Communication In the Workplace - How To Analyze An Argument

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.