Micro De-escalation Skills for Everyday Conflicts: Subtle Ways to De-Escalate Tension

In this episode, host Simon Goode introduces the concept of "micro-de-escalation," focusing on subtle gestures and communication techniques to reduce perceived threat and lower the energy in conflict situations. He discusses practical approaches such as using positive body language, appropriate tone of voice, and giving others a sense of autonomy and fairness. The episode offers actionable tips for everyday interactions, helping listeners create more positive and constructive exchanges, even in challenging moments.

TIMESTAMPS: 

00:00 Nonverbal Calmness and Reassurance

04:45 "Positive Impact Through Micro De-escalation"

07:14 Cultural Nuances in Communication

13:13 The Power of a Simple Wave

14:37 Calming Tone Importance

19:58 "Enhancing Interaction with Mutual Respect"

23:29 Communicating Delays with Certainty

25:13 Empowering Meeting Autonomy

28:21 Effective De-Escalation Techniques

35:03 Empowering Cafe Interaction Tips

38:18 Micro De-escalation Techniques

39:41 "Leave a Review, Thank You"

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

0:15

Hello and welcome back to the Conflict Skills Podcast. I'm your host, professional mediator, Simon Goode. I set up this podcast to provide free resources and tools for dealing with conflict. So if that sounds like the kind of thing that's useful for you, please consider pressing subscribe in the episode. Today, I'm going to be talking about a phrase that I think I might have invented, although it's possible that other people have coined the same phrase, which is microdescalation. I remember hearing back a few years ago about microaggressions and identifying potential signs of hostility in a workplace, for example. And I think the opposite can also be true. There are these very subtle things that we do or ways that we speak, which can affect often the reaction that we're getting from other people. And so today I'm going to be talking about some of the ways that we can apply these little phrases or gestures or this kind of thing with a goal of de escalating the conversation that we're in. And in my mind, I guess we've got two different areas that we can focus on there. One is reducing the level of energy, reducing that sense of escalation and stimulation that the other person might be experiencing. And I also want to reduce the sense of perceived threat, which would make them naturally want to avoid me or to avoid the topic that we're talking about. For example. Now, these are the kind of tools that you can use more or less constantly in your life, is a very strange example, probably to some people. I often focus on de escalation when I'm walking my dog. I like to have a positive influence on the neighborhood around me. And there's quite a few different people that I know that I'll run into, and I want to often say hello to them. But I found that as a. As a guy, often when I'm approaching a lady, especially when they're by themself, I think they might become very slightly defensive. And sometimes I think this is almost at a subconscious level. So I experiment with trying to make the other person feel comfortable, put them at ease, so to speak, which means I'm not staring at them as I approach. For example, I might deliberately and very obviously look down at my dog, give my dog a pat or something like that, and. And then once the other person approaches, but they're still a moderate distance away from me, I acknowledge them. Like I might make eye contact and maybe give a little, a small wave or something like that, or say good morning or something like that. And I'm wanting as quickly as Possible to reduce any sense of perceived threat that I might be giving the other person. So that could be physical threat, like I might attack them or something like that. Like if I'm changing the course that I'm walking and I'm walking straight towards the other person, that might be something that puts them on edge. But it's other non physical types of threats as well. Things like scrutiny, I think is a very common one. When people feel like they're being watched, they inherently begin to bristle. They become defensive simply because they feel like the other person is potentially scrutinizing what they're doing. Not many young people, for example, like to work and have an older person sitting over their shoulder watching every single thing that they do. So when I talk about reducing the sense of perceived threat, there's the physical layer, like I'm not going to attack you, but. But I'm also showing the other person that it's not such a big deal. Like I'm not stressed, I'm not tensed, I'm relaxed, I'm comfortable, I'm not really focused on you. You can do whatever you need to do. I'm over here doing my own thing, type of thing. And I think about how can I communicate that in the nonverbal gestures and the body language and all of that kind of stuff as well as the actual phrases that we use. And so I thought this could be quite a helpful discussion for some of you because you want often to put other people at ease. I was talking to a friend of mine recently and he was talking about going to a cafe and feeling like the barista was bristling and immediately didn't like him, if you know what I mean. And for a lot of my life I've actually felt like that as well. What I'm realizing is that I was almost preemptively defensive, like I didn't want to give them anything to scrutinize me or judge me negatively for. So what I was doing was presenting a face that was a bit more abrupt or a bit more tense or a bit more harsh than what might have been warranted. And so often when I would travel for work, for example, I would go to these rural areas, for example, with a slightly different culture than what I'm used to. And I would feel like everyone's looking at me, like I'm an outsider, everyone's annoyed at me, I'm inconvening, I'm inconveniencing them and this kind of thing. And I've noticed that particularly over the last Couple of years. I've changed the way that I think about interacting with strangers on the street, like at the. At a cafe if I'm traveling for work or something like that. And I've noticed that I'm getting a much, much, much more positive response from the randoms that I'm coming across. I don't feel like I'm intruding these days. I feel like I'm a blessing to the town and I can walk up and down the street and often engage most of the people that I come across in a reasonably respectful and positive kind of way. And I think one of the things that's helped me to do that was to employ some of these micro de escalation techniques that we're going to be focusing on in the episode today. So there's the doing of it. Like I act in this particular way. But I think the reason why I don't naturally feel like everyone thinks that I'm an intruder and I might be more of a positive influence in the town is because I really try to be. So I think regardless of what you actually do, part of the goal of micro de escalation, I think, is simply to calibrate your intentions, like to not catastrophize and to not think that you need to give the other person an answer on the spot. And instead we prioritize a focus on de escalation, reducing that sense of perceived stimulation and energy or reducing that sense of perceived threat. So if we start with body language, I guess this would be about how can we act in a way that reduces the sense of perceived threat to the other person. Keeping an appropriate distance would be a very obvious example. You normally would want to spend two arm's lengths away from somebody, especially if they're starting to heat up and they're getting upset or it's a stranger that we don't know, for example, and we don't want to put them on edge. So around one and a half meters, two arm's length, something like that. The idea here is that they're not subconsciously worried that you're going to swing a punch and hit them or become violent or something like that. And moving towards or away from people who are very escalated can cause them to react. If you're moving towards people, they can feel like a cat in the corner and they might lash out and do something impulsively kind of thing. But you. But even moving away from some people, if they're very upset about a topic that you're discussing, they might follow you. People often don't like it when you avoid the topic that they're focused on. So you simply holding your ground and staying still often is a tactic that works quite well. In terms of facial expressions, we want to seem relaxed and neutral. I often do a little smile, like a minimum smile, a mild hint of a smile. I often like, sort of suck the bottom lip, if you know what I mean, and give a bit of a smile like that. Raising your eyebrows can really be a really nice way of reducing the sense of perceived threat. One of the little tools that works for me is to act a little bit surprised when I first talk to the other person. Like when I'm calling them and they answer the phone, for example, I'll often start with a tone of voice that's something like, oh, good morning, how's it going? And in facial expressions, I do the same thing. I raise my eyebrows and give them a bit of a smile and I'll often start a little bit louder, but then very quickly reduce the volume that I'm speaking. Oh, good morning, how's it going? I think a lot of these non verbal communication tools are often culturally specific. So speaking loudly, for example, in some cultures that might be seen as quite intimidating, maybe even interpreted as something that's aggressive. Whereas in other cultures, talking loudly is just something that you do more or less constantly. So what represents the level of escalation or what represents the way that people perceive threats would differ by cultural background. So that could be cultural background in terms of the country that you're from and national culture. But it's also other things as well. Like people might act a different way because of how old they are and the way that the other people their age act, or maybe their little pocket of professionals act in this particular way. This is the way that engineers or lawyers or road crews or doctors tend to communicate that kind of thing. There might be different norms that are established. So for you, in your context and you're dealing with the people that you're dealing with, there might be a different set of things that work for you in terms of what's lowering the sense of perceived threat. Like for me, it's that little bit of surprise. And I think the reason that this is effective is because I'm showing the other person that I'm not overly focused on you. Like I'm not targeting you, I'm not obsessed with you, I'm not, I'm not putting the pressure on you to do a particular thing. It's like, whatever, you know what I mean? Things will be okay. And there's a high level of autonomy there as well. It's like, oh, I wasn't just waiting on you and now I'm frustrated at the fact that I've had to wait to order my coffee. A little bit of a surprise is like, look, I'm not percolating away worrying about something, or I'm not percolating away angry about something that little innocent. Oh, good morning, how's it going? It often begins the conversation on a much more positive foot than just being more terse or abrupt from the, from the start. Hello, can I please have a long black. You know, of course the other person might interpret that as you being frustrated or critical of something that they've done or judgmental about something, about the context, for example. And so what you might get is a micro level of defensiveness, a micro level of reaction. And again, this might be a non verbal thing that they just focus on how busy they are and what a bad morning it's been kind of thing. Whereas if you started on a more positive note, it might be that they actually enjoy the work that they're doing and the interaction with you in a more positive way as well. Which is another interesting byproduct of all of this, I think. So relatively neutral facial expression. We don't want to make too much eye contact. Roughly 70% or so tends to work, although. Although that's quite culturally specific as well. People in regional areas often don't make as much eye contact and they often don't stand as close by default as well. Whereas people who grow up and they're used to metro areas and living in cities, they might interpret things differently. Or where I live, it's a regional town, so when I'm going past someone and I'm walking my dog, I kind of expect us to say hello to each other. It's sort of the norm. Most people greet each other as you're walking past, just g', day, how's it going? Something like that. And when someone completely avoids me, they don't make any eye contact and they don't say hello. I often, I think, interpret that behavior as rude. Like I think, what's their problem? Or I think, gee, they're not a very friendly kind of person. Now of course, they've probably just got other things on their mind that's probably got nothing to do with me. But that's the way that it's interpreted. All of these things ultimately are in the eye of the beholder. So it's not so much about, I was just being Assertive. It's like, well, possible that that behavior is being interpreted as aggression or being too passive and not taking me seriously or something else as well. We generally want to minimize the amount of movement that we're doing. So if you're the kind of person that talks a lot with your hands, these are the kind of moments where you might need to sit on your hands, for example, or reduce the amount of gestures that you're doing. The more gestures that we make, obviously it creates this sense of animation and probably contributes to that escalation and the buildup of energy in the conversation. So I just often try to relax, calm and confident. I tend to try to appear like the king in a play that's sitting still and upright. And, you know, I'm not flustered, I'm not flapped. All the action is going on around me. There's things that I can do that I'm in control of. There's ways that I can respond to this conversation, so to speak. And you might not be feeling confident. Often it's like the duck on the top of the pond and underneath the surface, you're paddling frantically, trying to think about how you should respond or what you should say next or what's going to work for this conversation. But at least on the surface level, in terms of how you appear, it should be nonplussed. I'm not fast, I'm not overwhelmed. We can get through this. There might be an option, let's see what we can do, that kind of thing. And you might be surprised at how simply having the intention of communicating that non verbally, it really helps. You know, I'm a little bit reluctant to go into too many specifics about hand gestures and this kind of thing, because they really do differ depending on the group of people that you're dealing with and the context that the conversation's happening in. So what works for you will be slightly different for other people as well. So it's often that what would reduce the sense of perceived threat or what would reduce the level of escalation? So one of the things that I often also experiment with is microwaving these little friendly hand waves that I'll often do when I'm approaching someone. For example, like, g', day. How you going? I'll just do a little wave, almost like as an aside or hello, everyone. Thank you so much for coming. Are there any other agenda items that we wanted to add before we get started? This little wave of good morning or how are you? Or hello, it's this very effective way of acknowledging and validating, I think, the other person's existence and their presence and their participation in the conversation. But it also shows them that you don't have a weapon. We tend to trust as humans more people who we can see their hands. And I think that's often to do with scanning subconsciously for if the other person might have a weapon. So if you've got someone coming towards you and they've got their hand in their pockets or their hands behind their backs, you might be a little bit suspicious. There's a little part of you that's more guarded. So I often use this in conversations as well. When I'm talking to someone and we're standing up and my goal is to de escalate. I'll often keep my hands relaxed at my side. I don't put them in my pocket unless I'm so nervous that I can't stop them shaking or something like that. And when I'm beginning a meeting, I'll often have my hands on top of the desk or on top of the table, clasped together but reasonably relaxed. And again, the goal here is to send as many different messages that we can that this is okay, this, this situation is contained. There are not going to be negative consequences for you. There's not that sense of pressure where you need to act quickly, that kind of thing. Tone of voice is also an incredibly important part to consider when we think about micro deescalation. I really like the way that Chris Voss describes a calming tone of voice, which is lower speed, lower volume and low tone. I often do communication skills workshops and I'll stay to people like, how should we calm other people down? What's going to be the most effective way of speaking? And they'll often say, like you talk, Simon. Because I think I do often engage in this way of speaking a lot of the time where I can, where I'm not flustered and overwhelmed and losing it myself. But they'll often say, speak calmly. And then I'll say, well, what's calmly look like for you? And it's interesting the challenge that people often have, pinpointing what the specific characteristics are that are often interpreted as being a calm way of speaking. There's often things about what you say, like using short, simple phrases, not jumping in as soon as the other person's finished speaking, not using too much technical jargon, not speaking for too long at a time before giving them a chance to talk. Like there's a little bit of the what we say and a bit of the message itself. But how we say it is crucially important when it comes to escalation. The more escalated that people get, the more they go into this fight or flight mode, the sympathetic nervous system gradually ramps up and they become more escalated. And what that means is that they tend to think in much more black and white kind of ways, so they might not be interpreting the words that you're saying to them effectively, for example. So a lot of the time we need to begin by taking the energy out of the conversation. And. And the way that we speak can be a crucial part of that. So that low volume when we're yelling, speaking loudly, obviously, it's like there's pressure. We need focus. We need you to do something right now. So that higher level of volume often would have been associated with crises, for example, or situations when someone was very angry. So that tends to be the natural interpretation that comes up as well. When we speak loudly, it causes escalation. When we speak fast, the same thing happens. It can almost make people feel a little bit panicked. When you're talking to someone and they're just speaking so quickly that you can't even feel like you have time to think before you have a chance to jump in. And, gosh, by the time they finish, you've not even remember half of the things that they've said. So slow down the speed, I should say, and then lower the tone. That high sense of escalation, obviously, again, this is a crisis situation. There's high pressure here. Whereas a low tone, low, steady tone tends to work better. Sometimes people wonder if the other person's yelling or speaking a bit shrilly or speaking too quickly. Should I match them? They've heard this thing called mirroring, and they think that mirroring means that they copy the other person. Like, from an NLP perspective, I guess I don't often find that that works. If you respond and speak loudly and quickly and in a high tone, it often just ramps up the energy in the conversation and. And the other person reacts. And around and around we go, even when they're yelling. I think it often works better to still keep your volume lower, although it might be what you would consider a moderate volume, if you know what I mean. Lower tone and slower speed in how we're speaking, we don't necessarily match them. We set the tone. We provide the positive influence that they need to calm down because of the level of crisis with which their brain is perceiving the situation that they're in. So that's. I think, at the highest level, it's how we act, what we do, the distance that we stand apart, the eye contact and those kind of elements, as well as the tone of voice that we use, that lower volume, lower speed, lower tone, lower steady tone. There are also specific elements that people crave when they're in an escalated state. And I really like a model developed by Dr. David Rock. He talks about some of the different factors that people naturally are attracted to or want to avoid. If there's that sense of perceived threat, threat. He talks about status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness. In Rock's model, status is the relative importance of an individual. It's like whether they think that you think that they're a good person, whether they think that you think that they're good at their job, whether they think that you think that they've done something wrong, whether they think that you think that they're ethical. If they feel like you're accusing them of lying, for example, they might naturally get their backup and become defensive as a result. Or it might be the fact that they want to know that you care about the same things that they care about. They want to know that the issue that's on their plate is a high priority for you as well. So status is often affected by things like perceived embarrassment. If the other person feels like people around them will think more negatively of them, then they'll feel threatened, and they might arc up and get defensive as a result. It might be things like feeling singled out, surprise attack, like someone feeling like you're all of a sudden trying to make them look bad, for example. And it's ultimately about either their competence or their ethics being questioned. You're not good at your job, or you're not trying hard, or you've deliberately done this thing wrong, that kind of thing. And that status can often be replenished by ways that you can communicate mutual respect, like acknowledging the effort that they've gone to to solve this problem that they're dealing with, for example, or acknowledging the level of experience that they bring to this task, acknowledging the fact that they might have more information that you're aware of, acknowledging the fact that there might be more history that you're aware of. For example, we don't want to say, look, I understand. I've got all the information here. Here's the assumption that I've made, and this is the black and white way that I'm seeing the situation. It's much more about. I would like to hear from you and learn from you about your perspective and how you're interpreting the situation here. So this could be things that we can make the other person to feel secure or things that we can do to make the other person to feel important. I guess it might be in how we give feedback, focusing on strengths or focusing on if there's a problem in what they've done, really focusing on the behaviour, but maybe still acknowledging the fact that they're a good performer overall. It's just this single issue that there's an issue with, and this is what needs to change and by when, et cetera. Which brings us to the next point in his model. Actually, status is the first factor that we crave, certainty is the second. And this makes a lot of sense if we think about the way that our brains have developed, have been in tribal settings and there's been a lot of uncertainty around food, for example, or safety. So when there's a situation and we interpret it with a high level of uncertainty, it often activates that fight or flight response as a result. Because historically these might have been situations where we needed to fight or we needed to escape. If you're out at night and you don't know what's in the bush, it's probably a good thing that your brain interprets that as a threat. Your heart rate increases, blood pressure increases, you get ready to defend yourself if you need to. That's not an ideal brain to be walking into a board meeting with or a performance management conversation with one of your staff, or trying to respond to an angry customer in the midst of a really busy shift that you're dealing with at the moment. So certainty and how we can provide certainty can be incredibly effective at calming the other person down. So this is like, how can we be transparent in communication? How can we break down what we need from the other person into specific behaviors, like, you need to do this and this and this, rather than saying you need to pull your socks up or you need to pull your weight or you need an attitude change or something like that. We're more specific about the behaviors that we want them to do and we're more specific about what we're going to do as a result as well. If the other person's really upset about a problem and they come to us and say, look, this is diabolical, this needs to change immediately. You need to fix this. And we say something like, look, thanks for flagging it with me, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. We're not providing any certainty. We haven't told them anything about what we're going to do when we're going to come back to them, what they can do in the meantime. Whereas if we provide that additional layer of information, it often makes them feel like they're standing on solid ground. And as a result, they tend to calm down naturally. So instead of saying, I'll get to that when I can, or thanks, I'll put that on the to do list, we could say, look for that particular issue. This is the person that I'll need to contact. I can see that they're in

a meeting until about 1:30 or 2: 23:16

00 clock this afternoon. I should be able to catch them then, which means that I could give you a call around 3. How does that time work for you? So I'm being much more specific about the steps that I'm going to take. I'm going to be specific about the reason for any delays, for example, or the reason that I'm not able to give them what they're asking me for right now and talking to them about time frames of when I'm going to come back. You might also sometimes include an element of certainty in terms of how you suggest they could spend their time. Like, in the meantime, if you could gather these documents or just keep notes about the pattern of behavior until we meet again, that'll be really helpful so that we've got that as a foundation to anchor our discussion in when it comes to that stage. So certainty is all about helping the other person feel like they can predict the future events or feeling like there's not an unexpected surprise or something coming out of left field that's going to upset the apple cart. The third element that Ross talks about is autonomy. This is that sense of control that you have over the situation that you're in. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the time when we're dealing with conflict and difficult conversations, it can feel scary and it feels like we're on the roller coaster. And here we go over the scariest bit of the track and we're beginning to accelerate and we're not going to have a lot of control over what happens. Whereas where we can build in that sense of autonomy, this is all about perceived autonomy from the other person. It tends to make them feel like they're on more solid ground and they're. What would you say it's like instead of being on the roller coaster cart going over the scariest bit of the track, they have the brakes or they have the steering wheel. They are the one that gets to decide how this plays out. And so that will help them to feel more confident as a result Naturally. So when I'm doing a mediation, I don't often begin the meeting by saying something like, righto, well, thanks for coming. We've got these three items to talk about. Let's begin with item one. I'll often say, look, thanks very much for coming. Do either of you need to grab a drink or grab a notepad or anything before we get started? No, no, we're ready to go. So I'm giving him that sense of autonomy right from the very beginning. And then when we go through agenda items, I don't say, these are the three things I want to discuss. I might say something like, look, there are some items that stood out to me from the previous meetings I've had with the two of you. I'd like to talk about a couple of those items if possible. But before we put them up on the agenda, do either of you have anything that you feel like it would be important to discuss today before we make this decision? Is there any other additional input from you? This is what seems like the best option. How does that sound to you? Is that something that you'd like us to get organized? So I don't say we're going to do this, and here's the natural thing that's going to happen next, and you've got no control over it. It's giving that sense of perceived control even over relatively small things like look. Unfortunately, this is the only process that will work here, but we do have some flexibility in terms of time frames or we do have some flexibility in terms of the type of finish that you use or something else. Highlight the areas where they can actually make a choice would also be quite effective. It sounds a little bit like a token gesture, but at least you're giving them as much flexibility as you can, especially in situations where things are quite constrained otherwise. So we've got status, certainty, and autonomy. The fourth factor that Rock talks about is relatedness. This is, I think, a sense of connection. Now, Rock often talks about this as reducing blame or identifying shared experiences or this kind of thing. But in my mind, one of the key elements of relatedness is the other person feeling listened to. Now, I often use the ear model of active listening ear. So if my goal is to help the other person to feel listened to first, I want to explore. I want to give them a chance to say what they need to say. I want to give them a chance to tell their story. I want to. I might bounce between asking questions and summarizing or mirroring the different phrases that they're using, but the whole purpose of this first section of the conversation is for them to have a chance to talk about what's important to them and for me to do my best to give them the sense of being understood. And that's usually not by saying I understand, especially if I say I understand that. But it kind of tends to erase whatever we said before. So that's a particularly unhelpful phrasing. I think if you need to do something like that, saying I understand the challenge is this, or I understand, that's your perspective. At the same time, I've talked from other team members and they've shared different information or I understand that that's what you'd like us to do. And or at the same time, the challenge for us is this is the relevant bit of legislation or whatever it is. If you need to say I understand, but a simple tweak that can often help is replacing the word but with at the same time or and but for me, I often find that people feel listened to when you play back what they've told you. I might say something like, let me just check, I understand, I've got that right. And then I'll summarize it. This is that second step in the ear model of acknowledge now when people are very escalated and our goal is to de escalate the conversation with we probably don't want to go too hard in any one area. We don't want to ask too many questions in a row because that can feel like an interrogation. For example, we don't want to do a really long summary to acknowledge what they've told us early on because they might feel like they're being railroaded or they're not having a chance to have their say, or there's that sense of perceived lower autonomy in the conversation, for example. So treading a little bit carefully, I often find asking a couple of closed ended questions can work really well. When the person's really, really escalated and they're seeing red, like did this happen? Or this okay, did you want to go over there and have the conversation or would you prefer to talk about it right now? Like these closed ended questions, they can be easy to answer and when the other person's escalated, that prefrontal cortex, that section of their brain that's responsible for executive function, is not working at full capacity. So I don't want to ask them complicated questions. And I think questions that begin with why often trigger defensiveness, especially why did you do that? Obviously the implication here can be that you shouldn't have done that so there's that layer of criticism or scrutiny that often is interpreted at least from their perspective. That might not be your goal, you're talking about it objectively. But if you're talking about why did you do that or why did that happen or why didn't you do it the right way, what you're likely to get is some type of an excuse. And unfortunately that often means that the other person's more dug into their position. Whereas slowing down and saying open ended questions that begin with what and how can be much more effective in those situations. How did that play out? What happened next? How did you respond? Where is it left at the moment? What needs to happen now? How can we help moving forward? What were you hoping we could do from here? These what and how questions often work really well for that relatedness element. So explore is giving them a chance to have their say. Acknowledge is when we play it back and summarize what they've done. And sometimes you can use the exact words that they used like, so from your perspective, this has been a complete nightmare. From the word go, you've tried to give Darren what you consider to be reasonably clear instructions and every time you've done it, you found like he gets his backup and won't have a bar of you or something like that. Have I got that right? So I'm not minimizing the problem, I'm not pretending that it's not there. I'm saying to them, look, it sounds like this is a really serious issue. It's had this effect on you. You've tried these things to fix it and it hasn't worked. Now I don't want to give them a pat on the head like a little kid and say, good boy, you've done a really good job. When I'm thinking that actually they haven't handled this situation very well. But one of the things that can be helpful for relatedness is to affirm their intention. I can see how much effort you've put into fixing this. I can see that this hasn't been a single conversation for you. There's been a number of times you've talked to this other person about this issue and at this stage you haven't got the response that you're looking for. Like I'm saying to you, I can see how hard you're trying, or I can see how important this is to you, or I can see what a level of awareness you have to what needs to happen next. Now none of that is communicating. You've done the right thing. So if I need to give feedback or ask them for next steps that they're going to take or something like that, I've set the foundation of relatedness without kind of giving the impression that I agree with them necessarily, if that makes sense. So we've got status, certainty, autonomy and relatedness. The final factor that Rock talks about is fairness. If you're saying no, maybe there's at least something that you can offer them. You might say, look, I've got some items that I'd like to talk about on the agenda. Do you have anything that you would like to discuss as well? Or you don't talk for too long before giving the other person a chance to speak. Just before we go on, do you have any questions? I mean, that's my take on it, but obviously you're going to have a different way of seeing things. Given that you've got different experiences. What's your perspective? What do you think would work moving forward? It's keeping the conversation itself balanced. Like the structure that I use, so to speak, is fair. You have a chance to have your say. You're not going to have these decisions made without you having input, that kind of thing. But also the issue itself. Like, no, unfortunately, I can't give you this coming Friday off. The challenge for us is that we've got this client coming through, so that's a particularly bad day. If there's any of the other Fridays that month that work for you, though, I'd be happy to approve one of those as leave. So I can't give you what you're asking for, but I've done my best to investigate other options, and this is something that we can do. Look, unfortunately, we can't get someone out to your house today, but I've put you on the top of the cancellation list. So if we have any staff become available, you'll be the first person that we call. Or I know that you've had these unexpected costs in the house that you're building. Unfortunately, some of that's just to do with the cost of the materials. But for what it's worth, we're happy to provide some of our staff as free labor, which will mean that fixing some of those issues that are there not going to be cheap, but you're going to minimize the expense where possible. So I'm kind of saying there's give and take here. I'm focused on the problems that you're having. I'm not necessarily sitting here as thinking that you're completely rosy. I'm acknowledging the negatives that you've experienced despite the positive intentions that you've made, for example. And maybe there's something that I can offer you and where there's not, where there's limitations. I think talking about that external reason in a clear and consistent way establishes a sense of fairness. The challenge for us is that we've got the client coming in on Friday. I know, but when Sarah asked for a day off, you let her have it. Why am I being treated differently? I can understand how that might be a perspective. And you're right. We did grant Sarah the leave that last month. The challenge for us is that this Friday, that's the day that the client will be in the office. So I'm referring repeatedly to that single reason why I'm not giving them what they're asking for. And I'm avoiding that risk of getting stuck, stuck in a debate. You know, if we just start to list many, many reasons why, oh, no, that's not true. When Sarah asked, it was different. For this reason, then we're in this little micro debate about the issue with Sarah. And unfortunately, I think sometimes those red herrings that often come about can cause a lot more conflict than the original conversation that you're in. So establishing a sense of fairness, even asking them what would be a fair outcome to you. So fairness is the final element. So those small ways that you can give status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness can work incredibly well. So when you get up to the front at the cafe and it's your turn to order a question, how can you give them status? Maybe you could say something like, gee, you're doing so well, given the fact that you're by yourself this morning and there's so many customers that are coming in. Or you could give them certainty by saying something like, I just want the one coffee, please. Can I just have a long black? That would be great. Thank you. Or we could give them autonomy by saying, look, I'm happy to pay by card or cash. What would work better? What's quicker? Or would you prefer to put it in a takeaway cup? I'd be happy to take it and run. If you're needing to clean up some of these tables that are here, like, I'm giving them the choice. I'm not saying, I'll take my coffee because I know that you haven't cleaned the tables. Because then they might interpret that as scrutiny. They feel like they're not doing a good job because they've left the tables messy in the cafe or something like that, whereas giving them A choice. It puts them in the driver's seat. Would it be helpful if I do this? Would you prefer this or this? What would work better? And in those everyday conversations, like you're dealing with a barista, it might be a very small level. It's quite informal. It's just, oh, what do you reckon? Would this work? Kind of thing we could maybe empathize with. Gosh, I imagine this is quite stressful when you've got people coming through, like that person in front of me that had 16 coffees on the list for the office that they work in. Or I could say something like, I remember when I was working in these kind of jobs, and I used to find this really stressful. Gee, you're doing a good world. You're doing a good job managing it all. And then the final layer is fairness. Maybe there's some way that you can compensate them for an inconvenience that you've given them. Maybe there's additional work that you've asked them to do, like they need to go back behind the kitchen to get an ingredient for the coffee that you've ordered or something. So maybe you put in an extra big tip so that they see that you're acknowledging the effort that they've made and the trouble that they've gone to to fix the problem that you were dealing with. Or it might be something like, look, I was going to get that as well, but actually, I think just the drink would be fine. I know you're flat out at the moment. I'm giving them a sense that I care about what you care about. I understand the struggles that you're doing that you're in to some extent. And here's one small way that I might be able to help. I think often doing that with autonomy, at the same time, it seems like you're flat out. Would this be helpful for you? It's a really nice way of doing it. Rather than just saying, you're obviously struggling, this is what I need to do to help you out, so to speak. A lot of people don't feel like they're a victim. And when you put them in the position of either being the victim or they're causing a problem or doing something wrong, that's when you often get much more of a dramatic reaction than you might be expecting in some conversations that you're in. So the body language that overall, relaxed, I'm confident I can get through this, I'll be okay message that we're trying to communicate, the way that we're speaking, that Low tone, lower volume and slower speed. And then really focusing on how can we convey at a micro level status, you're important, you matter. I'm aware of what you're dealing with. Certainty. Here's what's going to happen next. Here's what you can do in the meantime. Autonomy, that sense of control, that sense of being in the driver's seat and holding the steering wheel, even for relatively small decisions. And that could be either about the structure, like the conversation. Would you prefer to talk through here? Or do you want to go and sit down and maybe we could be a little bit more private? Relatedness, that preemptive empathy, summarizing what they've told you, giving them that sense of being heard, and then fairness, especially when you're needing to deliver bad news or you're not able to give them 100% of what they want. Is there something else that you might be able to offer? Is there another third party that might be able to be involved? Is there some way that you can make things right or help them in some way? So I hope that that's been helpful for you thinking about that topic of micro de escalation and pulling it apart in terms of the nuance of what kind of things people respond to positively and what kind of things cause that escalation, whether it's the level of energy or that sense of perceived threat. But I'd love to know from you if you'd like to give feedback. You can shoot me an email@podcastimongoode.com if you're listening on Spotify or one of the other platforms where you can make a comment. I'd be incredibly grateful if you would. Those little comments show that people are engaging with the podcast, and they're a massive boost for little podcast like this, especially when I'm not as consistent as I should be. So there's other elements of the algorithm that are probably working against me, unfortunately. And if you've got a scenario, a case study that you'd like me to talk about in the podcast, or a topic that you think would be useful for other people, please feel free to send it through either by comments or by email. And if the podcast episode has been helpful for you, I'd be incredibly grateful if you would consider leaving a positive review. But otherwise, thank you very much for listening. I hope that that micro de escalation topic is helpful. Good luck employing it. I'd like to know how you go, if there's particular situations that you're planning for, or maybe you go through a particular challenge and you're not sure how this could be applied, for example. And I'd love to see you again in a future episode of the Conflict Skills Podcast. Thanks again. Bye for sa.