Be Bulletproof

by James Brooke

  Research has repeatedly shown that we are likely to over-attribute the behaviour that we observe in others to their character or personality (what psychologists call their ‘disposition’). Evidence also shows that once we have formed a judgement we fairly stubbornly convince ourselves that we are right. When people are confronted with hard evidence that this thinking error is very common, they tend to recognise it and agree – but nonetheless believe that it applies to others and, in spite of this, their personal judgements remain true.55

  Even well-recognised personality profiling tools, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, measure dimensions of personality that are not in reality particularly stable at all. On immediate re-testing, a fifth of people discover that their personality type has apparently changed and, over a longer period, two-thirds of people show different results when re-tested.56

  Whatever feedback you need to give, your mind has probably started to explain the phenomenon in terms of the other person’s disposition; far better to leave this explanation where it is: in your mind.

  Not only is there a fair probability that you are mistaken, remember that the recipient of the feedback is hard-wired to preserve self-esteem. If you relate the gap that you are describing to causes stemming from the other person’s disposition, you only leave that person two options: defend or counter-attack. A counter-attack may be open or in the form of surly passive-aggressive behaviour. Either way, the other person is not listening and you therefore have not achieved your objective.

  Now, you may accidentally stray into a ‘dispositional’ feedback or you may be wise enough not to, but the recipient of the feedback may react defensively or aggressively, even though your feedback has been exemplary. Remember, we all put our own interpretations on what is happening, and the recipient of your feedback is no different. If he feels under personal attack, he is not listening. You need to act. You need to step in to assure the recipient that his sense of self-esteem isn’t under threat in this conversation.

  The best tactic is to reassure him that the issue is not about him personally, it is about the situation as you see it and the behaviour that will be needed from him to fix the situation, for example, ‘My sole concern here is that Project X, as I see it, is off-track. It’s your area of accountability, so I want to work with you to fix the situation.’

  Again, the law of reciprocity may help here. If you accept in some small way you may have contributed to the situation – perhaps you weren’t sufficiently clear about expectations in the past – you will take some of the heat out of the situation.

  Another useful tactic is to reassure the other person of your positive intentions by reaffirming your commitment to a common interest. Be prepared to do this at any time. Examples of this approach are: ‘I’m having this conversation with you because I want us to have the best possible working relationship’; or, ‘I’m having this conversation with you because I want your project to be as successful as it can possibly be.’

  While feedback in the moment is generally best, if feelings are still heightened following an incident it is wise to wait until the intensity of the moment has passed. Sports psychologists typically recommend that coaches do not give feedback immediately after a failure or defeat.

  Sports psychologist Julie Douglas, from Loughborough University, also points out that praise is important in boosting self-confidence. As Julie points out, once people have willingly accepted our praise they more readily accept our criticism. After all, the sole purpose of giving feedback is to improve performance. While the recipient of some negative feedback has digested the impact and had a moment to reflect, you might want to refer to something done well to remind the individual that he or she does have the capacity to perform and turn things around, for example, ‘Look, remember that piece of work that you did on Project XYZ. That piece of analysis was really well researched. That’s the sort of thing that I would like to see more of.’ But, of course, never use praise purely as a precursor to criticism.

  Preserving self-esteem does not mean that you can – or should – keep the other person unceasingly feeling good or happy. It is also worth pointing out that you can’t prevent somebody from feeling a temporary ‘low’ following negative or critical feedback. This is an inevitable part of the mind and body’s physiological response to negative feedback. If you are witnessing this response, it is likely that the feedback has been received. It is often wise to allow the other person to go through this cycle of emotions before moving the conversation forward to solutions. And, yes, you may have to be okay with being temporarily not liked.

  Summary

  Do not criticise – or make assumptions about – the other person’s disposition or character

  Stick to talking about the behaviour as you see it

  Be prepared to assure the other person at any time that he or she is not under attack

  Remind the other person why it feels so important to you to have this conversation: the commitment to a common interest

  Be clear about what you are asking for

  Astrid asked for our help with a particularly difficult conversation that she needed to have with one of her team, Thomas. When asked what the aim of conversation was, she explained that she wanted to make it clear to Thomas that she was not happy with his attitude. When asked to be more specific, Astrid continued, ‘I want him to realise the effect that his behaviour has on the rest of the team, and ask him to cut it out … come to work with a different attitude.’

  You can probably figure how the conversation will go, and you can probably spot the crucial piece that is missing. And yet, when giving negative or critical feedback, we frequently put the entire focus on communicating what we are unhappy with, and give little thought to precisely what it is that we would prefer to see instead. The term we use is ‘clear request’.

  A clear request requires you to describe what it is that you would like to actually see happening as clearly as if you were able to sit and view it on a screen.

  Frequently employees receive performance reviews that exhort them to: be more proactive; be more of a team player; show more initiative; show a more positive attitude. However, in the case that we referred to at the start of this chapter, Joe only started to make progress with Francis when he described what he would be seeing if he was confident that good progress was being made on the assignment. For example, Francis would come to him with progress updates on the project every Friday. It was a small thing but it started to paint a picture for Francis of what was in Joe’s mind. It transpired that Joe ultimately created a role for Francis that played very much more to his strengths, but the honest communication between them meant that the relationship was salvaged.

  Dr Tim Rees takes it further. Dr Rees is a researcher and Senior Lecturer in Sports Psychology at the University of Exeter, and he has pioneered research into helplessness and the effect that this has on performance. His persuasive thesis is that, for feedback to work, the recipient needs to feel confident that he or she is in control of the factors that are required to bring about an improvement. ‘Perceptions of control,’ he says, ‘have a big impact on how people interpret failure. If you can find areas that you can control, if someone can help you to understand the aspects were within your control, improvement is likely to follow.’

  But of course, as Dr Rees points out, the flip side is also true. ‘If a coach or leader leaves you with the impression that there is no way to get better, you won’t get better.’

  Negative feedback is vital to performance, but in isolation it is unlikely to bring about improvement. The focus must be on both the shortcoming and also the possibility of improvement and the specific actions – within the control of the recipient – that will make a difference.57

  In Francis’s case, deep down he knew that he simply did not have the technical expertise to engage with contractors on the technical aspects of the specific assignment. Because this was not going to change, he took his solace by creating an alternative explanation of what
was happening. He responded to helplessness by deluding himself. When Joe was able eventually to confront him with reality, progress was made by focusing on the factors which were under Francis’s control, such as the quality of communication, the timeliness of reports and the accuracy of information.

  If you have not described clearly and objectively what these would look like to you, you can hardly complain if you do not see an improvement. Your clear and specific request may not be the right answer. You may have to listen and develop the best solution together. But if you are giving feedback you need to have thought through ‘what “good” looks like’, and focus on things that are within the other person’s sphere of control.

  Summary

  Too often we leave people with the message that we want to see a change, but we fail to articulate what that change looks like

  If you have a clear picture in your head of what ‘good’ looks like, be prepared to describe it to the other person

  Think of it this way: if the two of you were looking at a screen into the future, what would you want to actually see happening on that screen

  Focus on specific aspects of improvement that are within the other person’s sphere of control or influence

  Navigate the landmines and pitfalls

  Honest-feedback conversations have a nasty habit of taking you in a direction that you did not intend. Before the conversation, you have a clear sense of where you intend to reach by the end of the conversation, and a plan to get there, but nonetheless you come away from the conversation feeling, ‘Now, that’s not what I intended to happen.’

  Preparation is vital, but you also need a toolkit of techniques to deal with the unexpected in the moment. Here are some of the common pitfalls and some of the tactics that we have found useful:

  Disappearing into the specifics

  People often feel that they go in with a specific example to illustrate their point and then they end up disappearing into a rabbit-hole of detail about it. If the aim is solely to discuss a specific incident, no problem, but much of the time it isn’t: it is a pattern or repeated issue that concerns you and the discussion about details misses the point about the bigger picture.

  A good way to avoid getting bogged down in the detail of a specific incident is to acknowledge the incident, without dwelling on it, for example, ‘Francis missed the meeting.’ Point out that, to you, it seems that it is part of a pattern, and then move on to the likely effect of the pattern. The crucial thing is the effect that this is having on you and on the project as a whole.

  Joe may have said to Francis, ‘Francis, it’s not just about what happened last Monday … it feels to me like it’s part of a pattern, but the real issue here is that this is having an effect on our relationship, the project and the team.’

  Arguing like two lawyers

  In business, we are encouraged to evaluate situations as objectively as possible. Before an honest-feedback conversation, you gather your objective evidence to back up the points that you intend to make.

  The problem with this approach is that you are not attempting to persuade a jury; you are attempting to engage with and convince another person. Most of us are not readily convinced by evidence alone, especially when our self-esteem may be under threat. As screenwriter Robert McKee points out, when people listen to evidence it tends to encourage them to search out evidence to counter the points that they are hearing. You may well have had the experience that you go into a conversation with a document chest full of evidence, but, rather than convince, it invites the other person to put up even more evidence to the contrary.

  If evidence has not worked, it can be very effective to explain how things feel subjectively from your point of view, for example, ‘When I see this happen …, I feel …’ This is because no one can dispute your subjective feeling. It is okay to tell someone how you feel about a situation, as long as you acknowledge that it is your subjective feeling. And by the way, keep it to: when I see xyz, I feel abc.

  Joe might, for example, say to Francis, ‘When I get a call to say, “Where’s Francis? He didn’t show up at the meeting,” I feel concerned and I find myself questioning how committed you are to the project.’

  The feedback boomerang

  You intend to give somebody some honest feedback, but she seems to take the cue that it is open season on giving straight-talking feedback, and it turns out that she has some home truths for you. In fact, when you come away from the conversation, far from delivering your message effectively, you find yourself distinctly on the back foot. Sound familiar?

  The feedback boomerang is a difficult one to deal with. If you listen with an open mind, you soon find yourself losing control of the agenda, and you fail to meet your objective in the conversation. If you don’t, then how can you possibly ask another person to listen openly to what you have to say?

  The solution is to agree to listen generously to the other person’s feedback but make it contingent on him doing you the courtesy of listening to yours first, for example, ‘Francis, I am more than happy to listen to any feedback that you have for me and I will fix up a conversation to do that, but I first need to feel confident that you have heard and understood my concerns about xyz. Is that fair?’

  Agree to make the discussion of their feedback a separate conversation. You may meet resistance, but stick with it. Consider phrases like: ‘I appreciate that your feedback to me is also important, but I would like to keep the two things separate. Right now I have asked that we talk about XYZ.’

  The defensive-aggressive reaction

  It can sometimes seem that some people just refuse to take feedback, they stubbornly refuse to take advice on board or acknowledge that they may have a failing.

  You prepare carefully; you choose your words judiciously, and deliver them tactfully. You even visualise the conversation going well in your mind – but the recipient of your feedback responds with defensive aggression. You feel as though you have made a mess of the conversation, but this is not necessarily so. Remember you alone control what you do in a conversation. You do not control what you get back. Your behaviour is not the sole factor that influences the other person’s response. All conversations have a broader context. There will be a range of other factors at play, and your role in the conversation is only one.

  Remember the importance of self-esteem and the extent to which people will go in order to preserve it. A defensive-aggressive reaction is often a temporary short-term, self-esteem-protecting measure. It is neither wrong nor dysfunctional. Pushing your message further is likely to heighten this reaction. A self-esteem-protecting reaction will be particularly likely if the individual is feeling under pressure or if things have not been going his way.

  People often ask what they should say. Quite often what people ultimately do with the feedback and how they react in the heat of the moment can be two very different things. Beyond making your point and ensuring the person recognises that you are not intending to attack their self-esteem, it is often wise not to say anything, but to let the moment pass and let the message settle. Just because somebody appears to reject your message in the heat of the moment, it does not mean that the message has not landed and it does not mean that the other person will not act.

  A useful technique, if you want to set the right climate at the start of a meeting, is to remember that people have an inbuilt tendency to behave in the way in which we indicate that we expect them to behave. This is sometimes known as giving them a reputation to live up to. If Joe says to Francis, ‘Look, Francis, I know you are the sort of guy who likes people to be straight and direct with their feedback,’ Francis is likely to agree. What’s more, he is, therefore, more likely to display this behaviour during the conversation.

  We recommend something similar at the end of a conversation, along the lines of: ‘I want to say thank you for being good enough to hear me out and take it on the chin.’ Regardless of how the individual has acted in reality, he is inclined to identify positively with your desc
ription of what just happened, and to behave accordingly.

  Summary

  Don’t get bogged down in the detail of a specific incident

  Refer to the incident and then swiftly move on to the fact that you see it as a pattern and that pattern has an effect

  If you are stuck arguing over evidence, subjectively state how you feel

  Agree to listen to feedback in a separate conversation, provided that you feel you have been heard and understood

  CHAPTER 10

  BULLETPROOF REINFORCEMENT

  Bulletproof your mind through your body

  REMEMBER THAT YOUR body has feelings, too. The stress engendered by feeling that you’re under attack takes a physical, as well as psychological, toll.

  We’ve talked in this book about how being bulletproof involves deflecting attacks, rather than meeting them head on, and about how wearing a metaphorical silk shirt that will allow you to remove the arrows works more effectively that wearing a professional suit of armour. This less confrontational approach offers physical, as well as psychological, well-being.

  In one study,58 255 medical students were questioned to establish their level of cynical hostility. When the group was revisited 25 years later, it was discovered that the most hostile were five times more likely to have suffered heart disease and general cardiac problems than those who were less hostile.

  Research by Peter Borkenau, from Bielefeld University, indicates that the way in which we physically move can have a significant effect on our state of mind, with happy people showing a tendency to move in a distinct way, characterised by a more relaxed gait, swing of the arms and more animated hand movements.

  Try this out as an experiment: spend a couple of hours moving as a highly relaxed and happy person would move; become aware of how this affects your state of mind. If it works well for you, as it appears to do for most people, remember that you have the option of slipping into this mode of movement every time you want to give your happiness a top up. Who knows? You might just find yourself moving in this way as a habit.