As We Speak

by Peter Meyers

  “You know,” whispered another one, “he mumbles.”

  “He mumbles?” I said.

  “We can barely understand what he’s saying,” they said.

  “Has anyone ever told him that?” I asked.

  “Oh no,” they said. “We would never tell him that.”

  Sure enough, when I was brought in to hear the CEO rehearse his talk, it was all but unintelligible.

  I tried some roundabout ways to get him to enunciate.

  “Try extending your vowels,” I said, drawing on an old acting exercise. But the CEO, a big, imposing man, soon grew impatient.

  He stopped in the middle of a run-through, folded his arms in front of him, and said, “This isn’t working for me. I’m uncomfortable.”

  This was clearly the moment to put the fish on the table.

  “Listen,” I said. “We’ve been together for twenty minutes, and I don’t understand half of what you’re saying. You can be comfortable, or you can be understood. But you can’t be both.”

  The underlings watched and winced.

  The CEO let his arms drop . and then he smiled.

  “I like this guy,” he said. “Let’s get to work.”

  It was only by naming the obvious and uncomfortable fact that we were able to move into productive territory.

  * * *

  Your courage and willingness to talk about the difficult issues will often bring you closer to someone, and create a higher level of trust.

  You will know if you need to put a fish on the table if the following things happen: (1) You go home and tell your spouse all about it—but don’t mention it to the person who is actually involved; (2) You keep revisiting the problem in your mind, and repeating things you’d like to say; (3) You’re developing physical symptoms in your stomach or your throat every time you’re in the same room with a particular person. So take a deep breath, and read on to acquire some tools that will make you brave enough to charge into your next courageous conversation head-on!

  The first thing that needs to be addressed is the belief that you’re holding about dialogue. Many of us have been taught that it is better to keep quiet, and avoid difficult issues. If you can’t say something nice, it’s better to say nothing at all, right?

  Chances are, if you’re avoiding the conversation, it’s because you’re holding some variation on the following beliefs:

  1. If I bring it up, we’ll get into a fight.

  2. I will lose my temper, or she will.

  3. It will just make everything worse.

  4. She doesn’t really want to know the truth.

  5. She won’t listen to me anyway.

  6. She doesn’t care.

  7. She’s only out for herself.

  8. It’s better to have an easy life.

  Try this story on for size, instead: Courageous conversations are a chance to strengthen the bond between you and the other person (positive belief). It may sound strange, but it’s true. Just as a broken bone heals back stronger in the broken places, a relationship can be strengthened by a frank discussion, if it’s handled properly.

  The most important goal in any courageous conversation is to keep the bond. The bond is the most valuable thing you have. Without a bond, you cannot influence the other person. With a bond, they will walk through fire for you. If you win your point but destroy the bond in the process, what have you really achieved? You get to be right, at the expense of a valuable relationship.

  To illustrate the importance of bonding in high-stakes situations, we look to Dr. Kohlrieser’s work as a hostage negotiator. This is the starkest possible example of results-driven communication: if you don’t communicate persuasively, someone is going to die. When negotiating with a hostage taker, Kohlrieser says, you don’t have to like them, or respect them. But to accomplish your goal, which is to get everyone out alive, you must create and maintain a bond.

  Imagine that you are negotiating with a hostage taker who has a gun pointed at the head of a hostage. He says, “I’m going to shoot everyone in ten seconds.”

  You say, “Please don’t.”

  “Why shouldn’t I?”

  “Because I’d like to see how I can help you.”

  “How can you help? I’m going to shoot.”

  “What about your children?”

  (pause)

  “How did you know I have children?”

  Is this a good conversation? You might think not. But from the perspective of a hostage negotiator, it is an excellent dialogue, because he hasn’t fired the gun. You’re on the way to accomplishing your objective, which is to get everyone out alive. During those thirty seconds, no one has died. You’ve established your concern for his needs, and he is actually talking to you. So far so good.

  A bond is created and maintained by your awareness of someone else’s needs. Just as you do with an audience, when you begin by thinking about their needs (see Chapter One), so you focus in on the needs of your listener in a one-on-one conversation. Perceiving and meeting the needs of a person is the only authentic way to influence them.

  You don’t have to know someone over a long period of time to form a bond and meet their needs. It can be done with a complete stranger, in a matter of moments. This was beautifully illustrated in a 1992 town hall–style debate between then President George H. W. Bush and then candidate Bill Clinton.

  An audience member asks the candidates how the recession has affected them each personally, and if it hasn’t, how they can expect to find a cure for the “economic problems of the common people” if they have “no experience in what’s ailing them.”

  Bush answers first, and proceeds to annihilate any potential bond that might have existed between himself and the questioner.

  He immediately jumps to abstractions and generalities—talking about the national debt and interest rates—and then subtly criticizes the audience member’s question and adopts a defensive posture. He backs progressively away from her as he answers, and his eyes lose contact with hers and wander around the room.

  Clinton, by contrast, builds a bond with his listener from the start.

  “Tell me how it’s affected you again,” he says, as he walks nearer to her.

  He maintains eye contact, and speaks softly and clearly as he transitions to answering her question. He cites statistics and talks policy—just like Bush—but he personalizes his answer, using concrete details. (“When a factory closes, I know the people who ran it. When the businesses go bankrupt, I know them.”)

  Clinton concludes by returning the focus to “you” (“this decision you’re about to make . ”) and a providing series of clear, specific goals.

  This short exchange is a master class in speaking to a listener’s needs and building trust in the space of a minute.

  * * *

  MASTER TIP: The only way to influence someone is to speak to his needs.

  * * *

  Unless you have cash to bribe someone, or the power to frighten him, you must meet his needs in order to change his behavior.

  And yes, if you have the authority, you could coerce him. That worked in medieval times, and it’s still going on in some unfortunate organizations and families. But you won’t achieve lasting results. He’ll only stay influenced as long as you’re standing over him. The second your command-and-control grip over him weakens, he’s going to rebel. Now, this doesn’t mean that you automatically give in and give the other person his way. We’re working here for you to achieve your outcome, not to earn a position as a doormat.

  But consider the following example from Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, by Roger Fisher and William Ury: . two men [are] quarreling in a library. One wants the window open and the other wants it closed. They bicker back and forth about how much to leave it open: a crack, halfway, three quarters of the way. No solution satisfies them both.

  Enter the librarian. She asks one why he wants the window open: “To get some fresh air.” She asks the other why he wants it c
losed: “To avoid the draft.” After thinking a minute, she opens wide a window in the next room, bringing in fresh air without a draft. 3

  Without a full and complete understanding of the needs of your listener, you will not accomplish your objective. Once you understand exactly what he needs, you may be able to skillfully meet those needs in a way that enables him to help you in return.

  When the bond is starting to break, regardless of who is right or wrong, your first order of business is to repair the bond. Only then can you start to solve the problem. Often we’re addressing the behavior, when the real problem is that the bond has been broken. If the bond is there, the conversation will go more smoothly. You’re allowed to make mistakes, and recover. If the bond is broken, no mistakes are allowed. The first time you trip up, it’s all over. If the bond is compromised, that’s the first issue that needs to be addressed.

  BLOCKS TO DIALOGUE

  Now that you’ve decided to put the fish on the table, you need a strategy that will enable you to go into a loaded situation and resolve it successfully. Instead of just trying to get your point across, consider having a dialogue. Think of dialogue as “two minds working together to find a higher truth.”

  Sounds easy, right? So why don’t we conduct good dialogues all the time?

  In order to master any new technique, it’s important to examine the problems that get in our way first. Let’s look at the three biggest mistakes that people make. We call these blocks to dialogue. You’ll notice a similarity to the top three problems that show up in a formal setting, when a speaker is giving a presentation.

  1. PEOPLE TALK TOO MUCH, and they do this in the following ways:

  •Overdetailing. They give you way too much information. You ask for an update, and you get a history of the project.

  •Self-absorbed. They’re not listening to you, and not paying attention to the cues you’re giving. You’re edging away, desperate to escape. They don’t notice—and just keep talking.

  •Dominating. They try to control you with a relentless stream of words that makes it impossible to respond—as though they’re trying to pound you into submission. (Note: Mysterious but true—nine times out of ten, these types will have bad breath!)

  2. WHAT THEY’RE SAYING IS NOT RELEVANT TO YOU. They’re not addressing your needs. We have an exercise that we do in our trainings, called autobiographical listening. In this exercise, people stand in a circle. The object of the game is to make the conversation all about you. Player 1 might start out: “I just came back from Hawaii. We had a great time sailing.” Player 2: “Sailing—you sail? We have a sailboat in Sausalito. We take it out every weekend.” Player 3: “Weekends? My weekends are mostly spent in L.A., because my kids are down there.” Player 4: “L.A.? I went to UCLA!” You get the picture—there is no real dialogue occurring here. Each person is simply using the other people as prompts to stimulate their own personal monologue. Sound familiar? It’s shocking how much this happens in real life!

  3. THERE IS NO POINT. You may have had a conversation, but as you leave, you wonder why you bothered—because nothing has changed. There is no positive outcome.

  Imagine you’re having a courageous conversation with Anthony, a direct report. He’s been showing up late to meetings. You say, “Anthony, I’d like to talk to you about the fact that you’ve come in late to the last three meetings. Is that okay?” Here are some of the responses you may hear from Anthony, if he’s intent on blocking the dialogue. These were adapted from Dr. Kohlrieser’s book Hostage at the Table. Learn to identify these strategies in yourself as well as others. Notice which ones you tend to use yourself!

  • Passivity: Anthony stays silent, and simply raises an eyebrow.

  • Negating: “I wasn’t late to the meeting on Tuesday.”

  • Discounting: “I was only five minutes late—what’s the big deal?”

  • Redefinition: “I’m glad you brought that up, because I’ve been wanting to talk to you about the fact that we have too many meetings in this department.”

  • Overly emotional: “How dare you say that I’ve been late, when I’ve worked overtime every day this week!”

  • Overly rational: “Given the fact that none of the systems in this department work properly, I would say that we need to re-examine the decision-making processes we have in place, particularly as it relates to collective scheduling.”

  •Overly general: “This company has always had a time problem anyway.”

  • Overly personal: “You always pick on the small things—you never appreciate my contribution.”

  • Lack of honesty: “I was late because I was helping a colleague who had an issue at home. She asked me not to say anything.”

  BRIDGES TO DIALOGUE

  So now that we know what gets in our way, how do you overcome the blocks to dialogue? We call the following techniques bridges to dialogue. They will help you overcome the blocks, and create a connection.

  Define your outcome, just as you would in a formal presentation (see p. 37). What do you want to achieve by the end of this conversation? If you are not crystal clear on this point, you may get drawn into the conflict and find yourself just arguing and trying to win. (We’ve all been there!) If you’ve ever lost your temper in an argument and said something that you bitterly regretted later, you know that you can become the victim of an amygdala hijack from anger just as easily as from stage fright. The same process applies; in times of emotional stress, the body’s instinct is to throw control to the amygdala, which will pump blood into your fight-or-flight muscles at the expense of your thinking brain.

  Defining your outcome, and then focusing on it, can help you avoid this disaster. Phrase it this way: “By the end of this call/conversation, he will. ” For example: “By the end of this conversation, Anthony will commit to showing up to meetings on time.” This is one of the most powerful tools going, and yet people rarely use it. If you take thirty seconds before your next phone call to formulate your objective clearly in your head before you pick up the receiver, your chances of achieving your outcome soar. Visualize the conversation going smoothly—use your mind’s eye to see the experience you want to have.

  Separate the person from the problem. 4 If you label the person, even in your own mind, you cannot solve the problem. Example: If Anthony comes late to every meeting and you label Anthony as an irresponsible, rebellious so-and-so, then he is simply a bad employee, and there is no solution to the problem except to fire him. On the other hand, if you separate the person from the problem, you can see that the problem is not Anthony, but his behavior—he is coming late to meetings.

  You sit down with Anthony, tell him you need to talk to him about his attendance at meetings and investigate with curiosity to see what is going on with him. It may well be that you discover that Anthony came from another company where meetings always started ten minutes late, and he simply didn’t understand that it was a problem. Because you were putting off having the courageous conversation, he didn’t know it bothered you. Actually, he’s perfectly willing to come in on time. Problem solved—and you’ve retained a good employee.

  Stop after four sentences. Brain research shows that most people can only hold full attention in a dialogue for three or four sentences. After that, attention drops off dramatically. Not sure whether this applies to you? Try this at home: check your partner’s face after the tenth straight sentence of your monologue. Is she looking at you? Or out the window? Hmm .

  * * *

  MASTER TIP: As a rule, never talk for more than four sentences without stopping and getting a response from the other person.

  * * *

  ASK QUESTIONS. Whoever asks the questions drives the dialogue. For some strange reason, most of us have the idea that the way to talk someone around to agreeing with us is to drown him with a ceaseless stream of argument. It doesn’t work. For one thing, he will turn off after four sentences, as explained above. For another, the simple fact that he’s sitting there looking at you
doesn’t mean that he’s listening to anything you say. Face it, most of us are just watching the other person’s face to identify the moment when his lips stop moving—so that we know it’s our turn to talk! The person who asks the questions in a conversation has his hand on the tiller. That person controls the direction of the dialogue. Let it be you.

  REWARD CONCESSIONS. This one comes from lion taming. A lion tamer working in the ring with a lion is constantly looking for and rewarding small concessions. If the lion tamer cracks his whips and the lion stops, that’s a concession. It needs to be rewarded. The tamer does this by physically taking a step back. He essentially says, “Thank you,” to the lion by giving him more physical space. If the lion stops after the tamer cracks his whip, and the tamer continues to move forward, the lion would take that as a sign of aggression, and attack. Hopefully your life won’t be at risk in these difficult conversations—but the same principle applies. There are various ways that you can do this:

  1. Verbal response like: “Good, “Thank you,” “I understand,” “Great,” “I get it,” “I appreciate that,” “That makes sense,” “I see.”

  2. Semiverbal: Make affirming noises in the pauses, like “Mmhmmm,” or “Mmm.”

  3. Nonverbal: Smile, move back a little to give them more space, nod. (Note: careful with the nodding—it can imply agreement.)

  This principle works beautifully in tandem with the previous two: Don’t monologue and ask questions. You can avoid monologues, ask questions, and reward concessions, all at once. First, open with a question that he can say yes to : “I’d like to talk to you about our meetings. Is that all right?” Obviously, the only appropriate response there is a “Yes.” You’ve now asked a question, and had a positive response. Good first interaction! You’re off and running.

  Contrast that to the way you think the conversation might go if you started it this way: “I’d like to talk to you about your rude behavior in coming late to meetings.” Bang! Can you hear the doors of his mind slamming shut as he bolts himself inside, prepared to defend against your attack?