Lemanskills.com

How to start saying “no” to things to get your time back?

In the previous article, I’ve started the story about “I don’t have time” excuse. I got inspired by a structure that we can make around this excuse, and how many areas of our live it might influence, making us thoughtless and unhappy at the end of the day. In this article, we are going to get on the record one of the most difficult and important things there are regarding getting our time back – saying “no” to things.

It’s crucial for us, as people, employees, partners, parents or friends to set healthy boundaries, with a good intention to ourselves and the world that is around us. Might seems easy, but believe me that a lot of people are struggling with this every single day.

Do you want to know how to do it and don’t feel guilty?

How saying “no” to things at work can help?

It is a natural instinct that tells us to stay in the group at work, it has its roots in history and biology and it comes from our need to survive and not be eaten by a tiger.

So we stick together, and when somebody is asking us for supporting them in their tasks, or give us a task to cover that is totally crushing our plan for the day (especially if this person is our manager or somebody even higher in the hierarchy), we stop doing what we were doing, and jump right into the new assignment.

Sounds familiar?

We just want other people to like us, we want to be seen as reliable, helpful individuals, and it’s natural. But with what cost? The cost is being behind with our own tasks or projects, working extra hours to fill everything out, feeling frustrated that another day brought the same scenario – we planned everything, and it ended like always. Ruined. I’m not surprised when people who I teach about making a structure around their day to focus their energy on the right things, are saying to me: “Alex, it’s not working for me. I can plan my day, but then my manager/board member/colleague from my team comes to me and give me something that is urgent and what needs to be done ASAP”. And they agree to do it. Because they don’t want to be seen as lazy, not supportive, selfish, inflexible.

Setting boundaries at work is a real skill and its goal is to protect our time from other people who wants to get their job done, using our skills, readiness to help and ability to do things efficiently and effectively.

If somebody comes to you or sends you something that requires an investment of your time and focus (even if it’s just 5 minutes), take a step back before you dive into doing it. Ask yourself: “Is it my job to do it? Is it that important for the organization that I should resign from what I do and do this instead? Is it that urgent that I should do it now?”. You can use your own examples, but remember to always stay in OK-OK position, with a good intention.

What people are most afraid of is if they start setting the boundaries and protect themselves, other people will stop liking them, or coming to them when they need help. It’s not true. Keeping the good intention, clear communication about the division of responsibilities and clear timeline is a main key to avoid conflicts, misunderstanding and to build equality in treating each other’s time and skills.

How saying “no” to things at home can help?

It’s different from country to country, from culture to culture how we are functioning at our homes. In some cultures, with more patriarchal touch, traditional, conservative way of living is when women are staying at home, raising children and taking care of everything what’s connected to the “house”, without ever saying “no” to anything. They also take care of older members of the family, while men are supposed to earn money and bring it to them. Nowadays it’s changing, but – taking as an example Poland, my country of birth and living at the moment, the beliefs and convictions about the “classical” roles of men and women in the society are really deeply rooted.

And based on that, we often have beliefs and convictions in our heads about what we SHOULD do or who SHOULD we be in a certain context. It is connected to the conservative and post conservative thinking mindset, but even if we are in post conservative stage, we often have strong second thoughts about how we should set boundaries at our homes. And statistically, more of those tasks are on the women’s shoulders, so we have more troubles with saying “no” to things, not agreeing to do something what should be “natural” to us.

But it’s not about what we SHOULD do. It’s about what we want to do, and what we want to share with others, as we live together, and maybe what to withdraw completely to not thinking about it and focus on that really matter to us.

Make a list of things that you do at home at the moment. It can be connected to the cleaning, cooking, shopping for groceries, taking care of pets or kids. You name it, it’s your list. Ask people in your house to do the same things, include the children if you want. If you live alone, do it as well. Then, underline those things that are crucial to you, that are the closest to your heart and you would never let them go. See what is left on the list. Decide what to do with those items – how to share responsibilities with other people in your house or maybe take someone from the outside to help, if you can afford it? What I’m sure you cannot afford is to do everything on your own and not ask for support.

I know asking for help for some of us is one of the most difficult things to do, since a lot of us think that when we do it, we seem weak, that we cannot manage everything perfectly on our own. No matter what the cost is and how exhausted we are. But in my point of view, NOT ASKING is a weakness, jamming emotions and frustrations is a weakness, pretending that everything is fine is a weakness. And all this has an influence on people around us as well – think about it next time when you will want to say that you don’t need any help, or say “yes” to another thing, instead of saying “no” to protect your time.

How saying “no” to things in relations with other people can help?

There is a construct in Transactional Analysis called “drivers”.

Drivers in this context are internal injunctions, orders that work in such a way that we feel an internal compulsion or powerlessness to stop doing something, for example being nice to other people no matter what. Those convictions were made in our brains mostly until the age of six, based on what we have heard mostly from our parents or other people who raised us, unconsciously building our view of ourselves and the world that is around us. If a girl heard that she needs to be nice, quiet and to smile to other people, she will probably do it in her adult live and saying “no” to other people will be hard for her. If a boy heard that he needs to be tough and not cry like a girl, he will probably have a belief in his adult life that the tears are signs of weakness and will despise people who show such reactions. That’s how the convictions are born.

There are 5 drivers in TA, but in this article one of them is particularly useful, so we are going to focus on that.

“Please People” as a driver is there when you please others without asking if they actually need it, using intuition to guess other peoples’ needs. “People Pleasers” will avoid hurting others, that’s why they won’t say directly that they disagree with something, unwillingly undermine different ideas or orders they get. They put the needs of others over their own – that’s why other people think that they are always there for them, no matter what. They are seen as great team members because they are super helpful, always ready to support the team, even if they need to stay late, over and over again.

Saying “no” for those who has strong “Please People” driver inside of them is really hard because they live to help others. But that way – they are mostly tired, frustrated, burned out and sometimes depressed, since they don’t see in themselves any value, they are never enough in their eyes. If it’s your case, take into consideration that you are enough, and your needs are equally important compared to other people. You need to take care of yourself first, before starting taking care of others – only that way it can work.

Choose one thing you are going to say “no” to today in the context of other people. Remember about a good intention, a need of protecting yourself and repeat to yourself that it’s not selfish. It’s selfcare. Say calmly that you are hearing that something is important for this person, but you just don’t have a capacity to take care of that. Ask “how we can divide this between us to complete it together?”, instead of agreeing to take care of the whole thing. For a lot of people, it’ll be a groundbreaking event. Try it. See how you feel. Do it one more time tomorrow.

The bottom line

Saying “no” to things, to other people or to comfortable habits might seem impossible at the very beginning. But if we want to be better, make smarter decisions, live better lives, we need to do what’s uncomfortable, to challenge status quo. If you want it, ask yourself “why am I not saying ‘no’ to the things that I really don’t want to do?” It’s always a good start to make a real change, without feeling guilty.

Shall we?

Udostępnij

Komentarze

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
1 Komentarz
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Admin
2 years ago

Please do, there is so much more coming!

Czytaj także

Leadership

Work Drama Triangle (and How to Escape It)

The Drama Triangle is a psychological and social model of human interaction that highlights dysfunctional dynamics often seen in relationships, workplaces, and personal lives. Created by Stephen Karpman in 1968, this model identifies three primary roles people unconsciously adopt: the Victim, the Persecutor, and the Rescuer. While these roles may feel familiar and even comforting in the moment, they often lead to unproductive behaviors and strained relationships. By understanding the Drama Triangle and replacing it with healthier patterns like the Winning Triangle, we can transform our interactions and create more positive outcomes. And strengthen our muscle of Communication Intelligence (CQ). Let’s dig deeper into the subject today so you can understand better your behavior patterns with a practical solutions on how to get out of it.     The Story of the Drama Triangle   Stephen Karpman, a student of transactional analysis, developed the Drama Triangle to illustrate how people can become trapped in unhealthy relational patterns. These roles are not fixed, and individuals may shift between them during a single interaction. The triangle often begins with one person adopting a role, which triggers complementary roles in others, creating a cycle of blame, helplessness, and over-involvement. Let’s explore these roles in detail: The Victim The Victim feels powerless, overwhelmed, and unable to take responsibility for their situation. This role is characterized by self-pity and an underlying belief that “I can’t do it” or “Life is unfair.” Behaviors: Avoidance of responsibility, learned helplessness, seeking sympathy. Typical Sentences: – “Why does this always happen to me?” – “I can’t handle this.” – “No one understands how hard this is for me.” Position in the OK-OK Matrix: The Victim operates from an “I’m not OK, you’re OK” position, perceiving themselves as inferior or incapable compared to others.   The Persecutor The Persecutor blames and criticizes others to maintain control or assert dominance. They often feel justified in their actions but lack empathy for others. Behaviors: Aggression, fault-finding, micromanaging. Typical Sentences: – “This is all your fault.” – “You never do anything right.” – “If you had just listened to me, we wouldn’t be in this mess.” Position in the OK-OK Matrix: The Persecutor operates from an “I’m OK, you’re not OK” position, seeing themselves as superior while devaluing others.   The Rescuer The Rescuer intervenes excessively to “save” others, often neglecting their own needs. While their actions may appear helpful, they can enable Victims to remain passive and dependent. Behaviors: Overhelping, unsolicited advice-giving, neglecting self-care. Typical Sentences: – “Let me fix this for you.” – “You can’t do this without me.” – “Don’t worry; I’ll handle everything.” Position in the OK-OK Matrix: The Rescuer operates from an “I’m OK, you’re not OK” position but masks it with seemingly altruistic behavior.   What Is the Cost of the Drama Triangle at Work?   When workplace interactions are led by the Drama Triangle, several negative outcomes emerge: – Decreased Productivity: Time and energy are wasted on blame-shifting or rescuing instead of solving problems collaboratively. – Eroded Trust: Dysfunctional dynamics create resentment and reduce psychological safety among team members. – Stagnation: Victims avoid growth opportunities, Persecutors stifle creativity through criticism, and Rescuers prevent others from developing autonomy. – Burnout: Rescuers often overextend themselves, while Victims feel perpetually overwhelmed and Persecutors experience frustration from unmet expectations. In essence, the Drama Triangle traps individuals in cycles of conflict and inefficiency, undermining both individual well-being and organizational success.   The Winning Triangle: A Healthier Alternative   To break free from the Drama Triangle, Acey Choy introduced the Winning Triangle as a model for healthier interactions. This framework replaces the dysfunctional roles of Victim, Persecutor, and Rescuer with three constructive counterparts: Vulnerable, Assertive, and Caring/Coaching. These roles empower individuals to take responsibility for themselves while keeping respect and collaboration with others. And to operate from OK-OK position that  gives us a chance to use all of our skills and growth mindset. Vulnerable (Replacing the Victim) Vulnerability involves acknowledging one’s feelings and needs without going into the realm of helplessness. It requires self-awareness and a willingness to seek support constructively. What can you do? – Admit when you’re struggling but frame it as an opportunity for growth. – Ask for help without expecting others to solve everything for you. – Use “I” statements to express your needs clearly. How can you say it? – “I’m feeling overwhelmed; can we brainstorm solutions together?” – “I need some support with this task—could you guide me through it?”   Vulnerability fosters authenticity and encourages open communication. It creates an environment where challenges are addressed collaboratively rather than avoided. It’s healthier, creating a space to grow, make mistakes and learn from them, as well as using the experience and wisdom of others’.   Assertive (Replacing the Persecutor) Assertiveness involves expressing one’s thoughts and boundaries respectfully while considering others’ perspectives. It balances confidence with empathy. What can you do? – Provide constructive feedback rather than criticism. – Set boundaries clearly but kindly. – Focus on solutions instead of assigning blame. How can you say it? – “I noticed an issue with this report; let’s discuss how we can improve it.” – “I value your input, but I need some time to focus on my own tasks right now.”   Assertiveness promotes accountability and problem-solving without alienating others. It helps create a culture of respect and mutual understanding, without treating people like worse or stupid. It’s creating a chance for everybody to take their own responsibility for what they do at work.   Caring (Replacing the Rescuer) Caring involves offering support without overstepping boundaries or fostering dependency. It respects others’ autonomy while providing encouragement. What can you do? – Offer help only when it’s needed or requested. – Encourage others to take ownership of their responsibilities. – Practice active listening without immediately jumping in with solutions. How can you say it? – “How can I support you in resolving this issue?” – “You’ve got this—I’m here if you need guidance.”   Caring builds trust and empowers

Czytaj dalej
Leadership

Mastering Problem Solving: How to Save Time and Adapt

As a leader, you’re no stranger to problem-solving. It’s the bread and butter of leadership, the skill that keeps the wheels turning and the team moving forward. But here’s the thing: not all problems are created equal, and neither are the people solving them. One-size-fits-all solutions? They’re a myth. To truly master problem-solving, you need to understand your team, their preferences, and how to flex your approach. Let’s dive into how tailoring problem-solving strategies can transform your leadership game and strengthen your Communication Intelligence (CQ) muscle.     The PCM Lens: Why Preferences Matter in Problem Solving?   The Process Communication Model (PCM) teaches us that people have different personality base types, and those types influence how they prefer to face challenges. Some thrive in solitude, needing quiet time to think through problems on their own. Others prefer the intimacy of a 1:1 discussion, where they can bounce ideas off one person. Then there are those who light up in group settings, energized by collaboration and collective brainstorming. Add in the variables of virtual versus in-person environments, and you’ve got a spectrum of preferences that can make or break your problem-solving efforts. As a leader, recognizing these differences isn’t just nice-to-have—it’s essential. For example, forcing an Imaginer into a high-energy group brainstorming session might literally kill them, and they remain silenced, while expecting a Rebel to solve a problem alone at their desk could leave them disengaged. Understanding these nuances is part of building your CQ muscle—the ability to adapt your communication style and approach based on the needs of others.   The High Stakes of Ignoring Problems   Before we explore tools and strategies, let’s talk about what happens when leaders don’t address problems effectively—or worse, when they ignore them altogether. Unresolved problems rarely solve themselves; instead, they keep getting bigger and bigger. Small issues snowball into larger ones, creating inefficiencies, damaging trust, and eroding team morale. The costs? Missed deadlines, killed relationships, lost revenue, and even high level of voluntary turnover. No to mention toxic atmosphere, people not talking to each other, not exchanging ideas or sharing knowledge. Sounds like a long list of different cost that’s not going to be easy to rebuild. On the flip side, a proactive and tailored approach to problem-solving not only resolves immediate issues but also builds a culture of trust and collaboration. When your team sees that you’re invested in solving problems in ways that work for them, they’re more likely to engage fully and bring their best selves to the table.   Problem Solving as a CQ Superpower   Problem-solving is more than just a technical skill; it’s a core component of Communication Intelligence (CQ). Leaders with high CQ don’t just focus on what needs to be solved—they think about how to solve it in ways that resonate with their team. This means asking questions like: – Who needs to be involved in this process? – What environment will help us tackle this effectively? Which tools and approaches will be the worst? – How can I adapt my approach to fit the preferences of my team members? What can I do to involve them in the process?   By flexing your CQ muscle, you’re not just solving problems—you’re strengthening relationships, building trust, and create a culture where everyone feels heard.   Tailoring Your Problem-Solving Approach   So how do you put this into practice? Here are some tools and strategies for addressing problems in different setups:   Solo Problem Solving For team members who prefer working alone, give them space and time to process independently. It’s not about them being weirdos, it’s just their preference. Provide clear instructions and context, then let them take ownership of the task. Tools like project management software (i.e. Trello or Asana) can help track progress without micromanaging. You can create an online wall (i.e. on MIRO) so people can work together asynchronously in their own time and space. Set some deadlines and time for check ins.   1:1 Problem Solving Some people thrive in 1:1 settings where they can discuss ideas openly without the pressure of a group. Use this time to ask open-ended questions and actively listen to their perspective. If their preference is for you to be more direct, set the sentences straight, clear and transparent so there’s no time wasted in the middle of the process to guess what you aim here for. You can also use tools like 5 (or 7) Why, Problem Framing, Ishikawa Diagram or any other Lean tools or techniques. Make sure that you’re solving the real problem that is a root cause of your current situation.   Group Problem Solving Group settings work well for those who feed off collaboration and collective energy. Facilitate brainstorming sessions or workshops where everyone can contribute ideas. Tools like whiteboards (physical or digital) or platforms like MIRO can help visualize ideas in real time. You can also use the group problem-solving methods, like Action Learning to be as effective and efficient as possible. Action Learning is a method where the group of 4-8 people sit together (online or onsite) for 1,5-hour session where one person brings a problem to solve. The group is responsible for asking questions, share their insights and create potential solutions for the problem presenter. It’s a very intense yet extremely productive session where the group is completely focused on the process of solving the issue, without distractions or doing something else in the same time. The power of this method is that people are all involved in the process, they are learning on the way and support each other. So the pros and more than just problem solved; there’s also a positive influence on knowledge sharing practices, relationship building, trust, psychological safety, reliability within a group or organization, using the variety of points of views, experiences, perspectives and talents. Action Learning is one of the best group methods to solve problems that I know and practice. Groups that I work with within this method are

Czytaj dalej
Leadership

3 Leadership Lessons I Learned from Bad Recruitment Processes

Recruitment is often described as both an art and a science—a delicate balance of intuition, data, and strategy. But sometimes, even with the best intentions, things can go awry. I’ve learned this the hard way. Over the years, my experience in leadership have taught me that recruitment mistakes are not just costly in terms of money but also in terms of time, energy, and efficiency. Today, I want to share with you three of my biggest lessons from bad recruitment decisions that I hope will help you to not repeat those in your leadership practice.   #1 The Rush: When Speed Wins With Strategy   There was a time when I was desperate to fill a position on my team. Aren’t we really in constant situations like that? I remember that we had a critical project coming up, I was drowning under the amount of tasks I had on my list and I convinced myself that having “someone”—anyone—on board quickly was better than waiting for the better fit. I rushed through the process, skipping some of the deeper evaluations and settling for a candidate who seemed “good enough.” The result? It ended up costing me more than I ever anticipated. The person lacked the skills and mindset needed for the role, and within six months, we had to part ways. Not only did this mean starting the recruitment process all over again, but it also disrupted my work, again.     According to research by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the average cost per hire is around $4,700. However, if you make a bad hire, the costs skyrocket. Studies estimate that replacing an employee can cost anywhere from 8 to 12 months of their salary. For example, if you hire someone with an annual salary of $50,000, replacing them could cost you between $33,000 and $50,000. And that’s just the financial side—what about the lost productivity and influence on yourself? On the team? This experience taught me a crucial lesson: rushing to fill a position is like building a house on quicksand. It may seem like you’re saving time in the short term, but in reality, you’re setting yourself up for long-term instability.   #2 The Bias Trap: Judging by Brands, Not Skills   Another mistake I’ve made is being overly impressed by the organizations listed on a candidate’s CV. When someone came from a big-name company or a well-known brand, I found myself assuming they must be ready to do the job. After all, if they worked at such prestigious places, they must be highly capable, right? Wrong.  One candidate I hired had an impressive resume filled with experience at top-tier organizations. I was so dazzled by their background that I overlooked some red flags during the interview process—things like their lack of enthusiasm for the role or their vague answers about past achievements. It turned out that their success in previous roles was largely due to the systems and teams already in place at those organizations. In my smaller, more dynamic team, they struggled to adapt and contribute effectively. This mistake taught me to focus on the specific person, not just their past affiliations. A brand name on a CV doesn’t guarantee a cultural, personality-based or skill set fit for your organization. Now, I dig deeper during interviews, asking specific questions about their contributions and how they handle challenges in different environments.   #3 Ignoring the Personality Match   As someone deeply invested in Communication Intelligence (CQ) and the Process Communication Model (PCM), I know how critical personality dynamics are in any working relationship. Yet, there have been times when I ignored this knowledge during recruitment—and paid the price for it. I once hired someone who looked perfect on paper: they had the right skills, experience, and even glowing references. But what I failed to assess was how well we would work together on a personal level. Our communication styles clashed almost immediately. Where I value directness and proactive problem-solving, they preferred a more passive approach and avoided conflict at all costs. Data vs emotions. Logic vs relationship care. Nothing wrong about that, don’t get me wrong! But it comes with a cost, especially when you work in a small setup. This mismatch didn’t just affect our one-on-one interactions; it also impacted the overall efficiency. When there isn’t alignment between a leader and their team members, it creates friction that slows down decision-making and execution. According to Gallup research, disengaged employees can cost organizations up to 18% of their annual salary in lost productivity. Imagine what happens when that disengagement spreads across an entire team! Now, I make personality assessments a non-negotiable part of my recruitment process. Tools like PCM are there to use: I’m not saying that you do a questionnaire for every single candidate since it’ll cost a lot (if you can afford it, go for it!). It’s about using the framework in practice. Listen, observe, connect the dots. Everything is there, you just need to know what you’re looking for.   Moving Forward: How to Avoid These Pitfalls    Here’s what I’ve learned to do differently: Prioritize Fit Over Speed: Take the time to find someone who aligns with your team’s needs and culture—even if it means extending your search timeline. Remember that fast recruitment can cost you so much more time in the future. Dig Deeper Into Experience: Don’t be swayed by big names on a CV; focus on understanding what the candidate actually contributed in their previous roles. Assess Personality Compatibility: Use tools like PCM or other personality assessments or knowledge from the framework to ensure alignment between you and your potential hire. Recruitment is never going to be an exact science, but by learning from past mistakes and implementing more thoughtful strategies, you can significantly improve your chances of finding the right person for your team—and avoiding costly missteps along the way.   Final Thoughts    As leaders, we often feel immense pressure to make quick decisions and keep

Czytaj dalej
1
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x