CHAPTER SIX    

CULTIVATE AUTHENTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Do any of these complaints sound familiar?

“Why does she always wait until the absolute last minute to complete her tasks? Because of her, the entire office always seems to spend the final day of any project frantically rushing around to meet the deadline! It’s too stressful. I won’t work on her team again.”

“Every email I receive from him is a sentence or less—sometimes just a few letters. The last email he sent me read ‘K TX.’ What the heck does that mean!? Why can’t he communicate in full sentences and treat me like a human being, not a robot.”

“I like my manager, but every time I visit her with a quick question, we must discuss her weekend and her three children’s latest incredible accomplishments. Why can’t we just get to the point? I don’t have hours to waste in her office chatting.”

“My colleague drives me crazy with his tangents! I don’t want to brainstorm new project ideas when we haven’t even finished our current project! Why can’t he stay on topic in meetings? I dread meetings with him. I won’t ask him to be on my next project team.”

“She is so unfriendly! She never looks me in the eye when I talk to her, and she is always all business—nothing but numbers, facts, and data. Why can’t she lighten up? And why can’t she say good morning like a normal person?”

Unfortunately, these complaints likely do sound familiar, because at times we unconsciously undermine our relationships with our colleagues. Why? Because at work, we often focus on completing our tasks, not making friends. Which makes sense, right? We have a job to do and outcomes to deliver. However, we overlook the impact of social relationships on our ability to complete our tasks. Most of us work on teams, with vendor partners, or directly with customers. We rarely work alone.

Human beings are social animals with a fundamental need for connection. Social needs are treated the same way in the brain as the need for food and water.¹ This is why positive social interactions and relationships are considered primal needs. They also are foundational if you want to turn any job into your dream job. Work is a place where you must be social because you collaborate with others and work on teams. Social connections motivate you and fuel your innovation, creativity, and productivity.² And you don’t want to let your emotions undermine your relationships, nor your performance. Positive relationships in the workplace are essential for our well-being and productivity.

Your next step to turn any job into your dream job is to identify where you undermine your efforts at connection and collaboration and develop new approaches and strategies so you can experience more positive social interactions and build stronger relationships.

USE THE PLATINUM RULE TO FOSTER MUTUAL RESPECT AND UNDERSTANDING

Many of us learned the Golden Rule, to treat others as you want them to treat you, as a young child. Your parents, teachers, and adults in your life knew that the Golden Rule’s core virtues of empathy and compassion for others guided positive social interaction. As an adult, I learned about the Platinum Rule and came to realize that it more powerfully shapes positive social interaction. It suggests that you treat others the way they want to be treated. The Platinum Rule challenges the assumption that other people want to be treated the way you want to be treated. It also shifts your perspective from a you-centric view of social interactions to an other-centric view of social interactions. You approach people with the intention to first understand how they want to be treated and then adapt your interactions with them to meet their needs. The Platinum Rule is a powerful way to foster mutual respect and understanding with your professional colleagues so you can build vibrant relationships. It also can help you avoid making a negative assumption about someone’s behavior, which undermines constructive social interaction.

The chief operating officer of a financial services firm hired me to help his newest managing director, Ralph, improve his leadership skills. Ralph’s internal reputation was abysmal. He was described as aloof, robotic, and insensitive and as a workaholic. His team was the most disengaged team in the company, and he had the highest turnover rate. As a new leader, if Ralph did not turn around his team, he would be demoted or potentially fired.

“Ralph is cold and unfriendly, and he does not care about me as a person,” Juliette, one of Ralph’s team members, told me. “Each morning he walks into his office and buries his face in his two large computer monitors. My desk is directly outside of his office, and I can’t remember the last time he said good morning to me as he walked into his office. It’s like I’m invisible until he needs something from me. When he does need something from me, he walks into my cube and in a sentence or less asks for exactly what he needs. Then he walks out without saying another word to me. Who wants to work on a team with him? I don’t.”

Juliette was the seventh person I had interviewed for Ralph’s 360 feedback report. As his executive coach, I needed insight from his coworkers to identify what inhibited positive relationships and constructive social interaction. Juliette’s comments were consistent with what I had heard in my other interviews, and I understood how she could make negative assumptions about Ralph’s behavior.

Ralph’s 360 feedback confirmed for me that he followed the Golden Rule. He would treat others the way he wanted to be treated. He wanted to come to the office and get his work done. He measured his worth and success on how much work he completed in one day. He respected execution over social connection. He did not see the value in pleasantries because they were distractions and wasted time. Unfortunately, Ralph’s use of the Golden Rule inhibited trust, respect, and collaboration with his team. He needed to learn and use the Platinum Rule.

I walked into Ralph’s office and could see the downtown skyline through the wall of windows behind his desk. He waved at me and pointed to a chair in front of his desk and turned back to his computer to finish an email. I sat in the chair and waited. When Ralph turned to face me, there were tight lines around his eyes. I could see the muscle on the left side of his face twitch as he ground his teeth back and forth. At over six feet, four inches tall, he appeared small as he slouched down in his chair with his arms crossed over his chest.

He leaned forward and said, “I have not been looking forward to this meeting, but I know what is at stake for me and my team. I’m ready to get started.”

IDENTIFY YOUR COWORKERS’ WORK STYLES

To help Ralph understand how his team members and colleagues wanted to be treated, I introduced him to the concept of work styles. Your work style is the way you think about, organize, and complete your tasks.

In any office you will find four types of work styles:

•  Logical, analytical, and data-oriented

•  Organized, plan-focused, and detail-oriented

•  Supportive, expressive, and emotionally oriented

•  Strategic, integrative, and idea-oriented

Based on our work with our clients and over one million responses to the assessment I created to identify work styles,* we have discovered that the most common work styles in offices are logical, analytical, and data-oriented and organized, plan-focused, and detail-oriented. The least common work style is strategic, integrative, and idea-oriented. As you look at the descriptions of the four work styles, identify the style that best describes you and the one that best describes your boss.

When I asked Ralph to identify his own work style, he answered, “Logical, analytical, and data-oriented.”

“And I imagine that when you work with team members, you want them to give you the facts, be direct and succinct, and get to the point in their communications with you, correct?” I asked.

Ralph nodded his head in agreement.

“What might happen if you treated and communicated with your colleagues and team members the way they preferred?” I asked.

Ralph flipped to the last page of his 360 feedback summary report and pointed to the feedback from Juliette and said, “Maybe my colleagues won’t think I’m cold and unfriendly, and will want to work with me.”

I nodded my head and told him that the first step was to identify the work style of his colleagues. In poker, players call them “tells”: betting patterns or unconscious behavior you can use to guess your opponent’s hand. The same rules apply to work style.

To determine the work style of a colleague, or your boss, think about the following questions:

•  Does she consistently complete work early, in advance of deadlines, or wait until the last minute?

•  Does he send emails with only a few words or write novels?

•  Does she gesture and use her hands while talking? Or is she more controlled and stoic in her movements?

These tells, both subtle and overt, will give you clues to someone’s work style.

If you need additional clues, notice the type of work that your colleagues prefer and where they excel.

•  Your logical, analytical colleague is at her best when she processes data and solves complex problems. She will focus like a laser to achieve any stated goal or outcome and will ensure that you stay on budget.

•  Your organized, detail-oriented colleague prefers to establish order from chaos, outline project plans, and create to-do lists. He will ensure work is completed accurately and on time.

•  Your supportive, expressive colleague expertly builds relationships, facilitates team interaction, and sells ideas. She will keep all stakeholders up to date on work and effectively communicates ideas through the organization.

•  Your big-picture, integrative colleague can serve as a catalyst for change, brainstorm solutions to problems, and synthesize disparate thinking. He will drive innovation, ensure variety in both thought and execution, and keep you moving forward.

Once you have identified your colleagues’ work style, you want to use the Platinum Rule in your interactions with them to treat them as they want to be treated.

“Let’s identify the work style of your team members. Why don’t we start with Juliette who sits outside of your office? What type of work does she prefer, and where does she excel?” I asked.

“Well, she has strong relationships with everyone in the office. She knows the names of everyone’s children and even what each person in the office is doing for Thanksgiving this year. She always says good morning to me and excels when she communicates and interacts with our clients. She is not in a sales role. However, she is exceptional at selling concepts and ideas. Our clients love to work with her.”

“Based on these clues and cues, what is her work style?”

“Her work style is supportive, expressive, and emotionally oriented,” Ralph said.

Once you have identified your team members’ work style, the next step is to shift how you communicate and interact so you can treat them the way they want to be treated. The goal is to tailor your communication to the nuances of each work style so you can connect with them. The first step is to identify the preferred question that they want and need answered in every project-related interaction with you.

•  Your colleague’s work style that is logical, analytical, and data-oriented is focused on the what questions. For example, what is the goal? What do you want to achieve? What are the key facts?

•  Your colleague’s work style that is organized, plan-focused, and detail-oriented is focused on the how questions: How do you want to complete the project? How much time do you have? How has this been done in the past?

•  Your colleague’s work style that is supportive, expressive, and emotionally oriented is focused on the who questions: Who is involved? Who needs to know the information? Who will be impacted by the initiative?

•  Your colleague’s work style that is strategic, integrative, and idea-oriented is focused on the why questions: Why are we doing this project? Why this approach versus another? Why don’t we consider . . . ?

TAILOR YOUR COMMUNICATION TO YOUR COWORKERS’ PREFERENCES

Once you know the primary question your colleagues want answered in their project-related interactions with you, the next step is to tailor your communication style to align with how they want to communicate.

Your logical, analytical, and data-oriented colleagues want you to focus on data and the facts. Be succinct, clear, and precise. Provide the facts without any fluff. Think through your ideas in advance and present them in a logical format. If you send an email, be direct, and technically accurate.

Your organized, plan-focused, and detail-oriented colleagues want you to stay on topic, avoid digressions, present your ideas in a sequential, organized manner, and provide detailed timelines. Provide thorough references and state any rules, procedures, or processes that may impact the project. If you send an email, outline your main points and clearly state their next action steps and the due date.

Your supportive, expressive, and emotionally oriented colleagues want the conversation to be informal, open, and warm and have no hidden agenda. They think about the impact of projects on others and how they will feel about it. They want to know who is involved in projects, and they want team members to have equal consideration when plans are being made. If you send an email, include a salutation and connect with them personally before you transition to the topic of the email.

Your strategic, integrative, and idea-oriented colleagues want you to communicate with minimal details, provide the big picture with visuals and metaphors, and articulate how the project aligns with the organization’s strategy. They prefer an overview and broad conceptual framework, so limit the details. If you send an email, provide the big picture and context for the email and avoid too many details.

Once he knew how each work style preferred to communicate, Ralph understood what he could do differently to better connect and work with Juliette.

“Since Juliette’s work style is supportive, expressive, and emotionally oriented, the first thing I can do differently is say good morning to her when I walk in the office,” he said. “Unlike me, she won’t see this as an interruption. And the next time we need to work together on a project, I’m going to discuss the overall project, ask her for her thoughts on the project’s impact on our clients, and then together we will decide on what to do next.”

Ralph worked hard over the next six months to change how he interacted and communicated with his team members and colleagues. He created a scorecard that listed each person’s work style with detailed notes on how his coworkers wanted to be treated. At the end of each day, he reviewed his scorecard to evaluate his progress. Each Friday afternoon he sent it to me so I could celebrate his progress and support him when he got stuck. In September, 10 months after our first coaching session, the firm completed its annual employee engagement survey. The managing partner called me the day he received the results. Ralph’s team had the highest score in the entire firm. And two of the firm’s summer interns had requested to be on Ralph’s team when they accepted their job offers.

The Golden Rule is pervasive. We unconsciously treat others the way we want to be treated. This can undermine our relationships with our colleagues and contribute to misunderstandings and negative assumptions about the behavior of others. Instead, use the Platinum Rule in your interactions with your colleagues to foster mutual respect and understanding. What is possible for you if you start to use the Platinum Rule? How much happier would you be at work? What career opportunities would be available to you? How could any job become your dream job?

DISCOVER HOW YOU UNCONSCIOUSLY UNDERMINE YOUR RELATIONSHIPS

When my new coaching client Hiroko’s cell phone rang and the Game of Thrones theme music filled her office, I smiled. I’d found a connection with her—our mutual love of this medieval fantasy epic television show about powerful families vying for control of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros and to sit on the Iron Throne. Over the next 15 minutes we passionately analyzed the characters and plot twists and commiserated on our disappointment in the show’s finale. We transitioned easily from the politics of Game of Thrones to the politics and leadership challenges she experienced as a new medical director in one of the largest hospital systems in the country.

Hiroko was highly regarded professionally and personally throughout the hospital system. However, at times she would become emotionally triggered and passionately react. In the heat of the moment, her voice would rise at least two octaves, her cheeks would flush, and the more animated she became, the more her hands would move up and down and back and forth across her body.

Hiroko shared an example of a recent interactionat a meeting with her boss, Robert, and the practice manager, Maria. “I was completely blindsided. Maria told me the agenda was to discuss the new consulting model for the hospital’s intensivists. It was a brief discussion, so she transitioned to a topic that was not on the agenda: how to best utilize our advanced practice providers to provide 24/7 coverage for our out of ICU patients. I was not prepared. I felt like they were making decisions about members of my team without my input. They outlined a coverage plan that I had not seen, nor been given the opportunity to provide feedback and input on. It was not fair. I told Robert that this was completely unacceptable.”

“What did Robert say?”

“Well, he told me that as a physician leader, I needed to be able to dispassionately discuss topics that are emotionally triggering. He said that if I strive for future physician leadership roles, this behavior is vital. If I can’t do this, then I will no longer have a seat at the leadership table. Senior leadership will realize that I cannot be objective and will make decisions without my input. Which is the last thing I want to happen!” Hiroko’s voice was so loud, I’m sure the nurse in the hall heard her.

Have you ever been in a situation similar to Hiroko’s where you were hijacked by your emotions? I know I have. In these moments, your heightened emotional state leads to a reaction. Maybe you raise your voice and/or get visibly angry, or maybe you completely withdraw and abandon the conversation. Almost immediately you regret what you said or did because you know that your reaction could negatively impact a relationship and/or your reputation in the office.

Our behavior is powerfully motivated by social concerns. We have a fundamental need to belong and are incredibly sensitive to our social context. And we are intensively driven to stay in our peers’ good graces, so we aren’t excluded from the group.³ Which is why you feel remorse after you have an angry outburst. You have jeopardized your social position in the office. It is scary and painful.

Social pain is processed in the brain the same way as physical pain. For example, being excluded from a meeting at work “hurts” and engages very similar regions of your brain as when you are physically hurt, like when you burn your arm on the stove.⁴ As a result, the motivation that drives our social behavior is designed to minimize danger and maximize reward in our brains.⁵

David Rock, cofounder of the NeuroLeadership Institute, has proposed a framework that captures the common factors that can activate your brain’s risk or reward response in social situations. It’s called the SCARF model and includes five domains of human experience: status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness.⁶

Status is about your relative importance to others, or the “pecking order” or seniority in the office. It’s knowing who has the most power in the room due to title. For example, have you ever attended a meeting with a client, and without anyone telling you who had the most status in the room, you knew who it was because of where she sat, how she talked, and how others in the room responded to her?

Certainty is about your need for clarity and the ability to predict the future. Our brains like to know the pattern that is occurring moment to moment. Our brains crave certainty so prediction is possible. Think about what happens to you when you don’t know your manager’s expectations of you or if you don’t know if you might be the next person affected by your company’s downsizing. Your brain becomes fixed on this uncertainty, which causes you stress and anxiety. Now think about how you feel when you hear a familiar song on the radio and sing along with the lyrics. It feels good because your brain immediately recognizes the pattern.

Autonomy is the perception that you can exert control over the events in your life and your environment. It is the sense that you have and can make choices. We have a fundamental need for control. You want and need to have choice in your life. Even if you don’t feel you have any control over your work life at the moment, remember that you’ve made the powerful choice to step through Door Number Four so you can own, love, and make your job work for you. You are on the transformational journey to turn your job into your dream job. Autonomy is not an all-or-nothing prospect. You can start to take control just by choosing how to approach a situation, and you’re already on that path.

Relatedness is your sense of connection to and security with another person. It is whether someone is perceived as similar or dissimilar to you. We naturally like to form “tribes” of people who are “like us.” I grew up in South Carolina with two strong Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) football teams, the University of South Carolina and Clemson University. Columbia, my hometown, was sharply divided between diehard Gamecocks fans (University of South Carolina) and Tigers fans (Clemson University). Watch out if you showed up to a party on a Saturday in the fall and cheered for the wrong team. You were quickly excluded from the social group.

Lastly, fairness refers to a just and nonbiased exchange between people. It’s about a perception of a fair exchange between people. In the meeting with Maria and Robert, Hiroko did not think it was a fair exchange. Maria and Robert were both prepared for the discussion, and she was not. In our coaching session, Hiroko told me that she believed her lack of preparation for the discussion put her at an unfair disadvantage where she could not effectively advocate for her advanced practice providers. In this social situation Hiroko’s danger response was triggered, and she reacted emotionally.

In my coaching and consulting work, my team and I use the SCARF model extensively. We do this because you don’t want your emotions to hijack you and negatively impact your relationships and interactions with your professional colleagues. To have more positive social interactions and build supportive relationships, you first need to identify what activates your brain’s danger response in social situations.

IDENTIFY AND MITIGATE SCARF THREATS

Each of us has a primary SCARF threat that when triggered causes us either to respond with an angry, aggressive outburst or to become silent and withdraw from the situation. My primary SCARF threat is autonomy. The perception or reality that I don’t have control or choice over the events in my life causes me to shut down and withdraw from the person or conversation, and at times leads to an outburst of anger. My first job after college was at a bank. The hours were long, and I could not leave the office until my manager, Jim, left for the day. This was before the launch of social media. It was before the Internet had billions of fascinating things to look at—when the only things you found when you surfed the Interned were weird white papers and forums that were not that interesting. Bored, with no control over my schedule, I would sit in my beige cubicle and hope, pray, and wish Jim would leave so I could go out with my friends or just go to bed.

One afternoon, I asked Jim if I could leave early. I had a hair appointment at 8:00 p.m. Maybe it is because I was born and raised in the South, but hair appointments are sacred events that you do not miss, or cancel. Close to 7:00 p.m., Jim gave me another PowerPoint deck to revise. By 7:20 p.m. I was frantic. If I did not leave the office by 7:25 p.m., I would not be on time for my hair appointment. At 7:22 p.m. I walked over to Jim’s desk with 5 of the revised slides and told him I would be in early the next morning to finish the other 20 slides. He looked at me and said I could not leave until the slides were finished. In that moment I completely lost it.

I looked at him, and in what my family and friends now call my outside voice, I shouted, “Have you seen my hair? I cannot miss my hair appointment tonight! I’m leaving!”

Jim’s eyes got wide; then he blinked twice and said, “You are leaving for a hair appointment?”

“Yes! The slides will be on your desk in the morning,” I screamed as I sprinted for the elevator.

I arrived at the office at 4:15 a.m. the next morning, and the updated slides were on Jim’s desk when he arrived. However, I had lost credibility with Jim. He included the outburst in my annual performance review with a note about my lack of professionalism and respect. It was months before I regained Jim’s trust and repaired our relationship. My SCARF threat hijacked the rational part of my brain and led to unproductive, unprofessional behavior. When I left the bank a few years later, Jim wished me good luck in my new job and with a big grin on his face reminded me to avoid another “hair gate” instance with my new boss.

What is your primary SCARF threat? Is it status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, or fairness? As you read the descriptions above, did any of them make you say “Yes, absolutely”? Or “That is exactly what I feel”? Or “That is what I always think about in my interactions with others”?

The first way to determine your primary SCARF threat is to listen to your instincts or gut reaction to each description. Your instincts are correct. Listen to what they tell you. If you still are unsure, reflect on prior conversations or situations where you got angry or withdrew and look for your trigger clues. Was it a word or phrase that someone said that made you feel less than or that the person was talking down to you? That is status hazard. Maybe you notice a pattern where you are anxious if you don’t know what to expect or what will be discussed. That is a certainty menace. Or you may notice that you are consistently triggered because you don’t have the flexibility in your schedule to attend your child’s school events. That is an autonomy risk. Or you notice that when you are not included in meetings or asked out to lunch by your colleagues you withdraw. That is a relatedness danger. Or you may be triggered when someone monopolizes the conversation and does not allow other people to speak or you are paid less than your colleague whose job is the same as your job. That is a fairness hazard.

Now that you know your primary SCARF threat, the second step for more positive social interactions and supportive relationships is to minimize SCARF threats, both yours and, when possible, your colleagues’.

It is easy to trigger a status violation. Think about the last time someone gave you instructions, corrected you on a task, or asked if they could give you feedback. You probably felt less than the other person. To counter a status risk in yourself, reframe the situation and think about the feedback or instructions as a way to improve your individual performance. Shift your perspective from you versus them, which triggers a status peril, to you versus you. The instruction is intended to help you grow, develop, and/or learn a new skill.

If you need to provide feedback to a colleague, first ask for their feedback on their own performance and then share your thoughts. For example, my chief of staff, Wendelyn, had developed email templates to make it easier for us to respond to frequently asked questions. There were a few edits I wanted to suggest that she make. I scheduled a meeting with her to review the email templates and asked her for her feedback on each template first. After she shared her thoughts on how to improve the templates, I used the phrase “yes, and” and shared my ideas to improve the templates. When I said “Yes, and,” I acknowledged her feedback, shared mine as additive to her feedback, and avoided a status hazard. Now, you and your colleague are equals on an even playing field.

Your brain craves certainty. It wants to know the pattern occurring moment to moment so it can predict what is next. Anything that is unexpected or does not follow a pattern can trigger a certainty vulnerability. Hiroko experienced a certainty danger in her meeting with Maria and Robert. The agenda was to discuss the new consulting model for the intensivists. When it shifted to how to provide 24/7 coverage for the out of ICU patients, it did not follow the pattern outlined in the original agenda.

To reduce or eliminate a certainty risk, ask for a meeting agenda, clarify the topic of the meeting or discussion with your boss, in advance. If you are working on a team, break the project down into small, discrete action steps with due dates. Discuss and agree to project working agreements, explicitly outline how you will manage project meetings, and establish what you will do if the project derails. Decide in advance how you will address the roadblocks and problems that are inherent in any project. You and your brain will relax once you know what to expect.

At work, autonomy hazards can be pervasive. Micro­management, as I experienced with my boss George (remember, you met him in Chapter One; he was the one who called my husband to see if I was at home sick), is too common in many of our workplaces. When you sense a lack of control or the inability to influence an outcome, your brain screams out danger. Proactively identify where you do have autonomy at work. It could be as simple as how you arrange your workspace, your ability to choose which projects you work on when and with whom, or your ability to direct your own learning through your organization’s learning management system. To minimize autonomy perils when you work on a team, present options and ask for input from the team. Look for places where you can offer choice and control to your colleagues. The perception of choice calms the brain.

We naturally like to form teams or silos with people who are like us at work to create a sense of belonging or relatedness. In our global economy you may work on a team with colleagues from a different culture, and you may never meet in person. However, if someone is not on the team or is different from you, your brain can decide that they not are related and create a hazard response.

To mitigate the automatic “foe” response, look for places of similarity with your colleagues. Share personal stories, experiences, or photos that build social connection with your team members. When one of my executive coaching clients was promoted, she became the leader of a virtual, global team. To build connections and camaraderie among her team members, she began each team meeting with a personal icebreaker. For example, team members shared their favorite holiday tradition, their perfect birthday meal, and their favorite TV show. If you work on a large team, divide the team into smaller groups. Smaller groups appear safer than larger groups. And if you have colleagues spread across the globe, use videoconferencing technology for your meetings so team members can see their colleagues and read nonverbal cues. A smile is a universal, nonthreatening language that allows your brain to relax.

A danger response from unfairness can easily be activated. Hiroko was triggered within the first 10 minutes of her meeting with Maria and Robert. Maria and Robert could have mitigated or eliminated this trigger if they had included on the agenda that they would also discuss the advanced practice providers coverage plan. Transparency is one of the most powerful tools you can use to alleviate the unfairness trigger in your colleagues. Just like clear expectations, working agreements, procedures, and processes enhance certainty, they also boost fairness. When you work on a team, discuss how you will decide who completes which tasks and how you will manage the collective and individual workload. This will ensure that a fair exchange of work occurs for all members of the team.

STOP MAKING NEGATIVE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT YOUR COLLEAGUES’ BEHAVIOR AND GET OFF THE LADDER OF INFERENCE

The Ladder of Inference⁷ is a theory developed by Chris Argyris. There are six rungs on the Ladder of Inference, and like a ladder, the higher up you go, the farther away you are from the facts of what really happened in the interaction. As you climb the ladder, you make inferences about the other person’s behavior and intentions. Then you develop an opinion or story about the person’s behavior. You seek and embrace information that confirms your opinion or story and ignore or reject information that casts doubt on or negates your opinion. This is called confirmation bias. When you are under the influence of confirmation bias, you do not perceive circumstances objectively. You select the parts of conversations, interactions, or pieces of data that make you feel good because they confirm your opinions. This creates discord, conflict, and mistrust in relationships.

“I know that Maria and Robert intentionally blindsided me in the meeting,” Hiroko explained. “They don’t value me or respect me as a physician leader. This is not the first time that I have attended a meeting where they have brought up a topic that was not on the original agenda and that they have previously discussed. Maria and Robert make decisions without my input all the time. Two weeks ago, they changed our attending holiday call schedule without any feedback from me. I have talked to Robert about all of this before, and nothing changes. I’m going to talk to the president of our division and let him know what I think about the proposed advanced practice provider coverage plan.”

I nodded my head as I listened to Hiroko. She was in very familiar territory. She had made inferences about Maria and Robert’s behavior. She had decided to act based on the story she created in her mind about their intentions. Hiroko had climbed the Ladder of Inference.

The journey up the Ladder of Inference begins with an interaction with another person or multiple people. It can be a brief exchange in the hallway, an email, a one-on-one conversation, or a meeting with a group of people. Then you progress up the six rungs:

The first rung: You filter out some information, dialogue, or facts. When you filter out some of these things, you overlook the facts of what actually happened in the interaction. This sets up the conditions to make an inference about the person or the people involved in the interaction. For example, Hiroko filtered out how difficult it is to coordinate two physicians and a practice manager’s calendar to schedule a meeting. The meeting was scheduled for 45 minutes, and the agenda items were covered in 20 minutes. Maria and Robert decided to use the remaining time to address additional topics while they had all the decision makers in the room and avoid a second meeting.

The second rung: You experience fear. Your brain’s fear response is triggered, and you experience a SCARF—a threat to status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and/or fairness. For example, Hiroko experienced a certainty and status violation. Her certainty was jeopardized because she was unprepared and did not expect to discuss advanced practice provider coverage at this meeting. She also experienced a status risk. She felt her position as a medical director was discounted because Maria and Robert had discussed advanced practice provider coverage prior to this meeting without her.

The third rung: You make a negative inference about the other person’s intentions. You assume that the person’s actions were not honorable. You may tell yourself that she is disrespectful, or that he does not care whether this upsets you, or that she does not care how it impacts those on your team or your direct reports. For example, Hiroko made multiple negative inferences about Maria and Robert’s behavior. She inferred that they had intentionally blindsided her and they did not value her or respect her position as a medical director.

The fourth rung: You become entrenched in your position. You are certain you’re right. You tell yourself that the other people do not get it and that they should change. You are right, and “they” are wrong. You may tell yourself that we’ve talked about this so many times, but nothing changes. So obviously the other people do not have good intentions. For example, Hiroko believed that she was right, that Maria and Robert did not understand, and that it was up to Maria and Robert to change.

The fifth rung: You connect past behavior. You couple this experience with other things you believe to be true. You look at the others’ past behavior and connect it to the current situation. You may tell yourself that you keep trying to get “them” to see their behavior and the impact of it on other people. But “they” keep doing the same thing. Obviously, “they” can’t be influenced. For example, Hiroko said that this was not the first time that she had been blindsided by Maria and Robert. They had made decisions without her. She immediately recalled a situation where the attending holiday call schedule was changed without her input.

The sixth rung: You act based on the story in your head. At this point you may avoid the other people, you may work around them, you may argue with them, or you may talk to others about how impossible they are to work with or work for. For example, Hiroko decided to work around both Maria and Robert and go to the president of the division to discuss her concerns about the proposed advanced practice provider coverage. This decision is politically risky for Hiroko. It could erode trust in her relationship with Robert, negatively impact her brand if she is perceived as a non–team player, and potentially limit future leadership opportunities for her. It was imperative that Hiroko get off the ladder and not make decisions, nor act based on the inferences she had made about Maria, Robert, and the situation.

Now that you can see the dangers of climbing the Ladder of Inference, it’s time to improve your communication and relationships with others and get off the Ladder of Inference through reflection, support, and inquiry.

We discussed the power of reflection and how journaling can be used as a reflection tool in Chapter Four. (Go to pages 72–74 to revisit the directions on how to journal.) Support is when you share your thinking and reasoning with a friend, a coach, a mentor, or a trusted colleague to gain a different perspective and to test your conclusions and assumptions. And inquiry is when you engage in a conversation to inquire into the other person’s thinking and reasoning.

To get Hiroko off the Ladder of Inference, first we reflected on the meeting together and tested her conclusions. Then I suggested that she have a conversation with Robert to understand his perspective on the meeting, and to explore her assumptions about his behavior and beliefs about her as a leader. To help Hiroko prepare for her conversation with Robert, we walked through her conversation with Robert using the five steps below:

1.  Cite what you heard or saw. Give a neutral, respectful account that does not include opinions or inferences. Start the conversation with any of the following statements: “I think . . . ,” “I think I heard you say . . . ,” or “I think I saw . . .” When you begin with “I think,” you leave room for the possibility that you may have filtered out or overlooked some information or data. And when you use “I” versus “you” to open the conversation, you do not put the other person on the defensive so the person can be receptive to you.

Hiroko thought for a moment and then said, “I think that the topic of advanced practice provider coverage was not on the original agenda that was included in the meeting request for last Tuesday’s meeting.” This is a neutral statement, it implies that she may have overlooked a topic on the agenda, and it can be fact-checked against the meeting agenda included in the meeting request.

2.  Assume and grant honorable intentions. Be open to the possibility that there was a decent reason why the behavior or situation occurred.

Hiroko pondered for a moment and then thought about prior meetings with Maria and Robert. She discovered multiple meetings where they followed the agenda and did not introduce topics that were not on the agenda. When she identified instances where they had not “blindsided” her, it was easier to assume and grant an honorable intention for their behavior in this specific meeting.

3.  Ask for what you missed. Remember, everyone filters stuff out. Your objective is to learn new information that will provide the context or reason behind the behavior or interaction. Think of yourself as an explorer on a search for new information.

After Hiroko stated that she thought the topic of advanced practice provider coverage was not on the agenda, she asked, “What did I miss?”

4.  Compare perceptions and stories so you can check your confirmation bias. Listen to the response you receive to your “What did I miss?” question. You want to focus on facts versus your perceptions and stories. Facts are actual occurrences that can be proved through observation or measurement. Stories are judgments, conclusions, or attributions that you make from the facts. Judgments evaluate whether the fact is good or bad. Conclusions are how you connect and interpret the facts. And attributions are how you determine why people do what they do.

To check your confirmation bias, begin the next part of the conversation with the phrase “The story I told myself” and insert your perception of the situation. When you use the phrase, “the story I told myself” you acknowledge that it may not be true and signify that you are open to the possibility that your perception is not an accurate reflection of the other person’s intention.

Hiroko then stated, “The story I told myself was that you intentionally blindsided me because you did not value and respect me as a leader.”

Continue to check your perspective and their perspective with the phrase “I’m thinking . . . . How does that compare with what you’re thinking?”

Hiroko continued, “I’m thinking that you and Maria saw an opportunity to discuss an important topic, patient care and coverage, and took it. How does that compare with what you’re thinking?”

5.  Listen. Then suggest an action focused on shared mutual interests. At this point in the conversation, you will ask for what you need and suggest a path forward that aligns and supports what you both want. Use the phrase, “I think it would be helpful to us if (action), because (mutual interest). How does that match up with what you want?”

Hiroko continued, “I think it would be helpful to us in the future if there is a topic that is not on the original agenda that is brought up that we pause the meeting and allow everyone time to think about the topic, because then each person would be able to provide thoughtful feedback in the meeting. How does that match up with what you want?”

When Hiroko and I finished walking through the five steps to get off the Ladder of Inference, I asked her if she was prepared for her conversation with Robert on Thursday afternoon. She nodded her head and smiled.

Three weeks later I received an email from Robert that said, “After Hiroko and I met, I understood why she felt blindsided in the meeting with me and Maria. I told her that though it is optimal that one knows the agenda prior to a meeting, it is not always possible. And spontaneous discussion can have value. I reiterated that I needed her as a physician leader to be able to dispassionately discuss topics that produce internal strife and strong emotions. Yesterday, Hiroko, myself, the president of our division, and the president of the children’s hospital met to discuss significant changes to Hiroko’s program, staffing, and reporting structure. It was an emotionally charged meeting. The political stakes were high. Hiroko was calm, and unlike at previous meetings, she did not ‘draw lines in the sand.’ She was able to expand her perspective and think globally about the changes and the implications for the entire healthcare system. And she compromised on an important issue. I praised and acknowledged her after the meeting for this new and valuable behavior. The good news is I see the improvement in her behavior. And know she has future leadership potential.” When Hiroko’s one-year term as medical director ended, Robert recommended her for a second term, which she accepted.

Small, incremental shifts are life changing. Identify the work style of your colleagues and boss, use the Platinum Rule in your interactions with them, or recognize your SCARF threats or notice when you climb up the Ladder of Inference. Own and embrace your power to mitigate SCARF threats and climb back down the Ladder of Inference. You have everything you need to make a slight adjustment to profoundly change your relationships. Enjoy the vibrant relationships you create that can turn any job into your dream job.

* I designed an assessment called the Productivity Style Assessment® to help people identify their work style. If you would like to take the assessment, go to workingsimply.com/productivity-style. Or you can take the assessment in my first book, Work Simply: Embracing the Power of Your Personal Productivity Style.