I am a very direct individual. I struggle to work with anyone who is not direct, who is conflict-avoidant, and who does not speak up to ensure we work together effectively. Trying to make it safe for people like this feels like coddling and a waste of time. I think it’s good to learn skills to speak up, but I don’t see the benefit in placating to people who are insecure or introverted or both. Am I missing something?

Signed,
Direct

Dear Direct,

It depends on what you want. It may be true that it’s more efficient in the moment to be “very direct” and not try to make it safe for everyone to share their perspective, but virtually all the research in interpersonal communication suggests that kind of approach can be inefficient in the long run.

If you’re not communicating in a way the invites others into the conversation, the result may be tacit agreement in the moment, then later gossip, complaining, distrust, lack of engagement, and a host of other organizational illnesses that kill your culture. The dialogue skills we teach are much like any other good habit: they require effort, but they lead to better outcomes.

I’m not trying to persuade you. I’m simply sharing what the research shows. Maybe you want to conduct your own experiment and see if anything changes. Here are some tweaks to consider trying.

Examine Your View of Honesty

I get the sense that you think your approach is not a problem, but I want to challenge that assumption. I realize it can be easier to say exactly what you’re thinking and feeling instead of filtering your thoughts and comments, but reflecting on the impact of your directness may make you that much more effective. The good news is you don’t have to sacrifice honesty for another person’s feelings. You can keep both in view.

People often think honesty and respect are on a continuum—with respect on one end and honesty on the other. We assume we need to choose one or the other in our crucial interactions.

Here is what we know from studying such interactions for the last 30 years: the best don’t view honesty and respect as opposites. The best focus on communicating with 100% honesty and 100% respect.

So, the question I invite you to reflect on is this: Is your directness also respectful? Or is there the chance you sometimes sacrifice respect in your effort to be direct?

The Myth of “Brutal Honesty”

I’m not sure if this is accurate, but I worry that your “directness” may not be as respectful as you think. I think it’s important to note that being direct has nothing to do with being angry, hurtful, mean, or with “letting off steam.”

I’ve worked with dozens of people who say, “Justin, I’m just brutally honest—it’s just my personality.” I worry that these people care more about being brutal than about being honest. Being honest and direct is about being clear, specific, sincere, and authentic. So, you don’t have to be rude or short to be direct. You do need to state the observable facts of the situation and your perspective about those facts.

It’s dishonest to express our opinions as facts, which is what we often do in crucial moments. Conversely, it’s honest to recognize and make it clear that our opinions are just that—opinions. It’s also honest to recognize that more than one opinion exists and that other perspectives may be more accurate than ours. And those are facts. The model I use for starting even the toughest conversations is this:

• Share your facts
• Tell your story (opinion)
• Ask for others’ perspectives

Being “direct,” as you state, is fine so long as it’s not filled with a raised voice, labels, or overstated opinions. Directness contributes to the discussion when it’s filled with facts, observations, and opinions shared as opinions.

Lift Others, Don’t Placate to Them

The people who you think are not being direct may be so pre-occupied with their need to be nice that they are too light on honesty. But it also may be true that they don’t feel safe to speak up because of how direct you are. Most leaders I know who have this habit aren’t aware they have it. They see themselves as bold defenders of truth, while everyone else sees them as overbearing steamrollers.

There’s a hilarious episode of The Office where the uber-confident salesperson Robert California tells Jim, who is reticent to speak openly, that “The fallacy is that [psychological safety] is up to the steamroller. [In truth] it is up to the object whether it will be flattened or not.”

Wow! The implication is that it’s up to others to stand up to the person doing the steamrolling.

While it’s true that we are responsible for our own sense of psychological safety, it’s also true that when we feel threatened or disrespected, our tendency is to fight, flee, or freeze. Not taking responsibility for safety in a dialogue would be like not taking responsibility for safety on a tandem bicycle. If even one person doesn’t care about the safety of everyone involved, it can lead to disastrous results.

So, you can make it easier for people to speak up by asking for their opinions before expressing yours. And then when it’s time to talk, don’t overstate your opinions. Start with observable facts, then share your interpretation of the facts, then invite others to respond.

Justin

The post Why Should I Cater to People Who are Afraid to Speak Their Mind? appeared first on Crucial Learning.

When I facilitate certification courses, I hear soon-to-be-trainers say something like, “Once I get to know this stuff, I’ll feel much better and do a much better job training.”

I reply, “Maybe.”

A decade ago, I partnered with a client to test an updated version of one of our courses. The client provided an audience of learners and two trainers to help us test the new course. One of the trainers had been training the course for a few years, but the other trainer had only recently been certified—she’d never actually trained it.

Her first time training the course would be training this updated version, which she’d never seen. To her credit, she didn’t hesitate to try.

So, I was sitting in the back of the room, observing this new course being tested, as the experienced trainer and novice trainer cotaught the course. The experienced trainer looked very relaxed and told lengthy stories. He was as “cool as the other side of the pillow.”

The new trainer seemed a little nervous, and she didn’t have long stories. She simply clicked through each slide and read what was on the screen. Her delivery wasn’t flowery or complicated.

I observed something that surprised the me. When the experienced trainer set up an exercise, learners looked around confused and raised their hands asking for clarification. He was consistently behind time when he handed the class off to his co-trainer. He had a lot of ideas and nuances and examples (from his years working with the content), and he wanted to impart as much as he could.

On the other hand, the new trainer simply followed the script—but people didn’t have questions, and they weren’t confused. Being a novice resulted in clarity. When she trained, the class went smoothly, and the learners had a superior experience.

I’ve seen this happen dozens of times over the past 15 years of observing and teaching trainers. And so I started giving new trainers this advice: Don’t let what you know get in the way of your people learning what they don’t know.

It turns out that a deep understanding of course content can turn into:

• Overdrawn explanations
• Excessive examples and stories
• Teaching key concepts out of order
• Slow learning pace
• Confusion rather than clarity
• Muddled ideas and watered down insights
• A presentation about you rather than for learners

We tend to vilify doubt and exalt certainty. But maybe what we need as trainers is less certainty and more fidelity to the content. After all, the skills and principles are what change lives and transform organizations. We are simply here to facilitate that.

So don’t be afraid to read the slides, especially when it comes to instructions for exercises and introductions to videos.

I’ve been fortunate to codesign our courses and draft much of what you see on the screen, and to this day I still read almost every slide verbatim when facilitating. I don’t have learners complaining that I seem robotic or scripted. They feel like things are clear! And when there’s time and opportunity to share a story or a joke or an example, I get to freelance—I get to be me, use my personality.

Let’s go back to when we knew less than we do now—not to regress, but to progress in our efforts to facilitate powerful learning experiences. Going back to simplicity may be the next step forward to greater impact.

The post Your Problem May Be that You Know Too Much appeared first on Crucial Learning.

I have a coworker that I just can’t stand. He is good at his job, but I struggle to get along with him because he is so opinionated and narrow-minded. He has an opinion about everything and can’t fathom any other viewpoint. I’d rather go to the dentist than be in a meeting with him. What am I supposed to do? Should I have a conversation with him about it or just let it go?

Signed,
Exasperated

Dear Exasperated,

I’m sorry you have to deal with this. We’ve all been there and it’s no fun. I want to give you some possible solutions and challenge some of your assumptions.

As I see it, here are your options.

Change your view. If you enjoy your work and are happy with it aside from your interactions with this person, it might be best to change your view of him, even just a little. Let me ask you: has anyone ever given you feedback that you were narrowminded or strong-willed or too wedded to your opinions? Think hard. Maybe a friend, a spouse, a neighbor, a family member. The truth is that the person you are describing is ALL of us, at least sometimes. And he’s some of us ALL the time.

Change yourself. What are some things you can do to model the behaviors you want to see in this coworker? Are you doing anything to enable the behaviors you despise? We often don’t see how we are contributing to our own pain.

Change the person. I don’t really mean “change” him, but influence him with dialogue. You might say something like this: “Hey, Gary. I wanted to chat with you about something that’s getting in the way of us working well together. And that’s important to me. There’s a pattern that looks like this: you and I disagree. I share my opinion. You cut me off with your opinion. You don’t ask me questions about what I think but continue to advocate your side. For example, in the last four budget meetings, you haven’t changed your stance once from your initial position. This comes off like you’re not open to other views. What are your thoughts on these situations?”

Change your situation. Maybe you should consider working somewhere else (or with different people in your organization). I don’t mean to be insensitive, but depending on the degree of frustration you’re feeling, it’s helpful to know this is an option. I’m not saying it’s easy or that you should do it, but that you should try to keep the most proactive attitude you can. If you don’t like the situation and can’t change it, maybe it’s time to leave it.

Gossip and Stew. This is the option that most people choose. They endlessly complain about this frustrating coworker. They make subtle, but sarcastic comments in meetings. They stew in silence. They vent to the boss. And on and on. It’s an option. 🙂

I’ve come to the conclusion that we all have to interact with people in our lives who annoy us. For some of us it’s coworkers, others it’s a neighbor, and for some it’s family. Either way, be honest about your options. Don’t paint yourself as a victim, because that just leaves you stuck in the same place. Consider your options and decide your next actions. Nothing is more annoying than staying in the same situation (that you hate) forever.

Justin

The post Working with Someone You Just Can’t Stand appeared first on Crucial Learning.

My supervisor says that she uses the skills taught in Crucial Conversations. However, she always starts a “Crucial Conversation” by being abrasive and making false accusations. She will say she is seeking the truth through dialogue, but then she sticks to her false accusations and disregards attempts to shed light on the matter. I now have a horrible impression of Crucial Conversations, but something tells me she must not be using the process correctly. What am I missing?

Signed,
Disillusioned

Dear Disillusioned,

You’re not missing anything. You are spot on. It seems your manager is not using the skills correctly. It sounds as though she is mistaking holding a Crucial Conversation for holding an effective Crucial Conversation. Most people go about their days having Crucial Conversations all the time, but that doesn’t mean they’re handling them well.

A Crucial Conversation is simply one in which stakes are high, opinions vary, and emotions run strong. A Crucial Conversation held well is one in which each party feels safe to share their perspective and can do so respectfully despite the crucial conditions. Our experience and research show that handling Crucial Conversations well results in better decisions, better results, and improved relationships.

In your short question, there are some common mistakes in using Crucial Conversations skills that I want to address.

Don’t mistake abrasiveness for honesty. It’s common for people to avoid being “too honest” for fear it will hurt another’s feelings. We call this the fool’s choice—the belief that we must choose between being honest or respectful, but that we can’t be both. This error is based on a misunderstanding about what it means to be honest. Being honest has nothing to do with being angry, hurtful, mean, or “letting off steam,” and showing those emotions has nothing to do with honesty. Being honest is about expressing what you think. Honesty is about being specific and direct, not angry. Being mad doesn’t make someone more authentic. So, you don’t have to raise your voice to be honest. But if you want to communicate honestly when emotions run strong, you do need skills to state the observable facts of the situation as facts and to share your perspective as perspective.

Avoid accusations, but don’t hold back from sharing your stories. You mentioned your boss’s tendency to accuse. Many accusations stem from people’s perceptions about why someone is doing what they are doing, which are grounded in stories about a person’s motives. This can result in accusations like “You’re always late,” or “You never care,” or “Your department is a joke when it comes to on-time delivery.” Instead, we teach you should share your concerns as YOUR concerns, not as irrefutable facts. The beliefs about a person’s motives are your story. So, share your story as a story, not as a fact. Try saying things like, “The last three meetings you’ve been late and I’m wondering about how important this is to you,” or “When you don’t speak up in the meetings, it seems like the topic isn’t interesting to you.”

Focus on psychological safety, not comfort. I’m guessing the way your boss talks makes you feel uncomfortable. But does it also make you feel unsafe? The term psychological safety is used a lot today, and it’s important. But I think many people mischaracterize what it means. Promoting psychological safety doesn’t mean to make people feel comfortable. It means helping them trust your intent—and having good intent—as you engage in a Crucial Conversation. Hearing someone’s honest perspective isn’t always comfortable, but it shouldn’t be demoralizing. There is a difference between feeling comfortable and feeling safe. If a person can’t handle feeling uncomfortable in conversations, they will be limited in life. We all face uncomfortable conversations where safety remains intact. Psychological safety is threatened when people or their viewpoints are disrespected or disregarded.

It takes time to get good at holding Crucial Conversations effectively. I think most people would agree it’s one of those things you work on your entire life. Maybe your supervisor recently attended a course or read the book and has newfound confidence to speak her mind but still has a lot of work to do in developing the skills, which is different than knowing what the skills are. The best way to know would be to learn, study, and practice the skills yourself. I think this would not only improve your impression of Crucial Conversations, but also your relationship with your supervisor and your ability to communicate with her.

Good luck,
Justin

The post When Someone Thinks They’re Good at Talking but They’re Not appeared first on Crucial Learning.

During the development, I spent many hours diving into the most credible social science research about why people do what they do. As I reviewed the literature, I gained fresh insights about familiar content that I’ve been teaching for nearly 15 years.

One insight relates to how leaders think about skill building, perhaps best expressed by the following quote: “I know how to golf. I can’t golf.” You may have to read that statement twice because it sounds like a contradiction.

But the message is this: knowledge is not the same as skill. Knowledge is about what you know; skill is about what you can do. Knowledge is important, but if you are trying to help humans change their behavior, they must have the skill to do it. For us as learning leaders, how many important things do our people KNOW but can’t DO?

The psychologist Anders Ericsson is famous for his decades of work studying high performance. He offers an interesting interpretation of how highly skilled people get there, an approach he calls “deliberate practice.” For instance, Ericsson describes how dedicated figure skaters practice differently on the ice: Olympic hopefuls work on skills they have yet to master. Club skaters, in contrast, work on skills they’ve already mastered. Amateurs tend to spend half their time at the rink texting with friends and not practicing. Skaters who spend the same number of hours on the ice achieve very different results.

Ericsson found that no matter the field of expertise, when it comes to elite ability, there is no correlation between time in the profession and performance levels. But there is a correlation between deliberate practice and high performance.

A veteran brain surgeon with twenty years’ experience is not likely to be any more skilled than a five-year rookie by virtue of time on the job. Any difference between the two has little to do with years of experience and everything to do with deliberate practice. For example, surgeons who receive detailed feedback against a known standard develop far more rapidly than colleagues who repeatedly practice the same old methods.

Certainly, time is required (most elite performers in fields like music composition, dance, fiction writing, chess, and basketball put in ten or more years), but time is not the critical variable for mastery. The critical variable is time wisely spent.

Here are some of the key elements of deliberate practice that you and I need to better implement into our learning and development efforts:

Break It Down
Don’t try to practice dozens of skills at once. Focus on practicing a small part of a larger competency.

Give Full Attention
It’s better to practice for 45 minutes with no distractions than 90 minutes of semi-focused practice. Do short, intense sessions.

Go Just Beyond Current Ability
The sweet spot for improvement is a condition of mild stress. Too much stress shuts down learning, too little stress shuts down attention.

Get Feedback
Immediately after a practice session, have a coach tell you what went well and what to do differently. Then practice again.

Crucial Influence has been redesigned with this research in mind. The new course is clearer and more efficient and has been redesigned to help leaders at all levels—from new managers to top executives—solve the challenges they face.

Our job as learning and development leaders is to help people acquire skills (not just learn cool insights). I hope you find our new leadership course and the new trainer materials helpful as you help others improve their lives and organizations.

The post I Know How to Play Golf; I Can’t Play Golf—And Other Insights on Influence appeared first on Crucial Learning.

Each day I plan to complete three major tasks, three thirty-minute tasks, and a few five- to ten-minute tasks. I can squeeze in some five- to ten-minute tasks in between my major tasks, but now my thirty-minute tasks have piled up because they never make it to the top of my list. What should I do?

Signed,
Unbalanced

Dear Unbalanced,

This is only a problem if the work you decided to do is less important than the work you postponed or neglected. If that’s the case, then we need to discuss how you got sucked into working on less important stuff. But if you did the more important work, then you shouldn’t be too stressed. Even well-balanced productive people have to-dos they are NOT doing at any given moment. The key is to feel good about those to-dos that aren’t getting done.

For example, as I write this article, I estimate I have ninety to one hundred to-dos I am NOT doing. And I feel totally fine, totally present. Why? Because I know exactly what those to-dos are, I have them inventoried, and I’ve deliberately deemed them less important than writing this response to you.

Here are some things you can do to achieve this feeling yourself.

Keep an Inventory

Most people keep an inventory of every commitment they’ve made in their heads. Get ALL of those agreements and to-dos out of your head and onto paper or a device so they’re visible and you can manage them. A thorough inventory improves your ability to judge what’s important and what’s not because you can see how each task relates to your goals and priorities. Remember, you can only feel at peace with what you’re not doing when you have a clear inventory of everything you’re not doing.

Check the Right Stuff First

When you start your day, look at your calendar and task lists before you dive into emails or messages. Don’t get caught in the latest and loudest. Start by getting clear on what’s most important. I’m guessing that most of your thirty-minute tasks are more important than those five-minute tasks.

Shun the Latest and Loudest

Just because something seems urgent, doesn’t mean it should take precedence over your thirty-minute tasks. Learn to turn off your email and shut your door when it’s time to do those longer tasks. Those may seem like menial tips, but the impact can be massive.

Plan for Surprises

Urgent and unexpected requests are inevitable. So why not make time for them? Block a small amount of time every day or every other day for responding to the latest and loudest, and don’t respond outside of that allotted time.

Have a Crucial Conversation

For every task or agreement you’ve committed to, you only have three choices: do it, don’t do it, or renegotiate the commitment. If you are legitimately doing the right stuff at the right times and still aren’t completing tasks on time, then you need to have a renegotiation conversation with those who are counting on you. I love what my mentor David Allen said, “Organizations must create a culture in which it is acceptable that everyone has more to do than he or she can do, and in which it is sage to renegotiate agreements about what everyone is not doing.”

Trust me, there is no one on earth who gets it all done. You need to decide how you want to feel about having more than you realistically can do. Conflicting priorities and finite time are the reality of life. Your ability to be more productive with less stress depends on what you do to manage that reality.

Sincerely,
Justin

The post 5 Tips to Better Balance Your Workload appeared first on Crucial Learning.

Why People Get Defensive

People rarely become defensive because of what you say; they become defensive because of why they think you are saying it.

The topic being discussed is usually not the issue, it’s a person’s perception of your intent that drives their response. Their perception hinges on two axes: do they believe you care about what they care about, and do they believe you care about (or respect) them. These are what I like to call the “ingredients” to psychological safety. Unfortunately, if a person has been surrounded for years by others who don’t respect them or their viewpoints, they may seem to “be on the defensive” all the time.

At the outset of a Crucial Conversation the other person is assessing whether you mean them harm and whether are you capable of carrying out that harm. If you don’t make it clear that you respect them and have good motives, they will likely assume the worst—they will perceive you as a threat.

When people feel psychologically unsafe and threatened, they resort to silence or verbal violence. Their fight-or-flight response kicks in and the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for rational and deliberate thinking, takes a back seat to the amygdala, the instinctive part of the brain concerned with survival.

We’ve all experienced this: we feel attacked, and then we act like a complete moron in an important moment, though we feel like we’re acting brilliantly. When we look back on the moment after having calmed down, we often wonder, “What in the world was I thinking?” The truth is this: you weren’t thinking very hard, you were just trying to protect yourself.

When people feel unsafe, they focus on the threat and their motives become short-term. They are likely to get defensive, and this can make them appear short-sighted and selfish, which can evoke more defensiveness (or attacking) and an escalated response.

There are some mental disorders that can contribute to defensiveness too, but I’m not an expert in that area.

How to Respond When People Get Defensive

1. Don’t blame the problem on the topic. The topic is not the problem, the problem is that the other person doesn’t trust your intent to talk about the topic. Focus on making your good intent clear. And if your intent isn’t good—to dialogue with respect for the other person and their goals/viewpoints—then you have a whole other problem that has nothing to do with the other person. (See “Start with Heart” in the book or training.)
2. Clarify your good intent with a statement that shows you care for the other person and their goals and perspectives. Statements like “I know we both want to have a great holiday as a family” or “I know we don’t agree, but I want you to know that I respect you as a person, no matter what you believe” can help create a sense of safety to talk.
3. Make it clear through your actions that your heart is in the right place. I like what the late Stephen Covey used to say: You can’t talk yourself out of something you’ve acted yourself into. No amount of “we share the same goals” or “I care about you” will foster safety if your actions say the opposite. So, it’s important that your actions say “I care about your goals and perspectives” or “I care about you.”

Yes, there are times when you can defuse defensiveness and restore safety in a single interaction, but for longstanding relationships it’s often something built (or destroyed) with little actions over time.

The post Why People Get Defensive and What You Can Do about It appeared first on Crucial Learning.

What can you do if you’ve had successful Crucial Conversations with the same person several times but the behavior persists? We discuss the issues, the conversation goes well, but they never change. How should I handle the next Crucial Conversation, which may be around the corner?

Signed,
Merry-Go-Round

Dear Merry,

You’re suffering from what I like to call Crucial Conversations “Groundhog Day.” If this is an unfamiliar reference, I encourage you to watch the 1993 classic movie starring Bill Murray.

The main character, Phil, lives out the same day hundreds of times until he handles the day in the right way. Having to repeat your Crucial Conversations can be torturous, and yet the lesson is the same. If you’re having the same conversation repeatedly, the problem is not them—it’s you. You’re having the wrong conversation.

The moment you open your mouth to hold a Crucial Conversation, you’ve already decided what to talk about. And one of the biggest mistakes we make is assuming that, because we’re talking, we must be solving the problem. It’s not that simple. If you’re not addressing the RIGHT issue, you’ll end up holding the same conversation over and over again.

Here’s the skill you need: CPR.

It’s stands for Content, Pattern, Relationship. There are three levels to consider when holding a Crucial Conversation. The first relates to content—C. Content refers to the immediate pain or single instance of the problem. But one mistake we often make is to talk about content long after content is the problem. It’s like pulling off the head of a weed and thinking we have gotten to the root of the matter.

If the problem has progressed beyond content, the “weed” will just keep coming back until we address the root issues. These deeper issues often involve a pattern, the P of CPR. The problem isn’t what recently happened, but rather that what recently happened is just one instance of a pattern. It’s been happening for a while.

Finally, there are relationship issues—the R. These are often the most difficult kind of Crucial Conversation to hold and the ones we typically avoid. You know you must address a relationship issue when things like trust and respect have been negatively affected. The vast majority of issues that people write me about are not content issues, but content issues that have been swept under the rug or ignored for so long that they have metastasized into hairy, scary relationship issues.

Before you open your mouth in the next conversation with this person, stop and honestly consider: what is the topic I need to address? Only then can you answer the question: How can I bring it up in a way that preserves or strengthens the relationship?

Best of luck,
Justin

The post Why Your Crucial Conversations Aren’t Working appeared first on Crucial Learning.

When it comes to training that changes behavior, it turns out that reflection is a necessary ingredient.

A 2015 Harvard Business Review article explains that reflection increases engagement, and it reiterates what we’ve known for a long time: reflection has a big impact on transference of skills learned in training.

A group of researchers looked at how reflection affects learning transference, both in controlled studies and in the real world.

One real-world study took place at a call center in Bangalore, India. The researchers studied three groups of employees who were given the same technical training, but each with one variable.

Control group: Employees in this group continued working at the end of each training day.

Reflection group: Employees in this group spent the last 15 minutes of certain training days reflecting on and writing about the lessons they had learned.

Sharing group: Employees in this group did the same writing and reflecting as the reflection group but also spent five minutes discussing their insights with a fellow trainee.

Over the course of one month, workers in the reflection and sharing groups performed significantly better than those in the control group. On average, the reflection group outperformed the control group on the final training test by 22.8%, and the sharing group performed 25% better than the control group, despite the fact that both had spent less time working.

So, what’s the point? Teaching people more concepts and skills is probably less effective than inviting them to reflect on and then discuss their reflections.

Our courses are designed to allow for such reflection. At the end of each lesson in Getting Things Done®, for example, learners are invited to reflect on what they’ve learned and record their insights.

In both Crucial Conversations® courses, learners record how they intend to apply what they’ve learned, and then they share their plans with a learning partner. In fact, reflection and sharing play an important role in all our courses. But where you don’t see those opportunities built in, consider quick ways to give these opportunities.

I’d love to hear how you incorporate reflection and discussion when you facilitate. How do you encourage learners to reflect, and how do you think this impacts results? Please share in the comments section below.

Talk soon,

Justin 

The post The Relationship between Reflection and Results appeared first on Crucial Learning.

I’m in a relationship where I find myself constantly apologizing and I’m starting to feel like a doormat. Do you have any advice?

Signed,
Stepped On

Dear Stepped On,

If you don’t mind, allow me to try to help in the most brief and direct way possible: STOP APOLOGIZING.

Genuinely expressing sorrow and regret for bad behavior is one of the most powerful ways to regain trust and build a relationship. But over-apologizing, or apologizing when you shouldn’t, can turn you into a target of mistreatment.

If this person you’re in a relationship with believes your intent was bad, but in fact you had good intent, an apology is not the right approach. It’s disingenuous and unhealthy to apologize for your behavior just to spare another’s feelings.

Instead, clarify what you intended. Here are three tips:

Share your good intent. Let this person know that you care about them, the conversation, the relationship, and the outcomes.

Contrast to fix misunderstandings. When there is a misunderstanding between what you meant and what they think you meant, contrast to clear things up. Explain what you don’t intend (address their misperception) with what you do intend (clarify what you really want). For example, “I don’t think you’re irresponsible; I am asking for your help with stuff around the house.”

Act in ways that reflect your good intent. I’ve always loved the words of the late Stephen Covey, who proclaimed, “You can’t talk your way out of something you’ve acted your way into.” If you’re going to express your good intent, your behavior needs to match.

I constantly remind myself that I can’t control other people’s perception of me; I can only control my behavior. I hope these tips help you work on your behavior rather than apologize for it unnecessarily.

Good luck,
Justin

The post Stop Apologizing appeared first on Crucial Learning.