Effectively managing conflict in the workplace and communicating with your team (in a way they’ll receive and understand) are essential skills for leaders to have. In this conversation, we are joined by bestselling author and leadership consultant, Diana Peterson-More to explore that more fully.
“Conflicts are based on values, history, culture... We all bring our little suitcases of baggage wherever we go. And, often, we can’t entirely resolve a conflict but we can manage to the win-win.”
In this episode of the podcast, we are talking to bestselling author and leadership consultant, Diana Peterson-More about effectively managing conflict in the workplace and communicating with your team (in a way they’ll receive and understand).
These are two of the most important skills a leader can have and, coincidentally, can be the hardest to retain and implement.
Join us for some great examples, a discussion about how social media has changed things, the difference between managing conflict and resolving it, what most adults’ greatest fear actually is – and so much more!
“The golden rule of communication is “I will communicate with you the way I want to be communicated with. Whereas, it should be the other way around… I will communicate with you the way you want to be communicated with. As a leader, this is critical.”
—
Bestselling author, Diana Peterson-More, a former practicing employment lawyer & HR head, left a Fortune 50 to launch The Organizational Effectiveness Group. Her company focuses on people strategies & organizational systems to support strategic workplace goals. Services and products include custom-designed training, team and individual coaching and strategic planning. She also conducts investigations and serves as an expert witness.
Peterson-More is a blogger, guest columnist, and a conference presenter. She has been featured in CEO Magazine, ATD, TICE and HR.com online and print editions, and on leadership podcasts. Her first book, Consequential Communication in Turbulent Times: a Practical Guide to Leadership, will soon be joined by her second book: Courageous Communication – A Return to Civility: “Can’t We All Just Get Along?” Peterson-More received a BA, from UCLA & JD, from Loyola Law School. Learn more at www.dianapetersonmore.com. You can also find her on LinkedIn and Twitter/X.
- I am Céline Williams, and welcome to the "Leading Through Crisis" podcast, a conversation series, exploring resiliency and leadership in challenging times. My guest today is Diana Peterson-More, an Amazon number-one-bestselling author and leadership consultant. Welcome, Diana.
Well, thank you, Céline. Glad to be here.
I'm very excited to talk to you for a number of different reasons. Our conversation before we hit record was, we just could have kept going for the next hour. I could have. So I love when that energy is already there. And I would like to start by asking the question I ask all my guests, which is, the name of the podcast is "Leading Through Crisis." What comes up for you or what comes to mind when you hear that?
Well, globally, locally, I think there's dramatic shifts and changes that are informed by demographic changes, environmental challenges, I mean, all of the above, And in a microcosm, it filters down into the workplace. I find it, as an example, very interesting, having worked in some environments with Gen Z employees who really came of age during COVID and trying to integrate them into cultures that didn't do everything remotely, who really had that ability to have chitchat at the water cooler, et cetera. So I think we're just living in a time of great change and great challenge, and it's reflected in relationships, families, the workplace.
Yes, it's so interesting. So I obviously named the podcast "Leading Through Crisis," and it's always interesting to me how some people think of crisis as these horrible life-changing, these big, whatever our version of big moments are and how some people are like, "Crisis is just change." Like, it's all those changes. It's your perspective on it is really if it's a crisis or not, because change brings it up. And it sounds to me like you're more in the camp of, like, these are changes that from some people's perspective are crises and from some people's perspective are things that you just deal with 'cause it's change.
Yeah, and I can't call up at the moment the percentages. I am somebody who embraces change. There are very few people who embrace change, and I often think of this ad that was a TV ad about some junk food place to eat. And there'd be a group of people sitting in a car, "Where are we gonna eat?" "Same place, same time." I mean, kind of this notion that change is very threatening, and it is threatening to a lot of people. There's actually an icebreaker I do that's a quick and easy one that has to do with change. And it's so fascinating for me to see how people respond to it. And there's usually an individual, and I'm talking about a group of 16 to 18, kind of the ideal group for facilitating. There's always maybe one person, possibly two, that responds in a way where it's very clear that person embraces change, as do I, but most people don't. It's easier just to do it the way we've always done it. And again, I think about this, and I think, "Why am I different?" Because even within my own nuclear family, I have an older sister, younger sister, and brother, I'm very different from the other three. We all grew up in the same environment. We have the same gene pool, but what excites me is not what excites them. And I think that happens in the general population. And I also think, and I am not a physicist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think of Einstein. I think that really since the turn of the century, I mean what's happened to the time? I mean, I can kind of think of by decade what happened prior to, then all of a sudden it was Y2K. And oh my God, it's 19, I mean 2023, it's 23 years later. So I don't know, again, from a physics standpoint, and maybe time really is speeding up.
So I heard, I mean, I heard an interesting theory about the experience of time, and I just wanted to say, I am also someone who tends to be on the side of embracing change, mostly. I think things changing is really interesting, and I'm very curious when stuff's coming up. Even if I'm like, "Ooh, I don't know if I like that," I'm more curious about it than fearful of it.
Yeah.
So I appreciate you saying that, and I just want to acknowledge that, 'cause there definitely are, there's so many more people who will either resist it entirely or wait until it's right to get on board with things. But I heard a theory. I'm not saying this is the truth, but about the experience of time. And it was that when you're younger, so it has less to do with the actual like years that we're in versus age in the sense that when we're younger, when we're six years old, a summer is, you know, a sixth of our lives have been summers, because summer lasts forever. And then when we're 30, you're like, summer's gone in 18 seconds 'cause now it's a 30th of. And I was like, this is makes sense and is terrible. I do not like it. I don't like this anymore.
I think there's definitely truth in that. I also think that there's something else that's going on that has to do with just the everything being sped up. And I think the other thing, and when you talk about crisis leadership, and I focus a lot on communication through my books and my work is that people, and I'm gonna move back a little bit. I was in an organization working at a time where this organization, and it was in the 1980s, had email. And it was called PROFS, P-R-O-F-S. It was through the Wang product. And very few people had it. And even starting then, people would say things. It was kind of this notion that I'm anonymous, and I could just get it off my chest. And you know, through the speed of light in one's fingers, things would go out into the internet, which was considerably smaller then that you would never say to somebody face-to-face. And it's just deteriorated since then. I happen to be on Twitter and LinkedIn. I have been an anti-Facebook person my whole life for a whole host of reasons. And, of course, with the change in ownership at Twitter, I guess it's now called X, I'll probably be migrating to a different method. But I just am also astounded at the way people blame, shame, maim other people with very little thought. And yet, if it's incoming from their standpoint, it's like a huge crisis. Once again, we get into crisis. You know, in the good old days or the bad old days, we used to operate on what was called the New York Times rule, which is never put anything in writing you wouldn't want to appear above the fold in the New York Times or the LA Times or whatever newspaper. And that has just gone by the wayside. And I think that that sparks a lot of anxiety and a lot of crisis.
Yeah. I wanna get into some, I know that you brought up that you do a lot of work in communication, and I very much wanna get into that, but I do wanna ask a question about what you just brought up, which I think also links to how people communicate these days in certain ways. And the question I have is, do you think that in your experience with these virtual ways of communicating, whether it's the system you're talking about in the '80s, what we have seen on Twitter, X, whatever it's called now, other, I'm curious how much of that you think may come from this mask of anonymity that people think they have in these virtual settings?
Absolutely. I think it's like, you know, you're sitting, I'm sitting in a room right now. I see you, but I could easily not if I chose not to, but I think people have this sense of protection, anonymity. They have this sense of getting it off my chest, and what does it matter anyway? It removes that human contact. If I'm face-to-face with you, 'cause we were talking a little bit earlier about conflict avoidance, much easier to stir up conflict when you're feeling anonymous and protected than if you're actually dealing with the individual on the other side. So I don't know, I think a lot about it just because that's kind of the work I do. I think about what motivates people, how people come across, how they project, how they're perceived. One of the things that was a gift for me, I mean, as I'm fond of saying, maybe making a meteor rise to the glass ceiling in corporate America. I mean, at the age of 38, I was elected an officer in a huge Southern California utility. There were 18 officers, 17 men and me. I actually was pregnant with my last child, my daughter. And I remember thinking, I'm still the only person who's ever been a pregnant officer at Southern California Edison Company. I just kind of watched and observed. And the job that I held, the officer job was the corporate secretary. So in those days we had monthly board meetings, and we had a whole shareholder services department. And it was a great opportunity for me to observe leadership up close and personal and how things were managed. And, of course, it was largely men, largely white men. Although, there was an African American, a Latino, and there were two women. There was an effort to bring in diverse voices. But it was interesting to observe that those who made it to the top and the cultures that they represented were really reflective of who they were. There were one or two who were probably not the nicest people on the face of the earth. There were one or two gentlemen, actually, who were CEOs of large companies who brought in empathy, who were kind, and it was reflected in their entire organization. So I don't know how I got launched on that piece of it, but I've just always observed people at what motivates them, how they present themselves, how they communicate, how they are perceived.
What a great segue into what you brought up about communication, and you also mentioned conflict, two of my favorite topics, by the way. So I'm extremely excited about this. I'm gonna start with conflict, because I think that it is a, besides a contentious topic, which kind of makes sense for conflict, I think what you mentioned around, if people have that veil of anonymity, they feel they can stir up conflict.
Mm-hm.
I think the flip side of that, in what I've observed, is that without that veil of anonymity, people panic when conflict is there. And they either of try and avoid it entirely, so, "Everything's okay, everything's gonna be okay." They kind do this like patting down, "Don't worry about it." Or they try and find the one answer that everyone is going to be happy with, like there is some one answer to whatever's going on. And I'm curious how you have seen this show up, dealt with it, what you've learned about it. I know we were talking about managing conflict versus resolving conflict a little bit.
Yes. Yeah.
I just think it's such a tough thing for people to wrap their brains around 'cause it...
Yeah.
It's bad, isn't it? Conflict's always bad.
I would say, Céline, in the kind of work that you and I do, there really are two schools of thoughts about conflict. You either resolve or you manage. I come from the school that you manage, you don't resolve, because I think conflicts are based on values, history, culture. I mean, we all bring our little suitcase and our baggage with us wherever we go. And certainly you're not gonna resolve them, but you can manage to the win-win. And I've written a couple of blogs about it, and I think it's in my book as well. Take abortion as an issue, in my country particularly. You're not gonna resolve that, because people have fundamentally different views about it. But you can manage to the win-win. So I've adopted this model where you say, "Okay, what's the issue? Why do you think what you think? Why do you think what you think?" And say, "Okay, we're not gonna resolve that." I'm not going to agree with somebody who has a very different perspective on when life begins. I was in law school when Roe versus Wade was decided, which is a long time ago, but a very interesting, very interesting, still makes sense to me. And I always chuckle, because most people, just a little sidebar, who argue about it have never read it. So they don't really understand that it was pretty well thought out in terms of timing and rights of privacy and when the state can intervene, et cetera. But so I say, "Okay, what do we have in common?" Probably, we wanna reduce teen pregnancies. Probably, we wanna make adoption more available, probably, hopefully, by reducing teen or whatever pregnancies. We wanna make birth control available. So you kind of focus on what you have in common and leave the other stuff by the wayside. To me, obviously I embrace my own values, but very few things are not inherently right or wrong or good or bad. They just are and they're different. And so how do you manage to what you have in common and what you can agree upon. You know, guns is another issue in this country. And, again, I think it's gonna be very different for, you know, people are like this when it comes to guns, but what do you have in common? Maybe it's registration, maybe it's something I've always been big on, gosh, in my state of California, in order to drive a vehicle, you have to take a class and you have to be tested. Why not do that with firearms? And by the way, why not incorporate the NRA in and have them be certified in giving these classes? I mean, there's just ways of bringing people together to solve problems if the desire is there. And it's not always there, as you point out. I think people are, on some level, conflict first. My favorite example, and this is not a huge conflict, but if I'm facilitating group, I'll always say, "How many of you like to receive performance evaluations?" Everybody raises their hand. "How many of you like to know what you're not doing well? How many of you like to give performance evaluations?" You know, like looking around. And then that question, "How many of you like to tell somebody else what they need to improve upon?" And maybe there's like nobody or one person raising a hand. And you say, "Well, you know, you wanna know. Why is it that you wanna know what's not working so well? Because you wanna work on it. Don't you think somebody else wants to hear that?" And then what happens, when we're not honest about it, and it's not if we're honest, it's how we phrase it. And that's where I get into my whole gestalt on communication and how to communicate effectively. It just builds up, you know, kind of anger. I just picked up a client the other day, helping someone negotiate a separation package. This is somebody who's been in an organization for 10 plus years, has done remarkable work. And the last performance review was exceeds standards. Well, based on what this individual was told when he was separated from the organization, it's like, "What?" I mean the person was totally shocked, because what was said was completely at odds with what he had been told prior to that. So, to me, again, it's not if we say it, it's how we say it and it's choice of words, it's putting yourself in the other person's shoes. I'm a big one on using I statements and trying to banish You statements to the extent possible. Instead of saying, "You didn't understand me," how about, "I'm sorry, maybe I didn't explain, let me try it again." I mean, there's just lots of different ways of turning things around and kind of avoiding the opportunity for conflict. So again, it's like, to me, we manage, we don't resolve, and it's how we do it. It's the choice of words we use, it's the process we follow, which, you know, as I said earlier, I'm pretty pragmatic. I don't offer up suggestions that are unimplementable. I offer up suggestions that are kind of easy to implement, but you have to be willing to try.
I think that willing to try is really important. I think there's a lot of resistance. Take this with a grain of salt, but I think that people are often, as an opinion I'll fully own it, that people are, when they are resistant to that, when they don't want to change the how, and I think a lot of people don't wanna change the how, because whether it's their ego, this is, you know, "I am right and this is how I've always done it," or they're scared of trying something, whatever the reason is. I think there is often resistance to changing how they do things or how they think about conflict. But the how is, to me, that's the art of all of this.
Yes, I agree. That's a great way of describing it. It is the art of all of this. And when were talking before we started recording about one-on-one executive coaching and how I initially thought, being a baby boomer professional trailblazing woman, I'd be largely coaching younger women. And it turns out, I'm largely coaching men. The reason I say that is because the example I use, this one will apply to women. I will say to women in the process, I'll say, "It's just like I'm taking you to Nordstrom's Rack. and I'm gonna pick out five suits or dresses or pairs of pants that you would never pick out. Okay, so try them on. One or two are awful, forget them. One, so, so, but two of them you kind of like." And I said, "It's the same thing. I'm going to suggest pragmatic, easy to implement ways of switching, ways of maybe turning the dynamic around. Some are gonna feel comfortable, some won't be you, but I ask you to try them all. And those that you embrace, move them into your toolkit of leadership." Obviously, I don't use that example when I'm talking to men. I use another example that has to do with whatever men discount warehouse or whatever. But it's really that, it's just the willingness. It's having the confidence and the willingness to try. And, in fact, I do, you know, I facilitate a lot. I've never been averse to speaking in front of groups even when I was a little kid and president of my classes, et cetera. So I will often say to a group, and this is Diana Peterson-More wisdom. I don't know if it's true in terms of research, but I will often say, "You hear that adults' biggest fear is speaking in front of groups. And I always say, "Nah, adults' biggest fear is having other adults think you're dumb or stupid." And I truly believe that. Now whether there's data to verify that, I don't know. And that, I think, prevents a lot of people from stepping forward. So I will always have, I'm doing a series of leadership trainings for a big legal firm right now, and we always have ground rules. And one of them, people will develop things like no dumb question, everybody participate. And I've developed a few over time, and one of them is suspend judgment. And that is, Céline may say any something, and Diana's lizard brain might think, "No, that's wrong," but I suspend judgment. I don't say anything, I just let it sit there and think, "You know, maybe that does make sense. It's different from the way I would've looked at it, but it might feel comfortable, and it might even be better." So, to me, it's that willingness to open up to others, the willingness to open up to try to do something differently. And guess what? You might like it. Like, jump in the water, you might enjoy it.
First off, I love your analogy of the outfits. I think that is a great way of visual recognizing, possibly a different one for men. But it's a great way of understanding and reinforcing something that you said earlier, which is something that I feel like I have a tendency to go on about, which is like, there really is no right or wrong. There's no one way to do pretty much anything. It is all what's best for me, what's best for this situation, what's best for the outcome we're working towards. It is that how. And the example of the outfits, trying on five outfits, or five hammers or whatever it might be.
Yeah. Yeah, yeah.
Right? That gives people the, they can put themselves-
Identify,
Exactly. They identify with that in a way where it's like, "Oh yeah, I guess there really is no what's right. The right outfit for that person might not be the right outfit for me. The right hammer for this situation is not gonna be the right hammer for this one.
Exactly.
And I love that, and I just wanted to really emphasize how effective I think that analogy is. And getting into what you just said about like the suspending judgment and asking people to pause and kind of reflect before, "Oh, that might be different from how I was thinking about things."
Mm-hm.
The thing that comes up for me when you say that is we're so rewarded for saying the things in the moment that we wanna say, right? Society rewards us for speaking up and being like, "I disagree with that thing in this moment. Let me tell you my opinion about something," as opposed to that pause, that curiosity that, "I wonder where that comes from that you're kind of talking about." And I'm wondering if you can tell us a little bit more about, and it doesn't have to be that example, but it just connected those dots for me, like that pausing that curiosity that...
Yeah.
Not judging them. You know, it's interesting you should bring this up, because I'm gonna use another analogy, French horn, trumpet. Trumpet is brain, mouth, out. French horn is brain, round and round and round, and out. I'm a trumpet, and trumpets get rewarded. And one of the things that I realized is, as a trumpet my whole life, and this is a kid raising my hand in class, is that we assume that if people have something to say, they will speak up. Not always the case. A lot of people need to be invited to speak. So there's a couple of examples. One is in my book, which is "Consequential Communication in Turbulent Times: A Practical Guide to Leadership," a true story. I was hired by an organization. It was a governmental organization, is a governmental organization, to coach three individuals, one of whom would end up with a leadership position at the end. One was definitely the trumpet. One was kind of 50/50, and the other one was definitely a French horn. And the French horn was timid about saying something right away, because she might change her mind or she wanted it to be perfect. So I said, "Well you can say that." The problem with saying nothing is that, for better or for worse, people assume A, you don't care, you don't know, whatever. So I got her to start saying, "Interesting, my initial thought is X, but I might revise it by tomorrow." Or "Interesting, can I get back to you in an hour? I'd like to think about it a little bit more." So the importance of responding is always there. Now in this particular example, playing it all the way out, the person who was the trumpet came up with ideas that were not good ideas. The person who came up with the French horn actually came up with the best solution. They hired the trumpet. So I don't know if that's human nature or what it is, because the trumpet probably displayed a certain amount of confidence. So that's one setting, and I actually have that example in the book. More recently, I was facilitating a large group and everybody was working from home. The bosses wanted everybody to come on site. And the, of course, happy solution was hybrid. So there were two men in this group, and this group was a fairly large group, larger than I would typically work with. It was 22, but it was needs must as they say. They originally wanted 50 people. And I said, "That's just simply is not gonna work." So we pared it down to 22, and these two men felt very strongly about an issue. And it had to do with if you have a Zoom, whether or not you have your picture up or you're allowed to have a substitute, which oftentimes mean people are multitasking, not paying paying attention. And these two guys felt very strongly about it. Well, then we did several exercises, and I started asking people who didn't raise their hand. Well, as it turned out, those two were in the distinct minority, like 20 to 2. But the two were very vocal. And some of the people in that group of 20, as I was bringing them along, were saying things like, "I know this isn't shared by everybody, however, this is the way I feel." It was almost like they felt they had to apologize in advance for their view on something, which suggested to me, and again, I don't know, this is anecdotal, it suggested to me that they were more concerned about sparking kind of a loud voice or potential anger in somebody else than having the, I don't know, what is it? Is it confidence? Is it courage? Having the ability to step forward and speak their mind. And again, I don't know. As I said, I'm an observer, and I just thought it was interesting that I noticed how several of them felt that they had to set the stage by saying, "I know this isn't popular by everybody, I know not everybody shares this, but this is what I think." And I thought, "Wow, where's your voice?" But, again, that's just me and my own personality.
But I think it's an important observation, because every group that I have ever been a part of, whether I've been a part of it or facilitated or observed in some way, has a mix of people who communicate in different ways, who speak up in different ways.
Oh yeah.
And I think those people who state their opinions are so often, one, they're first out the gate, and they're so often rewarded, for speaking, not for asking a question, not for listening to the people around them, not for being curious, just for speaking up. People see that and think, "Oh, my way must be wrong in some way."
Correct, correct. Yeah, I mean there's a concept in the law that's also assuming facts not in evidence. And what'll happen is if you're a trumpet, if you're one of these two guys and you've voiced your opinion and you hear no opposition, you then assume that everybody else thinks the same way you do, which is not the case. And I've learned over time, as a trained facilitator to invite people. Also, I'm sure as you are, there's a lot of social styles analyses out there that we've all used. The one I enjoy the most is the DISC, the original DISC, D-I-S-C. And I focus in on team behaviors, because it talks about communication. And that's where people get to see how others perceive them, but so it's kind of a gentle 360, but they also get to pick, there's like a whole list of ways, please communicate with me this way. Please don't communicate with me this way. And I always ask them to circle the top three to five in each category and to share that information with the people they work with, because another one of my little things in the book is the Golden Rule of Communication is I will communicate with Céline the way Diana likes to be communicated with, whereas it really should be the Platinum Rule. I should communicate with Céline the way she wants to be communicated with, especially as a leader, critical. I was training earlier this week, and that was one of the topics we discussed. Because if you think about it, if I'm the boss and you work for me, my goal is to get you to do what I want you to do. So it's important for me to communicate it in a way that you are going to understand. And if you're a verbal person, which I am, and if someone tells me something, I get it. I don't need to necessarily read it. I probably should, but I don't necessarily need to do that. There are a lot of people that need to have it reinforced in writing or they need to read it. So, to me, a handy way to do that is for me to say, "You know, Céline, I know in my head that I gave instructions that make sense, but it's possible I wasn't as clear as I thought. Go back to your office and just send me a quick email detailing the finer points of what I'd like you to do." And then if Céline goes back and it's the same, great. And if it's not, rather than say, "Well you didn't understand me," 'cause who knows, say, "You know what, I wasn't as clear as I thought. Let's try it once again. Let me try writing you a couple of bullet points. And now, Céline, you tell me what I've asked you to do by what date, and et cetera." And again, those are just easy breezy ways of, you know, you're being strategic. What is it that I want her to do? And it's in my best interest that she perform the way I want her. It doesn't do me any good if I was not clear, and the assignment doesn't come back the way that I needed it. So that's kind of the strategic piece. Stephen Covey's "7 Habits of Highly Successful" professionals, managers, parents, amoebas, aunts, whatever. One of his seven rules is begin with the end in mind. And I really relate to that. What's the goal to be achieved in this communication? And what's the most effective way of communicating to reach that goal? You know, I kind of think that way. I'm not a linear thinker. When I was working at the utility, I was working largely with guys who were engineers. So they'd go A to B to B to C to C to D, and I'd go A to Z and back down the alphabet. And I remember being in meetings where I would say something and there would be like dead silence. And 10 minutes later one of the guys would say essentially what I said, not as articulately, of course. And then somebody else would say, "Great idea, Joe." And, of course, being the only female, I thought, "Well that's because I'm a woman, and they're men." Au contraire. I was working with a woman who does the kind of work you and I now do. And she said, "Diana, they think differently than you. You're talking to people who are linear thinkers." She said, "Sit on it. Don't come up with your very brilliant idea for 10 minutes, and then say it and see what happens." And she was right. I waited and when I said it 10 minutes later, they'd say, "Oh yeah, that makes sense. Good idea." So it was kind of a process of recognizing that we think differently. We take in information differently. We attack problems differently. We look at conflict differently. Again, not right or wrong or good or bad. How can I, as a leader, accommodate my style to the style of those who report to me to get the most and best out of them?
I think it's the most important advice that we can give leaders and that they need to hear. And I think it's also the hardest thing for people to implement sometimes, because we are unfortunately all stuck in our own heads. So we think
Yes.
The way that we can communicate or what we're saying obviously makes sense 'cause we have all the context in our brains, right?
Yeah.
So it's like, yeah, of course. And it's really tough for people to adapt to other people, to think about it not from inside our brains where we always are. And I think it's the most important skill, let's call it, that a leader can learn when it comes to communication is to be consistently thinking about, does this person, maybe this person doesn't think the same way as me, maybe they need more information. How can I check this with them? What is a question I could ask? Right? You present information. I was talking with someone recently, and it was the most basic thing, and they were like, "I don't think I've ever done that in all my years of leading," Which was like, I'm gonna present, this is someone who leads a big team. They present an information, and they'd go, "What do you think to their team?" And their team would be like, "Yeah, sounds great." Every single time, "Sounds great." And I was like, "What if you ask a different question, like, what am I missing? What else do I need to know?" 'Cause if you say, "What do you think?" Everyone's gonna, you're the leader, everyone's gonna be like, "Great." But it's hard to put yourself in that position sometimes.
Yes. Yeah. And that gets me to listening, asking, and telling, that leaders do too much telling and not enough listening and asking. And the power of just silently listening and saying, "Tell me more. I'm thinking this. I'm sure there's a ton of different ways to do it. Who wants to come up with an idea?" Or I'll say, "Who wants to play devil's advocate? I need someone to shoot down, come up with every possible pitfall in my idea." And it's that openness, that willingness. And I have a cute story. I was facilitating an audit department in a large media company, and the vice president had been hired from one of the accounting firms. And he was a fish out of water at this accounting firm, because he was people oriented, and everybody else was kind of da da da da. So one of the things that came up, and this was like a three-day, multi-day retreat, is that everyone got to the point where they were saying, "Yeah, he always asks us what our opinion is and then he does what he wants to do anyway." Of course, he was devastated. So we came up with this little ground rule in which he said, "I'm 99% of the way there, and unless you see me walking into a buzz saw or walking off a cliff, this is what we're gonna do." Or "I'm 50% of the way there. This is when I'm thinking, but I'm open to different ideas," all the way to, "This is the issue. I have no idea how I want to approach it." Well, just by his adopting those styles, people knew how much time to invest in coming up with their own ideas.
Yeah.
So I just think, I mean, the thing is, when you listen and ask really good questions, you motivate people. But also guess what? Somebody else might have a better idea than yours.
Always.
So, yeah.
Yeah.
It's interesting. And so has the person started the example you gave? Has he started to do that? And has he seen results?
He has, especially when he says, "What am I missing?" He was like, "Everyone wants to tell me what I'm missing. There's so many." And I'm like, "Yes, because you're inviting them into something. You're saying, I value you what you see that I don't." And then you're gonna listen to what they're saying. So what am I missing was a was a great, oh, he was like, "I never would've done that." But to what you're saying, we love, especially, when our leaders listen to us, when they actually pause and listen to us. Like how validating is that for people?
And you know, I mean, one thing we do know is that motivated employees are more productive. And listening to them and making them feel that they are valued and have a contribution, whether you go with it or not, is critical. And I think the other point is, this came up in this training I was doing the other day. "Well, what if somebody comes up with an idea, but you don't implement it and they get upset?" I said, "Well, they need to understand why." You know, "That was really a great idea, Céline. Unfortunately, we don't have the budget. I probably should have mentioned what the budget was, but let's say instead of what you suggested, the budget were half of that, what ideas do you have?" So I said, "You keep the dialogue going, but you also make it clear that a suggestion or recommendation is not necessarily going to be an adopted decision." However, they deserve to know why.
Yep.
They deserve to know. I would always say to people, "You know, that's not my decision to make. You know, so-and-so's gonna make it. I'll run it up the flag pole." And then I would come back and say, "Great idea. It was adopted," or, "It wasn't adopted and this is why." And people can deal with that. They may not be happy, but they understand. It's not because it was stupid or dumb, it was because of either another factor they were unaware of, finances, whatever.
It's amazing.
Just being candid and open and transparent in communication.
Yeah.
A little bit of context goes a long way for people.
And you know why? Also, if you tell them the big picture, they understand the important role they're playing. You know, early on I did a lot of volunteer training at the Center for Nonprofit Management. And a woman came in one day in one of the classes. I don't even remember what class it was, but this has been seared in my mind. I've used it in my book, and I use it in training where she said that she was like the receptionist. The night before, the boss walked through and said, "I need you to stay late to put stamps on these envelopes and get them out." She was gonna be late picking up a child, which meant she was gonna have a late fee, et cetera. The next day he walks in and ignores her. Her comment, "I will never work late again." And I'm thinking, okay, what if he had come out and said, "Rosa," whatever her name was, "I know you have time limits and need to pick your child up. We are $10,000 short of our goal for fundraising. These letters are extremely important. We need to get them out tonight because without that $10,000, we won't be able to service 10 additional homeless individuals. Are you able to do it?" And then the next day say, "Rosa, did you get them out? I knew you could do it. Thank you." All of a sudden this putting stamps on envelopes and getting them out and being late to pick up your kid becomes a, "Hey, I could be potentially changing, helping to change the lives of 10 homeless individuals." And I just thought to myself, it would've been so easy for the boss to have explained the importance of the project, to recognize that she might have some difficulties, could maybe even gone a step further and said, "Let me know what the late fee is," or "Go pick up your child and come back." I mean, they're just different options, rather than kind of dump and run, drive by delegation, go do this and hasta la bye-bye. And then the person's angry and, and said literally, quote, "I will never work late again."
Then that is an easy way to demotivate and make someone feel devalued.
Yeah, absolutely. Oh, anyway. One thing about being older and having been around a long time is that I have a lot of experiences I can share. And you know, one of the things that occurred to me, the best education I ever had was going to law school. Because even though it may feel like the law is black and white and in certain areas it is, there's a lot of room for gray. I mean, as they say, the law is what's boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. So I was a history major as an undergrad, so there's kind of fixed dates and processes, but you get to a point where you would, I'm the More, M-O-R-E of the Peterson-More. And so I was called on first in every class, 'cause I was right in the middle, and I was easy name. So I can remember standing up and the professor saying whatever he said, and I would respond. And I thought, "Gosh, I had the answer." And then he'd say, "Well what if I change the facts ever so slightly? And instead of the cow being blue, the cow was red, would that change your answer?" You know, all the movies you've seen about people in law school, it's true, that's what they do. And I can remember standing there feeling like an idiot, and I didn't know what I was saying. And every single person said, "Oh my god, how did you do that? How did you know what to say?" And that's when I realized that so much of the law is your ability to develop an argument or your ability to see things differently. That has been translated into the rest of my life and the work I do today. The importance of flexibility, the importance of looking at the prism differently, the importance of hearing what others have to say and being able to respond to it, anyway.
Yeah. Diana, you are a delight,
Oh, thank you.
And I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the stories you've shared, but also the insights and the very specific suggestions that you have made during our conversation. I know that these are always the episodes that people get really excited about, 'cause they're like, "Ooh, I can do that thing. Ooh, I know." So thank you for sharing so much with us. I really appreciated it, and I really enjoyed this conversation.
Well, thank you, I did too. And I guess I'm a true extrovert, because I get energy from this kind of dialogue. And it's so nice to speak to somebody else in the same field because it's reinforcing, which feels good. So thank you. Thank you for inviting me. I really appreciate it.
It has absolutely been my pleasure. And for anyone who is watching or listening, there will be all the links for Diana, including her book and soon to be second book if, if.
Yeah.
When is your second book coming out?
Well, I have an article in the ATD print magazine in October. So my goal is to have it out right before then. And it's been a struggle. I'd love to come back when it's out. It's called "Courageous Communication, A Return to Civility," parens, "Can't We All Just Get Along," you know the famous words of Rodney King?
Yes.
That's another whole story. But I think I finally have the secret sauce, and I know exactly how to assemble all the data.
Then we will definitely have you back. And the link to Diana's current book and her future book will be updated in the show notes here.
Great.
So thank you
Once again.
Thank you. And Céline, when I start my podcast, you're definitely gonna be one of the first guests.
You're so kind. Thank you.
It's called "Wise Women."
I mean, I love the name.
"And a Few Good Men."
There we go. Thanks for joining me today on the "Leading Through Crisis" podcast. If you enjoyed this conversation, please take a minute to rate and review us on your podcast app. If you're interested in learning more about any of our guests, you can find us online at www.leadingthroughcrisis.ca.