The perception of threat is the primary cause for conflict escalation. The most important word in the previous sentence is perception. If you have no intention of causing the other person harm (either physically or emotionally) and they perceive that you do intend to harm them, your real intentions do not matter. With regard to the affect your actions have on the conflict, it only matters that they perceive you to be a threat.

The leverage point for de-escalating the conflict is their perception, and the strongest impact you will likely have on their perception is your tone and body language.

One commonly referenced study on the impact of non-verbal clues in the communication process comes from Albert Mehrabian. In this study, Mehrabian found that when we communicate about feelings and attitudes the received message (the receiver’s perception and interpretation of the message) is based on a combination of word choice, vocal tone, and facial expression. Meharabian expressed this observation with his “Liking Formula” that says:

Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial Liking

Mehrabian’s study has been misquoted, misapplied, and misconstrued by many people to say that 93% of every message we convey to others comes from our tone and body language, and that interpretation is simply not true. What is true is that in ambiguous situations where we are conveying like-dislike and other emotional context messages to others, people place more emphasis on the tone and body language than they do to the words. The practical implication of this observation is this:

If your words do not match your tone and body language, people will believe your tone and body language before they will believe your words.

To become a master of conflict resolution, you need to learn more than a basket of tips, techniques, strategies, and phrases. You need to develop the ability to observe your tone and body language to identify inconsistencies between the words you are using and the non-verbal messages you are conveying.

When you find yourself in a conflict and you are working to resolve it successfully, choose non-threatening tones and body language so that your words of resolution will match the non-verbal messages you send.

Like so many words we use commonly, trust has many layers of meaning. While most of us have similar general perspectives about what it means to trust another person, there are some subtle differences in how we view this simple word.

The words I often use to describe the two sides of trust are transactional trust and relational trust, and here is how I define the terms:

• Transactional trust refers to the trust we have that another person will do what they said they would do or complete and assigned task.
• Relational trust refers to the trust we have that another person can listen to and understand our emotional state without passing judgment, criticizing, sharing it with others, or using the knowledge to somehow harm us.

At different times and in different situations, both components of trust can come into play in our interactions and relationships with other people. While most people experience and rely upon both trust components as they make decisions about how to interact with others, there are subtle differences in the priority that people place on the two components as they make decisions.

Leaders who focus heavily on task issues often place a higher priority on transactional trust – do people follow-through on commitments and complete tasks – than they do on relational trust. As a result, they can often find ways to stay engaged and working with a person that they do not “like” because they trust that the person will get things done.

Leaders who see the world through a relational filter often place a higher priority on relational trust – do people act in ways that build and protect relationships – than they do on transactional trust. And, they can often stay engaged and working with a person they like even if the other person has challenges with meeting deadlines and completing tasks.

Likewise, team members with a task focus often place a higher priority on transactional trust between them and their leader than they do on relational trust. And, team members with a relational focus place a higher priority on developing relational trust with their leader.

As a leader, you need to understand both how you and your team members prioritize the two sides of trust so that you can focus your trust building efforts in the area that will create the greatest immediate benefit.

To build trust with task-focused team members, focus on task completion and follow-through issues first and relationship issues second. To build trust with relationship-focused team members, focus on showing support and building a relationship first and task completion second.

Both forms of trust are important, and building high levels of both will contribute to creating a high-performing, high-functioning, results focused team.  To get the greatest results in the shortest amount of time, know your team members and focus first in the area of greatest concern to them.

Your Now Step: Think about the people you lead. How do they view trust? How have you been working to build trust with them? Does your approach fit their perspective? If it matches, good job! If not, adjust your approach to better connect with them.

Apology is a powerful — and often under used — conflict resolution tool. One reason for not apologizing that I often hear in my work with clients is the concern that apologizing either totally admits fault for the conflict or reveals a weakness.

While these concerns may be legitimate in some situations, they are overblown in most cases.

The perception of threat is the primary reason for conflict escalation, and removing this perception is the leverage point for conflict de-escalation. Apology works so well because it makes you less threatening to the other person.

Here are three tips for apologizing in a way that leads to de-escalation…

1. Only apologize for your behaviors, words and actions, and never apologize for the other person’s feelings or interpretations.
   While it can happen, I seldom see situations where a conflict starts and escalates due solely to the actions of one person. So, there is likely some word choice, tone, or action that you contributed to the conflict escalation. When you are willing to take responsibility for your contribution, you tend to reduce the perception the other person has that you are a threat to them.Likewise, when you apologize for the other person’s feelings, you subtly imply that you are in control of their emotional state. For many people, when you claim ownership for their feelings you convey a threat signal.
2. Maintain appropriate eye contact.
   Appropriate eye contact conveys respect and trustworthiness. As a result, good eye contact is a critical component of an effective apology.
3. Make sure your tone and body language match your message.
   In his often quoted (and misquoted) communication study, Albert Mehrabian found that body language and tone are the majority contributors to the received message in face-to-face communication. For the purpose of this post, the key observation is that when the message conveyed by tone and body language does not match the message sent by your word choice, the listener tends to believe the tone and body language in preference to the words.

With these tips in mind, here are some suggested ways to successfully phrase an apology…

• “I apologize for the tone I used.”
• “I am sorry that I spoke in a way that was offensive to you.”
• “I am sorry that I said/did ______.”

Please add your tips and suggestions in the comments section.

A common reason that conflicts escalate is the perception of threat one or both parties see in the conflict escalation cycle. Taking an action that makes you non-threatening to the other person is a powerful step towards de-escalating the conflict.

In many conflict situations I have observed a tendency by some people to minimize, criticize, or demean the emotions expressed by other people. I have also seen people attempt to tell other people how they should feel about a situation.

All of these actions trigger the perception of threat that tends to escalate conflicts.

If your interest is in de-escalating a conflict, I suggest that you do the opposite. I recommend that you accept and acknowledge the feelings other people express whether you agree that they should feel that way or not.

As I said in my post about Listening as a Way to De-escalate Conflict, the need to be heard and understood is a strong motivator in our relationships with other people. Accepting and acknowledging other people’s feelings goes a long way towards showing people that they have been heard and understood.

Most supervisors deliver performance feedback to members of their team. A face-to-face meeting is the most common way to deliver feedback.

During this meeting, the words you use are only part of your message. Your full message is a combination of the words you choose and the emotion you transmit.

When you deliver performance feedback, the emotional part becomes particularly challenging. People receiving feedback are often at an elevated emotional state, and you run the risk of sounding like you are criticizing or threatening them in some way. This combination creates a potential minefield that even supervisors who are coaching people from good performance to excellent performance can find difficult to navigate. The situation becomes even more complicated when you need to deliver truly negative feedback.

By understanding the emotional filter of the person receiving feedback, you can adjust your delivery to improve your odds of delivering the message you intend to deliver. While the details and specifics will  change based on your past relationship with your team members, the exact nature of your message, and the environment you work in, there are some predictable response patterns you can use as a guide to help you craft your message so that you minimize the risk of an emotional confrontation.

Regardless of the other person’s particular emotional filter, all work performance feedback should be directed at objective, observable issues – behaviors, words, actions, results, etc. While you do not want your feedback to be emotional in nature, you do want to frame it based on their emotional filters.

To do this, answer two questions about the other person:

1. Are they faster paced or slower paced? In other words, are they quick to speak or more are they more contemplative. And then…
2. Are they more focused on data, information, results, and doing things? Or, are they more focused on interacting with and supporting people? In other words, do they focus on tasks or do they focus on relationships.

If they are faster-paced and focused on tasks, speak directly to how their behaviors, words, and actions impact how quickly they will see results. Avoid saying anything that might indicate you don’t respect them.

It they are faster-paced and focused on relationships, show them how their behaviors, words, and actions affect the way that other people might perceive them and how the new behaviors will create more recognition for them. Avoid saying anything that communicates that you don’t like them.

If they are slower paced and focused on relationships, tie their actions to how they can help others and how their contribution builds the team. Rather than focus entirely on what you want done, make time to discuss how you want it done (with their input). Avoid pushing too quickly for results. Give them time to process what you have said before asking for a response.

If they are slower paced and focused on tasks, speak to the value and quality of their work. Be prepared to back-up anything you say with data – quality reports, run reports, research data, etc. Keep your comments factual and observable.

As you speak with people, observe their response to your approach and then adjust using these suggestions as a guide to navigate the emotional minefield of performance feedback.

Your Now Step: Think about the people you lead. How do they perceive the world? What are their emotional filters? Use the tips above as a starting point to understand your team. Schedule a feedback meeting with someone on your team within the next 48 hours to practice applying these suggestions.

Recently, I read this statement: “They keep yelling at me that I’m not listening.” I would love to give credit to the person who said it, but I’ve lost the source. I think I saw it as a tweet in my twitter stream. I’m just not sure of that. In any case, I thought it was funny.

Funny? Yes. A good perspective for conflict resolution?  No.

When said in a tongue-in-cheek way while observing the irony, the statement is, at least to me, really funny. When said as a way to escape responsibility,  to  deflect the damage we do to others and to our relationships, or to blame the other person when we fail to listen, the statement reveals a pretty natural consequence of not listening to what others have to say.

In fact, failing to listen actually invites the other person to “yell at you.” Why?

Because failing to listen violates a need almost universally expressed by people in all cultures: the need to be heard and understood. Failing to meet another person’s need — or worse, violating a need — sends a threat signal through the other person’s mind that triggers the conflict escalation cycle.

In Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior Ori and Rom Brafman reference several studies that point to the need to be heard and how it affects people ranging from convicted felons to venture capitalists.

The specifics of the people’s lives and the events they are evaluating are different, and people on both ends of this cultural spectrum report higher levels of satisfaction with events — without regard to the quality of the objective outcomes — when they feel that the other person involved in the situation with them spent time with them and listened to their concerns.

For the prisoners, the other person was their attorney. For the venture capitalists, the other person was running the company where they invested money. Two completely different situations with completely different measures of success, and one primary human need cited as the driving force for satisfaction with the outcome: the need to be heard and understood.

In a previous post, I listed listening as one of Five Ways to Ee-escalate a Conflict. The reason that listening works so well is that it meets a human need. Looking for ways to meet the other person’s needs helps to take the perception of threat out of your interaction so that you can move the conflict towards resolution.

Will listening guarantee conflict resolution? No, it won’t.

Not listening, though, virtually guarantees conflict escalation.

Reversing the course of an escalating conflict is a topic that surfaces frequently in my work with coaching clients and workshop participants. I have received emails, blog comments, and twitter requests for help with this topic. While full treatment of the topic goes beyond what I can completely cover in a single blog post, I thought I would collect what I would consider the most powerful and most universal tips for conflict de-escalation.

In a previous post on why conflicts escalate, I wrote on the perception-anger-behavior pattern that often contributes to conflict escalation. The leverage or trigger point of the pattern that leads conflicts to escalate is the perception part — specifically the perception of threat. That leverage point is the focus of this post.

The big idea to remember when you want to de-escalate a conflict is…

Make yourself non-threatening to the other person.

In the interest of giving you specific steps to accomplish the goal of making yourself non-threatening, I suggest that you…

1. Listen

Listening is a powerful tool. When other people think that you have not listened to their concerns, they will almost invariably see you as a threat.

2. Acknowledge and accept they’re emotions/feelings

Building on the idea of listening, I recommend that you acknowledge and accept the other person’s feelings without passing judgement on them. As I said when I wrote the tongue-in-cheek post about how to make a conflict worse, I don’t recommend telling them how they feel. It is usually okay to ask them how they feel and then to acknowledge it.

3. Apologize for your contribution

This is a point I have made before, and I think it is worth making again: very few conflicts are entirely the fault or responsibility of only one party. There is almost always something that you have done to make the conflict worse. To de-escalate the conflict, accept responsibility for your contribution and apologize for it.

4. Control your tone and body language

A significant portion of the message people receive from you in face-to-face communication is conveyed through your body language and your voice tone. If you look threatening, you are threatening. If you want to de-escalate a conflict, remember to control your tone and body-language.

5. Focus on the future

Getting hung-up in the past is a sure-fire way to make conflicts worse. When you shift the conversation to the future, you engage both you and the other person in a problem solving activity rather than a fault-finding exercise. You create hope, and you make yourself less threatening.

In future posts, I’ll share practical strategies and tips for applying these five ways to de-escalate conflicts. In the meantime, remember the key point, to de-escalate a conflict you need to make yourself non-threatening to the other person.

If you lead others, you are in the change business. When you are in the change business, you will eventually have to deal with resistance to your ideas, the direction you want to go, the new behaviors you are expecting, and more. Dealing with resistance is a normal part of leadership.

When you attempt to create change that involves other people, they will inevitably ask the question: “What’s in it for me?” Until they get a satisfactory answer to that question, the odds that they will stay locked in resistance are pretty high.

In order to transform resistance into acceptance, give people an answer to this question as soon as possible. When you give the answer, deliver it in a way that people see the personal, positive benefits of the change from their perspective.

If you have been reading leadership development resources for any time at all, this concept is probably not new to you. While the idea is not necessarily new, many new leaders fail in their efforts to answer the question effectively for a very simple reason – they fall prey to what behavioral analysts call “perception error.”

Perception error is the tendency most people have of misreading other people’s perspectives and motivations by assuming that other people do things or are motivated by the same things that motivate the leader. For example, I am very factual and data driven. If I am not very careful, I tend to give people far more information than they care about. When I do that, I give them what’s important to me rather than what’s important to them – I fall victim to my own perception error.

The simple solution to this challenge is to match your word choice, tone, pace, level of detail, and energy level to the person receiving the message. When you do this well, you improve the odds that they hear “what’s in it for them” in your message rather than “what’s in it for you.”

Here are some tips to help you do this more effectively:

• Match your vocal pace to theirs. If they tend to speak quickly, then speak quickly. If they speak more slowly, then slow down.
• Use words the they would use. For example…

  If they talk about how they feel about the change. Then talk about feelings and emotions. Make sure you smile and use more stories than facts to relay your vision of the post change situation.

  If they talk about what they think about the change, then talk about thoughts and facts more than about feelings. Stay focused on projected results, data, and value created by the change.

In any case, do the best you can to make the communication clearly state how the change will affect them rather than how it will impact the organization.

Your Now Step:  Think about a change you hope to create within your team. Now, think about a person that you need to communicate with about this change. Do they speak quickly or more methodically? Do they focus on results and facts or emotions and relationships? Practice tailoring your delivery to match them.

At one time, I thought I taught conflict resolution. Over time, I have come to realize that I don’t really teach conflict resolution as much as I teach conflict confidence.

To resolve a conflict, you need the other person’s cooperation. Since you cannot demand or force cooperation, you have no control over how the other person will respond to your efforts. As a result, you cannot single-handedly resolve a conflict. You can, however, learn communication, influence, and conflict resolution skills so that you can confidently engage in a conflict conversation with the hopes of leading to a successful outcome.

As I work with clients and help people work through conflicts, I see lack of confidence as a major impediment to successful conflict resolution. In fact, I see it as a major driver leading people to communicate either too passively or too aggressively. Depending on your natural behavior style, lack of confidence might cause you to go either direction. Assertive communication strategies call for you to respond confidently and calmly in tense situations to preserve relationships and to resolve conflicts.

People who lack conflict confidence tend to either retreat or attack when the pressure hits, and those approaches lead to:

1. Distractions that take the focus off of work that needs to get done
2. High levels of stress and anxiety
3. Lost time as people avoid each other or delay conversations
4. Damaged relationships
5. Reduced esteem for the other party
6. Lack of respect for different viewpoints
7. Distrust of motives and intentions

People with conflict confidence, though, realize that conflict resolution usually lies on the other side of a successful conflict conversation between two people with different viewpoints. They seldom see conflict as a battle between right and wrong. They are able to confidently plan for and engage in the dialogue without attacking the other person or retreating prematurely. As a result, people with conflict confidence….

1. Get more done
2. Feel less stress
3. Save time
4. Have better relationships
5. Are more admired
6. Gain more respect
7. Build deeper trust

As you continue to learn and grow as a leader, I encourage you to develop true conflict confidence so that you can become a conflict rock star.

Last month, my wife created  a miracle. She planned and pulled-off a wedding reception in seven days.

Yes, you read that correctly — seven days from decision to wedding and reception.

Many things happened leading up to the decision, but the simple answer for the question “Why would you do that?” comes down to my daughter’s fiance (now husband) receiving orders to Germany following the completion of his training as an Army medic in March. Since she is a sophomore in college who intends to finish school before joining him permanently in Germany, the break between semesters was the best time for them.

The lessons from the family decision-making process reveal some great communication, conflict resolution, and leadership lessons; and those are stories for other posts on other days. For now, I’m focusing on what happened in the seven days starting December 16th and ending on December 22nd.

We chose to keep things fairly simple, and still it was amazing. There was a wedding dress for the bride, a bridesmaid’s dress for her sister, and a new dress for my wife. There were flowers for the bride, the bridesmaid, and the groom’s best person (his twin sister). There were church sanctuary and fellowship hall decorations. There was a cake. There were heavy hors d’oeuvres chosen to match the first meals as married couples for the new couple, my wife and I, my parents, and my grandparents. There were photographs. There was special music. The beautiful bride (yes, I’m biased) danced with both her husband and her father.

As one friend said, “If you didn’t know the story behind this wedding, you would think you had been planning it for months.”

It was amazing. It was beautiful. And despite the many opportunities to have conflicts and arguments caused by the stress and pressure of the short timeline, everyone came through the process with relationships intact.

At one point during the day of the wedding, another friend asked me how we managed to pull it all together so quickly. I replied: “Some people say this wedding came together in seven days, and it really took fourteen years.”  The comment that came to me spontaneously in response to my friend’s question gets to the learning point of this experience.

You see, we have lived in this rural, Indiana community since 1998. In that time, we have made great friends in churches, businesses, and community organizations throughout the county. We have no immediate family here. We do have great friends.

The wedding reception came together in seven days because of the depth of relationships built up over the course of those fourteen years.

Yes, my wife is great at organizing and delegating. And, her skill would not have mattered without the willing, discretionary effort of the people around her. No amount of ordering and coercing would have gotten the job done. Good will, common focus, and strong relationships did.

The lesson for leaders is this:

To accomplish great things in a short amount of time, invest in relationships before you need something done.

This post would not be complete without saying thank-you to our friends from all over Montgomery County. To us, it doesn’t seem like enough to just say thank-you, and we are so overwhelmed with your generosity, we don’t know what else to say. Thanks.

(If you’d like to see the wedding, there’s a video and pictures at www.adamandlydiawedding.com)