Get best of the week

Why do my colleagues / employees behave like @% §?

Not far off is the next start of the course for the leaders of the Team Lead 2.0 development . In this regard, we conducted an open lesson entitled “Why do my colleagues / employees behave like @% §?” . At the webinar, they talked about what makes people behave incorrectly, why people go to conflict, what are the ways to influence behavior.




Lecturer - Stanislav Mikhalsky , Technical Director of Razvitie.Ru.

Each of us was faced with conflict situations at work. Moreover, the conflict itself can be a long story resembling a chess game with many moves. We’ll talk about the episode when two people, being in a conflict context, are interacting. The purpose of the lesson is to learn how to get out of such situations without losses and even with a gain (moreover, winning does not necessarily mean losing your opponent).

The obvious and the incredible


Most of what we talk about is actually obvious and known to many. But “knowing” and “being able” are fundamentally different things . When you say something, and they say to you: “This is understandable,” all that remains is to shrug in disbelief. One thing is understandable, but how often do you use it if you understand everything?

Accordingly, there are four fundamentally different levels of ownership of the material;

  • I understand . You sit at a lecture and understand everything that the teacher says: follow the course of reasoning, understand the explanations and methods of solving problems;
  • . , , . ( ) — ;
  • . , . , - , — ;
  • . — , . — .

Let us return to conflict situations. We all know that we assess the “cold head” conflict a little differently, so we often later regret when we break down, lose control of emotions, say bad things to our opponents. Obviously? Obviously! Why, then, in our life so often, “ Obviously! = Use ”?

If you want to understand how much you really use what seems obvious, ask yourself a series of questions:

  1. How am I doing this? How exactly do I apply existing knowledge on behavior patterns and conflict resolution? How exactly do I pause in a conflict conversation?
  2. When was the last time I did this? When was the last time, instead of swearing a person, I took a deep breath and was in a normal state after a second?
  3. How often do I do this?

A diary check would be appropriate. To do this, it is not at all necessary to start a beautiful book in velvet binding and write there with colorful pens, beginning each entry with the words: “Hello, dear diary!” The file in Exel is quite enough for you, where you will write mini-reports like:

  • Today there was a conflict conversation. I managed not to break, I managed to take a break in such a way that allowed me to put the conversation in a constructive direction;
  • Today there was a conflict, I broke and screamed at my opponent.

Remember that the cause of conflicts and emotional collisions can be not personal conflicts, but quite logical production conflicts of interests, and such conflicts are the norm. The task of the leader is to get out of the conflict with the least emotional loss , spending less strength and nerves. At the same time, the fact that you know how to get out of the conflict correctly does not mean that you should not avoid them.

Why does a person behave as he does?


Often, the person standing in front of you behaves like a complete, sorry, dolotoyer. Why is he doing this? The reasons may be as follows:

  1. He is really a bumbler . There is nothing to add.
  2. He is not in himself . This also happens, alas.
  3. , . , , .
  4. , . , — .
  5. -. . , .
  6. . . , , — - . , .
  7. . , , . , , , . ? - , . , , . . , , , . != . , .

Be that as it may, various models and theories will help us , thanks to which we will explain human behavior more adequately for ourselves. Also, with their help, we, if we don’t get to the bottom of the motive, will understand that a person doesn’t behave like this because he is a bumbler, but because he’s just tired, doesn’t see the other way, is afraid of you, etc.

Now we’ll talk about models that can help with interpretation.

1. Interpretations: Bern's legacy


Speaking of Bern's legacy, we are talking about the concept of person and transactional analysis. Owning this model, you can understand that the opponent actually behaves this way because he has included his inner parent , who is trying to shame your inner child. If you will not be led to this and turn to him, as an adult to an adult, you will break this communication. However, we examine transactional analysis in more detail on the course.

Now let's talk about Persona. Berne claims that there is a person, and that is how he wants to be perceived. As a rule, we come up with a little more for ourselves than we actually are., and "a little" - this is still mildly said. And it’s just the image of this very person that we are very afraid of destroying and fear that someone will look under this mask and expose us. Therefore, in fact, there is an unwritten law: in order for social relations to be possible, there is a social rule: you take my persona at face value, and I - yours.

Since the fear of losing face is quite high, this is one of the reasons why a person does not come into contact with you, does not want to cooperate. When a person feels threatened, he defends himself.

There are situations when one developer does not want to show the code to another. The problem is especially relevant when refactoring.in an already established team. Suppose people work together for two or three years, then a new leader comes and declares: “And now - refactoring!” Sometimes this starts ...

And all because people agreed among themselves that they are awesome developers, but they don’t go to Apple, because they don’t need it. And now, some kind of Petya will crawl into their code, and there ... No, well, of course, there are always excuses - they were in a hurry, there is something else ... But at that very moment a person feels that his person is at risk. And the brawl begins.

What needs to be done to neutralize this facial loss? Our task is to remove this risk and make sure that a person does not feel threatened. It is necessary to exclude from the action plan those that threaten the person. Or create an atmosphere of security around a person, exposing in which will not bring reputation damage.

For example, when one developer comes and watches how the whole team trolls each other and corrects the code in the process of refactoring “for beer,” he will most likely easily pour in because he sees that it is safe. And there is no risk that colleagues, “digging his jamb”, will become worse thinking about him.

2. Interpretations: spiral dynamics


Another option for considering what is happening is the spiral dynamics beloved by all . The idea is that in this model people are divided into some groups (red, blue, orange, green, etc.). For each group, a model of behavior is determined, methods available for it to achieve a result, motivating things, etc. are determined.

For example, in the red group, the issue is solved on the principle of “Who is stronger is right.” We understand that a person sees himself in such a light, and his aggression is, in fact, not aggression, but a normal style of behavior for him, because he just sees the world. Ultimately, depending on the group, you can act accordingly (this is by no means a complete explanation, we talk more about the spiral dynamics model in the course).

3. Interpretations: domestic reasons


Domestic reasons should never be discounted: various family troubles, from which no one is safe, previous communications (just flew from the chef), poor health, etc., etc.

4. Interpretations: emotional intelligence


It is about the perception of what is happening and the choice of strategy. In short, simplified and moderately unscientific: the brain has an amygdala (the so-called primitive brain), and there is a neocortex. From the organs of smell, touch, etc., information goes both to the amygdala and to the neocortex. The amygdala is very simple, but very fast - it responds instantly, because it is a primitive brain (if I see anything, I either run away or attack and eat).

With the development of man, the brain also changed, so the man began to think more, a deep analysis appeared, non-trivial ways to resolve the situation arose.

However, the whole problem is that the amygdala has not gone anywhere, and information is still being received in it. It looks like this: the information arrived, went to the amygdala and the neocortex, the amygdala answered “Beat”, and the neocortex, with a delay of half a second, answered something in the style of: “Wait, you need to clarify.”

And in a sense, the story of emotional intelligence comes down to the ability to dampen the gusts of the amygdala . That is, you need to give time to your consciousness to prepare more balanced decisions.

It is worth mentioning a term such as emotional flooding. Sometimes the nervous system is so overloaded that we lose the ability to jam the feedback from the amygdala. Being on a platoon, such a man screams, breaks down, cannot calm down. And this is a collapse, colleagues, because when we are in a calm state and reason carefully, we have many options for action. When we are heated, everything changes, and the more we start, the less options we have left . As a result, we are slipping into the level of primitive communication, and we face the same two options as before our distant ancestors: hit or run.

This is exactly what the picture below illustrates:



What can be learned from this approach:

  1. A person behaves in accordance with the level at which he is at the time of the conversation, and this is the best of what he now has.
  2. If you try to restore his emotional state, perhaps he will change the strategy to a more optimal one.
  3. If we see that a person has emotional flooding, we must try to carefully stop communication (do not tear), doing it as correctly as possible, without adding oil to the fire.

The key to correct interpretation


The key to correct interpretation are:

  1. empathy - a conscious empathy with the current emotional state of another person without losing the feeling of the external origin of this experience. Recall that we need an interpretation so that the person is not recorded in the hammers, but to continue to see in him a colleague, expert, etc., which, in turn, will allow you to act more correctly and efficiently;
  2. calmness . We must understand the sensations of a person, being in a calm state;
  3. . , , . , ;
  4. . , , - , ;
  5. . , .


There is a famous story about a picture - each one has its own. Accordingly, when you argue with the product about the launch date and the need for regression testing, you, on the other hand, see the situation with smoking ruins of the software product, in front of it there is a picture with broken deadlines and lost money.



Here you need to find some other vision, so that it more or less converges between you - otherwise each of you will stubbornly stand your ground.

Game theory interaction


In order to look at the interaction, when everyone defends their side, the theory of games is very suitable analytically. We are talking about basic principles.

When we say that there are two sides, and each has its own interest (each side tries to defend it), it is very similar to a one- on -one game . In game theory, this is one of the simplest versions of a game for which there is a record that allows the situation to be decomposed and analyzed.

Imagine that you meet with your product manager in the corridor, and 10 minutes ago you participated in a mail correspondence with him, where you suggested launching on Monday, because on Friday you had not conducted regression testing. He wrote that all the deadlines were torn off and Friday is the last day. In the corridor you will not pass each other, so you have to continue the dialogue. And here there are two options: run over (behave aggressively) or hold back (stay calm and balanced).



In the entry above there are two players, each of them has 2 options for action (run over or restrain). The matrix is ​​obtained, and “payouts” to the players are recorded in each cell - the result that we will get in one or another scenario. Obviously, the one who breaks down will be in the red, and the one who remains calm will be in the black. In plus or minus, there may be both at once depending on their behavior.

What else can be taken from game theory:

  1. Games are with zero sum and not with zero sum.
  2. Games are finite and endless.
  3. Game theory has given us the prisoner's dilemma.

The zero-sum game assumes that if one won, the other lost.



In disputes about releases, rollouts, and that's all of us, as a rule, we are convinced that we are playing a game with a zero amount. That is, we understand what we need and are trying to make the other side lose and do as we want. Think about it, but wouldn't it be better if the amount becomes non-zero? Will we always be happy with the option when we are the winners , and the opponent is defeated in the dispute by our reinforced concrete arguments, tough arguments and cunning manipulations? And this story is not about morality, by the way.

In fact, there are one-time games and reusable games . Imagine a small townwhere you buy one bottle of beer at the store. A person with a full cart of products is standing in front of you and he will most likely miss you so that you do not wait. But in a big city this is unlikely to happen, and you will stand in line. Why? Because in a small town, “a kind man with a full cart” understands that you may still meet, and tomorrow he will be in your place. And in a metropolis, this probability tends to zero.

Thus, we have a story about "comes around - does not go around." The big city is a one-time game, the small town is a reusable game.

Returning to our dispute with the product, we need to understand whether the game is one-time or multi-way (most often, it is multi-way). That is, you choose a behavior model based on circumstances.

There is also a separate class of conflict situations, known in Game Theory as the prisoner's dilemma . If each player tries to maximize his own benefit without caring for others, he wins less than he would if he had mutual trust and joint cooperation.



Let's imagine that two criminals were detained for similar crimes and suspect that they acted in collusion. For each of them, the police offer to “surrender” the other. Unsure of an accomplice and fearing a 10-year sentence, both prisoners will choose the option “to testify” and are guaranteed to receive a 5-year sentence both. Moreover, in the case of mutual trust, their term would be much shorter.

Do some interactions with colleagues remind you of exactly the same situation? In fact, this can be attributed to any bidding between interested parties. This may be the deadlines for the implementation of tasks or issues on the coordination of the budget .
In order to come to the option in which a solution more beneficial for both will be implemented, we do the following :

  1. Add value.
  2. We conclude insurance contracts.
  3. We clarify our position.
  4. We are building trust.

So, we examined the conflict in terms of different models. But how can one not be this same mouth-blower from the point of view of your opponents? Here it is appropriate to recall Non-Violent Communication (NGO). The point is that each thought can be formulated in different ways and we often do this in an extremely inconvenient way, not simplifying, but complicating the task of normal communications. There is an algorithm that allows you to formulate a thought in such a way as to hurt a person minimally and focus it on what you want.

There are a number of steps:

  • observation (facts). We state the situation without adding our estimates there and without drawing parallels with the same situations;
  • feelings. We find out how we feel and why it bothers us so much;
  • need. We outline our need;
  • request. We formulate a request, that is, what needs to be done so that this need is closed.

Example: instead of calling the Timlids to themselves and saying that they are hand-armed and again failed all the terms, we can say the following (although out of habit the Timlids can have a stupor):

  • at such a pace, we will not be able to fulfill our commitments;
  • I am annoyed by the uncertainty and worried about the possible consequences;
  • I need a new strategy in this situation;
  • Please provide me with current information, real terms and volumes.

Summary


The conclusions can be drawn as follows:

  • Kazlov practically does not happen (in front of us is usually not a mouth-blower and not a radish, but a man with his own problems, he sees the situation differently, so we need to change the common ground)
  • , , . , , , , , «» «». ( ) , . , , . , , , .

, . , !

More articles:


All Articles