Verbal Smarts – Page 2 – Conflict Manager

A Conversation With Violence – Andrew Holland

My personal experience of self defence has come from my work as a UK Police Officer. and today I will give you a huge tip from my experience.

So what did 17 years as a cop in the UK teach me? What insight did all those years of going hands on with people provide me? The answer is simple, words matter as much, if not more, than the physical.

In this article, I will be looking at the art of speaking in conflict situations.

I was at the Presidents Cup International Russian Sambo tournament a few weeks ago, and I bumped into Tony Preston. Tony is a Krav Maga expert, grappler and instructor under Geoff Thompson, both contributors to this magazine too. However, he also worked on the doors. Needless to say, he knows his stuff. So while watching some great action, we got talking about self-defence and Tony was discussing how he has avoided more conflict than he has been in and he used his verbal skills to get out of violent situations.

I couldn’t agree more with Tony, and this is the mark of a true expert. I never worry about the man who brags that he has 300 fights. Usually, this is so often made up. I worry about the man who says “I’ve avoided more than I have been in”, this for me is the mark of a true expert.

As a young police officer, I was fascinated with violence, almost all police work involves violent crime. From threats to assaults, violence is the common theme that runs throughout it all. Just as Tony stated, I too have found that it was my mouth that became my greatest asset and not my physical prowess.

The use of verbal skills has been essential for me in me returning home after every shift for 17 years. It was something that wasn’t taught; you picked up on it through experience. I recall in my early years on the job arriving at fights and very often being given small tasks by vastly more experienced officers. Looking back I was just learning my trade and I got to see masters at work. These older cops rarely went hands on because they controlled situations with their voice, their stature and body language. They were experts in the art of non-verbal communication, and these officers had no intention of letting an 18-year-old testosterone fuelled rookie cause them to fight and possibly injure themselves.

Over the years, I became the experienced officer and those with me were often rookies themselves and guess what, I gave them the simple tasks such as getting witness details. The main reason for this is simple; I wanted to be in charge of what was going on if I was going to have to fight it would be on my terms!

When I sat down and broke this subject and skill base down, I called it my Verbal Control System or VCS. The VCS allowed me to control every situation, and if I were going to go hands on I would have every tactical advantage possible.

The first step on the VCS is realising that the 80/20 rule applies to conflict too.

80% of people don’t want to fight, and the 20% that do have probably lost 80% of the encounters they have had. This is another reason they are so keen to fight; they are stuck in the perpetual ‘need to prove themselves zone’. You can almost be certain that men being arrested at domestic incidents would fight, push their chests out or be rude as they want to prove something to their partner who was usually beaten up in the corner.

Once you are pre-armed with the knowledge that most potential aggressors don’t want to fight, then, you can use this to your advantage and start giving people ways out of the situation. The managed exit as I like to call it is a way that you construct a pathway for the individual to exit safely. An example could be a drunk guy in the pub that bumps into you and spills his drink. He starts to get angry, as such you could say:”Sorry about that, let’s get you another drink.” Yes, spending £3.50 possible stopped you from having to knock this guy out and end up at the police station all night and day. Money well spent.

My favourite exit was always when I had to put the handcuffs on someone and they were saying “You aren’t putting them on me, I’ll kick off”. For these situations, I used to say “Those cuffs are to protect us from you, you are clearly a handy lad, I want to go home in one piece so I have to put them on.” This appeals to their ego and worked like a charm for years. I learned that from a very experienced officer, and I am guessing he learned it the same way.

Other exit strategies are simple as well, in a robbery just give them your wallet or anything else they ask for (assuming it is just money, etc.). Your verbal skills are simple here “yes I’ll give you the money.” Not rocket science. Once you stop thinking about self-defence as a physical thing and more of a chess match, then you can take your ego out of the occasion.

For me, I used to think about victory in terms of injuries. Having no injuries when I got home was a clear victory because that was what so many people wanted to do to me, cause me harm. My advice is simple, practise your verbal skills often and learn how to give the opponent every chance to avoid the situation

Andrew is a former police officer in the UK, Judo black belt and boxer. He also runs www.theselfdefenceexpert.com

The Never Complain Dictum – Mark Hatmaker

In the world of street-response to potential violent conflict one often encounters the word “de-escalation.” I want to define that term, not to insult intelligence but to make sure we’re on the same page about a tactic I find of nominal value as it applies to the everyday citizen. De-escalation is, in short, a micro-version of hostage negotiation. I keep you talking with this or that bargaining chip or appeasement patter in hope of you not engaging in violence (or any more violence).

Now, law enforcement and security professionals (LE here on out) have a serious need for de-escalation tactics and strategies as LE, by the very definition of their job, must deal with the violent or potentially violent. Their professional contract, their sense of duty says that the LE professional must deal with what is in front of them and not walk away. Whereas, we the non-LE citizen do not have that professional onus to stand pat and work our way through a potentially dangerous situation with some possibly dubious advice. (We’ll get to why I regard de-escalation advice being of dubious merit for the citizen in a bit).

First, we would be wise to think of confrontation in the physical realm and the non-physical in the exact same way, with the exact same response continuum. That is, as non-LE professionals we have no duty or burden to respond to or restrain an offender. At the first sign of trouble if the exits are clear we would be wise to exercise the most important F of the Fight or Flight dichotomy and choose Flight. Training/Drilling/Accepting a de-escalation strategy is choosing to prolong a confrontation by default-when phrased that way, does prolonging contact with the violent or potentially violent seem wise? If assault looms imminent, you should get out of Dodge. If it’s too late to get out of Dodge when the violence is upon us, we should respond only long enough to create our flight opportunity. It is not our job to “see it through to the end” as, again, that is not our job as non-LE citizens. To move laterally into de-escalation where a simple exit is available is less than wise. It may feel “cowardly” in some circumstances and not as easy as our combative simian natures will allow, but it is wiser than engaging in wordplay with another simian in an agitated state.

[In regard to cowardly vs. “knightly honor” I can do no better de-bunk of this notion than the masterful distinction between honor and responsibility delivered in Schopenhauer’s “The Wisdom of Life.” In short, not everything is “fightin’ words.”]

Let’s look at how well de-escalation works in non-violent scenarios for a moment. I want you to picture the “ambush” seat on a cable news show. That is the seat or guest spot reserved for the partisan enemy; the guest spot where a single representative is supposed to stand-in for all of the “other side” while a bombastic anchor or table of the “enemy” goes to town on you.

For this example, picture a conservative guest on an MSNBC show and a liberal guest on a Fox News show. There should be something here for you no matter where you are on the political spectrum. Now, how often have you seen the “ambush” guest use de-escalation/appeasement/justification conversational tactics and win? The answer is never, if/when it happens that will be front page news: “Noted [Insert Conservative or Liberal of choice] says, “You’re absolutely right.”

Let’s take another example home. If you are already familiar with de-escalation ask yourself how often you use it in a debate/argument with your spouse/boss/co-worker (insert your personal arguer of choice)? How often do you really, really keep your eyes on the appeasement prize? If we are honest with ourselves, we often (before we move to resolution) realize “Hmm, am I actually a wee bit of the problem here? If so, why do I keep on opening my big mouth?” Appeasement/de-escalation doesn’t happen because, we simians dig in on contentious matters, we seldom shift our opinions in the heat of the moment-we must calm before (if even then) we can see the other point of view. In short, we’re an aggressive species whether that aggression is violence, threat of violence, finger pointing political argument, or passive-aggressive gossip.

Now keep in mind these examples where we don’t exercise our de-escalation skills occur with no threat of violence. Imagine how much more heated a scenario we are talking about when we suggest “How about some de-escalation talk?” If we don’t see it manifest in less-threatening situations (i.e., we don’t drill it in daily life) what makes us think we will be calm and cool enough to utilize it and utilize it well when it hits the fan?

OK, let’s pretend you see my “If it doesn’t manifest in low-stress situations it ain’t gonna rear its head in high-stress” point. Is there something that we can do in its stead, something that gets closer to the true intent of the Flight F, and also actually allows us to drill in day-to-day scenarios to get the gist of the thing down? Yeah, I think so.

I’m going to reference a strategy used by comic/magician Penn Jillette of the Penn & Teller duo. It’s called “Never Complain.” He uses it in a cost-to-benefit, return-on-investment (ROI,) don’t waste your time in matters of free market choice. We’ll explore how he intends it being used and then we’ll add some “You can complain here” allowances, and then move it to the world of potential violence.

Penn means for the “never complain” axiom to apply to low-key disagreements in everyday life. For example, poor service in a restaurant-there is often a strong inclination to make your dissatisfaction known (I was formerly that guy). But let’s ponder the strategy of letting it be known you were not served how you expected to be served. In essence we are telling the server or the manager “Go back into the past and fix what has already occurred,” “Here’s how I would run your business/do your job,” or at most we complain in hopes of “getting something” for being the squeaky wheel which allows you the privilege to return to the environment that you did not enjoy and potentially risk a bit of extra-ingredient comeuppance introduced into your meal.

The “Never Complain” dictum states that instead of putting the time in, raising your own “fighting ire” you consider the poor service or meal as market information, you simply move on and try different establishments. In most matters domestic we have plenty of choices, plenty of outlets where we will be offered good meals, good service, good prices, what have you. I wager that this strategy will be tough for some of us out there where the urge to stick to your guns and “go to the top because nobody treats me this way” will be hard to overcome.

Enjoy your victory, enjoy your fight.

For others who are piqued by the strategy and might be asking yourselves, “but what if money is involved?” Well, then sure you may have a reason to fight that fight, but only if the amount in question will warrant the time and effort involved. For example, if upon arriving home from a department store you discover that you have been shortchanged a hundred bucks, you might wanna drive back out. If the amount is $1.75, you might want to ponder the gas and lost time and do some math.

The “never complain” strategy once fully embraced frees up a lot of time if you are a “get your due” sort. It also allows you to find businesses, environments, and folks that dovetail with your tastes better than trying to re-make the world into your own personal whim. It also supplies real world training for conflict management-in that in situations that do not warrant your time and attention you simply walk away. That’s mighty freeing, and perversely satisfying to see the person who wanted to argue over a parking space not sure how to process your shrug and walk on to the next good thing in your life.

“Never complain” in small matters trains us in flight from trivia in a way that bargaining, negotiating, and “winning” with poor service-providers never does.

“Never complain” also allows us to get our nervous systems, our egos a little used to the practice of “If it ain’t worth it, and I’ve got options I’m taking a hike.” I wager that this trivial real-world practice may serve us better than hypothetical classroom encounters where we all behave as if we’re amateur hostage negotiators.

In short: Treat violence like a fire-get low, get out, and leave it to the firefighters.

Calm Down Please, Part II – Iain Abernethy

Another simple but effective part of verbal de-escalation is to avoid “you statements” and as much as possible stick to “I statements”. “I statements” show you are taking responsibility (or at least give the impression you are) and are more likely to help people calm down and promote co-operation. “You statements” however can come across as argumentative, judgmental and accusatory. Saying, “I’m sorry but I’m having trouble understanding” is more effective than saying, “You are not making yourself clear.”

Remember it is not about being “right”; it’s about calming things down and avoiding things getting physical. It’s time to put your ego to one side and say what needs to be said to de-escalate not saying what needs to be said to “win the argument”.

Violence can often be triggered by “the small things” when we are dealing with volatile or agitated people. We need to avoid making the other person feel weak, small, trapped, frustrated, pressured, afraid, and so on. Say what needs to be said to calm the person down and know that you are not “loosing face” but being smart enough and skilled enough to prevent things getting physical.

Tone of voice is also an important consideration. Here in the UK raising your voice can be seen as a sign of losing your temper or trying to dominate the other person. Keeping an even tone is therefore very important if we wish to calm a situation down. Things are different in different parts of the world of course and in Southern Europe raising your voice would not be automatically associated with aggression. It is important to be aware of the cultural norms and work within them. This is especially important for those who travel a lot as judging things by the standards of another culture (or subculture for that matter) can cause problems. Both we and the person we are trying to calm down are likely to judge what is said, and how it is said, and all aspects of non-verbal communication, by the standards of our own culture. We need to be aware of this in order to avoid confusion.

A simple example is the distance at which people talk to one another. In the UK and the rest of Northern Europe conversations typically take place at just outside an arm’s length. If a person were to move inside that space while talking it could be taken as an attempt to invade “personal space” and hence a threat (quite legitimately). However, in other parts of the world (i.e. southern Europe, the Middle East, etc) it would be the norm to be closer when talking and hence a negative reaction to a person being a little closer could inflame things unnecessarily.

Generally speaking, people are more trusting of those who speak and act like themselves. This could make you think that “mirroring” the person you are trying to de-escalate could be the way to go. However, “acting the part” is unlikely to work with a person from another culture, part of the world or subculture. It can be taken as mocking, belittling, or being false and is unlikely to help. Looking for common ground can be helpful though, as can trying to develop empathy by using the LEAPS communication model discussed earlier.

One other communication model that is relevant here is “Betari’s Box”. Basically “the box” is made up of four parts and essentially can be summed up as:

“My Attitude” affects “My Behaviour” affects “Your Attitude” affects “Your Behaviour” … affects “My attitude” and so on in a cycle.

To give a simple example: Person A is in a bad mood (their attitude) and hence they overreact (their behaviour) to Person B accidentally bumping into them. The behaviour of Person A affects the attitude of Person B towards them. If Person B were to take an aggressive attitude they are likely to respond with aggressive behaviour. The aggressive behaviour of Person B affects the attitude of Person A who, now convinced that the accidental bumping was an act of aggression, responds in kind. Before we know where we are the situation escalates out of control and physical conflict ensues. The trick therefore is not to let the cycle run away with itself in a negative way, and to break the cycle if it looks to be heading that way. Also, and this is very important, know that controlling your own attitude and behaviour can have a big effect on the attitude and behaviour of the other person. Don’t fuel the situation, but remove that fuel.

To take the example I’ve just given, if Person B had immediately apologised in a warm and sincere fashion that could have affected Person A’s attitude toward them and hence conflict could have been avoided as different cycle could have ensued. Essentially, your behaviour will affect the other person’s behaviour so be sure you do what you can to avoid unintentionally promoting aggression.

So far in this article we have looked at some of the basics surrounding verbal de-escalation. I now want to quickly touch on a few key points of the verbal side of self-protection generally. I’m not going to go into much detail here, but I feel it is important that I mention these things in order to put what we have discussed so far into some kind of context.

Firstly, be aware that sometimes the criminal wants to talk so they can engage you, detain you or distract you. Get good awareness training and trust your instincts about people and situations. Don’t talk to people you should not be talking to. Just keep on walking and flee if appropriate.

Secondly, don’t try to talk your way out of a situation when you should be fighting your way out or fleeing. Remember that you can’t reason with the unreasonable and you can’t talk your way out of all situations.

Thirdly, be aware that it could go physical at any moment and that processional criminals will be experienced at lulling potential victims into a false sense of security. Just because it looks like a situation is de-escalating does not mean that it is! The criminal could be playing along in order to get you to drop you mental guard. The old samurai saying of “when the battle is over, tighten your helmet straps” applies here. Keep your awareness up and be ready to go physical at any moment: even if it appears as if things are being de-escalated. It could be a ploy.

Finally, don’t try to de-escalate when the situation has progressed beyond that point. At that point you should pre-empt and flee. You’ll know when it has gone beyond the verbal by what the person does; not so much by what they say. The person who is walking away issuing threats is much less of an immediate danger than the guy who appears to have calmed down, but who is not backing off. If that person should try to close space then it would be a good idea to “stun and run”.

I think we have touched upon the main points I wanted to address in this article. Before we start to wrap things up, I’d just like to draw attention to what should be the obvious fact that all skills need to be practised if they are to be useable. Just as the physical side of what we do needs to be honed and refined through training and practise, the non-physical skills, such as verbal de-escalation, also need to be practised.

Those interested in teaching and practising realistic self-protection should ensure that realistic role-play, where things may or may not get physical, is included in what they do. In many martial arts schools / self-protection training the mistake is made of all scenarios ending up being physical. This reinforces the notion that physical technique is always the solution to all situations and that is obviously not the case. Our training needs to include verbal de-escalation as the useful and effective methodology it can be.

If we can avoid the physical through verbal de-escalation then obviously we should do so. However, if we don’t have that skill set then we will needlessly put ourselves at risk as situations that could have been avoided will escalate to the physical. There are times to walk, times to talk, times to fight and times to flee. Don’t mix them up or believe that one solution is right for all situations.

As I said at the start of this article, verbal de-escalation is a huge subject and it’s impossible to do it justice in an article like this. There is much left untouched, but I nevertheless hope you’ve found this article interesting and it has encouraged those new to the subject to seek out further information on it. There is lots of really good stuff out there and some very knowledgeable people. Those interested in teaching and practising true self-protection should be seeking that information out and not limiting themselves to the purely physical or believing martial arts / fighting to be one and the same as self-protection. You can be a skilled martial artist and a good fighter without possessing verbal skills. For self-protection verbal de-escalation skills are vital though and I hope you’ve enjoyed this brief look at some of the key issues surrounding them.

Two Keys To Communication – Alain Burrese

I have a unique background in that I’ve dealt with conflict on numerous fronts, and in different capacities. As a former member of the U.S. Army and a student of martial arts and physical self-defense for over 30 years, I’ve dealt with conflict on a physical level. Working various bodyguard and security positions throughout the years provided experiences in dealing with conflict on a different front. And as an attorney and mediator, I’ve both represented clients in disputes and acted as a neutral to assists parties in resolving their conflict before turning the authority over to a judge or jury. One unifying constant in all forms of conflict is that the communication between the opposing parties directly influences how the situation will be resolved and where the conflict will go next. In every mediation, and in all of my communication skills workshops, I teach these two simples keys to effective communication. Because, as I like to say, we are always communicating, but we are not always effectively communicating. We must listen to understand, and communicate to be understood.

Listening to Understand

The first of the two most important skills regarding communication is listening to understand. When people express themselves, they want to be heard. FBI negotiator Gary Noesner has stated, “Listening is the cheapest concession we can ever make.” I agree with him one hundred percent. Listening is crucial for the mediator and anyone who wants to resolve conflict. But it’s not enough to just listen, or pretend to listen, that’s because people also want to be understood. Therefore, you must listen to understand. Sometimes people don’t even understand themselves, but want those listening to understand. This is why this is the first of the two important rules. First you must make it your goal to listen and understand, and then you can communicate to be heard and understood.

You want to understand on both an emotional level, and an intellectual level. You want the other party to feel that you understand what they are feeling, as well as understand what they are saying. You can achieve this through what is most often called “active listening.” This is just what it sounds like, “active.” You don’t want to be thinking about what you are going to do later, what happened earlier, or what you are going to say next. You want to be actively engaged in listening and understanding what the other person is communicating to you. It’s harder than many think, but easier once you practice and make a habit of being fully engaged in understanding what is being communicated to you.

Ways to do this include blending with a person. You do this by nodding in agreement with those things you agree with, making occasional and appropriate sounds of understanding like “uh-huh,” “oh,” and “hmm.” Sometimes you’ll want to repeat back what they’ve said so they know they’ve been heard. Everything about you, including body posture, voice, tone, eye contact, must convey an impression that you hear and understand. And the true conflict resolution professional truly does want to hear and understand!

As mentioned above, sometimes repeating something back to the person helps with understanding. You don’t want to be a parrot and repeat everything back, but depending on the situation, some things will definitely be worth repeating. You may also want to ask questions to clarify certain things. Actually, you will want to clarify anything you might not fully understand. Remember, the goal is to understand.

Summarize and confirm what you have heard. Make certain you really do understand and don’t assume anything. Be sincere in asking if the other person feels understood and ask if there is anything else. Remember, it is not only your job to listen to understand, but to ensure the person you are listening to knows that you understand and feels understood. Once you achieve this, the person is much more apt to be cooperative going forward toward resolution.

Obviously, the rules I’ve shared so far relate to conflict that is in a more civil setting, such as a mediation or even a negotiation that isn’t volatile. But listening is equally important in those situations where violence may erupt, maybe even more so because of the stakes at hand.

When I’ve assisted Peyton Quinn with classes in Colorado, we’ve demonstrated the difference between passive, aggressive and assertive responses and how they affect the outcome of situations. But we’ve also addressed the differences between territorial and predatory woofs. A predatory woof might be when someone says he’s going to stomp you, while a territorial woof would be having him say he is going to stomp you if you don’t get out of his territory. When it is territorial, you can often just leave and avoid the violence. That is, as long as your ego doesn’t get in the way with something like, “No one is going to tell me where I can go or not.”

Listening to understand, and recognizing the difference, can go a long ways toward avoiding violence, and resolving conflict easily. Just leave if it is territorial. There is obviously more to it, but this should illustrate why the concept is important.

Communicating to be Understood

If you start your communication with, “You dirty rotten so and so,” how much of what comes next do you think the person you are communicating with will listen to? Unfortunately, many messages are sabotaged by such ineffective methods of communicating, resulting in misunderstanding, messages not being heard, or sometimes just simply being ignored.

Therefore, the second most important skill when communicating is to communicate to be understood. We must remember that the signals, symbols, and suggestions that constitute our communication output provide the opportunity to influence relationships in a positive manner if we choose to do so. Unfortunately, signals we send, even unconsciously, can negatively affect relationships and the communication process as well. It’s important to monitor the signals we are sending to ensure are message is being received and understood.

Many experts suggest that the non-verbal communications we make are more important than the actual words we use. Things like the tone of our voice, our body language, and general attitude toward the communication process are all part of the whole, and have an impact on how your message will be received and understood. You might be saying you want to resolve the conflict, but if you tone and body language project that you don’t care, it will be more difficult to reach resolution. If you don’t listen to understand the other party, why would you expect them to listen and understand you?

Other things that can help you communicate to be understood include tactfully interrupting interruptions and telling your truth, not the other person’s. The tactful interruption is done without anger and blame. It is done without fear. You can simply say the person’s name, over and over if needed, until you get the person’s attention. Once you gain their attention, you can proceed forward by stating your intent, clarifying something that needs clarification, and further engaging in effective communication. Telling your truth involves using “I” language rather than “You” language or absolute truth. “The way it appeared to me” is less apt to be confrontational as the absolute, “You did X.” “I felt hurt by what happened,” can be more effective than, “You hurt me.”

The key is to use language, tone, and body gestures that help convey the message you want to convey, while at the same time ensuring that the message is being understood. If the other party is not as practiced at listening to understand as you are, you can assist the process by making sure you are clear and understandable. And during the process, always remember that you must also take your turn at listening to understand.

In a conflict that has the potential to become physically violent, I often illustrate the three responses I mentioned that I also assisted Peyton Quinn in demonstrating them. The three responses are passive, aggressive, and assertive. The first two generally end up with the situation going physical, while the third, assertive, has the greatest possibility of deescalating the situation and resolving the conflict without violence.

Using profanity and calling the other person names, combined with aggressive body language and other behaviors is almost a sure way toward punches flying. While assertive language, combined with assertive body language and tone of voice will most often resolve conflict that has the potential to go violent without anyone getting punched in the nose.

Conclusion

These two skills of listening to understand and communicating to be understood are important for mediators and parties involved in conflict. And as you can see, they are as important in the bar or street as they are in the mediator’s conference room. Because so often in mediations the parties are having difficulties communicating (almost always), I started briefly discussing listening to understand and communicating to be understood in my opening statement. Providing the parties with a short communication lesson to assist with the process has paid off with more successful sessions and resolved conflicts.

I recognized that these same two communication principles apply equally to many self-defense situations where the conflict has potential to be deescalated and physical violence avoided. So I started including them in my safety and self-defense presentations too. Much conflict is the result of ineffective communication, and by learning and practicing these two keys to communicating effectively you will find yourself in fewer conflicts and able to better resolve the conflicts you do encounter.

Navigating Negotiations: Part II – Lawrence Kane

Conflict:

The challenge with conflict negotiations is that more often than not you’re emotionally involved, which is why many companies and agencies employ professionally-trained facilitators to help navigate the process and resolve disputes. Successfully negotiating resolution to conflict depends on the underlying causes. If it is a clash of personalities that requires a different approach than an intentional ethical violation, for example. Consequently the first thing you’ll need to do if you are the independent party brought in to resolve things is to interview stakeholders and try to ascertain what truly happened. If you find yourself in a situation where you may be the cause or the aggrieved party and have to take care of things yourself you will still want to do as much fact finding as feasible before working toward resolution.

Keep in mind that perception is reality so just because something isn’t true doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter to the other party. But, misperceptions can be cleared up. For example, I used to start work at 6:00 AM on the West Coast when I’d have several meetings with folks on the East Coast. Two or three hours later, whenever my schedule opened up, I would go out, say good morning to my team, making sure I was visible for a while so that folks could tell me if they had something urgent on their minds or ask for help. They called that “management by walking around” in business school. I saw it as being there for the team (as opposed to hiding in my office which was around the corner from where they sat). One of my employees, however, saw it differently. She thought I was checking to see if everyone was at their desk working, a thought which never even crossed my mind. If I didn’t trust the team I never would have hired (or retained) them. That misperception wasn’t particularly hard to correct, but it did cause morale issues for a short while until I realized what was going on.

Armed with whatever background information you are able uncover, you can formulate a strategy for dealing with the disagreement in a way that will keep it from reoccurring. When you speak to the parties, especially when you have a vested interest in the outcome, it is vital to keep your cool and focus on behaviors rather than making things personal. Folks who feel threatened or insulted stop listening, often becoming defensive or aggressive and poised for (verbal or physical) battle. In fact, when someone is losing an argument they virtually always take things personal. At that point the disagreement is no longer about the action or error, often turning to animus that is not easily resolved.

You can feign anger on the job, but it’s a tactic that should rarely (as in no more than once every couple years) be used and then only for special purposes. If folks think you’re bound to blow up at them it will undermine their trust and your career. If you’re actually angry, walk away and re-approach the subject when you’re in a better mood. Saying something along the lines of “I’m having an emotional reaction to this” can both help you calm down as well as have a good reason for tabling the conversation. The only time that feigned anger is appropriate is when you’re dealing with an ethical breach or similarly serious event. It takes years build up an emotional bank account with those around you, yet in seconds you can withdraw all the credit you have gained if you act out inappropriately.

Conflict negotiation can be tough, but it’s also a time to pull out your bag of “dirty tricks,” so to speak. There are a variety of tactics that are often used by conmen and criminals for nefarious purposes that, when turned to a more positive intent, are appropriate in a professional setting. This includes things like forced teaming, coopting, and loansharking. Forced teaming is tactical use of the word “we.” Instead of “I have a problem,” say “We have a problem.” It shows that you’re in it together, both vested in the problem as well as the outcome. It feels inclusive too. Coopting is designed to get other people on your side before they’ve determined what they really think about you. If you can turn critics into advocates, which takes a bit of social and communication skills, you strengthen your position, gather allies, and get help in resolving the issue. If helps if you focus on the superordinate goal of helping the business so that it doesn’t come across as self-aggrandizing. Loansharking is typically done by offering small favors designed to evoke feelings of indebtedness in others. Yeah, it’s cheesy, but even simple stuff like getting coffee for the other person every so often, can make a difference in their feelings toward you. Those may appear to be shallow tactics, but they are highly effective psychologically, especially when you are well-intentioned.

Some final thoughts:

No matter what you’re negotiating begin by keeping the endgame in mind. Know your goal, know your boundaries (non-negotiables), and stay on track. The better you know the other party, what’s urgent and imperative to them, what they need, and how they are compensated or measured, the better. Know yourself and your objectives so that you can stay on track too. Creativity is good. There’s more than one appropriate way to solve most anything, but guard against an agreement that unduly alters what you were originally aiming at. It’s easy to get caught up in the moment, especially if the other party is a very experienced negotiator and more than a little manipulative. If in doubt, sleep on it before agreeing to any final resolution.

Make sure you’re talking with someone empowered to make a decision before you get started. There’s no point in wasting your time otherwise, so if you discover you’re dealing with the wrong people escalate. Or play them off against each other, though that’s tough if you’re not a professional and not a game that most folks ought to play save in special circumstances.

Negotiation is more about communication than anything else, so you will need to exercise active listening skills throughout the process. Silence can be your friend, as the other party will often feel compelled to fill it, oftentimes giving away more than intended. Ask before you assert, aim for clarity and cooperation, pay attention to non-verbals to see if it’s working, and don’t hesitate to course-correct as needed (so long as you don’t stray from your goals, of course) The best deals are those in which both parties find a win. Be courteous, patient, and respectful, but always stay within the parameters you decided before you got started.

About the author:

Lawrence Kane is a senior leader at a Fortune 50 corporation where he is responsible for IT infrastructure strategy and sourcing management. He saved the company well over $2.1B by hiring, training, and developing a high-performance team that creates sourcing strategies, improves processes, negotiates contracts, and benchmarks internal and external supplier performance. A bestselling author of more than a dozen books, he has also worked as a business technology instructor, martial arts teacher, and security supervisor.

Calm Down Please, Part I – Iain Abernethy

In this article we will be looking at verbal de-escalation. What I mean by “verbal de-escalation” is what we can do to calm people down, avoid unnecessary physical conflict, and “talk our way out”.

This is a huge subject and to try to cover all aspects of the topic in one article would be like trying cover everything there is to know about punching in one 30 minute session. Nevertheless, I hope to cover some of the core ideas and hopefully encourage you to seek out more information on this fascinating and important topic.

Martial artists train for a whole host of reasons; enjoyment, physical and mental challenge, sport, personal achievement, self-development, to enjoy a common pursuit with other people, to explore “martial culture”, self-defence, and many other reasons besides.

All of these aspects of the martial arts – using that term in its everyday sense – are worthwhile and are perfectly valid reasons to train. However we can have big problems when people mistake the requirements of one aspect with the requirements of another. Perhaps the most common example of this is people training for art, self-development or sport, and believing that, by default, such training will prepare them for dealing with criminal activity and violence (self-defence).

As well as failing to appreciate the many differences between physical “duelling” in the dojo and the realities of the physical side of self-defence, what those to hold to such a view fail to grasp is that true self-defence requires many skills that fall outside the realms of physical conflict. If the student is not given training in these skills then they are not adequately prepared for true self-defence. We need to know about home and mobile security, we need to know the law, we need to be well versed in the nature and type of crimes we are statistically most likely to face, we need training in threat awareness, assessment and avoidance … and we need the verbal skills to defuse and de-escalate situations should it be possible to do so. Believing that physical technique alone is all that is needed for real self-defence is naive in the extreme.

Training solely in the physical, and totally ignoring the more important non-physical aspects of self-defence, also gives us the massive problem that all we have is a physical solution! We therefore could find ourselves in situations we should never have been in, unable to avoid situations that could have been avoided, and running the risk of physical harm (and legal problems) when there was a way to avoid the situation becoming physical. If we truly wish to adequately address the needs of self-protection then we need to include a lot more in our study and teaching than just physical technique.

In this article, we will be discussing the basics of verbal de-escalation and it is my hope that this discussion encourages those new to the subject to explore it in greater depth. It’s not enough to simply give the topic lip service, as many do, with throw away lines such as “talk your way out if you can”. That’s just like saying “punch hard” and expecting students to be able to punch well despite never having being taught punching! There is much to the subject of verbally de-escalating situations and we’ll now move on to cover some of the key points.

The first thing we need to be clear on is that not all situations can be de-escalated! Sometimes there is no verbal “preamble”. Other times, the person will be in such an emotional state as to be beyond reasoning. Alternatively, they may make the decision that they will not be reasoned with. If someone is fully committed to harming you, robbing you, assaulting you, etc then you are not going to be able to talk them out of it. You are not going to be able to talk the career criminal into having an attack of conscience nor are you going to convince the drug addict that they don’t need your money or possessions to feed their habit. If the person is also under the influence of drink or drugs at the time it will make reasoning with them difficult if not impossible. We therefore can’t talk our way out of all situations. Peter Consterdine expressed it very well when he said, “We cannot reason with the unreasonable”.

A year or so a go there was a feature on the 24 hour BBC news channel where it was showing the training of security personnel. In one clip it showed the trainer asking someone playing the role of attacker to “calm down” while they were throwing a barrage of punches at the trainer. If a person is already throwing punches, I would suggest that we are beyond the point of trying to reason with them and we are firmly in the realms of the unreasonable. We need to know when talking is and is not appropriate.

So what we are mainly talking about is those situations where a person is getting angry, frustrated or agitated and hence physical violence is possible, but not inevitable. Of course, you won’t know ahead of time whether a situation can be de-escalated or not. They key therefore is to always be aware and be ready to get physical as it becomes clear that is where the situation is headed. If the person is getting increasingly hostile while trying to close distance, then we should conclude that de-escalation has failed, they cannot be reasoned with, and the correct action at that point would be to pre-emptively strike and escape. There are other times when talking is not appropriate too and we’ll come to those later.

So there are times were verbal de-escalation is neither possible nor appropriate. However, assuming that it is possible to reason with a person, there are methods we can use to help calm people down should they start to get aggressive, and prevent people from getting overly agitated in the first place.

One simple, but effective way to help defuse potentially violent situations is to employ the LEAPS model. LEAPS is an acronym to remind us of the key points of a communication style that can help stop people getting more aggressive and calm them down (providing they are not so emotional as to have reached the state of being “unreasonable”).

The “L” stands for “Listen”. If a person feels they are being listened to it can help remove any sense of frustration. The fact you are silent and listening also gives the person the chance to verbally vent any frustrations they have. Letting a person “get it all out” can be very effective if done right. Listening also gives you the chance to understand why the person is agitated and hence what would be the best things to say and do to help reduce that agitation. Silently listening can also help (delude) the person talking to feeling in control. This can prevent them feeling the need to physically make it clear who is in control!

The silent listening is of course your way of keeping control of the situation, but there is no harm in making the other person feel they are in charge from both the perspectives of calming the situation down further or “tactically intervening” with a pre-emptive strike should it become necessary. Remember that verbal de-escalation is just as much about listening and staying silent at appropriate times as well as what you actually say.

The “E” stands from “Empathise”. Make it clear to the other person that you understand their position and by doing so you give it validity. Even if you think the person is “wrong” remember that your ego should not lead you into unnecessary conflict. Simply saying something along the lines of, “I understand where you are coming from. In your situation I would feel the same way” can help a person feel there is common ground between you and that there is no need for them to get more and more forceful as they try to get their point across. Saying “I’m so sorry I was not looking where I was walking. I understand: I’d be unhappy too if someone split my drink by being careless. Please let me put that right and buy you another.” will be far more effective than a simple, “sorry mate”.

The “A” stands for “Ask”. By asking the right questions you can better understand what stimulated the aggression. You can encourage the person to “get it all out” verbally, buy time, and make it clear that you wish to understand the other person’s viewpoint. They are less likely to escalate to physical violence if they feel there is no need to do so. Frustration is often a trigger for violence. When asking questions it is generally better to keep the question open ended i.e. ones that cannot be answered with a “yes” or a “no”. This encourages them to keep talking and keeps their mind focused on talking. Better they talk than getting physical. Asking, “Will you explain the problem so can I understand?” is not good because it can be answered with an aggressive, “No!”. It is better to ask, “What is your key concern as I want to be sure I fully understand?” It is also a good idea to avoid loaded or accusatory questions. It should be obvious that asking “What is your problem?!” or “Can you please calm down?” are unlikely to have the effect we want.

The “P” is for “Paraphrase”. If you can state the person’s concerns back to them in an alternative way it shows that you understand. Simply repeating word for word can be seen as mocking a person. If a person was to say, “I’m f-ing angry because you should watch were you’re f-ing driving! You nearly crashed into me!” then stating, “I am sorry and I can understand why you are upset at my carelessness” show that you understand and is more likely to de-escalate than simply stating, “I understand that you are upset because I did not watch where I was f-ing driving”.

The final “S” is for “Summarise”. When the person has “got it all out” it can then be useful to summarise the position and concerns of the other person so that they know they have been understood. The summery also marks the end of the conversion and makes is clear that nothing further is needed.

So to recap; LEAPS: listen, empathise, ask, paraphrase, and when it you feel the time is right summarise.

Navigating Negotiations – Lawrene Kane

“Let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate.” – John F. Kennedy

When we think of conflict communication oftentimes the focus is on managing violence. Sometimes, however, it’s not physical harm you are trying to avoid but rather that your career is on the line. A common instance of this is in negotiations. For a sales teams it’s a competition, who can land the best deal, them or the other guys. The company that wins not only obtains desired revenue but the salesmen and women get to keep their jobs, feed their families, and have a little piece of mind. Maybe they’ll even make a bonus. On the buy-side it’s a matter of meeting targets, say savings, speed to market, or quality objectives. The job might not be as immediately on the line as it is for the sales team, but the negotiator’s career oftentimes is. A track record of solid performance is table-stakes for promotions, raises, and job security.

Negotiations in the business world can easily be as high stakes as physical confrontations on the streets. Your livelihood is on the line. Your reputation. Your job… Consequently it’s important to not only take such things seriously but also to get them “right.” There are a ton of tricks and tactics that can help assure the outcome you need, such as playbooks, communication plans, escalation paths, and the like, but there simply isn’t enough space to cover such things here. I’ll keep things higher level, addressing some strategies for four common types of negotiations that everybody should know about: negotiating a contract, a job offer, a raise, and resolution to a conflict at work.

Contracts:

Negotiating a contract is not only something that many folks do for a living, it’s also something that everyone should understand at least a little. After all, someday you will very likely want a new car, house, or other major purchase where a bad deal will not only lead to buyer’s remorse but also heartache and unexpected expenses or hassles. A lot of folks think that contract negotiations are all about compromise, finding the right balance of give and take, but that’s usually a recipe for a losing outcome. With proper planning, however, it doesn’t have to be.

Start with whether or not the other guy(s) is someone you can work with. Even at the corporate-level decisions are made by individuals, so the account team matters. Lack of character, integrity, or cultural compatibility are but three of many reasons why deals fail to provide expected value in the long run. A bad fit at a low price is a recipe for disaster that will cost you time, money, and very likely your job down the road. Once you believe you’re dealing with the right folks, you need to identify the “non-negotiables” on both sides. For example, if you’re the buyer you likely cannot go over your budget whereas the seller wants to be price-competitive but still needs make a profit. You are likely not willing to let the supplier violate the law or your ethical standards to get the desired outcome under contract, so certain behaviors are off the table too. This is why, for example, Nike has child labor rules baked into their deals and Starbucks has inviolate ethical sourcing rules. Only suppliers who are willing to comply make it into their infrastructure.

If both sides can clearly articulate what’s off the table up front you will know immediately whether it’s even worth pursuing a negotiation, saving a lot of time and money. And, you’re less likely to get bogged down or derailed by details when you can go back to the original, well-thought-out list of deal-killers, discover whatever challenge isn’t on that list, and then look for a path to resolution that’s acceptable to both parties. You can be far more accommodating and creative when you realize that the disagreement is over money or risk-sharing, for example, than if the dispute is over something one side or the other is unwilling to budge on. Cover the Terms (which adjusts risk amongst the parties), statement of work (what the parties will do), the service levels (how successful outcomes are measured), and then price in that order. In this fashion it’s far easier to negotiate an outcome you can not only live with but will find is low maintenance throughout the life of the resulting contract.

Job Offers:

Virtually everyone negotiates a job offer multiple times throughout their career. And, most people are really bad at it. Never forget that the initial offer is the point at which you have the highest leverage. And, it’s the time where you can set yourself up to succeed or fail. Begin by understanding what the company or agency’s reasons are for wanting to hire you in the first place. What’s their unmet business need that you are intended to fulfill and, most importantly, what’s your success worth to them? While value is vital, salary matters too. Companies and agencies often post salary ranges online so it’s not all that tough to know where their initial offer fits within the range and how much higher they are likely to be willing to go. If you cannot find that information, search for similar companies to find comparable positions.

Just like the contract example, your next step is to determine where your boundaries lie. Is there anything that’s non-negotiable in terms of salary, benefits, working conditions, travel, success measurements, career path, or the like? It probably goes without saying, but if you are just wanting to get your foot in the door for a first job you should have lower expectations than if you are a seasoned executive, though I mention it as many Millennials have inflated expectations of their worth. It’s a business deal, a cost/benefit equation, so keep emotion out of it. Your prospective employer certainly will.

Be willing to walk away, you’ll have a lot more leverage that way, but also be reasonable in what you ask for, especially if you’re negotiating with your future boss rather than with an HR department. These initial steps will set his or her impression of you, a notion that will last for a long time to come. It’s very challenging to overcome a negative first impression. Conversely, how they negotiate from the other side of the table will provide great insight into what it truly will be like to work there. Interviews work both ways—you convince them that they want you on the team while they convince you that you will be able to succeed there.

I once turned down a job offer that would have been a significant promotion and commensurate raise over a parking spot. It wasn’t that the parking spot itself was a deal-killer, though it would have been a great convenience that shortened my commute and made downtown traffic more palatable, but rather the way in which they handled my request. Their intransigence made it clear that a culture of bureaucracy and blind adherence to policy would have made implementing innovative solutions virtually impossible. Knowing that I couldn’t be successful after taking the job in such an environment I turned them down and moved on to other opportunities.

Raises:

Once you’ve been working for a while, typically a year or more, a raise may be in order. Negotiating a raise is very different for union-represented employees (whose progression is set by contract) than for everyone else, but either way reminding employers of the value you bring is important. Most companies and agencies use routine performance appraisals where your boss goes over what you have done, what goals you have struggled with, met, or exceeded, and discusses how well you are doing. Continuously plan for that so that you’ll be ready when the moment arises. Invisible accomplishments don’t count, so without undue bragging or bravado, keep your boss appraised of the things you do that go over and above throughout the year. And, document them as you go along to bring with you for the performance review.

Shortly after a good review is a great time to make overtures about a raise if your boss hasn’t already opened the conversation without your prompting. The discussion should be about facts and data, not feelings. Nobody cares if you believe that you deserve higher pay, bonus, or benefits, they only care about your contribution to the team. Talk about what you have done to make your boss and/or your team look good—important company goals you have exceeded, revenue you’ve raised, costs you’ve cut, or other accomplishments that set you apart from the rest of the pack. If you operate on a team, gracefully acknowledge the group’s successes then explain your individual role in getting things done.

Additionally, be armed with information to help you succeed in the negotiation. For example, you should know the salary range for your job or skill code, both inside and outside your company. Oftentimes internal pay scales fail to keep up with the marketplace. Don’t worry about what other folks in your workgroup make, focus on how you add value and how you believe that translates into what you are worth.

Be polite and persuasive, but don’t take things personally if you cannot achieve the desired outcome. The boss may face constraints or politics you know nothing about. If you can discover what those are so much the better, but rather than getting upset about how the conversation goes consider the alternatives instead. Is it time to update your resume or redouble your performance? If you do end up leaving never burn your bridges. It’s often a smaller world than you might think. Telling a current employer to piss-off and die, no matter how badly you want to, will likely hurt you on your next job. Folks have a way of finding out.

Conflict:

Some final thoughts:

About the author: