I have a story to tell today.  But first, I have an unusual question for you.

What if there was a way to actually increase your influence when someone tells you you’re wrong!?

Opinions about who is right and who is wrong serve as the foundation for most verbal conflict specifically, and most of what’s difficult in relationships in general.  That’s why I often say that if you have to be right, you’re doing it wrong!

So here’s the idea.  The next time someone tells you you’re wrong, if you want to gain influence, the shortest and simplest course of action is to simply agree with them!   Say, “You’re right, I’m wrong.”  And then define how they are right in a way that serves your desired result.

For example, let’s say that I said something which, in spite of my good intentions, somehow offended you.  And, just as night follows day,  the result is that you accuse me of being offensive.  Experience of being in this very situation has taught me that the simplest thing to say is, ‘You’re right.  I’ve clearly offended you, and I apologize, because that wasn’t what I intended.”  The beauty of this approach is that you don’t have to agree with the accusation, or say something you don’t mean.  You simply meet people where they are, and acknowledge their perception to be right for them,  and apologize for them having their perception.  “Hey, I’m sorry.  That is not what I meant to have happen.”  And it’s over.

Unless you want to take it somewhere else.  Because just it can be helpful to clear your palette before tasting something new, an apology clears the relationship palette so people can hear something new.

Example:  The conference costume party

I was once asked at a big company sponsored conference costume party to announce the awards for best costume, worst costume, etc.  The V.P. of the company asked me to give an unannounced award for the ‘sexiest’ costume. (That might not have been the exact category, but I sure as heck don’t want to risk offending you by writing about the experience!)   I didn’t give this costume category much thought.  In what Robert Cialdini would call a ‘click-whirrrrr’ automatic response, I did what I was asked, and my first thought came after, when i thought that was the end of it.

Well guess what?  Someone at the event took offense at the prize and the category, and the next day, as the conference was ending and people were trading hugs and business cards, in that Kodak moment that happens at the end of a successful conference, I was cornered and accosted by that offended person.

She proceeded to call me every name in the book.  And I, of course, defended myself, because, hey, that wasn’t my intent.  She would have none of it.  My efforts to explain myself seemed to set her off more and more, until she was yelling at me and everyone was staring.  Her feelings of being offended transferred to me, because now I was deeply offended by her accusations.  Angrily, defiantly, I spit out the words, “I don’t care what you think!” and walked away.

Now, I’m sure you can tell that when a person says those words with anger, that they actually do care what the person thinks.  Otherwise, they wouldn’t feel so defensive.  And as I walked away, it slowly dawned on me that I had other choices besides defending, explaining and justifying my behavior.

The simple response would have been to say, “Wow, you’re right, clearly I offended you.  And I am deeply sorry.  That wasn’t my intent.”  It would have been over immediately.  And it would have ended the conflict in a way that she might be able to see me in a new way.  I might even have followed up with, “Can I tell you what happened?  It’s important to me that you know!”

Ok, I told you what happened, and what’s important for me to know from you is what you think about all this!  Your comments are welcome!

Be well,

Rick

As we celebrate our freedom for yet another year, I marvel at the system that has preserved that freedom for so many amazing and productive years.

It is obvious, if you read the editorial page and political commentary of your local paper, listen to talk radio, or read one of the myriad political blogs on the internet, that someone is always unhappy about the state of the union.  Some of the unhappy people get together and have a (tea) party.  Some have coffee instead.  And they ought to be unhappy, really, because our system of governance is seriously flawed.  Politicians are owned by special interests.   Leaders are bound by agreements they never made.  And no matter who wins on an issue, someone always loses.  My father in law used to say “This is the worst system in the world.  Except all the other ones.”

I remember reading, as a student in history class, that the founding fathers envisioned the possibility that our Republic would be hijacked by special interests quite easily.  Thomas Jefferson wrote that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”  The founders thought it possible that, because of the nature of power and politics, a violent overthrow of the government might be required every twenty years or so in order to maintain the freedoms for which they so gallantly fought.

And yet, it hasn’t happened.

With the exception of a few uprisings, riots and a civil war, American society has stayed fairly civil (in deeds if not in words) about power and politics.  Why?  Because our system is so incredibly and artfully designed that people get a say in the future every couple of years.  It’s the beauty of our elections.  Vote or don’t vote.  Pick one party or the other.  You get your say.  And if you’re unhappy, don’t get too worried, because you’ll get your say again.  Even not voting is a form of having your say.

I’m an advocate for involvement and engagement before decisions get made.  I think that’s how it ought to be in organizations and businesses.  People don’t want to hear about the new deal after the fact.  They want to hear about it while it is still being thought about.  That gives them a chance to talk about it, think about it, and have some say in it.  Even if they don’t like the way it turns out, they get their say.

How does this apply to you?   Well, when an important decision is coming down the road or standing on the brink, you can ask people to think about it and invite their input!  Who knows?  Maybe you’ll find a way to make a better decision.  Or maybe, they’ll find the way to support the decision that is eventually made.  In either case, rather than a mixed message, it’s a congruent message of respect.

Here’s to freedom!  Your comments are welcome!

Be well,

Rick

Interview with Dr. Rick Kirschner about Dealing with People You Can’t Stand is now available on BAM Radio with Holly Alissa Bruno, and on iTunes.  The target audience for the show is educators and educational administrators. but the information will be useful for anyone.

You can listen to the interview here:

http://www.jackstreet.com/jackstreet/WHRT.Kirschner.cfm

You can download it on iTunes here:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/dealing-people-you-cant-stand/id357941027?i=84198565

You can participate in Holly Bruno’s forum conversation about the show here:

http://www.bamstreet.com/forum

Extremists on both sides of the American political spectrum excel at demonizing those on opposite side. I’m still irked by political poisoning of our body politic.  So this week, I’m going to examine the word Conservative and consider the behavior of people who claim the label.

We’ll begin with the dictionary definition.

1. Favoring traditional views and values
2. Traditional or restrained in style
3. Moderate; cautious
4. Tending to conserve;  the conservative use of natural resources.
5. Tending to oppose change.

My favorite one is #3:  Moderate.  I can hardly stop laughing, just trying to contain the dictionary definition and the thought of today’s political conservatives.  Because moderate (something that I am!)  is something that they certainly are not.

I will, however, give credit where credit is due.  I’ll give them props for #1 and #5.

My father used to say “Don’t burn your bridges.”  I think that can apply that advice to traditional views and values, because they place today’s decisions in a broader context rather than merely the exigencies of the moment.  Fact is, I don’t fault anyone who calls him or herself a political conservative for taking principled stands.  Indeed, Thomas Jefferson wrote “In matters of principle, stand like a rock.”

Problem is, most of today’s issues are not matters of principle, as the principle players in the decision making process have already sold out, sold their souls, and are beholden to behind the scenes players who require simple obedience masquerading as a principled stand.  Even when it comes to traditional values, the devil is in the details, because one could apply different values and still be true to certain traditions.  But all of that aside, today’s self-identified political conservatives often seem to excel at only one thing:  Opposing change. In this regard, they are true to the definition of conservative, but I think a better word for their behavior is regressive.

I love that word, regressive.  If I were going to try to associate a word with the group currently calling itself ‘conservative,’ that’s probably the word I’d use.  I’d be inclined, by my desire to make things better and continually improve on the good that we already have,  to embrace and reframe progressive as being, not left wing and liberal, but on the side of our better angels as opposed to listening to our fears and allowing things to keep deteriorating and getting worse.

But on definition #4, it’s a FAIL.  So many of today’s conservatives seem to have an eager willingness to use up our natural resources with abandon.   Media personality and half term governor Sarah Palin likes shooting animals from her helicopter, thus killing life and burning fossil fuel at the same time, a TWOFER!  Dick Cheney prefers shooting his friends in the face.  I guess it’s a matter of style.

Notice how the ‘drill baby drill’ crowd has gone mostly and suddenly silent while the oil spews into the gulf, and the ‘there’s no climate change’ crowd must have gone with them, because there’s hardly a peep from them as the world’s weather mood swings in ever widening extremes.  Their shortsighted wastefulness has exposed future generations to an ever more dangerous climate and environment, but they seem just fine to conserve their energy where it counts and expend it where it can hardly be afforded.

And on #1, it’s at least half a FAIL.  Today’s conservativism seems to embrace, and even promote, greed and self-righteousness as a virtues, and this is truly a wonder to behold.  Our traditional values, as I recall from the teaching of my parents, community leaders and teachers, included generosity, modesty, and carried many warnings, such as ‘the end doesn’t justify the means,’ and ‘might does not make right.’  These things seem to be missing completely from the right side of the political stage.

That’s not, by the way, the political conservatism as practiced through most American history. George Washington, long considered a conservative icon, certainly didn’t oppose change. In fact, he worked and sacrificed for it.  His interest was to conserve what was good, discard the rest and do better. Today’s conservatism is out of context and common sense, and out of control, and encouraging those at the front of the conservative crowd only ensures that we are all going to run out of time.

Conservatism was not always this way.

In a historical sense, political conservatives long believed that a limited government is a healthier government, that free markets allow for innovation and creativity and for people (alone and in company) to rise based on individual merit. They believed that individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense are vital to a healthy nation. They believed the role of government should be to allow people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

These things matter to me. Like Thomas Jefferson (whom some current conservatives on the Texas School Board aimed to write out of our history books because of his desire to see a separation of church and state…a wall of distinction that helped us become such a mighty nation by tapping the talent of all good people, not just the irrational and unreasonable ‘true believers’ who pride themselves in their intolerance of ‘other’), I don’t think it’s healthy to have a government that is big enough to oppress the people (though it’s almost too late for that!)

I subscribe to the ethic of ‘think globally, act locally!’  Seems to me that the way to keep government small is to keep it healthy at a local level.

And like Adam Smith, I think that as long as there are reasonable checks and balances in place to protect against abuse, and people are guided by a sense of civic duty and personal morality, the free market works beautifully (though that is not how it’s done these days!)  As the sense of right and wrong has fallen away from the internal value set of conservative leaders, a corresponding green light for all sorts of bad behavior in business and government has led to the near-collapse of our union and its takeover by special interests.

Traditionally, political conservatives also recognized that with individual freedom comes individual responsibility. Rather than wanting a growing dependence on a nanny-state that looks out for citizens who are unwilling or unable to be responsible for themselves, they think it is imperative that each individual take responsibility for his own actions, and exercise his rights and freedoms wisely and with discretion. The emphasis is on morality, duty, and responsibility to one’s self and fellow men.

But the outspoken mouthpieces of today’s conservative movement, whether it’s Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter  and Palin, seem unable to take the long view of anything, and spout patriotic slogans and hurl vitriol at people they don’t like at every opportunity.   I’m particularly irked by Sarah Palin, the no-nothing VP candidate, former half term Governor and full time quitter, whose lies and aspersions about political opponents spew out as easily and nastily as oil bubbling up under the Gulf of Mexico.  I’m not saying she’s dumb, but her intelligence seems strictly political and driven by ambition with her ‘don’t trouble me with the facts’ truthiness approach.

Those standing with her often do not seem to care about personal responsibility when it’s their responsibility, but instead apply a double standard that everyone else is somehow responsible. They engage in all sorts of bad behavior themselves, while condemning what they decide is bad behavior in everyone else.   They apparently don’t have to be responsible for what they say and do, as long as they can attack those they disagree with. They do this by demonizing opponents and turning labels like ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ into pejoratives, rather than engaging in reasonable disagreements based on  legitimate differences.  Contrary to their claims, the loudest of them do not seem to be driven by a will to be of service to US.

My take is that if you care about something, then you ought to live it, set an example of it, rather than holding everyone but yourself accountable!  Someone who truly embraces conservatism as a political stand in the modern world would be someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all.  I’d like to see more decency, reasonable disagreement, and a willingness to work towards conserving the best of the past while aiming for the future.

I understand why some who call themselves conservative are defensive around those who call themselves progressive.  During the Bush years, there was plenty of paranoia in a climate of sustained fear.  But the fear projected onto the right was targeted at the leaders, the people who allowed the banking system to go bad, who held secret meetings with energy industry executives to waive responsibility requirements and regulations, who covered up the breasts on statues while running around with interns and having bathroom sex at airports, who turned the US into a nation of nation builders elsewhere, while neglecting anything that might have been helpful to our own citizens, and whose war on terror had about the same effect as the war on drugs…THINGS GOT WORSE!   Lefties were frustrated that righties couldn’t see the writing on the wall, but I don’t recall the level of viciousness and hatred that the right now promotes against the left as a matter of course.  My mother raised me to believe that we lead best when we lead quietly, by example.  And the example set by the extremists on the right is one she never would have wanted me to follow.

Ok, that’s now off my chest.  While I’m still irked, I’ve worked some of it out in writing.  Time to focus forward.

I’m actually glad that people care about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I’m glad that decent people are able to care about responsibility and progress at the same time.    After all, the Eagle has two wings, and they are both necessary for the big bird to fly.  Total liberty is anarchy.  A loss of liberty is tyranny. Finding the right balance is what government at its best seeks to accomplish, and government at its best requires the best of WE THE PEOPLE to get involved in the political process, to demand that our representatives represent US and work for our best shared interests.

Like most the people I know, I’m a combination of both conservative and liberal impulses. I want what’s best for myself, my family, my community and my country. I want us to conserve what works and do what is needed in order to advance the human condition and increase freedom in the world. I yearn for a less partisan time, when we can agree about good intent and work together to reduce our differences, come up with workable solutions that conserve the best of the past while allowing us to make progress toward the future.

If you’re capable of reason and persuasion, talk to me.  Are you a Conservative, a Liberal, or some combination of the two?  Your comments and feedback are always welcome.  Flames are not.

Be well,
Rick

This month, we’re talking about mixed messages.  In my previous post, I gave you a list of examples of mixed messages that you are likely to hear.  I’ve worked with people whose parents gave them mixed messages, like “You never call.  I can’t talk, my show is on,” and  ”You never come over. But I’m ashamed of how you look.”

But mixed messages aren’t just verbal.  When our words don’t match our bodies, that’s a mixed message too!  So is smiling while expressing sympathy.

No matter how they’re transmitted, mixed messages have consequences.   Mixed messages are confusing, and when people are confused and things don’t get better, they tend to become cynical, polarized and angry, or they collapse into a state of silence and helplessness.

Amelia Hill, in a piece she wrote for The Guardian newspaper titled “After Feminism: What Are Girls Supposed To Do?”, was referring to these consequences in the lives of teenage girls when she wrote:

The consistently mixed messages being sent to young girls, Hill notes, have lead to an increase in eating disorders, behavioral problems, and “risky behaviors” amongst the already vulnerable population: “Who, after all, wouldn’t feel confused and unhappy being raised in this brave new world that demands super-skinny, super-sexy and super-brainy all at the same time?”

Likewise, mixed messages have created some real interference with the national census.  The fearmongering of Republican politicians and pundits now has some in the GOP concerned that their foul claims about the census, so enthusiastically foisted on their followers as yet another way of interfering with the Obama administration, may be coming home to roost,  costing them seats and representation.

What mixed messages?   After all, in each moment, the messages being sent may have seemed congruent.  For example, Glenn Beck claimed that questions about race were intended to increase “…your dependence on the master in Washington.”  Michelle Malkin claimed it was part of a Democratic scheme to count illegal immigrants in order to “…ensure a permanent ruling majority.” Michelle Bachman had an even bigger idea about how bad the census is, claiming the information would be used to send people to internment camps.  But now, it’s a new moment, and some in the GOP are realizing that the consequent resistance to the census may do more harm to themselves than to Obama.     In a post on the blog Red State, Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina expressed his concern about “blatant misinformation coming from otherwise well-meaning conservatives.”

And who can forget the flap over the use of the word ‘retarded’?  First, Rahm Emanuel used the word and Sarah Palin took offense (she has a gift for that!)  Then Limbaugh used the word and she didn’t see a problem with it.  That’s just plain retarded!  (Sorry, I couldn’t resist!)   My mother used to say ‘What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”   Sarah’s mixed message approach is different.

Helplessness may actually be the desired state of the person who traffics in mixed messages.   Control freaks, sexual predators and perpetrators of domestic violence frequently use mixed messages, either intentionally, or unconsciously (because they learned the behavior pattern from the authority figures in their own lives), as a way of controlling others.  In fact, there are several hypnotic techniques that use mixed messages to break down a person’s ability to think and take them into a state of confusion.  (No, I’m not going to tell you what they are!)

There’s good news for you IF you’re able to think for yourself.  Because mixed messages have no effect if you notice them and recognize them for what they are, point them out and then straighten them out. And even if you fail to notice them in time, you can notice the confused state they trigger as a an early warning sign that someone may be messing with your head.

You know the saying… A house divided against itself cannot stand.  Said another way, an organization divided against itself, a nation divided against itself, (and yes, even an individual divided against his or her self…like the person who loves his family and spends no time with them)  cannot stand itself,  because mixed messages give rise to an ever increasing number of negative and difficult behaviors as people try to navigate the confused situation.

I’ll say this as clearly as I can.  Today is a great day to do your part to identify and eliminate mixed messages, on your team, in your department, in your relationships and in your community.

Your comments and feedback are welcome.

Be well,

Rick