Focus on What
You Really Want

During the month of July we will be running "best of" content from the authors. The following article first appeared on June 1, 2005.

What if you are not dealing with a reasonable, rational, and decent person? Is this possible or do you genuinely believe that each person with whom we interact fits this description?

I look forward to your comments.

All the best,
Skeptical

The "fundamental attribution error" is the automatic assumption we often make that the other person's motives are bad. This can happen when someone says or does something we think is harmful or threatening. We immediately attribute bad motive--we tell a villain story: "they are evil or selfish; they do bad things because they enjoy it."

To keep from making the fundamental attribution error, we recommend challenging your story with questions. One such question is "Why would a reasonable, rational, and decent person act this way?"

Posing the question is NOT making an assumption that all people are reasonable, rational, and decent; rather, posing the question IS an effort to consider other possibilities. This question helps us explore other assumptions and not automatically assume that the worst story we can come up with is the only one we should consider. When we replace our certainty that the other person is bad and wrong with the recognition that we don't know why the person did what he or she did, our emotion changes from anger and frustration to curiosity and maybe even concern.

Now, instead of being pushed by our anger into silence or violence, we're much more likely, in a condition of curiosity, to ask questions and engage in dialogue. As we talk over the problem and gather more information, we're in a better position to ascertain the other person's motive and intent.

If we find out that our initial impulse was mistaken (the other person's motives are not hurtful), we're in a good position to solve problems together. However, if we discover that their motives are hurtful toward us—perhaps they're political or personal—instead of being trapped in a fight-or-flight reflex with our brain turned off by hot emotion, our mind is active and engaged and we're in a better position to decide what to do about this potential enemy. All options ranging from ending the relationship and disengaging to escalating the problem up the chain of command are available to us.

Mastering your stories is NOT a positive mental attitude technique that assumes that everyone's motives are good. It IS a set of skills that keep us from assuming that all people's motives are bad and hurtful. All in all, this increases the probability of us getting what we really want.

Best Wishes,
Ron

Back to top

Dr. George Watson
Fallon, Nevada

I am the Chief of Staff at a small hospital 60 miles from Reno. Our staff consists of two OBGYNs and one family practitioner.

Last year, a woman carrying twins came into our hospital 28 weeks along. During the night, she went into labor and lost both babies. After this incident, the OB committee reviewed our policy of not keeping patients who were less than 36 weeks along because our facility has a minimal nursery and lacks a neo-natal intensive care unit.

Two weeks ago, a woman who was 34 weeks along was admitted. She was breached and her condition warranted an immediate C-section if she went into labor.

I was leaving town and only one anesthesia provider would be in-house. In addition, Dr. R., this patient's general practitioner, had already scheduled an elected C-section that day, and the operating room would be tied up until 11 a.m. the next morning.

Crucial Confrontations Training helped me to identify and discuss a gap. We had agreed to not keep high-risk patients in the hospital, and yet we had admitted this woman.

First, I approached the OBGYN who would be in-house that weekend. He had already spoken with Dr. R., but due to a long-standing relationship with the family, Dr. R. was adamant about keeping the patient in the facility. He felt he was capable of handling the situation. However, both the OBGYN and I felt we were sitting on a time bomb.

I knew I needed to hold a crucial confrontation with Dr. R. I approached him and explained we weren't sure what would happen, but if this patient went into labor it meant an immediate C-section. I described the gap by reviewing our policy about not keeping high-risk patients and relayed my concerns. Then I presented the consequences he hadn't considered, which were that if she went into labor and got into trouble, we may not be able to save the baby or the mother.

He responded, "Well, what do you think we should do?"

I replied, "The patient needs to be transferred to Reno. If she goes into labor they can do an immediate C-section and she'll have 24-7, in-house coverage."

Reluctantly, he agreed. That Thursday, the patient was transferred to Reno.

After I returned, I learned the woman had delivered Friday morning. There were complications, and they immediately went to C-section and the mom did well. The baby spent two days in the NICU.

Crucial Confrontations Training has given me the skills to know what to do when I'm in the middle of a high-stakes, accountability discussion. Before the training, I struggled to hold others accountable, but now I can effectively get commitment and closure.

Two weeks after my confrontation, Dr. R. thanked me for persuading him to make the right decision.

Back to top