Perhaps a silly title, however, situations wherein we are thinking something that’s not so nice, and wish we could say it are not uncommon in the fast-paced, sharp elbow, political environment that business can be today. If only we could say what’s on our mind at work regardless of who we were speaking with. We would relieve the tension that is growing within us, and put people in their place. If only we could do this, we believe we could straighten things out and move on towards progress. But is that really true? When we have thoughts about someone or something during a meeting that are not so nice, but feel completely valid, would things move towards progress if we just said what’s on our mind? The answer is not as simple as you may think. The answer lies in living our values.
Most people if asked, would say they hold “honesty” as an important value. Those same people, if asked, would also likely say they hold “respect” as an important value. If that’s the case for you, as it is for me, then what do we do when we are in a meeting and someone is speaking and we think they are an idiot, or that their idea is stupid and will never work?
Being true to the value of honesty, we should tell them they are an idiot and that their idea is stupid and will never work. But think for a moment, how you would feel if someone said that to you in a meeting? By saying what they believe to be true, they were honest, but certainly disrespectful and the cost of that lack of respect can be very high. You probably wouldn’t feel like working with them or feel that they are someone collegial with whom you can easily collaborate. I actually have observed this type of behavior many times in the workplace. Often referred to as “brutal honesty”, it was believed to be a good thing. Reality showed us differently. Brutal honesty leaves bodies behind, disrupts collaboration, and derails the task.
But what if that same person said, “That’s interesting.” That feels respectful when compared to what they believe to be true. You would probably feel better about them. However, by saying something respectful, they were dishonest, and if you knew they were dishonest, you wouldn’t want your relationship with them built on just “feeling good”. They in turn feel frustrated for not having spoken their truth. This type of response is cosmetic. It puts a mask that is not true over the truth so as to appear something that it’s not...nice. The problem with nice in this case is that it’s not real. It’s not the truth. It’s a lie and it builds up frustration and resentment, erodes relationships and derails the task.
So how can you be both honest and respectful when your thoughts are not so nice? As it is your truth, there is value that won’t be garnered if not shared? It is a dilemma wherein you are doomed if you do and doomed if you don’t. If you are honest, you are not respectful and if you are respectful you are not honest.
Years ago, I learned a way through this dilemma from a wonderful teacher and colleague of mine, Fred Kofman. In fact, Fred not only shared a way through this dilemma, he raised the stakes even further by saying people in business should adopt a new standard for their interpersonal communications. That new standard should require that all communications can be measured by all parties involved as having been honest, respectful and effective. By adding the third level of measurement, “effective”, Fred was saying that after challenging conversations we should be able to walk away feeling great about ourselves and how we acted, have an even better relationship with the other person, with more trust than before the difficult conversation, and be making more progress moving the task forward between us than before the conversation. If only this could be true. If only we could hold ourselves to such a high standard and live up to it. So much would be different at work if we could learn our way through this dilemma of being honest and respectful when our thoughts are anything but nice.
Fred built upon the work of Chris Argyris, a Harvard professor and business theorist. Argyris put forth a model for analyzing conversations between people wherein he compared what people were thinking but not saying, with what was actually said. The result of this analysis led to a model with three levels of truth. These three levels of truth describe what’s really going on within challenging conversations, wherein our thoughts can become aggressive, toxic and even angry.
The first level of truth is what can be described as "cosmetic". In fact, it’s not truthful at all. This is people being polite and nice with their words so as to not offend the other person with the toxicity held within their actual thoughts. We don’t want to say, “That’s a stupid idea” even though we are thinking it, so we use cosmetic communications to help us “get along” with others and be perceived as nice. Of course, the problem with this is that being nice comes at the cost of not sharing what’s really on our mind, thus deceiving the other person into believing we are ok with what is being said, and yet feeling frustrated for not having been able to share it.
One level deeper, we find what Kofman refers to as our "reactive" truth. These are the thoughts in our head when we are involved in a difficult and challenging conversation. These are the thoughts we dare not speak for fear of offending the other person. Yet, we have these thoughts for a reason. We believe these thoughts to be our real truth on the matter. However, if we take a closer look at this "reactive" truth we see that the thoughts we dare not speak are really reflective of an emotional reaction we are having to feeling that something we value is being disrespected, stepped upon, or not considered. As we feel this offense, our thoughts in turn put words to them. Like the "cosmetic" truth, the "reactive" truth isn’t really true either.
Part of the way through the dilemma is recognizing that the toxic thoughts in our head are not in fact our truth, but instead an emotional reaction. Our real truth is something deeper still. Something beyond the emotional reaction of the moment. Our truth lies in the values we hold dear and aspire to live. This brings us to the third level of truth, our core truth.
Our core truth is what actually matters to us in that situation. It is connected to what is feeling violated or disrespected but is not emotional. It is how we would like things to be in order to be aligned with our values.
In order to find and connect to our core truth, we can ask ourselves, what is it that we want in this interaction. What is it that matters to us in that moment that feels it is being disrespected or not recognized? What do we care about most in this moment? How would we like the interaction to go? In order to find our way through the dilemma of being honest and respectful, we have to be able to find our core truth. Let’s take a look at an example of how this works.
In the case of the conversation wherein someone says something during a meeting and we think it’s a dumb idea, our core truth is not that it’s a dumb idea. More than likely, we want something different from interaction and their idea is keeping us from getting what matters to us in that interaction. So we ask ourselves...
Q. What is it that matters to me in that moment that feels it is being disrespected or not recognized?
A. What matters to me is that we have a productive conversation that leads us to potential solutions that in turn will help us advance towards our goals.
Q. What do I want in this moment?
A. What I want from this interaction is to find a solution to a problem that we can implement in order to bring us closer to achieving our desired goal. I want to feel good about how I carry my role and play my part and in doing so, I want to favor building positive relationships with others at work.
Q. How would I like the interaction to go?
A. I would like the interaction to go smoothly, hearing different opinions and respectfully debating potential solutions. I’d like that we build on one another’s ideas.
In each case, the answers reveal values. The value of cooperative problem solving and achievement. The value of integrity and being a positive force to work with and the value of building good relationships with people at work with.
Grounded in this core truth, we can now communicate from this truth and not from a cosmetic place for the sake of being nice, and not from a toxic place of an emotional reaction.
CONCLUSION
When the pressure is high and we are engaged in conversations that are not going the way we would like them to go, our thoughts can become filled with things we believe are true and have value, but can't be said as litterally as they are being heard in our heads. Negative thoughts, angry thoughts, dismissive thoughts, and toxic thoughts are an emotional reaction we have when something we value feels disrespected or not considered. Our answer is to often say something cosmetically nice that masks the negative nature of what we are thinking. The problem with this is that although we are being respectful, we are not speaking our truth, with we believe has value for the conversation. However, if we spoke our truth as it arises in our minds, we would likely offend others with our brutal honesty.
This dilemma can be solved by transcending and integrating the values of honesty and respect by seeking a third alternative which is neither the cosmetic cover up of negative thoughts, nor the voicing of them either.
By recognizing that our negative thoughts are an emotional reaction to something of value feeling disrespected or not considered, we can step away from the precipice of offending others and instead find our deeper core truth that is values driven. Speaking from that truth, we are always honest, respectful and effective.
Comments