In Daniel Goleman’s classic, Emotional Intelligence, he writes:

“Feelings are self-justifying, with a set of perceptions and ‘proofs’ all their own.”

How true, isn’t it?

As human beings we tend to believe what we want to believe, based on our feelings. We then back up those emotion-based beliefs according to information congruent with what we want to believe in the first place. As for those pesky and inconvenient facts? Typically, they are pushed to the side so as not to interfere.

How very often do we see this in…others?

This is one reason why trying to “convince” (from the Latin, convincere meaning “to overcome”) someone with logic alone rarely works. When caught up in emotion, the person will unconsciously disregard any information that contradicts what they believe they already know and seek and accept only those info-bits in alignment with his/her emotional decision.

Before allowing themselves to consider another’s viewpoint, they must first “buy into” that person. Only then will their reactionary defense mechanism relax and they can be open to a new idea. Because they feel good (emotions), they will allow new information into their world.

We know we see this in others. But…”how often do we see this in ourselves?”

Do we need to first buy into the other person emotionally in order to accept the facts as they are — not necessarily as we’d like them to be? Or, are we able to stay conscious of our own unconscious desire to be right – and adjust our conclusions accordingly?

Anyone can be the first way. Those who are more personally and professionally effective and successful, constantly and consistently work on being the second way.

How do you do in this regard?

Those who take pride in being “brutally honest” are typically more interested in being brutal than they are in being honest.

Indeed, sometimes difficult and uncomfortable things need to be said (and honesty in saying them is very important!). Usually, however, they can be said with tact and kindness.

Being “brutally honest” is often more about the person speaking than about the person they are speaking to.

When I posted this on my Facebook page I received lots of comments; most in agreement. But, several people seemed to equate tactful, diplomatic honesty with a lack of authenticity. I’ve seen that same sentiment expressed in other posts and articles, as well.

Hmmmm. That concerns me.

Why? Because, I cannot understand why that dilemma would even come into play? In other words…

Why would someone believe that honesty must necessarily include brutality?
And, for that matter, that to be less than brutal in your honesty is to somehow be less honest or authentic?

Sure, there’s a time and place for most things. And, a small percentage of the time, there might need to be brutality in that honesty.

But, that’s a small — an extremely small — percentage of the time.

Usually we can be honest in such a way that it effectively communicates the point while still allowing the other person to feel good about themselves. To strengthen rather than diminish.

As my friend, People Skills Authority and Coach, Kate Nasser teaches, “Civility doesn’t weaken your message; it helps others to hear & embrace it.”

And, a very tough but successful General and later U.S. president, Dwight D. Eisenhower even said: “You don’t lead by hitting people over the head—that’s assault, not leadership.”

And, I believe it’s the same when dealing honestly with anyone.

What do you think?

In his draft of an excellent, soon-to-be-released book on leadership, Pat Sullivan, a long-time and hugely successful university coach and administrator, raised a very interesting point regarding handling critics and their criticism.

He referred to Dr. Martin Luther King’s great insight into this topic at the beginning of his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail, written in response to eight white clergymen who criticized his involvement in the Birmingham Campaign:

“Seldom, if ever, do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all of the criticisms that cross my desk…I would have no time for constructive work.”

A marvelous insight. And, as leaders and influencers, we will have critics.

Should we answer them? Like most things, I think it depends. We certainly cannot respond every time or we would indeed fall into the trap pointed out by Dr. King. At the same time, never responding would be counterproductive, as well. Utilizing discernment is important.

The following three reasons would seem to indicate the proper time to respond:

1. The critic has a point and the criticism is valid (it takes humility to recognize this).
2. Even if the critic is wrong and the criticism not valid, it might be a question that many others have. So, answering in terms of clarification could be very important.
3. Answering the critic and criticism — valid or not — is an opportunity to teach others how a leader/influencer handles criticism. This can serve both as a teaching lesson to others as well as strengthen the credibility and influence of the leader.

Have I left anything out? How do you deal with the critics? Do you feel that leaders who don’t care at all about the critics are more effective than those who do? Or, are they less effective?

Of note: At the conclusion of the above quote by Dr. King, he wrote, “But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I would like to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.”

Wow…What a leader!

Sometimes, we’re just not going to successfully move a person to our side of an issue.

He or she is so deeply rooted in an ideology or philosophy that to change would be a renunciation of their individual, long-standing and deeply entrenched belief system.

Politics is a somewhat easy example to cite.

Despite the old admonishment to not discuss politics in polite company, it makes sense that, if we believe a certain thing to be important regarding our country, we are naturally going to want to persuade others toward that same end.

And, when approached correctly, there is no reason not to.

How we go about the persuasion process is important. We’re much more likely to be successful when coming from a place of respect rather than anger and vitriol.

I personally found the back-and-forth arguments I observed on Social Media during the recent presidential campaign — filled with personal, vicious and hateful insults toward those who disagreed with one another — extremely disappointing. I doubt that many opinions were ever actually changed, but I don’t doubt that friendships (or potential friendships) were harmed.

Of course, even with rational, respectful disagreement, that doesn’t assure persuasion.

So, I believe the question then is not, “should we talk about a certain topic?” but “when should we stop talking about that topic?”

I believe the answer is when you and the other person have reached a crossroad; that point where any further discussion cannot possibly help your relationship, but might just hurt it. At that point it is best to respectfully “agree to disagree.” This honors the person’s right to believe a certain way without agreeing with that way.

One benefit is that it leaves them much more open to your other ideas when you speak again. And, maybe you can even re-visit the current idea. This could never happen without their trust that you will — in the end — respect their right to believe what they choose to believe.

Yes, because the person knows you will not try to coerce or bully them into accepting your opinion, they’ll actually be more open to the possibility of embracing your opinion, should you be able to make your point persuasively enough.

Sure, know what to say and how to say it. And…know when to stop saying it.

—–

Are you a coach, speaker or trainer? Or, would you like to be? Either way, feel free to check out our Certified Go-Giver Coach Program.

Have you ever noticed that it’s nearly impossible to win an argument? That doesn’t mean you can’t persuade someone to move from their original view to your view.

It’s just that it probably won’t happen as a result of an argument. The reason is that, while in the “argument” stage, the person will probably be too busy “defending their turf” to be able to step back and understand why your view is the more reasonable one. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

The key is to first end the argument. How? By agreeing.

Now, don’t get me wrong. You don’t have to “sell out” to do this. However, there’s always something within what they say where you can find agreement, even if it’s just how they feel, or their right to have those feelings.

Example: You arrive at the hotel much earlier than the usual check-in time. The person at the front desk tells you that it’s against company policy for guests to check in before the regular time of 3:00. You could logically argue that, as long as a room has been cleaned, it shouldn’t be any big deal. But, that would cause the employee to admit he’s wrong. Most people have an ego that doesn’t enjoy that feeling.

Instead, agree with him: “Yes, I understand what you mean. It’s hotel policy and that needs to be respected. I can appreciate that.”

You didn’t argue with him. You agreed with him. Personally, I don’t imagine he’ll argue with that. What’s he going to say? “No, you’re wrong. I’m totally wrong about what I just told you.” No, he’s going to feel good about you, because you agreed with him. He’s going to relax because he knows you are not being confrontational.

Now, you can help him to “live in the solution” with your suggestion: “You know, I’m wondering. Just if it’s not too much trouble, could you check to see if perhaps one of the rooms has already been cleaned? I think that’s probably the reason for the rule, which would make a lot of sense.” Then, as he’s checking, add what I call the “Eight Key Words” which are, “If you can’t do it, I’ll definitely understand.”

More than likely, you’ll get to check in early. I can tell you that from personal experience, and the experiences of those who do the same thing.

Remember, first agree. Then (and only then) persuade.

—–

{Note from Bob: Do you study success, abundance and prosperity? If so, you’ll want to join my great friend, Randy Gage tonight at 9:00PM Eastern Time. He’ll be teaching on this very topic, taking some of the lessons from his upcoming book, Risky Is the New Safe, and showing you how to apply them now to improve your marketing, make you more valuable to employers, or start your own venture. The bridge can hold 2,000 people only, so I recommend you sign up now at http://www.randygage.com/ts/}