The usefulness of curiosity

My intention was to re-read Tannen's You just don't understand. Woman and men in conversation as a follow-up to the last blog entry. Got side-tracked by pondering how to build trust among colleagues. Now that's a good question! Which prompted me to search for books on "trust in the workplace". You can imagine how many books would have popped up on that topic on the web! So of course I didn't do that. I narrowed my search to books in English that I could borrow in Danish libraries in greater Copenhagen using "trust" as the key word. Which led me to Coaching at work. Powering your team with awareness, responsibility and trust, by Matt Somers (2007). Deviations from a plan can be useful - get it, key thought here ...

Have to confess that I have always been wary of books on coaching - there's just so much stuff out there. Some good, some not. I would recommend Somers' book to any manager who would like to 1) define his/her own approach to managing people and 2) learn now to make that approach more effective. Good summary of Theory X and Y management styles. Good advice to managers on how to apply coaching to areas that can be tough to discuss with staff like performance management and career development. Other good tips on how to overcome presentation nerves and improve personal organization.

What I really liked was his 8th "law on coaching":

Curiosity is more useful than judgement.

That neatly sums up just about all my previous entries on communication, on listening, on seeking to understand. Just be curious. Ask open, non-judgemental questions. 

Is that really so difficult?

That's not what I meant - really!

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!

Getting to yes, Part II - Changing the rules of the game

My last entry, Part I, summarized Fischer & Ury's basic principles for reaching a "wise agreement". Wisdom - a scarce commodity. Fischer & Ury are not suggesting that "principled negotiators" are like lambs to the slaughter. On the contrary, the approach is tough - tougher than traditional positioning. Why? Because the strategy is based on satisfying your interests by changing the rules of the game. Making it a joint search for solutions is smart.

Negotiation is two-way communication - which involves listening and being prepared to come out of the negotiations with something other than you thought when you entered. That "something other" can be more than you envisioned. A win/win because you have been tuned into creative problem-solving.

Does that mean you need to show all your cards? No. Good faith negotiation does not require full disclosure.

"A principled negotiator is open to reasoned persuasion on the merits; a positional bargainer is not. It is the combination of openness to reason with insistence on a solution based on objective criteria that makes principled negotiation so effective at getting the other side to play."

In most cases, "the other side" is not just one person. There are usually multiple parties on either side. Which means that thorough preparation is even more critical, because the various interests might be conflicting. 

Fischer & Ury describe 4 major obstacles that prevent us from generating options - and if we don't explore all possible options before the negotiation, we are not likely to be able to do it during stress-provoking discussions.

• premature judgement
• searching for the single answer
• the assumption of a fixed pie
• thinking that 'solving their problem is their problem'.

To overcome these obstacles: (1) separate the art of inventing options from the act of judging them; (2) broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer; (3) search for mutual gains; and (4) invent ways of making their decisions easy. 

Steps 1 and 2 are clear - not simple but clear. Mutual gains? Needs some explanation. But inventing ways to make their decisions easy - Huh?

Look for mutual gain by:

• identifying shared interests: make them explicit, concrete and future oriented (goals); and
• dovetailing differing interests: or the "Jack Sprat" principle! - differences in interests and belief make it possible for an item to be of high benefit to you, yet low cost to the other side.

Make their decision easy by:

• confronting them with a choice that is as painless as possible: put yourself in their shoes;
• framing it as the right thing to do: shape solutions as fair, legal, honorable;
• searching for precedent: recognize their desire to be consistent;
• considering the consequences of the decision from their point of view: make your offers credible.

Establishing objective criteria is a powerful way to do this. It shifts the discussion to how to decide, rather than the other side's rigid positions.

"The more you bring standards of fairness, efficiency or scientific merit to bear on your particular problem, the more likely you are to produce a final package that is wise and fair... A constant battle for dominance threatens a relationship; principled negotiation protects it. It is far easier to deal with people when both of you are discussing objective standards for settling a problem instead of trying to force each other to back down."

Examples of fair standards: market value, precedent, scientific judgment, professional standards, efficiency, costs, legal standards, moral standards, equal treatment, tradition, reciprocity.

Examples of fair procedures: dividing a piece of cake, one cuts the other chooses; taking turns, drawing lots, agreeing on 3rd party opinion, evidence, and so on.

What if they won't play?

Fischer & Ury address this question as well. After all, it would be incredibly naive to expect any negotiation to be easy. But we shouldn't make the not-so-tough ones tougher than they are by sticking to a bottom line. Instead of adopting an often arbitrary standpoint that is limiting, you should develop a BATNA = best alternative to a negotiated agreement. This requires preparation - if you enter negotiations without a BATNA you really do risk becoming a chump. 

"The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating... your BATNA, that is the only standard that can protect you ... " 

Fischer & Ury offer some very interesting insights on strength. You may think you don't have any. Think again! Use your strengths to their best advantage. Be a fair - and strong - negotiator by developing a BATNA, generating options (yours and theirs), insisting on objective criteria, learning the art of "negotiation jujitsu" or using the "one text procedure". 

"People think of negotiating power as being determined by resources like wealth, political connections, physical strength, friends and military might. In fact, the relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement."

Read the book - please! Then apply the principles ...

Getting to Yes

Part I: Positions vs. Interests

"Negotiation": what image comes to mind when you hear that word? Politically incorrect smoke-filled rooms with high levels of testosterone? long conference tables flanked by adversarial parties, shooting verbal poison arrows at each other, using piles of paper and files as shields? Whatever the image, it is probably one of combat. Win or lose.

In his chapter on Win/Win, Covey refers to Roger Fisher & William Ury - authors of the best-seller Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in.  They are part of the Harvard Negotiation Project, whose work was - and still is - groundbreaking.

There are tons of books on negotiation, many of them still based on the old paradigm of duking it out. Message number one: Fisher and Ury are not suggesting that we blithely enter a negotiation as the "good guy": naive, idealistic, willing to understand the other side and then make whatever concessions are demanded.

No. Getting to Yes is about demonstrating strength in a smart way. They make it sound simple. Simple maybe, but not so easy.

Our confrontational image of negotiation is all about positions.  Fisher & Ury focus on interests:

"For a wise solution reconcile interests, not positions."

Interests define the problem. The basic problem in a negotiation lies not in conflicting positions but in the conflict between each side's needs, desires, concerns, and fears.

• Interests motivate people; they are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions. Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide.
• Reconciling interests rather than compromising between positions also works because behind opposed positions lie many more interests than conflicting ones." p. 42-44

Fisher & Ury's concept was at the heart of three types of workshop offered at my workplace: negotiation skills; difficult conversations; and performance management. In each case, it took some time for participants - highly intelligent people - to formulate interests when analysing various case studies. They almost always came back to positions instead. The classic example is the dispute over a window being shut or being open. The conflict revolves around one person insisting on it being open, the other shut -  rather than figuring out the interests (fresh air, no draft/draught) and then finding a solution that meets the interests of both parties.

Oh right, that communication thing! Which is why teams of trainers using Fisher & Ury's approach also delivered workshops on managing difficult conversations. That's what negotiation is really all about. Well, not quite. Nonetheless, similar skills apply, like listening and probing.

"The purpose of negotiating is to serve your interests. The chance of that happening increases when you communicate them."

You have to read the book (or books). Getting to Yes is only 194 pages, with annexes. But I will summarize some of their main points to whet your appetite. I can't help myself - it's such great stuff.

Identifying interests - yours and theirs

• Ask "Why?" Put yourself in their shoes.
• Ask Why not?" Think about their choices - and analyse the possible short- or long-term consequences to you.
• Realize that each side has multiple interests. And do not assume that each person on the opposing side has the same interests.
• Recognize that the most powerful interests are basic human needs (security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, control over one's life).
• Communicate your interests.
• Make your interests come alive.
• Acknowledge their interests (listen actively!)
• Put the problem before your answer.
• Look forward, not back.
• Be concrete but flexible -- be open to fresh ideas.
• Be hard on the problem, soft on the people.

"Whatever you say, you should expect that the other side will almost always hear something different."

This describes step one - you also need to understand "mutual gains" and formulate a BATNA. More in Part II.  

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.

Assertion and rights

Again, assertion is about assertively your rights while respecting the rights of others. 

At each session of the workshop, participants reacted strongly when they heard "I have the right to state my own needs and set my own priorities". Wasn't that being selfish?, they asked. Dickson uses a wonderful phrase to capture this sentiment - "the compassion trap". This trap "is usually defined as a sense of obligation that, as a woman, you should put everyone else's needs before your own all of the time. You should always be available and accessible to others."  (p.54) Do women continue to fall into this trap today? Yes, we do. We still tend to feel guilty if we put ourselves first ever. Note the words "all" and "always" - if you fall into a behavioural pattern of submissiveness, beware. We have the right to state our feelings and our needs, and to set our priorities. On the other hand, being assertive does not give you the license to insist on getting your way. That's the point.

The literature on assertiveness that I read all listed these types of rights - basic "human rights". However, very few dealt specifically with the workplace. The one I found and used in workshops is called Assertiveness at work. A practical guide to handling awkward situations, by Ken and Kate Back (McGraw-Hill Book Company (UK) Limited, London, 1982). Their book covers much of the same territory as Dickson's and others. What makes it different is their explicit sections on how non-assertive behaviour between staff and between staff and managers negatively impacts an organization. 

Job rights cover: international conventions; national legislation; policies of the particular organization; and "the rights between you and the people you work with". ..."these constitute the most important category of rights within your job... because they are the ones that influence your behaviour in most of the day-to-day situations you encounter."

Common rights "that many people believe they may have in their jobs:

• the right to be clear on what is expected of me

• the right to know how my manager sees my performance

• the right to get on with my job in my own way once objectives and constraints have been agreed

• the right to make mistakes from time to time

• the right to have a say/veto in selecting the people who work for me

• the right to expect work of a certain standard from my staff

• the right to criticize the performance of a member of staff when it falls below the required standard

• the right to be consulted about decisions that affect me

• the right to take decisions about matters that affect my department or area of work

• the right to refuse unreasonable requests." (Back & Back, p.41)

Some of these rights may be clarified through organizational policies and practices, e.g. performance management. What the Backs don't cover in their book is the multicultural dimension. Rights are intertwined with a belief system - which again is based on one's experience, including shared experience - i.e. culture. These "rights" generated a lot of discussion and disagreement among participants at the workshops. For example, the "right to be consulted" - Wow! Evident to some, not to others.

One participant was really at a loss to find an example of a situation where she got angry or had a conflict at work. "I never get angry," she claimed. But later discussion triggered a memory of an incident where she wasn't consulted by her manager. An inalienable right, she would claim given her age and her culture. Not so evident to her manager, from a different culture. Some participants believed that there was (almost) no such thing as an "unreasonable" request. Others felt they had a right to a reasonable work/life balance (and therefore the right to leave after an 8-1/2 hour day). Others felt they had the right to negotiate a solution. In other words, the human to human ("we are all equals") connection was stronger than the hierarchal staff member/manager relation for some of the participants, not others. Usually the difference was along cultural lines.

Drawing conclusions, though, about cultural differences can be risky (more about that later). Speaking of drawing, I would love to be able to insert a Far Side cartoon right now!

That crumple button!

Responding to criticism is also extremely difficult because any criticism - whether valid or invalid - is bound to stimulate defensiveness and negative feelings. Dickson has a wonderful phrase to cover those put-downs or negative criticisms that go right to the solar plexus - "crumple buttons" ... “those chinks in your defensive armour, where you are most vulnerable. We all have them. Words or phrases which are so highly sensitive that the mere mention has the effect of making you crumple instantly inside... it may be a reference to your appearance ... your background .... your competence. It may be a specific word: such as selfish, over-bearing, hard, stupid, aggressive, tight." (Dickson, p. 86). Whatever the crumple button, it packs a wallop and has an impact on you that may not apply to others - including the person who pushed it.

"I" statements. An important element in being assertive is acknowledging your feelings to the other person - "I feel guilty...", "I find this difficult ..."

Beware: contrast "That was a stupid thing to do." with "I think that was a stupid thing to do". Same difference! Prefacing your statement with “I” is no guarantee. Saying "I feel angry...", "I am upset.."is a good starting point, but then the rest of the statement needs to be equally assertive. Calling someone stupid is an act of aggression no matter how you package it. The temptation to do so may be overwhelming, but you can - and should - stop yourself. 

In real life you find out that one beautifully crafted assertive statement is not enough. Anger seeps out into your voice, your body language - the non-verbal communication speaks louder than words. So, getting your emotions under control at the same time you channel them positively to address a problem that needs to be surfaced and discussed, is an emotional balancing act that requires skill and practice.

You need to be prepared for the fact that the other person may not be listening. So when you launch an often heavily-charged statement - again, no matter how assertive - it is bound to generate defensiveness because the person feels under attack. Listening and acknowledging the feelings of the other person helps reduce the level of defensiveness and reach an understanding.

More about listening later, first  ...

Non-verbal communication

I - along with many others - referred to Mehrabian's research on how we tend to decode messages that involve some level of emotion:  7% words, 38% tone of voice and 55% non-verbal (e.g. facial expression). Staggering findings. A cursory glance at the net shows that this research has been taken out of context and other researchers have criticized the methodology and thus the conclusions. As a non-scientist, my attitude is the numbers may not be accurate but we do tend to trust body language more than words in emotionally charged situations. As Mehrabian's research showed:  "... the non-verbal elements are particularly important for communicating feelings and attitude, especially when they are incongruent: If words disagree with the tone of voice and nonverbal behaviour, people tend to believe the tonality and nonverbal behaviour." 

Clearly, if we fidget or avoid eye contact or stoop or act in any way that undermines the meaning of the words we are conveying or contradicts the emotions we want to express, the other person senses the incongruence. Smiling while telling someone you are very angry doesn't work!

A session on non-verbal communication is an essential part of assertiveness training. When I ran an adapted workshop for colleagues whose posts had been abolished, I told them to act assertively (posture, eye contact, etc.) when been interviewed for a job because it would help them to truly be assertive. That just made sense to me. Then recently I saw a presentation over TED delivered by Amy Cuddy, a social psychologist who has done research that supports this feeling I had. The presentation was recorded in June 2012. Amy Cuddy’s research on body language reveals that we can change other people’s perceptions - and even our own body chemistry - simply by changing body positions. “Power posing” - standing in a posture of confidence, even when we don’t feel confident - can affect testosterone and cortisol levels in the brain, and might even have an impact on our chances for success. 

Being assertive = being clear on what you want... and what else you want

Even a seemingly simple situation like asking a waiter to return your overcooked steak and reminding him/her that you requested rare (that's how I prefer it!) can be difficult. Why? Because of the context and conflicting interests. You are unhappy about the food since it is not what you ordered, on the other hand, you are in the midst of an important and personal conversation with a friend. Contacting the waiter and getting what you had ordered would undoubtedly interrupt the flow of the conversation and, you fear, destroy the mood. What do you do? You decide - you choose - to eat the overcooked meat because you do not want to risk the change in mood that calling the waiter over would mean. Emphasis on you making a choice. That is being assertive. Others might choose differently. That's OK. How do you know whether you made the right choice? No emotional aftermath - you feel good about it. 

The exercise at the workshops I ran was designed to help participants think about a past situation where they did not act assertively and wished they had. They needed to think about what they wanted, and then think about whether there was anything else they wanted. Usually the "anything else" had to do with relationships and the fear of hurting someone else. That's the sticky part. Trying to figure out whether your fears are imaginary or real. Will you really hurt or deeply offend a good friend by letting her know that you would prefer to stay at home and read a book than have her over for a chat when she suggests it one particular evening? Is there a pattern to the relationship you need to examine?  If you refuse an unreasonable request at the workplace, are you really risking your job or is that an imaginary fear?

Working in pairs the participants had to note down: (1) what did I want from this situation? (2) what else did I want? are they compatible? (3) who were the people involved? (4) what would have been an assertive response? (5) what prevented you from acting assertively? what was your inner dialogue? (6) how did I suffer (what was the impact) by not acting assertively (7) what should I have done or said instead? 

When this exercise was "assigned", there was usually a collective groan. Sounded like any classroom when being given a math quiz! It was partly a reaction to the effort involved in thinking of an example that could be shared. And this points to one of the limitations of running this type of workshop at a workplace among colleagues. The examples involve other colleagues or managers, and they do not think it is appropriate to air these situations when they cannot ensure the anonymity of those involved, even though all participants pledge confidentiality. 

Usually they did manage to find a situation they wanted to work on that would not compromise someone else at the workplace - and would not make them feel too stupid in front of peers. The next hurdle was getting them to actually say the words. Yes, it felt awkward and strange - the point was, however, to give power to the words by saying them out loud. Practice, practice, practice. It will help next time round. That is, of course, if it is a situation involving a verbal exchange. I only realized at the end of the exercise that one of the participants had chosen a situation involving road rage - not something that lends itself to assertive response! The assertive (mature!) response to such a stimulus would be to just let it go. Move on, literally.

Stimulus - response

One of the opening exercises at the workshop was to brainstorm all possible behaviours to a stimulus (someone on your team is not pulling their weight; someone is always asking favours from you; you are tired and want to spend the evening alone, someone you know comes by .... etc.).

It was always interesting to watch the group dynamics. Some groups had a hard time listing negative behavioural reactions (shout, slam door, and so on). Remember the exercise was to generate a list of any type of behaviour - no matter how inappropriate or non-productive. Other groups laughed and squealed as they allowed themselves to - at least on paper - react aggressively. Letting it out.

The object of the exercise was to make participants aware that to any one stimulus, there were a variety of responses - and that the knee-jerk response, the immediate one, didn't have to be the one they used. There is a gap between stimulus and response where we can choose the appropriate reaction.

How to express negative feelings - especially anger - assertively was the question everyone asked. And the answer is easy in theory, difficult in practice (understatement!). Feelings will out one way or another. Self-disclosure is a good starting point: "I feel nervous about xxx", "It is difficult for me to ask, however yyy", "I feel angry about zzz". "The immediate effect of this is to reduce your anxiety. It allows you to relax and take command of yourself.  When we feel confident and secure, the overall physical sensation is relaxation. ... we feel looser and stronger." (Dickson, p.66)

Assertiveness? What's that?

So back in 1987, armed with tons of material I launched the first assertiveness workshop at my international, i.e. multicultural, workplace. In my nearly monolingual brain, I had not reckoned on the need to explain what assertiveness meant. We'd do that as part of the workshop, I thought. Fun to explore together, I thought. According to colleagues (who collectively represented more than 40 different nationalities) there didn't seem to be an equivalent in their mother-tongues. Directly translated into Danish, for example, "assertiveness" took on a negative connotation. More like "annoyingly persistent". The closest positive translation was "self-confidence building". Which, granted, is at the heart of being assertive but still not a translation. Working around that came much later as the workshop evolved. For now, I was set on running workshops on assertiveness - with strong support from the staff development officer at the time (thank you again, CM!).

Barraged by questions by potential participants, I realized I had to communicate this in a way everyone would understand, so the text on the announcement stated: I know that you believe you understand what you think I said but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

That got them. Everyone could relate to that!

How did I "translate" assertiveness during the workshop? Not in one word - rather a series of key words that we continued to add to: Honest, direct, empathetic communication, respecting the rights of others while asserting your own rights. At the very start of the workshop, participants - usually women but some men - were asked to supply key words and concepts they associated with the word "assertiveness". No problem. They all had a sense of the behaviour, even though it could not be directly translated from English. 

And they were all eager to react to difficult situations more assertively. The big question was whether they could really do it at the workplace. Could they say no to a manager's request to do a particular task at the end of the day, which would mean having to work overtime? Note, most often with no compensation, neither time nor money.

Saying no

Again, back in the 80s, assertiveness training was popular  - not only for individuals but at workplaces. Why? Was this type of training really supported by line managers? Did they even know that their staff had enrolled? Hard to say now. I do know that my own supervisor, a mild mannered Brit, was aghast that I would be teaching co-workers how to "say no". "You can't say no here", he said. My reply was that staff wouldn't just be bluntly refusing a request or neglecting their jobs. They would still be committed to fulfilling their duties. It just seemed reasonable to me, at the time, that staff should be able to refuse - nicely - unreasonable requests. The question was how to define “reasonableness”.

Assertiveness became part of the training programme at my workplace, because of a proposal made by a study group on stress management. At least, that’s how I like to think it happened! The study group was composed of "we, the people". By not being able to set limits, staff were suffering. The energy and commitment they once had was being drained. Burn-out was a real threat. 

This is supported by the literature - lack of assertiveness has severe health impacts, both on individuals and organizations. There is a danger in saying yes when you actually mean know. Your body is screaming - “say no, please say no”. Our bodies are sinking as our mind abandons ship. Doing that often will have negative effects over the long term, both on you and your relationships. "When you do not remain true to  your own needs and wishes, when you put aside a heartfelt 'no' for a half-hearted 'yes', do not kid yourself that it does not matter. The heartfelt 'no' will seek expression through some outlet. A refusal if not open and direct will always emerge somehow indirectly." (Dickson, p. 52). 

This is where cultural differences really emerged.  For some, the right to assert oneself at the workplace was obvious. They just needed to be more skilled at communicating it, they felt. Others strongly felt that they did not have the right to set limits. They were working for the public good - they was no such thing as "work/life balance". The American refrain I had grown up with -  "happy workers are productive workers" - did not necessarily chime with my colleagues from other parts of the world. "Personal happiness is not the issue. It's about duty.", a colleague informed me. Still, there was a strong interest across different cultures - especially among women - to develop assertive communication skills.

Word of caution: "saying no" is a slogan. It is more about being able to set reasonable limits and finding alternative solutions, when possible. This approach is especially important at the workplace. Flatly saying no to a request from a manager can be risky (duh) - it depends on the work climate, staff/management relations and the rights of the employees. That does not necessarily mean we have to say yes all the time, regardless. A fair distribution of work is a reasonable expectation. And this is not just about job descriptions and contractual arrangements. It's the grey area I'm talking about. Take the example of peak performers - those staff whose managers tend to ask again and again to do certain tasks because they know they will be done well and in time. Gold Star. Peak performers are people who tend to work "above and beyond" and get an energy boost doing that  - until they hit the wall and suffer burn-out. Meanwhile, their co-workers become increasingly demotivated. Why bother when you have someone in the team who always eagerly raises their hand first? A managerial issue. So help the manager out by saying no at least once in a while and ensure that someone else on the team is ready and capable of doing the task instead.

In sum, “saying no” is about setting reasonable limits - in public and private life.

Hurricane hits London 1987

I was sent to a train-the-trainer workshop in London (thank you, CM!) It was a two-day course on assertiveness. On the eve of day one, a nasty hurricane swept through London. Trees went down. Cars were smashed. Public transport was blocked. Major delays. So, rather difficult to get from A to B. That meant the facilitator had to cope with starting up on day two with less than half the participants in the room. I was in awe of her ability to improvise and re-direct the course so that late-comers could catch up. This was one of the biggest lessons - facilitators need to navigate, redirect and reach the end point, regardless of the challenges along the way. Plan for contingencies - like hurricanes!

"Process", she said, "is just as important as content." Workshops, meetings, have a flow, a dynamic that the facilitator needs to take into account in the design of the event. And of course also needs to be highly conscious of throughout the event. Ice-breakers, post-lunch energizers and other types of exercises that get participants out of their seats and even laughing  (Gosh!) and jumping around are not a diversion from the real substance of the meeting. They are an integral part of reaching desired outcomes by the end of the day. Because results are dependent on the people in the room wanting to be there, wanting to work together, wanting to approach old issues in innovative ways. 

Oh yes, and assertiveness ... the content of the workshop! Assertiveness training was a big deal in the 80s. One of the key people working in this field at that time was Anne Dickson. In 1982 she published A woman in your own right. Assertiveness and you. Although aimed at women, men were not excluded. She also developed a programme for Channel 4 called Assert yourself. The 4-part series was narrated by Andrew Sachs - well known then as now for his role in Fawlty Towers as Manuel. A perfect choice to illustrate that assertiveness - or lack thereof - is not just a women's issue. Search Assert Yourself on YouTube to find clips.

Dickson today

So now in 2013, I was curious to find out what would happen when I re-read the book. Would it seem dated? Both content and tone? Turns out I was as engaged in re-reading, as I was in reading it the first time. Dickson is still relevant - which is sad news. That is, sad that there is still a need among younger generations. Assertive behaviour is based on a sense of self-worth and esteem. I can see from a search on the web that assertiveness training is still being offered. Just observing young people I come in contact with confirms that Dickson's stories of Dulcie (doormat), Agnes (aggressive), Ivy (indirectly aggressive) speak to us today. The Selmas (assertive) are still in a minority. The lack of self-confidence and esteem is pernicious. By the way, Anne Dickson updated her book, which was re-published in 2012. I'm still using my dog-eared copy from the 80s. In her preface Anne Dickson explains that the book "is designed to help women who feel that the are too passive, too aggressive, or too manipulative. It explains how to be assertive instead. It is about basic patterns of behaviour and how to change them." (p. xi).

We regard each one of those non-assertive behaviours as negative, yet we all tend to adopt one or more of those reactions in times of stress and anxiety. The instincts of flight or fight are so ingrained that we need to make tremendous efforts to learn new behaviours to overcome them. Don't know whether we will mutate into beings where assertiveness becomes instinctive. Seems that is the best way to ensure survival of the species. Being naive? Perhaps.

Assertion of what? Of basic human rights. Do we know what they are? Do we feel that we can apply them to ourselves - at home, in relationships, at work? No, not really. This is where it gets fuzzy.

The point

The insights I have made over the years - lots of years - may not be earthshaking to anyone else but me. I like the idea of a blog, though. Could be that what I have learned - and have yet to learn - resonates with someone out there. Someone perhaps in a part of the world I have never seen, someone I have never met. Or could be someone I know, where we have never had the possibility of sharing thoughts like this.

The intention is to record my professional journey, which started in the mid-1980s  - and test its relevance today. As an American, as someone who grew up in the 50s and 60s in a middle-class home as part of a multicultural NYC environment, I have been privileged - Maslow got it right. Survival needs were covered. Assertiveness, interpersonal communication, listening, cross-cultural communication, these were the areas I developed an interest in. Whatever I learned I tried to pass on to others. Just as it was passed on to me. Since I learn through both reading and interaction, I will refer to several key works that paved my way. Now almost 30 years later, I am re-reading some of the material that spoke to me, curious about whether it is still relevant today. The answer is basically yes. “Normal” people are still in need of help when "normal" everyday interactions go awry. I can’t answer the why - explanations point to psychological, social, cultural, gender factors that run deep. The good news, though, is that it is learned behaviour which we can change. “We can learn to stop and remind ourselves that others may not mean what we heard them say.” (Deborah Tannen, That’s not what I meant! p. 14). More on Tannen later. Now for a word or two on assertiveness ...