Active Listening Skills
Objectives for Lesson 1.
Apply active listening skills when dealing with conflict.
Recognize conflict and know when to intervene.
Name the five approaches to conflict.
1. Use communication to your advantage. (Practice active listening and expressing yourself clearly.)
2. Don't complain, request. (Translate complaints and criticisms into requests with a positive outcome. Do this for your own complaints and those that come to you from employees.
3. Be respectful
4. Keep role responsibilities clear
5. Carefully facilitate change
Objectives for Lesson 2.
Apply active listening skills when dealing with conflict, recognize conflict, and know when to intervene.
Name the five approaches to conflict.
When Do You Intervene?
Ask yourself the following questions:
* Is the workplace being disrupted?
*Is productivity being affected?
*Is a threat being posed to other employees?
If the answer is yes to any of these, you will have to intervene.
COLLABORATION (WIN-WIN)
Both parties work together to create a collaborative solution.
COMPROMISE (WIN SOME - LOSE SOME)
Both parties make some concessions.
COMPETITION (I WIN - YOY LOSE)
One party uses force or coercion to reach a resolution.
ACCOMMODATION (LOSE - WIN)
One party consents as a gesture of goodwill.
AVOIDANCE (LOSE - LOSE)
Either party avoids the issue.
---SUBTITLE---
Active Listening Skills, Lesson 2. Objectives for Lesson 2. Apply active listening skills when dealing
with conflict, recognize conflict, and know when to intervene. Name the five approaches to conflict. When do you intervene? There will be times where conflict falls
into the realm of destructiveness, despite your best efforts to
maintain a harmonious workplace, and promote constructive conflict. You may witness the conflict, be
approached by someone with a grievance, or a dispute may be brought to your
attention by an uninvolved third party. In any case, you should always acknowledge
and make a record of the problem. It will be your decision whether and
when to intervene in a conflict, and this will depend on a number of factors
such as the severity of the conflict, the number of people involved, the level
of disruption, and the core issues. Lesser conflicts will sometimes
sort themselves out, or can be resolved with a little
outside perspective or input. More severe conflicts will need to
be addressed in a proper manner. So you need to ask yourself
the following questions. Is the workplace being disrupted? Is productivity being affected? Is a threat being imposed
to other employees? If the answer is yes to any of these,
you'll have to intervene. There are several different types of
intervention and responses to conflict. One of the questions you have to ask
yourself is how you approach conflict. What is your natural source or
natural state of behavior? So how do you approach conflict? Having made the decision to intervene
in a conflict, you need to be clear on how you will help the feuding
parties move towards a solution. There are five specific approaches that
are universally used to deal with and resolve conflict. Let's take a look at each style. Collaboration, which is
also known as win-win. Both parties worth together to
create a collaborative solution. The needs of both groups
are treated with equal importance. This approach helps build commitment and
reduce bad feelings, but it can take some time. Compromise, or win some-lose some. Both parties make some concessions
to avoid damaging power struggles or to quickly reach a solution. This approach can become manipulative and
create a cynical climate. Competition, I win-you lose. One party uses force or
coercion to reach a resolution. This approach is aggressive and
inflexible and can result in escalating conflict or
retaliation. Accommodation, lose-win. One party consents as
a gesture of goodwill and allows the other party to have his or
her way. This approach can be used if
the personal relationship is more important than
the issue to losing the party. The downside to accommodation is that
the yielding party can lose credibility. Avoidance, lose-lose. Either party avoids the issue. This strategy is used if
the issue is of low importance or if either party fears the risk of
damage to relationships or themselves. Feelings of frustration and resentment
can often result for this approach. When looking at the possible approaches,
it is best to take each option and decide on the circumstances that you know. Which approach will be
the best strategic tactic? Which will provide the best
long-term solution? Approaching conflict from this angle
allows you to manage the long-term effects and will build credibility over time. What's most important
is to set the stage for taking your desired approach at the right
time under the best conditions.
Case Study: Knowing When to Intervene:
You witness a shouting match
between two assembly line workers over damaged equipment. Each employee is raising their voice,
making personal attacks and using profanity to express how they feel. You can see that employees in
this area are looking at you, while others are keeping their heads down,
trying not to get involved. >> This particular situation is
getting a little heated, and you can see that it's gone from
a professional conversation to personal. So I would recommend that you intervene,
you want to make sure that the individuals stay focused on really on
the professional matters that are on hand. The business issues that
need to be addresses and keep the personal matters totally out
of the conversation and dialogue. You may want to consider
having independent meetings, in other words, having one on one
meetings with each of them but an intervention is definitely
the course of action to take.
Case Study: Using Active Listening Skills:
As a manager, you have noticed
that one of your co-workers is consistently complaining about
being always the one to do things, always the one to start projects,
always the one to get them to closure. And you're feeling that this
individual's becoming so frustrated that it's now becoming
a dysfunctional situation. So you have decided to have a conversation
with the individual to try to explore more in depth as to what's
the root cause of this particular mood that the individual is exhibiting as
well as the dysfunctional behavior. To effectively manage this particular
situation, you schedule a meeting to have a conversation with the individual,
and again, you're trying to get to the core and the root cause for
their exhibiting this behavior. The skills that you need to impart
in this particular situation are active listening skills. Your point for this dialogue
is to seek for understanding, to address their concerns not
to interject your position. It's active listening skills that
will allow you to get to the core of the situation, it will also allow
the person to feel that they are being listened to and
that their concerns are being heard. And then collaboratively you can work
on how to resolve them together.
Case Study: Managing Conflict:
In a strategic planning meeting,
one of the team members speaks out and offers this incredible new idea. Another team member screams out,
that's my idea. I can't believe you just
presented my idea as yours. The two start arguing. Issues become out of control. The question is,
as the project manager and the leader of the team,
what should you do? At that moment in time,
as the project manager, the reality is it's the idea that's
most important to discover and explore, not necessarily
whose idea it was. You need to acknowledge both of
the individuals, understand their points of view, and then conclude for
that conversation during the meeting, telling them that you'll discuss
it after the meeting is over. Then you would need to address both
of the individuals and have a better understanding as to why the one feels
its they're idea versus the other. So the best course of action
in this situation is yes, to intervene, but
also manage to conclusion successfully.
Book Review: MGMT
In order to really drive home
the methods and the topics, and subjects that we spoke about
throughout the module, I wanted to bring to the table a couple of
books that I think you should consider. While some of them are addressing
specific two conflict, other of the books are more self reflective and
insightful books that can help drive home your understanding of your personal
style and how it relates to conflict. The first book I want to talk to you
about is MGMT by Chuck Williams. In chapter five, in page 90,
he really outlines a really good insight
on structured conflict. And through that he talks about
the types of conflict, and he talks about effective conflict and uneffective conflict, which can translate
to constructive and destructive. But most importantly,
it's gives you a bit of an overview of what we reviewed in
the module at a different level. It'll allow you some more time
to reflect on the subject and the content of the module's topics. So if we go to chapter ten, page 82, he takes us through the realization that conflict not only works on an individual
level, but it also works on a team level. And through this particular
section of chapter ten. He outlines the importance
of how teens develop, and the impact that conflict can have on
teens, as well as the appropriate course to take in order to manage
conflict to its appropriate resolution. So both of the sections,
while they're in two different areas, I think also hone in
the most important thing is that it's okay to have
a disagreement or to have conflict. So once again, reevaluating that
it's not that conflict exists, but it's how you choose to handle it.
Interview with Julie Espy
Give an example of a conflict situation that was easily resolved through the use fo effective communication skills.
A lot of times when you're in
conflict you hear something that you're having a different opinion
about and emotions run high. That's where conflict happens. So your emotions are high. You're having a different opinion. You need to take a step back, and make sure that you actually
understand what's happening. Because you may think you
understand what's happening. But you really don't
understand what's happening. And that's where active
listening comes into play. So the example I'm thinking of is,
in a meeting recently, I thought that I had made a presentation
using information that was incorrect. I thought that someone on my staff had
given me information that was incorrect. I was upset, because I had presented
that information to an executive team. And I went back to my staff and said,
help me understand where you got this information,
I think I've just made a terrible mistake. And I was upset, I felt embarrassed, I
felt angry, and I had to kinda take a step back, and say help me understand
where you got this information. And as they presented where
they had the information, I realized the information
was not incorrect. I had, in fact,
presented the correct information. So I could have gone into the situation
and conflict could have developed, where I attacked someone for
giving me the incorrect information. But by taking a step back and saying,
tell me where you got this information, and let me really listen to how
you put this information together. We realize that we were
actually on the same page.
Has there ever been a time when you walked away from a conflict?
I don't know if you're familiar with
the Thomas-Kilmann Indicator, the TKI. But on the TKI,
which is a self-assessment, it's an assessment to find out
what your conflict style is. I'm an accomodator/avoider which is not
the greatest thing for a manager to be. So I walk away from conflict all the time. You have to decide whether or
not it's worth it to you. To get into conflict with someone or
whether walking away, coming back another day to have a rational
conversation with the person, or to kinda work behind
the scenes to create influence is going to be a better strategy than
getting into conflict with someone. So personally,
I walk away from conflict all the time. Maybe a little bit more than I should,
but that is my natural style. As the manager of Learning and Development
there are a lot of collaborative projects that I do with other departments. So in one instance, I was given a project
to work on succession planning. My group was given a project to work on
succession planning for the organization. The current human resources manager did
not feel that that was appropriate and told me in so many words that her
department would be taking that project. It was clear that she did
not want to collaborate, and that she had made it known to other people
as well that it was inappropriate for me to be given that project. Now, I could have gotten
into conflict with her. I felt that that would
be very unproductive. Given her nature, and
given the type of assignment, my attitude was well, if you want it,
go ahead and take it. I have no problem with that. And if you want help,
I'm more than willing to help you and show you what we have done in the past and
what we're going to do in the future. I let that sit for
about a month and talked to some other people who couldn't quite understand
why I had been taken off the project. But again, there's no need to
kind of bad mouth people or run around stirring the pot. It's like well,
that's the way it's been decided. In the end, I think just sitting
with it and biding my time. It developed that this
person enjoyed conflicts, got into a lot of conflicts, and
eventually within 90 days was no longer with the organization, and
the project came back to me. So I know that if I had made
a big stink about it, I probably, even when she left,
the project wouldn't have come back to me. If I just kind of be mellow about
it when she left was, like, oh, let's just give it back to Julie. That's where it belongs
in the first place.
Have you had to downsize your employee population many times in your career? What do you think worked well, and what would you have done differently?
Fortunately, I haven't have to downsize
my employee population many times in my career. But I have had to terminate people for
cause, and I have been in a situation where positions have been eliminated and
people have had to reapply for their jobs, and that's always frustrating, and
anxiety producing for everyone. What do I think worked well? I think that open communication and
honesty is probably the rule of the day. Even when things are going to be
really uncomfortable and horrible, some messages are difficult,
and they're painful. And there's no way to make them
less difficult or less painful. And when an organization
tries to dance around them, they get themselves into trouble. And I can think of an example where we
were undergoing a reorganization and employees asked outright,
will there be downsizing? Will I have to reapply for my job? And they were told, no. And that was not true. And then, to come back and say,
oh, we've changed our minds. Yes, everyone does have to reapply for
their job. And yes, there may be downsizing. People felt betrayed. They felt angry. That could have been avoided if someone
would have just said at the beginning, yes, you may have to reapply for
your job, we haven't decided yet. So I think honesty is always going to be
the most powerful tool that you can use. What also works well being very direct,
and communicating along the way. If someone's being terminated for
cause, it shouldn't be a surprise. There should be a path that includes
verbal warnings, written warnings, documentation, and by the time you sit
down, actually have the conversation that says you probably understand
that you've crossed the line and that you're not going
to work here anymore. They shouldn't be shocked. They may be disappointed. They may be frustrated. But in no way should they be surprised or
feel like this is coming out of the blue. So I think what works well
always has to be honesty and open communication, all the way along the
line as painful as it is for everybody.
Interview with Patrick Gough
How do you approach conflict? What style feels the most natural to you?
How do I approach conflict? I think the first thing that
jumped into my mind was at the Orange County
Transportation Authority. I was surprised to learn that I was
going to be the lead negotiator for collective bargaining agreements
with the Teamsters Union. And one of the first things we did,
having had no experience with that at all, one of the first things we did is do
some research on intraspace bargaining. And it was a shock to me to
learn that really the essence of intraspace bargaining was being open and
communicating, and not playing I've got a secret. And we went into the negotiations,
sitting everybody down, both sides of the table and
making sure that everybody understood that our intent was to not
play hide the football. We were gonna be open, upfront, candid to
the point of sometimes upsetting people. But we needed to be able to develop some measure of mutual respect and
mutual trust. And the only way we could do that is
to be completely open and honest. And it took awhile, because the Teamsters
were not used to that type of open and honest relationship. Everybody comes in with their individual
agendas, personal and collective. And it took quite a while to get over the
hump where they realized that I was not gonna lie to them,
that we were gonna be open and honest. And three years later,
during the second round of labor negotiations with the Teamsters,
it went considerably quicker. It went with a lot less pain. And everybody understood
exactly what we could offer. We weren't holding anything back, and we got to a resolution very,
very quickly.
Has there ever been a time when you walked away from a conflict?
Yeah, there were times, probably, when my children were growing up,
especially when they were both in college where especially my son would
push me to the absolute limits. And at sometime or another I came to
the realization that rather then let it escalate to where things get said
that shouldn't be said, or things occur that shouldn't occur that probably
it's a good thing just to go take a walk. So now, years later,
looking at how both kids turned out, it's a testament to their mother, not me. But I think that we could
have done irreparable damage had we just stumbled forward and let emotions take over rather than doing the right thing, and taking a clean break,
Have you had to downsize your employee population many times in your career? What do you think worked well, and what would you have done differently?
and going someplace else for
a few minutes. There really isn't anything
different that we as a group, whether it was in the military or whether
it was at OCTA, and even now as we're facing the potential downsizing
in the current company I'm with. There really isn't anything
that we could have done differently from those
external conditions. We don't have control over those. What we did find that worked very
well was again, being open and honest with the people that were probably
going to affected by the downsizing. And then making sure that we
approached every situation with compassion for the impact of
the downsizing on they and their families. To lie to folks,
to be disingenuous with folks, to misrepresent the truth or the facts,
all that's gonna do is engender a great deal of hostility and make the entire
process go sideways on everybody. It's uncomfortable. It's not something that
anybody likes to do, to tell somebody that their
livelihood is coming to an end, at least with the organization that
they're involved with at that time. But, to be open and honest and
compassionate about breaking the news to them and do everything
that you possibly can to help them on the backside whether it's
through networking or the like. That was the key. Historically within the military,
it seems like it's a ten year cycle. After there's a conflict, everybody wants
to downsize the military until the next conflict arises, and then we scramble
to try to bring people back. And we've lost a great deal of talent,
but it's a historical cycling. And if you'll take
a look at budget cycles, I think they probably
replicate that same sine wave. And so, unless a company is in
such tall cotton that they're impervious to any type of
budgetary fluctuations, then everybody's gonna be faced with
these types of problems going forward. And the only way that I've
been able to see a way through to making something
as successful as it could possibly be with downsizing,
is to be just open, honest, and compassionate with people.
Provide an example of a time when utilizing active listening skills improved the process of resolving a conflict.
I'll go back to labor
negotiations at OCTA. We would bring the labor team in, and
they would go into a separate room. And we would bring the management team in,
they would go to a different room. Before both of the large teams
got together in one common room to work through the issues,
the leadership of the union and myself and our labor relations
department manager would sidebar. And it was a great opportunity for
us to put all our cards out on the table. But very often, the Union wants
to dominate the conversation. And we found that sometimes it's
better just to shut up and listen, and let them talk themselves in
a complete circle before engaging in trying to interject into
a part of the conversation where they're not quite ready to be heard,
to hear us, at that point. So what we found was, just let them talk,
let them talk it out. They'll very often come to their
own realization that the point that they're trying to make probably wasn't as important as initially
thought it might have been. And then control the overreaction
which was difficult at times for me to do because of my personality, but just count to ten,
take a couple of deep breaths. Let them talk it out and then be able to address things in
a more rational manner on the backside. So I think active listening at
that point proved to be very, very successful,
rather than trying to cut each other off, talk over each other, and
dominate the conversation. At a point it might appear
as though you're being conciliatory to the other side. And I know that especially
in labor negotiations, a lot of people on both sides
of the table keep score. And that's the wrong approach
from my limited experience in negotiating six collective
bargaining agrements. Just be gregarious, be open,
be happy, be as upbeat and as positive as you can be and
be honest at every turn.
Active Listening Skills Debrief
-Active Listening Skills
-Conflict Approaches
-When to Intervene
In this particular module,
what we reviewed were three key factors. Active listening skills. Conflict approaches,
which are five different approaches. As well as when to intervene,
or when do you intervene? So when we talk about active listening
skills, we're looking to, and reviewing the approach that
an individual will take to ensure that they really understand
the other person's perspective. Seeking to understand
before being understood, as Stephen Covey stated in his
Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, he has outlined the importance of
truly being open to receiving and embracing another person's perspective
before offering your own ideas. In a conflict situation,
this is a critical point to remember. You really want to make sure you
can table your own feelings and emotions about the subject at hand and
understand what the other individual is saying before you
provide any input at all. The thing that will help you do this, if you can understand your
particular approach to conflict. When we talk about the five different
approaches to conflict, it's really identifying what's your natural state,
how you naturally respond to conflict. And then it's also ensuring that
you have the opportunity to understand the different
approaches as well. So you have your own natural approach and then there are four other
approaches to take. You may be dominant in one and
less dominant in another. You may never even have
one of those traits or one of those skills in your tool book or
tool belt to pull on. The important thing is that you
understand all five of them, and when you do really exercise, and
maximize conflict resolution, you'll be able to use each one of
those skills when it's appropriate versus always relying on the one dominant
characteristic that you naturally have. Because as you know in life one approach
isn't going to help you resolve anything. So in a conflict situation it
will only be exasperated if you only choose one approach to resolution. The other thing is is
when do you intervene? This particular module outlined the
responsibilities that you need to take and understand when to take part
of a conflict situation, or when to not engage in
a conflict situation. For example, if it's something that
somebody else owns, let them own it. You have no reason to be involved in it. If it's something that spreads across
boundaries or into other individuals' areas, then you may choose to
engage at that point in time. So before engaging, really think through the stages of the
conflict that's currently taking place. Make sure you use active listening
skills to help you determine whether or not you should intervene. And if you choose to intervene
make sure you're using the correct skill necessary to help
resolve a conflict.
0 Comments