It’s hard to apologize because “human beings are wired for defensiveness.” So says psychologist Harriet Lerner, author of the new book Why Won't You Apologize?: Healing Big Betrayals and Everyday Hurts.

In a recent NPR interview, Lerner addressed that special subgenre of apology—the sexual harassment apology—so ubiquitous of late. The rules for this kind of mea culpa, she says, are essentially the same as for any good apology.
 

• The wrongdoer should carry some of the pain, (e.g. “I will be struggling — perhaps forever — because of the harm I've caused women who trusted me to mentor and help them.”)
• Do not ask for forgiveness. Lerner stresses that nothing should be asked of those who were harmed.
• Avoid qualifier words like “if” or “might” (e.g. “I’m so sorry if you felt hurt by what I did.”)

 
Lerner says that good apologies are important but they're not enough. Apologies do not excuse perpetrators from the consequences of their actions (Tweet it!).
 
Have you ever been on the receiving end of a sexual harassment apology? How did you feel? If you have not, what do you believe such an apology should include? To join the conversation, click "comments" on our Community of Practice Forum.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around masterful communication, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion.

It’s no secret that many people view conversation as speaking and then waiting to speak again—without doing much real listening in between. In more severe cases, “conversational narcissists” engage in what sociologist Charles Derber calls “the shift response”— exploiting any topic as an excuse to bring the discourse back to themselves (often in order to boast or display “superior” knowledge).
 

Conversational narcissism can also take a more passive form – in which people withhold the kinds of cues that encourage a speaker to go on—such as asking questions, making sounds of affirmation (“uh-huh”) or even nodding. But whether active or passive, conversational narcissists can’t learn anything new, as they are so caught up in their own narrative.
 
Only through active listening can we engage in a truly reciprocal dialogue (Tweet it!). To practice active listening, writer and entrepreneur Shane Parrish, writing in Thrive Global  suggests the following:
 

• Avoid trying to respond immediately. Allow the other person time to finish. Then consider if your response will be shifting or supportive.
• Keep track of your use of pronouns. An over-reliance on ‘I’ and ‘me’ can indicate a desire to steer the conversation toward you.
• During an argument, accept that people are rarely willing to change their viewpoint. Instead of becoming angry, try to understand the other person’s logic.
• Increase your motivation to listen. This motivation might be the desire to improve a relationship, make someone feel better, or make an exchange as clear as possible.

Do you ever catch yourself tuning out the person you are speaking with? What techniques do you use to make your listening more active? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around masterful communication, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion

Why do we often say “yes” when we’d rather say “no?” Most of us like to be obliging and, in general, agreeing is easier than the alternative. But when we offer an easy “yes” we risk overcommitting our time, energy or even money (Tweet it!).
 
Saying ”no” can restore our autonomy (http://nyti.ms/2yIPrde).
But some of us have to learn how to do it. One technique is called refusal strategy. A study in the Journal of Consumer Research, by Professor Vanessa M Patrick and Henrik Hagtvedt, found that saying “I don’t” instead of “I can’t” helped participants to avoid unwanted commitments.
 
Salesperson pushing you to open a store credit card? “Sorry, I don’t use anything except my Frequent Flyer Rewards card.” Co-workers pressuring you to go out drinking? “No, I don't go out during the week.” Of course it’s more difficult when your boss asks you to take on yet another project, but you can try phrasing your “don't” positively, as in “I don't want my other pressing project to suffer.”
 
Naturally, we can’t say “no” to everything, but it’s easier to say no when you know how to say it. And the more you say it, the easier it gets.
 
Do you say “yes” more often than you want? In what situations does this happen? What methods have you used for tempering this habit? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around masterful communication, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion

Even though none of us relishes receiving criticism, it can have a silver lining (Tweet it!). William Treseder, a founding partner at Silicon Valley consulting firm BMNT, writes in The Harvard Business Review, we can use it to “slingshot” our growth.

Citing a personal story of being rejected by a Marine Corps recruiter and later being accepted after he lost 100 pounds, Treseder says that how we initially react to negative feedback can mean the difference between success and failure. We thwart ourselves, he says, when we take criticism of our behavior as criticism of our identity, when we are stubborn perfectionists, and when we cling to the fallacy that one person can be good at everything. To productively deal with negative feedback, he suggests the following:
 
1.    Embrace emotions – It's only natural to be upset. Let yourself feel that, but let your upset subside before moving forward.
2.    Don’t demonize: It's easy to label someone a jerk for criticizing you, but remember they at least made the effort to be honest with you.
3.    Prioritize: Sort through the feedback to see what’s worth tackling first.
4.    Piggyback on a skill: Target one key area of your behavior and see how you can improve upon it.
5.    Commit: Thank the giver of your feedback, tell them about your goal to change, and set a time to meet again in a month or so.
 
Have you ever used bluntly negative feedback to motivate yourself to improve? What was the result? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around masterful communication, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion

When reporter Bret Stephens accepted the Lowry Award for excellence in Australian Foreign Affairs Journalism, he gave a talk on a subject dear to his heart: disagreement.(http://nyti.ms/2xCl4oA)

Stephens noted that the words I agree form the basis of community. But the words I disagree “define our individuality, give us our freedom, enjoin our tolerance, enlarge our perspectives, seize our attention, energize our progress, make our democracies real, and give hope and courage to oppressed people...” He cited Galileo, Darwin, Nelson Mandela, and Rosa Parks as among the ranks of those who disagreed.

But Stephens says we are failing at disagreement, expressing discord in ways that are increasingly virulent, violent, and embittering. He says our disagreements are non-productive when they are based on misunderstandings. Productive disagreements, on the other hand, “arise from perfect comprehension...”

What makes our disagreements so toxic is that “we refuse to make eye contact with our opponents, or try to see things as they might, or find some middle ground.” His remedy: “Shut up; listen up; pause and reconsider; and only then speak.”
 
When is the last time you actively chose to spend time with people you disagree with and discuss your differences? (Tweet it!) Did you learn anything, about them or yourself? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around communication mastery, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion.

You got the job! But should you take it, decline it, or attempt to renegotiate the offer? Writing in The Harvard Business Review, Rebecca Knight, journalist and lecturer at Wesleyan University, offers a compendium of expert advice:
 

• Shift Your Mindset: John Lees, a UK-based career strategist and author of The Success Code, points out that getting an offer marks a new phase in your relationship with a potential employer. Stay enthusiastic but remember that you now have more leverage.
• Be Methodical: “Think about what matters to you in both your professional and private life and then assess the offer,” says Jeff Weiss, president of Lesley University and author of The HBR Guide to Negotiating. “Think…in terms of your development, your quality of life, and the variety of the work you want to do.”
• Consider Trade-Offs: No job offer is perfect, Weiss adds, so know your priorities—be they salary, flexibility, cultural fit, or job content.

 
Not every job offer is right. Don't neglect any red flags you see, and don't forget to consider your walkaway alternatives (Tweet it!). If you do say no, be respectful. You never know when your paths will cross again.
 
Have you ever successfully renegotiated a job offer, or turned one down after much deliberation? What advice do you have to offer? To join the conversation, click "comments" on our Community of Practice Forum.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around masterful communication, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion.

We continually hear how polarized we are as a nation. But if polarization is so bad, why are we so drawn to it? (Tweet it!) Sharon Schuman, author of the book Freedom and Dialogue in a Polarized World, asked that question and came up with these answers:
 

• Taking refuge among the like-minded builds self-esteem.
• Disdaining those who disagree builds a sense of community.
• It’s fun to feel superior.
• Polarization is the path of least resistance.
• A well-defined enemy makes it easier to gather power.
• Polarization makes us feel freer to speak out and act.

 
Trying to fathom why an intelligent person of good will might disagree with us takes effort, but the truth is that disagreements are inevitable. Says Schuman: “Our real problem is that we are torn between the seductions of polarizing short cuts to self-esteem and community, and the hard work of trying to see from the perspectives of others with whom we may never agree.”
 
Do you think you get any sort of satisfaction from feeling polarized? What might you do to bridge the gap between you and those on the other side? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around masterful communication, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion.

Are anti-bullying policies stopping workplace bullying? Not according to a survey recently conducted by Joseph Grenny and David Maxfield, co-authors of the books Crucial Conversations and Influencer. Ninety-six percent of respondents said they had experienced workplace bullying, and indicated that most of the alleged bullies had been in their positions for over a year (89%), or over five years (54%). Only 6% said their companies’ anti-bullying policies prevented bullying.

The sad truth is that many who feel bullied don’t do anything about it. They try to avoid the problem, but the unintended consequence of avoidance is perpetuation. “Silence is not golden. Silence is permission,” says Maxfield.

We agree: What we permit, we promote (Tweet it!). So it’s important to know your workplace policies and document incidents of bullying (e.g. browbeating, intimidation, sabotaging). Perhaps most effective of all—if you do not feel at risk doing so—is addressing (in private) the person you believe is abusing power. If you choose to do this, try our models for raising issues and responding to criticism. Then ask what you can do to improve communication going forward so that the pattern doesn’t repeat. 

We want to hear: Are you aware of workplace bullying and, if so, do you and those around you tend to confront or avoid the problem? If you have addressed the situation, what has been the outcome? Join the conversation and click "comments" above.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around masterful communication, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion.

Laughter establishes closeness and conveys meaning. It sends micro-messages to our conversation partner via its length, tone, and accompanying facial expressions. “It does the work of establishing cohesion,” said Michelle McSweeney, a Columbia University researcher who studies digital communication. It indicates, “I feel comfortable enough around you to laugh.”
​
 
Just as there are many variants on face-to-face laughter, there are many ways of laughing online (Tweet it!). For example:
 
 LOL – This is the classic acronym for “laughing out loud” of course.       But, as digital communication expert Jessica Bennett writes in The New York Times, nowadays it “actually means the opposite, because nobody using LOL has really laughed out loud since at least 2015.”
 
HAHAHA – Currently the rage, this mirthful triplet is what's often used to express – without irony – “I’m dying laughing.”
 
HA – This monosyllable actually has nothing to do with humor, and is used instead to convey the skeptical sentiment, “Yeah, right.”
 
haha? –  This is reserved for that friend who texts you the inappropriate joke, when you are not sure if you’re supposed to laugh.
                                     
ha ha ha (note the spaces) -- This indicates, Bennett says, “ what my   13-year-old self might have referred to as “hardy har har” — or, very funny — NOT.”
 
Confused?  There is always the emoji ha — which is “crying tears of laughter “and should not be confused with “crying tears of sadness” that is apparently the most common emoji on Instagram.  
 
What’s the way you indicate laughter online? Do you you use variations for nuance? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.

Nobody wants to see listeners’ eyes glaze over in boredom as we tell our favorite story—whether during a presentation or at a party. Ideally we want rapt attention. To that end, advice from Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert (http://n.pr/2uGZ8b0) might be useful.
 
According to Gilbert, you might well induce blank stares when you dwell on topics that are unfamiliar—such as your exotic vacation or a movie no one’s seen. He and colleagues Gus Cooney and Timothy Wilson found “speakers tend to think listeners will most enjoy hearing novel stories…and that makes perfectly good sense. We think of communication as an attempt to tell people things they don't already know.”
 
But what Gilbert and company’s experiments showed was that listeners much preferred to hear about experiences they’d already had. They exposed people to stories about novel and familiar experiences, finding that stories about familiar experiences were enjoyed much more. Bottom line: Link with familiar ground to keep people engaged (Tweet it!). As Aristotle said: “The fool persuades me with his reasons, the wise man with my own.”
 
What’s an anecdote you love to tell that people react to best? Do you consider the topic familiar? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around masterful communication, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion.

We've all had moments where a discussion is poised on the brink of an argument. Do we really want to go there? If not, we might think about the future. Thinking about the future helps us take a step back from the emotional conflict moment, and place negative events in context (Tweet it!).
 
Writing about his own study in the Harvard Business Review Alex C. Huynh, a social psychology researcher at the University of Waterloo, Canada, says, “We found that participants who thought about the future expressed [cognitive reasoning strategies versus impulsive emotion] more than those who were focused on the present moment.”
 
What psychologists are verifying is something long known to philosophers. As Confucius said, “When anger rises, think of the consequences.” Imagine what the conflict might mean to you in a week, a month, a year.”
 
What strategies do you use to try to defuse an argument? Do you ever find yourself considering the future? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around communication mastery, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion.

At some point, from about middle school onward, many of us have longed to be “popular.” But what does that really entail? There are two kinds of popularity, says Mitch Prinstein, a professor and director of clinical psychology at the UNC Chapel Hill, in his forthcoming book, Popular: The Power of Likability in a Status-Obsessed World.

Prinstein sorts the popular into two types: “likables” and “status seekers” (http://nyti.ms/2o0cp84). The likables nurture friendships, and cultivate interpersonal skills from the playground years through business and romance. The “status seekers” pursue power, sometimes through notorious behavior, from adolescence onward.
 
These “cool kids” don't fare so well. In one study, Prinstein examined the two types of popularity in 235 adolescents, scoring the least liked, the most liked, and the highest in status based on student surveys. “We found that the least well-liked teens had become more aggressive over time toward their classmates. But so had those who were high in status. It was a nice demonstration that while likability can lead to healthy adjustment, high status may have the opposite effect on us.”

Prinstein also found that qualities that made kids desirable play dates — sharing, kindness, openness — endure in later years and make those likables better able to relate to and connect with others. Not only does likability correlate with positive life outcomes, it is also responsible for them (Tweet it!). “Being liked creates opportunities for learning and for new kinds of life experiences that help somebody gain an advantage.”

Do you remember the high status “cool kids” from your youth? Do you know where they are now? What about the likeable ones? To join the conversation, click "comments" above.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around communication mastery, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion

The workplace, says New York Times Applied Science columnist Phyllis Korkki, can be “a petri dish of conflict”. And some of these conflicts have the potential to escalate out of control. In many instances people feel slighted or even victimized. But, as it turns out, most of the transgressors themselves contend they meant no harm and “wanted to be forgiven much more than their victims realized.”
 
Gabrielle S Adams, an assistant professor at the London Business School and a visiting fellow at Harvard, has examined the role that empathy and forgiveness play in resolving such conflicts. Said Adams. “We ask victims to think about what it would be like to be the transgressor, and [we] reduce that miscalibration.”
 
In other words, the mental exercise of putting yourself in the other person’s shoes, a.k.a. empathy, works (Tweet it!). “By making it a point to resolve conflicts by encouraging empathy and forgiveness, workers and managers can improve workplace conditions.”
 
Can you think of a conflict at work when you felt slighted but later discovered “the offender” meant no harm? How did you resolve the misunderstanding? To join the conversation, click "comments" below.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around communication mastery, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion

Machines do many things well, but they lack social skills (Tweet it!). And research shows that occupations that require strong social skills have grown much more than others since 1980 (http://nyti.ms/2pjFHmj).

James Heckman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, has concluded that non-cognitive skills like character, dependability and perseverance are as important as cognitive achievement. These conclusions have been put into practice. Google researchers, for example, studied the company’s employees to determine what made the best manager. It turned out that technical expertise did not predict elite managers; predictors were actually people who made time for one-on-one meetings, helped employees work through problems, and took an interest in the lives of others.

Mr. Deming’s study quantifies these types of skills. Using data about the tasks and abilities that occupations require from a Department of Labor survey called O*NET, he measured the economic return of social skills, after controlling for factors like cognitive skill, years of education and occupation. Jobs requiring social skills grew 24 percent between 1980 and 2012, while jobs requiring repetitive tasks, and analytical tasks that don’t necessarily involve teamwork declined.

Deming explains social skills in terms of the economic concept of comparative advantage. “Say two workers are publishing a research paper. If one excels at data analysis and the other at writing, they would be more productive and create a better product if they collaborated. But if they lack interpersonal skills, the cost of working together might be too high to make the partnership productive.”

Can you share an example of a time when social skills helped you or a colleague achieve success on the job? To join the conversation, click "comments" below.

If you would like to read more about creating a habit around masterful communication, check out our book: Be Quiet, Be Heard: The Paradox of Persuasion.