OK. So now we know about the importance of seeking to understand, of listening actively, or even mindfully. We know that any communication has layers of meaning, that we should not jump to the top of ladder of inference, etc. etc. Enter Deborah Tannen a sociolinguist whose realm is private speaking. Everyday conversations. Her work is not just about communication - it is about how underlying communication mechanisms can impact a relationship negatively. Even with those who are closest to us. In fact, especially so because we expect people we love to understand not only what we are saying but also what we are thinking or intending.
Tannen sheds not only light but a huge projector on why even seemingly mundane conversations between two people can go horribly wrong: differences in conversational styles.
"You said so."
"I said no such thing!"
"You did! I heard you!"
"Don't tell me what I said"
In fact, both parties may be sincere - and both may be right. He recalls what he meant, and she recalls what she heard. But what he intended was not what she understood - which was what she would have meant if she had said what he said in the way he said it."
Phew!!!
Great. So now we also need to be aware of our communication "devices" and "signals" - the way we pause, or don't, our directness, or indirectness, the way we ask questions, or don't.
Re-reading Deborah Tannen's book That's not what I meant was as relevant an experience today as it was back in 1986, when it was first published. Haven't I learned anything since then? Well, I like to think so.
Working in an office with staff from over 40 different countries, with another 20 nationalities dispersed in country and other offices in the region, meant that cross-cultural communication was an underlying factor in any discourse every day! Paradoxically, diversity was the source of greatest job satisfaction among colleagues - and at the same time the source of greatest frustration. There was an awareness of differentness but an expectation of "sameness"; and a lack of understanding of how cultural differences play out in managerial settings and everyday work life.
Deborah Tannen made me realize that the focus on cultural differences may have been misleading. She claims:
"All communication is more or less cross-cultural."
That, in a way, makes everything easier - no focus on cultural differences and running the risk of stereotyping. Yet if every single conversation has potential for misunderstandings, what a risk we run every time we open our mouths - or don't!
Tannen echoes to some extent the work of Covey, Dickson, Fischer & Ury. Don't assume ill intent. "Sometimes strains in a conversation reflect real differences between people: they are angry at each other; they really are at cross-purposes. Books have been written about this situation: how to flight fair, how to assert yourself. But sometimes strains and kinks develop when there really are no basic differences of opinion, when everyone is sincerely trying to get along. This is the type of miscommunication that drives people crazy. And it is usually caused by differences in conversational style."
The book describes conversational signals, devices and strategies, and analyses why we won't say what we mean and why we can't say what we mean. Power's in there - but that is only one element. When it comes to relationships, we are on a teeter-totter between involvement and independence. Note that the subtitle of her book is "How conversational style makes or breaks relationships".
Good communication is two-way, we claim. Yet even where both parties are open and eager to share, seemingly simple differences in conversational styles can get in the way - tone, pace, pausing, indirectness, asking questions and so on.
For instance, when is someone finished? When is it my turn? Tannen points out that when styles are different one person may start to talk before the other is finished - perceived as interrupting - or the other person may not take their turn, leading you to believe that they are not listening or having nothing to say.
This was one of my Ah-ha! moments. I am from New York - which means I tend to talk fast and talk-over, displaying (I believe) my enthusiasm for what the other person is saying, I am listening (I claim), I am not interrupting (I claim), just jumping in when there is a pause - a micro-pause or non-pause to the other person, not to me. I have done that all my life. I realize that it can be extremely annoying and considered rude - yet it's a habit I find hard to break. Almost part of my DNA. According to Tannen, I am using loudness and fast pace to show that I am really listening and that I get the point. Exactly! She gets me! Why don’t others ...? It is possible to all talk at once and communciate - if everyone knows the system. But they don't.
Everything we say is said in some way, becoming meta-messages which are per definition indirect. Pitch, tone, facial expressions frame what we say as serious, joking, sarcastic, etc.
And for all of us that preach that communication should be honest and open - well, think again! So we should be dishonest and indirect? No! We do, however, need to recognize that:
"... our expectations of the benefits of honesty are unlikely to match the reality of communication. ... The belief that sitting down and talking will ensure mutual understanding and solve problems is based on the assumption that we can say what we mean, and that what we say will be understood as we mean it.
Any system that successfully gets meaning across is honest."Is there hope? I take heart in Tannen’s claim: “We can learn to stop and remind ourselves that others may not mean what we heard them say." How to relearn?
- know your own style
- step back and observe the interaction
- change the interaction by reframing, talking about the communication
- let the style fit the context.
That’s the easy part. Tannen has also done research on conversation styles and gender differences, and claims that "Women listen for meta-messages". Stay tuned!
