Learning from life aboard a submarine...

The other day I posted at length about a successful hiring process and in the end I mentioned a group dynamics theory that was once developed aboard a submarine, or at least observed there.

You can learn a lot from studying people work and perform their duties in confined spaces such as they are present on a submarine.

It's Tuckman's four stages of group development I was talking about, developed while observing mariners on a US submarine.

I've personally observed this in many groups, some that I've been a part of myself, some that I've led and others I've only been able to observe. Typically, this is what happens:

Forming

There's excitement, curiosity and the will to do great things when a new team or group is formed. The forming part is all about getting to know each other, finding out who's doing what, who they are etc. This is usually followed by a great deal of enthusiasm and the feeling that the team will be able to take on the world.

Storming

As the team work develops, pre-ordained leadership structures are being challenged and natural leaders assert their power by challenging status quo and other - weaker - leaders. Norms are being questioned and the initial stage of enthusiasm is being replaced by a state of sometimes aggressive and confrontative behaviors.

The members of the team are now comfortable enough to challenge each other and are no longer treading egg shells as they may have been during the initial forming stage. Latent conflicts surface and need to be addressed.

Norming

This next step takes place once all the conflicts have been brought to the surface and have been weathered and dealt with. With new power structures and work procedures in place, the team can now settle into new, improved routines and procedures.

Performing

This is the final stage of the team development process and not many teams actually make it here. This is a stage of relative harmony where every team member has the others' backs and each perform their tasks relative to the others smoothly.

Tuckman later added a fifth stage, adjourning, sometimes called "mourning", referring to the dissolution of the team. However, that doesn't always happen. Very often, work teams stay together indefinitely, but what happens is changes to the team members with people leaving and new ones joining. This inevitably leads to such severe disruptions that the team is back to stage one: forming. From there the cycle starts all over.

As a manager and as a team member I've always felt this theory was of great help to understand the teams I've lead and those I was a part of.

How to hire successfully?

Hiring people is one of the most exhilarating things an organization can do. You get to meet lots of people, you gauge your popularity within your network (aka employer brand) and you add knowledge, competencies and talent to your pool, not to mention that one or several human beings will add their social distinctiveness and personalities to yours.

Given all of the above, why are so many hiring managers distressed by this?

a) lack of time. Most managers today are stressed out, almost all working way more than the 35/38/40/42 or whatever hours your country stipulates for a full time job. It's not unusual for a middle manager to work 60 or more hours per week. A recruitment process will likely add a significant amount of time to that work load.
b) risk of failure. First time hiring managers may not know this, but we all fail at recruiting at some point. It may not be the first time, but at some point in our professional careers, we'll fall for a candidate who seems perfect, but who isn't. I've done it once, too. I'm not ashamed to admit it, and I wasn't even alone. I'll get back to that… If you hire continuously and you're the "once burned" type manager, you may be afraid of failure and the potential cost (time, money…) it might entail.
c) lack of support from HR. This is something that happens in some organizations, but far from all. The more slimmed and trimmed an organization is, the worse it is, because HR, like many other support functions will have needed to "delegate" much of the hiring work to the line, the hiring manager, and won't have time to help out. I've seen examples of amazing support from HR and I've seen HR who basically point you to the right forms on the Intranet…

There may be other factors that stress people out as well, like lack of training, experience etc that make them feel like they aren't capable of successfully doing this task. Yet, is hiring really so difficult? Well? Yes and No.

Step 1: Understand what you are looking for

I've seen countless examples of companies who look for "jesus" when they hire, i.e. a type of savior, a can do everything, knows everything, extremely experienced and yet super young, not to mention cheap. Ain't gonna happen! S/he doesn't exist… I've seen job ads where the numbers didn't ad up unless the candidate was some kind of child protégé who graduated from university at the age of 15…

I've also had discussions with managers who said, "if s/he can do this, too, we can also tackle this project" No can do! Don't put too much on the plate of a new hire. Sure, you can aim for the new hire(s) to know all, but will they have the time to efficiently DO everything, be successful at everything? Or do you simply line them up for failure?

Knowing and analyzing what you need the new hire(s) to do in the xx amount of hours they have at their disposal is critical. You must understand the job tasks that are most important and don't assume at the moment you're hiring that the person will be working as many hours as you may. It's not fair and probably illegal (or in breach of your union contracts)

Putting together a decent job description is vital. This also helps potential candidates to understand what they will be doing, where they will be spending the bulk of their time, because we as employers have a tendency to picture the job rosier than it probably is, to sell it successfully. And the candidates, eager to land the position will naturally underestimate the amount of meetings, admin and routine tasks that come with every job.

Once you've got your job description you need to decide on what it takes to do the job. Do you need a PhD? Or is a high school diploma sufficient? Don't overshoot the target, don't ask for "nice haves" (see above) as it's unfair, both to you and the candidates. Firstly, you may get the wrong candidates and secondly, they will not stay if they are overqualified and under stimulated!

Step 2: Specialist or Generalist

Oh boy, this really is a tough one. Ideally, the job description should say it all. If you need a geneticist in a specific field to do research in a given direction, I think you'll need a specialist. If however, you need help in a administrative function where what you need to know can be learned on the job, you might be better off with a generalist who can give perspective, has different experiences to draw from. But I've learned over the years that this is almost a religion, coupled with a feeling that it's "riskier" to hire generalists. Hence, in a bad economy, many hiring managers will play the 'safe' card and hire a specialist. I'm not sure this is always such a smart play…

Step 3: Recruitment firms

Today, many companies use recruiting firms to help them with the hiring and selection process. Personally, I'm not a big fan of recruitment firms, since they usually don't really understand the DNA of your company, and don't 'really' know what you need.

There are of course some really serious players out there who do a great job at helping hiring managers put together the job description and the candidate profile etc. but most will do as they are told (which is to unload as much work from the hiring manager as possible and minimize the risk of failure). I don't argue that goal, but I argue the fact that "outsourcing" this process saves the hiring manager time. I think by the time the agency is up to speed, you could've done the work yourself, in less time. If however, the agency becomes a "prolonged" arm of your organization and is in it for the long haul, and if they really are serious and engaged, I think they can ad value, particularly if you don't get that support from your HR department.

Step 4: Where are my candidates

I've seen many hiring managers relying on the network of their recruitment firms, and that may very well be a good source. Then there are all the other sources, like ads, social media etc. But there is a large degree of likelihood that you will find your ideal candidate in your network of friends, business associates etc. Asking people who know you, understand YOUR personality will give them a certain understanding of what you are looking for, so do never underestimate your own network in a recruitment process.

I've hired through ads, social media, government unemployment agencies, my network and I've found that depending on what you are looking for, any can be good avenues. Naturally, it also depends on the strength of your employer brand, the position you're looking to hire for etc. The more senior a position or the more specialized a job description, the less likely you'll be successful using mass approaches.

Step 5: OMG, I've got 679 applicants… now what?

The number of applicants greatly depends on your job description and how you "go to market", but if you really have a huge number of applicants, you'll need to do a relative 'brutal' selection process. Just promise me you won't select by non-essential things like names, gender or origin, because that is wrong. Instead, select by relevant education, location (if the job is in a specific city, you could eliminate people who would need to relocate) etc. Undoubtedly, if you get that many applications you'll have a certain percentage who aren't qualified, e.g. a nurse applying for a physician's position. I've even had people apply who didn't even get the name of our company right or who just copied and re-sent the previous application (this was for an entry level position)

Q: should I acknowledge reception of an application?
A: I think you should, but use your sound judgement. If you work at company A and the applicant clearly didn't bother to look that up and just sends a copy of their latest application to company B, I doubt they'll miss you not acknowledging that. This is something you'll also have to pay a recruitment firm to do! There are no free lunches, but at least you'll be off the hook, time wise.

In a second screening, read the applicants letters. That gives you a quick understanding of who they are and you'll instinctively (which is important) feel if they might be a good fit or not. If you feel they are too 'short' or brief in their description, put them aside. IF you feel they are long-winding, put them aside. If you feel they have no grasp of what you're looking for, put them aside. That way you can relatively quickly narrow the list down to fewer candidates.

Once you are down to a manageable number of applications, read the letters again, more carefully along with the CVs. Depending on how many you want to hire, create a pile of 5-10 on a "hot list" who you think you may wish to call for an interview, put the rest in a different pile.

Step 6: The interviews

This is just a "short" summary, I could write several posts just on the questions to ask, but normally it is a good idea not to over prepare. Sure, have some good open questions that will force the candidate to  elaborate on a dilemma, a success or a failure (and what they've learned) based on the job tasks they'll need to fill. But it is my conviction, that at this stage you have established (through the CV) that they candidates are capable in terms of experience, qualifications and education. What you really need to establish during an interview is their personality and how that fits into your organization, your team and how they will fit in with you.

Create a relaxed atmosphere and have a good conversation. In all likelihood the candidates will be much more nervous than you are! Make them feel comfortable and at ease. Be curious, ask questions, allow them to elaborate, follow up. Be specific about how much time you have. Some candidates will be lengthy in their responses, others will tend to yes/no answers.

Take notes of some of the important things you year (positive or negative), but don't site there and jog down notes all the time, that is rude!

Step 7: Psycho tests, drug tests, criminal records, private investigators, background checks…

More and more companies rely on various forms of background checks for their candidates. I say, use more common sense. If you hire a specialist for a top secret project, it may be very well warranted to do a background check, even hire a private investigator, if the stakes are high enough. But to hire a PI for most other positions? I've once applied (successfully) for a middle management position where they had a PI look into my background, to verify my education and experience (I passed with flying colors. LOL) However, the PI was a lazy bastard and called me to give him transcripts of university degrees etc. I could've done that for the employer and they would've saved a few thousand Euros… But oh well…

In general, I remain sceptic of most these things, because you, as hiring manager, are trying to substitute your common sense, your intuition and your human competency in assessing other people (a critical skill for any manager) with something else. This is especially true for psycho tests. Every serious psychologist will tell you that the tests available on the market today are more or less worthless, so don't go paying for them. If you really don't trust your own judgement, have the candidates meet a psychologist for an interview, but even that is no guarantee, just look at the Breivik trial in Norway where two teams of criminal psychiatrists and psychologists have come to radically different conclusions. And they spent weeks with him…

Psycho tests are worthless and a waste of your money! I feel similarly about drug tests. Sure, they are reliable momentary snapshots, but anybody who is seriously into drugs knows how to evade them, and those who no longer can you'll recognize by their look…

Step 8: Decision time

In all likelihood you'll end up with more than one candidate that would do a good job in that position. So who do you choose? Do you choose the person who is most like you or the one who is most unlike you? I doubt that anything I'll say here will make any difference, because we will make that choice anyway, but let me throw in a different aspect. What about diversity?

Diversity in your team is critical. All research in the area shows that diverse teams are more efficient and successful, because of the different points of view that are brought to the table.

So if you only hire cronies or clones, you may have an easy time finding R&R activities and you'll never have much of an argument at team meetings, but will you be truly successful?

When you make your decision, go back to your team and look at who's already sitting at the table in terms of gender, age, educational background, ethnicity, etc and see which of the potential candidates will make the best fit to ADD to the diversity of your team, a new color to the palette so to speak.

Step 9: Now what?

Once you've made your decision, and the candidate has accepted your proposal (which isn't certain s/he will) it's time to talk to the rest of them… You need to revert to the applicants and thank them for their interest, because even if YOU didn't hire them, they might still be of interest to your organization in the future. Don't scare them off by not acknowledging the time they spent applying for the position, particularly if they've been through interviews etc. For the "mass applicants", maybe you can send an e-mail (ask HR for a template, they usually have this sort of thing), but again, use sound judgement and don't bother for those who only sent an application because they 'had' to in order to retain unemployment benefits etc. They won't expect to hear back from you anyway…

Step 10: Introduction

The final step of hiring is the most important one. How do you get your new team member up to speed quickly. A good introduction program is everything. Have hir meet with as many departments as possible, particularly the ones s/he will need to work with regularly to understand the business quickly.

Allow hir to complete introductory training sessions as soon as possible and make time for that in the calendar, don't push hir too hard from day one. It will take time to get up to speed and the first weeks will most likely be crazy with a complete information overload.

Be there, coach, answer questions. Think about a mentoring program for new hires (which is like a buddy program, giving new hires a contact person outside your department to an introduction to the unwritten corporate culture) which is a great way to help people grow into the company and feel at home more quickly. Every organization has org charts and every organization has ways around that, the more complex the org chart the more ways to get things done under the radar. New employees will need to understand the politics and machinations in order to be successful. And a colleague will find it easier to talk about this than you may as manager (who should set an example…)

I would also recommend to take time after a month or so to have lunch with your new team member to go back through the recruitment process and get feedback. What was good, what was not so good, what can we do better the next time… While the memories are still fresh!

Finally, in the beginning, pay special attention to your 'new' team: every time you add a team member, your team will need to start over in terms of how it works, the social interactions, power balance etc. There is an interesting theory developed based on observations on US naval submarines, the -ing theory: Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. But THAT is something for a different post…

This is an exceptionally long post, my apologies. Keep in mind that it could've been longer! There are more details to consider, but I hope you still find this of value!

Good luck!

HR: Strategic? Operational? Say what?

We work with strategic HR questions and that seems to be confusing a lot of people. Strategic? Che?

Strategic HR: building an organization with a plan!

When most people talk about HR, they mean the "operational" side of HR, which is all the nitty gritty stuff: salaries, vacation lists, labor law, training, recruitment etc. Those are of course very important, but that is not what we have decided to focus on. 

The strategic aspects of HR include things like CSR, employer branding, T&D (training and development), employee engagement, retention and resource management. And, most important of all, as a substrate of the above, to make sure a company has the right people at the right place at the right time, today and tomorrow.

This all sounds easier than it is done, because traditionally, HR has been anything but strategic. There are of course many reasons for that. One is that in most HR programs at universities, the strategic aspects haven't been the focus of attention until recently (today, students get to choose what to focus on), the other aspect is that HR traditionally as been undervalued by management. The "intangible" values of humans is too esoteric for many CEOs to tackle and - with no HR manager to talk the talk of c-level people, they lost. In many organizations, the HR manager isn't even on the management team. And where they are, they don't have the tools to actively contribute to the team.

HR, like production, product development etc. is all about money. I don't mean to be mean, but many of the HR managers I've met have no clue how to contribute to the bottom line of a company while at the same time making sure their staff is happy, engaged and productive.

Happy people are more productive, so are healthy and
well trained staff...

We live in a world that is changing more and more rapidly, even in the most basic of industries, knowledge becomes more and more important. Life-long learning is at the heart of every successful organization. Making sure to link the organization's strategy with the right development programs is just one such aspect of strategic HR.

With the baby boomers retiring (as we speak), finding new people to fill vacancies is also an important aspect. However, some companies just aren't very popular to work for. There are a gazillion reasons for that, ranging from the fact that most people don't know it to the products and services they produce (not all are sexy or popular, e.g. arms, drugs) Making sure that the important positions are filled whenever needed is critical and requires a lot of planning, networking and talking to the respective managers, to make them aware of their human resource planning needs. 

Then there is the aspect of "happiness", which I find grossly underestimated in many organizations. If people are feeling seen, they will perform better, if people are listened to, they will feel appreciated and if people are treated well, they will perform better. All of the above leads to higher performance, less sick leave etc. 

This is the main difference between strategic and operational HR, but make no mistake, the strategic aspect makes no sense without the operational and the operational will never make a dent without the ability to be strategic. 

What we do affects our health...

Duuh! (you might think) Of course our health is impacted by what we do, but it is so in more ways than the obvious…

In the news we often read about sick leave and for many organizations, the level of sick leave is dangerously high. People don't like their jobs, they have issues with their managers etc that leave them vulnerable to illnesses (and to take a day off hell every now and then.)

Chronic illness doesn't have to keep people from leading
productive lives...

I've recently met a couple of people that made a huge impression on me. They are basically extremely sick, suffering from severe ailments that, if people knew, many would consider impossible to live with, let alone get up and work every morning.

Yet that is exactly what these people do. Putting away pain, discomfort and what have you, they get up in the morning and go to work. And not only do they work their average 40 hours, they work much more than that, and they are extremely successful at what they do.

Now if you had a life-threatening illness that you'll be living with until you draw your last breath, how would you answer the following question?

Do you consider yourself healthy?

Depending on the answer, you will be at work or not. The individuals I've met all consider themselves healthy, or at least not sick. It's a choice.

There are several psychological factors affecting how we feel about ourselves, how we view ourselves, how we are affected by pain etc. One thing is certain: it is our basic view of our own health that affects how "sick" we'll be. Some people are decked by a simple cold for days, others go to work the day after major surgery.

Got a cold? Influenza? People who are contagious
should stay at home to minimize spreading germs.

Those are of course individual factors, but as employers, there are things we can do to promote healthy work places:

• employees with contagious illnesses should not be in the work place. If they want to work, allow them to work from home, but colds, influenzas etc are highly contagious and could affect productivity if they spread to others.
• make sure your work environment is pleasant and the corporate culture open and allowing (we've written about this earlier) It helps people feel better about themselves and that alone is an antibody against illness
• support employees who suffer from chronic illnesses. Support them to allow them to lead as productive a life as possible, they'll repay you through loyalty and harder work!

Being chronically ill and yet working is highly influenced by individual personality factors, but as employers we can make sure that such individuals remain top contributors! It's good for them, it's good for us, and it's good for society, and that is just one form of CSR we don't often talk about…

Sweden: Scary attitude to Customer Service

Measuring Swedish attitudes

Some of Sweden's largest companies just published a study on Swedish attitudes on a variety of things. Sadly, my countrymen & -women don't seem to place much value on good customer service. Sure, we like our jobs, expect varying and interesting job tasks, but god forbid a nasty customer should come and rub our circles!!!

Sadly, this isn't news to me. I've lived in this country for 20 years and I've 'lived' bad customer service for as long. In Sweden, going to a café means self-service, much like Starbucks. But while Starbucks is the McDonald's of coffee, in our country ALL cafés are like that. There is no café where you will be served. The reason is obviously the extremely high cost of labor here, but that's not the only reason for bad service. People behind the counter are usually nonchalant, rude or unengaged.

Don't disturb my circles… aka the Swedish attitude towards customers!

You'll get similar impressions when you walk into stores or call customer support lines. Heck, this past week-end we went to shop a car, and as you know, those are not exactly cheap items. No sales people in sight, anywhere. The only sales person I could see was leisurely sitting behind a desk in an office. There were at least 10 people in the show room… Duuh? We left. Yes, Hedins Bil in Gothenburg.

I'll never set my foot there again. But they aren't alone. I've made a similar experience the last time we wanted to buy a car at Bilia (Volvo) and we ended up buying a Saab… These people get their salaries anyway and most of their bonus from selling fleet cars to companies. They don't care about the work a sale to a private person, so they ignore them, hoping they'll go away… Most of us do.

A smile will get you far, even on the phone!

This is of course a huge issue for the country, because tourists will notice this as well, in restaurants, hotels and other venues. Our business partners abroad will notice that as well in their interactions with us. On the other hand, if you are a competitor, you can rejoice! A country that places customers at 46th place on a priority list is an easy target!

The morale of the story?

Customer service is everything! We left one car dealership and went to another, although they are 20 miles out of town! There, the service is as it should be! In the end, that's more business to them. It's that simple.

In the customer service game there's only winners and losers, either you get the sale or you don't!

The "6R" methodology: Helping you get the job done...

I hope you all had a good week-end!

I'd like to start with saying thanks! We passed the 10 000 reader mark yesterday and I'm very proud. This is a tiny company with few resources and having passed that important mark is very important to us and we are grateful for your support. 

Last Friday we talked about creating Rapport, the first of 6 Rs in a methodology. All six Rs are:

Rapport

Reduce

Re-assure

Recognize

Relax

Remove

Cooperation isn't always as easy as it looks...

This method can be used in various situations, e.g. when you have a person who does not want to work with you and who does not know how or if you have to work with people whom you cannot 'order' to do things, the latter probably the most commonly occurring. Imagine how many people we work with that are not our direct reports. If you're a project manager you know what I mean. We work with people every day, yet they don't necessarily 'have' to do as they are told by us, so we may need to find ways to get them to do so anyway. The method is one way to get there.

We've already spoken about how critical it is to build rapport. If the person you need to work with does like you, this is the easy part. If not, then it's the most difficult part. But once you've come over that threshold of "dislike", you'll find the rest easy.

Reduce

This is about reducing the task at hand into a smaller chunk so that you can delegate a task that is easily manageable. Why? Well, despite all your work on Rapport, you may not be able to delegate an entire chore to someone (s/he may not like you that much yet…) OR the person in question may not be capable (competence) to do everything. By reducing the complexity you can make it easier for the other to take on the job.

Re-assure

It's important to tell the person how important their work is to the organization. They may still feel apprehensive about you or the size of the chunk of work, so tell them how critical it is to the success of the project, the company etc., not to mention how important it is to you. You should also include how grateful you are for the help and the assistance in achieving this. This makes people feel good about themselves. As a species, humans in general like to assist and we get a bigger thrill out of helping others than by being helped!

Recognize

Once the first small chunk is complete, be grateful, thank the person for a job well done and their personal contribution. In general we don't get to hear "thank you" very often in our jobs. Although easy enough to say and coming at no cost whatsoever, managers in general are quite reluctant to say thanks. Doing so will make your counterpart feel important and proud of having been able to help you. It also increases their willingness to do so again, and - this time - maybe taking on a slightly bigger chunk of work/responsibility. You will also notice that s/he will like you better for recognizing their contribution, and you will like them better for having assisted you!

Relax

Once you've been through the iteration reduce - re-assure - recognize a few times, you'll no longer need to be there and control and make sure things get done. This is the stage when you can start to relax your control and start to just "delegate" tasks. Your working relationship with the person in question should have improved significantly at this stage and you should no longer feel that you dislike each other.

Remove

This is the final stage and basically allows you to withdraw the control altogether. The person you've been working so hard to first like and then get to do a little task/chore for you, is now probably someone you respect and work well with. In a climate of mutual respet and understanding, the 6Rs have served their purpose and you may now resort to other methods of coaching and/or delegation to work with each other in the future.

Give it a try. Further details can be found in the book, Common Sense - in business & life, chapter 11.

Building Rapport or how to get along with someone you dislike...

We all have them: people we dislike!

Ever felt like putting that on the desk of a
co-worker, boss, customer or supplier? Well,
here's something to help you cope!

Whatever the reason, we all have people we just cannot seem to get along. They push our buttons, they bully us, they oppose us every step of the way or - worst of all - we don't even know, we just don't like them, or they us (which is pretty much the same thing).

And as things are in a species which mimics each others emotional states, if you don't like me, I won't like you! It's that simple.

In our private lives we often have a choice. We can walk away from friendships going pear shape, we can divorce a partner who turned out to be a sour grape and we can move away or ignore neighbors that bother us.

But at work? Well, seems you're kinda stuck with that idiot from finance, not to mention the moron down in production that just loves to give you a hard time, oh and that bullying boss of yours? Stuck! The douchebag that is your most important client? Stuck!

Sure, you can change jobs, but trust me, where there are humans there will be douchebags, morons & idiots!

So what do you do? How do you cope with such people?

You could try the ostrich approach, but I have a feeling that isn't going to work. At least not with those colleagues, suppliers and customers you actually have to do work with!

Ever felt like sending this to your boss?

So what else can you do?

Here's a little something I learned ages ago. It's a method called the 6Rs

Rapport
Reduce
Re-assure
Recognize
Relax
Remove

It's a method used to get people who "could" help you / work with you  do so although they don't want to. And it is the first step that is the most important one of them all: to build rapport.

Not being liked is usually mutual. You don't like me so I don't like you (it's hard to like someone who dislikes you) So how do you change that back?

Well, the first step is to force yourself to sit down with said individual and get to know hir. That could be over a cup of coffee or lunch or whatever. Use that time to find out ANYTHING that you have in common: you both like the movies, you both love the same football club, you both love Thailand, you both collect stamps, you've both been in the same battalion or you've both given birth to boys on the same day (I mean literally ANYTHING).

Because here's the trick. Our minds are really funny that way. We are a bit black/white, 0/1, on/off. We have a tendency to split things into two. And either you like movies or you don't. And if you do, you're on my team, if not, your loss (like you less) We do that for everything in our lives.

Now with people we like very very much, we have heaps of oversight with all the weird choices they make in life that we disagree with (because we like them and tend to disregard the odd stuff), but with people we don't like, we only see what we dislike, so we have to actively learn to find out what we have in common.

Yeah, common ground ahead!?!

Let's assume, for argument's sake, you LOVE coins. You've collected coins ever since you could put them in your mouth, and your super proud of the sizable collection of coins from all over the world you have invested a larger fortune in. (You can substitute this with just about ANYthing you love to do)

Let us assume, for the same argument's sake, that said douche bag you have coffee with, also has a coin collection (or whatever else you prefer to do)

MAGIC: your brain will never ever be able to see douche bag the same way again! A coin collecting douche bag? Unheard of! We must re-shuffle our opinion. We cannot dislike someone who shares our bestest, daily hobby. We just can't!

(the same thought pattern will simultaneously take place in douche bag's mind)

And there you are, disliking each other just a little less. You have started to build rapport, you have made a first tentative connection and you can now start to build a productive relationship based on that.

Oh yes! You better mean it or your relationship is going
from bad to worse, or even worse!

This is going to take some time, but if you keep at it, if you meet regularly with your new coin-collecting friend, maybe take hir to a coin-collecting fair or bring a few treasured items to show etc. you might actually make a friend.

Whatever common ground you find: psychologically, we cannot dislike people who are as we are (unless you are seriously disturbed!) We just can't. Nature has made sure of that. And that is the trick you must use to overcome those differences.

It's hard work and you must keep at it and not just build your relationship on just one commonality, but work at it, find more common ground and why not use the 6R to do that. On Monday I'll explain the rest of the method, which I've found extremely useful, particularly when you work with people who do not report to you directly!

Have a good week-end!