After an argument has taken place, it is good to analyze where it went well and where it went wrong. The only way to improve communication is to see where there might be a problem or what it was that made it go well. First, it's important to understand that "argument" is not a bad word - lawyers and negotiators argue issues all the time. It is a healthy part of communication. Somehow, many people associate argument with bad situations with your spouses or friends.

Then, the second thing to understand is that argument should be based on trust and truth. Especially in the workplace between bosses and subordinates. That is where probably most difficulties occur. If you're arguing with someone - at work or at home - who is not truthful or does not trust you, you will never come to successful results.

Here is an example of a situation that took place where the boss did not trust his project manager.

Middle management Andrew was stranded by a bad winter storm and could not come in to work. That day, a project had been planned to take place at the office. So, Andrew phones top management Bob at 8:30 in the morning. Bob does not know all of the functions and activities of Andrew's department and is disappointed because the project won't take place. He does not rationalize the bad weather because the weather at his end, which is an hour's drive North from Andrew's location, is not bad (yet).

Bob makes certain statements that indicate his puzzlement that Andrew is unable to come in. Andrew explains further that the weather is indeed bad and the project can wait for the next day without any problem. Bob thinks that Andrew's action is irresponsible. But, as a matter of fact, Andrew had made arrangements for someone else to pick up the project, should this happen, because of the radio forecast on the previous day.

Andrew is a highly competent project manager, and would never jeopardize the company's well being and need. His argument is based on the fact that his project is truly not endangered by the one-day delay. As the dialogue progresses, the explanations of Andrew are taken by Bob as excuses rather than genuine explanations.

But Bob cannot possibly hear all of the facts in that short telephone conversation. Therefore, in missing much of the information, Bob should trust and believe his middle manager. However the dialogue continues and the "perceived excuses" do not give room for true trust. Andrew doesn't have a problem (except for management's misunderstanding), his explanations are in response to Bob's wrong perception.

As the conversation unfolds, a "crunch point" develops. What's the crunch point? It's not the project being pushed back, because that has no major consequence -- it will still get done and the results will still be the same. It's not the weather because nothing can change that. The crunch point is the misunderstanding on the part of Bob of the Focus of Argument, which destroys the possibility for good communication to take place.

So in this case, what's the solution? Well, the solution is for both people to get on the real "Focus of the Argument".

Setting #1:

1. Focus of argument for Andrew: is the company's well-being.
2. Focus of argument for Bob is that the project is pushed back to next day.

Setting #2:

3. Focus of argument for both Andrew & Bob is company's well being.

In Setting #1, Bob gets off-track by misunderstanding Andrew's point, because his focus is the narrow vision of the project being pushed back to the next day, regardless of the fact that it does not create a problem for Andrew who is in charge of that department; he only sees this as a bad thing. Andrew's focus and explanation is based on the company's well-being and that it is not hurt by the situation -- it's OK. Each Focus of Argument is different and therefore the argument continues and will break down.

On the other hand, the solution is found in Setting #2, where both A and B have the same focus: how does the situation at hand affect the company's well-being. There is no effect. So, no problem, both are confident. End of the conversation.

In this case, the real problem is to get Bob to see that in the first place. If Bob who is top management is not a trained communicator or does not want to set the environment for effective, truthful and trusted communication, the problem will not be solved - at least Andrew will be working on it alone (one-way communication).

The solution to this situation is in the awareness of effective communication by Andrew and Bob. If both are not informed about effective communication, neither one will know what's happening. Unfortunately this is the case in the majority of the communications taking place in the field of our industries today. This awareness can only come through training and practice.

How does one communicate with another who has never been trained in effective communication? It is hard for the one to lead the conversation into the right direction if both people are on a different Focus of Argument. One is arguing from the point of view of his own focus and the other from a totally different focus. What is the right focus of argument?

I was working on a temporary assignment for a company where my job was to prepare financial presentation charts. Financial managers would insert their data into a common drive on the network system and construct their charts.

At the corporate operations end, which is where I was, the goal was to standardize the different styles and formats in which these charts came in from their different original sources. One of the managers who had been asked to change certain aspects of his monthly charts went ahead and added a whole new set instead, and made changes to already approved standards. Not only did his department now have two sets of charts on the common drive, but merging the two required major work because of the inconsistencies of his changes.

When I brought up the problem, it came to the attention of one of the computer operators who was involved with the manager's charts. This operator took the side of the manager and argued that it didn't matter if the charts were changed and that managers had the right to develop their own charts as they wished. But the problem was "bringing the two sets of non-compatible charts back into one set". That was the Focus of Argument, not whether or not managers had the right to develop their own charts.

No matter how I tried to make the point clear that we were not arguing the changes in the new charts, but that we now had to amalgamate two sets of charts into one in the best possible way, while keeping the necessary data from the point of view of both the department manager and corporate operations. But the operator created his own focus of argument and got "stuck" on it for the rest of the discussion. He became more and more entrenched in his own focus, to the point where he walked away, back to his desk unnecessarily shaking his head.

Had both people focused on the same purpose for the discussion -- the same Focus of Argument -- a workable corporate solution would have been reached.

Those who are lucky enough to have been taught effective communication by their parents or their teachers in school will have a rewarding head start later in life. Those who have not had this privilege will have to acquire it as they move into jobs; it will then be their own responsibility and the responsibility of management to make it a subject of training and nurturing.

In our case here, the computer operator has never been trained in effective communication. It would be hard for the corporate staff to lead the conversation into the right direction, because both are on a different Focus of Argument. That's why the responsibility for setting the right environment for good communication falls on top management.

As I always say, communication is a two-way street. Yet half of us communicate on a one-way stretch most of the time. To have success in argument and communication in the Workplace is to train people to recognize and look for the common Focus of Argument.