# data[].attributes.body
Complete the conflict management style assessment below and answer the following questions:

1.  How do you feel about these results?  Are they accurate?

2.  How do you think you would have resolved the conflict example you shared?  If applicable, relate this to your assessment.

3. Where do you think you need to grow as a leader in regards to conflict management in schools?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Share an example of the 5-step conflict process in your school.  The scenario should describe the antecedent conditions leading to the conflict (Stage 1); whether this was Perceived or Felt Conflict, and by whom (Stage 2): how the conflict was handled (Stage 3);  Behaviors (Stage 4); and Outcomes (Stage 5).

2. Regarding Stage 5, share whether this resulted in a win-win, win-lose, lose-win, or lose-lose situation.

3. Share thoughts on the impact this scenario had on unit performance as defined in Diagram 14-1.

# data[].attributes.body
Review the brief video above from Bravo's Below Deck!  For context (for those who are not aficionados of this show!), there are several characters (team leaders) to watch:  Katie the Chief Steward, Malia the Head Bosun, and Captain Sandy.  After watching this segment, reflect privately or with a friend on these questions:

1. How does this scenario symbolize the different types of conflict and unit performance (diagram 14-1)?  How is this a sign of a high/low functioning team?

2. What can we infer about how conflict is managed on this team?

3. How does this scenario show the conflict process in action at various stages (Diagrams 14-2, 14-3)?

4. What insights does this give you into how individual personalities play into conflict and communication?

5. What are your thoughts on how the leader/captain managed this unit/team conflict?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tensions Rise Amongst the Crew | Below Deck Mediterranean Highlights (S6 E13)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Phrases That Demonstrate Active Listening

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is active listening? Learn how to improve your communication skills at work and at home with these phrases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Not many people enjoy dealing with conflict, but the reality is, in any job that you take, there are bound to be disagreements and you'll have to find a solution to a given dilemma. Handling conflict differs greatly on the situation, the people involved and the relationships that you have with your team. In a recent article by Harvard Law School on conflict management, they share:

"[Conflict management] requires shared appreciation of the dynamic quality of relationships: how "what I say affects what you think, which affects what you say and then what I think next, and so on." Without that kind of insight, each teammate will feel blameless for the problems that plague the group."

There are several different ways to approach the resolution of disputes, including different conflict resolution styles. Because handling conflicts isn't always easy, Fellow has put together an all-encompassing guide to different conflict management styles, so that you can manage conflicts with more confidence and think about which styles of conflict management are best suited for you and for your team. If you're usually the type to avoid conflict, prepare to be sent out of your comfort zone, while you get to know some of these conflict resolution approaches.

What is conflict resolution?

Conflict resolution in simple terms is the way in which you choose to resolve a disagreement between two or more people. It is the way that you find a solution to a given problem. Resolving conflict often isn't straight forward and there's no such thing as the "best" approach because this resolution style needs to be catered to your management style as well as the team dynamic. The objective in conflict resolution is to come to a mutual agreement and in the best-case scenario, with a mutually beneficial result. Conflict management is all about encouraging each party (or parties) to reconcile their differences and find common grounds.

Types of conflict resolution styles

There are several different conflict management styles, and it's important for you as a leader to familiarize yourself with different styles of conflict management to find what works best for you. In an interesting article by the Harvard Business Review, they highlight why understanding your own, and your team members' styles of conflict resolution is important to manage conflicts:

"Knowing how the other person typically reacts in a tense situation is useful information. So assess your coworker's style, if you're not already familiar with it. Consider whom you're dealing with. How does he typically communicate and how does he prefer to be communicated with? Is she more of a straight shooter who tells it like it is, or does she tend to beat around the bush? If you frequently work with the person you're having the conflict with, you may already be familiar with their style."

These different conflict resolution styles are important as an evaluation of what works for other people, as well as what is going to work best for yourself if differing situations with different audiences. One prominent conflict resolution approach in business management is the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Instrument, which suggests five key styles for managing conflict. Before we get into these five styles, it's important to understand that in dealing with conflict, a person's behavior can be described by two different elements (Kenneth & Ralph, 2008):

1. Assertiveness: The extent to which people try to satisfy their own concerns; and

2. Cooperativeness: The extent to which people try to satisfy other people's concerns

The extent to which someone is assertive or cooperative can be used to decide which of the five methods of dealing with conflict will be the most effective. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Instrument can be deciphered clearly in the diagram below:

* This model of conflict management is adapted from "Conflict and Conflict Management" by Kenneth Thomas in The Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology and directly cited from Thomas, Kenneth & Kilmann, Ralph (2008). Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument.
1 Competing Style

Style: Assertive and uncooperative

Description: Individuals who use this style tend to use their power or authority to pursue their own concerns at other peoples expense. This style does not tend to regard the other person's opinion on the matter and can manifest out of selfishness or out of simply trying to "win" the argument out of stubbornness. Be careful, cautious and thoughtful if this is the style you are choosing to engage with, as it is only fit for very few scenarios.

When to use it: The competing style can be used when you need to stand up for yourself, when you need to defend a position you believe in, or when time is an issue and a quick decision simply needs to be made.

2 Collaborating Style

Style: Assertive and cooperative

Description: This style is all about working with the other person to find a mutually beneficial solution. The collaborating style means that you want to take the time to understand the other person's concerns and truly hear them out as an equal. Collaborating means you're going to dig a little deeper into the issue to flag the underlying concern of each person and find an alternative that addresses these underlying concerns.

When to use it: It's a good rule of thumb to use this style when you're dealing with important issues, when you want to explore a disagreement to learn from one anothers insights or confronting another person or group to identify a creative solution to an interpersonal issue.

3 Compromising Style

Style: Assertive and cooperative

Description: The compromising style finds itself at an intermediate level of assertiveness and cooperation. This style attempts to resolve the issue by finding a resolution that is partially satisfactory or accepted by both parties but also isn't completely satisfactory or fully accepted by either. This style is said to fall on middle ground between competing and accommodating, offering more than competing but less than the accommodating style. Compromising means that you might come to a quick resolution but be weary, since it doesn't satisfy either side and leaves no room for collaboration. When you can, try the collaborating style over this one.

When to use it: You can use this conflict resolution style for intermediately important issues, when you need to split the difference, exchange concessions or when you're looking to find a quick solution and a middle-ground position.

4 Avoiding Style

Style: Unassertive and uncooperative

Description: This conflict resolution style means that you're not paying attention or you're ignoring the situation and consciously choosing not to take action to remedy the situation. Basically, the individual who selects this style of conflict resolution doesn't address the issue at all.

When to use it: Although the avoiding style can seem like quite a negative approach to a dispute, it can be used in situations where you need to withdraw from a threatening situation, diplomatically side- step an issue or when you need to postpone an issue until a later or better time.

5 Accommodating Style

Style: Unassertive and cooperative

Description: This is the opposite of the competing style. Using the accommodating style to resolve an issue means that you allow the other party to satisfy their concerns, at the expense of your own. There's an element of self-sacrifice if you choose to accommodate the other party because you put the needs of another before your own.

When to use it: The accommodating style is best- suited for unimportant problems because it creates a quick decision and won't strain your relationship. This often takes the form of generosity or maybe even charity, when you don't agree with someone's position but decide to go with their side to protect your own peace and keep some harmony in the office.

Which conflict resolution is the best?

The truth is, there is no such thing as the "best" conflict resolution style or method. The style that you choose will depend largely on your personality, your company culture and the relationships that you have with your team members. Moreover, conflicts don't always need to be seen in a negative light. Another article from the Harvard Business Review shares:

"... lest we forget, conflict does have a positive side: it can promote collaboration, improve performance, foster creativity and innovation and build deeper relationships."

Just like when you think about your audience when facilitating a presentation, and evaluate what kind of delivery might work, and what might not, you need to think about your audience in situations of conflict. Moreover, if you're not sure how your team members are going to react when bringing up an issue with them, take this as a sign to get to know the people you work with a little better. Resolving conflicts is far less daunting when you're familiar with different ways to address disputes. We hope that the five different conflict resolution styles that we've proposed from the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Instrument are helpful in highlighting different avenues to come to an agreement. As always, it's a pleasure seeing you on the Fellow blog. If you found this post interesting, be sure to send it to a friend or a colleague. Until next time!
References:
Corkindale, G. (2007). How to Manage Conflict [Business]. How to Manage Conflict. https://hbr.org/2007/11/how-to-manage-conflict

Gallo, A. (2017). How People with Different Conflict Styles Can Work Together [Business]. How People with Different Conflict Styles Can Work Together. https://hbr.org/2017/07/how-people-with-different-conflict-styles-can-work-together

Harvard Law School. (2020). New Conflict Management Skills: Understand How to Resolve "Hot Conflicts" [Education]. Three Specific Conflict Resolution Skills You Can Use in Conflict Management. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/new-conflict-management-skills/

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (2008). Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument (pp. 1-11) [Conflict (Psychology)]. TKI. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265565339_Thomas-Kilmann_conflict_MODE_instrument

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Conflict Resolution Styles: Which One is Best For Managers?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not many people enjoy dealing with conflict, but the reality is, in any job that you take, there are bound to be disagreements and you'll have to find a solution to a given dilemma. Handling conflict differs greatly on the situation, the people involved and the relationships that you have with your team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Brief

The Problem

Leaders know that low employee engagement is a sign of lost value-it's clearly something they want to fix. But most of them don't know how, so they provide random perks, hoping those will move the needle.

The Solution

It's much more effective to create a culture of trust. Neuroscience research shows that you can do this through eight key management behaviors that stimulate the production of oxytocin, a brain chemical that facilitates teamwork.

The Payoff

By fostering organizational trust, you can increase employees' productivity and energy levels, improve collaboration, and cultivate a happier, more loyal workforce.

Companies are twisting themselves into knots to empower and challenge their employees. They're anxious about the sad state of engagement, and rightly so, given the value they're losing. Consider Gallup's meta-analysis of decades' worth of data: It shows that high engagement-defined largely as having a strong connection with one's work and colleagues, feeling like a real contributor, and enjoying ample chances to learn-consistently leads to positive outcomes for both individuals and organizations. The rewards include higher productivity, better-quality products, and increased profitability.

So it's clear that creating an employee-centric culture can be good for business. But how do you do that effectively? Culture is typically designed in an ad hoc way around random perks like gourmet meals or "karaoke Fridays," often in thrall to some psychological fad. And despite the evidence that you can't buy higher job satisfaction, organizations still use golden handcuffs to keep good employees in place. While such efforts might boost workplace happiness in the short term, they fail to have any lasting effect on talent retention or performance.

In my research I've found that building a culture of trust is what makes a meaningful difference. Employees in high-trust organizations are more productive, have more energy at work, collaborate better with their colleagues, and stay with their employers longer than people working at low-trust companies. They also suffer less chronic stress and are happier with their lives, and these factors fuel stronger performance.

Leaders understand the stakes-at least in principle. In its 2016 global CEO survey, PwC reported that 55% of CEOs think that a lack of trust is a threat to their organization's growth. But most have done little to increase trust, mainly because they aren't sure where to start. In this article I provide a science-based framework that will help them.

About a decade ago, in an effort to understand how company culture affects performance, I began measuring the brain activity of people while they worked. The neuroscience experiments I have run reveal eight ways that leaders can effectively create and manage a culture of trust. I'll describe those strategies and explain how some organizations are using them to good effect. But first, let's look at the science behind the framework.

What's Happening in the Brain

Back in 2001 I derived a mathematical relationship between trust and economic performance. Though my paper on this research described the social, legal, and economic environments that cause differences in trust, I couldn't answer the most basic question: Why do two people trust each other in the first place? Experiments around the world have shown that humans are naturally inclined to trust others-but don't always. I hypothesized that there must be a neurologic signal that indicates when we should trust someone. So I started a long-term research program to see if that was true.

Experiments show that having a sense of higher purpose stimulates oxytocin production, as does trust. Trust and purpose then mutually reinforce each other, providing a mechanism for extended oxytocin release, which produces happiness.

So, joy on the job comes from doing purpose-driven work with a trusted team. In the nationally representative data set described in the main article, the correlation between (1) trust reinforced by purpose and (2) joy is very high: 0.77. It means that joy can be considered a "sufficient statistic" that reveals how effectively your company's culture engages employees. To measure this, simply ask, "How much do you enjoy your job on a typical day?"

I knew that in rodents a brain chemical called oxytocin had been shown to signal that another animal was safe to approach. I wondered if that was the case in humans, too. No one had looked into it, so I decided to investigate. To measure trust and its reciprocation (trustworthiness) objectively, my team used a strategic decision task developed by researchers in the lab of Vernon Smith, a Nobel laureate in economics. In our experiment, a participant chooses an amount of money to send to a stranger via computer, knowing that the money will triple in amount and understanding that the recipient may or may not share the spoils. Therein lies the conflict: The recipient can either keep all the cash or be trustworthy and share it with the sender.

To measure oxytocin levels during the exchange, my colleagues and I developed a protocol to draw blood from people's arms before and immediately after they made decisions to trust others (if they were senders) or to be trustworthy (if they were receivers). Because we didn't want to influence their behavior, we didn't tell participants what the study was about, even though there was no way they could consciously control how much oxytocin they produced. We found that the more money people received (denoting greater trust on the part of senders), the more oxytocin their brains produced. And the amount of oxytocin recipients produced predicted how trustworthy-that is, how likely to share the money-they would be.

Since the brain generates messaging chemicals all the time, it was possible we had simply observed random changes in oxytocin. To prove that it causes trust, we safely administered doses of synthetic oxytocin into living human brains (through a nasal spray). Comparing participants who received a real dose with those who received a placebo, we found that giving people 24 IU of synthetic oxytocin more than doubled the amount of money they sent to a stranger. Using a variety of psychological tests, we showed that those receiving oxytocin remained cognitively intact. We also found that they did not take excessive risks in a gambling task, so the increase in trust was not due to neural disinhibition. Oxytocin appeared to do just one thing-reduce the fear of trusting a stranger.

Compared with people at low-trust companies, people at high-trust companies report: 74% less stress, 106% more energy at work, 50% higher productivity, 13% fewer sick days, 76% more engagement, 29% more satisfaction with their lives, 40% less burnout.

My group then spent the next 10 years running additional experiments to identify the promoters and inhibitors of oxytocin. This research told us why trust varies across individuals and situations. For example, high stress is a potent oxytocin inhibitor. (Most people intuitively know this: When they are stressed out, they do not interact with others effectively.) We also discovered that oxytocin increases a person's empathy, a useful trait for social creatures trying to work together. We were starting to develop insights that could be used to design high-trust cultures, but to confirm them, we had to get out of the lab.

So we obtained permission to run experiments at numerous field sites where we measured oxytocin and stress hormones and then assessed employees' productivity and ability to innovate. This research even took me to the rain forest of Papua New Guinea, where I measured oxytocin in indigenous people to see if the relationship between oxytocin and trust is universal. (It is.) Drawing on all these findings, I created a survey instrument that quantifies trust within organizations by measuring its constituent factors (described in the next section). That survey has allowed me to study several thousand companies and develop a framework for managers.

How to Manage for Trust

Through the experiments and the surveys, I identified eight management behaviors that foster trust. These behaviors are measurable and can be managed to improve performance.

Recognize excellence.

The neuroscience shows that recognition has the largest effect on trust when it occurs immediately after a goal has been met, when it comes from peers, and when it's tangible, unexpected, personal, and public. Public recognition not only uses the power of the crowd to celebrate successes, but also inspires others to aim for excellence. And it gives top performers a forum for sharing best practices, so others can learn from them.

Barry-Wehmiller Companies, a supplier of manufacturing and technology services, is a high-trust organization that effectively recognizes top performers in the 80 production-automation manufacturers it owns. CEO Bob Chapman and his team started a program in which employees at each plant nominate an outstanding peer annually. The winner is kept secret until announced to everyone, and the facility is closed on the day of the celebration. The chosen employee's family and close friends are invited to attend (without tipping off the winner), and the entire staff joins them. Plant leaders kick off the ceremony by reading the nominating letters about the winner's contributions and bring it to a close with a favorite perk-the keys to a sports car the winner gets to drive for a week. Though the recognition isn't immediate, it is tangible, unexpected, and both personal and public. And by having employees help pick the winners, Barry-Wehmiller gives everyone, not just the people at the top, a say in what constitutes excellence. All this seems to be working well for the company: It has grown from a single plant in 1987 to a conglomerate that brings in $2.4 billion in annual revenue today.

Induce "challenge stress."

When a manager assigns a team a difficult but achievable job, the moderate stress of the task releases neurochemicals, including oxytocin and adrenocorticotropin, that intensify people's focus and strengthen social connections. When team members need to work together to reach a goal, brain activity coordinates their behaviors efficiently. But this works only if challenges are attainable and have a concrete end point; vague or impossible goals cause people to give up before they even start. Leaders should check in frequently to assess progress and adjust goals that are too easy or out of reach.

The need for achievability is reinforced by Harvard Business School professor Teresa Amabile's findings on the power of progress: When Amabile analyzed 12,000 diary entries of employees from a variety of industries, she found that 76% of people reported that their best days involved making progress toward goals.

Give people discretion in how they do their work.

Once employees have been trained, allow them, whenever possible, to manage people and execute projects in their own way. Being trusted to figure things out is a big motivator: A 2014 Citigroup and LinkedIn survey found that nearly half of employees would give up a 20% raise for greater control over how they work.

Autonomy also promotes innovation, because different people try different approaches. Oversight and risk management procedures can help minimize negative deviations while people experiment. And postproject debriefs allow teams to share how positive deviations came about so that others can build on their success.

Often, younger or less experienced employees will be your chief innovators, because they're less constrained by what "usually" works. That's how progress was made in self-driving cars. After five years and a significant investment by the U.S. government in the big three auto manufacturers, no autonomous military vehicles had been produced. Changing tack, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency offered all comers a large financial prize for a self-driving car that could complete a course in the Mojave Desert in less than 10 hours. Two years later a group of engineering students from Stanford University won the challenge-and $2 million.

Enable job crafting.

When companies trust employees to choose which projects they'll work on, people focus their energies on what they care about most. As a result, organizations like the Morning Star Company-the largest producer of tomato products in the world-have highly productive colleagues who stay with the company year after year. At Morning Star (a company I've worked with), people don't even have job titles; they self-organize into work groups. Gaming software company Valve gives employees desks on wheels and encourages them to join projects that seem "interesting" and "rewarding." But they're still held accountable. Clear expectations are set when employees join a new group, and 360-degree evaluations are done when projects wrap up, so that individual contributions can be measured.

Share information broadly.

Only 40% of employees report that they are well informed about their company's goals, strategies, and tactics. This uncertainty about the company's direction leads to chronic stress, which inhibits the release of oxytocin and undermines teamwork. Openness is the antidote. Organizations that share their "flight plans" with employees reduce uncertainty about where they are headed and why. Ongoing communication is key: A 2015 study of 2.5 million manager-led teams in 195 countries found that workforce engagement improved when supervisors had some form of daily communication with direct reports.

Social media optimization company Buffer goes further than most by posting its salary formula online for everyone to see. Want to know what CEO Joel Gascoigne makes? Just look it up. That's openness.

Intentionally build relationships.

The brain network that oxytocin activates is evolutionarily old. This means that the trust and sociality that oxytocin enables are deeply embedded in our nature. Yet at work we often get the message that we should focus on completing tasks, not on making friends. Neuroscience experiments by my lab show that when people intentionally build social ties at work, their performance improves. A Google study similarly found that managers who "express interest in and concern for team members' success and personal well-being" outperform others in the quality and quantity of their work.

Yes, even engineers need to socialize. A study of software engineers in Silicon Valley found that those who connected with others and helped them with their projects not only earned the respect and trust of their peers but were also more productive themselves. You can help people build social connections by sponsoring lunches, after-work parties, and team-building activities. It may sound like forced fun, but when people care about one another, they perform better because they don't want to let their teammates down. Adding a moderate challenge to the mix (white-water rafting counts) will speed up the social-bonding process.

Facilitate whole-person growth.

High-trust workplaces help people develop personally as well as professionally. Numerous studies show that acquiring new work skills isn't enough; if you're not growing as a human being, your performance will suffer. High-trust companies adopt a growth mindset when developing talent. Some even find that when managers set clear goals, give employees the autonomy to reach them, and provide consistent feedback, the backward-looking annual performance review is no longer necessary. Instead, managers and direct reports can meet more frequently to focus on professional and personal growth. This is the approach taken by Accenture and Adobe Systems. Managers can ask questions like, "Am I helping you get your next job?" to probe professional goals. Assessing personal growth includes discussions about work-life integration, family, and time for recreation and reflection. Investing in the whole person has a powerful effect on engagement and retention.

Show vulnerability.

Leaders in high-trust workplaces ask for help from colleagues instead of just telling them to do things. My research team has found that this stimulates oxytocin production in others, increasing their trust and cooperation. Asking for help is a sign of a secure leader-one who engages everyone to reach goals. Jim Whitehurst, CEO of open-source software maker Red Hat, has said, "I found that being very open about the things I did not know actually had the opposite effect than I would have thought. It helped me build credibility." Asking for help is effective because it taps into the natural human impulse to cooperate with others.

The Return on Trust

After identifying and measuring the managerial behaviors that sustain trust in organizations, my team and I tested the impact of trust on business performance. We did this in several ways. First, we gathered evidence from a dozen companies that have launched policy changes to raise trust (most were motivated by a slump in their profits or market share). Second, we conducted the field experiments mentioned earlier: In two businesses where trust varies by department, my team gave groups of employees specific tasks, gauged their productivity and innovation in those tasks, and gathered very detailed data-including direct measures of brain activity-showing that trust improves performance. And third, with the help of an independent survey firm, we collected data in February 2016 from a nationally representative sample of 1,095 working adults in the U.S. The findings from all three sources were similar, but I will focus on what we learned from the national data since it's generalizable.

By surveying the employees about the extent to which firms practiced the eight behaviors, we were able to calculate the level of trust for each organization. (To avoid priming respondents, we never used the word "trust" in surveys.) The U.S. average for organizational trust was 70% (out of a possible 100%). Fully 47% of respondents worked in organizations where trust was below the average, with one firm scoring an abysmally low 15%. Overall, companies scored lowest on recognizing excellence and sharing information (67% and 68%, respectively). So the data suggests that the average U.S. company could enhance trust by improving in these two areas-even if it didn't improve in the other six.

The effect of trust on self-reported work performance was powerful. Respondents whose companies were in the top quartile indicated they had 106% more energy and were 76% more engaged at work than respondents whose firms were in the bottom quartile. They also reported being 50% more productive-which is consistent with our objective measures of productivity from studies we have done with employees at work. Trust had a major impact on employee loyalty as well: Compared with employees at low-trust companies, 50% more of those working at high-trust organizations planned to stay with their employer over the next year, and 88% more said they would recommend their company to family and friends as a place to work.

My team also found that those working in high-trust companies enjoyed their jobs 60% more, were 70% more aligned with their companies' purpose, and felt 66% closer to their colleagues. And a high-trust culture improves how people treat one another and themselves. Compared with employees at low-trust organizations, the high-trust folks had 11% more empathy for their workmates, depersonalized them 41% less often, and experienced 40% less burnout from their work. They felt a greater sense of accomplishment, as well-41% more.

Again, this analysis supports the findings from our qualitative and scientific studies. But one new-and surprising-thing we learned is that high-trust companies pay more. Employees earn an additional $6,450 a year, or 17% more, at companies in the highest quartile of trust, compared with those in the lowest quartile. The only way this can occur in a competitive labor market is if employees in high-trust companies are more productive and innovative.

CONCLUSION

Former Herman Miller CEO Max De Pree once said, "The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between the two, the leader must become a servant."

The experiments I have run strongly support this view. Ultimately, you cultivate trust by setting a clear direction, giving people what they need to see it through, and getting out of their way.

It's not about being easy on your employees or expecting less from them. High-trust companies hold people accountable but without micromanaging them. They treat people like responsible adults.

A version of this article appeared in the January-February 2017 issue (pp.84-90) of Harvard Business Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Brief The Problem Leaders know that low employee engagement is a sign of lost value-it's clearly something they want to fix. But most of them don't know how, so they provide random perks, hoping those will move the needle. The Solution It's much more effective to create a culture of trust.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You don't. And you're also steering the focus away from someone who probably just wants to be heard. Here's how to be a more considerate conversation partner, says radio host and writer Celeste Headlee.

A good friend of mine lost her dad some years back. I found her sitting alone outside our workplace, just staring at the horizon. She was absolutely distraught, and I didn't know what to say to her. It's so easy to say the wrong thing to someone who is grieving and vulnerable.

So I started talking about how I grew up without a father. I told her my dad had drowned in a submarine when I was only nine months old and I'd always mourned his loss, even though I'd never known him. I wanted her to realize that she wasn't alone, that I'd been through something similar and I could understand how she felt.

But after I related this story, my friend snapped, "Okay, Celeste, you win. You never had a dad and I at least got to spend 30 years with mine. You had it worse. I guess I shouldn't be so upset that my dad just died."

I was stunned and mortified. "No, no, no," I said, "that's not what I'm saying at all. I just meant I know how you feel."

And she answered, "No, Celeste, you don't. You have no idea how I feel."

Often subtle and unconscious, conversational narcissism is the desire to do most of the talking and to turn the focus of the exchange to yourself.

She walked away and I stood there feeling like a jerk. I had wanted to comfort her and, instead, I'd made her feel worse. When she began to share her raw emotions, I felt uncomfortable so I defaulted to a subject with which I was comfortable: myself. She wanted to talk about her father, to tell me about the kind of man he was. She wanted to share her cherished memories. Instead, I asked her to listen to my story.

From that day forward, I started to notice how often I responded to stories of loss and struggle with stories of my own experiences. My son would tell me about clashing with a kid in Boy Scouts, and I would talk about a girl I fell out with in college. When a coworker got laid off, I told her about how much I struggled to find a job after I had been laid off years earlier. But when I began to pay more attention, I realized the effect of sharing my experiences was never as I intended. What all of these people needed was for me to hear them and acknowledge what they were going through. Instead, I forced them to listen to me.

Sociologist Charles Derber describes this tendency as "conversational narcissism." Often subtle and unconscious, it's the desire to take over a conversation, to do most of the talking, and to turn the focus of the exchange to yourself. Derber writes that it "is the key manifestation of the dominant attention-getting psychology in America."

He describes two kinds of responses in conversations: a shift response and a support response. The first shifts attention back to yourself, and the second supports the other person's comment.
Example number 1: The shift response
Mary: I'm so busy right now.

Tim: Me, too. I'm totally overwhelmed.
The support response
Mary: I'm so busy right now.

Tim: Why? What do you have to get done?
Example number 2: The shift response
Karen: I need new shoes.

Mark: Me, too. These things are falling apart.
The support response
Karen: I need new shoes.

Mark: Oh yeah? What kind are you thinking about?

Shift responses are a hallmark of conversational narcissism - they help you turn the focus constantly back to yourself. But a support response encourages the other person to continue their story. It lets them know you're listening and interested in hearing more.

We can craftily disguise our attempts to shift focus - we might start a sentence with a supportive remark and then follow up with a comment about ourselves.

The game of catch is often used as a metaphor for conversation. In an actual game of catch, you're forced to take turns. But in conversation, we often find ways to resist giving someone else a turn. Sometimes, we use passive means to subtly grab control of the exchange.

This tug-of-war over attention is not always easy to track. We can very craftily disguise our attempts to shift focus. We might start a sentence with a supportive comment, and then follow up with a comment about ourselves. For instance, if a friend tells us they just got a promotion, we might respond by saying, "That's great! Congratulations. I'm going to ask my boss for a promotion, too. I hope I get it."

Such a response could be fine, as long as we allow the focus to shift back to the other person again. However, the healthy balance is lost when we repeatedly shine the attention back on ourselves.

While reciprocity is an important part of any meaningful conversation, the truth is shifting the attention to our own experiences is completely natural. Modern humans are hardwired to talk about themselves more than any other topic. One study found that "most social conversation time is devoted to statements about the speaker's own emotional experiences and/or relationships, or those of third parties not present."

The insula, an area of the brain deep inside the cerebral cortex, takes in the information that people tell us and then tries to find a relevant experience in our memory banks that can give context to the information. It's mostly helpful: the brain is trying to make sense of what we hear and see. Subconsciously, we find similar experiences and add them to what's happening at the moment, and then the whole package of information is sent to the limbic regions, the part of the brain just below the cerebrum. That's where some trouble can arise - instead of helping us better understand someone else's experience, our own experiences can distort our perceptions of what the other person is saying or experiencing.

The more comfortable you are, the more difficult it is to empathize with the suffering of another.

A study from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences suggests that our egos distort our perception of our empathy. When participants watched a video of maggots in a group setting, they could understand that other people might be repulsed by it. But if one person was shown pictures of puppies while the others were shown the maggot video, the puppy viewer generally underestimated the rest of the group's negative reaction to the maggots.

Study author Dr. Tania Singer observed, "The participants who were feeling good themselves assessed their partners' negative experiences as less severe than they actually were. In contrast, those who had just had an unpleasant experience assessed their partners' good experience less positively." In other words, we tend to use our own feelings to determine how others feel.

Here's how that translates to your daily conversations: Let's say you and a friend are both laid off at the same time by the same company. In that case, using your feelings as a measure of your friend's feelings may be fairly accurate because you're experiencing the same event. But what if you're having a great day and you meet a friend who was just laid off? Without knowing it, you might judge how your friend is feeling against your good mood. She'll say, "This is awful. I'm so worried that I feel sick to my stomach." You'd respond, "Don't worry, you'll be okay. I was laid off six years ago and everything turned out fine." The more comfortable you are, the more difficult it is to empathize with the suffering of another.

It took me years to realize I was much better at the game of catch than I was at its conversational equivalent. Now I try to be more aware of my instinct to share stories and talk about myself. I try to ask questions that encourage the other person to continue. I've also made a conscious effort to listen more and talk less.

Recently, I had a long conversation with a friend who was going through a divorce. We spent almost 40 minutes on the phone, and I barely said a word. At the end of our call, she said, "Thank you for your advice. You've really helped me work some things out."

The truth is, I hadn't offered any advice. Most of what I said was a version of "That sounds tough. I'm sorry this is happening to you." She didn't need advice or stories from me. She just needed to be heard.

Excerpted with permission from the book We Need to Talk: How to Have Conversations That Matter by Celeste Headlee. Published by Harper Wave, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. © 2017 Celeste Headlee.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why we should all stop saying "I know exactly how you feel"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A good friend of mine lost her dad some years back. I found her sitting alone outside our workplace, just staring at the horizon. She was absolutely distraught, and I didn't know what to say to her. It's so easy to say the wrong thing to someone who is grieving and vulnerable.