resolving_issues_with_your_boss

12/08/2024:

Resolving Issues with Your Boss (Part 3):

Gaining time to rebuild trust

Summary of Part 2

Part 2 of this series defined the five levels of trust. It discussed the high price that is exacted when trust is perceived to be

broken in the workplace and began the conversation of how difficult and lengthy it is to regain it. Part 3 expands on the idea

that regaining trust requires effort.

Cognitive Dissonance and Attitude

We have briefly discussed how conflict and the loss of trust cause emotional stress: Cognitive Dissonance.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, L. 1962) presents a simple idea: when a person holds two conflicting beliefs or ideas,

they experience psychological discomfort, known as dissonance. This unpleasant state motivates individuals to reduce

tension by changing one or both conflicting beliefs or rationalizing the inconsistency. Dissonance is not about eliminating

discomfort in the same way basic needs like hunger are met; rather, it is about resolving conflicts between beliefs or actions

to relieve our internal discomfort, i.e., changing beliefs, justifying actions, or seeking new supportive information. Individuals

can either modify their beliefs to make them more consistent or rationalize their behavior to maintain consistency.

A few key points should be kept in mind when discussing cognitive dissonance: 1) Over time, individuals develop a large

number of expectations about what things go together and what things do not; when such an expectation is not fulfilled,

dissonance occurs. 2) Different individuals have different tolerances for cognitive dissonance; some are more prone to

experiencing and resolving it. 3) Strong external justifications can reduce the need to change beliefs or attitudes, and 4)

Cultural values influence responses to cognitive dissonance.

Our attitudes, then, are our personal, present-state collection of expectations. They form the basis of our starting default

emotional state for responding to dissonance.

To Be, or Not to Be

Over the past 40 years, the legal profession has played a significant role in dispute resolution. Many formal approaches to

resolving disputes involve the intervention of a third party, reflecting the belief that individuals may struggle to resolve

conflicts effectively on their own. However, not all third-party interventions are considered "the practice of law" or formal

legal processes; some are informal and non-binding.

In employment matters, seeking professional legal assistance or intervention from human resources is often necessary and

unavoidable. While many individuals prefer to resolve disputes without third-party involvement when possible, there are

situations where such assistance is beneficial or essential.

That aside, many instances of cognitive dissonance occur in the workplace. Because of this, our natural inclination to remove

ourselves from the source of the dissonance is limited by our reliance on employment for personal survival and self-

identification. We feel constrained in our ability to take direct action. Many individuals may accept uncomfortable or

disappointing situations without expressing their dissatisfaction openly. Many curb their emotions, and that unchecked often

leads to an outburst or an unexpected reaction. Many focus on “winning” or achieving their goals in a way that may not align

with effective problem-solving or constructive outcomes.

Many individuals may react without a clear understanding of the tactical tools available or the strategies needed to

implement them effectively. They are unprepared to interpret what they are feeling, why they are feeling, and what to do

about it in ways that support their personal well-being or professional growth.

Fight, Flight, Freeze, or Appraisal

Admitting our mistakes is a universal challenge, especially in the workplace, where expectations for competence and

professionalism are high. We are all hired to produce a product or service for someone else. Either directly or indirectly,

they are paying us for an expected outcome.

For whatever reason, someone who does not conform to these outcome expectations is seen as having less value than

someone who either conforms or exceeds those expectations. We all understand that when someone questions the quantity,

quality, or timeliness of an expected outcome, in its most basic sense, they are essentially accusing us of theft, bad faith, or

both.

For most of us, based on our prevailing circumstances and in-the-moment attitude, our predisposition to trigger a fight, flight

or freeze response is about to kick in if we let it happen.

While this is outside the scope of this article, it is highly recommended that the Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED)

Conference video of Psychologist Lisa Feldman Barret’s (Jan 2018) presentation be viewed. It is enlightening and thought-

provoking. Similarly, it is highly recommended that everyone pursue training in Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) tools, and

continue practicing its tools daily.

Emotional regulation is a critical precursor to effective workplace dispute resolution. Emotions, such as frustration, anger, or

stress, can escalate conflicts and hinder clear communication. By managing emotions, individuals can approach disputes

calmly and constructively, improving the likelihood of resolution. Key skills in emotional regulation include mindfulness,

which allows individuals to stay present and avoid impulsive reactions; self-awareness, which helps identify emotional

triggers; and emotion regulation strategies, such as re-framing negative thoughts or using relaxation techniques. These tools

allow individuals to stay focused on the issue at hand rather than becoming consumed by emotional reactivity.

Additionally, developing interpersonal effectiveness through communication skills like active listening, assertiveness, and

empathy can support conflict resolution. These skills allow parties to express their concerns clearly, without escalating the

situation, and also help in understanding and validating the other person’s perspective.

By practicing emotional regulation before and during disputes, individuals and teams can approach conflicts with greater

patience, empathy, and clarity. This leads to more constructive solutions and healthier workplace relationships, fostering a

collaborative environment rather than one of continued tension or resentment.

Particularly in the workplace, where we earn our living, we should begin practicing the principles of DBT: Mindfulness,

Distress Tolerance, Emotion Regulation, and Interpersonal Effectiveness. DBT principles have been successfully applied to

workplace conflicts and may be part of your employer’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The internet contains many

references to DBT and several interesting and helpful videos on YouTube. It is recommended that you independently

research the professional background of each presenter.

To quote a few sections of Lisa Feldman Barret’s (Jan 2018) TED presentation:

“Now, I am not suggesting to you that you can just perform a couple of Jedi mind tricks and then talk yourself out of being

depressed…But I am telling you that you have more control over your emotions than you might imagine. And that you have

the capacity to turn down the dial on emotional suffering and its consequences for your life by learning how to construct

your experiences differently. And all of us can do this. And with a little practice, we can get really good at it. Like driving, at

first, it takes a lot of effort. But eventually, it becomes pretty automatic…But I also have to warn you that it does come with

some fine print. Because more control also means more responsibility. If you are not at the mercy of mythical emotion

circuits which are buried deep inside your brain somewhere, and which trigger automatically, then who’s responsible, who’s

responsible when you behave badly? You are”.

This concept is crucial for conflict resolution. When we manage our emotions, we can think clearly and strategically rather

than react impulsively. In emotionally charged situations, it is easy to be swept away by our feelings, leading to hasty

decisions. However, by learning to manage our emotions, we can assess situations logically and create effective strategies.

Moreover, with greater emotional control comes greater responsibility. Emotional regulation means taking accountability for

our actions and making blaming emotions or external factors unacceptable when we behave poorly. Ultimately, emotional

control helps us navigate conflicts effectively and engage with others more intentionally.

Thinking Strategically, not Tactically

In several instances, I have differentiated tactics and strategies as it concerns resolving conflict.

The metaphor of "seeing the whole board" provides a valuable way to understand the role of emotional control in conflict

resolution. Just like in a game of chess, where success depends on understanding the entire game rather than focusing on

just one move, managing our emotions allows us to step back and view the situation in its entirety. When we are not

overwhelmed by emotional impulses, we gain the clarity and space needed to assess the issues from all angles, avoiding the

clouding effect of immediate emotional reactions.

Emotions like anger, frustration, or fear can distort our perception in conflict situations, narrowing our focus to only the most

immediate or emotionally charged aspects of the issue. This can lead to rash decisions or an escalation of the situation.

However, we can "see the whole board by regulating our emotions. This allows us to evaluate the underlying causes of the

conflict, consider the potential consequences of different actions, and weigh the emotional, relational, and professional costs

of any given resolution.

Having this broader perspective helps us avoid reactive decisions and focus on sustainable, thoughtful strategies. When our

emotions are under control, we have the mental bandwidth to assess long-term outcomes, choose the most appropriate

resolution strategies, and avoid short-sighted, emotionally-driven responses. Just like in chess, this strategic approach

increases our chances of achieving a favorable outcome, fostering better relationships and more effective solutions.

Conclusion

Dispute resolution is fundamentally a conscious choice. It requires individuals to actively manage their emotions and

approach conflicts with intention. Rather than reacting impulsively to emotional triggers, they must be aware of what they

are feeling and choose to regulate their emotions. This allows them to think clearly and strategically and to behave with more

confidence in difficult circumstances. In the workplace, this approach not only fosters better outcomes but also helps to

preserve professional and work-related relationships and maintain a positive work environment.

Ultimately, dispute resolution involves consciously acting with clarity and responsibility. Individuals can enhance their

emotional regulation and conflict resolution skills by adopting tools like those found in Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT).

When individuals actively choose to resolve disputes with intention, they address the immediate issues and contribute to

creating a more collaborative and supportive workplace culture. In this way, resolving conflict becomes a proactive, rather

than reactive, process.

Most importantly, it gains the necessary time to resolve the issue and possibly the opportunity to rebuild the trust that we

have lost.

* Note: A pdf copy of this article can be found at:

https://www.mcl-associates.com/downloads/resolving_issues_with_your_boss_part3.pdf

References

American Psychological Association. (DEC 2024). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved from apa.org:

https://dictionary.apa.org/attitude

Aronson, E. (1997). Back to the Future: Retrospective Review of Leon Festinger’s “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance” [Review

of A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, by L. Festinger]. The American Journal of Psychology, 110(1), 127–137.

Barrett, L. F. (2018, JAN). You aren't at the mercy of your emotions — your brain creates them. Retrieved from TED (Video):

https://lisafeldmanbarrett.com/2018/01/13/ted-talk-you-arent-at-the-mercy-of-your-emotions-your-brain-creates-them/

Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive Dissonance. Scientific American, 207(4), 93–106.

Gross, J. J. (1998). Sharpening the Focus: Emotion Regulation, Arousal, and Social Competence. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4),

287–290.

Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion Regulation in Adulthood: Timing Is Everything. Current Directions in Psychological Science,

10(6), 214–219.

Gross, J. J., Halperin, E., & Porat, R. (2013). Emotion Regulation in Intractable Conflicts. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 22(6), 423–429.

Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Cognitive Emotion Regulation: Insights from Social Cognitive and Affective

Neuroscience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(2), 153–158.

Sheppes, G., Scheibe, S., Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Emotion-Regulation Choice. Psychological Science, 22(11),

1391–1396.

While listening to an audiobook on the Medici by Paul Strathern, I was presented with a historical citation that I knew to be incredibly inaccurate. In a chapter entitled, "Godfathers of the Scientific Renaissance". discussing the apocryphal tale of Galileo's experiment conducted from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the author cites Neil Armstrong in the Apollo 11 flight to the Moon with its memorable modern recreation, using a hammer and a feather.

Attributing this famous experiment to Armstrong on Apollo 11 is incorrect. It occurred on August 2, 1971, at the end of the last EVA of Apollo 15, presented by Astronaut Dave Scott. To press the point further, Scott used a feather from a very specific species: a falcon's feather. This small piece of trivia is memorable since Scott accompanied by crew member Al Worden arrived on the Lunar surface using the Lunar Module christened, "Falcon".

In an instant, the author's faux pas – for me -- undercut the book's entire validity. In an instant, it soured my listening enjoyment.

Mr. Strathern is approximately a decade my senior. As a well-published writer and historian, it is presumed that he subscribes to the professional standards of careful research and accuracy. Given this well-documented piece of historical modern trivia, I cannot fathom how he got it so wrong. Moreover, I cannot figure out how such an egregious error managed to go unscathed through what I assumed was a standard professional proofreading and editing process.

If the author and the publisher’s many editorial staff had got this single incontrovertible event from recent history wrong, what other counterfactual information did the book contain?

What is interesting to me, is my own reaction or -- judging from this narrative – some might say, my over-reaction to a fairly common occurrence. Why was I so angry? Why could I not just shake it off with a philosophical, ironic shake of the head?

And that is the point: accidental misinformation, spin and out-and-out propaganda -- and the never-ending stream of lies, damned lies, and unconfirmed statistics whose actual methodology is either shrouded or not even attempted -- are our daily fare. At some point, it is just too much to suffer in silence.

I have had enough of it.

God knows I do not claim to be a paragon of virtue. I told lies as a child, to gloss over personal embarrassments, though I quickly learned that I am not particularly good at deception. I do not like it when others try to deceive me. I take personal and professional pride in being honest about myself and my actions.

Do I make mistakes and misjudgments personally and professionally? Of course, I do. We all do. Have I done things for which I am ashamed? Absolutely. Where I have made missteps in my life, I have taken responsibility for my actions, and have apologized for my actions, or tried to explain them if I have the opportunity to do so.

For all of these thoughtless self-centered acts, I can only move forward. There is nothing I can do about now except to try to do grow and be a better human being in all aspects of my life. That's all any of us can do. I try to treat others as I wish to be treated: with honesty and openness about my personal and private needs, and when I am able to accommodate the wants and needs of those who have entered the orbit of my life.

We all have a point of view. Given the realities of human psychology and peer pressures to conform, it is not surprising that I or anyone else would surrender something heartfelt without some sort of struggle. However, we have a responsibility to others -- and to ourselves -- to not fabricate a narrative designed to misinform, or manipulate others.

Lying is a crime of greed, only occasionally punished when uncovered in a court of law
I am sick to death with liars, “alternative facts” in all their varied plumages and their all too convenient camouflage of excuses and rationales. While I am nowhere close to removing this class of humans from impacting my life, I think it is well past the time to start speaking out loud about our out-of-control culture of pathological untruthfulness openly.

Lying about things that matter -- in all its many forms, both overt and covert -- is unacceptable. When does lying matter? When you are choosing to put your self-interest above someone else’s through deceit.

Some might call me a "sucker" or "hopelessly naive". I believe that I am neither. Our species - as with all living things -- is caught in a cycle of both competition and cooperation
We both compete and cooperate to survive.

There is a sardonic observation, “It’s all about mind over matter. If I no longer mind, it no longer matters”. This precisely captures the issue that we all must face: the people who disdainfully lie to us – and there are many – no longer mind. We – the collective society of humanity no longer matter, if for them we ever did.

We are long past the time when we all must demand a new birth of social norms. We all have the responsibility to maintain them and enforce them in our own day-to-day lives. Without maintaining the basic social norms of honesty and treating others as you wish to be treated in return, how can any form of human trust take place?