A flame arrestor of the type that is required on gasoline cans in the United States. Flame arrestors are used in many applications, including fuel storage, coal mining, and liquor production. They function by forcing the flame front through channels too narrow to support flame. Even though they are required on consumer gasoline cans, the manufacturer of over 70% of all such cans in the U.S., Blitz USA of Miami, Oklahoma, doesn't provide flame arrestors with their cans.
On November 9th, 2011, Blitz USA filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after having spent more than $30 million defending dozens product liability lawsuits involving consumers killed or injured by flames or explosions while using their containers. Although the absence of flame arrestors likely contributed to at least some of these incidents, media coverage of the case has included examples of hurtfully dismissive remarks. Some are of the type that don't actually define their targets. One example: in a video report produced by KOAM-TV, as reported by The Legal Examiner of Orlando, Florida, the anchor, Dowe Quick, says at the end of the segment, "Hard to imagine some people don't understand the dangers of mixing gasoline and fire." It is indeed hard to imagine, especially in the case of Firefighter Chad Funchess, who spent over four months in a medically-induced coma after his Blitz gas can exploded while he was filling up his chain saw. One might reasonably expect firefighters to be aware of the dangers of mixing gasoline and fire. Image courtesy Edwards and Ragatz P.A.
In exploring the causes and consequences of hurtfully dismissive remarks, we began with recognizing them. Then we showed how reframing them can help limit hurt by giving targets of dismissive remarks a way to understand them that includes the full reality of the remark, the offender, and the context in which the remark appears.
We now turn to a perspective that can actually produce an experience of a minor bump instead of deep emotional hurt, if it doesn't prevent the experience of pain altogether. In this approach, targets reaffirm their humanity by focusing on what defines their own humanness. Here are four insights that help.
- Inadvertent and intentional dismissiveness are different
- Even though none of us can read minds, we tend to assume that hurtfully dismissive remarks are intentional. Many are. For example, the probability of intentionality is high for repeat offenders. But before taking action, it's worth verifying intentions — privately, if possible.
- If the remark is unintentionally hurtful, target and offender can often reach a new understanding that strengthens their relationship.
- The offender's words don't define the target
- What the offender says is merely an assertion, or even less — an insinuation. It isn't proof in itself. It doesn't define the target. Targets do better when they recognize false assertions and insinuations as false.
- Others might overhear the remark, but how they respond to it is their choice. People are free to receive information and conclude whatever they feel is appropriate. Targets must accept this freedom that others have, but targets need not accept the content of the dismissive remark.
- Targets are responsible for their own beliefs, as others are for theirs
- Targets are Addressing the real problem
works better than
addressing the wrong problemresponsible for their own beliefs about themselves. Targets who know that a remark is misleading or wrong have all the tools they need to reject the remark, at least internally. Dismissive remarks can't directly harm targets who truly believe the remarks are bogus. - What can be problematic is that others might be misled by the remarks, but that's a different problem.
- Addressing the real problem works better than addressing the wrong problem
- Confronting the offender might be helpful if the bystanders witness the confrontation and accept the target's position. But confrontations can often produce yet more hurtful remarks. And because confrontations appear to be self-serving for the target, many bystanders discount the target's counter-assertions. To others, the whole thing looks like a brawl, especially when the confronter (the target) is humorless, or worse, angry.
- Confronting the offender in the workplace context rarely helps. Instead, approach bystanders personally. Deal with their willing acceptance of false insinuations directly. That's the real problem.
Finally, there is the question of organizational power. If the offender is more powerful than the target, the target's options can be very limited. Moving on is often best. 
First issue in this series 
Top 
Next Issue
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and
found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
Related articles
More articles on Effective Communication at Work:
Deliver the Headline First- When we deliver news at work — status, events, personnel changes, whatever — we sometimes
frame it in a story line format. We start at the beginning and we gradually work up to the point. That
might be the right way to deliver good news, but for everything else, especially bad news, deliver the
headline first, and then offer the details.
Changing the Subject: I- Whether in small group discussions, large meetings, or chats between friends, changing the subject of
the conversation can be constructive, mischievous, frustrating, creative, tension relieving, necessary,
devious, or outright malicious. What techniques do we use to change the subject, and how can we cope
with them?
Virtual Meetings: Indicators of Inattention- If you've ever led a virtual meeting, you're probably familiar with the feeling that some attendees
are doing something else. Here are some indicators of inattention.
Exasperation Generators: Irrelevant Detail- When people relate stories at work, what seems important to one person can feel irrelevant to someone
else. Being subjected to one irrelevant detail after another can be as exasperating as being told repeatedly
to get to the point. How can we find a balance?
When Retrospectives Turn into Blamefests: II- Retrospectives are widely recognized as reliable tools for fostering organizational learning, though
in some organizations, they can degenerate into blamefests. Here are four measures that can reduce the
chances of trouble in a coming retrospective.
See also Effective Communication at Work and Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident- A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.
And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers- Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
My blog, Technical Debt for Policymakers, offers
resources, insights, and conversations of interest to policymakers who are concerned with managing
technical debt within their organizations. Get the millstone of technical debt off the neck of your
organization!
Bad boss, long commute, troubling ethical questions, hateful colleague? Learn what we can do when we
love the work but not the job.Learn how to make your virtual global team sing.Are you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or
maybe even outright revolt?Learn how to make meetings more productive — and more rare.