If you have been following the last few weeks of election debate you probably think that diplomacy and tact have been scrapped and replaced by spin and mud.  Notwithstanding what political aspirants may say and get away with, you shouldn’t take their style into the office. 

Can you just imagine if you were one of the candidates in a popularity contest at work for promotion to a division manager’s position, and you along with your competitors adopted the tactics used in national politics?  Without painting too vivid a picture, all hell would break loose, morale and cooperation would go out the window.  

There would be charges of incompetency flying back and forth across e-mails, attempts to divide employee’s support according to “core business values”, plots being hatched around water coolers, and don’t forget that ugly mélange of signs on break room walls and along hallway corridors promoting one candidate over the other… I am sure you get the picture. 

Although you might insist that politics are played at work (and I would agree), let me assure you that the model we look more for at work is the Team Member who always seems to know what to say and how to say it in any situation. These people know how to communicate with diplomacy, tact and confidence.  According to Dale Carnegie communicating with diplomacy and tact is said to be an approach that combines strength and sensitivity and keeps negative emotions at bay. 

I was first introduced to the Dale Carnegie self-help philosophy many years ago when I worked for the City of Palm Springs and commuted once a week to the University of California, Riverside.  As the series of classes I was taking were work related, I was allowed to drive a city vehicle.  The problem was our department pool car had no radio, and it was a particularly lonesome stretch of driving back then, especially on the return leg late at night. 

Looking for something both to entertain and keep me awake driving, I found the Dale Carnegie book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People” on cassette tapes in the city training library.  With the addition of my own cassette player, and a cord to plug it into the cigarette lighter (remember this was a long-long time ago in the pre-Walkman days) I was in business for a learning experience going and coming.

Unlike today's political contestants, you might find it useful to know how to disagree with someone while keeping peace and harmony in the office.  Dale Carnegie Training offers their rules of engagement, as follows:

The Six Rules for Disagreeing Agreeably

Rule #1: Give others the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the person who made that outrageous generalization isn't really insensitive. Maybe this person has had a painful experience that made him/her overreact.

Rule #2: After giving someone the benefit of the doubt, listen to learn and truly understand why this person holds this belief. We must let him/her know we've heard them and we are genuinely trying to see things from their perspective.

Rule #3: Always take responsibility for your own feelings, when disagreeing with someone. Make a commitment to respond using "I" statements only. When we begin with "you" we come off as blaming and confrontational and immediately put the other person on the defensive. This reduces the chance of our point of view being heard.

Rule #4: Use a cushion. Connect or "cushion" a different opinion, starting with "I hear what you're saying" Or "I appreciate your view on". Again, begin with the word "I" and not "You said..." or it will sound confrontational.

Rule #5: Eliminate the words "but" or "however" from your vocabulary. Once we have cushioned the other person's opinion, use "and," or pause and say nothing, following the cushion. Acknowledging the individual's point of view and following it with a "but" or "however" erases the acknowledgement.

Rule #6: State your point of view or opinion with relevant and factual evidence. Keep your emotions out of the equation by using the following formula:

• Take time to reflect...
  What do I think?
  Why do I think it?
  What evidence do I have?
• Then speak...
  "One example is"
  "This shows that"
  "Therefore, I think" 

To be absolutely fair to all parties involved, I have on occasion heard these rules used in the current political debates; just not all at the same time or in the proper sequence.  Oh well… see you at the polls.