Last time, we discussed the advantages of attacking tough situations not all at once but in four phases:
The main argument for this approach is simple: To be persuasive, you need good arguments. When you are surprised and upset, you can't think of your best arguments. Therefore, whenever possible, give yourself time to calm down, think, and prepare properly.
How can you can become an expert at phase 1? First, develop restraint. Second, practice a set of safe minimal responses that defuse the immediate threat. As you'll see, anybody can learn this; all you need is a little willingness.
Make this your first focus: Instead of responding, just pause and think! Right now, look at your watch and count three seconds. Do it again and get used to how long it feels. That's how long you should pause, at the least, before talking. Notice that there is nothing awkward about three or even five seconds of silence. On the contrary: It encourages people to take your response more seriously, because it appears thought out rather than emotional.
What do you do in those three seconds? You make eye contact, smile if at all appropriate, and think about just one thing: What is the real issue here, and must it be dealt with at once? Generally, there are only three situations calling for instant resolution: 1) an emergency, 2) a public threat to your professional reputation, and 3) an interaction with someone (such as a visiting top manager) who won't be available for follow-up discussion.
For example, suppose you make a suggestion at a meeting, when a manager interrupts with a sarcastic remark such as: "Gee, I had no idea they taught far-out stuff like that at Crackerjack University!" In three seconds, you may realize that there is no real issue at all - this person simply wants to show off by taking a cheap shot at you. Your only task is to get smoothly back on track. (On the other hand, if you see a threat to your reputation because you sense real disagreement, the immediate issue becomes uncovering the objections and showing that your suggestion has practical merit.)
Or suppose your boss comes to your office and yells at you about a goof-up that occurred in your department yesterday, without your knowledge. If you keep your focus away from the trauma of being blamed, you should be able to see that the issues are that 1) some damage may have to be corrected and 2) as department head, you must make sure that this problem will not recur. Neither of these issues can be resolved on the spot - all you can do is to listen and show determination to solve the problem.
Requirement 1 excludes clever comebacks and intricate arguments. For instance, when that manager says, "Gee, I had no idea they taught far-out stuff like that at Crackerjack University!" it would be nice to reply with something like, "Ah, that's freshman stuff!" Unfortunately, most of us think of such comebacks three hours later! If you can come up with a humorous (but not sarcastic!) reply, that's fine - but something straight and simple will do: "Mhmm," "Sure," "Oh, yes!"
Requirement 2 rules out expressions of hurt, annoyance, or shock, such as: "What's that supposed to mean?" "What!" "Oh, come on!" or "What's that got to do with the subject under discussion?" Another no-no is the all-too-common "Well, uhm ...," which gives you away as a waffling wimp.
Requirement 3 means that, unfortunately, even a semiverbal grunt can't be totally rote but must be matched to the occasion. For instance, if somebody bursts out: "Are you out of your mind?" you wouldn't use "OK," "Sure," "Right," or "Mhmm" but rather "Uh-uh," "No, I don't think so," or "What's the problem you see with my suggestion?"
Here are some categories of words or word-noises to add to your repertoire and practice:
Judgments about other people's emotions, by the way, are never appropriate. For instance, "You seem upset" or "Can we all calm down a bit?" will probably spawn nasty reactions.
Requirement 4 means you don't say "yes" or "no" to requests for action if you haven't had time to think the problem through. If you need more time, just say so politely but firmly: "Let me think about it. I'll get back to you this afternoon." In the case of the departmental goof-up that upset your boss, this might take the form: "This is the first I heard of this problem. Please let me find out exactly what happened and how we can make sure it will never happen again. I'll get back to you within an hour."
Next time [see The Short Method], we'll see what to do in those situations where you either can't or don't need to buy time.
Last time, we discussed how to buy time when you are assaulted by an unpleasant surprise. Our argument was that few people respond well to challenging situations unless they have some time to prepare. Therefore, whenever you can, you should divide the task into four distinct phases: (1) minimal immediate response, (2) preparation, (3) problem-solving discussion, and (4) follow-through.
Unfortunately, some situations don't let you postpone a full discussion. For such cases, you need the "short method," which condenses phases 1-3.
For example, consider the situation we discussed last time: You are making a suggestion at a meeting, when a manager throws you off with a sarcastic remark such as: "Gee, I had no idea they taught far-out stuff like that at Crackerjack University!" This time, however, let's assume that by tone of voice and body language (e.g., rolling eyes or exchanging meaningful glances with others) the speaker casts serious doubt on the quality of your thinking. Leaving such a public attack on your professional reputation unanswered would be dangerous, because it would suggest to others in the room that you are insecure about your professional competence.
Or imagine you are checking in at the airport, only to learn that you've been bumped off your flight. It's the last flight to your destination, Cincinnati, and you must get there that day. Clearly, it won't do you any good to postpone discussion even for ten minutes by then the last alternatives will have been snapped up by quicker-thinking passengers who share your miserable fate.
You are practicing principle 1 from the start when you keep a few seconds of silence. But it goes farther than that. Many people act as if social rules compel them to answer any question or remark as quickly and directly as possible, no matter whether they understand it. Perhaps our elementary schools encourage this. Well, just remember, you're not in first grade anymore! A large part of assertiveness consists simply of feeling, and signaling to others, that you are entitled to take your time.
For instance, when you are bumped off that flight, the temptation is to respond instantly to the only facts you know: You don't have a seat, and you want one. Typically, this takes the form of an outburst: "What do you mean?! This is outrageous! I have to get on that plane!" And just as typically, you get no satisfaction but storm off with angry shouts of "I'll never fly with you guys again!" All this to the delight of the people waiting behind you, who are glad to see you gone quickly and empty-handed, because it gives them a better chance to work out some solution you missed.
Principle 2 has excellent benefits not just for you but also for the other person. Most of us don't like to be told things, but we don't mind being asked. If we happen to be upset or angry, just talking through the problem step by step may defuse our irritation and resistance. In the meantime, you have a chance to complete your thinking about the situation. What is it you need and want? What does the other person need or want? What areas seem to evoke the greatest emotional resistance? And what arguments and appeals are most likely to work?
For instance, in response to the "Crackerjack University" remark, you might ask: "Oh? Just what is it in my suggestion that seems so far out?" To which he might reply: "You name it!" So you "name it": Go through the components (technological, financial, managerial, etc.) of your suggestion and get input on each and be ready to discuss the issues seriously. In the end, everybody may have learned something useful and you emerge with your reputation enhanced rather than damaged.
Similarly, when you learn that your flight will leave without you, cut short the howls of agony and start asking questions: "Is there any way at all to get me on that plane? First class? I absolutely need to get to Cincinnati today. Is there some other way you can help me?" Now ideas will come in: "We can get you to Columbus." And then? Drive. Will the airline pay for a rental car? No. Why not? Unbendable policy. "Anything else you can do for me to make this easier?" Chances are, they can. In fact, we met someone recently who was offered a first class upgrade on his alternate flight just for being a pleasure to deal with even in distress. Airline employees are human, too!
Finally, make a saintlike effort to keep your speech pure and simple. No loaded questions, no accusations, no clever or biting phrases but also no wimpy, self-deprecating language that shows you don't think much of yourself. That's what principle 3 is all about. Judge for yourself: If you were the airline ticket agent, whom would you rather help the person who says: "How could you do this to me!" or the one who says: "Oh, what a disaster! Look, is there any way you can help me?" We'll have more to say on the subject when we discuss phase 3 of the four-step approach.
Division I:
Division II:
IEEE-USA ACTION ALERT - IEEE-USA is urging US members to write their Senators opposing passage of the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (S.2045), legislation which would raise the caps on H-1B visas to 195,000 per year for entry of high-tech guestworkers in 2000-2002 and also exempt from the caps foreign guestworkers who are employees of research or educational institutions or who hold a graduate level degree. See congress.nw.dc.us/cgi-bin/alertpr.pl?dir=ieee&alert=125
IEEE-USA TESTIFIES ON IT WORKFORCE NEEDS AND TEMPORARY VISA PROGRAMS - IEEE-USA representative John Reinert testified at a Feb. 29 hearing of the National Academy's Committee on IT Workforce Needs on temporary visa programs and IT labor markets in the United States. The testimony offered support for the following conclusions:
"Demand for technical professionals with specialized knowledge and skills is up sharply and will continue to grow as long as the US national economy continues to expand. And the supply of qualified workers has already begun to increase in response to tight labor markets throughout the country. But much more remains to be done, especially in the areas of retraining for mid-career and older workers and better utilization of people with fungible knowledge and skills that were developed in separate but closely related industries and occupations. IEEE-USA continues to be concerned that by increasing our reliance on temporary guest-workers (e.g. H-1B visa holders) to meet the nation's high-tech workforce needs in the short-term, we may be undermining the future strength of our own domestic engineering and scientific resources. Rather than continuing to increase our dependence on temporary guest-workers, we recommend that legal permanent immigrants be the preferred supplement! ! ary source of supply for skilled professionals and other knowledge workers needed to satisfy labor market needs that cannot be met through more effective education and training for American workers."
For full text of testimony and everything you ever wanted to know about immigration reform, see: www.ieeeusa.org/grassroots/immreform/index.html
OTHER LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REPORT ON POLICING NET CRIME - On March 9, US Attorney General Janet Reno released a much awaited Department of Justice report evaluating the ability of federal and state officials to combat Internet crime. The report concludes that current laws concerning fraud, child pornography, prescription drug sales, firearms, gambling, alcohol, securities fraud and intellectual property are generally adequate in the Internet context, but that law enforcement resources remain lacking. It concludes:
"Despite the general adequacy of laws that define the substance of criminal and other offenses, however, the Working Group finds that the Internet presents new and significant investigatory challenges for law enforcement at all levels. These challenges include the need for real-time tracing of Internet communications across traditional jurisdictional boundaries, both domestically and internationally; the need to track down sophisticated users who commit unlawful acts on the Internet while hiding their identities; the need for hand-in-glove coordination among various law enforcement agencies; and the need for trained and well-equipped personnel - at federal, state, local, and international levels - to gather evidence, investigate, and prosecute these cases. In some instances, federal procedural and evidentiary laws may need to be amended to better enable law enforcement to meet these challenges."
The report will be used to support several proposed law changes, such as creation of national warrants to assist cybercrime investigations, especially where crimes cross state boundaries requiring law endorcement officials to obtain warrants in each state. Privacy and civil liberty groups, however, are challenging the constitutionality of these proposals. See the full report, "The Electronic Frontier: The Challenge of Unlawful Conduct Involving the Use of the Internet" at www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/unlawful.htm.
NEW CAREERS COLUMN, by Greg Hutchins, discusses finding balance and satisfaction in, at, and around work through "surviving pain-in-neck bosses, managing migraine producing employees, finding a calling, making moves in/out of a company, winning the work political game, and branding Me Inc." www.ieee.org/organizations/eab/gregcolumn1.htm
HALF-YEAR MEMBERSHIPS provide a good opportunity to check out a new Society. Membership applications received by the IEEE, including technical Society memberships, as of 1 March will be processed on a "half year" basis with dues at half of the regular annual rate. Those who join after 1 March will become members through 31 December and will receive all publications from the time their applications are entered.
40 yrs
30 yrs
20 yrs
Susie ChemE, conducting an experiment in the chemistry laboratory, poured 54 cc of water into a beaker from a graduated cylinder. Then she accidentally dropped the cylinder and broke it. She had meant to pour only 50cc of water into the beaker. She found three large identical test tubes, and with eight pourings back and fourth between the test tubes and the beaker she was able to end up with 50 cc in the beaker. Can you duplicate her feat? Susie had a steady hand and could pour equal amounts of water into two or three test tubes. Consider such and operation as one pouring.
Answer to last month's Brainbuster:
Take the pennies! For the last day alone you'll earn 2**30 cents or $268,435,456.
Jean Eason, Editor