Have you ever ever created a comment to someone and gotten a very sudden negative reaction? Or maybe you've got noticed an increase in the strain between you and an immediate report after you instructed a re-write of their work?

It's amazing how typically what we tend to see as a simple off-hand remark or a well-intentioned comment will result in communication problems and inter-personal friction within the workplace. As an example, a shopper once complained to me that one of his employees had become remote and tough to deal with once a feed-back session and he was questioning the value of feedback if that was the result he was visiting get.

On reviewing his recollection of the feedback session with him, it became apparent that this was an instance of mis-communication brought on by an assumption he had created concerning how people received his comments. One comment in particular might be taken as either an off-hand remark or a highly sarcastic judgment statement. When asked regarding whether or not it absolutely was doable that his employee might have taken it as a highly critical judgment of his actions, my shopper brushed the likelihood aside, saying that "if someone said that to me it would be like water rolling off a duck's back - it very did not mean anything".

He wasn't considering the actual fact that his employee wasn't like him, in fact was very much in contrast to him in several ways (and on prime of that, my client was the boss, the one who signed the pay-checks, so everything he said was taken very seriously, whether or not intended that means or not).

This is often an example of a typical, all be it unintentional, communication error that usually hinders good communication and sleek relationships within the workplace. The error happens after we apply the "Golden Rule" too literally. This is often the 'rule' that advises us to 'treat others as we tend to want to be treated'. However the matter arises after we attempt to use this word for word. Once all we have a tendency to are not all identical, so why should we expect everyone to need to be treated precisely the identical method we tend to wish to be treated?

For example, as an instance that you're a detail person, you like to possess all the background knowledge with all the 'i's' dotted and 't's crossed before making a decision. When asked to organize a proposal you diligently build certain all the relevant data is in it, as seen from your perspective. Yet once you proudly gift your carefully prepared proposal to your boss he quickly loses interest and becomes terribly abrupt and impatient. After all he could hardly even study your rigorously researched documentation before telling you to re-do it and ending the meeting. Now you are upset and he appears dissatisfied along with your work.

So where did you go wrong? When all, you gave him specifically what you'd want to receive before making an necessary decision. And that's the problem in an exceedingly nutshell. He is not you. He does not wish what you want.

What appeals to you does not appeal to him. He does not want the information you would like, he just wants the bottom line, and he desires it quickly. He does not want to battle through reams of detail when all he is inquisitive about is your recommendations. If, and solely if, he sees something that raises a red flag, will he ask for a lot of details - and he'll tell you specifically what details he wants. At this point you had better be in a position to produce them quickly - to do otherwise can irritate him, hinder clear communication and additional weaken your relationship with him.

The solution, therefore, is to not follow the "Golden Rule" to the letter. Do to not treat others in specifically the identical manner that you wish to be treated. You'll notice it is far more productive to require an approach that does not center on your own preferences. After all, what you really wish is to be treated in a very means that you're comfortable with, that matches your most well-liked communication and working style. And this can be exactly what others wish as well. That's why a simple shift in your perspective therefore that you see things from the opposite person's viewpoint can work wonders.

And implementing the answer is truly quite straightforward. To find out how they want to be treated you just have to look at how they interact with others and how they like to do things. When speaking with others do they tend to be very detail oriented or do they only hit the high points? Do they speak rapidly, with a bent to appear abrupt, or do they take their time and do things in a a lot of leisurely fashion? Do they consider the task at hand, or take time to contemplate the broader impact on others who might be involved? Do they like to induce written reports and see things presented graphically, or do they prefer to simply be told the knowledge?

Individuals are continually providing these and many different clues to what they like and what makes them comfy and puts them at ease when operating with others. If we have a tendency to observe their actions rigorously we can determine clusters of consistent behaviour. Then all we have a tendency to have to try to to is connect the dots to come back up with their preferences for communicating and taking action. Treat this knowledge as a operating hypothesis to guide your interactions with them. Observe the results, and if necessary, create adjustments as you go.

Your ability to communicate with others and develop friction-free operating relationships can greatly improve if you just take the time to find how people differ from you and what methods of interaction they are most comfortable with therefore that you'll be able to provide it. If you create this straightforward shift in approach you will probably realize that where previously there would possibly have been some friction in the operating relationship, now things operate abundant more smoothly. You will conjointly doubtless realize it abundant less stressful operating with others. You would possibly even return to enjoy it!