this pathway will be so much better, you may have proven that point excellently in terms of that’s a rock-solid, logical approach, but you haven’t hit upon a thing that they’re emotionally invested in, you’re not going to be successful in your attempt to influence.

Anjali Sharma
Hundred, hundred, hundred percent. You know, Pete, you’ve taken me back to 2018, when I went to Hiroshima, Japan for 18 months to make another semiconductor factory have increased level of diversity. So, Japan, obviously had a huge amount of skill shortage, I mean, still does, but that was becoming a huge issue at that time. And this factory was originally owned by Japanese owners, but an American company took over.

And they soon realized that, “If we don’t get more foreigners working here, if we don’t get more women working here, and if we don’t get younger people working in here, so it’s diversity of three different lenses, we’re not going to have any people, and the factory will have to shut down.” So, there was this whole proposition, imagine, that homogeneous culture of Japan, this proposition of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and everyone used to just kind of roll their eyes and they were like, “Yeah, whatever.”

And I had this vivid memory of one conversation between two senior leaders that I just happened to hear, who said, “Great, now we can make a compelling case of diversity, equity, and inclusion, but we still don’t get what is its connection to the performance?” And I realized, “Oh, my God, like, what they really care about is the performance of the factory,” and then we have to find a way to connect the DEI proposition to the performance of the company.

And when we started to kind of figure how diversity, equity, and inclusion will help the performance of the company, every boardroom eye was curious, eager, willing, because it connected with them, and there was a direct correlation. We just needed to surface that and anchor the story in that.

Pete Mockaitis
And I think I’ve learned that lesson a few times in terms of, “No, this is what you should care about. This is what is right and good and proper.” Like, that really falls flat, it’s like, “Okay, well, now I feel judged and I guess I don’t, so I am bad,” and I’m thinking about another manufacturing situation.

I was once doing a Myers-Briggs training for some executives. I was very excited because, like, we had these executives. There was their big meeting where they had flown in from multiple continents, and I was a part of it, like, “Oh, wow, I feel like I’m big-time now,” kind of early on when I was independent in my career.

And they had this situation, they manufactured like sausage casings. And, apparently, one of their major production facilities was having a real big problem at the moment, where there were sausages exploding left and right, which I thought was sort of a funny thing to imagine, “Oh, another exploding hotdog!” you know.

And so, they were all kind of consumed with this mentally, and I was like, “You know, isn’t that kind of a manufacturing issue. You should just kind of let them handle it. This is, like, your big executive meeting. This seems weird. And I feel inconvenienced because I’ve trucked it out here and I’m ready. I’m fired up and ready to go.”

And I thought it was so brilliant the way their VP of Human Resources reframed it for me, she says, “You know, this stuff here that we’re doing is important, and I really want to make sure that the whole team has all of their attention and focus on this, as opposed to this manufacturing issue. So, it’d be great if you could come back in two hours and then we’ll have it as sorted as it can be, and we’ll be able to give you all of our attention.”

I thought, “This woman is a master, because I’m annoyed, I’m frustrated, I don’t like rescheduling the thing. I’m fired up, energized, perfectly caffeinated, raring to go.” But then she turned it around to the thing that I cared about was having a productive, engaged, transformational session, and, “How, in fact, if you just do this thing that we want, then you’ll get that.”

And I heard a quote, which I love, which it said, “Diplomacy is the art of letting other people have it your way.” And I was like, “Okay, yeah, she just did that to me.” And we had a great session and the sausage factory, I guess, got sorted out, all is well. And so, you nailed it. Like, if you are making a super airtight logical case about a thing they don’t care about, you’re not going to get very far.

Anjali Sharma
And the tricky part is to really figure out “What do they care about?” Because, in your head you can think, “Oh, of course, everybody should care about DEI and climate change, and it affects our planet.” Yeah, sure, everybody should, but tomorrow morning when they get a call from their boss, nobody’s going to ask them about the diversity level. They’re going to ask about, “Where are we sitting in terms of performance?”

Like, even with the whole ESG bit, I have to be very honest. Every time I work on a narrative, and we come to the S part, which is the social impact part, the reason why the teams are really motivated is when they recognize that they’re not going to get investors if they don’t work on this. So, in some ways, it is an institutionalized forced change. So, how good it is that we have to think about diversity under social impact of ESG, the S part, because now, if we don’t have a good ESG report, we’re not going to get investors?

So, it’s like, there’s this term I heard many years ago, intrusion of inclusion, like you really make sure that it happens by systematically creating things that are institutionalized. You cannot escape those. So, I think more and more that I do this work, the more and more I realize that, yes, we all want to be good, but what we’re worried about is just getting through today. And if we want to get through today, in the way the ecosystem is built, then we have to really find the right framing and the right positioning and the right target of the story, or else it would fall on deaf ears.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, so understood. And so, we have a huge distinction about “Are we trying to inspire or influence?” And we got to really get after a thing that they care about. So, can you walk us through sort of step-by-step or what are the key actions or processes we go through in order to do just that?

Anjali Sharma
Yeah, so I’ll pick it up from before. So, you sort of think influence, inspire, you think, “Okay, I need a story that I can anchor on time, image, money, or I need a story that can actually invite them to being, have a nudge to the new identity.” Now, here’s one thing I want people to remember is that, for a very long time, what we have understood for storytelling to be is either a marketer’s take, or a very big sort of stage sort of style of storytelling.

But when you are standing in the boardroom, the kind of storytelling that works in corporation has to have a little bit of a journalistic take into it. So, my invitation to all people who work within, who are actually trying to use stories in day-to-day work is to have a slightly journalistic take of storytelling. Now let me elaborate this for you, and then I will demonstrate for you.

So, what do journalists do? They go into the ground, they find the stories, and then they bring them out, and then they tell you, and then they make a point, or whatever is happening, they bring that out into the open, they bring it out to the surface. Now, a lot of people will try to find stories on the internet, from TED Talks, and try to tell all these really big types of stories which will never work.

Journalistic storytelling requires for you to actually get your hands dirty, go in, into the grounds, the coalface, and actually find stories that can actually help you make a point that you want to make, or sometimes they even change the point you want to make. You think that’s the point you want to make, and when you start having those conversations with people on the ground, you realize, “Oh, my God, what I thought was all along wrong.”

So, here’s an example of a journalistic story. So, once I’ve said that my audience are inspirational, so I will say, “You are the workers in this factory that are going to become a smart factory. I invite you to become the supervisors of robots.” Now at this stage, they’ll be like, “Hmm,” so it’s relevant for them, but it’s not yet resonant for them. It’s, “Okay, here’s something for me. You’ve opened with that positioning. I like it, but tell me more.” It’s not going to stop at that. A nudge to the new identity is the beginning of it.

Then, when you tell the story, here’s the story I found from the ground, and I built it for a CEO president, and he told: “Now, what do I mean by being supervisors of robots? Now, many of you in the audience today actually work within the factory, helping with taking things from one end of the factory to the other end of the factory.”

“Let’s take Maria, for example. Maria has been with our company for about eight years now, and Maria is in the audience. And when she joined us eight years ago, her job was to take a trolley, put in the semiconductor chips, and move them from one area to the other area.”

“Now, this may sound simple, but we all know this is a highly sensitive product, and it has to be done very, very carefully. So, it takes time and she moves the products carefully to the other side and downloads them for whatever other activity that needs to be done with them before they’re ready.”

“Now when she joined us eight years ago, she would on an average do eight rounds in an eight-hour shift. She’d go from here to there, here to there about eight rounds or so. Now, today, it’s the same Maria, it’s the same factory, but she’s having to do many more ups and downs, close to 24 ups and downs in a day. That’s three times more. Why is that? Because the demand for semiconductor chips has increased.”

“Semiconductor chips are everywhere. In our passports, there’s a semiconductor chip. When there is a finger scan somewhere, there’s a semiconductor chip everywhere. They’re everywhere. So, the demand increases, our workload increases.”

“Our workload increases, we are not allowed to have a bigger factory, we are not allowed to hire more people. Within the same factory size, within the same number of people, Maria is now being asked to do a lot more. And this trend of more and more and more and more will not stop. So, what are we going to do? What we are going to do is we are going to tell Maria to stop doing this work of picking up products from one end and moving them to the other end.”

“Instead, we’re going to get an AGV vehicle, which is like a robot, to do that, and Maria’s job is going to be the supervisor of that vehicle and make sure that it is rostered, it’s charged, it does the work that it does.” Now, this is a journalistic style of storytelling, because I’ve gone and found it on the ground, and when people are listening to the story, they’re going, “Yeah, exactly. That happens to me all the time. I have to move things so many more number of times. Like, I’m a human. How much more can I do?”

It reminds them of their own experience, so the resonance starts to happen here. The positioning and the anchoring of supervisor of robots brings relevance. It does not bring resonance. It’s when the combination of relevance and resonance happens, influence takes place. So, what is journalistic about it? Journalistic is that I didn’t get that story by just sitting in the boardroom and having a conversation. I got the story because I went on the ground, I chatted to people, “Talk to me about your day-to-day work.”

I can’t even tell these people, “Tell me a story,” because if you ask people, “Tell me a story,” then people think that I’m asking them to be Clint Eastwood. So, you have to have a very specific style of getting moments out of them and then be able to sense-make and put them into a structured way and give people who work in these organizations, who need to inspire or influence people, a language which will move people into the right direction.

Now, this is not a story which will make people go, “Wow, what a story!” What this would definitely do, it’ll remind many of those people who are sitting in the audience going, “That’s exactly what happens to me. That is so true.” That is so true doesn’t mean it’s factual. What it means is, “It resonates with me.”

Pete Mockaitis
That’s good. And I like that journalistic frame, because that helps a lot with regard to, we’re not trying to blow minds, necessarily, by making like a James Cameron epic film situation, so it’s not the Hollywood style, nor is it are we trying to be sort of the great American novel style but we’re being journalistic. And just the same way that we have a fascinating, riveting, impactful sort of news article or documentary, that’s kind of what we’re going for here with regard to our actions, our discovery, our presentation.

And we can feel great about the success if they are nudged toward that identity, as opposed to they are telling everybody they have to check out your YouTube channel.

So that’s a great lens, the journalistic lens. Tell us, do you have any top do’s or don’ts in terms of executing this in practice?

Anjali Sharma
I think the first thing is that, whenever you stand in front of your audience and you start speaking, you have to have earned the right to be there. This is not, “I’ll get GPT to come up with something for me.” I mean, of course, you can take GPT’s help to refine it, but the moment I start speaking about Maria’s story, straight away, the audience know that I have done the due diligence of going to them, at the coalface, chatting to people, and finding out what’s going on.

So, I always say to people that, “Don’t sit in the boardroom and just don’t chat there. Don’t think you know what it is. Get down, and talk to people and figure out.” I think that’s the first thing.

The second thing I would say to you is that please relieve yourself from the pressure of trying to come across as an amazing storyteller, because people are not interested. In fact, if you get told that you’re an amazing storyteller, then that’s the wrong outcome of your communication. What you have to be able to hear from people is, “You made a very relevant point. I’m going to do what you said. I think that makes a lot of sense.”

Moving people in the right direction to take an action is a better judge of how effective you were versus the claps that you get and versus how you get. If you get complimented on your being an amazing storyteller, that means the focus was you and your flamboyancy, not the point you made. So, if someone says to you, “What an amazing storyteller you were,” like, “Thank you. What did you get out of that? Like, do you think you’re going to take the action I was asking for?” Figure that out. So don’t feel that pressure.

And I think the third thing I would say to you is. When looking for a story, yes, you have to be journalistic, but also remember the kind of story that works in a corporate space is a story that happens all the time. In other words, a high-frequency story, not a low-frequency story. So, a pilot lands a plane in the Hudson River has happened. But if I told that story in a corporate boardroom, then people would be like, “That’s great. Never going to happen to me.”

But if I told a story about us not using a tool that we have to update our learning and development plan, and then not getting the promotion that we wanted because, on the dashboard, it didn’t seem like you were updating that so people didn’t know you’ve done all these things, all these courses and workshops etc., then a lot of people will go, “Oh, my God, that happens to me all the time.” So, high-frequency.

The founder of Google said this, “If you can find a problem that people face multiple times a day, you have a billion-dollar business.” Now when you take that saying and put it into the world of storytelling, if you can find a story, the problem that you talk about in that story, people experience many times, you  have a story that will resonate a lot.

So, resonance is more important than remarkability of a story. So, don’t pressurize yourself at trying to find a story that is amazing because, most likely, that will get you claps but will not get you the action. So, look for a story that happens all the time. So, I think those three are probably practical ones to follow.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s really doing the trick. And you’ve finally put to words why I get a little bit skeptical and I don’t tend to dig presentations or stories that lean a lot on legends of business, like, “Here’s what they do at Amazon and at Disney and Netflix. And Steve Jobs said and did this.” It’s like, “Yeah, okay. Sure, these people are genius, high performers, and they did a cool thing, and maybe there are some things we can learn from that. But it doesn’t resonate with me much,” and I think it’s for these exact reasons.

One, they haven’t journalistically done the work to see, “What are we actually struggling with here?” And secondly, they’re low frequency matters, like, “Yes, introducing the iPhone was really cool. That was a historic technological moment, and that happened, and now it doesn’t happen that often.”

Anjali Sharma
Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. So, I think it’s just, you know, resonance only happens with things that happen all the time, because those are our daily experiences, things that kind of resonate with us. Yeah, I mean, like, we love Steve Jobs, and we love his ability to orate, but, you know, it’s available, but it’s not accessible. His style is available for us to view, but it’s not accessible for us, right?

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, totally, “Just be like Steve Jobs, guys. That’s all it takes. Come on!”

Anjali Sharma
“What’s wrong with you?” Yeah, so that’s the hyper-target-ness. So, everything we’ve spoken about is about that really, that hyper-target-ness of a story, really looking at it from that lens of critically thinking it through and really trying to understand that it’s so easy to become a victim to this big style storytelling, “When I was born or when I started my career, oh, my gosh, you know, it’s like…” nobody really cares about that. Only your mom is really interested in listening to what happened to you, but we don’t really care about that.

Pete Mockaitis
Right on. Well, now could you share a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?

Anjali Sharma
I can never say the full thing because it’s really long, but I’ll tell you which one it is, and you’ll be able to find it very easily. I think there’s this quote, where it sort of says, “When you lose the grip, you slip into a masterpiece,” which I really, really like. But the reason why I love that quote so much is because, after working in this space for more than a decade, my style in the beginning of working was very systematic, it was very structured, and it was very effort-filled. And then came a point somewhere, three, four years ago, where that system, that structure was like that intentional approach was so embedded in me that if I sort of knew the direction.

I could kind of maneuver within that, but that’s the only part. To become effortless, you have to put in the effort first. And telling someone who’s just, like, a couple of years into a certain domain, a specific domain, to just lose that grip is not the right thing.

But I think there comes a point where you start experiencing the magic of all that is in your subconscious, all that is embedded. So, I think that’s one of my favorite quotes, to put in so much effort into what you do, that it becomes so effortless. 

Pete Mockaitis
Beautiful. And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Anjali Sharma
So, if you are interested in storytelling, learning how to be better at it in a corporate space, the thing that helped me gain mastery in that, more than reading, writing was actually the fact that a system, a system for success that actually forced me to do the necessary work in this space.

If you want to gain mastery, then make a decision on what are you going to not just do, which is within you, but how are you going to put yourself out in the world in that domain. When you do that, you actually start becoming really, really good at it, whether it’s a video, whether it’s a blog every week, whether it’s a little thing you’ll come up with. If mastery in this domain is your aspiration, then a promise to the world that I will show up in this manner every week is what you need to do.

Pete Mockaitis
Beautiful. Thank you. Anjali, this is wonderful. I wish you many beautiful stories.

Anjali Sharma
Thank you for having me and having this wonderful conversation. I really enjoyed how quickly you grasped everything I talked about, distilled it, and repeated it back to me, which was really nice.

1028: How to Bridge Disagreements and Create More Win-Win Agreements with Robert Fersh

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Robert Fersh shares tried and tested strategies for de-escalating conflict and bridging disagreements.

You’ll Learn

  1. How to find shared goals to move past differences 
  2. The best way to deal with defensiveness 
  3. What to do when you fundamentally disagree 

About Robert 

Rob Fersh is a seasoned consensus-builder and has spent over 45 years bridging policy differences and moving public policy forward in Washington DC, working for Congress, in the Executive Branch, and in leading non-profits. He studied at Cornell University and Boston University School of Law. Rob founded Convergence Center for Policy Resolution in 2009 after directing a national anti-hunger organization. Rob’s work has been featured in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and CNBC. 

Resources Mentioned

Thank You, Sponsors!

Robert Fersh Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Rob, welcome!

Robert Fersh
Thanks, Pete. Nice to be here.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to dig into some of your goodness here. And I’d love it if you could start us with a juicy, dramatic story of a super difficult conflict that you mediated and how you ended up resolving things.

Robert Fersh
Well, thanks, Pete. There’s a lot of stories to tell, but maybe the most dramatic is the one that opens the book that Mariah Levison and I have written called From Conflict to Convergence. And it was really my maiden voyage in trying to be a bridge-builder on big national policy issues. So, I had an idea back in the early 2000s that if we could only bring together all of the people’s disagreements that stood in the way of extending coverage to millions of Americans that didn’t have it, that there’d be an opportunity to potentially create a breakthrough, because at that time, 40 to 50 million Americans were estimated to be without healthcare coverage at any point in time.

And also, this was just a few years after, in the Clinton administration, an attempt to reform healthcare led by Hillary Clinton, failed miserably and divided the entire healthcare field, and people opposing and supporting their ideas. So, we actually pulled together, all the leading stakeholders on healthcare. And they agreed, left to right, that people ought to have healthcare coverage. The disagreement was how to do it.

So, we brought together the hospitals, the insurers, the pharmaceutical companies, consumer groups, unions, you name it, people who are all influential stakeholders in healthcare policy in this country, and we attempted to break this decades-old gridlock on how to cover the uninsured.

Well, this group met 12 times over two years in an attempt to try to break the gridlock on how to cover the uninsured. And, eventually, they came up with a series of ideas that formed the basis for expanding coverage to people in the United States based upon shared values. We had the Heritage Foundation, a very conservative foundation was at the table, US Chamber of Commerce, various unions and liberal advocacy groups and so on, but they all came together to design what became the architecture of efforts to improve healthcare coverage in the country.

And I think my favorite story out of that is, as I said in the book, there was a representative of the American Medical Association at the table by the name of Carla Willis, who was their chief economist, and she’d been very outspoken in early meetings trying to forward the ideas the American Medical Association had developed.

But I noticed, over this two-year period, Carla had gotten quieter and quieter. And, finally, at the 11th meeting of this group, where they actually looked like, that day, they would seal the deal on the design of how to cover the uninsured in a way that bridged the divides across the left and right, Carla came up to me at a lunch break and said to me, “Rob, you have ruined my life.” But she said it with a smile, and I responded in kind, and said something like, “I hear that all the time. How, in particular, have I ruined yours? I do have four kids after all.”

And she said, “I’ve been sitting here for the last two years. The AMA and I had come up with very thoughtful proposals. I thought I understood all the issues and all the different approaches and our ideas were best. Now I’ve been sitting here for two years seeing all these intelligent, well-meaning thoughtful people say things I never thought of, and I can’t see the world the same way.”

And in a sense, she was saying, even though the final proposals included some AMA ideas, she epitomized what we’re trying to do in this work, which is to have people who have disagreements on how to solve problems expand their worldviews, not relinquish their principles, but begin to see ways to have their underlying interests met in a way that might be different than what they’ve, you know, were positioning themselves to support, but in a way that did not sacrifice the principles and the values they had.

So, that was a pretty dramatic opening act for me as a bridge-builder to help pave the way for multiple pieces of legislation that expanded healthcare coverage in this country.

Pete Mockaitis
Wow! Well, that sounds amazing to hear anyone say that. That’s about as much as you can hope for, I suppose, when you’re doing this kind of work. So, that’s powerful. And can you share, what do you think were some of the core principles that made that possible?

Robert Fersh
Thanks for that. The essence of the work, and it’s interesting. Well, one of the participants at that table came from the Heritage Foundation. His name is Stuart Butler, very much someone who wanted private solutions, not so much government solutions. But having been born in Great Britain, he also believed in universal healthcare, so he was an interesting person to have in the room.

And here’s what Stuart would say, he said, “Look, I’ve been battling people for years on healthcare. And what was different about this process is that although we thought we knew each other, we really didn’t know each other. So, this process, which allowed us to understand the values, concerns, and interests of people underneath all the different positions they take, to allow people to go deep and to understand how they came to believe what they believed, and to feel a sense of shared mission, which they did have to solve problems was really important.”

So, some of the key elements of this process are to, A) at least have a shared vision, and there was that, and this group said, “We’re going to cover as many as possible.” That was agreed upon. No one said it has to be single-payer like Canada or Great Britain. No one said it had to be every last person but as many people as quickly as possible. The second piece was to build relationships across people so they understood each other deeply. And with that comes trust. Trust that the intentions of other people are things you can work with.

In most cases, people want the same things, disagree on how to get there. And that process actually demonstrated that building relationships with trusts could break through decades-old disputes some people in the room had with others. And many areas of common ground that were significant, even though disagreements remained, and, in fact, some of the ideas that eventually became law were not necessarily fully included in our consensus.

But what we did was to move the ball forward to get people much closer to the point where they were very near agreement on how to cover the uninsured in this country. And in fact, what we did design was what people call the architecture of what became the Affordable Care Act, even though the Affordable Care Act went a little further than what our group recommended.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. So, that does sound novel, as opposed to how do we normally go at it when we have different viewpoints on a matter.

Robert Fersh
Yeah. So, what’s normally done, and I was part of this in the Washington culture, is that people who disagree get invited to all sorts of webinars and seminars, and people set them up for debate, and then everybody unloads about what they believe, and they may be polite or they may be impolite, and people then summarize what the disagreement was. But it’s pretty rare that people take the time to go underneath that to understand what drives people, what life experiences led them to believe the things they did, and to understand what their underlying interests were.

And this is an idea that Bill Ury and Roger Fisher and others, Bruce Patton, in Getting to Yes, distinguished a long time ago, which is the difference between positions and interests. Positions tend to be hard and fast ways that people want to solve a particular problem, but underneath that are your interests, your needs. And what we’ve done is, I think, allowed people to have a conversation which almost never starts about debating positions about how to solve a problem and getting underneath it all.

“What are your values? What are your interests? What are your concerns?” And when you begin to identify them, and there’s usually any number of pathways that can satisfy interests, and our goal, different than many other political battles or other discussions that go on, was to try to meet the widest range of interests, create the so-called win-win solutions for people.

Again, not necessarily requiring everyone to agree on everything, but to find wide swaths of agreement that have people leaving whole, feeling their needs are being met, and to understand that just for their needs to be met, other people do not necessarily have to lose, that you can set up situations where multiple people and multiple groups’ needs can be met. So, that is what distinguishes our approach from a lot of the normal give-and-take, and Washington, and the State houses and other places around the country.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, let’s see, the United States health insurance coverage is among the most complicated things on the earth today. So, perhaps, could you give us a nice illustrative example of this positions versus interests, and going deep to unearth them, in perhaps a simple example that we can all understand, like, “Oh, okay, that’s a position, that’s an interest, and I can see how you’ve crafted a thing that’s meeting people that have almost the opposite, it seems, positions, are getting a win-win in terms of their interests being fulfilled”?

Robert Fersh
We have an issue in the United States, which is called long-term care, which is the non-healthcare-related services that you provide to elderly and disabled people who cannot take care of themselves. And we do have a crisis in that many people only rely on family members to take care of them, can’t necessarily afford coverage.

So, we were approached by a group of leaders in that field to convene a group. And the position of some people was that, “It’s got to be a private sector response. It’s got to be insurance. And that’s how we’re going to get home. Let’s keep the government out of it.” And then there were people who said, “You know what, long-term care is a terrible issue. It’s bankrupting families. The needs aren’t being met. Let’s move to some massive new government program, a la Social Security, tax everybody, create a huge program on how to cover people who face this crisis. It’s not everybody, it’s not even a majority of the public.”

And so, you had two very opposing points of view. One was market-based solutions only, and one was government-based solutions only. So, their positions were, “Yeah, for some people, let’s set up a new Social Security type of insurance for the entire country.” And the other people said, “No, let’s just tweak the private insurance system.” And so, we were at loggerheads for a while, and then we took a break, and other groups working on this, and helped design a study that Milliman, an actuarial group, and the Urban Institute did together.

And the study showed that private insurance is never going to make it happen all the way, and that there were some issues with going public all the way. And eventually these groups found a way to combine a mixture of public and private approaches to allow people to get long-term care coverage as they needed. These ideas are still panning in Congress, they haven’t yet moved forward, but there’s a lot of attention to it.

But underneath it all, people found, based upon studies and information they had, that each of their own solutions weren’t sufficient. And it set the stage to find compromises to take the best from private insurance to try to make that stronger, and to also have the government help take care of the catastrophic costs that make the private insurers more viable and also to provide coverage to people through the public as necessary.

So, I hope that was close enough to home to make the case for the distinction between positions and interests.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. And so, there it seems like you had some progress because you had some independent research, which said, “Hey, see how neither one of you are really going to get where you want to go by doing just your position.” So that’s handy. Although, I imagine it takes a little bit of prep work in order to get folks’ hearts and minds to even be receptive to facts or research or data of any kind that is unfavorable to themselves. So, how’d you get there?

Robert Fersh
Well, this was a number of years ago before I think the loss of confidence in institutions and the debate about what’s facts and what’s alternative facts was as ripe as it is now. I think we honestly got there because people realized, in this particular debate, they were missing information. How effective, and with modeling, and again, by lining up two groups, one that leaned left and one that leaned right, to do the research that was trusted by people of all sides?

There was a sense that they wouldn’t be able to go further until they had more information. That’s not true in all the work we do. Some cases, people feel they have enough information and have enough agreement on facts that they can go forward even if they don’t agree on all the facts. So, in this case, I think people just felt frustrated that they needed more information. They got curious and they helped themselves design the study so that their various needs could be met and the questions they wanted answered could be met.

So that’s an unusual intervention but it’s also an important one, given what we have today, which is a lot of disagreement on facts, a lot of people feeling that the other side isn’t as honest or as forthcoming as they should be. So, to the extent groups that are coming together to solve problems can agree upon trusted sources or help put together facts that they can all rely upon, that’s an important step toward progress and agreement in any particular process.

Pete Mockaitis
And if your counterparts are not feeling curious and rather sort of dug in and solidified, or you yourself are not feeling curious, you’re solidified, dug in, what are some of your perspectives on how to stir up that helpful curiosity?

Robert Fersh
Well, I would say a lot of people enter our rooms where they’re sort of, maybe shoulders are hunched, their arms are crossed, they’re defensive. Many enter our room not in a collaborative frame of mind. To be honest, some come for defensive purposes. We did a huge project on K-12 Education, where we had the current president of the National Education Association, she was vice president then, and a woman on the West Coast who ran a conservative foundation, who was known as a critic of teachers’ unions and a supporter of more computers in the schools, which some people thought would take some teaching jobs away. And especially she was an advocate for school choice.

And the woman on the West Coast, who was a conservative, basically said she came to the table not thinking much would happen. She’s a woman of action, didn’t believe in gabfests, as she kind of called them, and too much talk and not enough action. But when she got in the room and began to hear people as human beings and create relationships that weren’t just about debating the issues, breaking bread with people, hearing their life stories, I think it opens your hearts to understanding other people.

So, part of the way I think to foment curiosity, if you will, is to have people feel a connection to each other and to take an interest in each other. Beyond that, I think the process itself works that way. If you bring together people who can interact in goodwill, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t get tense, it doesn’t mean there aren’t fierce debates at times, but who begin to see that they share values and they share goals, which is how we start out, and oftentimes they develop some principles by which to guide it, then people have a greater propensity to get curious because they’ve come to the table because they agree there is a problem that needs to be solved.

And once they begin to also open their hearts, the way Carla did in healthcare, to see that they didn’t have all the answers, that no one perspective or no one individual has all the wisdom, and they get that, and that happens almost automatically, when people are in the room and there’s skillful facilitation of conversation across differences, usually, it tickles something inside of them to want to learn more, not just to oppose blindly.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Rob, could you perhaps walk us through maybe a step-by-step, in terms of, okay, we got two folks, they have wildly different positions on a matter, and we want to have some of those delightful breakthroughs, transformations, feel goods that you’re describing on the other side? It seems like we’ve got a couple principles to work with, with regard to shared vision, shared values, as well as coming to some personal connection pieces and understanding the human and the what’s underlying stuff. But could you share with us, maybe, as much as it’s possible, a generalized framework or step-by-step, “When you got conflicting positions and want to find some convergence, here’s step one, step two, step three”?

Robert Fersh
I mean, the first step is to clarify, “Is there a shared goal to begin with?” It’s very hard to have people work together if they don’t have a shared goal. But the fact that they share a goal, even if they disagree on how to get there, is a very important starting point for people to come to the table.

So, at least, and even that, Pete, begins to build a little bit of trust that you’re not at odds with someone about how the world should look. You just disagree on how to get there. So, having a shared vision, a shared goal is a very important first step for people who seem to be in disagreement.

After that, as we’ve talked about, having them get to know each other a bit, having them understand each other’s values, their own life stories, what led them to believe what they believe is really important, and beginning to assemble some basic guidelines or principles by which they could potentially agree on, even though they continue to disagree.

So, we had a project on economic opportunity and mobility where we had the Chamber of Commerce and we had unions at the table. But they developed a principle that said, basically, if you work full time, you should have a life of dignity, and basically not live in poverty.

Robert Fersh
And yet, underneath that, there was disagreement because people on the left, in particular, wanted more higher minimum wages, in fact, a big national minimum wage, and the Chamber and other business leaders said, “No, that doesn’t work for us. Too many regional variations. Too much difference.” But they also signed on to the principle that if you work, you shouldn’t be living in poverty or should at least be living in dignity.

And that meant that they also, if they weren’t going to do that solely through putting the costs on the employer, that they would be open to governmental changes, including things like the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Child Care Tax Credit, other things, because to adhere to that principle, they needed to do something besides just saying no to the minimum wage, and so there was some movement there.

So, to review now, have a shared goal, begin to build relationships of trust, begin to understand each other’s underlying values, and then engage in a conversation where you begin to go deep on the issues themselves, and ask people to keep a mindset of curiosity, ask them to keep a mindset of giving others the benefit of the doubt, develop a mindset where, in some ways, you internalize that.

Even as smart as you may be, or as well-informed as you may be, just develop a little humility that you may not know everything, and you begin to engage people in respectful conversation about different ideas that help meet the goals and the principles you’ve already established. And our experience is that, when this is well done, people can then push each other’s thinking to a higher level. As William Ury said to you in his podcast, he said, “We don’t have enough conflict.”

And I don’t know if I agree with that fully, but my point is that conflict can push thinking to a higher level, and bringing out better solutions than any one party had to begin with, and that’s our experience. So, that’s the basic process to try to promote relationship, promote trust, promote curiosity, engage in respectful dialogue where you don’t ever attack the person or their motives.

You have ground rules by which you observe confidentiality. You allow people to make mistakes knowing it’s not going to go out of the room. And you try to listen in a way that really leads to constructive results and the full expression of different points of view as people push each other’s thinking to a higher level and become attuned to understanding how they might meet each other’s needs.

There’s an acronym in our book called OPTIONS, I never quite get it right. But it’s really “only proposals that meet others’ needs succeed” is the thrust of it. And when the whole group, whether it’s two people or other people, become committed to not only meeting their own needs, but seeing that their needs can be met and others’ needs can be met, you have an opportunity not only to solve problems better, but to create relationships that radiate over time constructively.

People leave our processes often working together better for years to come because they now see each other and understand each other at another level.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s fantastic. And when it comes to the understanding of individuals at a deeper level, with regard to, “Why did you believe…?” or, “How did you come to believe that thing?” and understand who they are as people, are there any super powerful questions or exercises or activities that you engage in that helps unlock some of this interpersonal magic?

Robert Fersh
There are sort of two key questions you can ask when someone else is talking is, basically, “Did I get that right?” and, “What am I missing?” So, you can internalize that. Using curiosity is a hugely important tool. And as I often kid, curiosity is not well expressed when you say to somebody, “I’m curious, how the heck could you ever come up with that point of view to solve the problem?”

But if you can ask authentically curious questions of another person to learn, not to debate, to hear them out. You can always debate. You can always walk away later. You can always disagree vehemently. But if you can develop enough personal relationship, where it’s sort of natural, you get curious. Often people develop bonds of affection in the room, even though they used to be sworn enemies. Some of them go to ball games together or call each other up when they want to make sure they’re not just hearing from their own side in a way that blindly misses the other points.

So, this is the practice of curiosity in a skillful way, where people begin to see that they can, despite they’re maybe being upset about what they’re hearing, go to another gear, go to what Bill Ury calls the balcony to kind of look at this more dispassionately, and not to get triggered by what the other person says, but committed to wanting to learn something. So, that’s a very important skillset for people.

Pete Mockaitis
So, a poor question is, and that’s not real curiosity, is, “How the heck did you come up with such a stupid point of view?” Could you give us some illustrations of what a few good, quality, authentic, useful, genuine, curious questions look, sound and feel like in their verbiage?

Robert Fersh
It would be something like, you know, someone says, “I think the only way to provide healthcare coverage is to go Canada as its single payer, and everybody’s covered, and the costs are down, and so on.” And you could respond from the hip saying, “You know, that’s not an American way. It’s going to stifle innovation. It’s going to give the government bureaucracies too much,” you know, you could go after them that way.

But you could simply say, “Okay. What has been your experience with that particular approach? And why is it that you favor that? And is it something related to your own personal experience? Or is it more a philosophical point of view? Please, I’m very curious about how you came to that set of beliefs and why you believe that.”

And if you just ask that authentically, you’ll learn something. You may still disagree with it totally, but you won’t simply just go into a pitch battle of government, not government, private sector, not public sector, whatever. You begin to get into what we call complexifying an issue, and that’s really important to begin to disrupt a little bit the sort of tightly held views people have.

Again, not asking them to compromise their values or their principles in any way, but to see the issues a little more complex once they fully understand how reasonable people could take that view. And that’s kind of how, because I’ve done this work the last 25 years or so, I go through life now. Whenever I read an article that I either immediately disagree with or agree with, my first thought is, “Let me read something that’s the opposing side there. I’m sure there are reasonable people who disagree. I’m sure this isn’t the full answer.”

And if you can internalize that, at any given moment no one has the full answer and there’s always something to be learned, then that’s an important move forward in your mindset to be a collaborative problem solver.

Pete Mockaitis
I like that notion a lot, the complexifying, because I think the human brain tends to like and prefer simple. We tend to like clear-cut, black and white, “But, of course, this is how it is.” And yet, if, in fact, reasonable people do have a differing point of view, then there is naturally going to be some complexity there.

And if it feels simple in your brain, then perhaps it is indeed the case that you are missing something and there is some complexification that is necessary for you to enter into in order to get to that place of understanding, “Oh, okay, so that’s why you think that.”

Robert Fersh
So, Pete, that’s exactly right, but let me also, for your listeners, because I think these ideas apply to businesses and nonprofits and philanthropies, and certainly on the academic campuses, widely. But I also want to make clear there, and this approach we move forward, doesn’t mean you necessarily talk to everyone about everything all the time. Sometimes there is not time for leaders to make decisions by consensus. You can have so-called death by consensus, drive itself nuts.

And there also are people in groups who are so ideological, so wed to certain ideas, or may have some views that are so extreme, whether that be on race or other things, that they cannot necessarily come to the table, cannot open their heart. And you got to that a little bit to begin with. So, that’s where you have to have a shared goal. If you don’t have a shared goal, like I used to say, not that I would ever have been called upon.

I wouldn’t have suggested that Martin Luther King sit down with the then, you know, I think he was the sheriff or that law enforcement officer, Bull Connor, in the South. If what King wanted was integration and economic opportunity, and he was facing a segregationist and there was just no room, then you can’t necessarily pull people together when people are so extreme or so convinced they have the full truth.

On the other hand, I would also say to you, that really tough issues, when you know there can’t be agreement, you can still use these processes to form relationships of trust and do some things that are just adjacent to the disagreement. So, I have good friends who worked on the issue of abortion. And one friend had convened a bunch of people who are anti-abortion and pro-choice, and it was understood to begin with that, on the fundamental issue of when a woman would have a right to choose, there would be no agreement.

It was a position of deep religious belief on one side, in particular, but also a deep principle-belief on the other. But these people were convened at a time when bombings were going on in abortion clinics and people were dying and tensions were running high. And the idea was to understand each other. And in the case of my colleague, Mary Jacksteit, as I understand it, she brought together these people on the auspices of Search for Common Ground.

They began to understand each other. They began to understand that principled people could stand on either side, and that, at least at a minimum, they stopped demonizing each other as inhuman or not in touch with the fundamental needs of others. And then, in some cases, they actually found they could work together on things they shared, like teenage pregnancy prevention, and better foster care and adoption systems should be brought to terms.

So, even though they didn’t reach agreement on the fundamental issue of abortion per se, they were able to develop respect for each other, and live more civilly with each other, and not live as if they’re at war with each other, and then define areas they could work on together, which they thought were socially positive. So, I think that contributes to a more civil and effective society, where we can bridge those divides, even if it’s not solving the entire underlying problem.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s cool. That’s a cool example in terms of, perhaps, indeed, the foundational viewpoints may be irreconcilable, like, “This is a human being in the womb,” or, “It is not.” It’s like, “Okay, well, I don’t know what we can do with that when we have the opposite views. But maybe there are some other shared goals that we can rally around,” and away you go.

Robert Fersh
So, we talked earlier about values and shared goals and listening and trust, but beyond that, when we do our work, we urge people to do their homework. And that’s true if you’re in a business or otherwise. Make sure you understand who the key players are, who you need to include, and get the best possible answers. And we’re all for inclusiveness of all the voices that are important, not just influentials and experts, but people with lived experience.

So, mapping, what we call mapping the terrain, understanding who believes what to begin with is really important, and doing your homework to understand who you need to convene. Then comes what I’ve already said, nurturing trust in the room, and we do that through a series of exercises. Never start by debating people’s positions, but to understand each other.

And then it’s really important that everybody be heard and really deeply and listen to respectfully. And that’s what we reinforce that by what some of us call ground rules where you don’t go after people’s motives, and you give people equal time or as much time as they need to be heard and so on. And then with skillful help often, but this can be done within organizations, you ask people to begin to generate what we call options for mutual gain. And that’s really an important part of the process. Yes, continue to forward things that are in your interest.

I’ll tell you one quick story, which may surprise people, when I did my maiden voyage on healthcare in 2000, really, 2003 to 2006. We had an executive from a major pharmaceutical company, and there were people in the room very skeptical of pharmaceutical companies, writ large. But this gentleman, who was one of the top officials of this pharmaceutical company, earned the trust of everybody in the room by making, I believe at the opening, making a statement that says, “My company has a huge interest on how we cover the uninsured. I know there’s 40 or 50 million people in the country without insurance.”

“But let me just say on behalf of my company, let’s have a conversation about the best way to cover people. And let me worry about later, what that does to the financial underpinnings of my company. But I really want to have a conversation in which we’re part of a community trying to solve the problem in a way that does the most good for the most people. And if we need to fight it a little bit or demur or we need to tweak it, let’s come to that later.”

But he set a tone there, and this, I think, is a sign of great leadership that said, “I’m open. I’m not going to be defensive. I want to listen. I want to learn. And, hopefully, we’ll come out with solutions that work for everybody.”

Pete Mockaitis
I like that principle a lot in terms of the deferring, it’s like, “Yeah, you all know I work for a pharmaceutical company, and we’re going to have to go ahead and maximize profits for them shareholders. That’s sort of what we do, but we’ll figure that out later. For now, let’s see what the theoretical ideal is that we can all sort of move toward.”

And, yeah, you know, you may, afterwards, need to do some negotiations, some give and take, some horse trading, whatever, to make that workable for all of the parties. But to start with an initial goodwill commitment to get somewhere, and then finetune later, I think, can be very helpful in many contexts.

Robert Fersh
Yeah, and again it’s, in this case, I think, in light leadership by this individual, who seemed to be a very wise man. Let me tell you just another story. The first project, pretty much, I ever did at Convergence, was on nutrition and obesity. And it was interesting because we had difficulty assembling a table. We got a table of public health and consumer groups and some major food companies.

And about a week before the first meeting, which was pretty highly charged because a lot of these people had already been in prior discussions. As one food company executive said to me, “I’ve never been in discussion with the consumer groups where they didn’t walk out in protest against big food.” And he represents a big food company.

So, we assembled this group, and about a week before the first meeting, a leading voice on the consumer side wrote a blog or an op-ed basically saying, “You know, those of us who want to diminish and fight obesity and diabetes in this country, need to stay pure to our principles. Of course, we need to talk to food companies because they’re part of it, but let’s make no mistake. Their interests are,” exactly what you said, Pete, “is to maximize shareholder profits, and so they can never be full partners.”

So, fast forward, so immediately, my inbox filled up with notes from outraged food business people who were coming to the table, saying, “Is this guy really coming to the table? Does he understand how insulting that is that we can’t be part of a solution like we don’t share goals to diminish obesity and diabetes?”

So, we convened people who were very highly charged in the room, and for a while pretty tense. But eventually, as we went around the room, I’m not here to blindly defend all food companies. Some are better than others in terms of their public spiritedness.

But one after another, food company representatives said, “You know what, we do have obligations to shareholders. On the other hand, we’ve got employees. We have family members. We have people who have lost limbs to diabetes and people who have terrible health problems. And we have healthcare costs for our companies that go up because people’s diets aren’t so great. We can’t unilaterally disarm selling our products and just take away all our profits.”

“But if we can make it so that serving healthier foods could be more profitable and marketable, then we would love to join as partners with other people, and we’d also love it if consumer groups would stop attacking us every time that we try to do the right thing. Because whenever we do it, you’re just skeptical and you come after us.”

So, what happened was, over the next 36 hours, there was a remarkable level of frank dialogue about what were the needs and interests of companies, and what were the needs and interests of consumer groups. And, eventually, within a year or two, we did come up with a series of recommendations. But by the end of that meeting, the leading voice for the food industry, representing an umbrella group, said that she had learned a lot, and that she really hoped to be able to work together with the group.

And the fellow who had written that op-ed that had stirred people up said, “You know what, I’m not conceding anything at this point, but this conversation is going to make me think afresh about how to partner with the food industry. And I look forward to doing that.”

So, this is about what it does when you understand and you complexify, and know that, just because someone works in a corporation doesn’t mean they’re evil and selfish. And if someone works in a consumer group, doesn’t mean they don’t care about the thriving of corporations that help make services and goods available to people in this country.

And to the extent we can complexify their views of each other and make them a little less ideological in an honest process, not by lecturing them, but just by learning and experiencing, you open doors for levels of collaboration that normally are not thought possible by a lot of people who think that we are divided everywhere into us and them. And that’s not necessarily true.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, Rob, in our last couple of minutes, could you share any top dos or don’ts for folks who are looking to be awesome at their jobs and thinking about some conflict things?

Robert Fersh
Well, I think the top do for me is, no matter where you sit in your job, you can be a collaborative leader, whether you’re the boss or not. You can always be a voice for saying, “You know what, this is a tricky problem. Let’s get everybody who’s got a stake in the outcome in the room, let’s try to listen, let’s try to push for ideas that work for as many people as possible.”

I had the great honor of working with Stephen Covey quite closely for a number of years. He was the author of “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” and probably the greatest promoter of the term win-win, which some people dismiss, I think, too easily.

So, I think, developing a mindset of, “For me to win, others don’t necessarily have to lose, that no one person or group holds all the answers, that there’s always something to be learned. And if I can learn to be curious, then I think there may be ways to get through things that are really important.”

I think the don’ts, are to check your ego at the door. Make sure that you’re as centered as possible, that’s another do. When you’re interacting with other people, take care of yourself, and make sure that you are not as reactive as you might be when you’re meeting people who disagree with you.

So, don’t take the bait. Don’t get reactive. Do be passionate about your views, absolutely. But don’t make the assumption that just because someone disagrees with you, that they’re not a good person, don’t have good values, don’t have important things to say.

Pete Mockaitis
Rob, thank you. This has been enriching, and I wish you much pleasant convergence.

Robert Fersh
Thank you very much, Pete. A great pleasure to be on. If people want to know more about our work, please look at the book, From Conflict to Convergence. And also at Convergence, we’d love to have people involve with us. We are doing problem-solving ourselves, and then we have a whole new learning lab where we are.

And the book is part of that where we’re trying to inspire and equip people to be collaborative problem-solvers. And we have an online training program coming on in the next few months, where I think people who really want to pursue this can, in addition to reading the book, find ways to collaborate more effectively no matter what they’re station in life. So, thank you for this opportunity.

985: Boosting Confidence and Slashing Anxiety through Great Boundaries with Abby Medcalf

By | Podcasts | One Comment

Abby Medcalf discusses how to set firm boundaries and keep negativity from ruining your day.

You’ll Learn

  1. What most people get wrong about boundaries 
  2. How to stop others from hijacking your mood
  3. A trick for dealing with people who are nasty to you

About Abby

Abby Medcalf is a Relationship Maven, psychologist, author, podcast host and Tedx speaker who has helped thousands of people think differently so they can create connection, ease and joy in their relationships (especially the one with yourself)! With her unique background in both business and counseling, she brings a fresh, effective perspective to life’s struggles using humor, research and her direct, no-nonsense style.

With over 35 years of experience, Abby is a recognized authority and sought-after speaker at organizations such as Google, Apple, AT&T, Kaiser, PG&E, American Airlines and Chevron. She’s been a featured expert on CBS and ABC news, and has been a contributor to the New York Times, Women’s Health, Psychology Today, Well+Good and Bustle.

She’s the author of the #1 Amazon best-selling book, “Be Happily Married, Even if Your Partner Won’t Do a Thing,” as well as the newly released Boundaries Made Easy, and the host of the top-rated “Relationships Made Easy” Podcast now in over 170 countries.

Resources Mentioned

Thank You, Sponsors!

  • Jenni KayneUse the code AWESOME15 to get 15% off your order!

Abby Medcalf Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Abby, welcome.

Abby Medcalf
Hey, thanks for having me. I’m excited to be here.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to hear some insights on boundaries. Could you kick us off with a particularly surprising, shocking, stunning discovery you’ve made about boundaries that really dazzles people? No pressure, Abby.

Abby Medcalf
No pressure at all. I would say this, that most people think they’re setting boundaries and they’re not. I think we throw that word around a lot. So, I’ll hear things like, “Well, I told the person I didn’t like what they were doing and they needed to stop.” That’s not a boundary. Or, “I told them that I feel really uncomfortable when you talk to me that way. I said that to this person and they kept saying whatever they were saying.” It’s not a boundary to tell someone how you feel. It’s not a boundary to tell someone that you don’t like what they’re doing. That’s not a boundary. So that’s what you’re doing wrong probably first.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, right from the get-go. So, you’re expressing something like, “Hey, I don’t like that. I would like for it to be different.” So then, what is a boundary and how does that sound?

Abby Medcalf
So, the boundary would be “Hey, I don’t like how you’re talking to me. You’re going to need to stop, or I’m going…” and then you have to have what I call teeth or a response if the boundary is not kept. So, not a consequence, you’re not punishing anyone. You are just letting them know what will happen, and there has to be something that happens, and you have to do it, “Or I will leave the meeting,” “Or I will hang up,” “Or I will block you.”

I hope it’s not block. I don’t like people taking very drastic measures, but you want to do something. You have to be clear that, “This is what I’m going to do, period.” So, like, I’ll have someone who says, “Well, I’ve told people not to email me, you know, that my day ends at 7:00. I’ve been very clear, and they keep doing it.” And it’s like, “Well, don’t answer the email then.”

Like, it’s not anyone else’s job to hold your boundary. It is your job. And most people get angry that other people aren’t holding their boundary, but they themselves aren’t holding their boundary. So, really, how are you angry at other people when you’re not even doing it? So, it needs to be on you. You’re not a victim. I get a lot of victim-talk, which is not my favorite, and I talk a lot about that on my own podcast and in my last book.

You’re not a victim in life. You really need to stand up. You need to say what you’re going to do, and then you need to do it. I also say, never repeat a boundary. Once you’ve set your boundary, you just have to do whatever it is at that point.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. Well, we’re in the thick of it right away. I love it. Thank you.

Abby Medcalf

I’m jumping right in.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, could you tell us then, I guess I’m curious, boundaries, they sound handy. So, you gave us a bit of a definition, is that your official textbook line?

Abby Medcalf

You know, yeah, there’s a few lines. Really to understand boundaries, you have to understand that nobody is responsible for how you feel, what you say, or what you do, and that you are not responsible for what anyone else says or does or thinks. And once you get that, because I think the thing I get asked the most is, “Well, how do I talk to my boss and they don’t get upset?” or, “How do I talk to a co-worker so that they don’t get mad at me?” and you can’t.

There is no answer to that. There is no perfect way. You could say the most perfect thing in the most perfect way. We’ve all done it, right? You’ve done it. I’ve done it. We’ve trained ourselves and gone in with all the good tools, and then the person still gets upset. It’s because it’s about them, not you. And so, you have to get rid of that. All you can do is focus on having integrity in the way you speak, speaking.

I call it speaking from love, not fear, like from the compassion part of your brain, and that’s what boundaries really are. I always say boundaries are love, walls are fear. Boundaries are meant to keep people in, they’re meant to keep our relationships moving. Walls are meant to keep people out. And that’s the big difference.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. Thank you. Well, so we’re going to dig into a lot of the how-to and the nuances and the verbiage of how this is done. But maybe, could you paint a picture for us, perhaps an inspiring story or some data that would give us a clue as to just how important, useful, transformative, delightful can boundaries be?

Abby Medcalf

I’ve been doing these 40 years, and I work in organizations, and I work with executives, and I work with regular people just in their life. So, whether this is at work or home or anywhere, if you feel at all resentful in your life or helpless or hopeless, you don’t have boundaries where you should, and you’re not holding them.

So, if you want to have peace of mind, boundaries are the answer to feel more peaceful in your life, to have more connection, to have more love in your life, to have more efficacy, to feel more productive. You know how much more productive you are when you have boundaries? It’s unbelievable. 

When you hold the boundaries, what happens is your self-esteem is absolutely raised because you are having greater self-efficacy. You are doing what you say. And in my experience, as I work with people putting out boundaries and holding them, is that they get promotions, they leave jobs and get better ones, they save their relationships in different ways in their personal lives. I mean, your life will become exponentially better once you learn to have them and to hold them. It’s truly the answer to a lot of what you’ve been looking for.

Pete Mockaitis

Exponentially better, the answer. I like it.

Abby Medcalf

Exponentially.

Pete Mockaitis

Can you give us a particular story?

Abby Medcalf

A very simple one is when you say, you decide what your communication strategy will be at work. I think that’s the place that people get the most out of whack. We know from the research that people are working about 50 minutes longer. We know that the days are stretched.

And we know this from emails and when people are answering things and all kinds of different data. But basically, you’re having a longer day, and that’s a problem.

There’s a lot. of wonderful things about remote work and how we’re doing things now that I love, like, people can see a coach or a therapist in the middle of the day, things that you normally couldn’t have done before. There’s a lot of positive things, but the negative things are that folks don’t know when to say, “That’s enough,”

So, one of the simplest things you can do is announce how people can contact you. If you call me on my phone and you got my voicemail, it says, “Don’t leave a message.” It says, “I don’t listen here. If you want to get me more directly, you have to email me and it gets in my email.” So, right there, that’s a boundary. That’s a very simple one, “I’m not going to answer.” That’s the response you’re going to get.

But if you just did something very simple, I answer my emails twice a day. I have set times. People know that. I make sure that’s out in the world when I’m doing a project with a group or whoever, I’m like, “Here’s when I look at emails, these two times a day. And if you need something more immediate, depending on who I’m working with,” it might be Slack or Teams or something else, right?

But when you start to just be clear about, “Oh, I don’t work after 6:00,” or “I don’t work after 5:00,” when you just start to be really clear, that is your first step in the boundary world. But what I have found is that when I’m thinking, like, he was a middle management that I had who was feeling very, which I think is really common, feeling really pulled. His supervisor wanted more, his subordinates wanted more, everybody wanted more of his time. And I think anyone listening knows what that feels like, that your time, everybody’s looking for it.

And he started to really do the things I was asking him to do, and the number one thing I have is a lot of scheduling. Scheduling is my favorite boundary. You know Jim Rohn, I’m sure, like the wonderful Jim Rohn. He always said, “Run the day or the day runs you,” right? Success is scheduled. And so, even that, like when you think about, “Oh, I put boundaries on my time and I’m very clear because I do not answer,” that’s the response if you go outside of that. “But I schedule in when I’m doing things.”

And so, I really got him to schedule more. I got him to, we really talked more. He was always working on something, and he had 50 projects all kind of going, and I was like, “Stop working on things and finish things. So, give yourself an hour to do whatever this thing is that you have to do, or a half hour. Set a timer, do it, and then whatever’s done is done, and then move it along to the next thing.” When you even give yourself those personal boundaries, like, “That’s it. I’m going to end at this time with whatever this is,” you’re more productive.

Anyway, we worked together for about six months, and just from scheduling and creating boundaries around his time like that, he started being a house of fire. He started being so productive. He was also just happier. He felt more in control of his day. I think that sort of took over too, but he got a very coveted position he’d been looking for about two years, after about six months of us working together where I was helping him speak more directly to a supervisor, having boundaries there, asking for what he needed.

People are afraid, “If I set a boundary I’ll get fired,” that’s what I hear the most. And I have to tell you that has not been my experience. I’ve been doing this for 40 years. I’ve been very focused on boundaries for about 15 of those 40. I have yet to have someone fired for a boundary.

Pete Mockaitis

Not once out of hundreds, thousands.

Abby Medcalf

Not once.

Pete Mockaitis

Zero.

Abby Medcalf

Literally, thousands of people I’ve worked with. I have had people, I will say this, like, have a relationship with the boss get more contentious, or a supervisor or a coworker get more contentious because of the boundaries, that’ll happen for sure. Usually, that resolves itself, but I’ve had a few instances where it doesn’t.

But what’s happened is my client has gotten to understand like, “Oh, I don’t want to be at this job. Like, I don’t want to be somewhere where I can’t have a boundary. Like, this isn’t how I want to work anymore. And because I’m not productive in these environments, I don’t feel happy. I’m not satisfied.”

And you know this better than anybody with all the work, you know, with everybody you interview. If we’re not satisfied at work, it’s so much of our lives, what are we doing? So, I’ve had people realize from setting boundaries that they had to leave their job. They had to start really seriously courting another position or getting out of the system they were in completely, which I also see as success, because at the end of the day, you’re still happier and more content.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. Well, so let’s really dig into this statement here, “I am not responsible for whatever someone else does or thinks or says.” And it feels like, I mean, you’re the boundary expert, but, to me, this feels like the holy grail of boundaries. Because if I could really believe that, and have that deep in my bones, and to be true such that I feel a sense of peace amidst whatever reacting rage or whatever someone else is putting out there, then it feels like I’ve won the whole game. That’s my perception. Does that feel accurate, Abby?

Abby Medcalf

It’s 100% accurate. And I would say, for every human, this is the hardest thing.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. So, well, it sounds like we’re on the same page, but we’re going to really drill into this a lot. So, first, let’s see, not to play philosopher here, but let’s push the boundaries of this definition a smidge. So, let’s just say I say something to you. This is just a role play. Let’s say, “Abby, you are botching this interview and it’s terrible.”

So, let’s just say I say something kind of rude. That’s not how I really feel. So, I say that, and then you, so, let’s say you react sharply, and maybe yell at me, and then I feel bad, and I think, “Oh, boy, Abby is really upset, and I guess I probably shouldn’t have said that to her.”

So, I guess in a way here, I guess I am somewhat responsible for my own. I’m reflecting on my own actions, and saying, “Hmm, those comments I said were probably not…I probably didn’t deliver those in the ideal manner.” So, I may feel some remorse or guilt or regret associated with my behavior, although your reaction is kind of what got me there.

Abby Medcalf

It’s not justified. No, no, no, no. no.

Pete Mockaitis

What’s not justified?

Abby Medcalf

It’s not justified that I have an angry upset reaction to you criticizing me, let’s say, or what I consider criticism. This idea we all have that, “Other people make me upset, or drive me crazy, or up,” that is your choice all the time. I can sit in traffic with my husband, and because I’m from New York City, and he’s from upstate New York, we have very different ideas of what the traffic is. He gets upset, I don’t, and it’s not because of the traffic. We’re sitting in the same car in the same traffic. It is because of my beliefs about the traffic. Do you know what I’m saying?

That’s what’s getting you upset. So, that’s the same thing. It doesn’t matter what you say to me. You feel the way you think, and you are in charge of your thoughts and you have to be in charge of your thoughts, and we know this is the basis of all therapy, is cognitive behavioral therapy, is that we change how you think to change how you feel.

So, a great reframe we know, we talk about cognitive reframing, my favorite and my favorite quote probably ever that I say a lot to myself and others is, “Life is happening for me not to me.” And so, if I thought that, and you said that, I might think to myself, “Oh, I really should ask more questions before I get interviewed,” or, “Oh, what is he…?” or maybe, “Oh, my God, what if Pete’s having a bad day? I wonder if he’s okay.” There are a hundred things I could think or choose to do besides get mad at you and react. Always.

Pete Mockaitis

Yes, and likewise.

Abby Medcalf

Yes, and likewise the way you talk to me, right?

Pete Mockaitis

Right.

Abby Medcalf

But that’s the point. That’s the point.

Pete Mockaitis

And so, I guess it’s true that in this demonstration example, I had some beliefs, and I guess we’d have to do some feels, dive deep to see what they are.

Abby Medcalf

Well, I could do a little psychological work with you there, yeah.

Pete Mockaitis

In terms of, like, “Oh, if people are upset with me, it means I’ve done something wrong.” Maybe that’s a belief. It doesn’t quite sound right.

Abby Medcalf

It’s most people do. Like, that’s what you think.

Pete Mockaitis

But I’ve got a belief in the ballpark of that belief, I think, in terms of, it’s like, “If someone is upset with me, there is a chance that I have done something wrong.” And in some ways, this learning comes from, I guess, life experience in terms of, you know, often as children, we genuinely misbehave, break the rules, are naughty, according to some definition or standard or rubric, and then receive discipline from teachers or coaches or parents or whomever. And so then, we have some learnings that suggest, in fact, “If I’m being scolded or someone’s upset with me, I may have done wrong.” So, if that’s a big one inside us, how do we unpack it?

Abby Medcalf

Again, but there’s a lot of times when people are upset with us and we’ve done nothing wrong.

Pete Mockaitis

Yes, indeed.

Abby Medcalf

Because that’s the day they’re having. And I would say that’s always the case, and what the hell does wrong even mean? If I spill milk because I’m a kid, is that wrong? No, I’m learning how to pour milk. If I fall down when I’m learning to walk, is that wrong? No, I’m learning. So even that idea that we can decide what’s right or wrong, I have issue with.

So, as we’re older, really what people are afraid of is “Other people not liking me, other people rejecting or abandoning me.” This is DNA, getting thrown out of the clan stuff for millions of years ago. And this conflict avoidance, I find, has become, and I think it’s way worse since the pandemic. It’s always been an issue, but it’s a huge issue, this people-pleasing, wanting others to like us, and thinking that being nice means not having boundaries, and that it’s mean to have boundaries. And that’s the big lie that, you know, wrong, faulty belief, faulty logic that people are working from, and we have to shift that.

Pete Mockaitis

Okay. And so, how does one? So, I guess, here I’m thinking about back to our scenario. I guess for me, since I am all about sort of learning growth and all that stuff and helping people and compassion, I think my “ideal response” would be not so much an emotional one of guilt, shame, sadness, but rather a curious introspective, I was like, “Boy, Abby, really got upset there. Hmm.”

Abby Medcalf

Yeah, “What’s that about?”

Pete Mockaitis

“Might I have communicated that differently or better?” So, I’m not blaming myself, but I’m taking that input as a prompt for reflection without the shame, blame, guilt, yuckiness. And I might conclude, “Okay, next time I’m going to deliver the feedback a little bit differently, and I think that’ll serve both of us better.” And that just feels like a healthy process that feels way less yucky, but we get to the same place.

Abby Medcalf

And that’s why I say boundaries are love and walls are fear. We block people, we cut them off when we’re afraid, but boundaries really are, again, meant to keep people in. We’re trying to create a relationship with them. But I would even say that self-reflection, like, “Oh, I could have said that better,” you know, even that, I would step back even further, and sort of go, “Wow, Abby’s having quite the reaction to that. I seem to have hit a nerve.”

Yes, I could look at myself, for sure, like, be self-reflective, but I could also have compassion for Abby, like, “Wow, I wonder what’s going on there?” because again, I have a choice how I react to that information. So, “Wow, this is really a trigger for her.” If you told me I was, you know, I’m 5’9″, so I’m relatively tall for, I guess, a female. And if someone said, “You’re so short. What’s wrong? You’re so short. You should grow.” If someone said something like that to me, of course, I’d be like, “They’re crazy.” Like, I wouldn’t react to it. I wouldn’t be upset.

But if someone is saying something to me that I think is true, that’s when you get upset. If someone comments on something else, says, you know, I’m old. Maybe if they said, “Oh, she looks really old,” I might be like, “Oh, God, that hurt,” because it feels like something I’m aware of. And that’s the thing to remember, it’s always about us. If someone yelled something to me in Swahili, I don’t know what it means, so I’m not getting upset because I don’t know what they’re saying. Like, it’s really not about the words coming at us. It is about what we understand of them, what we believe about them, what we don’t believe, and that gauges our reaction to it.

If I think I’m going to lose our relationship, if I think it’s going to damage my reputation, I don’t know, like, there’s a lot of things at stake, that make that up. But you know, and you know, I don’t know, you’ve been doing this a while. Like, I get nasty comments under my YouTube videos sometimes or to my podcast or something. And I’m really, thank God, the overwhelming is positive. Really, I have that first initial, like, “Oh, God, I can’t believe someone’s complaining when I’m giving free information. They’ve got to be kidding me. Aargh!”

I’ll do that for a second and then it’s like, “Oh, this poor person. Like, who are they that they’re so mad that there was a commercial in the free, amazing content they were getting? Or that I talked in the beginning, and I introduced Pete, or whatever, you know, too long to them, ‘I had to wait two minutes till you started to get into the…’” you know.

It’s like, “Wow, this poor person, what are they doing?” And I really do feel that. I think, “Oh,” and I try to send a prayer. I never respond, and I just try to send a prayer to them. But, like, that’s a choice that I’m making all the time of how I’m viewing it. So, people do say really nasty things to me sometimes, and maybe to you sometimes, but it’s a choice. about how we respond. It’s always a choice, 100% of the time.

Pete Mockaitis

Yeah, that’s really intriguing in terms of, like, we could hear all kinds of things and some of them won’t trigger us or fluster us in the least, like, “Pete, I think your shirt is dumb.” It’s like, “Okay, whatever. I don’t know.”

Abby Medcalf

Sure. Exactly. Right?

Pete Mockaitis

And yet, there could be another context in which it’s like, “You know, Pete, I am shocked that you didn’t take the time to dress appropriately for this event. It seems like you don’t care and you’re not taking this seriously. This is very unprofessional.” And then I’d be more prone to take that personally because I’m like, “Oh, well, I do care about this, and I do care about that person, and I do care about this event. But it just didn’t occur to me that it was business casual. No one told me that.”

Abby Medcalf

But can I actually even, like, to me, that wouldn’t be wrong? Can I even give you, like, to me, the boundary, when someone’s talking to me that way is, I try to be curious and understand, I’m like, “Oh, what is it about when people aren’t dressed the way you think that has you thinking they don’t care? Because, wow, I deeply care, and I have a different idea about how I dress, conveying how I care. I feel like the care is in my words and in my showing up and in my time, for me. What is it for you? Tell me more. Like, what other ways do you not feel heard or seen? Or what other ways do you feel like people don’t care?”

I would want to really want to have a conversation about that, and that’s a boundary I have that I want to lean in to conversations. So, if you have somebody at work who’s really upset with you, let’s say, or is acting nasty to you for some reason, you know how that can be, like for no apparent reason, and, really, it’s incredible, and I’ve had people practice this. I’m telling you it works, is to stop and say something.

Go like, “Are we okay?” But not angrily, with the compassion and the curiosity. “Are we okay? You seem real mad at me.” And I do it in meeting, I do it all the time, and I actually can think. I’m working with a group of vice presidents right now, and the one guy does not like me. He just doesn’t like me. You know, not everybody likes you. He doesn’t like that I’m there. He thinks they’re paying me way too much money. He thinks it’s a waste of time, and he subtly tries to undermine sometimes.

And so, in the meeting, I’ll just, and again, not in a… I’m just like, “You know, I’m not sure what to do. It feels like there’s a lot of anger coming towards me. I’m not sure how to make this work with how angry you are.” And he started to say, the first time I did it, he was like, “I’m not angry. I’m just trying to make a point.” And he, you know, as people do sometimes. And I said, “Okay. Well, how do you feel like we’re connected right now? Do you really like what I’m saying? On a scale of one to six…” one to six is my favorite, by the way, for feedback, because people, there’s no middle, so they have to give you one side or the other.

I said, “On a scale of one to six, six, I’m doing an amazing job, you’re so happy to be here, you love what’s going on, and, one, you think I suck and this meeting sucks, where would you put it?” And he hemmed and hawed for a while, and I pushed and pushed, and finally he said, “Well, I guess a two.” And I said, “Oh, all right. So maybe I’m picking up on that two energy. Maybe you’re not mad. Maybe I’m probably,” I’m saying an emotion, “What are you feeling? Like, what is happening? How can we move forward?” And you start being curious and asking questions and naming what’s going on.

And I’m telling you, when you have those kinds of boundaries, I have a boundary that people, I don’t allow people, I don’t allow the thing to go unsaid. I’m going to say the thing. If someone’s mad or angry or passive-aggressive, I’m going to address it, that’s a boundary I have. I will not sit in the lie. To me, it’s sitting in a lie. But I also am a kind, compassionate person. So, I’m not going to be like, “What the F is wrong with you?”

Pete Mockaitis

“What’s your problem, dude?”

Abby Medcalf

Yeah, “What’s your problem, Bob?”

Pete Mockaitis

“Stop being a jerk.”

Abby Medcalf

Exactly. And I always say, “Would you rather be correct or effective because you can’t be both?” So, if you want to be correct all day and call him a jerk, God bless and good luck with that. But I want to be effective. So, I’m going to ask questions, I’m going to ask collaborative questions, “Could you tell me more about…?” is probably my favorite question whenever we’re dealing with just communication and boundaries, and trying to get to what is,“Could you tell me more about that? Like, what does that mean to you? Could you tell me more?”

And when people start to give you those answers, we start to connect. When we show an interest in where people are, instead of trying to drag them where we are, I go to where they are. I try to understand, go in trying to learn something, not prove something, that old adage, you know. So here I am in that meeting trying to learn something, I’m not trying to prove to Bob that he should like me and how we are. I’m trying to try to learn something, like, “How does Bob tick? And what exact…?”

Sometimes, Bob doesn’t like that I’m female. I can’t do much about that, right? You know, like he doesn’t like maybe, you know, I’ve had that. They don’t like a woman telling them what to do. I’m Jewish and I’m very out about that. Some people hate Jews, you know, it happens. And so, there’s not much there, but I can still try to figure out a way that there might be a way to connect, and sometimes there’s not, but that’s what I’m going to do.

Because no matter what he’s doing, I’m not going to change my boundaries, that I’m a kind, compassionate person who’s curious and asks questions. And that’s the big mistake people make. If someone’s mean to them, they slam the door and they change their boundary. And if someone’s nice to them, then they collapse the boundary. You don’t want to do that. You don’t want to change your boundaries depending on what other people are doing.

Pete Mockaitis

I got you. And, Abby, I’m curious, I think some listeners right now is like, “Wow, Abby’s like a super, super woman, super woman, wonder woman. I want to be like her.” Tell me, have you always been like this or did you have any transformational aha moments that shifted you into this spot?

Abby Medcalf

Yeah, many. I think I’ve had many transformational aha moments. Some of it is just getting older, and I will say that. I don’t know, my 30-year-old self, who’s trying to prove herself in businesses and with these executives and all that, I didn’t feel the confidence I feel now, obviously, you know, at 60, that I did at 30. That’s different. But there is a space. I mean, I think in some ways I’m lucky. You know, I’m a recovering drug addict, which I talk about a lot. I’m a recovering heroin addict.

And one of the things you learn as you’re getting clean is that you’ve got to start being honest. You have to start saying the thing. And what I found over time, through my own therapy and coaching, I’ve done all the things, I’ve walked on hot coals with Anthony Robbins back in 1980.

Pete Mockaitis

I did that, too.

Abby Medcalf

1986, yeah. You know I’ve done EST with Warren Erhard and, you know, Life Spring, yeah. I’ve done them all. And I was on a path to try to figure out how to be more authentic, and how to speak the truth. And what I found is that I just really want to connect with people.

When you’re in counseling school, they teach you that every interaction should be therapeutic. Every interaction is a chance to be a therapeutic interaction, and that’s how I like, even if I’m at the checkout line at the grocery store, that’s how I like to think about it. Like, this could be, you know, I say hi, I make eye contact. I say, “How’s your day going?” I connect.

Because every time, it’s an opportunity to be authentically connected to people, and the more you practice it, the better you get. And the more you realize that you can tell people the truth from a loving heart, again, not trying, you got to follow the rules. Do you want to be correct or effective? You’re trying to learn something, not prove something, right? You have to go in curious. If you don’t go in curious, people pick up.

One of my favorite bits of research is from Timothy Wilson. It’s in one of my favorite books called Strangers to Ourselves, but he’s a very famous sociologist. Malcolm Gladwell loves him, so now he’s been getting some good press through him. But one of the best pieces of research I ever read was his, and it’s that our conscious brains process information at a rate of 40 bits per second, while our subconscious brains, or what we psychologists call your unconscious, our unconscious brains process information at a rate of 11 million bits per second. So, people don’t hear what you say, they hear what you mean.

So, if I’m in that meeting, and I know that Bob hates me, and I’m not saying anything, and I’m just getting frustrated and irritated, even if all my language is, “Well, Bob, please, I’d really love to hear what you have to say,” and I’m doing that, Bob knows I’m full of crap. Just like every single person listening knows that someone has said something to them at work, and they were saying all the right things, and in your head you’re like, “This person is full of it. I don’t believe a thing they’re saying.”

And you can’t say why, you just know. It’s the 11 million bits. So, that is always at work, and I know it’s always at work, so I am working hard to align that 40 and that 11. Do you know what I’m saying? That’s what I’m doing.

Pete Mockaitis

And so then, you’re just saying it’s like, “Hey, Bob, you seem really angry about this. What’s going on?” And then they’re…

Abby Medcalf

“What’s going on? Like, what is it? Are you okay? Are you afraid of change? Like, let’s talk about it. Are you worried about losing your job? Like, what’s the fear? Let’s get there so we can talk about that for real.” And I will tell you, people start to say, “Oh, well, people like you have come in before, and next thing I know, Jane gets fired.” And it’s like, “Oh.” They’ll tell you.

When you start asking, people will tell you, not directly, but they’ll tell you. And then we can talk about that, it’s like, “Oh, do you feel some firing is going to happen? Is that what you’re thinking I’m here for maybe?” And people will get real. They’ll say, “Well, what else are you doing?” “Like, do you want to ask me some questions about what I’m doing? Maybe I haven’t been clear up front. Or maybe I was clear, but your fears overrode the clarity, so let’s do it again. What do you need to hear from me to feel better? What could I say?”

One of my favorite questions to ask is, “If there’s one thing I could say to you right now that would help you have faith in this process, what would it be?” And I’m like, “If I was going to give you a million dollars, Bob, I know you, you’re like, ‘I don’t know’” I’m like, “No, if I was going to give you a million bucks, come on, what would it be? Could anyone else here tell me? If you were to have more faith in this process, what would it be?” That’s a conversation you want to have. That’s team building. That’s coming together. That’s connection.

Pete Mockaitis

Well, so, Abby, what I love is that, like, fundamentally, this takes a grounding of courage, belief, self-confidence, because, I mean, you probably hear about some hardcore stuff, like, “That you won’t take a penny of fees from us until you get all, deliver all the promised results?” I don’t know, like, you’ll probably hear some hardcore stuff, and you’re ready for it.

Abby Medcalf

I do. I am.

Pete Mockaitis

So, tell me, when it comes to beliefs, let’s say we’ve zeroed in on some beliefs associated with, “I need to please people. If people don’t like me, there’s something wrong with me. I’m going to be rejected.” So, let’s say we’ve zeroed in on a belief. We know it’s there. Now what?

Abby Medcalf

Now what? Well, now you do some therapy. No, I’m just kidding. So, now, your job is to practice it. So, you have self-awareness. I speak a lot on my podcast and on my website, I have a lot of free stuff about this, about being more mindful. And when I started doing mindfulness, we called it attention training it’s learning to train your attention. When you’re mindful and in a moment, you can notice what you’re doing and what’s happening.

So that’s the first thing is you have to get more mindful and be in your moment. You have to practice that more. So, you can do something simple like setting a reminder on your phone for three times a day, and when it goes off, anytime you want, 9:00 a.m., 2:00 in the afternoon, and 8:00 at night. I don’t care. And when it goes off, all you do is just check in and notice how you were feeling. And good and fine are not feelings. Okay is not a feeling.

It’s, like, to truly identify, people kind of suck at how they feel. So, to really think like, “Oh, yeah, I’m in the meeting, I’m a little anxious. I kind of want to say something but I’m afraid people will laugh or…” whatever. You’ll start to notice what your thoughts and feelings are. This is step one. And, by the way, mindfulness is different than self-awareness.

Self-awareness is judgmental. Like, I’m very controlling, I’m very self-aware of that, and so I judge that, right? I don’t want to be as controlling. Mindfulness is noticing what you’re thinking or doing in a moment without judgment, with no judgment. That’s the difference. And so, I’m self-aware that I’m controlling, but sometimes I’m not mindful that I’m doing it. it. Does that make sense? I just want to be clear.

Like, I hear a lot of people say, “Oh, I’m very self-aware.” It’s like, “Nah, you’re mixing them up.” And by the way, Tasha Eurich has done a lot of research on self-awareness, something like 85% of people say they’re self-aware, but her number from her research is 10 to 15% are actually self-aware. So just for the record, people think they are and they’re not.

But beyond that, I would say start with mindfulness so that you can notice that, “I’m going into a meeting with Bob, and I know he doesn’t like me, and knowing that I’m going to react to that.” Do you know what I’m saying? Like, I’m noticing I’m feeling anxious about going in the meeting because then I could use some tools to calm my nervous system around that, “It’s okay. Bob is not scary. Bob might not like what I say. I’m okay. Life is happening for me, not to me. Whatever’s happening, as long as I’m coming from a true heart, then it’s going to be okay. Everything is figure-out-able. Everything works out.”

Whatever your mantra is, I don’t care what it is, but have something there that helps to calm you, whatever that is. For me, it’s doing some deep breaths, getting my vagus nerve activated. I have to do that before I go to meetings with these guys. I’m usually in a room with a bunch of men, and there’s a lot of agitation, and I’m often called in because someone’s not doing the right thing so they’re feeling very defensive. So, it’s often a hot room to walk into.

And I’m not immune from people being upset so I have to take a moment, and be like, “I’m here for their greater good. I’m here for the company’s greater good. I’m here for my greater good to connect, to learn, to be better at what I do, to inspire, to motivate. Like, I’m here and I’m going to be fully present. That’s what I’m going to bring.”

Like that, when you go in with your, I call it your calibration with your energy intact, that’s the point of bringing other people towards you, instead of you calibrating to them. I hear that a lot. I’ll hear like, “Well, I was in a good mood, and then I got to work and my boss was miserable, so then I was miserable. He was making me miserable.”

I’m like, “Oh, no, no, no, no. First of all, why do we always assume the bad mood wins? Like, where’s that from? Why does the bad mood win? Why doesn’t your good, huge, amazing, inspired mood win? Because it can, but you have to decide about that. You have to go in with that intact.”

So, when I’m walking in that meeting, I’m intact, and sometimes I just say something right away. I’ll just lead the meeting maybe, and I encourage everyone who has to sit in a meeting to take a minute right before, and just ask everybody, like, “Can we all say what our intention is for this meeting?

And so sometimes that person who talks too much maybe can say, “Hey, well, my intention is to listen more. My supervisor’s been telling me I should listen more. So, all right, my intention is to listen more. My intention is that everyone feels heard and leaves this room feeling like they got seen or something.” Whatever it is, I don’t care.

But when you do that, it brings the energy into the room and it’s very present-focused as opposed to outside the room. Does that make sense? And just doing that will help you do this thing where you can talk to people honestly because you’re starting honest. You’re starting with everybody leaning in.

Pete Mockaitis
Understood. Well, Abby, we’re having a lot of fun, covering a lot of stuff. Tell me, anything else you really want to make sure to mention before we hear about your favorite things?

Abby Medcalf

I would say don’t waffle on your boundaries ever. Make sure that you say the same thing over and over. Like, if you say no to somebody, don’t justify, don’t explain. I’m sure people have heard no is a complete sentence. So, when you start to justify or explain, you get into trouble because people will start to have something to push back against, and you just say no.

And make that, if they ask again, say the exact same thing again, “Yeah, I can’t come to the meeting on Friday.” “Well, why not? What’s more important? What are you doing?” “Like I said, I can’t come on Friday.” “Well, what are you doing?” “Like I said, I can’t come on Friday.” Do you see that? Same, over and over and over, like a mantra. Don’t get into it, “I’m just letting you know I can’t come on Friday.” Don’t get mad. Don’t get upset. Don’t take it personally but use that as a thing over and over. So, that’s, I think, what I really want people to hear.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. Well, now, could you share with us a favorite book?

Abby Medcalf

Oh, well, I named my son Max after Maxwell Maltz, so Psycho-Cybernetics is the book that definitely changed my life.

Pete Mockaitis

And a favorite tool, something you use to be awesome at your job?

Abby Medcalf

It’s the scheduling. I don’t have to-do lists, and I put everything in a schedule. Everything. Phone calls, everything I’m doing goes in a schedule, and that has changed my life and the lives of all the people I work with. And, by the way, this is especially good for people with ADHD. I do work with a large company here with their employees who have ADHD, and scheduling and not having to-do lists and not having stickies is the way to go.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. And is there a key nugget you share that really seems to connect and resonate with folks; they quote it back to you often?

Abby Medcalf

“Don’t sac in your relationships.” Don’t S-A-C. Don’t offer suggestions, give advice, or criticize. Instead, be curious and ask questions. So, try to get through a whole conversation without making a statement, and just asking questions to really deepen a conversation. It’s a game-changer.

Pete Mockaitis

All right. And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Abby Medcalf

Just to my website AbbyMedcalf.com. Everything is there, and social, and all my things. Everything is there. And I’m sure you’ll link to it in the show notes, so that’s the place.

Pete Mockaitis
Oh, yes. And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Abby Medcalf

Yeah, I really want you to have a morning practice where you put yourself, before you look at your phone, before you do anything else, before you touch a piece of electronics, that you have some, even if it’s two minutes, some practice where you start with yourself, where you come first, not what everybody else wants, but what you need. So, anything that fills that space.

15 minutes is my goal with all my clients, but I will take two minutes to start, where you just stop, you take a breath, you set intention, you start with that, and then maybe you move into meditations, or visualizations, or journaling, or whatever else, or prayer, I don’t care, but start with something that puts you first and keeps that momentum in a positive place right from the get-go.

Pete Mockaitis

All right, Abby, thank you. This is lovely. Thank you.

Abby Medcalf

Thanks for having me. It was great being here.

976: How (and When) to Freely Speak Your Mind with Elaine Lin Hering

By | Podcasts | No Comments

Elaine Lin Hering discusses why to stop censoring yourself at work—and how to strategically do that.

You’ll Learn

  1. The massive costs of keeping quiet
  2. The fundamental question that helps you speak up wisely 
  3. The subtle ways we silence others—and how to stop 

About Elaine

Elaine Lin Hering works with organizations and individuals to build skills in communication, collaboration, and conflict management. She has worked on six continents and facilitated executive education at Harvard, Dartmouth, Tufts, UC Berkeley, and UCLA. She is the former Advanced Training Director for the Harvard Mediation Program and lecturer at Harvard Law School. She is the author of the USA Today Bestselling book Unlearning Silence: How to Speak Your Mind, Unleash Talent, and Live More Fully. 

Resources Mentioned

Elaine Lin Hering Interview Transcript

Pete Mockaitis
Elaine, welcome.

Elaine Lin Hering
Thanks so much for having me.

Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m glad that you’re breaking the silence here on How to be Awesome at Your Job. I’m excited to dig into this wisdom.

Elaine Lin Hering
We have all the secrets ready to go.

Pete Mockaitis
All of them.

Elaine Lin Hering
Oh, no, let me rewind. Some of them, let’s reset expectations accordingly.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Some of the secrets. Well, how about you kick us off with one of the secrets, a particularly surprising or counterintuitive or extra fascinating discovery you’ve made while putting together Unlearning Silence.

Elaine Lin Hering
Well, I think that Unlearning Silence actually is the discovery because so often, at work, the advice given us, and that maybe we’ve given to other people, is just speak up.

Pete Mockaitis
Just.

Elaine Lin Hering
Speak up. Just speak up. Speak up more clearly. You need more courage. You need more confidence. You need to be more direct. You need to be less direct. You need to smile more. You need to smile less. The list goes on. And I gave out that advice as someone in leadership development for more than a decade, where I received it.

And I found it wholly unsatisfying, because “Just speak up fails” to consider all the reasons that we don’t speak up, that continue on, things that we’ve learned, which I term the silence we’ve learned, and the ways that other people continue to silence us. So, to me, the insight is, instead of telling people just speak up, we actually need to solve for silence on our teams and in our orgs.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, that sounds important. Elaine, could you unpack exactly how important and why? Like, what’s really at stake here if we masterfully unlearn silence?

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah, if you haven’t come across it already, Google a Time Magazine article on how self-silencing is killing us, it’s focused on women, but basically health is at stake, lives are at stake, which sounds really radical and like too far out there. But if we are not getting our needs met in basic respect, in being able to communicate the things that we think are important, or the insights we have, there’s the value proposition from a work perspective, like less employee engagement, like quiet quitting.

But it also, the messages we internalize about the parts of ourselves that we need to censor, or that we need to leave at home when we go to work, really leads to loneliness and social isolation, as well as internalized messages of self-doubt. So, this whole conversation about imposter syndrome, the “Go fix yourself” is some version of imposter syndrome. And, to me, we’re asking the wrong question.

So, silence is when we’ve learned where and when it is welcome for us to share what we really think, which parts of us are allowed or acceptable, appreciated at work or not, and therefore what parts of ourselves we need to leave out of the equation. And what’s tricky is so many managers at the same time are saying, “Tell me what you really think. We need new innovative ideas.” And you can’t have innovation, and you can’t actually have real collaboration, if people feel silenced, and also many of us learned silence along the way of “bite my tongue,” “you want to be easy to work with.” Be a good team player, so often translates into don’t rock the boat. And so, to me, health is at stake, collaboration is at stake, business impact is at stake, engagement, wellbeing at work and in work life is at stake.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay, a whole lot.

Elaine Lin Hering
That’s a lot of doom and gloom right there.

Pete Mockaitis
I hear you. And so, for the health, just to review the mechanism, it’s sort of like if we are doing a lot of the silencing, then we are not having as close of relationships, and we’re feeling lonely, and then we’re missing out on the healthy stress-buffering goodness associated with the relationships, and then that leads to potentially our early demise. Is that kind of like the biochemical pathway we’re looking at?

Elaine Lin Hering
Biochemical pathway in addition to if you feel like you need to edit out parts of yourself, then your nervous system is on chronic high alert. Our nervous system is useful in being on high alert. But high alert is not supposed to be normed. It’s not supposed to be every day. So, cortisol levels, stress, all becomes internalized, and that ends up leaking out in physical manifestation in hives, in hair loss, in loss of sleep, weight gain, etc. in addition to this epidemic of loneliness, of thinking, “It’s just me.” That’s the biochemical addition there.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly. Well, it’s intriguing how it sounds like a utopia to just, “Hey, bring your whole self to work, Elaine. Just share.”

Elaine Lin Hering
Oh, it’s such BS.

Pete Mockaitis
“You do you. Just let it roll, and say what’s on your mind anytime.” That feels comfy, that feels free, and yet, in like most utopias, the reality is not so rosy, like meetings would go on forever, you’d say, “Wow, there are a lot of really weird things unfolding, and that was inappropriate, and that was offensive, and my feelings are hurt.”

And so, it’s really a tricky one in terms of my sense is, and you tell me, Elaine, is that we’d be better off if we were less silent and more courageous in putting forward more than we are now, generally speaking. Is that fair to say?

Elaine Lin Hering
So, I’m trained as a lawyer, so let me be as explicit as I can. Unlearning silence does not mean saying everything, everywhere, all the time to everyone. The world is far too noisy and complex for it. So, your point about utopia, we still live in reality. So, chapter three of my book is when silence makes sense. There are some instances where it does not make sense for me to share what I think because I’ve seen what happens to people who really say what they think. Or, I don’t have it in me. I don’t have the bandwidth today.

You don’t know what’s really going on. You don’t know who I’m caretaking at home, the sandwich generation, I’ve got kids, I’ve got parents, and you want to debate me on that strategic direction that’s really going to change in three months anyways. I might just sit there quietly because you know what, it’s all going to change anyways.

So, to me, though, the difference between silence that is additive or strategic, or is damaging and the health impacts that we’re talking about is agency, “Am I choosing, when I stay silent, how much I disclose? Or, do I feel like staying silent is the only option?” And there are a bunch of traps that our brains fall into, like not being able to distinguish between our current manager and current work situation, and our last manager and last work situation.

We all have baggage that we walk into a relationship with of, “If my first manager shot me a look or told me that my work product was crap, I am likely to be more tentative going forward in pushing back.” I have that datapoint that says, “Oh, that didn’t go so well. So, how do I avoid negative consequences now?” And so, our brains also trick us into forgetting what is present versus past, over-indexing on short-term costs.

Like, if I give feedback to my manager right now, I have to go have the conversation, I have to feel the sweat in my palms and my heart palpitations, I don’t have time for that. Versus if I don’t say something now, what happens three months, six months from now? So, we over-index on the short-term costs versus the long-term impact.

And, frankly, when it comes to group dynamics, why should I have to take the hit? Because if I say something, I may or may not benefit, but I do have to deal with the cost and the potential cost of the blowback in the moment, versus the policy change benefits everyone who comes after me, maybe, if it comes to fruition. So, that voice silence trade-off is one that our brains calculate all the time, often poorly, and most certainly subconsciously. And my argument is let’s just bring that calculation into the conscious so that we show up more intentionally rather than living on autopilot.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, it feels like there is a lot of complexity and consideration, ins, outs, what-have-yous, to deal with here when we’re navigating this. So, Elaine, help us, are there some key guiding lights, principles to simplify this?

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah. When it comes to silencing ourselves, there is this notion that researchers call the “illusory truth effect.” And what that means is, if I have beef, I’m frustrated with one of my colleagues, I’d probably go to talk with another colleague about it, probably go home and talk with whoever I live with about it, might even tell my manager about it. And in repeating that narrative, our brains start to think, “Oh, I’ve actually talked with the actual person about it,” when we haven’t.

So, when we think about silence, there’s just a check of, “Have I actually had the conversation with the person who is concerned by or with whom this issue is of concern?” rather than our brains tricking us into thinking, “Yeah, I’ve had the conversation,” when, really, I’ve had the conversation with everyone else in my life except for that person.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s a good tip. We may very well fall for that.

Elaine Lin Hering
We may fall for that. Another concept, mitigated speech. You can look at pilot training for this, but, essentially, we as human beings don’t tend to be as clear as we think we are. So, for example, particularly across lines of power and power dynamics, your boss says, “This is what we’re going to do,” and you’re thinking, “That is never going to work. I know that we don’t have the resources for it. We don’t have the budget for it. We don’t have the right skills that’s in place.”

And you might say something like, “Do you really think that’s a good idea?” to which, if you take that question on face value, they could say, “Yeah, of course,” and then end of conversation, and you’re like, “Oh, my boss totally doesn’t get it.” Notice the gap between what you actually said externally versus what you’re thinking, “It’s a horrible idea. It’s not going to work,” to “Do you really think it’s a good idea?”

And so, there’s a whole range of directness that we could leverage to say, “I have concerns about that direction. Here are some of the concerns,” or, “Here’s what I’ve observed of other teams who have gone down that path.” All of those things are more clear in actually communicating, “This is a horrible idea,” than, “Do you really think that’s a good idea?” or, “Have we thought this one through?” And so often we mitigate our speech without actually noticing that we’re doing it. So that’s another way that we silence ourselves or dull the impact and the clarity of our message.

The third idea that I probably should have started with is, fundamentally, do you believe you have a voice? Because so often in the workplace it’s, “I don’t have a voice. I’m a cog in a wheel. I play this project management role. That’s what I get paid to do. And so, my job is to literally channel the thoughts of whoever my leader is, whoever is giving me direction, or that the company has decided the voice of the brand.”

And, over time, it makes us a really good worker, but it dulls our sense of whether I have agency to think for myself. So, that very quick check of, “Do I believe I have a voice? And if not, why?” Notice that. And the reason I’m saying I should have started with that is double loop learning. So, this idea that if you want a result to change, you don’t just look at the behavior. You actually have to go back one more loop to look at the mindset that drives the behavior that then drives the result.

So, if your mindset is, “I don’t have a voice. I don’t have agency,” it changes how you show up at work, versus, “I have unique value-add thoughts of my own,” leads to different behaviors, which leads to different results.

Pete Mockaitis
Absolutely. Well, Elaine, help us unravel this. Let’s say we’re saying, “Okay, there are times when I don’t feel like I have a voice, what do I do about it?”

Elaine Lin Hering
I’m taking a deep breath there because there are so much of it really depends on the context. I don’t know who your manager is, I don’t know what the stakes are, I don’t know if you’re on a work visa here, and so the stakes are all different. The thing I would do is to start with the distinction of, “Do you know what your voice is?” versus how you use it. So, let’s break it down there.

If you are wondering whether you have a voice or what your voice sounds like, because you’ve just been so focused on doing whatever you think your manager would want, or your mother would want, or whoever role model of how you think you should show up would want, I would start by asking two questions. In a meeting, listening to this podcast, engaging with any sort of content, be asking, “What do I think?” not “What does my manager think?” not “What does my brother think?” not “What does my mother think?” but, “What do I think?” And what that does over time is remind you that you actually have unique thoughts of your own.

Second question is, “What do I need?” Because so often silencing is also suppression of our needs, our desires, our wants. And so, “What do I think? What do I need?” reminds you that you actually are an autonomous individual with needs, goals, hopes, concerns of your own. In negotiation theory, we would call those interests. So, that would be my advice on rediscovering or finding your voice. And then begs the question of, “How might you use it? And when might you use it?” which is the more situationally dependent one.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, I love it. It’s so simple, and yet so easy to just fly right past it.

Elaine Lin Hering
Because we’re on autopilot. Yeah, and we’re moving to the next thing and the next thing, and this is how we’re used to operating, and also the advice given us is, “Well, just speak up. You need to have more courage.” So, we’re down this rabbit hole of trying to figure out how to be more courageous versus, to me, speaking up and using your voice is actually a matter of calculation, “Does it make sense? Is it worth it for me to speak up, which the way that other people interact or react to me profoundly matters and impacts whether I want to share what I think and what I feel?”

Pete Mockaitis
It does. And what I find interesting is that question, “What do I think?” can sometimes take a little bit of time to really develop. Because sometimes, “What do I think?” it’s like, “I don’t actually know what I think yet. I don’t have thoughts yet. I just have feelings. I feel a general sense of unease and trepidation about those things you just said, and I don’t even know why yet.”

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah. And, by the way, based on your identities, feelings may not be appropriate for you to have at work. So then comes the suppression of, “Let me not even engage with that sense. Let me just do what the group or the dominant norm seems to want to do here because it’s far easier and not necessarily a better outcome in the short or the long term.”

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. And then I guess, as you sit with it longer, in terms of, “What do I think?” if we only have a feeling, you got to dig into that a little bit. And sometimes it can just be like, “Oh, this kind of reminds me of another situation I had that went poorly. So let me examine to what extent is this really similar versus was there some surface level similarity that’s really not applicable to this that I could just be like, ‘Oh, okay. Well, this is a totally different manager, different situation, different project, different client. So, okay, that’s probably not a thing I need to worry about.’” As opposed to, “Well, no, these similarities really do surface that there is some extra risk here, or there are some difficult things I’m not so sure we’ve all thought through that probably need thinking through before we barrel down this path.”

Elaine Lin Hering
Yes. And, by the way, there’s no time, or it feels like there’s no time at work, because we’re already behind schedule, we’re already behind the eight ball. I love what you said about sometimes it takes some time to even realize what you think because that is a difference in processing style and wiring that most modern corporate workplaces do not account for.

So, what I mean by that is, in organizations, particularly corporate America, it seems like there is one particular style of communication that is held up as effective leadership. It often sounds like three succinct bullet points with no ums, just the right amount of emotion to show that you care, but not too much emotion that you lose credibility, particularly if you present as female.

And so, those of us who are post-processors, and I’ll define that in a minute, are at a distinct disadvantage because we’re not as “quick on our feet.” So, two major styles of processing: real-time processing, where the more we talk it out in the moment, the more clear the idea gets; and post-processors, who are the type of, you know, if you’ve ever been in a meeting, you can’t quite figure out what to say, about 20 minutes after the meeting, you’re like, “That’s what I wanted to say.” Welcome to being a post-processor.

And that, to me, is just a difference in wiring, whereas, many workplaces consider that a weakness, “You need to be quicker on your feet. You need to be able to do the rebuttal. You need to be able to input your insight and expertise now or you’ve missed your shot.” And I want to believe that communication is not a Hamilton musical where you’ve got to shoot your shot, and if you don’t, then life has moved on.

Pete Mockaitis
In rap format, which makes it…

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah, and wearing really cool clothes.

Pete Mockaitis
Certainly.

Elaine Lin Hering
So much as we could actually design to account for those differences in wiring and that time to figure out what we think. So, in a meeting, for example, you still have your meeting, so the real-time processors can have their conversation. And at the end of the meeting you say, “All right, it seems like this is where we’re headed, but everybody sleep on it. As you post-process, share whatever comes up in your post-processing in a Reply-All on this email thread, or put it in Slack.”

You’re doing a couple things there. One, you’re normalizing that we’re all wired differently, and if we really want to hear the best ideas, not just the loudest or the fastest ideas, then we need to design the way that we communicate to leverage those different styles rather than penalize.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s good. It also makes me think about how it is even more so a fine idea to share slides or notes or documents or whatever in advance of the meeting so folks already had a chance to ponder, “What do I think about this? What do I need with regard to this?”

All right. So, within the complexity of “Do I speak up or do I stay silent?” could we summarize what are some…because in a way there’s this whole emotional element too, in terms of there may be a rational, optimal thing to do. But I might not even be seeing that clearly because I’m scared of what’s going on.

So maybe, first at the rational level, can you give us the pro speaking up indicators and then the con? “No, maybe stay silent” indicators in terms of what seemed to have the most impact, the biggest punch, and come up the most often as a consideration we should be working through?

Elaine Lin Hering
In terms of the pros, is it worth it to you? Is it worth it to you? Meaning, you care enough about the issue, the stakes seem high enough, “Can you live with yourself?” is probably the anchor I go back to. Can you live with yourself if you don’t say something? And if the answer is I can’t, then that would be pro-say something.

The don’t say something is you’re not yet sure what you think, you don’t have bandwidth, and you are unwilling or unable to stomach the costs of speaking up. Oftentimes, the greatest fear is like, “If I say something, if I give feedback, I’m going to get fired.” And there are some people who say, “Well, that’s a really extreme example. Who gets fired for giving feedback?” And for many of us, we know that it does actually happen. Sometimes it’s not overnight, although I spoke to someone yesterday who was let go for giving her boss feedback.

It doesn’t happen overnight, but do you stop getting the invites to the meetings? Do you stop getting the juicy projects at work? There are real costs, which is what makes it complex, but that takes me back to, “Can you live with yourself if you don’t say something? How much does it really matter to you?” The other way I’d answer the question, and you can decide what you want to keep, Pete, is in Chapter 3 of the book.

The questions that we tend to ask are, “What are the costs of speaking up?” and our brains tend to over-index on the costs, real and perceived, meaning, “If I say something, I’m going to get fired. Maybe that’s what happened at my last job, but that’s actually not the cultural environment that I’m in right now at this current job. So, what are the costs of speaking up?”

And our brains focus on the benefits of staying silent, like, “I don’t have to deal with it right now,” and we tend to assume that, “If I don’t have to deal with it, I haven’t heard about it, maybe it’ll fix itself. Maybe it’s going away.” Spoilers. Doesn’t usually. And so, that begs the third question of, “In light of the costs and benefits, what makes sense for me?” And this is why I really struggle with doing a hard line of, you must speak up in these contexts and don’t speak up in these contexts because I’m not you.

I don’t know what you’re carrying. I don’t know what you’re healing from. I don’t know what you are holding for your family or households. I don’t know what the stakes are for you. And that point, to me, takes us back to agency, of you getting to decide is the difference between silence that is strategic or that, frankly, is oppressive or is damaging.

The place that you’ll notice we didn’t explore, there are, “What are the costs of staying silent? And what are the benefits of using your voice?” And so, I would be looking in those four arenas, rather than focusing just on the costs of speaking up and the benefits of staying silent, also adding to your analysis, “Well, what’s it cost me if I don’t speak up? And what are the potential benefits, even if they’re not guaranteed, of speaking up?”

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s good. And what’s intriguing with the fear and the notion of over-indexing on the short-term, like, “Oh, this is going to be really uncomfortable,” it can be fascinating how sometimes, if you’re the only one speaking up and providing the contrary opinion, it does happen that folks are annoyed that you spoke, “Hey, you want to get out of this meeting earlier? We were almost all wrapped up. We had close to consensus, and then you just had to throw this thing in here. So that’s kind of annoying.”

And so, it does feel like you lose a little bit of street cred or social capital or whatever in so doing that. And yet, at the same time, it is so case by case, there are some leaders who will just be absolutely delighted, like, “Here, at last, is someone who’s giving me a perspective I’m not hearing elsewhere, things I need to be worried about, making sure I’m not blindsided, giving me a heads up. This one has high potential and a bright future.”

And so, it’s interesting that those, I don’t know if we know what proportion of managers fall into what camp, that’s sort of hard to know, but if you know it, Elaine, drop some stats on us. But I think that might be an example of something we might undervalue or under-index for as we’re assessing this stuff, is you might discover that you have the potential to be differentiated as a super valuable person that your manager loves, loves, loves, and trusts you, and wants to run more and more things by you because they’re not getting that perspective elsewhere.

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah, because you’re not just plus one-ing everything else. You actually have a value-add because you’re offering a different perspective. I actually want to do one better because I don’t want to get us to the point where we’re at the end of the meeting and then you have to be contrarian. That cost is too high emotionally, socially, the social threat of speaking up.

So, what I tend to coach leaders to do is instead of leaders…leaders in a very, very well-intentioned way, saying things like, “What do you think?” or don’t even ask the question. It’s, just leaders assume, because they would do it.

Pete Mockaitis
“Sounds like we all love this idea.”

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah, if you have something to say, you’re going to say it, versus using standard questions, “What about this works? What about this doesn’t work? What are the pros? What are the cons? What about this resonates? What concerns do you have?” If those are the questions that we, as a team, use to evaluate an idea, I don’t need someone to muster up the courage to offer a contrarian view or play devil’s advocate because it’s baked into how we’re doing the work, how we’re having the conversation, and it’s just the next agenda item, “Okay, we’ve talked about the pros. What are the cons?”

And that takes the pressure off of everyone, rather than, “Okay, Pete, muster up the courage now, take the risk.” We’re lowering the barriers to engaging in conversation and engaging by adding your perspective.

Pete Mockaitis
Yes, that sounds like a wise best practice, to just go ahead and do that, when discussing decisions and options and considerations. Any other top do’s and don’ts you’d put forward?

Elaine Lin Hering
Oh, so many. So many. Let me start with the leader. So, we as human beings tend to assume that people, other people are wired like us. It’s just human nature. So, unless we stop and intentionally realize, “Oh, there are some people who are post-processors. Well, I’m a real-time processor? Okay, then what do I do about it?”

The first reason I articulate in the book that leaders end up silencing the people they lead, the people that they genuinely want to thrive and want to unleash their talent, is that they fundamentally underestimate how hard it can be for someone to speak up. If your voice has always been welcome, if your ideas have always been well received, you forget that other people could have different life experiences, and this is just a cognitive awareness of, “Oh, it could be hard for someone not because they’re weak or deficient, but because they’re different than I am.”

And so, the “don’t” is don’t assume everyone is like you. The “do” is figure out what makes it easiest for people to share their thoughts and feelings. Some people are typers. Some people are talkers. Some people communicate best real-time. Some people it is asynchronous. Some people are morning people, evening people. Can you understand what makes it easier for someone to communicate so you, as a a colleague, lower the barriers to people telling you what you really think?

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, that’s great. What else?

Elaine Lin Hering
I’m like, I could just go down the table of contents.

Pete Mockaitis
I’m down.

Elaine Lin Hering
You’re game.

Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, let’s hear it.

Elaine Lin Hering
Okay. So let me do one more on leaders as a pet peeve, and then I’ll go from the how to speak up perspective. One of the most subtle things that we end up doing that silences other people is, when they finally take the risk to share what we think, what they think, we change the topic, and it’s really subtle, but we change the topic from their concern to my reaction to the situation.

So, example. They come and say, “Hey, Pete, I don’t think we’re going to hit the deadline.” And your reaction is, “What the hell? Why didn’t you tell me about this earlier?” It seems like we’re talking about the same thing, the deadline and our inability to hit it, but you’ve actually changed the topic to your own reaction or the process of why they didn’t tell you earlier versus focusing on, “Why do you think we’re not going to hit the deadline?”

In that moment, it’s a subtle shift of topic, but it actually signals to the other person, “Oof, they didn’t really want to hear me. We’re not going to address the thing that I finally mustered up the courage or taken the risk to share.” So, watching out for whether you are staying on the person’s original topic rather than changing the topic in the moment is one way of maintaining the open lines of communication.

Pete Mockaitis
That’s really good. This reminds me of land-lording.

Elaine Lin Hering
Oh, no, that’s a whole ball of wax.

Pete Mockaitis
A tenant will tell you that something’s wrong and like your first reaction is like you’re mad, like, “What? How long has this been going on? What’s the problem? Why are you doing this?” And I’ve learned though, I had another friend who had a rental property, and she had this horrific rat situation brewing for months.

And so, she actually did ask politely, “Okay, so how long is this going on? Okay. So, why didn’t you mention that earlier?” They said, “Oh, we didn’t want to burden you or inconvenience you or whatever.” And so, I just sort of installed in my internal habit that, just no matter what you’re feeling, you say, “Thanks for letting me know.” Because I do, I want them to let me know early when there’s one or two rats, before there are dozens of rats or whatever the issue is, whether it’s a physical property or like an intellectual, algorithmic thing we’re doing in a white-collar environment. I want to know, so thank you for letting me know.

Elaine Lin Hering
Yes, and have you been explicit with your team or your renters about your hope and expectation? Or, is that an unspoken norm because that’s how you would prefer the world to work, that’s what you would do? Have we made the rules explicit? Meaning, tell me early, tell me often, come to me right away when there’s one or two rats or even when you see some rat poop. Let’s be really explicit versus the “I didn’t want to burden you. We thought we could fix it by just putting out some traps. You’re so busy.”

There are a thousand reasons why people don’t say things, and from a really well-intentioned perspective, but have we also communicated to them how we would prefer, what we’re inviting in from them, what the operating norms are, and making those explicit rather than implicit, and then getting frustrated when they get violated.

Okay, from a speaking-up perspective. You can find your voice by asking those questions, “What do I think? What do I need?” But then there’s this question of using your voice. And using requires action, and action can feel vulnerable. So, in order to see whether it really is my voice or whether it is worth it to me to say something, I’m going to have to take actions over time to experiment.

And so, I’m a big fan of small experiments. If you’re someone who tends to overthink, spiral and overanalyze, you can get out of that over-analysis by trying something, and I would recommend a low-risk environment. Meaning, if you are just starting to practice the muscle of giving feedback, you wouldn’t necessarily go to your boss right away and tell them everything that you think is wrong with them. Maybe it’s when you are at a coffee shop and the barista gets your order wrong. Do you say something in the moment?

And maybe you don’t really care if it was iced coffee or hot coffee, and maybe you really do, but say that you don’t. That’s actually a great time to practice because, if they don’t respond well, if they’re too busy to change the order, whatever it is, you don’t really care. So, practicing on strangers is a great way to build that muscle of sharing your thoughts.

Another context would be with a group of friends, and this whole debate of, “Okay, what are we going to have for dinner?” Do you practice having an opinion, expressing an opinion at a time that you don’t really care? So, “Hey, what about Thai? What about Thai food?” And they’re like, “No, I really feel like burritos.”

You’re like, “Okay.” But you at least get that datapoint that says, “I expressed a point of view, an opinion, and the world didn’t fall apart,” which, for many of us who hesitate to speak up, to use our voice, we don’t have that dataset that says, “I expressed an opinion, and it was okay. I have that dataset that is glaring in my head of, ‘I said something, and I got cut out of that team.’”

Or, that relationship never recovered. Or, “Maybe I’ve never tried, because in my family of origin, it was whatever dad says goes and no one ever challenged that. I never tested that out.” So, trying things out with strangers where you don’t really care about the relationship or it’s not a long-term relationship, trying it out where the stakes are low of things you don’t really care about, to get different data points that tell you, “It’s okay to express an opinion. It might actually be helpful.”

Pete Mockaitis
And what’s so interesting is as you do that, I think you go really just determine, discern some patterns associated with what kinds of things do I find difficult to say. Just yesterday, I noticed I needed someone to spot me in the gym for a bench-press situation, and I was so nervous to ask someone, which I thought, “This is a fairly normal request. Most of the time I don’t hear it, but it’s not a freakish thing.”

And then it’s really true, but my mom mentioned in a conversation like, “Well, Pete, you really do hate putting people out.” I was like, “I really, really do. You’re right, mom.” And it’s like I’ve seen this real time. And, at the same time, and so I did, I did, I asked for a spot. I was pleased with the bench performance, if anyone’s wondering, and it’s really cool to be able to practice in that environment.

And even if I got a disgusted response, “I have a lot of work I need to do here, and I have to be out of the gym in six minutes. Absolutely not.” Like, that’s the worst it could possibly go. And that’s fine, and I have grown those muscles as a result of having gone there.

Elaine Lin Hering
Yeah. I also want to be really explicit that the framing of “This is what I’m trying on” is important. Because if you’re just trying it on, it’s like trying on clothes before you’re going to buy them, “Does this fit? Does this not fit?” And it may fit in that instance of, “Oh, yeah, that was fine. It was part of the normal course of being at the gym, and I’m still alive.” And you may say, “You know what? I did that.” And it doesn’t feel like me. It doesn’t feel right to me. Great. Try something else.” But the point of an experiment is not to get to a specific outcome. The point of an experiment is to learn something. So, this stance of, “What might I learn in testing a hypothesis I have, in expressing an opinion, in trying something on?”

Pete Mockaitis
Lovely. Well, Elaine, tell me, anything else you really want to make sure to mention before we hear about some of your favorite things?

Elaine Lin Hering
I’ll say one last thing, which is, oftentimes, when we are thinking about expressing our points of view, we’re waiting for other people to give us permission, and that is a trap that I find many people falling into, which is why I’m naming it here. You think about school systems and you have to ask to go to the bathroom. At work, you have to submit for time off to take the PTO that is rightfully yours, and so there’s a lot of baked in “I’ve got to ask for permission.”

And in what ways might we be waiting for others to give us permission when we could give ourselves permission to experiment, to share an opinion, to try something on? That is, I’m always looking for, “What can I do, unilaterally, because if I’m waiting for the other people in my life to start showing up in a different way, I’m probably waiting for a really long time? But if I can do something differently myself, then I might be able to get to a different outcome faster.”

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And how about a favorite study or experiment a bit of research?

Elaine Lin Hering
Oh, babble hypothesis of leadership. So, number one in a six-person meeting, two people end up doing 60% of the talking. And more interesting, that leads to the babble hypothesis of leadership, is that people code frequency or quantity of verbal contribution as a sign of leadership or high leadership potential. It has nothing to do with the quality of the contribution, so much as, “How much are you talking?”

And so, the babble hypothesis of leadership, to me, is something for us to guard against, that just because someone’s talking a lot, actually listen for the substance, and that if we want to have healthy workplaces, we need to create space for different models of leadership. This one dominant norm that’s very chatty but maybe, at times, lacking in substance has gotten us to where we are, and the question is “Where are we going from here?”

Pete Mockaitis
All right. And could you share a favorite book?

Elaine Lin Hering
I’ll do recency bias. The one in front of me right now is Micro Activism by Omkari Williams, “How to Make a Difference in the World Without A Bullhorn.”

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite tool, something you use to be awesome at your job?

Elaine Lin Hering
Turning off email, 5:00 p.m., no longer load work email onto my phone, because there’s got to be some semblance of sanity.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite habit?

Elaine Lin Hering
Leaving my phone. Apparently, I have a complicated relationship with my phone. Leaving my phone in a different room when I sleep.

Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And is there a key nugget you share that’s really resonating with folks that they quote yourself back to you often?

Elaine Lin Hering
“In what ways are you silencing yourself to preserve the comfort of other people?”

Pete Mockaitis
And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?

Elaine Lin Hering
ElaineLinHering.com.

Pete Mockaitis
And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?

Elaine Lin Hering
Try something. Try something. The ruminating, the overthinking, the spiraling, you can get out of that by trying something. Because by trying something, you will learn something. So instead of waiting for the next perfect step, start by taking a step.

Pete Mockaitis
All right. Elaine, this has been enriching. I wish you many optimized silences and un-silences.

Elaine Lin Hering
Thanks, Pete. To a life lived fully to you.