Latest / It’s All Your Fault: High Conflict People / From Reacting to Responding: High Conflict at Work, Part 3 of 4

Transcript

From Reacting to Responding: High Conflict at Work, Part 3 of 4 · It’s All Your Fault: High Conflict People

• *This transcript is produced using transcription software and reviewed for quality. Despite our best efforts, some passages may be incomplete or contain errors due to audio quality or software limitations.* Megan Hunter In the first episode of this four-part series, we talked about why workplace conflict is increasing, and why high conflict behavior can have such an outsized impact on teams, leaders, and HR. In episode two, we looked at how to assess workplace conflict more accurately—what to look for, how to spot patterns, and how to catch warning signs earlier. But once you've identified the problem, the next question is the one every leader eventually faces: what do you actually do when conflict is already in the room? Because this is where leaders often make things worse without meaning to—by over-explaining, reacting emotionally, avoiding limits, or confronting in ways that actually escalate the situation. So today we are getting practical. Welcome to It's All Your Fault on TruStory FM, the one and only podcast dedicated to helping you with the most difficult and challenging human interactions, those involving high conflict situations. I'm Megan Hunter and I'm here with my co-host, Bill Eddy. Bill Eddy Hi, everybody. Megan Hunter We are the co-founders of the High Conflict Institute and ConflictInfluencer.com. And today we're just thrilled once again in this four-part series to be joined by Michael Lomax. Hi, Michael. Michael Lomax Morning. Megan Hunter Tell us a little bit about where you live, because I think most of our listeners know that Bill's in California and I'm in Arizona. Where are you? Michael Lomax I'm on Vancouver Island in Canada, on the West Coast. Megan Hunter West Coast. Yeah, sounds beautiful. I will get there one day. So Michael is one of our esteemed speakers at High Conflict Institute and has been a lawyer and mediator for many, many years. So we really appreciate you being on the episode with us again today, Michael. Welcome, listeners, and thank you for joining us today. So, Michael, I'm going to start with you. Once a leader—or let's say someone in the HR department, an HR professional—has identified a high conflict pattern, let's say there's a lot of complaining: something bad has happened, I'm the victim once again, it's someone else's fault, or whatever the pattern might be. What usually goes wrong next? Why do smart leaders get pulled into these conflicts? Michael Lomax I'd probably say a couple of things just to start off with. For people listening, they might worry: do I have to kind of diagnose this person as a high conflict person and sort of fit them into a bunch of criteria? No, we don't need to do that. In fact, we would discourage you from trying to diagnose this person. Instead, it really is looking at these behavioral patterns. We can all get upset, and we can all sometimes act out at work, but then realize we shouldn't have done that. And sometimes situations can overwhelm average people—sometimes for a long period of time. Big organizational restructuring, worrying about losing your job, other big changes at work, or life events outside work—all of those things can cause us to show up differently or in problematic ways. I think a lot of the skills and approaches that we talk about can be helpful there too. But this five percent—this is a small percentage of people—but in a big organization they can absolutely have a huge impact. So we're looking for those behavioral patterns that show up over time, not a single event. And so the challenge for leaders is we get caught in sort of reacting by surprise, and then we don't know how to respond. We feel overwhelmed ourselves by some of this. And sometimes we have maybe unrealistic expectations—if I can just get through to this person, or they've said they won't do it again, so we're on a better track now. This is not going to be happening again. And then it happens again. And we're shocked, we're disappointed, and maybe we even blame ourselves. So we somehow start to think I've got to fix this person, which actually takes us way down the wrong path, and we end up in more conflict with this person. We might end up avoiding them or avoiding dealing with it because we don't feel confident. We don't know how. And then later we overreact. And so really it is: how do I maintain this assertive middle where I'm maintaining a positive, problem-solving relationship with this person? They see me as someone who wants them to succeed, who wants them to do well in this organization. And then I have structure—there are rules, there are consequences for certain behavior—but this is to help you. This is to help you learn how to behave in this organization, how to succeed. And that really becomes the platform for our work together. Otherwise, if we're not able to address it, it really can impact the whole team. It can cause people to leave, people to go on sick leave, that kind of thing. And so we really need to find ways to assertively address these things proactively and positively. Bill Eddy Yeah, so I want to just add a couple of things, enhance what Michael said about overreacting and also under-reacting. I think looking at this as a problem to solve, looking at this as behavior—new behavior that needs to be done—one of the biggest concerns I have is that we avoid jumping to conclusions about the problem. And like Michael said, we shouldn't be diagnosing people. But there are some patterns of behavior that high conflict people particularly have. They're preoccupied with blame and they don't take responsibility for their part. A lot of all-or-nothing thinking, and maybe some extreme behaviors. And it's important not to assume it's equally two people in conflict—just a personality conflict, go away and get along. And we shouldn't assume it's just one person. So we have to be careful about these assumptions, and careful we don't overreact or underreact. People really need to focus on: what's the problem, and what's the new behavior that we need here? Because it's not about insight. And once you realize maybe I'm dealing with a high conflict person, you're not going to talk them into self-awareness. That's one of the problems they have. So instead, let's look at your choices here. Let's look at your options. Let's look at what we need to do and the benefit to you. I love what you said, Michael, about wanting people to succeed. Focus on behavior, especially new behavior. Don't focus so much on the old behavior—you shouldn't do this, you shouldn't have done that. We need you to do more of this. Keep it future-focused so it doesn't trigger defensiveness unnecessarily. It's really about figuring out the problem, but don't make assumptions. That's one of the biggest things. Megan Hunter Yeah, so important. Because I think we can get it backwards sometimes. We may have our own biological reactions where we may not like this person because of the behavior. And that can lead us into making quick assumptions, and those assumptions may lead us to thinking in our own all-or-nothing ways—like this person just needs to go—instead of asking, can we help this person be successful here? And sometimes we can. So we're going to talk about a few of those things today. So let's start, Bill, with BIFF. Our listeners are very familiar with BIFF. If you're new here as a listener, Bill's going to tell you all about BIFF. BIFF has become sort of a philosophy, a way of being, a way of how we interact with other people. So help us understand what BIFF is, what it's used for, and how it can help with someone who demonstrates high conflict behavior in the workplace. Bill Eddy BIFF stands for Brief, Informative, Friendly, and Firm, and it's designed for responding to hostile emails, hostile texts, or even letters that are written. It's become a frame of reference that people are using also for verbal interactions. And the feedback we get is when people start writing this way, it changes their attitude towards the other person. They start taking a problem-solving approach instead of thinking this person is such a big problem. And instead becoming more strategic—what do I need? In one paragraph, what can I say that shows how we can solve a problem and keep moving forward? And so one of the important things about BIFF is it doesn't focus on what people have wrong. It focuses on what to do, and information the other person may not be aware of. I'll give a quick example. Let's say someone gets an email or text saying, you were so rude and inconsiderate yesterday, you were making noise when I was making phone calls, and you always do this kind of thing—it's so inconsiderate and rude. So here's what I would call a BIFF response, as long as this is true. The person writes back: thanks for letting me know your concerns—and you can say that even when someone is being hostile, because they're kind of letting you know there's a problem buried in there somewhere. For your information, you may not be aware, but yesterday I was out of town, so what you're talking about would not have applied to me. I hope things can work out peacefully for the future, and I wish you well. And that's a BIFF response. That's all you need to do. You don't need to say, hey, you got it wrong, you're the jerk, look at the way you just wrote to me. None of that is necessary. Just: thanks for letting me know your concerns. For your information, I wasn't there yesterday. I hope you can get this worked out. Good luck. So it just shifts the conversation. And what's so important to know is that attacking the other person back just keeps it going. It's a spiral effect—you see this all the time on the internet. Comments lead to worse and worse responses. It's always a spiral down once that kind of hostility gets expressed. And so a BIFF response bounces it back in a positive framework. You can influence the conversation. Often a good BIFF response doesn't get any further. It's like, all right, I get it, and it goes away. That's the firm part. Firm doesn't mean harsh. And I think, Megan, you were kind of getting at that this actually influences the bigger picture—how people think about each other. In organizations, you think about: what's the problem, what's the information that's missing, how can I communicate this in a friendly and firm way? It's so much more forward-facing and problem-solving rather than the attack-and-defense cycle. And I estimate—because we developed this method in 2007—that we've probably taught about half a million professionals and individuals through our books, seminars, articles, and websites. And just about everyone who learns this method teaches somebody else. So I estimate about a million people are using this in the workplace, in legal disputes, and so on. Megan Hunter So Michael, I was thinking with BIFF—with written communications in the workplace—if you receive one of these hostile emails or Slack messages or whatever medium it is, you can really take a hit, right? You get that gut punch. Now you're emotionally hooked. Being emotionally hooked can ruin your day, or maybe even just an hour—and that's an hour of productivity loss. Many people we work with talk about taking these emails home, losing sleep over them, just ruminating, going around and around in their minds thinking about how to respond. And those are the ones who are able to stop themselves before firing off that knee-jerk reaction. I've seen cases where a very reasonable person in the workplace is being sparred with via email, and they finally get that one email that makes them lose it. They write something back, hit send—and then there's the regret. It feels good in the moment and it happens so quickly. You're usually such a reasonable person. How did I do this? Now I'm embarrassed, now I regret it, now I'm going to look high conflict to everybody else on the team. So sometimes there are those that just react in the moment; others take it home and ruminate over it. Either way, there's a negative outcome. It takes time, it causes stress. So what do you see in the workplace? Do you see other ways this plays out, other problems it causes? Michael Lomax In terms of our own reaction to this and the problems it causes—yeah. As a leader, what I may start doing is not checking in with myself to say, what's going on for me? Am I in a defensive frame of mind here? The moment that takes over—and the research says it can happen in less than a second, and the other problem is we don't realize it happened. We still think we're in a logical, problem-solving frame of mind. But if we're talking, our voice has changed, our face has changed. And if we're writing, it's interfering—we have distorted thinking. This sounds really good. I'm making some really good points. And in fact, this is the worst thing I could be sending right now. So I think a couple of things help: checking in with ourselves, going to the balcony—almost visualizing myself looking down on the situation and observing my reaction—because then I'm getting cognitive about my feelings, about my reaction. And that alone sometimes can help me shift back. Or I need to take a break. Or before I hit reply, I'm actually going to show this to someone in HR, or a trusted confidant, and ask: am I sounding defensive? Even if I'm trying a BIFF response, I can still go beyond information into defending myself without realizing it. Get someone else to coach me on it. Yes, you're sounding a bit defensive here—okay. So just taking that time to check in with myself. And then really the other piece is: how can I regulate? Things like encouraging statements—telling myself encouraging statements. Our brain is always listening to us. And usually, as you're talking about, Megan, at two o'clock in the morning, we are imagining the worst case scenario. I remember going for a walk with my wife, Tammy, once, and saying, do you ever rehearse conversations with another person that you hope to never have? She said, yeah, all the time. So we're rehearsing the worst case scenario. It affects our physiology. It gets in our way. So we do the opposite: I'll get through this. I'm a good supervisor. I've worked with this person before. They usually end up calming down. If I engage this way, I'll probably get there. That kind of thing. So there are definitely internal strategies. And even if the person we're dealing with is having a big reaction, sometimes we underestimate our ability to bring them back. There are ways we can engage, even if it feels really difficult, that can help redirect things in a much more productive direction. Megan Hunter So, Bill, one of the methods you've developed is called the CARS method, and it's very effective at understanding what's needed in a conversation or with a high conflict situation. Rather simple—it's just hard to do. Hard to remember sometimes, because it's opposite of what we're used to doing in difficult and challenging situations. So tell us a little bit about the CARS method, and what it helps a leader do—or an HR professional do. Bill Eddy Yeah, so it's designed to address four of the biggest areas where high conflict people—or really anyone—have difficulty in a conflict. I think it's easy to remember the word CARS because it's a familiar word, but it's C-A-R-S. And I think when people catch me by surprise—and a lot of these conflicts, especially high conflict situations, have a lot of emotion and catch you by surprise—someone walks in and says, I can't believe that you did this, or I can't believe that she did this or whatever. And I go, okay, I've got to connect, analyze, respond, and set limits. So connecting: I need to show some empathy, some attention, some respect. I'll say, wow, sounds like something big's going on. That sounds really hard, or sounds frustrating. I hear your frustration. And if we can put a word on what we think is happening, it often helps calm things—including ourselves. Like you were saying, Michael, checking in with ourselves: I can go, I'm afraid, or I'm angry, or I'm worried, or I'm under time pressure. It's almost like I've got a word for it now. It's a problem I can solve. It's manageable. So you give someone some empathy, you pay attention, you say, wow, what's going on? Tell me more. I want to understand. And when people are upset and you say something like that, they almost always calm down immediately—because they don't have to get your attention, they have your attention. And it doesn't cost you more than a minute. You say, wow, tell me what's happening. People pretty quickly: well, this, this, and this—so-and-so didn't clean up in the lunchroom yet again. You've got to do something about this, Bill. So it is listening and understanding, saying, oh wow, that's too bad. Okay, well, let's look at what we can do. Megan Hunter And Bill, I just want to say here—I like to refer to this as the replacements. Our normal responses and reactions, particularly in high conflict situations, are not going to work very well. So we have to replace what we're used to doing with something else. And what you're talking about here are EAR statements—Empathy, Attention, and Respect. Bill Eddy Respect. And people, especially in the workplace, want respect. And if you can respect something about them—wow, I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Now, something we like to tell managers is, as soon as you become a manager and you talk with your employees, tell them: whenever you bring me a problem, please bring me a proposed solution. And that gets into the A of the CARS method. A stands for Analyzing—thinking through the problem. So let's take this messy lunchroom again. You've connected with the person telling you this. I can respect your concern. That's too bad. That sounds like that keeps happening. Now what can we do about this? You've said this isn't the first time. What do you propose could be done with this problem? We want to get the person thinking. Proposals are often what can help, especially with employees who are on the front line with the situation. They know more about it than I do. Tell me what you think the solution is and we can talk that through. Maybe you can propose this to John, who's the person who left it messy again, and when you talk to John, you ask: what's going on for you? Apparently this has happened before. Is this an oversight, is this a style difference, or what? And maybe even guide the employee who came in and complained to have the discussion with John. So why don't you talk to John, ask what's happening, and suggest a solution? Analyzing options, because what happens when people are really upset is there's only one way—my way or the highway. But if you think, what are some of the options here, let's brainstorm a little, people loosen up and start thinking. And when they're thinking, they're not reacting as much. It's a brain thing. The brain, if it's problem-solving, doesn't have a lot of room for just reacting. And if it's reacting, it doesn't have a lot of room for problem-solving. So part of the goal here is to shift the attention from reacting to problem-solving. The R is Responding to misinformation or hostility. That's like the BIFF method, verbally or in writing—like the example I gave where there was noise yesterday and I was out of town. And the S is Setting Limits. This is so important with high conflict behavior, because high conflict people often are going in a different direction and they often don't really pay attention to limits. They almost ignore them because they're on their own path. But if there are consequences, that's what's really going to get their attention. Setting limits in the lunchroom—if this has happened before and the person who keeps leaving it a mess says, I'm just not used to having to clean up until the end of the day, you can say, let's have a different system. Who's in charge of following up? Maybe we rotate. A schedule might solve the problem. There are many different ways. But the idea is: think in terms of connecting—that turns it into a problem to solve—analyzing options or choices, responding to hostility with BIFF, and setting limits with consequences if needed. Don't try to give people insight in high conflict situations. It just triggers defensiveness. Talk about what to do. Get them outside of themselves. If they have a high conflict personality, they're so used to being criticized that it will just trigger more upset. But the future, and what to do, is where the solutions are. No one has to defend themselves. Let's all do this new system. Let's do the schedule. Problem solved, no one has to be angry and upset, and now we can get on to the brilliant ideas. Megan Hunter And Michael, I was going to ask you a question that we get a lot, which is: what if I have a narcissistic boss? We get that from employees, from HR, from leaders. But I think it might behoove us to think about it in terms of the CARS method. Do we use the CARS method all the time? Can it be used with a boss who's very difficult to work with, or is that a whole separate issue—or can it be handled by an employee using the CARS method? Michael Lomax It's not going to be very helpful if we say now you're going to have to do something completely different and use a different part of your brain when it's a different role. So I absolutely think the CARS method has some universal ways we can apply it. The context differs, and sometimes what we might emphasize or how we go about it changes. But let's say I have a boss and I know if I come straight at them, it's not going to go well for me. They're going to end up blaming me. So if they say, Michael, I want you to do this, and I think that's a really bad idea—I want to respond with: you've thought a lot about this, I can see how, from where you're sitting, that would really work out well. And then move to problem-solving: information, education, choices. We could do that, and also here's another option I see. Lay that out, and lay out the consequences of the different choices—information, straight information—while managing my tone and managing my own reaction. Because if I go straight to that's such a bad idea, we almost end up in an argument, and the person might feel criticized. I want to convey: you and I are good. I want the best for this solution too. We could do that—here's another option. Information. Potential consequences. So that way I'm setting limits by talking about consequences, but I'm leaving the person in charge. You're the boss. You're making the decision. This is to help you. And they may say, okay, I like that idea, let's do that. They may not. And then I have to think about, over the long term, is this a relationship I can maintain? But those CARS method strategies—same with BIFF—we can absolutely use them. If I'm feeling blamed, or my team is getting blamed, how do I respond? The same tools work really well. And then if I'm higher up in that chain—whether HR or a senior leader—and I get consistent feedback about that kind of leader, then I need to think about how I weigh in on that and how I engage on it. That's really important. Megan Hunter Sounds strangely empowering, Michael. It gives us a real tool. We actually see results. It's amazing. So speaking of results, let's talk about coaching and some of the solutions that can be used in the workplace. With the CARS method and BIFF, we're talking about how we approach a high conflict situation or a high conflict conversation. So what are some of the methods and applications we can use to move leaders and teams from reacting to conflict toward building better habits and better outcomes? Let's say we've used an EAR statement and it's worked in this conversation. And that person—if they do demonstrate high conflict behavior—is probably going to come back to us with another issue later, especially because you're the one who makes them feel calm and heard. What about when we have this bigger picture and we need to help leaders with more lasting outcomes? Michael Lomax Right. And I think this is where, in the last episode, we talked about HR and some of the challenges for HR—how they're trained to look at incidents versus patterns, and how they're sometimes following a process around whether to do an investigation instead of maybe looking forward and saying, how are we going to improve this behavior over time? So for HR, it is also seeing themselves as a coach of that leader. And the more that the leader and the HR rep are aligned in terms of using these skills and these approaches when they see these patterns, the more the leader feels supported. Sometimes you have leaders who feel caught in the middle. I know what I'm dealing with, but when I go back to get advice—whether from my own boss or from HR—their advice is either not practical, or it's so impartial and neutral that I'm not feeling supported. I feel very alone. And then I'm going to avoid, or I'm going to do whatever keeps the heat off me. But with an individual where we see a pattern of behavior, and we're asking what can we do to address that, I've had managers say to me: I'm telling the person what they're supposed to be doing. HR has given me the script. This is what you're supposed to be doing at work. And I'm looking at the person thinking, if they knew how to do that, they'd do it. But they don't know how to do it. That's the problem. Bill Eddy They lack the skill. Michael Lomax Right. And so it's easy for me to say, just be more respectful with your colleagues. You must send emails like this. And yet now I've got this tool—BIFF. Am I supposed to teach them BIFF? Is that what I'm supposed to do? And then that person could actually benefit from BIFF. Even if they see hostility everywhere, great—use BIFF when you respond to your hostile coworkers. That will make them seem more reasonable. They'll show up more reasonably. That might actually change the way their coworkers respond to them, and then things start to improve. So let's say we can't go for insight, can't change the person or the personality—but they can learn skills, and we can go for some behavioral improvement. New Ways for Work®, a highly structured, skills-based coaching method, is really good for that. It takes time because we're talking about behavioral change. This isn't just a few sessions. I've worked with other coaches who go for insight with these folks, and at the end of six sessions: well, what do you expect me to do in six sessions? I don't know—you were kind of optimistic you could do it. We need more time for sure, but it's focused on future behavior and on teaching those skills—even teaching EAR to this person, teaching BIFF, teaching them how to make proposals, how to calm themselves, how to behave moderately in the workplace. There's practice, there's accountability within the coaching process, and it actually helps build hope and a way forward for this person. Now they know what to do. And like you said, Bill—focus them on tasks, focus them on what to do, not on insight. This focuses them on what to do. They start to feel more confident. They're getting better reactions from other people. This is about how to help them succeed, not shame them. And it gives leaders and HR something concrete: what are we going to do instead of giving this person a two-day suspension and hoping they get it? Well, they're probably not going to get it. They're going to go home, get in their echo chamber on social media or talk to friends and family and say the organization is so mean—can you believe they did this to me? Megan Hunter Or call a lawyer. Michael Lomax They're not going to learn what we hope, right? Bill Eddy Right. Michael Lomax And so this kind of structured approach to coaching that is skills-based—not going for insight—is a real alternative to a suspension. It gives them a chance to improve. Now we have a way to measure. And we can even ask them: what are you getting out of it? If they say, this is for babies, I know how to do all this stuff already—okay, you're not getting a lot out of it. Versus: I'm working on my flexible thinking, I'm working on how to make proposals—great. And it aligns with a trauma-informed, no-blame, no-shame approach. Even if we say I don't know where this is coming from, I might have a lot of empathy for this person's pain if I knew all of their story, all of their experiences—this is still a good method, a good approach. What I would say is: instead of a two-day suspension and giving them a list of courses to take and hoping they get something out of it—they're sitting in the back of the course going, they're not talking about me, talking about somebody else, or they're getting mad because they got sent for this—New Ways for Work® gives them a structured path to behavioral improvement, and it gives leaders hope for what change is possible. And if the leader is using the CARS method, and the employee is learning New Ways for Work®, it's almost like two pieces of Lego. They plug in together. Now it's not all on the leader. The way they respond reinforces the skills the person is learning. Bill Eddy Yeah, I really think the coaching gives the focus on the future, on the skill. And a big part of the coaching to me is the role-play practice. So let's say you've got six sessions, and already in the first session, it's: tell me what was a problem in the workplace. What happened? Well, this person said this to me, and I just can't have people say things like that to me. So I reacted and said this to them, and now here I am, I'm supposed to get this coaching. Okay, well let's take a scenario like that and look at what you could say. What I like to do in the role plays is say: I'll be you, and you be the person who's difficult in your situation. You say the things to me that difficult person would say, and I'll make notes of them. Now let's switch roles. I'll say what that person is saying, and let's talk about what you can say. And I often start with giving yourself an encouraging statement. So before you say anything, you're just sitting there going, I am a good employee. I know my work. I'm well trained. I've had a lot of experience. And you tell yourself that as you're being criticized—it helps you stay calm. And then, you know what? I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. We see it differently, and I've got to go work on another project right now. Thanks for letting me know your concerns. See you later. And it's so simple. To me, what really works best is really simple—but I didn't say it's easy. Michael Lomax Right. Bill Eddy It takes practice. Takes practice. Michael Lomax And I think as well, for leaders or someone in HR, you now actually have a way of measuring and evaluating whether the person is capable—not just of performance, can they do the work, but can they do the behavior at work? And you always want to teach people the things you need them to do, and then see if they can do it, before you say it's not going to work and we're going to have to terminate them. So in this way, we are teaching the skills. And now if the person returns and they're able to engage—great. But if not, if we're seeing the same problems or even things are getting worse, even if they said I'm loving the coaching, this is great—but we're just not seeing the changes at work that we need to see—well, now you've taught them. You've given them that opportunity. And now you're more confident saying: we need to go to the next step. Bill Eddy And that's a real benefit of the coaching. There are a lot of times where people either refuse to do coaching and say, look, I'm close to retirement, I'm just going to retire, or I've just found this other job, I'm out of here. Because some high conflict people don't want the humiliation of needing coaching—when in fact it can really be helpful for success. But they interpret it as being treated unfairly. And so some people just leave. Some people go through some coaching and don't learn from it, and need to be moved out of that division or maybe the whole organization. So coaching isn't just about improving behavior with high conflict people. If they're not going to improve their behavior, it helps you find that out, rather than just firing people before you know what their potential is. Megan Hunter So thank you, Bill and Michael. Really fascinating conversation. Listeners, thank you for joining us here in episode three of this four-part series on It's All Your Fault. We've talked about why workplace conflict is increasing, how to assess it more accurately, and what leaders can do in the moment. In the next episode, we're going to zoom out from individual leaders and individual cases to the organization as a whole. What does a conflict-ready organization do differently? How can HR move from reactive conflict management to a more strategic, measurable, organization-wide approach? So don't miss it. If you're looking for training or consultation about a high conflict situation for your organization, visit us at HighConflictInstitute.com—including if you're interested in our new assessment for organizations to determine if you are conflict ready. And if you have a high conflict situation in your personal life, visit ConflictInfluencer.com. Keep learning and practicing the skills. Be kind to yourself and others while we all try to keep the conflict small and find the missing peace. It's All Your Fault is a production of TruStory FM. Engineering by Andy Nelson. Music by Wolf Samuels, John Coggins, and Ziv Moran. Find the show, show notes, and transcripts at TruStory.fm or HighConflictInstitute.com/podcast. If your podcast app allows ratings and reviews, please consider doing that for our show.