When Hateful Communication Prevails

Posted on January 8, 2011 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

If we accept outrageous lies and hateful attacks as just the way things are, then that’s how they’ll continue to be.  Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican or somewhere in between, respect shown to hateful media personalities eliciting fear and rage makes you part of the vile effects they perpetrate.

There are people everywhere who listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and think their stream of consciousness venom is reality instead of the lowest form of entertainment.  To participate in any way, especially as a senator or congressman, to fear these people and cater to them in order to win elections, is to be vile as well.

Words are not empty vehicles of meaning.  They influence, often in very negative ways. When we fail as a society to teach ourselves and our children that words can inflict pain and that there are other ways to win elections and arguments than relying on hatred and malice, we lower ourselves.  And clearly from the shootings in Arizona, we give license to people who turn that hatred into violent actions.

I haven’t been posting for a while because on December 23rd I was slammed into unconsciousness and nearly death by a hit-and-run driver.  Other good people stopped, thank goodness.  But I lay in the hospital thinking about what kind of person leaves the scene of an accident not even knowing if the person they hit, running a red light, is dead.

What kind of person or people try to kill a congresswoman and people around and with her?  In both cases, people who think nothing of the lives of others.  These people, provoked by hatred, do hateful things.

It’s up to each of us to learn ways to channel our anger, to teach our children to not bully and to respond effectively without escalation to those who do.  When confrontation becomes violent, it is because we have abdicated our responsibility to communicate in constructive ways.

When we accept as entertainment the vile speech of others, we are vile as well.  And when we vote into office people who cater to such viciousness, we participate in perpetuating a hostile environment in which we and our children must struggle to live.

Posted in Bullying, Confrontation | Leave a comment

NPR: Faith Middleton’s Review of Comebacks At Work

Posted on January 5, 2011 by admin

On December 23, Faith Middleton of NPR recommended  Comebacks at Work.  She said it’s “a book I love,” “a great, great, book,” “I learned so much from this book,” and “I’d recommend it for anyone” (offender or offendee and people facing down bullies).

You can find it at this link at 14.01 on the show.

Posted in Bouquets & Brickbats | Leave a comment

Webinar on February 9 — Hope You’ll Join Us

Posted on January 1, 2011 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

I’ll be doing a webinar for UMASS on February 9 from noon to 1 P.M..  It’ll focus on the latest book, COMEBACKS AT WORK.  Attached is the link.  Looking forward to talking with you then.

Kathleen

Posted in Upcoming | Leave a comment

Who Tends To Be Happier? A Thought For The Year Ahead

Posted on December 19, 2010 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

Perhaps you read the “Economist” article about people being happier as they get older. It’s worth a read.  Here are a couple of excerpts to give you the general idea:

Ask a bunch of 30-year-olds and another of 70-year-olds (as Peter Ubel, of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, did with two colleagues, Heather Lacey and Dylan Smith, in 2006) which group they think is likely to be happier, and both lots point to the 30-year-olds. Ask them to rate their own well-being, and the 70-year-olds are the happier bunch.

Apparently economists have noticed a U-bend in happiness.

The U-bend shows up in studies not just of global well-being but also of hedonic or emotional well-being. One paper, published this year by Arthur Stone, Joseph Schwartz and Joan Broderick of Stony Brook University, and Angus Deaton of Princeton, breaks well-being down into positive and negative feelings and looks at how the experience of those emotions varies through life. Enjoyment and happiness dip in middle age, then pick up; stress rises during the early 20s, then falls sharply; worry peaks in middle age, and falls sharply thereafter; anger declines throughout life; sadness rises slightly in middle age, and falls thereafter.

The author speculates that people in their forties often have adolescent children and that’s usually taxing.  Tell me about it!  And often you’re older than that and have teen-agers around. But, if you don’t want to put it entirely on the kids, there are other circumstances.  One of them is trying to do well in your career and activities outside of that.  The more irons you have in the fire, the more chances there are that things are going to go wrong.  Of course, there’s also the possibility of having more go well.  Still, you’re juggling.  And, that’s demanding.

Then there is the explanation offered that as people age they often adjust in terms of ambition. We cease to worry so much about being attractive, slender and successful. Lowering our expectations just ends up making us happier after we get past the struggle to accept that we’re aging.  I’m not sure when that kicks in.  Sometimes I hope it’ll be soon.  It’s not easy to lower expectations of yourself if you’ve kept them pretty high or your family and career demands have done so for you.

Let me throw into this mix the importance of having relationships that aren’t confrontative. And that brings us back to communication.  If you know how to manage conversations, to keep yourself from feeling that you lost in one conversation after another, you’re bound to be happier.  If you know what to say when, the chances of warding off too much stress are increased — even with teenagers!

Most of my books are about how to take back some control.  Researchers have also found that most of us think we have more control over our lives than we actually do. But, I figure, whatever amount we do have might as well be managed well.  To me that means knowing how to talk to the people in your life who mean the most.  Maybe that’s doctors at some period of time.  At others, it may be a new boss or someone in our personal lives.  The same communication principles apply.  If you stay out of patterns that take conversations off onto the wrong track and have a repertoire of responses to a variety of situations, there’s a good chance that you’re going to be happier than people who don’t.

That’s worth thinking about for the New Year — learning to communicate so that happiness becomes a more regular state of mind.  As one of my professors once said to me, “You can be pushed and pulled through life, or you can do most of the pushing and pulling.”  It was good advice!

Posted in Comebacks, Confrontation | Leave a comment

Real Change Takes Effective Responses To Resistance

Posted on December 16, 2010 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

This post was inspired by a question on one of my linked-in groups about what it takes to bring about change.  First, research tells us that people often prefer to stick with the status quo even if they know it’s not productive.  Many of us, especially when the economy is uncertain and our futures with it, cling to what we know.  So, change is difficult to bring about — whether for an individual or group.

Relevant to this site is what to say and do in the face of resistance to change.  There are the critics who say things like:  “We tried that before and it didn’t work.”  It’s natural to want to react with, “Who asked you?” or “You always have something negative to say.  Why should today be any different?”

But if you want the change to happen, these kinds of comments are precisely what will prevent you from succeeding.  Instead, consider these comeback responses:

“You’re right. And we don’t want to waste our time.  We tried something like it but give me two minutes and I’ll explain how this is different.”

By agreeing, in part, with the person, you diffuse the angst.  You give them credit for recalling mistakes of the past so the group doesn’t reinvent the wheel.

If someone says, “If you’re around here long enough you see a lot of these ‘changes’ that start strong and never go anywhere.”  Consider saying:

“Since you’ve seen a fair amount of that, you’re just the person to help us avoid doing it again.”

Involving people in change is a very well-supported strategy for making it work.  We know that people are more likely to do that which they’ve been involved in planning. They essentially persuade themselves.  In persuasion study we call this counter-attitudinal advocacy.  It can be very effective.

Then there are people who fear change.  They may seem to be resisting because they oppose the plan, but actually they worry about having the skills to do their part.  It takes an astute leader to recognize the difference.  It usually requires asking questions, such as:

“What do you think is the most challenging aspect of doing this?”

or

“If we did try this, what might get in our way?”

After learning about the fear without labeling it as such, it’s possible to move forward by finding a way around or through it.  And again, involving the person who is reluctant and providing adequate support and encouragement make all the difference.

Posted in Comebacks, Leadership | 1 Comment

Radio Interview – Bill Kearney, Concord NH WKXL

Posted on December 14, 2010 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

This interview was a really good one because Bill had clearly read Comebacks at Work.  He asked great questions, so I thought I’d share the interview with you along with some additional ideas.

Click here to listen to the interview.

(1) Job competition during periods of high unemployment increases the likelihood of confrontation, so it’s important to learn how to respond effectively on your feet. Comeback skill isn’t a luxury or just a bunch of quips, it’s a way of raising the chances of getting and keeping a job.  Also, it lowers the stress you experience at work, on the drive home and at home.  When you’re confident that you can respond effectively, as Bill says, “under fire,” a comfort level develops.

(2)  Bill mentioned fear and lack of experience as contributing to brain freeze — an inability to respond.  Both are involved. None of us wants to say something that just hangs in the air and makes us look bad.  But even worse is letting people walk all over you for most, or even part, of each day.  Sometimes your credibility is on the line, and if you abdicate your 75% responsibility for how conversations go each day, then people may take advantage of that.  If you work in a highly or even pathologically political workplace, street fighters and maneuverers are bound to take advantage of you unless you’re prepared to deal with them.

(3)  Not being predictable is very important at work.  None of us wants to be managed without our even knowing it,  but that happens to many people who become predictable by slipping into patterns.  Having a repertoire of comebacks enables you to alter the direction of conversations to your advantage.  It prevents people from thinking, “Here he goes again.  I know just what to say to throw him off.”

(4)  Separating offense from insult is another crucial skill. Treating accidental offense in the same way as intended insult leads to problems.  It inhibits the selection of effective comebacks.  When people accidentally offend with an ill-chosen word, why slam them with a direct, intense comeback?  Instead, you could ask a question like  “Did you mean to say that?” or you might say “Something went wrong here that we can fix.” This buys time in conversation and it gives both persons a chance to consider another way of moving forward.

(5)  Bill used the word “navigating.”  That’s what we do when interacting with each other.  You wouldn’t go sailing alone on the high seas without becoming skilled at navigation.  So why would you go into communication each day unprepared to respond on your feet or to manage conversations in ways that facilitate your job and career?

(6)  The R-list consists of ten types of comebacks that begin with the letter “R”.  Revisit, restate, reframe, rebuke and reorganize are a few of them.  Reorganize is the one we discussed during the interview, and it’s a very useful comeback. People often mention more than one idea when they are talking.  If you’re not ready to handle one of those ideas or if that idea is likely to lead to unnecessary conflict, make the other idea the most important theme of the discussion.  “I think X is where we should focus right now” is one possible lead-in. “Let’s discuss X for now because it’s important to what we will do about Y” is another possibility.

(7) Bill and I talked about sending memos and texts. Technology makes communication so immediate.  To be at least 75% responsible for how we’re treated at work and elsewhere, we need to be sure to think before pushing “send.” Whenever there’s a chance that what you’re writing might be misinterpreted — which is often — it pays to step back, put yourself in the other person’s position (not as you but as that person) and consider revising.

Click here to order Comebacks at Work

Kathleen is also on Twitter: @comebackskid

Posted in Choice Points, Comebacks, Confrontation | 1 Comment

Why Republicans Get To Cry — continued

Posted on December 12, 2010 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

On “Huffington Post” today, I posted a blog:  Why Republicans Get To Cry.

The main point in that blog is that what seems to not be strategic often is exactly that. Otherwise, you have to wonder why John Boehner is suddenly willing to cry on national television. Sure, it’s possible that Boehner is simply unable to control his emotions and so decided to come clean and let people know.  After all, we’re about to see a lot more of him.  Some secrets are hard to keep.

Both strategic and nonstrategic explanations are likely to some extent accurate.  In any case, the speaker of the House is now being called the “weeper of the House.”  He saw a communication choice point, and didn’t use it wisely.

He’ll now go on the Letterman, Leno, Stewart and Colbert shows if he is using his head.  People will give him credit for that.

I’ll say one thing for his choice to let “60 Minutes” show him crying:  At least he’s experimenting with his communication options.  He probably thought it would endear people to him.  Among Democrats in leadership positions there is a palpable sense that communication is not a priority.  Learning how to communicate more effectively is seen as unnecessary or beneath them.  Meanwhile their opponents are widening their repertoire and, with the exception of this crying incident, that’s bound to serve them well.

P.S. For a more humorous take on John Boehner’s crying, you might want to stop by “The View.” Barbara Walters is not impressed.

________________________________________

Comebacks at Work:  Using Conversation to Master Confrontation

Posted in Choice Points, Comebacks, Emotional Comebacks, Politics | 1 Comment

More social — bigger brain

Posted on December 11, 2010 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

That’s what this research indicates.  And more interesting still is that the more social we are as we get older, the lower the risk of dementia.  But what if your communication isn’t gratifying? What if it causes more stress than happiness? All the more reason to learn how to respond rather than react to people, to stay out of URPs (unwanted repetitive episodes), to have a repertoire of effective comebacks and to not be predictable but rather interesting to yourself and others.

Posted in Comebacks | Leave a comment

Responding to Deception — A Short Analysis

Posted on December 10, 2010 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

Here are a few thoughts on dealing with deception.  For those of you dropping by from my response to Robert Reich on Huffington Post, the levels of deception are what may interest you most.  How far has Washington gone with deception? Certainly beyond the benign form.  And that is where feelings of betrayal come from — going beyond the types of deception expected socially, or even in politics, to something much more self-serving.

Most communication involves an element of deception.  In order to live and work with each other effectively, we can’t simply say whatever occurs to us.  So to facilitate social discourse, people engage in social deception.

However, deception operates along a range of intensity.  There’s a point at which deception becomes obstructive, unethical or destructive.  Here are definitions and examples of three types along the deception continuum – and then some ways of responding to each type.

Benign (relatively) Deception – the purpose is to avoid offense and be civil.  Examples include:

  • Dressing in a manner that is unusual to your style but impressive to others.
  • Disclosing information to others in a manner that suggests it’s private.
  • Giving the impression of greater knowledge on a subject than you actually have.
  • Downplaying some of the less attractive aspects of an item, product or idea.

Strategic Deception – the purpose is to achieve advantage, usually through the management of information.  Examples include:

  • Agreeing to something you may not be able to do.
  • Fogging or confusing an issue – strategic ambiguity (e.g., making it more complex than it is).
  • Misrepresenting by omission.
  • Bluffing (to a limited extent).

Malicious Deception – here the purpose is to obtain goals by harming others usually achieved through outright dishonesty. Continue reading →

Posted in Comebacks | 1 Comment

What The President Could Have Said About Tax Cuts

Posted on December 8, 2010 by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

President Barrack Obama started off on the wrong foot when announcing his plan to trade a year of unemployment benefits for two years of extended tax cuts. He knew it would be an unpopular compromise with many in his party, and so he began with a defensive set of comebacks to counter the expected criticism. It was a pattern he stayed with throughout his remarks.

Obama also attempted to raise himself above “some” whom he described as wanting to play games and engage in politics and fights. This unnecessary slapdown was directed at a wide range of unnamed people. It could have been any of us. And it amplified the defensive tone he’d taken right out of the gate. “I’m not here to play games with the American people and the health of our economy.” Continue reading →

Posted in Confrontation, Leadership, Politics, Uncategorized | 2 Comments