Savannah Savannah has made an increasing number of collection and breath alcohol testing mistakes, several of which have resulted in fatal flaws. You know this, in part, because your largest client called to let you know that Savannah is making mistakes, and they are considering a new collection company. Aſter three years of employment,
Savannah has acquired deep experience and knowledge at your clinic. Tough not stellar, she is your most reliable and well-rounded employee. She’s nice, but your volume has increased as a direct result of the hard work you’ve personally put into growing your business. You can’t afford to lose your largest client, and you cannot afford to have them tell their contacts that they leſt you. Tere is a problem. You must address it.
Alexander Alexander is a donor who has arrived for a random drug screen. He isn’t going to pass, despite his real need to keep his job. He’s been using marijuana. He hands you
a blue specimen. Tere is a problem. You must address it. Yet, most of us will put off addressing it.
When we finally do, the confrontation will be loud, messy, or mean. Te Globis’ (Globis Ltd and PDC
Consulting Ltd 2016) survey 38 Questions reveals some definitive reasons why we don’t like to have these conversations, even though we must. Figure 1 should help you find yourself on the spectrum. With the right techniques, you can keep
necessary confrontations from geting out of control. But how? To handle these thorny situations, we’ll
borrow mainly from Stone, Paton, and Heen’s Difficult Conversations which divides the overarching difficult conversations into three smaller ones; the “What Happened” conversation, the “Feelings” conversation, and the “Identity” Conversation. To beter approach both our employees and our donors, we will cross map those to Miguel Ruiz’ Four Agreements (A Toltec Wisdom Book). Seems odd, I know, these 3s and 4s . . . but bear with me. It will be worth it.
34 datia focus
Figure 1. Top 10 Reasons influencing our choice to have difficult conversations
95% 92% 92% 84% 83% 83% 79% 79% 79% 75%
Agreement 1— Be Impeccable with Your Word (don Miguel Ruiz 1997) As you approach your own difficult conversation, this first agreement stands alone. For Ruiz, this agreement is about what we tell ourselves and how that internal conversation becomes filled with negativity. To avoid speaking badly ABOUT Savannah/Alexander because of this negativity, to be impeccable with our word, we must talk TO them. But to prepare for the difficult conversation, and to take some control over Reasons 2 through 4 in Figure 1, we must consider what we promised Savannah/Alexander, implicitly or explicitly. Stone et. Al. encourages “courageous curiosity”. We must be curious about the nature of the problem, gather information about its scope, and set up a clear meeting time and set of expectations. You’ve already been impeccable. Tat’s
how you’ve grown your clinic’s volume. You promised your customers a set of deliverables and fulfilled them as promised. Except for the errors that Savannah has been making, your lab has provided error-free collections and breath alcohol testing, swiſtly completed and effectively documented, all in accordance with the appropriate regulations. Does Savannah know that she’s been doing something wrong? Any expert on
feedback will tell you that nothing in an official employee review should be a surprise, so first consider what you have, or haven’t, told Savannah about her performance. And what do we say to Alexander? Collectors are people first, and they may have some personal reactions to his altered test. Tey will need to filter those out despite their curiousity. Ruiz’ advice to be impeccable with your word when partnered with Stone’s courageous curiosity for Savannah/Alexander sets you up to crossmap the three conversations and the four agreements (Stone et al., 2010) that serve as a strong foundation for productive, difficult conversations.
The “What Happened” Conversation | The Agreement to Assume Nothing As you atempt to be impeccable with your word for Savannah/Alexander, abandon any conversation about who is right or wrong. Tere may be a right or wrong, especially in your conversations with some donors, but, in almost all cases, it doesn’t pay to pursue that line of thought. Most of us work against our good
conversations from the outset. According to Stone et al., 2010, “. . . we make an atribution about another person’s intentions based upon the impact of their actions on us.” Similarly, Ruiz indicates that we should, “find the courage to ask questions and to
spring 2018
Self Esteem damage (theirs) Causing upset
Stress (for the other person) Expectations weren't clear enough Want to be seen as "people person" Issues unaddressed for too long Possible angry response Damage to the relationship
The effort required to see the issue . . . Hadn't gathered sufficient evidence
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
