Arguing without getting emotional
Arguing without getting emotional
(OP)
My position as an engineer is really between the two tales. I'm the guy who take over the R&D idea and make it work. This involves assisting the R&D people on how to design thing that is manufacturable, cheap, easy to assemble, etc. I found my self that if I don't catch their mistakes then it is my fault. If I do catch their mistakes, I still have to fix it due to various reason like the product is way down the line and the tooling is already built, etc. Now here is the real issue, I always get pumped up whenever I get to the meeting and talked with these guys trying to convince them to change the design a little bit to accomodate for better cost, assembly, service, etc. It seems like no matter how I present the fact, I always got my self in the arguing mode that at the end I wanted to kick his butt so badly.
How do you present the fact without getting emotional and still being able to convince them. And if you do get into a debate, how do you stay calm and not take things personally.
Anyone has similar situation and how to cope this?
Kinsrow
How do you present the fact without getting emotional and still being able to convince them. And if you do get into a debate, how do you stay calm and not take things personally.
Anyone has similar situation and how to cope this?
Kinsrow





RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Also people will always argue against doing more work if they're lazy. If they have no valid reason for arguing and if the responsibility ultimately rests on you, what you say goes.
In extreme cases don't even bother listening, unless their comments are substantial.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Always stick to the facts, and ask them "If you do it this way, what are the advantages?" when you are trying to change their method.
Then present your ideas, backing them up with the cost savings, easier assembly, etc.
Its not an easy thing to do, but when you can pull it off, its worthwhile.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
For example, I had to derail a poor design by a young, emotional "I'm right all the time" design engineer. I was a team member, but not his authority figure. But I needed to preserve his ego to be effective on the team. All the other gray haired guys with shop floor experience knew it wouldn't work long term, but he wouldn't back down, even though he was outnumbered. I requested we build a prototype to prove his design, and run a long-term design validation. System failed, as we all knew it would. The deisgn was killed, his ego was preserved, he learned an inexpensive lesson. He may actually be a decent engineer one of these days.
TygerDawg
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Start with the facts (what it is). Continue with what you want (what it should be). Follow up with data (cost was/is, assembly time was/is).
Then the important part... listen. They may or may not have valid arguments. Do not interject; take notes and hit their bullets after they are done.
Works for me...
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Perhaps try to share your DFM/DFA experience before a project gets started. It's a constant battle, but one you shouldn't have to be stressed out over. Everyone should be on the same team when it comes to cost reduction and DFM/DFA. My question would be why they are so resistant to change the design? Are your suggestions too engrossing, or difficult to achieve based on the status of a project? Are there aesthetic concerns that are impacted by your suggestions that are more important to others than savings?
"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Steven K. Roberts, Technomad
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
ahhh I remember being that young, arrogant prick ;). It's a good thing that I kept my mouth shut though, b/c the oldster techs and engineers eat guys like that for breakfast.
It's actually kinda funny to watch it happen, especially if the young guy has no sense of humor and behaves like a spoilt child hehehe. Ahhh I wait in anticipation to be one of the oldsters so that I can have my fun ;) .
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
No one likes being told what to do or their ideas are wrong, but if it is put over in an aggressive way they are more likely to fight back and hey presto you have an argument rather than a discussion.
One thing I learned a long time ago is never “argue” a point or discipline anyone when you are angry.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Use it as a tool to show that you care about the outcome.
TTFN
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
1. Make it his idea - have pre-tooling meetings with the R&D team for review. Ask for ideas on how it can be streamlined further down the production process. Guide them towards what you know is best. When they come up with your idea, congratulate them for it and make a big deal out of implementing it. This will make them feel good about the current project AND encourage them to contribute more on future products.
2. Let him talk you down - come in with inflated requests and changes. Let him "talk sense into you". When you begrudgingly aquiesce, he has won, but he has talked you down to the level you orignally wanted anyway.
I prefer the first method and use it most often. I use the second method with someone who is particularly belligerent and aggressive. With this method, it's even OK to let things get heated - you know you're going to "lose" the argument anyway.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
I was wondering if you have a Configuration Control Board (CCB). It is always good to have a third party involved when design concerns arise. The board should consist of people who represent all facets of your company (Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Manufacturing, Planning, Buyers …etc). If you want to bring up ECOs that you feel will benefit the company/design, this is the group to make that decision. What ever the decision, you have to accept it. So, if you have beef with somebody, you can take your case to the CCB. If this does not help, maybe some anger management classes will help. I’m not joking, my last boss was ordered to take it or resign, to make a long story short he resigned.
Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Kinsrow
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
TTFN
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Do you have management backing? If so it will be a lot easier. If you are fighting both management and the personnel then it's difficult to see an easy way to win.
If you have the possibily why not try and institute some DFMA training or guidlines. We've written a 2 page summary of some major points to try and get people thinking, it's too early to tell yet if it's worked but we do occasionally get people coming by asking good questions.
This may not solve the arguments but at least it's being proactive.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
This I can't control, but my attitude toward them I can...and that's what I'm trying to get better at it.
Kinsrow
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Ziggi,
Fact, I argue against taking on more work all the time. I'm loaded to about 300% of my capacity juggling regulatory projects with too close deadlines.
Folks with much lighter loads trying to push stuff off on my dosen't fly well. They get annoyed, I wish they'd get on a real project or at least quit trying to turn discretionary (read somebody's hobby project) into a full time job.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Try to apporoach the subject as a risk/benefit. Not just your risk and benefit, but the company/program risk and benefit.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
ni·hil·ism
Pronunciation: 'nI-(h)&-"li-z&m, 'nE-
Function: noun
Etymology: German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil nothing -- more at NIL
1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2 a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination
- ni·hil·ist /-list/ noun or adjective
proletariat which are you?
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
When a big meeting is approaching, I usually make a list anticipated questions/concerns/problems which may come from the other side of the table. Then I make a list of my responses which can be supported by documentation. I usually have the documents handy at the meeting. Of course, only about 5% of the time are the documents actually needed. But when you need it….its like having an Ace in the Hole. Present the info with enthusiasm and be careful not to insult anyone. Only present what’s needed to win the point (don’t beat someone in the ground and embarrass him/her).
Swearingen posted some good ideas. Other options are:
1. Play a little dumb when someone suggest something that you KNOW will not work. Say something like: “I like that idea! But need to (investigate/confirm/research – whatever the appropriate word) a little before I buy into it.” Some time after the meeting send and email or phone call with documentation supporting WHY it will not work. Let the other person know that you spent time seriously considering his/her idea (even if you didn’t). Offer praise for his/her idea, and let them down gently.
2. As mentioned above, be prepared for resistance. Anticipate tough questions/concerns and argue your position with respect and tact. Smile while your doing it!
3. Realize that your idea may not be the best idea on the table, and concede with respect and gratitude to the opposition when appropriate.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
1) One thing to remember is to avoid the following (or similar):
"Your design will not work because of X. You'll need to adopt my solution to fix it."
There are always many solutions. A clear statement of the problem is worth so much more than a vague one accompanied with one must-do solution.
2) One of the previous posts mentions putting things in writing. I couldn't agree more. To accurately explain a problem in writing is to half solve it.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
I don't believe I mentioned those with a huge workload in there.
monkeydog,
Obnoxious? I dunno, but I do have a mean streak ;)
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Depends on the day, but mostly #1. Also, only with regard to work, not life in general.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Don't you guys all get a check from the same bank account?
Approaching a problem for the "me" and "you" perspective is a headstart to an arguement.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Oftentimes managers tirade just to shake people up a bit.
TTFN
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
What I would like to get better is exactly "firing for effect without loosing my cool"...
Kinsrow
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
However, somtimes people will not be disuaded from their viewpoint just because of a minor point like the fundamental laws of physics etc.
The really good thing about having it in writing and some how dated (email or formal memo etc) is that when the realization that the laws of physics can't be broken dawns and if they decide to find whose fault it was your ass is asbestos.
Of course this may not make you popular but hey.
All I can say is good luck and I feel your pain, just remember as they used to say a lot at my last place, "if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined".
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
There is no reason for becoming emotionally attached
to your solution.
Tell the engineers your concerns. Then listen intently.
If you hear anything to change your mind rethink it
quickly. If not look at them calmly and say that you
understand their concern but that you want them to
do it your way. Say it with a unspoken demenour that
conveys finality. Politely insinuate the discussion is
over. After all you have the responsibility for the
the design. Don't let it become an excuse for them to
shirk responsibility either by avoiding decision making.
Your final judgement doesn't mean they can turn off their
brain. You expect the task to be carried out in a good
faith effort in the manner you desire.
This may take a training period if their is a history of
argument, but things will be better when they know you
will not argue, either you do as told or suffer the
results at review time. OR SOONER
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
It takes 2 parties to get into an emotional arguement. If you take yourself out of the equation, then the arguement cannot get emotional. You are left with one person ranting - and after a while, that gets old.
An arguement is not a bad thing. I hear a lot of people say arguement is bad. I look at it as 2 sides caring enough to talk it out.
When an arguement/discussion/debate whatever gets heated, you simply stop, listen, and wait. When the other side stops, you can begin again.
If one side keeps saying no no no, then ask them what it will take to say yes. If you can't make it work, ask them how they would make it work. This way, you involve the naysayer and make them part of the solution. It usually ends up with a workable solution. Not always though.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
This basically says the following: If you have a major change to be done, split in small ones and pass it without strong reaction.
In you case:
There are a lot of changes that need to be done in the design. If you just present the bulk of the changes, most probably the reaction will be:"No way!!!".
With this technique you will do the following steps:
-Analyze the changes, see whcih ones are really important for you and separate from the others that :"It would be nice to have it, but I can survive without it";
-Try to realize which are the changes that the other party is willing to do and which ones you can expect more resistance;
-Pass first the ones that have a low conflict level (you can put now and then a hot topic, just to feel the mood);
-Finally try to negotiate the hot topics.
Eventually you will not be able to pass all your ideas, but you can get a quite good % of changes passed and the ones that are not accepted will eventually not be important for you. Remember, eventually a change that you find as critical, might be an acceptable change from the other party.
Other point that I usually use is the $$$ issue. Try to value the changes that you are proposing. If the finantial impact is big, it is a huge point in your favour. If it is meaningless it can also show to you that eventually the change is not so significant.
Above all, don't be stubborn and accept that others might have valuable ideas too.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
Engrained culture is a difficult nut to crack. Rather than trying to impose a structure or process "from the top", try to get the masses involved directly.
Set up "tiger" teams without your involvement to deal with the next problem and empower and task them to solve the problem. Then follow through with actual and tangible improvements and money to make the necessary changes. Most people supposedly know what the right procedure is, but need the right forum and situation to "buy in." note that any hesitation on the part of upper management will put the kibosh on the whole process.
DFMA, DFT, CE etc., mostly failed because it is almost trivially obvious that while the managment might "talk the talk," they don't "walk the walk." Therefore, if you're serious, you need to be serious and do serious.
TTFN
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
If they absolutely refuse to move on the problem this time around, switch the argument to a lessons learned point of view and a "how can we prevent ourselves ending up in this argument next time? what can I do to help you at the start of the project so you don't have to listen to my moans when we get to this stage again?"
And if that doesn't work, find a new job!
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
One thing I've noticed through the years is that when I find myself in an emotional argument at work, it's because I am arguing with someone who, like me, cares about the work they do. Yes, it's the ol' touchy-feely, I'm okay-you're okay, "we're both playing for the same team" point.
By keeping this in mind, though, it's really helped to keep things in perspective and allowed me to learn to listen to what the other person is saying. And by shutting my mouth, taking a deep (silent) breath and listening carefully, I usually accomplish one or more of the following:
1) realize that we are both arguing the same point, but said in different ways,
2) find enough common ground or compromises that can help to resolve the argument and move toward a resolution,
3) catch the other person using straw-man arguments, circular logic or the like, which are sometimes very difficult to pick up on in the heat of the battle,
4) think about how I can phrase the next comment to be non-aggressive/non-personal,
5) and last, but not least, give myself the opportunity to be awarded the same respectful listening-to that I just gave the other person by saying "okay, now it's my turn...."
One thing I do have a major problem with is arguing against the person with "not-invented-here" syndrome. These people really put my patience to the test. But another tool I've learned to use successfully is levity.
My favorite example of this was responding to a venerable, older employee telling me that "we've done it this way since we were Company 'X' and it's always worked" by asking "isn't Company 'X' the one that went bankrupt?" A meaningless joke with a quick wink or smile, or both, go a long way to bring the stress level of these meetings down.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
If something burns your ass, you had better figure out what makes your ass flammable. Is it an overactive ambition, a fear of being unsuccessful, a false sense of pride or entitlement?
The only thing you can do is effectively communicate your ideas, both up and down the line. Some of your ideas are most likely great, but for various reasons will never come to fruition. Take it seriously, but not personally. These are things, at least for the time being, that you cannot control. Accept it or move on. Do not empathize with others agitation; match calamity with serenity. Do not become a nihilist, find your Zen. Join a gym.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
You can control what you do, not what they do. If you stay calm and do your best to communicate your thoughts nonconfrontationally, that's the most you can do. Trying to do more and showing impatience or anger will usually be counterproductive (I should know).
Another thing to bear in mind is that your impatience shows not only in your words, but also the tone (pitch) of your voice, the pace of your words (jumping in without allowing someone else to finish), and your body language. To convey calmness on all those levels, you have to really be calm (not just try to act calm).
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
-Being patronizing (we engineers often tend to do this)
-Digging trenches
-Unconstructive critisims that the recipient cant use to solve the problem
-Done in public so that the recipient will be embarassed
Best regards
Morten
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
One thing I've noticed is people don't like having their work ripped apart and redone by someone else or even have it suggested that it needs to be redone.
The tough part is you seem like the person who has to make the thing work despite the fact you didn't create the problem. You probably would have seen the problem with the design before it went from paper to physical form because you have the ability to see problems before they happen, when they are happening and after the damge is done.
The people who caused the problems you are fixing are scared of you because they can't figure out what you naturally and through experience can see.Biggest problem is they are scared of you because you are probably either much smarter or just have common sense. If you have an aggresive personality its only going to make it much worse.
Try reflecting the tone you are being given in meetings while maintaining a level emotional feeling. If someone is talking loudly respond in kind. If someone is talking slowly slow your speech down. Don't ever let people's stupidity affect your attitude, rise above it.
Whats the saying about trying to wrestle a pig...
RE: Arguing without getting emotional
I worked with a person like that, I actually got promoted big because I was stable and could bring work to fruitation.
Problem was after time it became bromide that "he gets away with that because of you" "he wouldn't say that if you didn't let him get away with it" in other words he was my fault!