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.