Arguing without getting emotional 7

[Kinsrow]

My position as an engineer is really between the two tales. I'm the guy who take over the R&D idea and make it work. This involves assisting the R&D people on how to design thing that is manufacturable, cheap, easy to assemble, etc. I found my self that if I don't catch their mistakes then it is my fault. If I do catch their mistakes, I still have to fix it due to various reason like the product is way down the line and the tooling is already built, etc. Now here is the real issue, I always get pumped up whenever I get to the meeting and talked with these guys trying to convince them to change the design a little bit to accomodate for better cost, assembly, service, etc. It seems like no matter how I present the fact, I always got my self in the arguing mode that at the end I wanted to kick his butt so badly.

How do you present the fact without getting emotional and still being able to convince them. And if you do get into a debate, how do you stay calm and not take things personally.

Anyone has similar situation and how to cope this?

Kinsrow

 

[Senselessticker]

I agree with tygerdawg. NEVER lose your cool. Keeping your cool gives you a huge edge over those who cannot. If you know a meeting is going to be intense, arm yourself with as many facts as possible prior to the meeting and be prepared for whatever resistance you may encounter during. Never insult anyone's intelligence or ideas (even if you and everyone else know he/she is a moron!).

When a big meeting is approaching, I usually make a list anticipated questions/concerns/problems which may come from the other side of the table. Then I make a list of my responses which can be supported by documentation. I usually have the documents handy at the meeting. Of course, only about 5% of the time are the documents actually needed. But when you need it….its like having an Ace in the Hole. Present the info with enthusiasm and be careful not to insult anyone. Only present what’s needed to win the point (don’t beat someone in the ground and embarrass him/her).

Swearingen posted some good ideas. Other options are:

1. Play a little dumb when someone suggest something that you KNOW will not work. Say something like: “I like that idea! But need to (investigate/confirm/research – whatever the appropriate word) a little before I buy into it.” Some time after the meeting send and email or phone call with documentation supporting WHY it will not work. Let the other person know that you spent time seriously considering his/her idea (even if you didn’t). Offer praise for his/her idea, and let them down gently.

2. As mentioned above, be prepared for resistance. Anticipate tough questions/concerns and argue your position with respect and tact. Smile while your doing it!

3. Realize that your idea may not be the best idea on the table, and concede with respect and gratitude to the opposition when appropriate.

 

[SomptingGuy]

Just a coupl eof points:

1) One thing to remember is to avoid the following (or similar):

"Your design will not work because of X. You'll need to adopt my solution to fix it."

There are always many solutions. A clear statement of the problem is worth so much more than a vague one accompanied with one must-do solution.


2) One of the previous posts mentions putting things in writing. I couldn't agree more. To accurately explain a problem in writing is to half solve it.

 

[ziggi]

kontiki,
I don't believe I mentioned those with a huge workload in there.
monkeydog,
Obnoxious? I dunno, but I do have a mean streak

 

[proletariat]

Word of the day
ni·hil·ism
Pronunciation: 'nI-(h)&-"li-z&m, 'nE-
Function: noun
Etymology: German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil nothing -- more at NIL
1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2 a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination
- ni·hil·ist /-list/ noun or adjective


proletariat which are you?

Depends on the day, but mostly #1. Also, only with regard to work, not life in general.

 

[proletariat]

"The Prince" by Machiavelli should be required reading for any cynic empolyed in the corporate world.

 

[Senselessticker]

"Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel" by Scott Adams is also good for understanding ones role in the corporate world.

 

[BJC]

Word for the day: WE
Don't you guys all get a check from the same bank account?
Approaching a problem for the "me" and "you" perspective is a headstart to an arguement.

 

[IRstuff]

There is a difference between "losing your cool" and "firing for effect."

Oftentimes managers tirade just to shake people up a bit.

TTFN

 

[65Roses]

For practice try arguing with the obtuse guys over on the Inventor forum against their beloved Autodesk product. Its a hoot!

 

[Kinsrow]

IRstuff,

What I would like to get better is exactly "firing for effect without loosing my cool"...

Kinsrow

 

[Senselessticker]

In my book: "firing for effect" and "loosing your cool" is the same. Expressing anger in the workplace (for any reason) shows a lack of self discipline and lack of professionalism. The manager who can achieve the same results without expressing frustration/anger is of great advantage when compared to the manager who must throw a tantrum to get his people to work.

 

[KENAT]

Kinsrow, having all your facts and figures, especially in a logical easy to follow document etc as a number of people have suggested may help.

However, somtimes people will not be disuaded from their viewpoint just because of a minor point like the fundamental laws of physics etc.

The really good thing about having it in writing and some how dated (email or formal memo etc) is that when the realization that the laws of physics can't be broken dawns and if they decide to find whose fault it was your ass is asbestos.

Of course this may not make you popular but hey.

All I can say is good luck and I feel your pain, just remember as they used to say a lot at my last place, "if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined".

 

[2dye4]

The one who gets emotional looses the discussion.
There is no reason for becoming emotionally attached
to your solution.
Tell the engineers your concerns. Then listen intently.
If you hear anything to change your mind rethink it
quickly. If not look at them calmly and say that you
understand their concern but that you want them to
do it your way. Say it with a unspoken demenour that
conveys finality. Politely insinuate the discussion is
over. After all you have the responsibility for the
the design. Don't let it become an excuse for them to
shirk responsibility either by avoiding decision making.
Your final judgement doesn't mean they can turn off their
brain. You expect the task to be carried out in a good
faith effort in the manner you desire.

This may take a training period if their is a history of
argument, but things will be better when they know you
will not argue, either you do as told or suffer the
results at review time. OR SOONER

 

[Ashereng]

Kinsrow,

It takes 2 parties to get into an emotional arguement. If you take yourself out of the equation, then the arguement cannot get emotional. You are left with one person ranting - and after a while, that gets old.

An arguement is not a bad thing. I hear a lot of people say arguement is bad. I look at it as 2 sides caring enough to talk it out.

When an arguement/discussion/debate whatever gets heated, you simply stop, listen, and wait. When the other side stops, you can begin again.

If one side keeps saying no no no, then ask them what it will take to say yes. If you can't make it work, ask them how they would make it work. This way, you involve the naysayer and make them part of the solution. It usually ends up with a workable solution. Not always though.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[MedicineEng]

I frequently use one technique that is called "managing in the corridors of indiference" and I believe that it can be applied in your case.
This basically says the following: If you have a major change to be done, split in small ones and pass it without strong reaction.
In you case:
There are a lot of changes that need to be done in the design. If you just present the bulk of the changes, most probably the reaction will be:"No way!!!".
With this technique you will do the following steps:

-Analyze the changes, see whcih ones are really important for you and separate from the others that :"It would be nice to have it, but I can survive without it";
-Try to realize which are the changes that the other party is willing to do and which ones you can expect more resistance;
-Pass first the ones that have a low conflict level (you can put now and then a hot topic, just to feel the mood);
-Finally try to negotiate the hot topics.

Eventually you will not be able to pass all your ideas, but you can get a quite good % of changes passed and the ones that are not accepted will eventually not be important for you. Remember, eventually a change that you find as critical, might be an acceptable change from the other party.

Other point that I usually use is the $$$ issue. Try to value the changes that you are proposing. If the finantial impact is big, it is a huge point in your favour. If it is meaningless it can also show to you that eventually the change is not so significant.

Above all, don't be stubborn and accept that others might have valuable ideas too.

 

[IRstuff]

You cannot expect to only use one approach to get everyone going. Different people require different tools. Some people, unfortunately, will not get moving without great effort. Others are more reasonable. Some require tirades, others require honey.


Engrained culture is a difficult nut to crack. Rather than trying to impose a structure or process "from the top", try to get the masses involved directly.

Set up "tiger" teams without your involvement to deal with the next problem and empower and task them to solve the problem. Then follow through with actual and tangible improvements and money to make the necessary changes. Most people supposedly know what the right procedure is, but need the right forum and situation to "buy in." note that any hesitation on the part of upper management will put the kibosh on the whole process.

DFMA, DFT, CE etc., mostly failed because it is almost trivially obvious that while the managment might "talk the talk," they don't "walk the walk." Therefore, if you're serious, you need to be serious and do serious.

TTFN

 

[kchayfie]

Sometimes the other side is reluctant to get involved because from their point of view there isn't a problem to be solved. Approach the meeting with the view that you are going to reach a conclusion that works for you. Start of by presenting the reasons why you think you need something doing differently. Suggest a way of doing it that works for you and ask how hard it would be to implement from their point of view. Ask what you can do to make it easier for them to fix the problem you've presented. Allow them the opportunity to present an alternative solution. Above all, do not let them deny that there is a problem that they can help solve.

If they absolutely refuse to move on the problem this time around, switch the argument to a lessons learned point of view and a "how can we prevent ourselves ending up in this argument next time? what can I do to help you at the start of the project so you don't have to listen to my moans when we get to this stage again?"

And if that doesn't work, find a new job!

 

[fastasleep]

How do you present the fact without getting emotional and still being able to convince them. And if you do get into a debate, how do you stay calm and not take things personally.

One thing I've noticed through the years is that when I find myself in an emotional argument at work, it's because I am arguing with someone who, like me, cares about the work they do. Yes, it's the ol' touchy-feely, I'm okay-you're okay, "we're both playing for the same team" point.

By keeping this in mind, though, it's really helped to keep things in perspective and allowed me to learn to listen to what the other person is saying. And by shutting my mouth, taking a deep (silent) breath and listening carefully, I usually accomplish one or more of the following:
1) realize that we are both arguing the same point, but said in different ways,
2) find enough common ground or compromises that can help to resolve the argument and move toward a resolution,
3) catch the other person using straw-man arguments, circular logic or the like, which are sometimes very difficult to pick up on in the heat of the battle,
4) think about how I can phrase the next comment to be non-aggressive/non-personal,
5) and last, but not least, give myself the opportunity to be awarded the same respectful listening-to that I just gave the other person by saying "okay, now it's my turn...."

One thing I do have a major problem with is arguing against the person with "not-invented-here" syndrome. These people really put my patience to the test. But another tool I've learned to use successfully is levity.

My favorite example of this was responding to a venerable, older employee telling me that "we've done it this way since we were Company 'X' and it's always worked" by asking "isn't Company 'X' the one that went bankrupt?" A meaningless joke with a quick wink or smile, or both, go a long way to bring the stress level of these meetings down.

 

[goingdeep]

Ahh...The struggles of a great Strategist. If only everyone would do everything exactly as you want them to, the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately, you do not have any control over people, places, or things. Although you may have great ideas, and you may "know" that they are the right thing to do, it would take a true visionary to help you implement them. An unlikely ally in the design profession. It is surely maddening if you are codependent.
If something burns your ass, you had better figure out what makes your ass flammable. Is it an overactive ambition, a fear of being unsuccessful, a false sense of pride or entitlement?
The only thing you can do is effectively communicate your ideas, both up and down the line. Some of your ideas are most likely great, but for various reasons will never come to fruition. Take it seriously, but not personally. These are things, at least for the time being, that you cannot control. Accept it or move on. Do not empathize with others agitation; match calamity with serenity. Do not become a nihilist, find your Zen. Join a gym.

 

[electricpete]

If you are thinking about the the viewpoits and sensitivities of the other folks while you're in the meeting (as it sounds like you are), that is 99% of the battle.

You can control what you do, not what they do. If you stay calm and do your best to communicate your thoughts nonconfrontationally, that's the most you can do. Trying to do more and showing impatience or anger will usually be counterproductive (I should know).

Another thing to bear in mind is that your impatience shows not only in your words, but also the tone (pitch) of your voice, the pace of your words (jumping in without allowing someone else to finish), and your body language. To convey calmness on all those levels, you have to really be calm (not just try to act calm).

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.