Just to provide a brief summary of this book (realizing it is the Covey thread), George went on to offer up a number of examples in situations, the mistakes in communications, and acronym tools associated with a method or points that can be used (sometimes in no particular order) when confronting either difficult situations, threats, or just in everyday life at home with family, friend, at work and in general.
I won’t get into his many examples that go from the extremes, to talking with one’s son or daughter, let alone one’s partner; or maybe it is a difficult parent who does not seem to be getting it whereby fireworks usually result. Personally, I had this come up this week with a difficult manager whereby thinking on what could take place and how to respond gave me angst – I tried to follow some of these examples without the results happening that could have erupted.
One brief example of something extreme (and remember he was also a cop doing cop things), was in facing down a crazy man wielding a knife against his eight-year-old son. One way or another the situation would resolve in either death, multiple deaths or a way to bring a crazy man down without incident. Words became everything and the standard negotiation tactic only meant that the crazy guys adrenaline would go into overdrive. In this case, this man accused the ex-wife of being a Satanist and filling the son’s blood with the devil – which needed to be purged, and he had the knofe to do so. What the heck do you do with a horrible situation like that? Well, after making some mistakes, George changed the conversation; getting this guy’s attention and providing something that might register in his mind. What he said was that he knows a priest and he is really good and can lay on hands and exercise the devil out of people – what do you think of that in saving your son who you love, type of statement. It calmed the crazy man down and made him think about the son who he loves with an answer to what he sees as a problem. He dropped the knife and turned around without incident.
Of the acronym’s, there are a number of them in which to consider, such as in ‘The Principals of Impartiality’ dealing with the personal, the ego, a bad place to come from in most situations. Using your professional face with a focus on ensuring the other person can save face (even if at the extreme) is one aspect. The ‘Golden Rule’ is in line even biblically, of treating others as you would want to be treated under identical situations. Responding (reanswer) and reacting (being controlled – the event is controlling you) and being ready to respond is to be kept in mind, and most all of this is part of the Work, our machines as G might say. There is flexibility over rigidity. Keeping things away from abstractions and being specific. Using positive feedback (even “when you least feel it”) et cetera.
Acronyms:
PAVPO
- Perspective
- Audience
- Voice
- Purpose
- Organization
LEAPS
- Listen
- Empathize
- Ask
- Paraphrase
- Summarize
George brings up in chapters such things as the ‘Eleven’ things never to say like ‘Calm Down!’ among them.
Mr. Thompson also has a section on public speaking – the fear of it and some mastery over it. This is pretty good as it likely affects most of us, certainly me as something to get better at – basically and more: know the audience, know the material etc. and then the nuances that come into play.
Near the end of the book he brings up Rodney King again and how the situation got out of hand. Here is what he said:
“…for the first time in America a question was raised {well not the first time, osit}: What if the police, the thin blue line between peace and disharmony in our society, are the problem. That was something we didn’t want to think about and, for the most part, had never considered. Charges of police brutality were few and far between and were often brought by obviously guilty parties. But when people who have long doubted those in power now start to wonder about the police themselves, we face a chilling question. Why should anybody trust the police again?
[…]
…what happened to the thin blue line between order and disorder, between peace and violence? It’s gone."
That’s the tragedy of the Rodney King affair. A lot of people say it was business as usual in L.A., and of course a lot of L.A. cops say, “No, it isn’t”’
He recounts the saddest part being he likely would have had those cops in his class, as said above – they might have learned to ‘dance rather than stumble’ as what they did that night was illegal.
I’ll leave this here with something George discussed as being the typical traffic stop done by cops (which some here may have experienced – I have), concerning what a cop should say and what they do say (and what people like me say, right or wrong). In my case it was about six or seven years ago after visiting my mom and dealing with some of her hardships at that and time. That night on my way home (at dusk) I was followed by a vehicle some distance away with the sudden appearance of flashing lights behind me. With this event, the thinking was 99.9 % that I had done nothing to warrant this stop (yet perhaps there was a possibility of a burnt-out tail light), thus here it was as reality. So, rolled down the window, fished out my driver’s licence and registration as the drill requires and waited. The cop said, I need to see your driver’s licence and registration – nothing else, which provided me the opportunity (I’m more the difficult type of person as George describes and not the Nice who are always ready and willing) to say, good evening officer, is there a reason why you pulled me over tonight (of course there was not reason I was pretty sure)? Here is when it got interesting because the officer then started to fabricate, and each fabrication was responded by me with I don’t understand (the whole time with my ID inches from the officer as an offering). The fabrications moved to direct bold face lies of, ‘well, ah, you were swerving and I can smell alcohol – oh, and your eyes are bloodshot’. Really, I said, just so I understand you, you are claiming that you can smell alcohol and my eyes are bloodshot, well I don’t drink so that is not possible, my eyes are just fine and I was not swerving and not speeding. In retrospect the whole thing was ridiculous and yet I know the officer had a line which could not be crossed, so when it came to please step out of the car after some failed verbal judo, I complied.
Now George advises officer never to start with something like what this officer had said as it is a big error. He says, how about saying something different - here it might be ‘good evening, I am officer Sargent Pepper and thank you for stopping. I noticed you were swerving, I know it is dusk out, there are deer and it is more difficult to see; however, we have to check these things out. If it is okay with you, I need to confirm your driver’s license and registration? And if there is nothing wrong you are free to go?’ In so doing the officer removes the need for the driver to say I don’t understand and all the why’s, as it has been provided up front. The officer obviously has authority, and in this scenario was being polite, not threatening and offering a way out (if there was nothing wrong). However in this reality case, the lies kept building until a showdown of control was firmly established – and knowing who has control and power is pretty clear. Knowing this when it came to, you must do this and that (sobriety evidentiary stuff), this was complied with, yet not without the reminder to the officer that I still don’t ‘understand’ (I don’t stand under the law on this bogus stop). We chatted more, more failed verbal judo – and yes, ego was involved on both our parts, and who was going to save face defaulted to me to provide the offer at this point, there is just no way around it. So, that phase being over it was then please get in the police car and blow into the testing machine.
This was all my fault and possibly could have been avoided with just handing over my driver’s license and registration and nodding my head (the way of the Nice person according to George or a more prudent person knowing the authority) – so this bears on me and not the officer. However, the officer had options and could have said something like, you know, after reassessing the situation and talking to you, how about I check your ID and registration to ensure the car is not stolen and you can be on your way? In this case, though, this reality would proceed with dominating control and with no retractions of the lies – in fact more lies got stacked up on each other, so it would play out. With no ability to not play along and knowing exactly how things could escalate, although without full acknowledgement of accepting the lies, there was going to be lessons for each of us, whether they were learned or not as things followed there course. Once in the backseat of the cruiser the officer must read a canned legal statement with the end response being your ‘understanding’ (for blowing into the machine) under the law, which I would not give the officer after repeatedly reading off of the legal jargon for complete complied understanding. The cop was very confused, ghee, he should be doing this why isn't he might have come to mind, yet I was being polite while challenging the understanding clause with I did not understand. To save face, which was needed, I said that I still don’t understand why you stopped me as clearly I am not under the influence of alcohol nor did I do anything wrong, as your actions now show with respect to the motor vehicle Act in the absents of a charge, however, you have a job to do so how about I volunteer to blow in the machine and be on my way? With that, the officer was relived and put away the legal canned statement – never getting my understanding, and I blew in the machine which of course read zero. The officer said you are free to go and that was that.
If that officer was around our town today after reading George's book, I might sent over a copy.
Lastly, I have and do make mistakes regularly, so overall George’s little book provides some points of reference to keep in mind that can help one to negotiate through the many situations in life we can face. Our words and how we apply them can make a huge difference. Many of these things are natural anyway for some, yet emotions can derail situations and these are good reminders to consider when in confrontation or just as daily words listened to and spoken at home. What I found interesting, too, is that the emphasis must be on more listening and this is where many fail, and in the two forms of REspect/respect presented by George (speaking to police officers):
“…the difference between REspect and the word respect. Respect is what we have to show people at all times. We cannot respect people who prey on others, people who beat their spouses, people who brutalize their children. I have no respect for lawbreakers, but when as a professional I deal with them, I must always show them REspect. This is the Golden Rule in a single word.”