What is the difference between judgment and judgmental?

I often get asked if we are judgmental by nature. My answer is "no, but we are protective by nature." This means that everything we do or say we filter through how it affects us. If the impact is going to be negative our behavior tries to protect us and stops us from doing what is requested of us.

For leaders to be effective they need to learn the difference between judgment and judgmental. Let's move away from dictionary answers to the words and instead look at the emotional answers to the words.

Judgment is good. It is what allows you to see right from wrong, good from bad. It is the moral compass that keeps you from stealing and lying. With Outcome Thinking you never suspend judgment but you do suspend judgmental thinking.

Judgmental is when you inflict your opinion or belief on to another person and decide you know why they did what they did. This usually happens because our brain is wired to automatically think "now why would I do that if I was that person?" But as we teach in our classes, that is erroneous thinking that will cause you to have a judgmental conversation with a person and shut them down.

In order to have a good healthy discussion with a person you do want to have good judgment but suspend being judgmental.

Anne Warfield, www.impressionmanagement.com

Does Your Conversation Bring Barriers Up Or Down?

Avoidance. That is the biggest word we hear from leaders when they talk about having to deal with conflict.
Repetitive. That is the second word we hear from leaders as they tell us they are tired of having the same discussion over and over again without getting results.

So what can you do to change that? Is there a way to converse with someone that gets lasting results?

In IMP's Conflict Harmonizer that is exactly what we show you how to do. In order to speak differently though you need to learn why your brain listens, responds, and reacts to what it hears. I won't go in depth on that here but I will give you an example so you can see it in action and reflect on your conversations in order to make changes.

Let;s look at an example: You are stressed out with a lot on your plate. You have 10 people on your direct team. Most work independently and just keep you in the loop on what they are working on. For the most part your team are doers that get things done. Mary, one of your team members, comes to you and says, "I feel like you don't give enough direction. This causes me to waste time on projects because I am not sure which part I should work on first. I feel like if you gave more guidance I could be more effective but when I ask you for it you treat me like I can't do my job. I want to talk to you about this."

Now for just a moment check your immediate response. Did you immediately start thinking about what was on your plate that was making it hard to give more direction? Did your brain go to justifying that everyone else on the team is doing well without heavy guidance so it must be a problem with Mary? Did you start to wonder if Mary could do her job? In other words did you feel that Mary judged you in what she said in any way?

When we feel judged we automatically move to defensive thinking. All of the above statements are examples of defensive thinking. They are where our brain goes in order to protect ourselves when we feel someone is attacking us or what we are doing. None of them are conducive to a talk that will get to the core issues and beliefs that need to change in order for you to get the results you need.

The conversation Mary was having with you is one that is traditionally taught to us. With conflict we are taught to focus on how we feel and why we feel that way. This doesn't help you as it leads your brain to reach in and find ways to protect your position rather than remove the barriers so you can have a healthy discussion. So with traditional communication the dialogue ends up having you slip in comments that can make the other person feel attacked, blamed, or judged. When any of those happen the other person stops listening and just moves to protecting themselves. In other words, a conversation will happen but no lasting change will take place because each person has their brain energy invested in holding on to their own position.

This is why a majority of leaders we work with have repeat conversations with employees about their performance. What you say each time never sinks in long-term but instead falls in to the "protection void" and the person keeps repeating that same behavior until you either let it slide or your fire them. IMP's Conflict Harmonizer Experience is all about how to have those gutsy talks so they take root rather than flight!

So let's take the same conversation and apply the Outcome Thinking Method to see how you can think and speak in a way that removes the automatic barriers in order to get to core beliefs and lasting changes without judgment. Imagine your reaction if Mary had instead come in and said, "One of the challenges I have given myself is to be more effective with what I do and how I do it. One of the things you are great at with your team is giving us autonomy to do things independently. One of the things I have noticed about me is that I produce more when I have some more guidance so I stay focused right away. What I would like to brainstorm with you are ways I can get that guidance while still fitting in to the autonomy you like us to all have. I know you have a lot on your plate and I would like to be more useful in getting things done for you."

Notice in this conversation Mary never blames you, makes you feel attacked or undermines your authority. Instead she is realistic about herself, you and the role she can play. She put things in terms of benefits for you and team more than she did about herself. She also stated that she wants to figure out how to get that guidance without disrupting your natural leadership style. This shows you respect for you while still staying focused on the outcome desired- to produce better work faster.

Outcome Thinking is a skill that allows you to get rid of judgmental statements that become the clogs in our communication. It eradicates the anger and frustration that can shut a team down, cause silos in your company, and cause leaders to not come to conclusive decisions.

TAKE ACTION: Practice with your next conversation to make sure that you are focusing it proactively for the other person. Start with the point of agreement, move to the desired change, and then the roadmap of how to get there. You will find you can have more robust discussions without tears, anger or frustration!

Anne Warfield, www.impressionmanagement.com

Finding Profits in a Down Turn Economy

Sharks hunt for prey by finding movement in the water or blood. In today's economy you can often find people mistakenly adopt a "shark" sales mentality. They feel they need to circle out there and surround customers by getting to them first. First smell of blood in the water and they go for it.

You can see this in the way traditional sales is set up for questioning. Think back to the last three sales calls you either gave or received. If you are like most of our clients, they describe an "awkward period" where questions were volleyed out left and right as the sales person tried to make a connection and to find out a need they could solve. During this process both parties sit back and warily circle each other. Much like the shark in the water.

It doesn't need to be that way. There is a way to sell and service clients that doesn't require the leery circling of each other. There is a way to become a trusted partner. It requires a different way of thinking, listening, and speaking though. You can't be transactional and just pound with questions. The prospect knows where you are going with this and they don't appreciate being the worm on the hook to lure the shark. Oh, wait, to them you are the shark!

There is another bad point to the pounding of questions- it has been proven that when clients become confused or upset, they choose to stay "status quo." That means even though you may have a better deal they will stay with their present deal or pain because it seems easier to them.

Your job is not to sell. Your job is to help them make a choice that will propel their company forward. This means you need to know how to build rapport, threadline your questions and facts, and focus the energy in the room by excavating in a whole new way.

Try this, write out the questions you usually ask clients. Then play Devil's Advocate. Change the product or service you are selling and then ask the questions out loud to yourself. Do they make you feel cornered, pressured, or dumb? Or do they focus on driving the customer to your solution versus digging to find out what their problem is? If so, you are asking attack "solution" questions. You want to ask ProbeQs™ that draw people in, give them control, and bring out their wisdom and insight at the same time they enlighten them.

Think of it this way, imagine you go to see a doctor about a heart problem. Would you want a doctor that had a treatment in mind and they just asked you questions to draw you toward doing that solution or would you prefer a doctor that listened, and then asked probing questions to first determine if you even have a heart problem before they even talked to you about a solution? So if we prefer, the second scenario, why do companies keep equipping their sales people with sales strategies that teach them how to find how their solution can fit a client but not the deeper pain that could lead to a lasting partnership? We just got a call the other day from a client that reduced their sales cycle by 70% by flipping to the Outcome Focus™ Approach to Sales Excavation. The best part she said was that she never felt like she was selling; she was just helping the client.

TAKE ACTION: Try changing your list to make it more inviting, intriguing and more centered on the clients problem, not your solution.

Anne Warfield, www.impressionmanagement.com

Do They Still Want the Presidency?

Controversial title, eh? What would cause me to even put that in a blog?

It was interesting watching the debates Tuesday. Of course there were rules that impacted that ability of the two speakers to address each other and to address the crowd. Rules such as that they couldn't come within 6 feet of each other.

As I watched the debates I thought at times McCain won and at times Obama won. I don't think it was a clear hands down for either of them.

But what really struck me was where they both struggled. During the talks on the financial dilemma in our country, they each had times they stuttered, stammered, missed words, switched the mike in their hands and blinked-- all signs that they were struggling with the questions and their answers. It got me also thinking, do either of them want this mess we are in? Do either of them truly feel they can positively impact it or are they just hopeful?

I asked myself, "are we seeing these troubling body language and speaking signs from them because they are now questioning what they got in to?" Neither of them had strong confident body language as they talked about our economy and what needs to happen.

When you saw each of them pause and grasp for words, that means their brain was trying to wrap around the question and come to a conclusion they were comfortable with. Yet neither was able to do just that.

So here is your thought for the day: When have you been in a stumbling spot? How do you train your brain, and yes it is a training of the brain, to handle difficult questions and reach for the proactive solution? When you stumble or trip on your words what comes across is a lack of confidence and leadership.

In this debate, I would say neither candidate won or lost. I would say, as a nation, we need to keep our eyes wide open. Click here to see how you can get your hands on a FREE body language DVD so you can read the candidates body language.

Anne Warfield, http://www.impressionmanagement.com/

What Happens If You Get Promoted Too Early? Can It Hurt You?

By now you have probably been watching the debates and watching each of the candidates and their running mates speak. For you, it is a great opportunity to learn as a leader of what works and does not work. As you read my notes here I recommend you go to YouTube and watch the actual video yourself so you can compare and contrast what I am sharing here.

Let's take a moment to look at the interview with Sarah Palin and Katie Couric. Let's put all political party feelings aside as well as what you feel or think about a woman becoming vice president as that can skew how we hear information. Instead let's strictly look at it from a person who has been promoted and now has to demonstrate they have the learning and experience as a leader to hold that position.

Sarah Palin has been thrust in the public eye in a short amount of time. I think any one of us would agree that would be unsettling and tough for any one. She is a strong and confident woman that has handled a lot of tough issues in her life and come out on top. Now she is being asked to take the role of Vice President and possibly President, if any thing were to happen to John McCain. This means that the public is going to be scrutinizing her, not through the job she currently has as the Governor of Alaska, but instead as if she were the Vice President of the United States of America. She is under a magnifying scope that will accent all her words, phrases, and actions to the nth degree.

So step back from the politics and let's look at it from a business prospective. Imagine that your company has promoted someone to the second rank position that formerly was a manager of a large area but had not been involved in the inner workings of the corporate office. For sure you would be looking to see what qualifies her or him to hold this position. Because there is already doubt there you would be looking for if their walk and talk match. You want to see the proof in the pudding.

So how would it come off, if this person made strong statements but couldn't give facts to back them? If this person, said they could do corporate work but had no facts to back it?

See I believe it is not that people won't give her a chance. In a way coddling her and holding her back from interviews has hurt her. People already assumed that meant the McCain party didn't trust she could do the job either. For the public, the assumption then becomes the reality. So we are looking for a bit of humility, a learning curve, a confidence to not try to have all the answers but instead a willingness to explore options.

What is tripping her up are her strong statements that she can then not support. Take Katie asking her about the bailout and Sarah saying, "The interesting thing in the last few days that I have seen is that the American People are waiting to see what John McCain is going to do about this proposal, they are not waiting to see what Barak Obama's gonna do. Is he going to do this (wiggle of her finger) and just see the political wind boy. They are waiting to see if John McCain will be able to see these amendments implemented in Paulson's proposal."

Immediately, Katie jumped on, "Why do you say that people are waiting for McCain and not Obama." She went on to quote the polls, to which Palin said she isn't looking at poll numbers."

Here is the bottom line: If you are promoted as a leader too early, you do need to show your chops. HOWEVER, you also have to show humility in learning along the way. You need to show that you are learning and staying proactive. This is not the time to make charged statements.

Let's go back to the Business example I gave. Would you want someone like that to come in, tell you all you did wrong and realign your department? Or would you want them to talk to you about their vision without bashing your past? Would you want them to show they had strength and resilience and they still expected to learn from those around you?

Go back to the Couric interview and look how if Palin had omitted that entire quote I put above, the interview would have gone on without a blip. Or better yet, what if she had said, "America is waiting for strong leadership and now is the time we need it." You would have felt her strength, her conviction, and her implication, not stated, that she and McCain would be that leadership. Remember reporters are looking for a story. So if you won't give them one, they will create one with what you say. Therefore, as a leader you need to be cognizant and not cocky about what you say and how you say it. You need wisdom and humility when you speak.

Now some people say, these attacks on Palin are not fair because the same media attack has not been done with Joe Bidden. And..your right. It hasn't. However, Joe Bidden since he was elected, has been out front, giving speeches, and fulfilling his duties right up front. There was no feeling that he had to be protected or "learn his role" before he could fulfill it. We saw him accept his role and begin campaigning.

Also, Palin is in a unique spot because she is such an unknown, a leader without broad experience, and a woman. People are fascinated and drawn to her like a moth to fire. With that comes a responsibility to realize that you will be in a bubble.

So here is the lesson as a leader. Yes you will be held to higher standards, as you should be. A leader is suppose to be a person we can learn from and emulate. If you are promoted too early, realize that and instead of trying to defy it, embrace it. Use your uniqueness, your talents, and skills that got you to where you are.

Anne Warfield, http://www.impressionmanagement.com/

Succinct or Eloquence? Which will win over your listener?

Succinct or Eloquent? Which is the better way to speak?

Perhaps the better question is, what impression do each leave you with? In order to know which one you want to use and when, you have to know what impact each way of speaking has on your listener.

If you watched 60 minutes last night, you got to see both succinct and eloquence at work. McCain was succinct while Obama was eloquent. Both show strong leadership but the way of speaking leaves you with a difference about how they will lead.

My blog here is not to enforce one political opinion or another. I use politics because you most likely will be able to see and watch these speeches so you can contrast and compare right along with me. So let's put politics aside and look at them only from how they speak and how they represents their leadership.

If you haven't watched the 60 minute review, click on this link to see it: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4463698n

When you look at the questions put to McCain he is succinct in listing what he believes will be the differences in their styles, what he thinks is wrong in the economy and steps he would take to make changes such as putting Andrew Cuomo in to replace Christopher Cox. There is not too much grey to interpet there. There is an intensity that radiates from him with his blinking and tight lip line that endorses the succinct method. You get the sense that if you ask a tough question you better be prepared for a tough answer becuase he is not going to just soften it so you can swallow it better. In some instances it reminds me of Reagan's no nonsense responses.

On the flip side, when you watch Obama there is an inclusiveness in his speech and an eloquence that comes in the pattern and way he speaks. There tends to be more words used to get to the same response. Watch his video and look for the succinct answers to questions. Does he state definite policies or vague ideas? Does he name specific things he would do or suggest? His body language is not as intense either as he looks down, has a softer look to his eyes and a more introspective pose with his head leaning to one side. You get the sense that if you asked a tough question he would try to put it in a way that would be easiest for you to digest.

Both eloquence and succinct have their place in strong leadership. You need to be able to convey each at different times. Watch the two and compare and contrast their leadership style of speaking. Then ask which one's style you most closely resemble? What is good about that and what is bad? Do you know when to switch from eloquent to succinct?

Anne Warfield, www.impressionmanagement.com

What does Sales have to do with the Gibson/Palin Interview?

If you have ever wanted to learn how to be a better sales person, then just watch the Charles Gibson/Sarah Palin interview. It is a classic example of what can happen to make an interview or "sale" go south fast.

First of all, you probably noticed that, for the most part, Charlie Gibson's body language was condescending. The way he slouched in his chair, looked over his eye glasses, brought his finger tips together, blinked his eyes and then asked pointed questions all gave an impression of "come here my little sweetie" like the Wicked Witch of the West. But let's be real, that is often the body language a sales person runs up against when they go on a sales call. You often find the client is uptight, feeling put upon and trying to find fault with what you say or do. That is because they often feel trapped by you.

So what did Sarah Palin do that showed she fell in to the same trap that most sales people do?

1. Each question and challenge that Gibson put up she had an answer for. In sales, this is known as the client throwing up objections and the sales person having pat answers. The more pat answers you have the less the client trusts you and the harder they then try to dig and find more objections or ways to trip you up. Gibson did exactly that with Palin. The more she defended an answer the more he would dig for a controversial root.

Remember in sales that the goal is to connect with the other person, not to "sell" them on your product or service. Just watch the interview and you will see how each side escalated the tension by following the old "sales" format.

2. The tension she was feeling was seen in her body language. As the interview progressed Palin moved to more fists, the "prayer" point with her hands, a lifting of her right lip as in a snarl, a tight narrowing of her eyes (especially her left eye) and a tightening of her mouth. All of these gestures showed her anger, frustration and attempt to maintain control.

Sales people do the same things with clients. As clients ask more intense questions and they don't seem to just accept your pat answers, many sales people move to a combative and angry body language. This happens because your brain is aligned with trying to "sell" the client on your idea or service and you become frustrated that they won't just "get it."

3. Palin interrupted Gibson. The more frustrated she got, the more she would interrupt what he said while he did the exact opposite and slowed his speech down. He repeated what she said almost "parroting" her. I see this often happen in sales as the sales person makes the classical mistake of trying to push their product or service on the customer by literally thinking "what answer will it take to make you buy?" For Palin you could see that her thoughts and body language were focused on "what do I need to say to get you to stop badgering me?"

In our Sales Excavation system we show you how this leads to a doomed sales cycle. You can see in Gibson/Palin interview there was no winner. One didn't end up looking good because they made the other look bad. Instead both walked away having left some of their own credibility and trust in the room when it should have stayed with them. You can't afford to know your product and service but not know how to connect, build rapport and build trust with others. 90% of all training for sales people is on product yet customers buy only 25% on product knowledge. So, what is the other 75% that influences their buying decision and are you trained in those influential areas? To me, you can't afford NOT to be trained in those areas or else you will be left behind much like what happened in this interview.

As a sales person and a leader I recommend you closely watch the debates to see how they align with sales and leadership skills. Does their body language match the message? Do they focus on the issues? Do they know how to connect with whom they are interviewing with? Do they know how to tell effective stories aligned with facts to move you or do they just try to rest on logic?

TAKE ACTION: Set up a camcorder and have someone ask you your toughest "client or prospect" questions. Then watch the tape to see if you made some of the same classic mistakes that Palin did or if you were able to turn it around.

Tune in next week to see how this interview could have been turned around and credibility gained rather than lost.

Anne Warfield, www.impressionmanagement.com