Conversation Manager is one of the three roles we need to play well if we are to get the most from our conversations.
The essence of the Conversation Manager role is looking after the well-being of the conversation, making sure it functions well, from start to finish. Since dialogue is the most effective form of conversation there is, the role of Conversation Manager can be seen as monitoring and guiding the conversation so that it remains as close to the ideal of dialogue as possible — for example, by ensuring that the participants take turns at talking and listening, a basic requirement of effective two-way communication.
It’s useful to think of think of conversational management in terms of two processes — monitoring and intervening.
The goal of monitoring is to keep a watching eye on the conversation’s ‘control panel’. How well is the interaction working? Are there any signs of distress or strain? What states of mind are you and other person experiencing? What sort of progress is the conversation making? How much time is left? What points remain to be discussed?
Suppose your monitoring activities identify a problem. For example, imagine you’re having a talk with your colleague, Bradley, about his poor time-keeping. Part way through the conversation, you realise that Bradley has become very defensive, and in this frame of mind is finding it hard to take in what you are saying. What you do then? You have two choices. You can choose to intervene privately or publicly.
If you decide to intervene privately, you might simply say to yourself, “It’s time to back off Bradley until he’s calmed down.” So you switch the subject to a lighter topic. Bradley knows nothing about what’s going on inside your mind.
Alternatively, you might choose to intervene publicly. For instance, you might say to
Bradley. “I can see this conversation is difficult for you. Why don’t we take a break for a couple of minutes and get some coffee?”
Both are ways of dealing with the situation from within the Conversation Manager role
If a conversation is particularly important or complex, it’s often useful to consciously prepare for it. First of all, know why you're having the conversation, what your purpose is. Second, get your story, message, point of view or case clear in your own mind. Third, think of the impact your conversation might have on both yourself and your conversational partner and determine how you might need to prepare yourself for the conversation and what you might need to do to help the other person hear what you have to say.
Pilots, before take-off, always run through a pre-flight checklist. The same idea can be helpful when you’re preparing for an important conversation. There are three priority questions you need to ask yourself. Why am I having this conversation? What is it I want the other person to understand (the Big Point)? What can (or should) I do to put the other person in a receptive frame of mind?
Consider an example. Larry is upset with Maria. She has been somewhat distant lately. Recently, when they were at a mutual friend's house for dinner, she made him the butt of a few jokes. Now, on impulse, he calls her. He has not made it clear to himself just why he is calling her. To punish her? To complain about being mistreated? To get back on track? To work things out? His failure to determine what he wants to achieve from the conversation creates a void. After a few sentences, Larry's emotions fill the void. The conversation disintegrates. Their relationship ends up in an even worse state than it was before the conversation.
If Larry had prepared, he might have said something like this to himself as to purpose: "I'm still ticked off at what Maria did and the cavalier way she did it. When I calm down, I'd like to do three things. First, I'd like to tell her how I reacted to what she said at dinner. Second, I'd like to know what was going on in her mind at the time. Third, I'd like to take stock of our relationship."
In this case Larry wants to get a number of things done. There are multiple purposes, none of which is to punish Maria.
It’s usually very helpful to get the main points you want to make clear in your own mind. Different people use different methods for doing this.
Some people think through what they want to say before the conversation, and even decide in advance how they will say it.
Others prepare by taking a moment immediately before the conversation to reflect on what it is they want to say.
Still others, think out loud. They use the conversation itself as a road to discovery. For them, clarity evolves through the dialogue.
Finally, some people realise during the conversation that they need more time to clarify for themselves what they want to say. They end up saying something like this, "What you've just said makes me realise that the point I'm trying to make is not clear enough in my own mind. Let's talk again once I've had a chance to think it through more carefully."
Whatever approach you use, your stories, messages, points of view and cases, will be understood by others only if you understand them yourself. If what you want to say is not clear in your own mind, you might begin the conversation by saying something like this: "I've got a bunch of half-formed ideas. I'd like to bounce a few of them off you to see if I can develop some clarity."
Some conversations are more complicated, sensitive or difficult than others. In these cases, it can help to think ahead about the best way of approaching and conducting the conversation. You may have to prepare yourself, or your intended conversational partner. Larry wasn't in the right frame of mind to talk with Maria but he barged ahead anyhow.
Calvin wants to talk with his relatively new neighbour, Ted, about his daughter, Marjorie. She plays music very loudly whenever she’s home alone. Calvin doesn’t want to ‘squeal’ on Marjorie, nor does he want to create any bad blood between himself and Ted. But neither does he want his family subjected to endless rap music. He has talked with Marjorie a few times. She turns the music down for a while, but it's soon back to full volume. The same old story. She isn’t getting the message.
First, Calvin needs to prepare himself. He hates bringing bad news to people therefore he often suffers in silence. So he realises that he has to ‘psych himself up’ to talk with Ted. He does so by reminding himself how important this is, not just for himself, but his family. He also tells himself that it's the right thing to do. He thinks of ways of getting his message across without alienating Ted, and without indicting Marjorie.
At other times, your conversational partners might not be ready to listen to what you have to say. They may be distracted. Your message might take them by surprise. They might be immersed in their own concerns. And so forth. Therefore, at times it can be helpful to reflect on how your story or message might ‘play’ with any given conversational partner. If you think there might be some difficulty but it’s still important to have the conversation, determine what you might do to put your partner in the right frame of mind.
Calvin doesn't know Ted well enough to know how he might react. After all, Ted could see Calvin's remarks as an attack on his daughter, or an insult to his own parenting skills. He opts for the ‘soft sell’, but he realises that he still has to get his point across forcefully enough to get results. "I mustn’t say it and then take it back as I often do," he says to himself. The following conversation takes place over the fence, after some opening small talk.
Calvin begins, "Ted, could I talk to you ‘off the record’, so to speak?”
Ted, looking a bit taken aback, replies, "Why sure, Calvin. What's on your mind?"
Calvin goes on, "Well, it's about Marjorie. It's a little annoyance, but I don't want to get her into hot water." He explains the situation.
Ted listens attentively, then, smiling, says, "Marjorie's a great young woman. But she's still a teenager with all the baggage that entails . . . Here's how I'd like to handle it. I'll be open with her. I'll tell her we've talked. And I'll make it clear that this is no way to treat decent neighbours. I'm also going to tell her about your concern not to get her into trouble. That will soften the whole thing . . . And what do you mean – ‘little annoyance’? We find it very annoying. You notice that we don't let it happen when we're around."
In retrospect, Calvin probably did not need to be so careful. But he was careful because he didn't know how Ted would react.
Consider another situation. Rosemary wants to talk with her sister, Nellie, and her brother-in-law, Conrad, about an upcoming family gathering at their house. The members of the family have a lot of fun at these annual affairs. For some, it’s the only time they see one another. They change the location of the gathering from year to year, but they need a house large enough to accommodate everyone.
One of Rosemary and Nellie's nephews, Brendan, who is gay, has found out within the past year that he is HIV-positive. Most family members know this by now. Brendan has become very sensitive about being rejected, especially by family members. He wants to come to the family gathering and participate fully. Nellie and Conrad have a swimming pool at their house. Recently, Brendan was ejected from a swimming pool when the owner found out that he was HIV-positive. Finally, Rosemary knows that Conrad is a bit homophobic. Rosemary mulls all of this over in her mind in preparing for a conversation with Nellie and Conrad.
Here are some of her musings.
"I guess it's best to talk with Nellie first. She and I are on the same wavelength on most things. We both know Brendan, though I'm much closer to him than she is. I can have an all-issues-on-the-table conversation with her. Understanding where Conrad stands on Brendan's participation in the reunion needs to be one of these issues. I need to find out if there's going to be any kind of problem.
"It might be good for Nellie to have a preliminary conversation with Conrad. But I want to tell her that I'm willing to have a meeting with her and Conrad, or with Conrad alone. I'm not sure whether I'm making something out of nothing. I need to discuss this with Nellie. And if she wants me to talk with Conrad, then I need her advice on how to go about it."
Rosemary is having a conversation with herself about laying the groundwork for what could be an important and sensitive conversation later on.
When it comes to preparing for conversations, it's essential to remember that the best conversations are dialogues. The other party, or parties, may well have opinions with respect to what the purpose of the conversation should be and what groundwork should be laid. Sometimes it's possible to have a conversation about the conversation before it takes place. Rosemary intends to have such a conversation with her sister. And she might need one with Conrad.
To sum up, when you prepare for important conversations, these simple questions can be a great help:
1. What is my purpose? What do I want to achieve through this conversation?
2. What are the main points I want to get across?
3. How do I prepare both myself, and the person I'm talking to, for the kind of conversation we're going to have?
The importance of these questions depends on the nature of the conversation. Obviously, simple conversations about relatively unimportant matters usually do not require a great deal of forethought. However, if the message is more complex, the time spent answering these questions before the conversation takes place, is often time well-spent.
Here are two situations that represent opposite ends of the spectrum. Both involve messages left by your friend Bert on your answering machine.
In the first, Bert says, "Hi. I’ll meet you in front of the theatre at 8:15 this evening. The show begins at 8:30. I'm assuming that you'll be bringing the tickets with you. Give us a ring just to confirm everything’s okay."
Responding to the message doesn’t warrant much by the way of advance thinking.
But what if the situation were more complex? Let's assume that the world changes. This time the message on your answering machine from Bert says that you’ve both been invited to a last-minute farewell party being given by Danielle, a mutual friend. Bert has decided to go and skip the theatre.
He adds, "Why don't you see if you can get rid of my ticket. If you can’t, I’ll still pay for it."
To complicate things a bit more, you decide that you, too, would like to go to Danielle’s party. But you have a friend in the cast of the play and don't want to let her down.
It's mid-afternoon. You have a few minutes to prepare for your conversation with Bert. How would you answer the four questions above? Take a few minutes to think you way through this situation.
Someone might say, "Come on! People don't go around preparing for conversations. That's too much logic in an illogical world. Conversations should be free-flowing. Anyway, doesn't preparing fly in the face of the uncertainty of outcome that is supposed to be characteristic of dialogue?"
What shall we say? Of course conversations should be free-flowing. But going off half-cocked in critical interpersonal situations is usually less than helpful. You will have to decide for yourself which conversations merit some degree of preparation. If people spent more time thinking about important conversations, there would be less guilt and regret after they are over.
Furthermore, preparing for an important conversation does not mean unilaterally deciding on what the outcome should be. The purpose of preparation is to do whatever you can to foster a decent dialogue, not engineer it for your own personal benefit. Therefore, if some preparation will add value to both the conversation and the relationship, do it.
Dialogue goes better if both conversational partners understand the purpose of the conversation. Think for a moment about why we talk. There's always a reason or a combination of reasons behind every conversation. It could be anything from making a plan or discussing a problem to just getting to know someone better. If you don’t give your conversational partner a reason for having the conversation, then they’ll make one up. It’s human nature to attribute motivations to other people’s actions. We often assume the worst-case scenario. For instance, if someone fails to return a phone call, we assume it’s because they no longer care for us, not because they’ve lost our number.
So it is with conversations. If you don’t make it clear why you’re having a particular conversation, the other person will automatically assign a reason — which might be completely wrong. You think Anne is out to ‘get you’, when what she really wants to do is help you learn from your mistakes.
Let's list, in no particular order, a few of the reasons why we have conversations:
To get a point of view across
To gain clarity about a project
To deliver a message
To close a deal
To plan for the future
To get the right kind of medical care
To identify, clarify, and solve problems
To identify and develop opportunities
To deal with conflicts
To pass the time of day
To relax and have fun
To build relationships
To develop intimacy
To clarify one's thinking
To clear up a misunderstanding
It’s evident that there are not just a few reasons for conversations. There are hundreds if not thousands. The issue is making sure the other person has the same vision of the conversation as you. If you and I don't share the same purpose in our conversation, then we’ll probably end up talking at cross-purposes. Let's consider a few examples.
Suppose Mary wants to tell you about her day at the office as a way of unloading her anxiety. Her expectation is that you will listen to her story, capture her point of view, and show some understanding. However, if you fail to understand what Mary wants, you may begin talking about careers in general. Then you and Mary are talking at cross-purposes. That's not what Mary wants.
Suppose you want to talk to Francis, in order to sort out your own thinking. It's amazing how often we discover what we really think only when we hear ourselves saying it. Francis listens carefully, shows that he understands your point of view, and shares some of his own experiences that help you sort out your thinking. You are not talking at cross-purposes.
Suppose you want to talk to Yvette just to get to know her better. You'd like to become closer friends with her. Yvette talks freely about some things, for instance, her political views, but she is quite hesitant to talk about more intimate things. Since you are quite open about yourself, you find her hesitancy a bit annoying. For you, the conversation is less than satisfactory. You and Yvette are talking at cross-purposes.
Suppose Gail wants to have a chat about nothing in particular. She just wants to pass the time enjoyably without dealing with any particular issue, certainly not world-shattering issues. It may just be Gail's way of saying that she enjoys spending time with you. This is fine with you. You enjoy spending time with her, too. You are not talking at cross-purposes.
If you understand what the other person wants from the conversation, you can be clear about your role as a partner in the conversation.
Having a shared purpose doesn’t mean that you have to state explicitly at the beginning of each conversation what it’s about. What a stilted world that would make for! If Jason opens a conversation by saying, "The most wonderful thing happened to me at work today!" - then it’s pretty clear that he would like to talk to you about what happened. If Jill starts by saying softly, "About last night . . . I think I owe you an apology," it’s fairly clear that she’d like to straighten things out.
Of course, any given conversation may have multiple purposes. Most do. Jill talks to Jack in order to start the decision-making process about where to send their son to school, to apologise for her unreasonable anger the night before, and to relax a bit now that their son has gone to bed. Jack shares these purposes and has a couple of his own.
The main point is this. It's often a good idea to understand the reason why a conversation is taking place - both from your perspective and from the perspective of your conversational partner. Only then can both of you have a clear idea of what part each can play to help fulfil the conversation's purpose.
Imagine you’re having a one-to-one meeting with a close colleague, Belinda. You explain what you’d like to talk about. “It’d be great if we could sort out when we’re taking our holidays this summer, so we aren’t both away at the same time.”
Belinda replies, “Fair enough, but at the same time, I’d like to talk about my current workload, which is beginning to overwhelm me — even without taking holidays into account.”
Since your intention is to have a genuine dialogue, it’s fair enough that Belinda negotiates the scope of the conversation so that her interests are taken into account as well.
You quickly agree to Belinda’s suggestion and you go on to have a very satisfactory conversation, since Belinda is now as keen as you are to make it work.
One of the key responsibilities of the Conversation Manager role is ‘conducting’ the conversation so that it follows the two-way flow of dialogue. Some conversations fall naturally into turn-taking. Others require a more hands-on approach — consciously inviting yourself or the other person into the conversation to stimulate and regulate turn-taking.
One of the first conversational habits drilled into young people is the concept of turn-taking. Turn One: You speak, I listen. Turn two: I speak. You listen. Overall, both sides get the chance to be heard and understood — a basic principle of effective communication. Unfortunately, by adulthood, these early lessons often seem to have been forgotten.
One of the most crucial responsibilities of the Conversation Manager role is making sure the conversation conforms to the most fundamental requirement of dialogue — that the participants take turns at being in the Explainer/Teller and Understander roles.
There’s a balancing act involved.
One the one hand, you need to stay in a particular role until the job is done. For example, if you are talking to your solicitor about suing a building contractor for botching a job, then you want to persist in the Explainer/Teller role until you are sure that the lawyer’s understanding on this particular point is clear and concrete. Similarly, when the lawyer is presenting you with his interpretation on a particular point of law, you want to stay in the Understander long enough to be confident that your understanding is clear and complete.
On the other hand, you want to keep the conversation flowing in both directions. Conversations work best when the participants switch roles regularly, so that a state of continuous mutual understanding is created and maintained.
In effective dialogue, both parties move in and out of both Explainer/Teller and Understander roles in order to serve the purpose of the conversation.
Let's eavesdrop on a conversation between Jeff and his wife, Martha. They are talking about Jeff's visit to the doctor. Martha does not simply listen. At times, she shares some of her experiences with the same doctor.
For instance, when Jeff is talking a bit vaguely about what troubled him when the doctor was talking about the results of his exam, Martha says, "You know, when he was talking with me about the results of my exam, I had a funny feeling that he wasn't telling me everything."
She moves into the Explainer/Teller role, sharing her experience with Jeff.
When Jeff responds, "That's it! That's what was bothering me!" it's clear that Martha was not hijacking the conversation for her own purpose but sharing her experience as of way of helping Jeff put his finger on what was bothering him. Effective communicators switch easily between the two roles, while still maintaining focus, and pursuing the overall purpose of the conversation.
The time spent by conversational partners in either the Explainer/Teller or the Understander role will differ from conversation to conversation.
Since conversations are not neatly engineered products, they are not fifty-fifty propositions. In the conversation between Jeff and Martha, Jeff spends more time in the Explainer/Teller role and Martha more time in the Understander role. When Martha is talking about a health problem her mother is having, she spends more time in the Explainer/Teller role.
For effective dialogue, both parties need both Explainer/Teller and Understander skills. People who are described, passively, as ‘good listeners’ might actually be poor communicators because they do not actively involve themselves in the conversation, and might well lack the Explainer/Teller skills to engage in true dialogue. In fact, many so-called ‘good listeners’ are not even good at listening, which, as we shall see in the Understander section of the Guide, is an active, rather than a passive, role.
Let's say that Zelda is trying to come up with a plan that will enable her both to keep working, and to go to university. She's thirty now and wants to finish her university degree. It will open the doors to further career opportunities.
Her friend, Vincent, is a willing conversational partner, who wants to be of help. This does not mean, however, that he must remain stuck in the Understander role. In fact, if he does nothing but encourage the flow, feedback highlights, and probe a bit, he might not be as helpful as he could be. Vincent can also help by sharing his own experiences and points of view that relate to the issues Zelda is grappling with. When he does this, he moves naturally into the Explainer/Teller role, while still helping her with her agenda.
At one point Zelda says, "My fear is that I'll take on too much. Then I'll end up not doing justice to either my studies, or my work."
Vincent, moving into the Explainer/Teller role but staying with Zelda's agenda, replies, "Like getting the worst of both worlds . . . I think I had a taste of that. I worked full-time in a supermarket, while I did a full load of courses at university. I could just about do it. But I had no other life. Maybe if I had been enjoying university more, it wouldn’t have seemed so hard. But for me both university and work ended up being drudgery."
Zelda responds, "That's just what I don't want to happen. I'm not so worried about the university part. The courses I'll be taking are the ones I enjoy. But that doesn't mean they won't be work."
Zelda senses that she could benefit form Vincent's experience.
He goes on to say, "A couple of things. I reduced my load at university a bit by choosing a secondary subject I was already familiar with. And I changed jobs. I got a position where I could do some reading — being a security guard. The pay wasn’t quite as good. But I got a lot course reading done that way."
Zelda finds Vincent's account of his own struggle quite helpful. It makes her think of issues she had passed over. For instance, university work, even when enjoyable, is still time consuming. They go on to do some problem solving, with Vincent sharing his experience and points of view, as they seem relevant.
The issue of conversational rights comes up here. Vincent has to decide what he wants to share with Zelda and what he wants to keep to himself. Since the problem revolves around working and going to university at the same time - something that Vincent has done himself - he has some experiences and points of view that might get Zelda thinking. Since these experiences are not that personal, he is willing to share any that would help.
Of course, if Vincent were to get lost in his own experiences and points of view, then he would be, for all practical purposes, hijacking the conversation. The point is that the experiences and points of view shared should be relevant to Zelda's agenda. This is not the time for Vincent to show how clever he is.
Exercising your conversational rights requires both skill and assertiveness. For instance, if the Explainer/Teller is, even inadvertently, hogging the conversation, you have every right to get your legitimate needs met. This means making a conscious move into the Explainer/Teller role.
Here are a couple of examples. Your friend, Nan, has been talking about a problem she’s been having with her boyfriend. You have been helping her work through it more creatively than she has done up to now. However, it seems that she could go on talking about this forever. But you’ve had enough. You're tired. You'd just like to relax for a while, and chat and gossip.
So you say, "I think that we're getting somewhere with this, but to tell you the truth, I need a break. Let's just talk for a while, you know, about anything. My bet is that you'll think of other possibilities by the time we meet tomorrow. We can take it up again then."
You affirm the value of what you were doing together, state your own needs, and give some indication of how the two of you might get back to the other's agenda.
In this next example, you have an issue or agenda that you'd like to discuss, but the Explainer/Teller never gives you an opening to do so. If this is the case, seize an opening for yourself. The situation is this. You're in a car with your parents going to visit an uncle for dinner. Perhaps prompted by the imminent visit, they are talking almost exclusively about what's going on with other relatives. You think that this would be a great time to discuss your plans for moving out of the house and into your own apartment.
And so you test the waters, saying,” I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I thought it would be a good idea for me to start thinking of getting my own place. Not because of you guys but because I think it's time. Well, I've got some plans and I'd like to run them by you."
In this case, you interrupt your parents' small talk with an agenda that is important for you. Interrupting small talk with an agenda that needs discussion is not really a hijack. However, you may want to say something like this: "I know you two are relaxing, but I wonder if it would be all right to talk about my getting my own place." This gives your parents a chance to exercise their conversational rights.
But even if the other person's agenda is important, your agenda has its own importance and you have your rights.
Let's say that your friend is telling you about the success he had in making a big sale with a client. You are with him. But you've just had a run-in with a colleague at work and this is bothering you.
When you see an opening you say, "Well, sad to say, I'm on the other side of the coin. You're on the joy side. I'm on the agony side. Well, maybe not complete agony, but here's what happened between Chester and me at work today. He was . . ."
Your friend's celebration is important, but so is your need to share your plight. Of course, he still has his conversational rights. But he is your friend.
People often make remarks such as, "She just sat there. She said practically nothing. I'm not sure whether she knows how important this subject is." Such statements don't make conversational sense. While it's admirable to respect other people's style, preferences, and privacy, there's also a limit. Communicators in both Explainer/Teller and Understander roles have the right to ‘invite others in’. That is, into a dialogue. If others don't get involved in dialogue of their own accord, invite them!
Consider this example. Ned is talking to Paulette, his neighbour, about the forthcoming election for governors at the school where they both have children. Ned gives his views. Paulette seems to be totally tuned in. Her nonverbal behaviours indicate that she is not only there but involved. Yet her verbal responses are minimal. Things like "yes" and "sure" and "why not" and "of course not." But not much more. Ned thinks that he has given her a number of openings, but if he has, she hasn't entered. He knows that she has both opinions and the communication skills to express them.
Finally, he says, "I am going on and on here. Paulette, I know you've got a lot of ideas about the school. What goes through your mind as you think about the elections for school governors?"
He invites her in. She looks a little flushed but says, "I'm saying to myself how much sense you're making. And you're right. I do have lots of thoughts about the school and how it ought to develop. But, to tell you the truth, I'm not sure how much power governors have — at least at this school. They just seem to go along with what the head teacher and chairman say. There’s no real debate. And if that's the case, then what good are the elections?"
The invitation works. The cork is out of the bottle. She shares her point of view. It becomes clear why Paulette didn't want to talk about the board. She doesn't see the board as adding much value. But now that she has stated her opinion, she and Ned can get on with the problem-solving dialogue.
Inviting your conversational partners to dialogue takes two major forms.
The first is inviting others to discuss key areas of your story (SAME), message (MRI), point of view (PRE), or case (CRITIC).
The second is turning the Explainer/Teller role over to your partner.
If there are times when your partner's involvement is particularly important, invite them in if they don't come in spontaneously.
Let's say that you're telling a story about a conference you attended. An important part of the background revolves around the conference hotel. You ask your partner whether she has ever been there. She indicates that she has.
Then you say, "Tell me what your experience was like."
She says a little bit about her stay and her opinion of the hotel. Since the location plays a big part in your story, getting your partner's point of view helps set the scene. You can do the same with other parts of your story. For instance, you say, "I tried to get room service for about twenty minutes without any luck. How about you?" This deals with what she did and what happened to her (A and E in the SAME framework).
Your message involves background, the decision you or others have made, the reasons for it, the implications for yourself and others, and the connections among all these elements. If any of these is especially critical, invite your conversational partner in. Woody has been talking with his teenage daughters about his decision to take a job in a different city. This means that they will have to change secondary schools and leave their friends. This is a critical part of the message.
Woody says, "I know that there is some pain in this for the two of you. And I'd like to talk about it with you. I see two brave faces, but I'd like to know what's going on inside."
Once given the opportunity, one daughter says, "My friends can't believe I'll be gone next year. Amy actually burst out crying and couldn't even talk to me."
The three of them go on to discuss the pain and then the opportunities of moving. At the end, all are satisfied they got a chance to ‘clear the air’, although this does not miraculously take the pain away. Dad realises that they will probably have to ‘clear the air’ a number of times.
Peter, a career sergeant in the infantry, realises that he has adopted a point of view that is not popular with his peers. It has to do with the role of the infantry, in a world where combat is quite different from what it used to be, when there were ‘real’ wars. He is talking with a Neil, a fellow soldier who has been in the army ten years longer than he has.
He says, "Neil. I know you don't like the idea of the infantry adopting a radically new role in combat, but I'd like to discuss the reasons why I think that it's important to do so. I hope you don't think that I'm looking for ‘change for the sake of change’?"
So Peter signals his desire to have a dialogue, rather than have Neil listen - sullenly - to a recitation of reasons why change is necessary. He goes on to say,
"For instance, I'd like to get your view of the role of the infantry in possible chemical warfare situations. I know you hate the idea, but I also know that you’re very realistic about things like that."
They go on to discuss and debate reasons for a new role for the infantry.
The ingredients in making a case include necessary background or context, the clear presentation of the case itself, the reasons why it should be adopted, the interests of concerned stakeholders, the time needed to review and digest it, a clear indication of the presenter's own interests, openness to reasonable manoeuvring or compromise, and the connections among all of these. Some of these items may be more important than others and therefore need dialogue to give them shape. If this is true, don't leave the dialogue to chance. Invite your conversational partners in.
For instance, Sissy, a key member of the Centenary Celebration Committee has indicated what she will get "nothing out of it" if the church adopts her approach to the centenary celebration.
But then she catches herself and says to her fellow committee members, "Wait a minute. I probably wouldn't be lobbying for my approach if I personally wouldn't get anything out of it. It would help if we were to explore that a bit."
The move is a good one because she discovers that some are bothered by the fact that “once more" she will "get her own way." The issue is credibility. Her fellow committee members provide her with some feedback but do so in a decent way. This proves to be helpful to Sissy, to the committee, and to the discussion of the centenary programme.
There is very funny scene in a movie starring Bette Midler. She is with a friend, talking endlessly about herself. She catches herself and says, "well, enough about me. Now you. What do you think about me?" this is not exactly what is meant by the turning the explainer/teller role over to your conversational partner.
There are times when it’s appropriate for the Explainer/Teller to ‘hold the mic’ for a longer period. For instance, when telling a relatively short story. Of course, there is nothing wrong with telling even shorter stories through dialogue. There are also times when it’s appropriate for Explainer/Tellers to ‘hand the Explainer/Teller role over’, as it were, to their conversational partners. This may be the case in a special way when the Explainer/Teller has been ‘holding the mic’ for a while.
Niall and Siobhan are members of a local dining club. The idea is to eat at a different restaurant every month, trying a range of cuisines and price ranges. Niall has been caught up in telling the story of a friend's visit to a certain restaurant. His friend didn't think much of it. But then he says, "But this is second-hand information. Do you know anything about it?" Siobhan has actually been to the restaurant and paints a completely different picture. They agree that the restaurant should be checked out once more.
Tyler is talking with Ida about his decision to sue his dentist for, as he says, ‘malpractice’. He gives his reasons and then gives a superficial account of the implications of his decision. All of this comes out as a ‘package’. But then he says, "What do you think of all of this?" Ida reflects for a moment and then says, "Let's go back to your reasons." She gives a tentative appraisal of one or two of his reasons, asks for clarification of another, and then says, "Well, how does this strike you, Tyler?" Tyler realises that suing is probably not such a hot idea after all and begins to discuss more reasonable ways of handling his complaints.
Kitty and Alfie are talking about a candidate for the board of the charity they both do voluntary work for. Kitty gives her appraisal. Alfie says, "Well, he sounds pretty good." Kitty counters by saying, "But you've actually worked with him. What's your view?" This is an over-to-you move. It's very helpful because sometimes Alfie is a bit too charitable in discussing others. But in this case, given the clear opportunity to be frank, he paints a picture of someone who probably should not be on the board.
Demetrious is making a case with his business partner, Costas, to add a third partner to their business venture. In spelling out his case, he hits most of the CRITIC ingredients.
Then he says, "This is my first go at this. I don't see any major flaws in the argument, but you may have a different angle."
Costas reflects for a while, then says, "Let me first summarise what I've heard." Which he does. Then he says, "Instead of just giving you my reaction to your argument, let me pretend that I'm a consultant with one of the big firms and tell you what I'd say in that position."
In his analysis of the business, Costas presents a counter-argument, the gist of which is that they don't need another ‘chief’, but two or three ‘worker bees’ to move things forward. This leads to a dialogue about just what kind of business they are building.
And so, inviting the other in can either focus on a specific issue, or involve the fuller over-to-you move. The main point is that good communicators, whether in the Explainer/Teller or Understander role, are committed to dialogue.
To recap on the main points please click on the headings below.
Conversations take place in a climate. Some climates are negative and have a corrosive influence on the conversation. For example, conversations whose climates are based on suspicion or distrust have little chance of producing a worthwhile outcome. On the other hand, conversations that take place in positive, supportive climates — such those based on mutuality and trust — have a much higher chance of success.
The biggest influence over the climate is the degree of respect present in the conversation. The moment someone in a conversation feels disrespected, the communication is in danger. The feeling of being respected (or disrespected) is a very powerful emotion that can easily override any other consideration. If you feel disrespected, it’s easy to lose your temper or give up on the conversation altogether. It’s also very difficult to listen well in this frame of mind.
For example, Seb finds it hard to respect people who’re not as smart as he is, so he finds dialogue with many people difficult since they often feel discounted or patronised by his manner. Simone has a similar problem. She is scornful of elderly people, whom she sees as ‘slow and boring’. This attitude comes across very clearly in her conversations with anyone over 50, where it is perceived as very disrespectful.
Everyone responds positively to being treated with respect — from a five year old, to the chairman of the board. There are no exceptions. The desire to be recognised as a valuable individual is at the heart of human nature.
Unfortunately, the word ‘respect’ has been hijacked by some sections of society to mean something akin to ‘fear’. So when a gang leader demands respect, what he actually wants is for the other person to feel frightened of him.
Feeling disrespected can exert a powerful influence over people. A recent television documentary contained an interview with a 20-year-old man who had just been convicted of stabbing another young man to death, for the offence of talking to his girlfriend. His justification for the murder was simple. “He dissed me in front of my friends. I had no choice but to kill him. Otherwise, everybody else would have started to diss me.”
That’s obviously an extreme case, but never underestimate the impact that disrespect can have on the climate of a conversation.
To look on the more positive side, there's a simple rule for establishing the right kind of climate for conversations. It's at least as old as the Bible.
Treat other people in the way you want to be treated yourself.
For instance, do you want other people to respect your right to hold your own opinions about things? Of course you do. Then by the fairness principle (everyone plays by the same rules), you must respect other people's right to hold points of view different from yours. This doesn't mean you have to agree with them, by the way. But it does mean you should devote the time and energy to understanding them, in just the same way you'd like to be understood yourself.
Creating the right climate for conversations begins with the assertion that all people are worthy of respect. Our need to communicate runs from routine conversations with a waiter, to complex conversations with family members, friends, co-workers, and employers. All deserve your respect and you deserve theirs.
Respect — and disrespect — has many faces.
We can display our respect, or lack of it, in a myriad of ways. Indeed, you could say that every aspect of how we communicate has the potential to be can be done in a respectful, or disrespectful, manner.
Take the basic function of paying attention — the bedrock of effective two-way communication. The disrespectful way to pay attention is to do it badly, to let your mind drift. In effect, this is a way of saying “I don’t think what you say is important enough to pay attention to, because I don’t think you are important.” The respectful way is to pay close attention, because this is a way of saying, “I value what you say, since I value you as a person.” Your body language radiates signals about your state of attention. For instance, a look of concentration is respectful. A yawn is most definitely not.
By infusing a conversation with genuine respect, you can go a long way towards having a successful dialogue simply on that factor alone.
While all people are worthy of respect, there are different modalities of respect. At one end of the scale respect takes the form of civility. At the other end, there is love and devotion. Civility is the basic requirement for engaging others in conversation. On the other hand, life would be rather bizarre if we had to treat everyone, everyday, with love and devotion.
Stephen Carter, in a book called Civility (1998) defines civility as, "the sum of the many sacrifices we are called upon to make for the sake of living together." That includes working together. Conversation is part of this bigger picture. There are sacrifices we must make in order to have effective dialogues with one another. Later in the book Carter says that, "Anything that interferes with dialogue is bad for civility." Carter believes that disputes are, in the first instance, best handled by conversation rather than legislation. Or edict. In sum, effective dialogue is impossible without the self-discipline required by civility.
Consider all those people who play a role in your life but are not family or close friends. There are clerks in shops, waiters and waitresses, counter people in fast-food outlets, ticket sellers at theatres, conductors on trains, flight attendants on airlines, and so forth. We hardly ever become fast friends with people who fill these essential roles, but they still deserve our respect. Civility? At least. Perhaps a little more. In the workplace some people become our close friends. We shy away from others. We may not like them and perhaps for good reason. But the starting point is still civility. Consider the following example.
Rowan has a problem. He's terrible with waiters and waitresses. In restaurants, he's demanding, short-tempered, never satisfied. Embarrassing for his dining partners. On the other hand, Jade inevitably strikes up a cordial relationship with people working in restaurants. No, she doesn't become fast friends with them. These relationships are necessarily short-term. But because of her style, the evening goes better for everyone. And she never gives the impression that she is manipulating the waiter or waitress in order to get better service or perks other diners would not get. Rather, this is just the way she is. More than civil.
Your relationships vary from those, which are the source of your happiness, to those which are the bane of your existence. The latter might include the ‘waiter from hell’. But respect has a wide reach. Civility with those you would sooner avoid but cannot, is part of the values package. Being civil in such cases does not make you a coward or a wimp. Besides, you have every right to give strong feedback to people who are offensive. Stick to your rights. But other people's rudeness need not govern your conversational behaviour.
Another way of looking at respect is to consider the ‘geometries’ of conversations and how this affects respect.
In the up-down structure, one person assumes, or is put into, the ‘up’ position, the one in authority, the one in control. The other person either adopts, or is cast in, the role of the confused or needy one, the down position.
Up-down conversations lead to people feeling patronised, belittled, or put down — all negative states of mind, barriers to dialogue.
In the solo-player structure, one party hogs the conversation. Others are there to listen to him or her and satisfy his or her needs.
Being squeezed out of a conversation feels deeply disrespectful. It says, “I don’t care what you think, or how you feel.”
In the straight-across structure, both people are full participants in the conversation.
Finally, there is the side-by-side structure. The parties in this geometry are working together, side-by-side, on common issues.
When Jeremy, a single parent, says to friends that he is having trouble with his son, he can expect different kinds of responses. Here are some of the reactions he gets.
Friend A says, "Jeremy, what you've just described is a classic picture. Let me tell you what will make a difference for you . . .”
Friend A, though perhaps well-meaning, engages in non-mutual problem-solving by dispensing advice. He adopts the role of the authority and sets the conversation in an up-down fashion. He is saying, in effect, "I, the informed, will tell you, the confused, how you should proceed." He is the ‘up’ in an up-down conversation.
Friend B says, "Jeremy, you think you have problems! My son and I can't seem to ask each other for the time of day, without ending up in an argument. His school work is a problem and asking him about it’s like walking in a mine field."
Friend B hijacks the conversations and begins to discuss her own problems. She puts her own concerns centre stage. There is no question of balance. She adopts the ‘solo-player’ position.
Friend C says, "Sounds like it's not easy being a single parent, Jeremy. Gee, there are two of us, my wife and I, and it's still not easy. What kinds of things are going on?"
Friend C is there as a buddy, straight-across, as it were. He expresses interest, not as a counsellor, or as an authority figure who has figured everything out, but as a friend. Their conversation is filled with give and take. It has balance.
Finally, Friend D says, "My wife and I are running into the same kind of problems with our daughter. Though with girls, I think it's probably a bit different. Let's compare notes."
Friend D enters the conversation as a ‘fellow traveller’ and the ensuing conversation is set on a mutual basis, where they can share their experiences side-by-side. Friend D is saying in effect, "I understand your experience. It's similar to my own. Let's talk a while and see if we can figure out something." The conversation not only has balance, but also symmetry.
Obviously straight-across and side-by-side geometries provide the best climate for dialogue-focused conversations.
In fairness you cannot say to yourself, "It's the other person's job to make this conversation interesting or productive." Nor is it fair to let your behaviour say in effect, "I will speak with you but it’s your job to take the initiative, to share ideas and feelings, and do all the work." This is like the person who comes to a meeting and sits and says nothing. When asked to share his thoughts, he announces, "I'm just here to observe." Or, imagine you are rowing a boat only to turn around and find your partner resting with the oars up or, worse, dragging in the water.
The idea of ‘fairness’ applies just as much to conversational behaviour as it does to other human interactions.
In the best of all worlds, both parties in a conversation of any substance take responsibility to make it a dialogue. In fact, in the very best of all worlds, each party is committed to going more than halfway in making sure that all of this happens.
This kind of good will creates an ‘overlap’ of responsibility that promotes dialogue.
When in the Explainer/Teller role, effective communicators try to make it easy for Understanders to get their main points by working hard at expressing themselves as clearly as possible, providing adequate but not excessive, detail and so forth.
Conversational partners, when in the Understander role, do whatever they can in order to listen to and understand, the points being made. They try to make it easy for Explainer/Tellers to tell their stories, deliver their messages, share their points of view, or make their cases. This ‘overlap’ of effort greatly helps.
The value of respect calls for both parties in a conversation to be active — sharing their thoughts and feelings, responding to what the other says, looking for ways to move the conversation forward. When a conversation gets off-track, both take it as their responsibility to get things back on track.
Karen and Len have been talking about re-doing their kitchen. The difficulty is finding a suitable builder.
Finally, Karen says, "Len, I'm afraid that we've become so desperate to get someone to do this job, we're not taking a hard look at the quality of the people we're talking to."
And Len replies, "You’re right. You know, every time I’ve thought of bringing up something negative about the a builder we've talked to, I’ve held back by saying to myself that you’d see it as me nit-picking. So let’s think again. What should we do about the kitchen?"
Karen and Leonard both play a role in resetting the conversation. They are co-operative. However, when conversations get awkward or difficult, it's tempting to bail out. Effective communicators stay engaged, unless they see that it would be better to defer - but not avoid - the conversation.
We all have rights of one kind or another. For example, we all have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. We have certain conversational rights as well. To take one example — we have the right to withdraw from a conversation if we think the other person is behaving too aggressively.
Understanding your rights, and those of other people, and choosing when to apply them, is an important aspect of being an effective Conversation Manager.
People who feel their rights have been ignored or violated will never join in a conversation to the full.
For instance, John has the right to talk to his 14 year daughter about her behaviour, no matter how reluctant she might be. On the other hand, if Sayed insists on talking to Chandra about his holiday plans, even though Chandra has already indicated that he’s late for a meeting, Sayed is violating Chandra’s conversational rights. Chandra has the right to say "Sorry, some other time," and leave. Always remember, however, that some conversations are simply too important to be delayed, even if the circumstances are less than perfect.
Let’s take a closer look at the whole subject of conversational rights.
Sometimes, the purpose and direction of a conversation seems to come from nowhere. It just happens. This is often the case when people are just chatting informally. Conversational partners find themselves talking about a range of things. Nothing has been pre-planned. There is no particular order.
Sometimes, however, one party takes the lead in suggesting the agenda or introducing a topic, either before, at the beginning of, or during, a conversation. This can take the form of taking the initiative to tell a story, deliver a message, share a point of view, or make a case. Here’s an example:
Tom and Sue are both surgeons. They happen to meet in a hospital corridor.
Tom says, "Is this a good time to talk about the conference on the latest diabetes treatments? I think we're both going. Maybe we could get more out of it if we coordinate our efforts."
Sue replies, "Sure, I've got a few minutes. And that sounds like a good idea. There are so many meetings at the conference it’s impossible to go to them all. We could go to different meetings and then pool what we've learned. I've got the conference schedule in my office. Let's go over there and see what the possibilities are."
Tom initiates the agenda and Sue is a willing participant.
At other times, both parties collaborate in setting the agenda. This may involve conversational partners agreeing on an agenda beforehand.
For instance, Liz and Zoe have just finished a meal together at a restaurant. Before they go their separate ways, Liz says, "It was a lovely, relaxing evening. But when we get together next week, I'd like to talk some more about the possibility of our going into business together. We've knocked a few ideas around, but I'd like to take a more serious look at it."
Zoe replies, "Of course. It's time to get more serious about it. It's not that we hate our jobs, but I think that both of us would love the challenge. I think we also need to talk about the impact running a business will have on our social lives. We could so get caught up in the excitement of starting a business that we'd forget about its implications for the rest of our lives."
Both Liz and Zoe contribute to setting the agenda for their upcoming conversation.
The Initiator is the conversational partner who sets the agenda or introduces a topic. For instance, Jack and Terry, good friends, meet for a drink after work.
After a bit of small talk, Jack says, "I'd like to talk about the argument you and I had the other day. It got rather heated. I think we both said things we really didn't mean. I know that both of us have been pretending it didn't happen. But I'd like to talk about it — briefly — and put it behind us. We may even learn something from it."
Jack has proposed an agenda for their conversation. Now the ball is in Terry's court. He has to decide whether he wants to pursue this agenda with Jack or not and, if he does, whether he wants to do it now.
Note that the Initiator is not the same as the Explainer/Teller. If Terry agrees to discuss the argument they have had, then the assumption is that they will do so through dialogue. Both will move in and out of both the Explainer/Teller and Understander role as they discuss the ins and outs of the situation Jack has brought up.
Initiators, in effect, make a request of, or place a demand on, their conversational partners. This is common in conversations that take the form of an interrogation. The police investigator says to the suspect, "Tell me everything about your movements from noon yesterday until noon today." In a more friendly mode, Agatha might say to her friend Abigail, "Tell me all about your trip — every last detail! I'm so envious. I can't wait to hear all about it." Even in these cases, however, the agenda is best pursued through some form of dialogue.
In many, if not most, conversations, both parties become Initiators in informal ways, at one time or another, during the conversation. Gary and Francesca are discussing a variety of issues. Gary initiates a conversation about his lack of success in dieting, and the dialogue that follows has a problem-solving flavour to it. Later in the conversation, Francesca talks about what a great time she and the kids had at the circus, and Gary joins in. The conversation takes on a story-telling flavour. Both are Initiators at one time or another, but both move into and out of both the Explainer/Teller and Understander roles in the ensuing dialogue.
The notion of Initiator returns us to the issue of conversational rights. Have you ever found yourself in a conversation you wished you weren't having? Of course you have. It happens to all of us. Sometimes it's because you are a reluctant Initiator. You don't enjoy having a conversation with your son about his poor grades, but you have to do it for his sake.
At other times it’s because the other party is a reluctant participant in the conversation itself, or in a specific topic within a larger conversation. If you and your son are talking about sports, he may well be with you as a full partner. But when you switch to the issue of poor grades, the boy might well become a reluctant participant. He might also realise, however, that the conversation is inevitable. Many conversations in which both the Initiator and the other party are reluctant participants are simply unavoidable.
But there may be other times when it would be better to exercise your right not to initiate a conversation, even though, objectively, there might be some good reasons for doing so. For instance, it might help Vaughn to get some feedback on his rather disgraceful behaviour at the party last night. But you might choose not to do it. You have a feeling that this would only aggravate ongoing problems between the two of you. Or, you think it won’t make any difference to his behaviour. Or, you fully realise that the two of you need to talk about situations like these because of the affect on your relationship, but this is not the time.
You also have conversational rights as to whether you want to participate in a conversation, or pursue an agenda initiated by another. Here are a few circumstances where this could happen.
You might be preoccupied with something else that needs to be done, or you're in the wrong frame of mind. You could be very tired, for example. If you explain this openly to your conversational partners, they'll often see this as a mark of respect, rather than rejection.
Even if it’s impossible to avoid certain conversations - for instance, a performance feedback session with your boss, you still have a right to try to see to it that it takes place at a favourable time. Let's say that you believe that a project you are leading is about to produce very favourable results. You can ask to have the conversation after the results are in. This will give your boss a more balanced picture of your overall performance.
You might only have a few minutes, but you feel the conversation deserves more time than that. If you are rushed, you will not listen very well.
So you might say, "I've got to leave for a doctor's appointment in about ten minutes. We need more time. Anyway, I'm not looking forward to seeing the doctor. I'd be too distracted right now."
Or the Initiator might have only a few minutes for a topic that needs to be explored more fully. Then you might say, "Amy, we need to talk about this, but could we put it off until you have a little more time? It's too important to do in a rushed way."
If the other person is a person in authority, he, or she, might well override your concerns. Then you have to do the best you can.
For example, the Initiator might want to talk negatively about someone who's not there to speak for herself. If this makes you uncomfortable, say so. That's your privilege.
You might say, "Bob, I'd rather talk to Judy directly about this. It's the only chance we have of having her change the way she's going about the project."
One way of respecting conversational rights in situations in which you are a reluctant Initiator, or a reluctant responder to someone else's agenda, is to set up a mini conversational ‘contract’. The contract outlines the conditions under which you are willing to engage in the conversation in whatever role. Consider the following examples.
You say to someone who has cornered you when you times is limited, "I'd really like to hear about this, but I have to go in 10 minutes. We could only get started." Then you leave the decision to the other party.
A father says to his son, "We have to talk about school and grades. We can do it now or later. But certainly in the next couple of days. I need you to be in a frame of mind when you’re willing to lay the cards on the table and talk realistically."
You say to a friend, "I'd be glad to talk about our blow-up if we talk about how we both mishandled it. But if this is going to be a blame-the-other-person session, I'd rather not. It's got to be a `we' discussion."
Whether you have misgivings about being an Initiator or responding to another person's agenda, you can probably think of dozen of different mini contracts that might help preserve both your own, and the other person's, conversational rights.
In the end, you have to use your judgment. If someone wants to have a conversation that you are reluctant to have, at least at this moment, try to think about how important the conversation might be for the other person. If it's really important, think carefully before rejecting the opportunity to talk. If the other person is hurting in some way, being turned down might prove to be quite distressing. But, in the end, you still have your rights.
The point here is this: Understand your own conversational rights and the rights of others. Respect the conversational rights of others. And be assertive in having others understand and respect your rights.
Poor emotional control destroys millions of conversations every day. People lose their temper and say things they later regret. People get moody and sulky and withdraw from the interaction. People wallow in their feelings of hurt and then go on a revenge mission, sniping at the other person.
Strong negative feelings can make it difficult for someone to assemble their thoughts clearly and put them into words. A vital Conversation Manager skill, therefore, is keeping an eye on your own emotional temperature gauge and knowing when and how to manage your own strong emotions so they enhance, rather than interfere with, the communication.
We're all familiar with the saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me." Well, that's nonsense. Words can harm us in many different ways. In fact, the usual distinction between ‘words’ and ‘actions’ doesn't hold true in many cases. Words often are actions. Words spoken in anger can have the impact of a battering ram. On the other hand, soothing words for a person in physical or psychological pain, can sometimes be better than medication.
Since communication is a form of human behaviour, it is subject to the laws of human behaviour. For instance, behaviour that is rewarded tends to be repeated. If you laugh at the sick jokes of a friend, your friend is likely to continue in his or her behaviour. Another law: ignored or unrewarded behaviour tends to decrease. So, if you don't laugh at the sick jokes and start talking about something else, it’s likely that your friend's unwanted behaviour will decrease or disappear, at least in your presence.
The basic laws of human behaviour, once understood, go far in helping understand one's own, and other people's, communication style.
One of the responsibilities involved with being an effective Conversation Manager, is monitoring the emotional state of a conversation — particularly your own. This isn’t a fulltime job, but something you do from time to time, as part of a regular sweep, so to speak. As soon as the reading gets anywhere close to the red zone, the internal alarm bell should ring — action stations, emotions in danger of getting out of control!
Almost everything we hear in our conversations creates a reaction. For instance, when we receive praise, we feel good about ourselves — unless we think it’s phony praise, or that we don't deserve it. On the other hand, if somebody criticises us, we may well feel hurt and angry, even when we do deserve it.
We all know that feelings and emotions are no strangers to conversations. They are woven into the fabric of conversations. Therefore, learning how to make them serve conversations is very important. There are many things you can do, and refrain from doing, to make emotions friends, rather than enemies, of dialogue.
The starting point is this: We can control our emotions and make them serve our relationships more than we realise. It's easy to ‘blame’ our emotions for our actions. "He made me angry, so I told him off. We haven't talked for over a month." If we are not in charge of our emotions, they will quickly take charge of us. This is another demonstration of the need to balance openness with self-discipline in pursuit of effective communication.
You can choose to be ‘emotionally aware’ or ‘emotionally unaware’ in your approach to communication. It key responsibility of the Conversation Manager role to make sure your ‘awareness’ system is switched on.
Let’s look at a conversation from the perspective of ‘emotional self-control’.
Toby, a college student, is talking with his younger brother, Gordon. Their parents are away for a couple of days, and Toby has been asked to "keep an eye on Gordon." Gordon has failed to do the chores assigned to him.
Let's consider two different ways that Toby can address this issue. We'll call them Toby A and Toby B.
Toby A says in an exasperated voice, "Gordon, stop being a selfish little brat. Grow up. You know what you have to do. Do it!"
Miracles aside, Gordon is more likely to react than respond. Indeed, a verbal war breaks out with Gordon shouting back, "Hey, shut up. You're worse than I am!" Does this sound familiar?
Now let's try Toby B. He says, "Hey, Gordon, Mum and Dad will be home this evening. Let's surprise them and have the place looking better than when they left. I've got some time."
While this does not assure that Gordon will rise to the challenge - he may well be a ‘selfish little brat’ - it does give him a chance to respond, rather than react. One critical difference between Toby A and Toby B is emotional self-control. Toby B does not let his annoyance with his younger brother get the better of him.
In that conversation Toby demonstrated emotional self-control in the Explainer/Teller role. We can also apply the same idea when in the Understander role — in this case, choosing to respond thoughtfully rather than react in a knee-jerk fashion, even when provoked.
Here’s another example. Jennifer, a single woman in her late twenties, is talking with her mother about her friends from work. Her mother keeps finding fault with everyone Jennifer mentions. At one point her mother says, "What a sorry crowd you hang out with."
Let's take a look at the responses of Jennifer A, B, C, and D.
Jennifer A reacts, saying angrily, "Well, I'd rather be with them than here." And she stalks off.
Jennifer B takes a different approach, saying, "By the way, when are we going to have dinner with uncle Ben and Sally? I'd like to do it sooner, rather than later. They're great to be with."
Jennifer B simply changes the topic and remains upbeat. She does not reward her mother's remarks with a reply or, worse, with a fight, which her mother seems to enjoy.
Jennifer C takes a third approach. She says, "Mum, my friends are my friends. Since you don't have to spend time with them, I'm not sure why you get so upset by them. I think it would be better for both of us if we simply didn't talk about them."
Jennifer C confronts the issue directly and suggests a remedy.
Finally, Jennifer D takes an even different approach. She says, "Mum, I know you don't care much for my friends, but I'm not sure why. They're all so different, but you don't seem to like any of them.”
Jennifer D wants to get to the bottom of it and ‘work things out’. Jennifer A reacts, while B, C, and D respond in different ways. The Jennifers in B, C, and D, have one thing in common - holding negative emotions in check. Which response do you prefer and why?
In a book called Emotional Intelligence (1995; see also Working With Emotional Intelligence, 1998), David Goleman has put together the case for emotional self-control. Here are some of the principles for such control:
Get to know your own emotions and your emotional patterns:
"I tend to blow up easily when I'm challenged."
"I sulk when people don't pay enough attention to me."
"I'm optimistic and friendly with almost everyone."
Self-awareness is the starting point for an upbeat use of emotion in conversations.
Once you get an understanding of how you use emotions - or let them use you - in your interactions with other people, learn how to manage them well:
"I realise that Evelyn gets my goat easily, so I'll be more careful when I'm around her."
"I don't get excited about other people's successes. So I don't celebrate with others easily. I'd be a better friend if I were to get more involved with my friends in the ups and downs of their lives."
The key is being in charge of emotions that you can control, and being in charge of your reactions to emotions that arise spontaneously. If you know that you blow up easily when you can't get your way, you can control your emotions, at least to a degree, by preparing for situations in which your desires might be thwarted.
Susan says to a friend, "Given all the mess at his job, I know that Tom is probably going to come home one of these days and say that we're going to have to put off our vacation. Blowing sky high won't get us anywhere. So, I have to figure out how to handle it."
Picture a different scene. The same Tom, who is happily married to Susan, is having a drink one evening with Nell, an attractive, hard-working colleague, at a conference hotel. During the conversation Nell makes a sexual overture, and emotions surge spontaneously in Tom. Since this is unexpected, it's not a question of controlling his emotions but of controlling his response to Nell. He says, "Nell, you're a wonderfully attractive person, but for a whole host of reasons, I'm not right for you." She replies, "Just thought I'd give it a try." They continue to discuss other issues.
Use emotions to motivate yourself. You can use your feelings, emotions and moods to get yourself to do things:
"I really feel good, so I'll have that talk with Felicity that I've been putting off. I'm in the right mood."
"I'm finally annoyed enough with Claire to challenge her selfish behaviour."
You can also use your feelings, emotions and moods to keep you from doing things.
"I'm down in the dumps. I'll get over it. But until then, I'm not going to inflict myself on others. I'll mess around on the internet for a while."
"I'm too angry to talk to Martin right now. I'll be in a better state of mind tomorrow."
Emotions tend to drive behaviours. Knowing what you want from a conversation can help you control, or direct, that drive.
Recognise other people's ad-hoc emotions and emotional patterns:
"Carl's in a bad mood. I'll talk to him about the problem with the furnace later."
"Edmund is easily hurt when you criticise his brother, Ray. Edmund knows that Ray has problems, but Edmund doesn't want them shoved in his face."
"Carol is almost always upbeat. She's always fun to be with."
What you're doing here is taking a look at the other person's emotions in terms of your relationship with him, or her. This is not a psychological assessment. When it comes to negative emotions such as hurt, anger, and fear, your job is to recognise patterns of emotions, on-the-spot emotions and moods in others, not cure them. You're allowed to cure your own, however.
It's important to manage the interaction between your own feelings and emotions, with those of others, in order to make relationships go more smoothly:
"My tendency to fly off the handle, coupled with Mohammed’s thin skin, is a volatile mix. I need to read his reactions carefully, and watch myself."
"When Andrea's down, I get depressed, too. Then we're no good for each other. I've got to watch that."
The ideal is obvious - all parties to the conversation know and use the strategies outlined here. But ideals are just that, ideals. You are in charge of yourself no matter what the other person does.
Since anger in all its forms - from annoyance to rage - is such a common emotion, and spills over so frequently into our conversations, it’s useful to take a closer look.
Giving free vent to anger does not have the benefits it's supposed to have. We are human beings, not pressure cookers with release valves. The use of steam and hydraulic engineering as metaphors for the workings of the human mind was common practice among many early psychologists, simply because these were the dominant technologies of the age.
Often enough, giving vent to anger makes us even more angry. This does not mean that we should become emotionally ‘neutral’, or bland. That robs life of its colour. There are times when we should express anger. How we do so is the issue. The challenge is neither to swallow our negative emotions, nor give in to them in a wholesale fashion.
The principles that govern emotions generally and, in this instance, anger, apply to communicators in both the Explainer/Teller and Understander role.
How often have people done things, failed to do things, and said things that have deeply annoyed you? You felt they were being snide. You disagreed strongly with the point of view being expressed. You didn't like the message they were delivering. You thought the story they were telling was too self-serving. And on and on.
In cases like this, how often do you say something that gives you some immediate satisfaction but doesn’t exactly help the cause of dialogue? Something like, "That’s a really stupid thing to say,” or, "Look who’s talking! You're worse, far worse, than me.” That’s anger talking.
The key is to keep your mouth firmly clamped shut to prevent your knee-jerk reaction coming out. The few seconds of silence that follow will not be noticed. The age-old advice of counting to ten (or less) before responding has been confirmed by many studies on anger, which in reality, dissipates very rapidly if the flames are not fanned.
In any case, thinking before speaking, responding rather than reacting, is totally in keeping with the spirit of reflection that permeates true dialogue.
Virginia Williams and Redford Williams, in their book Lifeskills, (see also Anger Kills, 1994, by the same authors), provide some questions you can ask yourself as you reflect on how you might manage your anger in conversations with other people.
What are the facts? Am I making any of them up? Am I exaggerating any of them? For instance, I'm in an aeroplane on a short flight. The kid in the seat behind me kicks the back of my seat once in a while. These are the facts.
Is this matter really important? You ask yourself, "Is the occasional bump I get, even though I don't like it, a big deal?" In conversations, sometimes the issue that annoys you is important, sometimes it's close to being important, and sometimes it’s not important at all.
Is what I'm thinking appropriate to the situation? How well am I controlling the thoughts that merely make things worse? If I'm saying such things to myself as, "His mother doesn't give a hoot about the kid's behaviour," or, "She thinks it’s cute," or, "She's probably the type that doesn't know what discipline is," then I'm probably not in control. I could just as well have said to myself things like, "I don't envy her having to fly with a youngster," or, "I bet the kid gets bored being strapped in like this." Or other sentiments: "It's a short flight. Forget it."
Can I modify this situation in ways that will ease my anger? I see a free seat across the aisle and move with no fanfare. I smile genuinely at the mother and say, "He's full of life, isn't he?" I say to the flight attendant, "The kid behind me is a bit careless. I don't want to be an ogre. What's the best way of handling it?" Or, since the flight is short, do nothing.
Is taking action worth the trouble? Even though I might be able to answer "yes" to questions two, three, and four above, the ‘economics’ of doing something about it might be poor. "Get back into your reading. Chicago's just a half hour away." The economics of venting anger in conversations is almost invariably poor. Standing up for your rights is a different issue. Venting anger and standing up for your rights are different things.
This is not to suggest that you take time out for a long debate with yourself, or that you are always this rational. But if you have a framework for assessing anger-provoking situations, you can use it quickly, almost instinctively.
Ned is needling you about your letting yourself be fooled by a fast-talking salesman. Substitute "I let him make me angry," for "He makes me angry," in your thinking. Then choose an option for dealing with your anger that makes sense for the situation.
Don't let others get to you. "He gets my goat," is a common enough sentiment. The truth is that some of us go round ‘goat in hand’, making it easy for almost anyone to get it. If you are thin-skinned, find ways of reducing your sensitivity. You can say to yourself, "I'm a sensitive person, all right, and that's not bad. But too often I'm sensitive about the wrong things."
If you need to vent, choose a sympathetic third party. Get things off your chest with someone who understands you. Then you can discuss the best way of handling the situation that made you angry in the first place.
Put the reasons for your anger out in the open. While there is a case for restraining the expression of anger, there is no reason for not letting the other know why you are angry. Even then, be careful not to build such a solid case that your conversational partner has no room to move. Don't nail people to the wall with your logic.
Consider the difference between the following two approaches to responding to someone who has vented his anger.
Conor and Alice wanted to have at least three children, but nature supplied them with only one, Melanie. There have been ongoing disagreements about the best way to relate to Melanie, how she should be brought up, and so forth. They have been talking about some problems she has been having with other children.
During the conversation, Conor says somewhat heatedly, "You're just too protective. You can't put her into a cocoon and pretend other children don't exist. You can't so arrange her life that nothing ever goes wrong. It's unfair to her. You're really protecting yourself. I think you're jealous about any relationship she has. Maybe even her relationship with me."
As is often the case when people get very angry, Conor says more than he means. He exaggerates to build his case. In the process, he says hurtful things.
So what is Alice to do? A number of different dramas might unfold. Here are some possibilities. She might retaliate. And this could turn the conversation into a battle. Or Conor's attack might put Alice on the defensive, in which case she might try to change the topic of the conversation or even end it. In either case, the conversation would fail to continue on a constructive note and important things won't get said.
Alice chooses neither of these options. Instead, she pauses a bit, then says, "I know you're angry . . . We've never really come to grips with not being able to have more children and what this has done to each of us . . . It's probably time we did . . . The point you're making is that I haven't handled my share of the problem very well . . . Well, that's true. But I also think that we need to talk about what we've been doing as a couple."
She does not retaliate with an angry outburst. Instead of accusing Conor of being unfair or telling him how poorly he has handled their mutual problem, she admits her own responsibility and suggests that it would be good for both of them to have a dialogue they have been putting off. Her emotional control at the service of dialogue might well help Conor to channel his energy in more productive ways. The point is - you have a choice.
Both parties in a conversation will benefit from using their emotions - both positive and negative - rather than being used by them. For instance, when Sam felt attacked by Carl, he used his anger to strengthen his resolve to get to the bottom of the issues that separated them in their business dealings, rather than club him with sarcasm. Even when Sarah didn't agree with Kate's point of view, she showed enthusiasm for the intelligence and reasoning behind Kate's argument.
Understanding the situation is important. If you have good news to report, it usually helps to show your enthusiasm. On the other hand, if you've learned that you got top marks in an exam but your buddy didn't do very well at all, you might moderate your enthusiasm as a way of helping him cope with his misery. ‘Reading’ social situations in order to determine what kind of conversation might be most helpful can do a lot of good.
Someone might ask, "In highly charged situations, who's going to be this nice?" The answer is simple. You don't always have to be ‘nice’ in conversations. There will always be times when you need to say things other people might not want to hear. But if you anticipate how they may feel as a result, you can do your best to make your point in a way that still recognises and respects their feelings. Without downplaying your message. Even if your message arouses negative feelings in the other person. Feelings aren't ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. They just are. And they permeate dialogue just as they permeate life. However, when we talk in ways designed to increase negative feelings - our own and those of others - we are doing no one a favour.
There are a lot of myths about emotions. One is that we can't do much about them. Another is that managing emotions will make us rigid and constricted. It would be nice if everyone had moved beyond these myths and had acquired the discipline represented in the principles above, but this simply is not the case. How well do you both use and control emotions in your conversations?
Does all of this mean that you will never fly off the handle again? Does it mean you will always show enthusiasm in situations that call for it? Hardly. It does mean this: When it comes to feelings and emotions in conversations, you have options.
Just because we have the skills needed for effective dialogue doesn’t mean that we always use them well. Conversations are human activities rather than technical endeavours, so there are always ‘other things’ going on besides the messages being conveyed.
An effective Conversation Manager is skilled at ‘reading’ conversational situations and responding to them in thoughtful ways. Social wisdom and effective interpersonal communication are intimately related. Without effective communication skills and values, you cannot be socially competent. Without being socially competent, your skills can easily go astray. Although Mbono knows that he has the right to question one of his boss's decisions, he has sense enough to do it at a time and in a way that is likely to foster dialogue, rather than stimulate an angry reaction. Wisely, Mbono sees no value in annoying or embarrassing his boss.
Or, as our American colleagues would say, being socially ‘savvy’. The components are social intelligence, social competence and social integrity. Let’s look at each.
A conversation — whether between spouse and spouse, manager and team member, parent and child, friend and friend — is a social situation. Social intelligence refers to the ability to ‘read’ and understand what's going on in any given social situation.
Although social wisdom refers to all social situations, in this Guide we are looking purely at conversational situations.
Consider Oliver. He's having dinner with friends of his, Nichola and her husband, Nigel. Not long after arriving at their house, Oliver notices that there is some tension between his friends. They are a bit short with each other. They tend to talk to him, rather than to each other. And so forth. He knows something is going on even though he does not know what it is exactly.
Social intelligence includes awareness of not just what's going on with others, but also with yourself. Most of the time you're not just an onlooker, but a participant. If you fail to read what's going on inside yourself, you might end up either messing up a good situation, or making a bad situation worse. Back to that dinner. At the same time that Oliver is reading what is happening between Nichola and Nigel, he is also reading himself. He feels slightly uncomfortable, but he is not really annoyed or on edge. Nor does he spot in himself any tendency to side with either Nichola or Nigel. So this is the first step - awareness of the social situation, including one's own role in it and the emotions at play.
Being socially intelligent is the opposite of being socially naive. In tricky social situations it’s helpful to pause, flip into the Conversation Manager role and ask yourself, "What's going on here?" before returning to either the Explainer/Teller or Understander role.
If social intelligence is your ability to read social situations accurately, then social competence is your ability to respond well to what you are reading. Both intelligence and competence are necessary for being socially wise. Oliver has a solid set of communication skills. He knows both Nichola and Nigel well. And he cares a great deal about both of them. Therefore, he has what it takes to respond well to the situation.
Once Oliver spots the warning signals, he knows that he needs to be reasonably cautious. He says to himself, "Well, I don't want to pretend that everything is all right. That would be dishonest. And it would make for a very uncomfortable time for everyone. On the other hand, I don't want to butt in where I don't belong. Nor do I want to make a bad situation worse. However, they trust me. I know I have some leeway with them. Maybe I can be of help here."
If Oliver had become annoyed with the situation, then he might have said something different to himself, such as, "I'm not in a mood to be very helpful. So, unless I get off my high horse, I had better hold my tongue. It's better to wait and see how things develop." He realises that emotional self-control is a large part of social competence. Of course, inner conversations like Oliver's, are usually not as explicit as this. Rather, these are the kinds of sentiments that flit through people's minds in situations like these.
Social integrity refers to your willingness to use whatever social intelligence and communication competence you have to respond to what you read in social situations. Sometimes this takes guts or courage. Since Oliver has a good strong relationship with both Nichola and Nigel individually, and with the two of them as a couple, he decides to take a chance. After sitting down to the meal he says, "It's a bit chilly in here." They fumble around and make a couple of stabs at taking him literally. Finally, Nichola says, "You've noticed." "Yes, I've noticed," Oliver replies in a caring and comforting voice. This breaks the ice.
With Oliver's friendly help, they go on to work through a spat they had earlier in the day. As is often the case, they discover that it was not such a ‘big deal’ after all. They all end up laughing about it and talking about how difficult it is to break the ice after an argument. Everyone wins, including Oliver, who wasn’t looking forward to enduring a tense atmosphere.
All fine and good. But let's consider a different scenario. Let's say that Jake had been the dinner guest instead of Oliver. Jake, not as socially intelligent or interpersonally skilled as Oliver, botches things right from the beginning. He does not immediately sense that there is something wrong. He feels vaguely uneasy but doesn't know why. He tries to solve things by becoming a comedian. His routines fall flat.
When he finally senses that his hosts are not getting along with each other, he becomes annoyed and says to himself, "Well, this is unfair. Inviting me over for a good time and then treating me to this." Time passes and the conversation becomes more and more forced. Jake says to himself, "This is their problem. I'm not riding to the rescue." He drinks too much and begins taking pot shots at his hosts. The dinner ends quickly. They say perfunctory good-byes. It's over.
Understanding what might be helpful in any given social situation helps you use conversational skills well. For instance, if you join a group of your friends who are sitting around and just ‘shooting the breeze’, you might ask yourself, "Is this the best time to talk about an absent friend who seems to be having some problems?" Everyone in the group knows that he is going through something, but it has not been discussed. You might test the waters.
During a lull in the conversation, you might say, "Ben seems to be going through something. I think all of us are concerned, but we haven't talked about it. I'm not sure this is the best time to do so." If someone pipes up and says, "Ben creates a lot of his own problems," and others mutter or nod in assent, this might not be the best time or way to talk about how to help. Instead, when the meeting breaks up and you are walking home with Tracy, you might talk about what's going on and discuss the best way of moving forward.
Take another example. Clare has become used to the indifference of one of her co-workers, Rupert. But today he not only pays a great deal of attention to what she has to say in a team meeting but makes a point to continue the conversation after the meeting. Clare is not the paranoid type, but she is not naive. She is socially intelligent and her antenna goes up a bit. She does not read too much into Rupert's behaviour, but she does notice the change.
Clare is not surprised, then, when a week later, Rupert asks her to put aside one of her favourite projects so that she can work with him on his, one with ‘high visibility’ with senior management. She has prepared herself for this possibility. She calmly gives him the reasons why she wants to stick with her own projects.
Social wisdom runs the gamut from everyday situations to critical life events. Here are some of the things, which enhance social competence in conversations.
Many conversations fail simply because they take place at the wrong time or under the wrong circumstances. Here are some examples.
Tom is in the middle of his homework, concentrating on an essay he’s writing, when his mother decides she wants to talk to him about the state of his room. Will Tom want to listen?
Anne is seething with frustration because she's lost her handbag. She's trying to work out what to do about her credit cards. Her partner picks that moment to begin a conversation about their plans for the weekend. Is Anne in the right mood?
Ahmed is just about to go to an important meeting when his supervisor decides to explain a complicated business matter that really requires 20 minutes of discussion to do it justice. Are the circumstances right?
Ellen is watching her favourite TV show when her husband chooses to talk about his ideas for a new car. Is he going to get her full attention?
Before starting a conversation, the skilled communicator tries to evaluate the situation. So, check for signs that the other person is ready and able to join in. Is your conversational partner preoccupied with something else? Are there lots of distractions around? Is he or she in the right frame of mind? Is there time available to complete the conversation without being under excessive pressure? How important is the issue that you want to discuss in the first place?
If you suspect the time might not be right, ask the other person if it's okay to talk. When some people telephone others, they often ask, "Is this a good time to talk?" This is a sign of respect. It also gives the person at the other end of the line some options. "I'm in the middle of something right now. Can I call you back in about an hour?"
It's also important to ask yourself if the right time for you. Are you in the right frame of mind? If you're feeling very agitated, for example, it could be a good idea to put off the discussion. Strong emotions can lead to strong words, and strong words can lead to strong reactions.
If it's the setting that's wrong, you could create a different one. For instance, if a mother wants to have an important conversation with her son, she might suggest that they both take the dog for a walk to avoid the distractions of a bustling household.
Giving a teenager a dressing down in front of his peers will probably prove humiliating for him. He's at a time in his life when his standing in his peer group is one of his major concerns.
Socially competent communicators know whether to address, put off, or avoid a sensitive subject. Angie is at a party. She is about to talk about a wonderful trip to Europe she had the previous summer. But she catches herself. A friend of a number of people at the party was recently killed in a mugging in Europe. This is not the best time to talk about her great experiences.
Sigmund is being berated by his brother, Anatole, for not spending enough time with him and his family. It's Anatole's harsh style that keeps Sigmund away in the first place. Anatole does not take feedback or criticism well. Anatole's wife seems hardened to her husband's style. Sigmund decides to put out a feeler. He says, "It would be stupid of me to make inane excuses, but if I were to tell you why, you wouldn't like it." Anatole jumps up and shouts. "What do you mean by that?" Sigmund pauses and then says calmly, "Wait a minute. You jump up when people say the `wrong thing.' You get angry quickly, like now. So how can we have a decent conversation under these conditions?" Anatole sits back down looking a little cowed and says nothing. Sigmund says to himself, "This might be my chance. This just might be my chance."
There is one caution, however. There is no such thing as the perfect time and the perfect set of circumstances. What is written here should not be used as an excuse for avoiding conversations that should be held, or for holding conversations that should be put off. Effective communicators think in terms of a reasonable time, a reasonable set of circumstances, and a reasonable setting. Reasonable does not mean perfect. Putting off needed conversations often demonstrates a lack of social integrity, that is, guts. In the example above, Sigmund didn't wait for the perfect time. Rather, he decides to seize a present opportunity.
Narendra meets with his friend, Evelyn, and her husband, Josh, for a cup of coffee. Evelyn seems a bit listless. Neither she nor Josh responds very well to his conversational overtures. Since they say little to each other, Narendra says to himself, "Maybe they've had an argument. I'll let them alone." He remains his chipper self, but the conversation is going nowhere. Finally, he says to himself, "This is really uncharacteristic of them. Maybe something is really wrong. They could have called off our getting together, but they didn't."
Finally, he says, "You two haven't been at each other again, have you? It's so easy to see when you've had a fight. What can I do to get you guys talking again so that we can all cheer up?"
Evelyn and Josh look at each other, then Josh says somewhat angrily, "It's nothing like that, Len. We're devastated . . . We just found out that we were turned down for the adoption we thought was all decided . . . I guess we should have told you right away."
Narendra tried to read the situation, but didn't do so well. His exploratory remarks should have been much more tentative such as, "You guys don't seem quite yourselves today. Anything going on?" And so his response is socially incompetent.
He does his best to recover by saying, "I knew something was wrong, but had no idea how serious it was. So I just picked something out of the air to get you guys going. Please forgive my brashness. And stupidity. But tell me more about the adoption. The way you talked, it sounded like a done deal."
Leonard recovers. Note that he does not dwell on his stupidity. He apologises and quickly returns to their crisis. Evelyn explains that it had nothing to do with them. The mother just changed her mind.
What about humour? Humour is a two-edged sword. Humour can add a great deal of charm to a conversation. But there are also some caveats, which the socially competent person understands and lives by. First, humour is like a spice or condiment. Used sparingly, it adds a great deal. Too much spoils the broth. Second, what is humorous to you might not be so to someone else. If so, humour might well offend, rather than engage, your conversational partner.
Humour that puts the other person down might seem to make a hit at the time, but can harm a relationship in the longer term. Making someone the butt of a joke is not particularly funny. It seems to fail both the social intelligence and social competence tests. Some people have a knack of poking fun at themselves in moderation. Would you like to have someone like that, or someone who specialises in poking fun at others, as your dinner partner?
That said, is good-hearted kidding around and poking fun at one another all that bad? Does social competence mean that I must be a stick in the mud? Moralistic? A prude? Is there no place for being clever? There are no hard and fast answers to questions like these. Socially wise communicators size up social situations instinctively and act accordingly.
When two people are talking, there are actually three conversations going on. Two of them are silent.
There's the external conversation — not only the words themselves, but also the way they're spoken and the body language that goes with them. This is the conversation an onlooker could witness.
Then there are the conversations that go on privately inside each person's head. We ‘talk’ to ourselves regularly, even when we are talking with others.
Internal conversations — or self-talk — are double-edged swords. The challenge? How to use them without becoming preoccupied with them.
Good communicators know that their own internal conversations can be full of buried treasure if it’s carefully mined and brought to the surface when it seems useful. How many times have you finished a conversation with someone and then later on wished you'd said more of the things that were on your mind at the time?
Trish is having a conversation with Albert. During the conversation she says to herself something like this, "He might not realise it, but he's really being a bully right now." But she says nothing. While driving home, she says to herself, "I let him play the bully once more. Unless I speak out at the time, he'll keep playing that game."
Dan is talking with his boss, Dave. Dan says to himself, "Something seems to be bothering him, but he's not saying what it is." When he spots an opening in the conversation, he says to Dave, "I may be mistaken, but it seems that something's bugging you." Dave stops, looks to the side, then looks back and says, "Wayne (Dave’s boss) just told me that if we don't bring this project in on time and on budget, I'm history." They go on to have a good conversation about how to handle the crisis.
Dot is talking with Grace about a project they are both involved with at a local charity. Grace hasn't been doing her part of the work. She misses deadlines. The work she does is shoddy at times. During the conversation, Dot says to herself, "I've got to find a way to confront her about this." Later in the conversation, after Grace has talked about some problems she's having with her husband, and begins to look a bit stressed, Dot says to herself, "This is not the best moment to discuss her poor work. But it has to be done sometime soon."
Of course, some inner conversations should stay private. They might be hurtful or offensive if brought out into the open. Or they are irrelevant. They will destroy the conversational climate. Edgar is put off by the way his daughter's teacher keeps putting his hand to his mouth during the conversation. He notes his discomfort and has a passing thought, "I wonder if I've got any little habits like that." But, since all of this is irrelevant to the conversation they are having, he dismisses these thoughts and focuses more carefully on the substantial issues at hand.
We don't usually plan our inner conversations. They just are. We all have them. Staying in touch with them, without being distracted by them, is the trick. Good communicators use their content to improve the quality of the dialogue. Poor communicators fail to notice their value, use them too sparingly, are distracted by them, or overuse them.
Good communicators also know that their conversational partners, like themselves, are having their own private chat. Taking note of this from time to time can help you ‘get inside’ the other person. Or at least, it makes you realise that you're not sure of what's going on inside. Others' verbal and nonverbal behaviour give hints about what's going on inside. Tapping into others' inner conversations can be useful, if done with tact. Mark is talking with Steve. Steve seems a bit distracted. Mark knows that Steve is having an important inner conversation.
Mark takes a chance, saying, "If it wasn’t such a cliché, I'd say, `a penny for your thoughts’."
Steve looks startled, then laughs and says, "You've noticed."
Mark says, "I've been noticing for about ten minutes. But I didn't want to butt in."
At that point, Steve shares with him a concern that his been bothering him for a couple of days.
Silent conversations are not all doom and gloom. Janice, a sales rep for a company that sells multimedia equipment, is in the middle of a sales pitch with a client.
Eventually she says, "It's obvious that you've been listening carefully to what I've had to say, but [smiling] it's hard for me to know what you're saying to yourself about all this."
The client chuckles and says, "Well, if this digital light projector is as good and as versatile as you say it’s, it would be perfect for us. But I need a demonstration and I need it soon."
Her intervention moves the conversation forward and they go on to arrange the demonstration.
Let’s close with a few simple guidelines to help you make hay out of inner conversations – both your own and those of others:
Self-awareness. Stay in touch with your inner voice.
Self-control. Don't get distracted by your conversations with yourself.
Relevance. Stay in touch with the purpose of your conversation with your partner.
Sensitivity. Choose with care which bits you move from the silent to the external conversation.
Courage. Have the guts to use sensitive parts of your silent conversation if they are likely to help.
Awareness of others. Read signs that others are having significant conversations with themselves.
Assertiveness. Tactfully ask to be ‘admitted’ if you think there is some value to be gained.
These are hardly logical steps to be moved through mechanically. High-level communicators end up using the contents of their silent conversations instinctively.
Put very simply, you can adopt one of two mind-sets when dealing with other people. By adopting a positive mind-set, you can choose to cooperate and collaborate in order to achieve a win-win outcome. Select the negative mind-set, however, and the interaction becomes a competition. In this case, other people are regarded as the ‘enemy’. While there are times when the negative mind-set is appropriate, mostly it’s not. Steering conversations along a collaborative route is an important aspect of the Conversation Manager role.
Evolution seems to have provided us with two distinct mind-sets for dealing with interpersonal situations.
One mind-set (positive) is geared for collaboration, mutuality and co-operation. This is the mind-set that’s ‘switched on’ when you’re working as part of a team, for example, or in partnership with someone. It’s the mind-set you slip into when you’re interacting with someone you see as being on the same side as you, as having interests in common with you.
The other mind-set (negative) is geared for dealing with the enemy (real or perceived). It fosters feelings of suspicion and wariness, and is entirely appropriate when dealing with people whose interests clash with yours or whom you have genuine reasons to distrust or fear. It switches into action as soon as one’s fight or flight mechanism is triggered by a sense of danger or the need to be wary. This instinct is hard-wired into our nature at a very deep level.
The problem is that many people, perhaps the majority, default very readily into the negative mind-set (perhaps evolution favours suspicious people) and thus tend to approach a lot of their conversations as a form of competition.
Another way of looking at the differences between collaborative and competitive conversations is in terms of their likely outcomes. The phrase "win-win" comes from game theory and refers to solutions, which are good for both parties. In conversations we often have a chance to choose between (a) an I-win/you-lose, approach, or (vice versa), (b) a lose-lose approach, or (c) a win-win approach.
Sometimes the opportunity to choose comes and goes so quickly that we make the choice by default. That is, if we typically manage relationships in a win-lose fashion, we will continue to do so almost by reflex, even when there is a better choice to be made. The better choice is not even recognised as an option because we tend to do what we usually do.
In good conversations both parties get the opportunity to express their points of view, explain their needs, and make their thoughts and feelings clear. The partners help one another do so. Selflessness characterises effective dialogue.
An unsatisfactory conversation, on the other hand, feels more like a game of table tennis. The aim is to score points, for one person to win at the other's expense. You are competing rather than co-operating and this does little to promote dialogue.
What about competition? Some people hate it and say that it should be banned from human transactions. Most find a role for competition in life. The world is filled with win-lose games. But competing in conversations - other than formal or informal debates where it’s clear to both parties that winning is part of the game - does little to set a supportive climate for dialogue. Years ago, Eric Berne recognised this in a book called Games People Play (1964). He pointed out how gamesmanship in conversation - and he discusses many different kinds of games - can hobble, and even destroy, relationships.
Since dialogue is highly unlikely — if not impossible — if the prevailing mind-set is negative, a continuing concern for you, in the conversation manager role, is staying aware of where the conversation is sitting on the spectrum, from genuinely collaborative to outright competitive.
If your conversational partner is, in your mind, playing the conversation to win, then what should you do?
Letting the other win is problematic because it encourages the other to continue to play games. Getting into the game and doing your best to beat the game player is also problematic because you have moved away from a win-win approach. Finally, leaving the field, just calling it quits, is problematic because no engagement means no learning.
One of the best approaches to game playing is to call ‘time out’ and do your best to reset the conversation on a win-win basis. "We seem to playing games with each other. Maybe we should stop and see what we want to accomplish and how to go about it." Is this always possible? Of course not. But even attempting to reset the conversation lets the other know where you stand.
Someone will undoubtedly say, "That stuff about questioning competition. Nonsense. The world is built on competition. Always has. Always will be. Get real. The world is not as nice as you are painting it here. Nor should it be."
Fine. Human beings will always compete. In some ways competition brings out the best in people. They push themselves to learn and achieve in ways they would not in a non-competitive environment. There is competition in all the settings of life. How we c