Oh no! Not a compromise (-:

When I went to school (yes, some time ago) the word compromise had a positive ring. Reaching a compromise meant an agreement had been made - peace and harmony could be restored. 

In its early days, assertive communication was associated with compromise - a good thing. However, in the workshops I ran most of the participants had an immediate negative reaction to the word "compromise". They regarded it as a sign of weakness, of giving up or giving in. Anne Dickson attempted to circumvent this by using the term workable compromise: "being able to negotiate around a conflict in priorities" (A woman in her own right, p.11). That work-around didn't fly. In the minds of the participants “working compromise” = compromise = defeat.

And they were right - they were instinctively reacting to the underlying Win/Lose or Lose/Lose dynamics.

Win/Win is part of a global vocabulary now - transferred directly from English to many other languages. It is not clear whether Steven Covey originated the phrase. He certainly made it popular through his 7 habits of highly effective people, published in 1989. Habit 4 is "Think Win/Win", and is especially aimed at managers and leaders.  Covey considers it "the habit of effective interpersonal leadership".

Win/win is not a technique; it's a total philosophy of human interaction. In fact, it is one of six paradigms of interaction The alternative paradigms are Win/Lose, Lose/Win, Lose/Lose, Win and Win/Win or No Deal.Win/Win is a frame of mind and heart that constantly seeks mutual benefit in all human interactions. Win/Win means that agreements or solutions are mutually beneficial, mutually satisfying. With a Win/Win solution, all parties feel good about the decision and feel committed to the action plan.

Too naive, you may think? Not so. Steven Covey was a well respected businessman and management consultant. In August 2011, Time listed 7 habits as one of "the 25 most influential business management books in the world". 

Why? Because "Think Win Win" is the habit that underpins the cluster in the highest sphere of "public victory". 

My adaption of Covey’s illustration of the 7 habits.

Interdependence is at the top: we need to develop independence but at the same time we need to understand, accept and embrace interdependencies. Whether it is our private world of personal relationships or our public world of relations to colleagues, suppliers, clients, and so on, adopting an aggressive Win/Lose approach may yield short-term gains but ultimately becomes Lose/Lose (or, as Covey says, “No Deal”). It undermines trust, which obviously has a negative impact on any relationship. True Win/Win is grounded in character traits Covey describes as: integrity, maturity (courage and consideration) and the "abundance mentality".

The phrase Win/Win has become common. Perhaps too common. I fear that the original meaning has been diminished, or even lost. Still, it is a better framework for reaching sustainable solutions than compromise, where no one wins.

‘Allo, ‘Allo

Even if you have never seen an episode from the TV series, you are probably familiar with the often quoted phrase: "Listen very carefully, I shall say 'zis only once!" - used by “Michelle” from the resistance movement every time she wants to issue instructions about her intricate plans.

The listener has a tough job - careful listening, active listening, mindful listening. The act - or art - of listening has been described in many different ways. The speaker would definitely prefer to say it only once! In fact, I had a participant at a team-building retreat who - during an exercise on active listening - felt it was up to the speaker to keep it interesting. She got easily bored.

What I would like to highlight in this space is empathetic listening from Steven Covey’s Seven habits of highly effectively people. Empathetic communication is at the heart of Habit 5: "Seek first to understand, then to be understood". 

“We typically seek first to be understood. Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply They’re either speaking or preparing to speak. They’re filtering everything through their own paradigms, reading their autobiography into other people’s lives.”

I first heard about Steven Covey's work at a workshop on personal communication. It was a privilege to be able to participate in a workshop run by one of the top facilitators in the organization. We were only a small band of 5-6 participants due to typical workplace attrition: enrol in the hope of being able to take a course, withdraw when the day comes and workplace reality strikes. So, I was one of the privileged few. What I can still vividly recall is the conversations between the father and son. First, the typical scenario where the father - out of love and good intent - isn't able to get his son's story because he isn't listening. And then the second run-through, where the father is capable of listening empathetically. WOW! That was powerful. Corny some might say. As an American I accept that. I have noted, though, that Covey's work has been translated into 38 languages - an indication that it transcends cultural boundaries. The parent-child interaction described here - i.e. the parent missing the point! - resonates.  

"Oh, I know exactly how you feel!" How often do we say that!? Ironically, we say it - we think - to express sympathy, to demonstrate to the other person that we know where they're coming from. That might work if we stop there and let the other person continue. Then again, it might not. Plus, as Covey also points out, there is an important distinction between empathy and sympathy. By doing that empathetic listening thing, we increase our probability of getting it right. Getting what right for whom? The relationship, the relationship. The "psychological air" that empathetic communication generates, tremendously increases the chances of psychological survival.

Is this just technique? Manipulation? That question was asked at every workshop. The answer that Covey offers is the "character principle" - being true to yourself, having integrity. With that as ballast to create trust, you can't go wrong. Well, maybe some times but not all the time. If you can get it right at least 80% of the time, that would be a true achievement.

From No to Yes

Training films are a special type of "feel good" movie. You know that there will be a happy ending and that the viewer will leave the 'cinema' with new insights and a determination to go forth and do likewise.

One of my absolute favourites is From No to Yes, which was produced in 1988. The action revolves around a meeting with participants from each department (sales, marketing, IT, training, production) - a typical workplace scenario. The main character (played by Robert Lindsay) is the type who can only see the virtue of his own opinion - obviously the right one - and becomes increasingly frustrated by the “obtuseness” of his colleagues. His behaviour generates so much defensiveness that the others join forces against him. Unproductive behaviour, for sure. Fortunately, being a training video means that the action can be paused while the main character (Martin) gets a few pointers from his doctor (hint, hint - his behaviour is having a negative impact on his health). Step one: acknowledge the others' views first. "Oh, I see", says our protagonist. He doesn't get it quite right at first and has to try, try again but by the end of the video (27 minutes) he is a new man. He realizes that by applying three simple steps - starting with listening - he has a better chance of being heard. Does this mean he will get his way each time? No, claims the narrator on the film. 

Word of caution - the aim of the film is described as giving “managers the skills of persuasion, vital in running meetings or trying to influence others." That sounds nasty, doesn't it?  However - “It's not about being domineering or dismissive, but following a three-stage approach that accounts for everybody's needs: listening actively, explaining your own feelings, and inviting other ideas and building on them. When that happens, agreement follows naturally." 

The bit about "agreement follows naturally" doesn't  mean that "Martin" gets his way. It's about finding the best solution.

These days, listening is - or should be - a standard component of any workshop on communication skills. It was the bit that assertiveness training tended to neglect in the past. Note that the film illustrates the importance of active listening at the workplace, not only in personal relationships. Is the film dated? In many respects, yes, of course. That's what makes it fun. And that doesn't diminish the point. By the way, do a search for "active listening" and you'll get over 34 million hits! So this blog will have more entries about this essential communication skill.

Lots has also been written about effective leadership and management. Modern day leaders/managers need to demonstrate an ability to listen - and acknowledge that they have listened.

True story: recently I happened to see a CNN report on African Voices  about a woman who had been crowned king of her village in Ghana:  Peggielene Bartels, King of Otuam. When asked how she interacts with her subjects she replied, "I listen carefully, I am very humble." 

The biggest barrier of them all ...

There are lots and lots of barriers to communication -  it’s easy to make a very long list. The item that tends to get overlooked, though, is defensiveness. Watch out. Once you feel defensive, it’s hard to get your pulse down and tackle the situation in a way that makes you feel good about yourself and - oh yeah - the other person.

Here’s what real life looks like - or can look like:

According to this model, it takes time and effort - and listening - to overcome defensiveness and reach a happy ending. Can it happen in real life? Well, sometimes. Recipe = assertive statements + listening. It requires more than mere patience. Super human efforts in the face of strong emotions. It's worth it.