1. TRY

2. CAN’T

3. IF

4. FAIR

5. THEY

6. WHY

7. SHOULD [OUGHT]

8. UNDERSTAND

9. BUT [HOWEVER]

10. RIGHT

"I will meet you at 4:00."

"I will lose 10 pounds by January 15."

"I will stop smoking by March 1."

"I will improve my grades this semester to a 3.5 average or better."

Can’t becomes a dirty word when it is inappropriately used to automatically justify inaction.

Every day we face challenges that we think we can’t handle. Examples abound:

"I can’t move this, it’s too heavy."

"I can’t speak in front of all those people."

"I can’t deal with the constant criticism I get from my boss."

"I can’t stand my kids, [neighbor, office mate, spouse, administrator, teacher, looks, weight, hair, etc.]

Any of these "can’ts" may be valid for the moment. Can’t only becomes a dirty word when it is applied as a conclusion without considering alternatives.

Can’t is immediately cleansed when it is followed by "right now, SO . . ." and followed by an action statement. This simple additive alters the static "Can’t" into a fluid action plan.

"I can’t stand my kids right now, SO I’ll call a sitter, call a 10 minute time-out, have them stop . . ."

"I can’t deal with the constant criticism I get from my boss right now, SO I’ll go have a cup of coffee,

[talk to her, talk to the counselor in the Human Relations department, get my work done on time, talk to my spouse, . .] ."

"I can’t speak in front of all those people [right now], SO I’ll sign up for a Toastmasters Club, [ask Jennifer to assist me with the presentation, structure my presentation into written handouts followed by questions and answers, . . ]."

"I can’t move this, it’s too heavy [right now] SO I’ll wait until Helen gets here,

[use the shovel as a lever, drag it with the car, cut it into smaller movable pieces, paint it, . . ]."

When we seek and implement action alternatives instead of accepting "I can’t." as a complete sentence, we open ourselves up to becoming a can do person who thinks, plans, and acts. There are infinite things we can’t do, until we add "right now, SO..." followed by an action. Then there are almost none.

Occasionally another person may offer us a can’t in the form of "You can’t . . ." or "We can’t . . ." These can be overcome by adding the simple three words: "right now, SO. . ." followed by an action statement. These are three very powerful enabling words.

"I would have had it done it on time IF it weren’t for:

My kid borrowed my car and used all the gas."

My [pick any family member] getting ill."

The computer going down."

Bob’s department . . ."

"I’d have been glad to help you, IF:

Bob’s department had gotten their work to me on time."

The Lefkey project wasn’t due tomorrow."

You had called me sooner."

My back wasn’t so bad."

"I’d have been a success IF:

I had the opportunity to go to college."

I had been born into a wealthy family."

I just had another day."

Offering IF excuses can be replaced with a simple polite no or offering a helpful alternative. State the reason [excuse] for not doing the task and then immediately follow it with SO I WILL. This converts the excuse into a commitment to corrective action.

"I was late because my kid borrowed my car and used all the gas, so I will work on this during lunch".

"I got behind when the computer went down, so we’ll type this instead."

"Bob’s department has gotten behind, so we will allocate two temporary people to assist you."

"I wasn't born into a wealthy family, so I will . . ."

Breaking out of the IFs enables us to change from focusing on why we can’t help, be on time, or keep our commitments to focusing on how we can contribute as a team player at home and at work. When we contribute, physically or mentally, we are more valued by others and especially by ourselves.

When another offers you IFs, it’s time to move on. Wasting time listening to another's IF excuses is nonproductive and boring. An action alternative is to listen, then mentally add: "So I’m going to . . ."

Be a doer, not an excuser.

Fair becomes a dirty word when people who feel they are losing, as in "This isn’t fair" use it

When the score is 19-0, you can bet the team with 19 is not complaining about the game being unfair. I've never heard anyone who was winning complain that it isn't fair. Only losers think life isn't fair.

The word fair is over used by people who are ‘counting’, or keeping score; to be sure they are getting their ‘fair share’. They seem to believe that somewhere there exists a universal determination of fairness. We have never found this place. However, we have found countless local, national, and international places that are UNfair.

"It isn't fair that we always get the old equipment and sales gets the new stuff."

"Women receive favoritism in promotions. It isn’t fair."

"Overall men receive higher pay for the same work. Now that just isn’t fair!"

"It’s just not fair, the Japanese restrict our auto imports."

While the Bible speaks of the meek inheriting the earth, it doesn’t say anything about the whiners inheriting anything. Instead of complaining, observe what the people who are winning are doing and then taking action to duplicate their behaviors.

All the above examples may have been accurate observations at the time they we stated. So what! Complaining about them not being fair is relatively useless until we add the word SO. . . Adding the word SO initiates our thinking about what we intend to do about the alleged unfair situation, converting us into potential winners rather than whiners.

When others complain that their situation is not fair, cautiously listen. Do not immediately attempt to change the situation unless you want to take away the opportunity for growth that occurs when people are afforded the challenge of resolving their own problems. An appropriate response to "It isn’t fair that women get better opportunities for promotion." is to ask "SO what do you intend to do about it."

The world was never designed to be fair. We have found that most people who are winning think it is UNfair. So instead of wasting our time complaining about losing, we are far better off planning and implementing what we can do to fix our immediate specific situation.

They becomes a dirty word when we use it to generalize. These generalizations usually fit two categories.

The first category is when we use "they" to refer to vague omnipresent people who exercise ultimate control over our destiny. Most often "they" are people in authoritative positions such as parents, administrators, management, or government officials. "They" get blamed for our inability to function perfectly because:

"They don’t listen to us."

"They’ll never let us ...."

There is very little we can do about THEY except complain or blame, thus minimizing our degree of responsibility. After all, what can we possible do about someone as big and vague as THEY?

An alternative for this type of THEY is to eliminate the word, substitute a specific name, and add the word SO.

"Mr. Biggs doesn’t listen to us, SO we could talk to Mrs. Harris, [or stop talking, or confront Mr. Biggs, or]."

"Norb will never let us purchase 40 cell phones. [SO] Let’s ask him if testing with just two would be O.K."

The second category is when "they" is used to derogatorily generalize about groups of people. Such groups include people over 30, attorneys, upper, lower, or middle social/economical class people, specific ethnic groups, as well as entire nations and nationalities. These "they’s" receive complaints about their character flaws because:

"They are all crooks."

"They can’t be trusted."

"They are all lazy."

"All they care about is getting rich."

All of these THEY statements are inaccurate. Each statement assumes that the subject, THEY, are one single thinking, feeling, believing, breathing unit. In reality, no two people are the same, much less an entire group of people. Some attorneys are crooks. So are some doctors, ministers, coaches, teachers, mechanics, neighbors, politicians, news casters, plumbers, developers, real estate agents, and writers.

Some attorneys, as well as people in these other professions, are honest, intelligent, lazy, arrogant, ethical, abusive, caring, and greedy. Generalizing about groups of people is a display of ignorance.

"They" are outside our sphere of control. "They" are omnipresent. "They" are usually bad or wrong in some manner - lazy, abusive, illegal, immoral, or unethical. In reality, I have never met a "They."

Being specific, taking personal responsibility, planning your course of action, and implementing it will take you much farther than complaining about or blaming "Them" for your frustrations. Taking action is a great relief for frustration.

You can eliminate this application of 'they" right now. It's your choice. My favorite response when others start telling me about "they" is to interrupt and say as I turn to leave: "Excuse me, I need to get more ice . . ."

Why becomes a dirty when it appears to be the beginning of a question and turns into a criticizing statement.

Examples abound. Some of our favorites are:

"Why do I have to always pick up your things?(!)"

"Why didn’t you turn in your work on time?(!)"

"If you know all of that, why do you continue to smoke?(!)"

Why ‘questioning’ is very likely to result in nonproductive, guilt contaminated responses like "I don’t know". The accused person often responds with lowered voice and eyes, and very little, if any, behavioral change. The main thing the recipient of WHY questions [statements] learns is to avoid the WHY person.

More productive substitutes for WHY are I statements followed by a WHAT or HOW question. Using the above examples, these interactions become:

"I feel that I pick up your clothes quite often. How can we work together to improve this?"

"I need your work completed on schedule, because . . . What can we do to accomplish this?"

"I agree with you, smoking is very difficult to stop. What are you planning to do?"

The goal is to fix the problem, rather than the blame. Why questions/statements fix blame. "I" statements followed with what and how questions help us identify and find a solution for the problem. The "I" part of the statement contains your position or opinion on the specific subject. Stating your position is a first step to better communications, affording the other person the opportunity to clarify the situation. The "what" or "how" focuses on resolving this issue.

We will encounter situations in which others use WHY 'statements'. Effective responses for someone who tosses us a WHY statement start with an empathic statement followed by a what or how question. As with the I statements, there is likely to be a dialogue between the initial statement and the how or what question. This dialogue is essential for allowing the other person to express emotions and to clarify the issue. Examples of such statement are:

"You feel that I leave messes around for you to pick up. How can we resolve this?"

"It fowls you up when my work is not completed on time. Besides my getting it done on time when ever

possible, what can we do to handle the situations when I can’t meet the schedule?"

"Thanks for taking an interest in my health. What program did you use when you stopped smoking?"

Focusing on fixing the problem, rather than the blame, is the key to handling the WHYs.

Should becomes a dirty word when it is used to negatively criticize someone's thoughts, feeling, and actions.

"You should just forget it."

"You should be grateful for all the things I’ve done for you."

"You should be a better person."

When we tell another what she should or shouldn’t do, or what he ought or ought not to do, we discount their ability for handling their life.

As Dr. Steven Glenn [Raising Self-Reliant Children In A Self-Indulgent World, Prima Publishing, 1988] points out: "Should-ing" on people leads to them feeling "should" upon, which in turn leads to defensive communication and behavior such as nonproductive arguments and denial. Research shows that when people feel threatened, they shut down their thinking systems and begin an automatic CYA process learned during youth.

It is important to address should’s brother "SHOULD HAVE." When we "should have" people we assure that we will be right [and them wrong], because we place our criticizing wisdom after the fact. Examples include:

"You should have worn a coat. Then you wouldn’t have gotten cold."

"You should have known Bob’s department would be late with their work."

"You should have bought instead of leased."

These examples fit the "You should have planned ahead then this [disaster] wouldn’t have happened." formula. Beware of "should have" people, they are always 'right' and can spread self doubts. Effective responses to "should", "should have", and "ought to" statements are agreements such as:

"You're right, perhaps I should just forget it."

"You're right, I should have known Bob's department."

"Perhaps I ought to consider purchasing instead of leasing next time."

A variation from the above "should-ing" situations is when someone asks us what we think they should do in a certain situation, especially one in which we have greater expertise. Even in these situations it may be appropriate to respond: "What do you think can be done about it?" This demonstrates respect for the person’s ability to manage their own life and gives them more opportunity to grow by learning to solve their own problem.

In most situations, "should-ing" on people is nonproductive and demeaning. Guiding them to discovering solutions to their problems enables them to grow, learn, and ultimately become more self sufficient. To avoid being a "should have" person, consider such alternative questions as: How would you handle it differently the next time? What do you plan to differently the next time?

1. As a question at the end of an explanation - "Do you understand?"
2. In response to another by saying: "I think I understand."
3. As an admonishment at the end of a lecture - "Do you understand me!" or "I just don’t understand how

anyone could be so stupid."

In the first situation, we create potential miscommunication when we complete a lecture, demonstration, or other teaching situation with the simple question: "Do you understand?" This is especially true if the other person responds with a simple "Yes.", because we have no idea of exactly what the other person "understands."

The only legitimate test of understanding is to request that the other person explain or demonstrate his understanding. Only then can we observe what the person does or does not understand, and how well you have communicated.

The second situation was used in the Lite beer television commercials where the customer ordered a "Lite" and received everything from a flaming spear to a laser beam. To avoid confusion, the next time you begin responding: "I think I understand.", consider expanding your statement to explain or demonstrate what you "think you understand." This provides feedback critical to assuring effective communication.

The third situation, where "Do you understand me!" is used as an admonishment, is best eliminated from our vocabulary. Talking down to another person is demeaning, dramatically distracts from effective communication, and can trigger future poor communications.

We recommend taking time to physically or verbally demonstrate understanding. The resulting feedback will assure that the message has been communicated or let you know that additional information is required.

But becomes a dirty word when it negates everything that has been said prior to its insertion in a sentence.

"You’ve made some excellent progress since we’ve last talked, BUT you need to . . . "

Which part of the sentence will be heard, the excellent progress part or the part said after the word but?

We anticipate this word during a performance review so much that often we never hear what has been said prior to our supervisor's insertion of but. We are conditioned to hold our breath while our supervisor says: "You've made improvements in the areas of on time performance and increased job knowledge . . ." and wait for the " BUT you need to improve your . . ." It’s the words that follow the BUT that are heard and remembered.

This conditioning starts at an early age for most of us as our well intended parents review our A-, 9 of 10 correct, spelling paper and ask: "This is very good, BUT how do you spell elephant?"

We get so good at anticipating and using BUTS, that we even apply them to ourselves. An example is the dieter who after losing 5 pounds, states or thinks: "I’m doing pretty good with my diet, BUT I need to lose at least 10 more pounds". This self negation eliminates the much needed recognition and reinforcement of our success.

It is much easier to accept sincere and constructive criticism when BUT is replaced with AND. Using the above examples, experience the difference when AND is used:

"You’ve made excellent progress since we’ve last talked AND now we need to now start working on . . .

"You've made improvements in the areas of on time performance and increased job knowledge

AND now you need to improve your . . ."

"I’m doing pretty good with my diet AND I need to lose at least 10 more pounds".

When we substitute AND for BUT or however, we enable ourselves and others to better accept the entire statement. Pausing to substitute AND for BUT will also cause us to consider what message we really intend to send.

Roget’s Thesaurus offers some insight into why AND conveys a different message than BUT. AND is associated with such words as addition, increase, add, reinforce, strengthen, augment, additional, extra, and further. BUT is associated with such words as nullification, counteraction, counterbalance, cancel, hedge, give and take, and on the other hand.

An appropriate response when others BUT us is to ask for clarification. Consider both parts of their statement equally, accepting the positive and weighing the negative as an opportunity for improvement.

Right is the dirtiest of all words and concepts. It is the most powerful destroyer of effective communication.

When I take a position that I am right, my family is right, my neighborhood is right, or that my company is right, it leaves others with only two choices - to agree with me or to be wrong. This leads to predictable problems, since eventually we all disagree.

So far I have not found many people who wish to be wrong. In seminars over the last 20 years, I have asked over 10,000 people who would like to be wrong. Not one person has volunteered.

While the following examples of "righteous" statements do not always include the word RIGHT, they all contain the concept of righteousness:

"Everybody knows that . . ."

"How could you be so stupid that you . . ."

"I can’t believe that you still vote Republican [or Democratic, Independent, Libertarian]."

"When you are older and more experienced, you’ll understand [my position on any and every issue]."

"But, we’ve always done it this way."

Being right has many negative elements:

Being right is directly related to being insecure. The greater the need to be right, the greater the insecurity.

Being right interferes with learning. After all, if I am already right, what is the point in listening to others?

Being right will ultimately destroy communications and erode personal, family, and business relationships.

Carried to its ultimate extent, being right creates prejudices, produces bigotry, and even wars.

When someone takes a position of being right they are verbalizing their values. Values represent a person’s beliefs, and, by definition, values can’t be wrong. At one time people generally believed that the world was flat, that storms were caused by angered Gods, that the sun revolved around the earth, that doctors were infallible, that women, Indians, Mexicans, African-Americans, Jews, etc. were inferior. [Unfortunately, some still do.]

Avoid arguing with a person who is expressing rightness. It is pointless. Appropriate responses include:

Diplomatically stating that you can see how they might think or feel that way,

Simply stating "I disagree with you.",

Quietly leaving.

When you find yourself feeling righteous about an issue, you may wish to use such words as I THINK or I BELIEVE. This identifies for your listener [and yourself] that what you are about to say is your opinion, your personal perception of a situation. One nice thing about an opinion is that it can never be wrong. Nor is an opinion right. It just is.

So there you have it, ten dirty daily dictums to delete from your dictionary to enhance the development of your destiny. Ten dirty words: TRY, CAN’T, IF, FAIR, THEY, WHY, SHOULD, BUT, UNDERSTAND, AND RIGHT. Ten innocent words we use and abuse daily. Our abuse of them is what converts them into "dirty" words.

One way to use the list of ten is to review them and select the one that you perceive will most positively enhance your communications. Work with this word for about six weeks. For reasons beyond our knowledge, it takes about six weeks to break and reestablish a new habit. Then move on to another selection and repeat the process. Within six months you may be surprised at the subtle improvements in your daily thoughts and communications.