To decide what to confront:
• Think CPR — content, pattern, and relationship.
• Expand the list of possible issues by considering consequences and intent.
• Choose from the list by asking what you do and don’t want: for yourself, others, and the relationship.
An Application
Let’s apply these concepts to a real case. Your two preteen kids were invited to go to a drive-in movie with their friends who live down the street. You gave them permission to stay up late and you popped popcorn for them, and your children are now so excited that they can hardly see straight. Then the parents who will be taking the kids to the movie drive up to your house in their pickup truck. Their two children are seated in the truck bed, and your kids quickly join them. You have a strict family rule about not riding in the back of a pickup, particularly one that will be driving at freeway speed to get to the movie. Your spouse feels as strongly about the safety issue as you do.
You start to raise your safety concerns, and your neighbor calls you a “fussbudget” and a “worrywart.” Before you can respond, your spouse cuts you off and tries to smooth over the issue by saying to the father who is driving, “You’re going to be extra careful, right? Those kids in the back are pretty precious cargo!” The driver says not to worry and pulls off as your kids squeal in delight.
You’re furious. What do you say to your spouse? Your first inclination is to talk about the danger. But that ship has sailed, well, sort of rumbled, off into the sunset. Although you’ll return to the issue later, when your kids are around (they’re aware of the dangers of getting into the truck), you think that maybe you should talk about the fact that this is the second time your spouse has backed off on a family value under pressure. That’s a new challenge — backing off a value (not just safety) — and it’s a pattern. Then again, what really has you miffed is the fact that your spouse cut you off as you were raising the safety issue with your neighbor. You think that your spouse’s intention was cockeyed. It was more important to look “cool” than to ensure the safety of your children.
As you think about it, you ask yourself what you want and don’t want. You want the kids to be safe — that’s a given — but once again, you’ll talk about that issue as a group. You want to be able to express concerns without being cut off or dismissed. You want your spouse to be able to talk about the issue without making you feel attacked. You don’t want the discussion to turn into a fight. As far as your relationship is concerned, you want to stand as a unified front when it comes to safety. And then you put your finger on the real kicker. The pattern you are concerned about is your spouse unintentionally taking away your vote in these key decisions. Yes, that’s it! It’s when your spouse announces a decision publicly without ensuring that you’re in agreement.
You decide to talk about making commitments (especially those that deviate from values such as safety) without each other’s buy-in. You want to find a way to always stand together when faced with outside pressures, and safety is certainly not an exception. That’s the big issue.
Let’s move on to the if question. You’ve unbundled the violation, picked the issue you care about the most, and reduced it to a clear sentence, and now you’re ready. You’re going to hold an accountability discussion with the other person. Or are you? The mere fact that you’ve identified the problem you’d like to discuss doesn’t mean you should discuss it. Sometimes it’s better to consider the consequences before deciding whether to bring up the issue.
For instance, your teenage son walks in the door with his hair cut in a Mohawk. He loves it. You hate it. He thinks it’s all the rage. You think it’s a sign of rebellion. Do you lay down the law or back off? Maybe you’re out of touch with what is normal and what isn’t. Haranguing your son until he opts for a new style might do little more than widen the rift that seems to be growing between the two of you. Maybe you shouldn’t say anything. Maybe you should expand your zone of acceptance.
Let’s consider an example from work. Your boss is combative in meetings. She verbally attacks arguments by raising her voice and labeling ideas “stupid” or “naive” and often looks disgusted. She also disagrees with almost everything and cuts people off midsentence. At first her tactics bothered you, but you came to appreciate the fact that at least it was clear where she stood on issues. Therefore, you said nothing. Today she questioned your loyalty and insulted you in front of your peers. That was going too far. Maybe you should say something. Maybe you should shrink your zone of acceptance.
As these examples demonstrate, there are no simple rules that dictate which violated expectations are trivial, which are consequential, and which you should deal with. Usually when someone breaks a promise, you talk about it — circumstances demand that you talk, and you do — but not always. So what are the rules?
When It’s Clearly a Broken Promise
In organizations there are reports, goals, performance indicators, quality scorecards, budget variances, and a boatload of other metrics that clearly show a difference between what was expected and what was delivered. These failed promises represent clear opportunities to hold an accounting. And since they’re routine, they’re probably fairly easy to discuss.
At home there are also clear indicators: “You promised me we’d go out to dinner.” “You told me you would be home for my birthday.” These too are routine issues that are easily discussed.
When It’s Unclear and Iffy
But what if the infractions are ambiguous or if discussing them could get you in trouble? You’re not sure if the infraction is a problem and if bringing up the issue might lead to a raging battle, a harmed relationship, a lost job, or something equally frightening.
How do you know if you should address broken promises that are not so clear and not so promising?
To answer this all-important if question, let’s divide the challenge into two camps: First, how do you know if you’re not speaking up when you should? Second, how do you know if you are speaking up when you shouldn’t?
Not Speaking When You Should
Let’s start with a simple premise. As was evidenced in our line-cutting research and the numerous studies that followed, more often than not, we don’t speak up when we should. Sure, sometimes we bring up an issue at the wrong time or in the wrong way, but that’s not the predominant mistake made in most families and companies. Going to silence is the prominent issue in these situations.
To help diagnose whether you’re clamming up when you should be speaking up, ask the following four questions:
• Am I acting out my concerns?
• Is my conscience nagging me?
• Am I choosing the certainty of silence over the risk of speaking up?
• Am I telling myself that I’m helpless?
Am I Acting Out My Concerns?
Let’s say you’ve observed a broken commitment at work. Several members of the technical support team aren’t keeping an eight-to-five work schedule. Instead, they’re working flex-time. They often arrive late and then work past closing. This bugs you because they agreed to stick to the posted schedule. After thinking about it, you decide that maybe being a stickler isn’t such a good idea. They’re putting in the hours, and there’s no need to rock the boat. You’re still bugged because they broke their word and it feels like they’re acting like prima donnas, but you’re not going to say a word.