Be Bulletproof

by James Brooke

  Just like ‘thought behind the question’, there is, of course, a range of variations on the ‘why’s that important to you’ theme. The important thing is to try it out. Rather than going straight to your position, start by asking what is really important to the other person. Become aware of how it opens up communication.

  Summary

  Do not take up a position

  Enquire about the other person’s underlying interest

  Shift the focus on to the desire to meet common interests

  Insist on specifics

  Let’s go back to the example of Ray and Kevin. Notice what Ray did in his follow-up to Kevin. He invited him to be specific. Requesting specifics is a useful technique for Jujitsu Communication. Most verbal assaults tend to be vague. Breaking them down to specifics takes the toxicity out of them. The request for specifics turns the energy around, putting the pressure on your interlocutor. And here’s the beautiful thing. It allows you to turn the spotlight around while remaining eminently reasonable and avoiding any hint of aggression or defensiveness. There are two ways to deal with an attack: sidestep it or turn it around.

  Let’s look at the following case study as an example:

  Case Study 3.3

  ‘Everyone thinks that training course you ran about the new project management system was a complete waste of time,’ Jules fed back to Jim. ‘It was way wide of the mark.’

  ‘I’d like to understand more about that. It would help to know exactly who expressed an opinion and what was said,’ replied Jim.

  ‘Well, I wasn’t the only one thinking it,’ Jules answered. ‘Robbie said he felt that we missed some useful stuff and Sharon was shifting around in her chair throughout.’

  ‘When you say a waste of time, could you help me out here by being a bit more specific?’ asked Jim.

  ‘Well, there was some important stuff that wasn’t covered.’

  ‘What exactly?’

  ‘Well, it would have been useful to know something about budgeting.’

  ‘How precisely do you mean?’

  ‘Well, it seemed that we just skated over the budgeting software.’

  Jim concluded by saying, ‘Okay, so you, Robbie and Sharon would have liked to know more about the budgeting software. I’ll certainly keep that in mind for next time.’

  Notice how Jim summarises the point in the final, most specific and most reduced form (this will take the sting out of it).

  Another way to turn the energy around is to require the person making the criticism to be specific about what she would like to see instead, for example: ‘If you felt that we spent too much time on X how much time would you like to spend on it?’; or, ‘If we spent too little time on the budget software, what do you feel would be the right amount of time?’

  And remember, if somebody makes a comment that suggests that you, your project or your team are about to screw up, the only effective response is along the lines of: ‘What specific actions could be taken at this stage to allay your concerns?’

  Summary

  Take the sting out of hostile comments by asking for specific details

  Politely but firmly insist that the other person be as specific as possible

  Once you’ve identified these precise concerns, explain how you’ll act on them

  If someone suggests that they doubt your competence to deliver something, don’t defend – ask specifically what would allay concerns

  Emphasise shared values

  Whatever the situation, if you’re seeking to communicate effectively, it’s important to secure the acceptance of your audience, says Simon Lancaster, who has written speeches for CEOs of companies such as HSBC and Cadbury, as well as senior politicians and Olympic gold medallists.

  ‘You need to establish a degree of empathy,’ he says. ‘Handling a difficult question is like making a speech, in that it’s a journey. You’re taking your audience with you from A to B, and that means that you need to meet them at A. You need to establish common ground. This might mean explaining that you understand their concerns, even if you don’t agree with them. I’ve written speeches for people who are quite happy to go to a meeting where they know that the audience is very annoyed with them and have a lot of valid anger. But they’ll stand up there and say, “I know you’re angry … I know we disagree.” It really helps build a rapport because it’s honest. Some people think they’d better just focus on the positives but that can simply enrage the audience even more because it doesn’t sound honest and it’s not addressing their concerns.’

  Simon says that the ancient Greeks believed that a persuasive speaker should have ethos (that is empathy and evidence that they are of good character), pathos (they share values with the audience) and logos (this is the substance of what they’re saying – the action they’ll take).

  In a modern context, he summaries this as EVA. ‘I’ve heard top politicians use this approach, and it works brilliantly,’ he says. ‘I’ve advised clients to use it in all kinds of difficult situations.’

  So, to put it into practice:

  • Empathy – ‘Yes, I understand that you’re angry.’

  • Values – ‘Look, I want to make sure that we can be proud of ourselves because we’re known for offering the best customer service in the country.’

  • Action – ‘So, I’m making some changes that will really help us deliver a better service to all our customers.’

  Emotion is more powerful than logic, according to Simon. The part of the brain that deals with emotion is larger than the part that deals with logic. ‘Some people think that bringing emotion into the workplace is somehow unprofessional. People sometimes say things to me such as, “I’m an economist; I’m not interested in emotion.” But the point is that he was using emotion simply by saying this. He was demonstrating his pride and trying to cause me to feel shame.’

  You need to use emotion carefully, of course; getting upset or cross with your audience won’t achieve anything. It’s more effective to inject some emotion into your communication by using stories and anecdotes. You can appeal to people’s values, loves and hates and not just their reason.

  We worked with Vincent, the CEO of a medium-sized packaged food company. The organisation was attempting to implement a major change, and employee morale seemed to be in free fall. We introduced EVA to Vincent. At a particularly tough brown-bag lunch meeting, Vincent abandoned his combative style, paused for a moment, looked away thoughtfully to signal that an ‘off-script’ moment was coming, and then said: ‘There’s nothing worse than feeling that you’re going through change and you don’t know what’s going on, that nobody’s listening and there’s nobody you can turn to. I have been in that situation and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. That’s why I commit to coming down here to talk to you face to face every Friday.’

  The change of mood in the room was palpable.

  Summary

  Match and reflect the emotions of your audience

  Show that you have the same values as your audience

  Then explain what action you’re going to take

  Using stories in communication when under attack

  Often when you’re under attack in a particular situation the solution – and the challenge – is to persuade your attacker. Simply defending your actions or your point of view can often look weak and means that you’re arguing on your opponent’s turf.

  Screenplay lecturer and consultant, Robert McKee, argues that telling a story is the most powerful and effective way in which to convey a message. This is true of a sales presentation or a pitch for funding but also when it comes to communicating effectively with a boss or a team. Whether it’s persuading your boss to do what you want them to do or engaging and motivating the team that reports to you, creating a storyline which explains your position and what you’re trying to do works better than simply throwing facts and figures at them.

  McKee argues that there are fundamentally three ways to persuade; two of the ways have limited effectiv
eness, but the third pulls together all of the strands that appeal to people. ‘I’ve given many, many lectures to business people and I’ve noticed that very often in a working environment their problem is one of persuasion,’ he explains. ‘Almost always getting out of a difficult situation involves persuasion.’

  First, you can use the classic PowerPoint presentation. This is where you gather evidence of a factual nature and you compound it in an inductive argument. You go through this point, then that point and then you say, ‘therefore …’ It’s very familiar, but this often doesn’t work because the people to whom you are presenting have their own facts, figures or evidence. Moreover, when you’re thinking about persuading someone and not necessarily engaging with them, you tend to avoid negatives. However, in their minds, the audience is already hearing all the negatives, and they’re thinking of a whole other argument against what you’re saying. ‘You’re setting up an argument – and thereby inadvertently encouraging your audience to develop the counter-argument,’ says McKee.

  The second method of persuading people to work with you rather than against you is coercion. You can bribe them or flatter them or threaten them. This often works temporarily – people will react but in the long run this approach is going to come round and bite you on the arse. Either your audience is always going to have their hand out wanting more flattering words and promises, or, if you’re always threatening them, they’ll get fed up and leave the organisation or just bad-mouth you.

  However, the third option, according to McKee, is to tell a story. Here, you take all those facts that you would have used in the PowerPoint, plus all the negative points that you wouldn’t normally mention, and you argue both sides of your case by putting it into the form of a story. By taking all of the information and dramatising it, storytelling works both emotionally and intellectually. You include the negatives in a coherent pattern with which they’re all familiar but which also makes sense of them and puts them into context.

  Telling a story in order to explain your point of view and outline your reasoning is a powerful way to undo an attack. You might explain the way in which your organisation, team or department is currently ‘in the cave’ but has plans to get out of it. You may choose to tell a story of how you or others have been in a given situation, but have won through in the end. You may choose to explain a change by bringing it to life, from the point of view of a specific individual, or ‘protagonist’, in the story.

  The chief technology officer of a packaged consumer goods company was trying to get the heads of the different countries to buy into a big new inventory and supply-chain management system. He would tour the office with his deck of PowerPoint slides, but to little avail. Eventually we persuaded him to turn off his laptop and tell a story: ‘Think of Mick. Currently when Mick enters the warehouse every morning, he has to count up the number of palettes manually, before getting on the phone …’

  Stories of challenges undertaken or adversity overcome are great for capturing attention. You will notice the climate in the room change as soon as your audience hears the words along the lines of, ‘Let me take you back to a time, not so long ago, when …’ As McKee explains, ‘The best stories entail a journey from darkness to light.’

  What stories can you use, either about yourself or others, to make a point, and deflect an attack in the heat of the moment?

  Summary

  Use the power of story to take your audience on a journey with you

  Having a problem solved, a question answered or a challenge overcome will keep them on board and help persuade them

  The power of context

  When people are particularly concerned or agitated about something, they very often lose sight of the context. We are all guilty, at one point or another, of getting things out of proportion when we’re annoyed or upset about something. There are ways of putting people’s concerns subtly and tactfully into context.

  For example, when replying to a question, you can change the focus of the debate. Just as a movie camera will concentrate on one detail or pan back to show the whole scene, you, too, can change your focus. Perhaps you’re defending cuts or an increased workload for your department. If you want to back up your case, then you could focus in on a particular example: ‘I’ve had to cancel my summer vacation this year,’ or ‘I can appreciate what you’re saying. We’re all under pressure. For instance, Hannah’s had to forego her bonus this year.’

  Then again you can pan back: ‘I know it’s difficult right now, but every organisation is having to cut their budgets at the moment – just look at the article about the economy in the papers today,’ or ‘Everyone in this sector is working harder – clients are demanding more for their money. Michael over at National Consolidated was telling me exactly the same thing last week.’

  Again, thinking about context to defend a decision or a choice you’ve made allows you to explore the extremes. Say, for example, you’ve been criticised for the type of IT system that you’ve bought for the company. You might want to start by talking about a state-of-the-art system that is all bells and whistles and does everything that your colleagues could ever dream of. Great, eh? But then you show them the enormously high price tag.

  You then tell them about a very affordable system which would come in way under budget. Sound like a good deal? Perhaps, except that it’s limited in the following ways …

  Thirdly (and remember that in speeches the power of three is incredibly powerful), you come to your option. Having explored the extremes, this choice offers the best of all worlds.

  Summary

  Aim to put an argument or an issue into context

  Pan back from the issue in question to look at the whole organisation or the whole sector or even the state of the country

  Explore the extremes – and then show why you’ve opted for your choice, which is the best of both worlds

  Correct inaccuracies when the storm has passed

  Imagine that you’re sitting in a restaurant. The service is poor. You ordered a long time ago, but there is no sign of your food. Your empty stomach is beginning to rumble. Nobody has given you an explanation; indeed, it’s not easy to catch anyone’s eye. Then eventually you manage to speak to the maître d’. You explain that you have been waiting for thirty-five minutes. At this point, he looks something up on a small piece of paper and fires back that according to his records you have only been weighting twenty-five minutes!

  How do you feel now? Do you revise your view of the restaurant and feel a whole ten minutes better? In reality you probably go from irritated to incensed. This is because what matters to you is a combination of that empty feeling in your stomach and the feeling that your time had not been respected. What you really wanted was in part to have your food sooner rather than later but, more profoundly, to feel heard and understood.

  When Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, responded to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill by seemingly looking for exonerating factors in BP’s favour, he merely attracted greater opprobrium on to the company. In the heat of the moment, there was one thing and one thing only that the wider community cared about: clean up the ocean! Hayward needed to show that he really understood this before correcting inaccuracies. Never correct an inaccuracy in the heat of the moment. It will not lessen the criticism but it will almost certainly raise the temperature. When we correct an inaccuracy, it suggests that we have failed to hear what is truly important. Far from exonerate you in the eyes of others, it encourages an escalation of evidence slinging. This doesn’t mean that you accept or agree with the inaccuracy, it means that you let it pass, for the moment.

  Letting an inaccuracy pass unchallenged, particularly when you are under fire, understandably sticks in the craw. You also feel that, when you’re under fire, every little thing you can do to protect your reputation is going to count.

  The first rule of correcting inaccuracies, in another person’s criticism of you, is never to do it in the heat of the moment, when emotions are heightened. The second
rule is to make sure that you are seen to have heard what is really important to the other person – and this is where reflecting helps.

  The best way to correct an inaccuracy is to avoid appearing to cover your own back and to ostensibly show concern for accuracy or information and fairness to others.

  Case Study 3.4

  Mike’s department had been criticised for its service levels. The issue of late submission of reports has been highlighted, but Mike’s critics had exaggerated the extent of the tardiness by a good forty-eight hours. Bulletproof Mike assured his critics that he grasped the real issue and was on the case, but corrected the inaccuracy once the initial storm had passed and feelings were more stable.

  ‘The important thing is to make sure that all reports are submitted on time in future and we are taking steps to make sure of that … I am just keen to make sure that everyone has information that is as accurate as possible here. Our records seem to show that it was submitted at 5pm on Tuesday – do you know how Pat was given to understand that it was Thursday? I’m keen to know if there’s anything we can do to make sure that everyone is working from the same information in future.’

  Show that you have heard what’s important. Show that you are taking steps to fix it. Then, show that you are primarily concerned whether there is anything that you can do to make sure that everyone has the same accurate information … or that the risks of misunderstandings are reduced in the future. At this point, you will be likely to receive an apology from your critic for any inaccuracy.

  Summary

  Don’t correct an inaccuracy during the heat of the moment – wait until emotions are more stable

  When you do correct an inaccuracy, acknowledge that you in no way diminish the underlying issues and the feelings caused

  Show concern for your assailant

  Case Study 3.5

  Mary and Jacques were assigned to work on the audit of a major client. It was a long and involved assignment that required long hours at the client’s headquarters. Jacques was unaware of any problem until he received a telephone call from the senior partner. Mary had expressed that she was unhappy working with Jacques. She felt that he was not acting like a team player, he was not communicating and sharing important information, and he would often dump work on her, relying on her good nature to pick it up.