At any particular moment in a conversation, the Explainer/Teller is the person who is wanting to be understood. He or she is doing such things as telling a story, making a proposal, delivering a message or sharing a point of view.
When Oliver is talking to his flatmate about his experience with their landlord, he is telling a story. When Jeff is talking to his wife about his consultation at the doctor's surgery, he is in the Explainer/Teller role. When Amanda tells the decorator how disappointed she is in the way her living room has been painted and how she expects it to be redone, she is in the Explainer/Teller role, delivering a message. When Tim gives Natalie his opinion on who should be chosen as the treasurer of the charity they work for, he is in the Explainer/Teller role, sharing a point of view. When Ruth — in talking with a group of friends who are going on vacation together — highlights the advantages of Spain over Florida, she is in the Explainer/Teller role, making a case for the kind of trip she would like.
Some people are naturally proactive Explainer/Tellers. They seek out opportunities to tell people things they think they’ll find interesting or useful. They like to share their experiences and explain to others how they see the world. These are people who are highly communicative by nature.
Adrian is one of them. He talks freely, openly. At work, where he manages a small team, he makes sure to keep everyone informed about the company’s latest moves. If he makes a contact he thinks someone else will find useful, he passes it on. If he reads an article a colleague might find interesting, he tells them about it. At home, Adrian radiates information and news — a little like a radio station, so everyone in the family knows what’s happening.
As a good all-round communicator, Adrian makes sure he doesn’t overdo the talking. Since he favours two-way exchanges, he makes sure he listens as readily as he talks. In fact, he’s as curious as he is communicative — qualities that don’t always go hand in hand.
Russell, on the other hand, is definitely not communicative. He’s not in the habit of initiating conversations, or passing on interesting pieces of news or useful information.
It’s not that he’s totally unhelpful, it’s more that he just doesn’t go out of his way to be an active Explainer/Teller. At work, people who work with Russell complain about being ‘kept in the dark’. At home, his family tend to lurch from one crisis to another as undiscussed problems ripen and emerge.
If you’re more like Russell than Adrian, there’s a good chance that things in life just seem to ‘happen’ to you, as if people aren’t taking your ambitions, needs and feelings properly into account. That’s a victim way of looking at the situation. In fact, the reason they don’t take your needs and concerns into account is because you haven’t talked about them in the first place. Perhaps it’s time to cultivate a more proactive approach.
Persistence and patience — two essential qualities
If you’re a physics teacher attempting to explain the principles of gravity to a class of 14 year olds, you might easily devote an entire lesson to the task. If you’re giving someone instructions over the phone on how to find your house, you might devote 20 seconds to the task.
But in both cases, the principle is the same — responsible communicators stick at the job until it’s done. They are patient and persistent in the pursuit of being understood.
This doesn’t mean, of course, that the physics teacher should stay in the Explainer/Teller role for the entire lesson. Far from it. By engaging his pupils in chunks of challenging dialogue throughout the lesson, the teacher can accelerate and deepen the learning process.
Before you can get on a bus, you first need to stop it. Before you can have a useful conversation, you first need to engage the other person’s attention in a way that encourages dialogue. That’s what this skill is all about.
It’s very easy to assume that our conversational partners are eager to listen to what we have to say. Such assumptions are the enemy of effective dialogue. Good communicators, when in the Explainer/Teller role, know how important it is to actively engage the other person's attention. You have to convince the other person that what they are about to hear is going to be interesting, or useful, or at least relevant in some way.
Think of the situation from the Understander’s perspective. Left on our own, we often become preoccupied with our own concerns. We listen to our own thoughts. We talk to ourselves in our heads. It can take a considerable effort to redirect this attention towards someone else, especially if we already have some important things on our mind.
Here are some hints on how to engage your conversational partner's attention.
Your body language is important. An indifferent slouch is hardly the way to capture your conversational partner's attention. If you’re slouching, then sit up straight. Leaning forward a little is another way of catching the other person's attention. If the message is important, then it's vital to face the other person and establish eye contact. This is something we do automatically in certain circumstances. For instance, we all know how to turn and catch the eye of a passing waiter. It’s the same with conversations. If you seem distracted, are staring at the television, or are talking in a monotone, you can hardly expect the other person to get excited about the conversation ahead.
How you introduce a topic within a conversation, or introduce the topic at the beginning of a conversation, is important. The ‘right way’ means a way that increases the probability of dialogue. The skilled Explainer/Teller knows that if the other person is to ‘pay’ attention, it helps to offer something in return. Here are just few ways in which you can do this.
Showing how much you value the other person's attention.
"David, I'd like your opinion about . . . "
"Grace, I'd appreciate it if you could help me sort out my thoughts on . . . "
Indicating what the other person can get out of the conversation.
"Danny, if we can sort out our plan now, I won't have to bother you with it again."
"Susan, something happened to me over at John's yesterday that I think will help you plan for the reunion."
"Tony, I've got a bit of bad news, but I think I know a way of turning it into good news. Let me tell you the bad part first."
Using a bit of drama to awaken the interest of the other.
"You'll never guess what happened to me yesterday . . . "
"We'd all like a marketing plan that can't miss. I think I have a just such a plan, or at least the outline of one. But it won't work without you. Here's what I mean."
Highlighting the inherent importance of what you’re going to say.
"I know we kid a lot about Jason . . . Mostly good-natured, I'd say. But I think our kidding has backfired. Let me tell you what happened."
"This afternoon's appointment is not just another casual meeting with the show's director. If I read the situation right, this is decision-making time."
These are not the only attention-getting strategies, of course. They are meant to ‘prime the pump’. You can probably think of more. But attention-getting strategies should be you, not gimmicks. They should be related to the importance of the matter at hand.
If what you have to say has some ‘bad news’ element about it, choose an opening that factors in the understandable misgiving of the other person. Say something that will help the other person to be more receptive. In the following example, Leona's father wants to talk to her about her exam results.
He begins by saying, "Leona, I want to have chat about your exam results, but don't get me wrong. I don't want to get on your case. I just want to see what I might do to help."
Leona relaxes a bit. It's still going to be a somewhat difficult conversation, but it now has a better chance of being productive. The general principle is clear: say things to others in such a way that they can respond, rather than react. Part of tuning in to others, therefore, is getting some idea of their current frame of mind as early as possible in the conversation. Not to manipulate them, of course, but to have a dialogue with them as effectively as possible.
The first step to achieving clarity is to make sure your partner understands exactly what you’re talking about. An obvious thing to say, maybe, but a huge amount of misunderstanding is caused by people leaping to the wrong conclusion. The antidote is the habit of headlining. Instead of forcing people to guess at what your topic or point is, just tell them. A simple but very powerful idea
What happens when a friend, let's say Yvonne, listens to you talk? She takes in the information and tries to make sense of it. She tries to piece your messages together. She implicitly asks: How is all of this connected? What does it all mean? In a word she processes what you’re saying.
If you send out messages that are hard to process, hard to make sense of, two things can happen. First, as Yvonne struggles to understand what you mean, she concentrates on what you were saying, not on what you're saying now. So she gets lost. Second, when it all becomes too much effort, she may give up and let her attention drift elsewhere. Or she changes the topic.
Good communicators do what they can to make their meaning clear. In this section we introduce two simple ways of making what you say easier for the other person to listen to and absorb — using headlines and underlines.
In the Explainer/Teller role, the sooner you can introduce clarity into the conversation the better. It helps the Understander to focus on what you want to get across.
First, if you have a clear idea of what your story is about, what your message is, what your point of view is, or what case you’re trying to make, provide the person in the Understander role with a ‘headline’, a brief statement indicating the central scenario, issue, topic, or theme you want to discuss.
Newspapers rely on headlines to tell the reader what the story that follows is all about. You can do the same. In conversations headlines provide focus. They help you when you’re in the Explainer/Teller role to organise what you want to say. They provide Understanders with ‘hooks’ on which they can they can hang the points you’re making. In the following example, Morton is talking to his wife, Sandra, about their son's progress in school.
He says, "Remember what William's teacher said about his artistic potential last year? We didn't pay much attention to it. But the fact that he's won the school prize for a drawing he's done is a wake-up call for us. We need to talk seriously about his artistic talent and its implications for school, home, and beyond."
They go on to have a discussion about their son's talent, their reactions to it, and how they should plan for the future. The discussion is a development of Morton's headline.
If you know what your main topic, issue, or theme is together with the reason for the conversation, say it up-front. That way, you'll give the other person a good idea of how to make sense of what follows. A headline helps in the same way that the picture on a jigsaw box helps someone fit the puzzle together.
Contrast the following two approaches. The conversation is between Nelson and Craig. They are friendly neighbours with kids in the same high school. They are both convinced that schools can benefit enormously from intelligent participation on the part of parents.
At one juncture Nelson says, "I know one school where they have an advisory board composed of parents. Maybe just being involved in the school is the most important thing. We have to remember that we are not managing the school. The teaching staff has responsibility for that. But there are all sorts of things we can do. We shouldn't interfere with things that are going well, but we could present ideas for new initiatives."
It’s very difficult to determine what Nelson's main topic is. Either there is no headline or there are too many.
Craig listens carefully, then says, "What you're saying makes one thing clear to me: Individual parents or parent groups need to define their role in the school carefully if they are going to add value and not just interfere. Both the school and the parents need to develop this role together.”
Nelson responds by saying, "Yes, that's it." Craig picks a theme he sees running through Nelson's somewhat disjointed remarks and turns it into a headline. He then begins to organise both his own thoughts and what Nelson has said around the headline.
Of course, you're more likely to include headlines if you've thought ahead about what your main topic is. Especially if the topic is a serious one. In the following example, Elsa, the director of nursing is talking to Laurence, a senior nurse who has chaired a task force dealing with a new plan for patient care.
In talking about the plan the task force has submitted, Elsa says, "Laurence, I'd like to give you my reaction to your plan. Today, I'd like to review the section dealing with intensive care. There are some excellent suggestions in here. I also have a couple of concerns we should discuss. Let's start by reviewing what I see as the best features of the plan."
Having read the plan carefully, the director of nursing formulates a headline that gives direction to the conversation. They go on to have a dialogue about the revision of nursing practices in the intensive-care unit. Elsa points out what she sees as value-added changes in intensive-care practices. She also discusses her reservations about a couple of the changes outlined in the plan.
In the following example, a teenager is discussing the rules his parents have laid down about evening activities.
He says, "Mum, I know you're worried about me staying out late, but I have a plan which I think you'll appreciate. It has two simple parts. First of all . . ."
This gives his mother a clear steer on what the focus of the conversation is going to be. She may be sceptical, but she is more likely to listen with a positive frame of mind.
Headlines help provide focus and clarity in all modes of discourse. Here are some examples of using headlines in four different areas.
Headlines can be used in telling stories.
Jay is talking with a friend about his fear of travel. "I used to love to travel, but not so much any more. I think I can best explain the things that bother me by telling you what happened when I was in Korea last year. We were coming in to land at
Seoul . . ."
Now his friend knows that there is to be a story about Korea and that this story will help explain Jay's fear of travel.
Headlines help give focus to messages. Lillian is talking with her husband, Larry, about her struggle with cancer.
She begins by saying, "Larry, I've decided not to have the next round of chemotherapy treatments. We both know they're no cure. It's just postponing the inevitable. I'm not going to subject myself to more misery."
Lillian starts with a strong headline message. She follows up with a few reasons for her decision. She and Larry go on to have a discussion about her decision.
Headlining is also useful when you want to share a point of view. There is often some core statement, or idea, that you'd like to get across when you share your point of view. This core idea, or issue, becomes the headline.
Consider Mia. With three children in the local primary school, she has a point of view on what her children should get from school.
Talking with the assistant principal of the school, she says, "I see myself as being as modern as the next parent. And I think that I am quite flexible with my children. But some of the trends in society and education bother me. Here's my point. I think that self-discipline is very important. And I think that both the home and the school should play a key role in helping children develop self-discipline. I'd like to share my ideas about self-discipline and get a better idea of this school's philosophy in this area.”
Through dialogue they go on to get a better feel for what Mia means by self-discipline and to explore the school's approach to it.
Finally, headlines can contribute greatly to whatever case you’re trying to make. Toby and Clarissa have been discussing redecorating their home. Like many other families, they are working with a limited budget. Toby would like to make some improvements in the kitchen - he loves cooking - while Clarissa wants to re-furbish one room as a home-office.
At one point in the conversation she says, "It's clear that we can't do both projects this year. So I'd like to run through the benefits all of us - you, me, and the kids - would get from a home-office. I'd like to include a couple of benefits that have just occurred to me this week. First I think that both you and I need peace and quiet when we're catching up on work . . ."
She goes on to make her case. She and Toby have some very good, if at times heated, give-and-take dialogue on the relevance and importance of each benefit.
Use as many headlines as you need during a conversation. For instance, if you have three issues you want to talk about, use a headline to name all three up front. Then use a headline to introduce each as you move forward.
Nellie, in talking to her husband, Dan, says, "Now that we have a few minutes there are some things I think we need to discuss. There are the summer plans for the kids. There's the possibility of your mother going into a nursing home. And then there's the refrigerator. The refrigerator shouldn't take too much time. It's on its last legs. I think we should bite the bullet and get a new one. And here's why . . ."
Three topics and then the first headline. Use headlines whenever they are needed, but don't overdo it. If you use too many, you're making everything seem important. And if everything is important, then, in a crowded field, nothing is important.
When you move from one topic to another, headlines clarify the transition. For instance, Callum has been talking with Lucinda about some issues in their relationship. They have had a good discussion on how different their interests are outside the home and the kind of compromises that make sense. Lucinda adores ballet; for Callum, it's ‘all right’. He prefers musicals. They agree on the kind of entertainment mix that would suit them both.
As this part of the discussion heads for a natural close, Callum says something like this: "Well, it seems that we can work out some reasonable compromises when it comes to leisure-time activities. But one area of life is a bit more sensitive. I think that we can say that we're both religious. But we seem to be religious in quite different ways. And the ways we express whatever religious convictions and feelings we have seem to be quite different."
Callum uses a headline to move carefully into what could be a sensitive area. Lucinda says that she was wondering when the issue of religion would come up. They then go on to have a good discussion about what religion means to each and their differences in religious expression. While they look for ways of expressing their religious sentiments together, they also agree that ,at times, each will have to go his or her own way.
In general, be careful how you move a conversation in a different direction. When, as Explainer/Teller, you want to move the conversation in a different direction, pay attention to the mindset of your conversational partner. It’s often necessary to re-engage his, or her, attention and to indicate a good reason for moving in another direction. Otherwise your conversational partners might be put off because they don't know where you're headed.
In the following example four grown brothers have come together to celebrate the oldest's birthday. They are having a good time. During a slight lull in an otherwise boisterous conversation, the youngest says, "I don't want to put a damper on things here. It's so great getting together. But I have a couple of concerns about mum. We're together so infrequently, this seems an ideal time to talk a few things through."
He realises that this is not the perfect time for such a discussion, but it might be the best time available.
Oban is talking with Yassir about a meeting he has just had with his brother-in-law.
Not long into the conversation he says, "The more I think about, the more I see that my brother-in-law was intimating that I'm not a good father. And the more I think about it, the angrier I become."
Oman’s growing anger is an important part of the headline and he does well not to leave it out.
Sometimes if you fail to include a description what's going on inside you - your mental states or feelings - you’re leaving out a key factor, one often intimately related to your behaviour. You can't expect people to be mind readers. If Oban, at that moment, neither expressed anger, nor said anything about it, Yassir might have thought that he couldn’t care less about what his brother-in-law thought.
If what you want to say is not that clear to you, you may not be able to offer a headline.
Todd says to a friend, "Something's going on between me and Kate, but I can't put my finger on it. So I might ramble on a bit here so try to sort it out."
Actually the topic is ‘unidentified problems in a relationship’. But this is so broad that Todd rightfully indicates that he's on a search mission. You can help him with the search.
Underlining is the second way of highlighting your topics, issues, or themes for your conversational partners. There are many times in conversations when the main issue you're trying to focus on becomes clear only as you go along. As you talk, suddenly, the light goes on. So, rather than keeping this big thought to yourself, say it out loud, as if you’re underlining, or highlighting, a key sentence in a text book. An underline is a species of headline because it introduces a topic of issue that becomes the focus of the dialogue.
Let's say that you've been talking to your friend Kenneth about the UN's role in dealing with ‘hot spots’ around the world.
At one point Kenneth says, “Now that I think of it, maybe that's what's bothering me. What is it that makes a conflict a `hot spot'? Who defines it? Whose job is it to see one developing and head it off? I'd like to get some clarity on questions like these.”
For Kenneth, getting clarity on ‘hot spots’ is a key issue. Once it emerges through the give-and-take of the conversation, he underlines it. An underline is a headline that becomes clear only as the conversation progresses.
Nicholas and his brother, Jonathan, start talking about their success in their respective careers. The conversation includes a discussion on the importance of making money. Ideas fly back and forth.
Then, in the middle of this discussion, Nicholas says, "You know what strikes me as we talk? Making money is important to me mainly as a scorecard. It’s one indicator that I'm doing well, that I'm smart, that I'm using my talents."
He and his brother go on to explore this perspective. Later, Jonathan, musing on what Nicholas said, goes on to explore his own motivation.
Here are a couple more examples of underlining. In the following example, Timothy has been talking to his wife, Anna, about a long-weekend getaway they have been planning. He is obviously fumbling a bit.
Then the light goes on and he says, "Now I think I know what's bothering me. I am looking forward to the trip. I'm very much looking forward to it. Though you've probably been wondering whether I wanted to go at all. But I'm still worried, even feeling guilty, about the cost. That's where my hesitation comes from."
Timothy goes to explain his point of view and to discuss how rational or irrational his ‘guilt feelings’ are. Anna, too, has her point of view. She explains her desire to balance the financial and social sides of their lifestyle. Their discussion is lively.
In the second example, Hilary is talking somewhat vaguely to her friend, Evelyn, about her teenage son's social life.
Again, the light goes on. She brings her thoughts to the foreground. "Now that we've been talking about this for a while, Evelyn, it's beginning to dawn on me that what's troubling me most is John's choice of friends. He seems to choose boys that dominate him in one way or another."
Hilary's naming and underlining this issue helps both of them give more focus to the conversation. Therefore, when you discover a thought, or theme, that helps pull some of the threads of the conversation together and give it direction, underline it. The problem of talking without focus.
Folk stories start with “Once Upon A Time . . .” for a good reason. The opening paragraph is there to put the reader in the picture, to prepare them for the story that follows. The same idea works well in conversations.
When you’re in the Explainer/Teller role, your message, story, point of view, or case, will be better understood by your conversational partners if you provide the necessary background or context for the topics, or issues, you’re discussing. Too often, people launch right into the middle of things, forcing those in the Understander role to ask themselves, "Where is this guy coming from? And where is he going?" The impact of the story, message, point of view, or case is lost.
The value of providing background is well appreciated by communication professionals. Film directors, for instance, typically start a movie with a few key scenes that quickly establish the background — where the story is set (desert), when (1940, Second World War), who (commandos), key characters (Captain Lance Turbo, hard nut.) And so on.
Comedians are also experts at setting context very efficiently in just a few well-chosen lines. “There was an Englishman, a Frenchman and a Spaniard, marooned on a desert island. They’d been there for two months and were now down to their very last supplies . . .”
Another example: traditional children’s stories often begin with, “Once Upon A Time”, which leads into a paragraph describing the set-up. “Once upon a time, there was a princess who lived in a tall castle in a land where everyone was rich and beautiful but very sad . . .”
So when you're setting up your story, or preparing your message, or formulating your point of view, or marshalling your case, think about what's already inside the mind of those in the Understander role. Ask yourself: "What can I safely assume they already know?" Or to put it another way: "What do I need to tell them by way of background? Do they know the people I'm talking about? Is the context clear? Do they understand the situation I want to talk about?"
The good Explainer/Teller sets the scene in the other person's mind by covering the basics such as who, what, where, and when first. In the following example, Douglas is talking to his wife about a critical meeting he had at work. Consider two different ways in which Douglas could introduce the topic.
For instance, he might have started by saying, "Frankly, I think that Hugh was trying to pull a fast one at yesterday's meeting. It was a case of a real insider trying to pull the wool over the eyes of outsiders."
In this scenario, Douglas leaps right into the middle of things. He provides a headline, but more than a headline is needed. His wife is a bit confused, because she doesn't know all the players in this drama.
Let's consider the same scenario in which Douglas begins by providing some background.
He begins by saying, "You know I was disgruntled when I came back from my trip to New York. The politics of the meeting upset me. Picture this. There were six of us at the meeting. Only when we got there did we find out that it was about the new project. A big one. But Paul, the initiator of the project, was not there. Nor was Keith, his assistant. Five of us were from different offices outside New York. The sixth was Hugh, Paul's boss. The only New York person. So he was the only one totally familiar with the project.
"Frankly, I think that Hugh was trying to pull a fast one at the meeting. Here's what happened . . ."
The aim is to paint enough of the picture for the other person to begin to ‘be there’ with you. It's too easy to start off a story part way through without even realising it. For instance, if you've been mulling over something for a while before you talk about it, there's often a temptation to begin the story at the point where you left it in your mind. This doesn't work. On the other hand, setting the scene is a way of engaging the attention of your conversational partners.
In the same way, if you want to get your message across clearly and forcefully, provide some background. Consider the ways two different members of the executive committee of a community organisation start a message-focused conversation. Both are members of the organisation's executive committee. At an executive committee meeting a decision has been taken to revise the community's fund-raising programme.
The first executive-committee member, Cyril, starts a meeting with a small group of people from the community by saying, "Let me be blunt. Our fund-raising programme is a disaster. We're going to have to make substantial changes. Let me list the changes I think we have to make. First . . ."
This in-your-face approach might work. It depends on what the players are like, what their history together has been, and other variables. But if discussion is what is needed, this is not the way to go.
Dina, another other member of the executive committee, meets later in the week with a different group of people.
Here's how she opens the discussion. "We've just had an executive committee meeting in which we debated the ins and outs of our fund-raising programme. Let me tell you a little bit about the programme. Its first phase is aimed at needed repairs in the community centre. There are two problems. If the repairs are not made soon, costs will escalate dramatically. Second, there is the possibility that council building inspectors will close the centre down until the repairs are made.
"The fund-raising programme is not a sound one. To be honest, we threw one together thinking that all we needed to do was count on the generosity of the members of the community. We were wrong. The community needs the generosity of its members, but first it needs your ideas on how to mount an intelligent fund-raising programme, that the entire community can buy into. That said, let's talk about it."
Dina provides background and context. And the spirit of her introduction is much more collaborative.
In the following example, Lisa, a college student, is talking to her college advisor. Her message is that she will not return for her next year. She's decided to go to a different college.
She could have said something like this, "I've decided to leave the college. It's just not working for me. I'd like some help on taking care of the formalities that will make the transition as smooth as possible."
Instead, she provides some context for her message, setting the conversation up as an exit interview. "When I was thinking about this conversation, I said to myself that I didn't want to sound negative. So I think it's important to tell you what I expected from a college. First, I expected the courses to be teaching me skills that were relevant to my future career. Second, I wanted lots of opportunities to mix with others students at a meaningful level . . .”
Lisa does not just give a speech. She says what she has to say in dialogue with her advisor. She also includes her rating of the college on these two characteristics. She then tells her advisor of her decision not to return. Perhaps you’re thinking, "Isn't this a bit too mature for a college student?" Perhaps.
When you’re sharing your point of view, providing some context can be very helpful. Rod is at a meeting in the community centre. The issue is whether to allow a group to take over a small shuttered hotel and turn it into a hospice for people with AIDS.
He could have said simply, "I've decided to vote for the proposal. I think it's right."
Instead he puts his fellow community members in the picture by saying, "You all know how conservative I am. You all also know how much I have fought to preserve the best in our community. Some of you have even accused me of being too conservative, not wanting any changes in the community. What I am about to say violates none of that."
He goes on to give his point of view. He believes that opening the hospice will benefit, rather than harm, the community and he gives his reasons.
Finally, when you’re making a case, putting your conversational partners in the picture can help them to be better disposed to listen to, and eventually to buy into, the case you’re making. Leonora represents a group of concerned parents in an inner city neighbourhood. In a meeting with her local council representative, Nat Brown, concerning the persistence of drug dealing on the streets, she wants to make a case for ‘community policing’, a collaborative effort between members of the community and the local police.
She begins by saying something like this: "Mr. Brown, I'd like to take a few minutes to do three things. First, I'd like to review what the city has done up to this point to try to get rid of the dealers. Second, I'd like to do a quick review of the reasons why we distrust the local police. Third, I'd like to make a suggestion about how we can work together.”
She goes on to spell out the history of the failure of the city to cope with the drug problem in her neighbourhood, and to outline mistakes that have been made on both sides in the tortured relationship between the community and the local police. The history is painful to listen to, but it is factual. Once the stage has been set, she begins to make the case for community policing.
The trick is to provide enough context to help those in the Understander role pick up quickly on what your main points are. If you give too much background, your conversational partners might become distracted and the impact of your story, message, point of view, or case might be dissipated or even lost. While you don't want your conversational partners saying such things as, "Come on, get to the point," you do want to provide enough background to create mutual understanding.
Explainer/Teller tasks such as explaining, describing, proposing, justifying, and so on, work best if they include the right ingredients. This section explains the ideal recipes for telling stories, delivering messages, sharing points of view, and making the case.
Headlining and underlining are necessary for clarity, but not sufficient. Once you've highlighted your topic or issue, it's crucial to fill it out with the right detail. If you fail to provide your conversational partners with enough (relevant) information, they might well fill in the missing pieces for themselves. And, often enough, they'll reach the wrong conclusion. Or, if after a good headline or underline, you wander all over the place, the impact is lost.
Good communicators, in the Explainer/Teller role, provide their conversational partners with enough information to prevent faulty assumptions being made. Put more positively, they make sure their stories, messages, points of view, and cases, have all the necessary ingredients.
Let's see how this looks in practice. A framework outlining the essential ingredients in each of these kinds of communication will help you make to sure add the right kind of detail.
A story has four essential ingredients, represented by the acronym, SAME:
The Situation, the background or context for the story: "This happened during my first year in college. It was the first time in my life that I was away from home without my family."
The Explainer/Teller's Actions, what he or she did or did not do: "At the end of the first term, I feigned illness to avoid taking an exam."
The Explainer/Teller's Mental states, how he felt about what happened in the story: "I was scared to death that I'd fail and get kicked out of college."
The Explainer/Teller's Experiences, what happened to him, what other people did, or did not do: "The head of department told me in a rather harsh voice that he knew what my game was, but then he softened and said he also understood why I was doing it."
Consider this example: Rhona comes into Howard's office. Since Howard is looking very glum, she asks, "What's wrong? You look pretty low." He replies, "Oh, I had a problem with my boss yesterday. And it's still bothering me today." Because this does not sound earth-shattering, Rhona moves on to some other issue. The problem is that Howard did not use the SAME ingredients.
What if, instead, Howard had outlined his predicament by using a headline followed by a brief story with all four of the above ingredients in it? It might have sounded something like this:
"Glum? You’re right about that. I had a disastrous encounter with my boss yesterday. (Headline). I was having a meeting with the members of my team. We were discussing the new marketing plan, resetting targets, raising the bar, you know, when in walked by boss, Patricia: (Situation, context, background). When she heard that we were discussing next quarter's marketing plan, she told me that it had ‘better be good’ and began telling me all the things I had done wrong last quarter. Right in front of the team! (Experience, what she did to him). I blew my top. (Action, plus Mental state or emotion). And then I told her off. I dumped all resentment I've been saving up, on to her. (Actions) She threatened to demote me on the spot. (Experience, what she did to him). Now I'm more than glum. I'm really depressed, (Mental state) and I’m trying to figure how to get my reputation and position back.” (Action)
This, to say the least, is a much clearer and more compelling statement of the problem than the bare-bones version: "I had a problem with my boss yesterday."
Rhona, listening to the SAME version, replies, "Good grief! What started out to be an ordinary day turned into a disaster within a few minutes. And now you're trying to mop it all up. . . . How do you think you might straighten it all out?"
Note that the reply is short, to the point, and captures the essence of what the Explainer/Teller has just said. They go on a have discussion about just what can be done to put his world back together.
As Explainer/Teller, your job is to try to make sure that the story, or message that’s in your head, ends up in the head of the Understander in as complete and undistorted a form as possible.
It's usually helpful if your story combines all four ingredients. Here's a story with two of the parts missing.
Matthew is complaining about the behaviour of his room-mate, Roger, “Roger came back yesterday and lost his temper. He ranted and screamed at me and said the flat looked like a bomb had hit it. And then he told me he wasn't going to pay his share of the rent. He had no right to be so rotten and I'm feeling really ticked off by his behaviour."
The story contains what happened to Matthew, (Experiences) and his feelings about them, (Mental state). Now, here's the story again with the missing ingredients - the Situation plus a fuller version of Matthew's Actions - included.
"Roger, my room-mate, and I are in quite a mess. Roger had agreed I could hold a party while he was away, so long as I cleaned up before he got back. Unfortunately, I didn't plan very well. I forgot that I had to visit my parents over the weekend, so I didn't get around to putting it back in order. And I didn't think of trying to get hold of him to apologise. Roger came back yesterday and lost his temper. He ranted and screamed at me, and said the flat looked like a bomb had hit it. And then he told me he wasn't going to pay his share of the rent. He was really crazy about the whole thing and I'm angry with him."
The story has quite a different meaning when all the key ingredients are included. In the first version, the Explainer/Teller comes across as a victim of Roger's over reaction. In the second version, one wonders about Matthew's behaviour and Roger's reaction doesn't seem quite so unreasonable.
How many times do we tell only half of the story, deliver only part of a message, convey only a vague outline of our point of view, leave important items out when we are making a case and still expect to be understood? If we fail to talk about our part in the story, what we did or did not do, we come across as victims at the mercy of other people's behaviour and of the situations in which we find ourselves.
A possible acronym for delivering messages is MRI (despite its medical affiliation):
Deliver the Message itself as clearly as possible and with the right kind of detail.
Give the Reasons for the message.
Spell out the Implications of the message for all key parties involved.
Nick, a lawyer, is talking with his wife Nora, a nurse, about a decision that he is on the verge of making. He first frames his remarks with some background. “You know I've been pretty unhappy about the work I do. When I was younger, there was nothing I wanted more than to be a lawyer. Now I hate it. I drag myself to the office everyday. I can't hide it any more." (R)
He goes on to deliver his Message: “I've more or less decided to go into politics. I've been talking with my political friends for about a year now. They're willing to support me as a candidate. In politics I can still use my legal skills, but in a way that's more challenging for me. I love reading about the political scene. Now I'd like to be part of it."
Nora says, "You won’t be surprised to know that this doesn't come as a complete shock to me.”
Nick goes on, "I know. If I win, there will be a lot of running back and forward between London and here. But I don't mind that. I'd think twice about it if we had to move. But we don't. You can keep your job. We keep our friends. There'll be less money, but we're not doing badly. We're not exactly over-the-top consumers. So there it is in a nutshell. What do you think?" (I)
Nick packages the essentials of MRI in a nutshell. He and Nora go on to discuss the Message, Reasons, and Implications in greater depth.
Sometimes messages can be quite ‘heavy’. Heavier messages require more thoughtfulness and skill. Recall Lillian, the woman who tells her husband, Larry, that she is not going through another round of chemotherapy. In the light of MRI, she might have delivered her message something like this.
Lillian first provides some background. "When I would read about people having to make agonising decisions about whether to have chemotherapy or not, my heart went out to them. I was so glad that it wasn't me. Now it's my turn. And I've been thinking a lot about you and about the kids."
She and Larry have a brief dialogue around these sentiments.
Then she says, "Larry, I've given this a lot of thought. And prayer. I have decided not to have the next round of chemotherapy treatments. But before you say anything, let me tell you why. In our hearts we both know that there is no cure. If there were any real hope of that, I'd probably try. But I don't want to go through agonising weeks just to gain a few more weeks - or even a couple of months. I want time to ponder my mortality in a more positive way. This means we have to talk about the end. We have to talk, because I don't want to die thinking that I'm deserting you. Thank God the kids are grown. I want them with me in this. Not protesting about what I'm doing. You have to help me in this."
All the ingredients are there, at least in capsule form. She and Larry go on to have a dialogue about the decision, together with the reasons for it and its implications.
The more concrete and specific (as opposed to abstract and vague) you are about all the ingredients of your story, message, point of view, or case, the more effective you will be as a communicator. But don't overdo it. Keep in mind both the purpose of the conversation and the two-way nature of dialogue. Don't use detail as a way of turning the conversation into a monologue.
The very simple framework PRE can help you share your point of view:
P is the Point of view itself, and,
R is the Reason(s) you hold this point of view.
E refers to Evidence, or Examples, that give weight and clarity to your view.
Let's see how this works.
Liam has three teenage children. He realises that the world in which they live differs greatly from the world in which he grew up. There are a number of things about the current social culture that bother him. He is talking with Hilary, a neighbour who has distinctly liberal views.
He starts with a few words about context: "I know that we're going through a social and cultural revolution. And I appreciate some aspects of it. I was raised very strictly. As I look back, with church, school, and family I felt pretty hemmed in. As I see it now, I was too hemmed in, too constricted."
Hilary says, "So, even though the world is messier, some of the social changes you see are welcome."
Liam goes on to give his point of view about society as he sees it now, saying, "Yes, they are welcome. But there are some extremes. There are two attitudes some younger people seem to have that bother me a lot. They bother me more when they are put together. The first attitude states: ‘I can do anything I want’. No rules, no accountability. The second attitude says: ‘But if I get in trouble, you have to take care of me’. As far as I can see, if you bundle these two together, it spells social disaster. I don't want my kids to feel hemmed in the way I was, but I don't want them to victimise themselves with attitudes like these either."
Hilary responds, "You think we've gone too far. Attitudes like that would get your kids into trouble, get society into trouble."
Liam goes on, "Well, take some of these high school shootings. They all seem like extreme examples of ‘I can do anything I want’. And then a lot of people want to excuse their behaviour one way or another, blame it on society. They say that these kids felt isolated. And that kind of stuff. I felt isolated at times when I was a teenager. All teenagers feel like this at times. But I never shot anyone."
How would you grade Liam on communicating his point of view in terms of the PRE framework? Is there anything that you would change?
The very term ‘point of view’ often implies the notion of conflict. "I have my point of view. You have yours. We might well differ." It makes sense for the person in the Explainer/Teller role to deliver his, or her, point of view in such a way that the other person can hear it. It need not come across as a challenge or, even worse, a condemnation. If a point of view sounds like an accusation, the other person is likely to react rather than listen and respond.
Are there times when you probably should challenge someone's point of view? Certainly. We do that all the time. Challenge might be appropriate if you think that the other's point of view is too limited. Or if you think that the person might harm himself by maintaining such an outlook. Or if you think that the other's point of view could lead to actions that would harm others. But challenge need not carry the message, ‘You're wrong’. Challenge, carried out through dialogue, focuses on learning rather than on being right.
James Friedrich and David Douglass have reviewed principles that they believe should govern the use of persuasion in educational settings. Jay Conger has outlined principles to govern the use of persuasion in the workplace. These principles have been combined and reworked to produce the following set of value-focused guidelines for anyone making a case in whatever setting.
The acronym CRITIC stands for:
The Case itself and the clarity, with which it needs to be expressed.
The Reasons for the case.
The Interests of stakeholders, that is, the people being affected by the proposal other than the one making the case.
The Time people need to review, digest, and form opinions about the case.
The personal Interests of the case maker, that is, what he or she might get out of it.
The kind of Compromise that might be needed to meet the needs of concerned stakeholders.
All of these can be discussed and elaborated through dialogue.
There are degrees of seriousness in making cases. If you and your friends are going out to dinner, you can make a case for going to a restaurant that has just opened. Even then a mini-version of CRITIC might be useful. At the other end of the scale - let's say you’re making a case for you and your family to move to a developing country for a year in order, ‘to learn more about the world and put life in perspective’ - the full version might be called for.
Two things before we review the factors that comprise CRITIC. First, before you present your case, you should review your credibility with your audience, whether it's your spouse or the senior management committee at work. Credibility is something that you build over time. There may be fast food, but there is no such thing as fast credibility. If people don't trust you or if your track record is poor, you will have an uphill battle. For instance, Doris, a teenager making a case for being permitted to stay out later at night, lacks credibility because she has shown himself to be irresponsible in other areas.
Assess your credibility before you make a case. If you have been caught lying a couple of times, your credibility is at a low ebb. Whether fair or not, it’s often easier to lose credibility than to earn it. If you have ulterior motives or hidden agendas in making your case, watch how quickly you can lose your credibility.
Second, make sure that those to whom you’re presenting your case understand its context or background. This differs from the reasons you give for the case. The history, or context, or background you give, frames the case, allowing those who are listening to it to focus immediately on the important CRITIC issues. Once you have presented the background, then proceed to the case itself. Here are the principles.
Your case is some kind of proposal that you would like others to act on. It should be clear in your own mind so that you can make it clear to others. Your case will make little impact if it’s not clear. Therefore, preparation time in making the core case clear is never time wasted. Some cases are quite simple; others are very complex.
Arthur has just completed his degree course at university. He is presenting a case to his parents.
By way of background he says, "I've had a great time, both academically and socially. I'm learning a great deal about myself. And I have some initial ideas as to what I'd like to get out of life."
Then he goes on to state his case: "I'd like to spend next year in a volunteer project in Kenya. There’s a high school there, which runs a programme for new graduates, like myself. It’s been running for some ten years now.
"Four graduates a year go and work at the school. They live with a family locally. They get involved in both the school and the community. They are mentored by members of the high-school staff. They work at tasks that best fit their talents, and that will add the greatest value to the school and to the community. But everything is well organised. All expenses are paid, including air travel. But the students are not paid; they receive only pocket money.
"I've read testimonials from students who’ve been through the programme and comments of the school staff. They are all very positive. Those who’ve gone through it say that it’s a hard year - but, you know, hard in a good sense - and they say it’s an extremely rewarding experience."
Since things go better with dialogue, the conversation with his parents is highly interactive throughout the CRITIC categories. They have a lot of questions and, since he is well prepared, he has a lot of answers.
Not only do you have to be credible yourself, but your reasoning has to be sound. Arthur goes on to have a dialogue with his parents about his reasons for joining the African programme.
He says, "Through my economics course, I’ve come to realise that as a middle-class American, I'm up near the top of the world economic pyramid. What strikes me is how little I know about the rest of the world, despite newspapers and television.
"I want to know what ordinary people are like somewhere very different. And not people who are at the top of the economic pyramid. I almost feel like I'd never really know myself without knowing how other people live. This is my chance to do so."
Part of the dialogue, then, revolves around Arthur's motivation. As he presents his reasons, there is a great deal of give-and-take in his discussion with his parents.
Here are some things you can do to make sure that your reasoning is sound when you present the details of your case.
Provide solid evidence for your case.
Disclose the quality of the evidence you’re presenting.
Don't let your being liked by others take the place of evidence.
Leave the classical ‘hard sell’ to unreformed used-car salesmen.
Make a strong case when the evidence is strong; temper it when the evidence is weaker.
Let's return to Doris for a moment. In making a case for staying out later, she says, "Tom (her older brother) gets to stay out later," and, "Mum, we're heading into the 21st century!" These reasons will probably leave her mother unmoved. Furthermore, your reasons should be solid, but not overwhelming. People are uncomfortable when they have nowhere to move. In presenting your reasons, do not exaggerate. Temper your case when the reasons are not compelling.
Take into consideration the interests of those affected by the case. This means that you have to listen to, and understand, other stakeholders' needs and wants. If what you propose will affect others in both positive and negative ways, be open about both. This is one of the most critical parts of Arthur's case.
He says, "I know that you'll worry about me for all sorts of reasons. But I'm in excellent health and I know how to take care of myself. Before I go, I'd make a contract with you: If anything goes wrong in any kind of major way, I'll head home. And if you guys can do it, I'd like you to come visit. Parents are welcome for visits."
The three of them discuss this for a while.
Then Arthur says, "I know you'd like me to start my career as soon as possible, but I’d feel more like getting serious about work if I had some kind of break first. Doing this now won’t add any further financial burden on you. I guess ‘burden’ is not the right word. I don't think that you see it that way."
He gives room for his parents to address any of their interests, which he may have overlooked.
Back to Doris, the teenager looking for more freedom. She would do well to take her parents' interests into consideration. Her mother has a right to be reasonably concerned about her welfare.
Doris says something like this, "Mum, I know you worry about me. And, like you, I know the city is not always a safe place."
Sentiments like this, sincerely believed and sincerely expressed, would go a long way in helping her connect with her mother and open the door to further dialogue.
Have you ever been rushed to make a decision by a fast-talking salesman? When a car salesman asks you, "What do I have to do to have you drive out in one of our cars this evening?" you know it's time to leave.
If Doris is making her case with her mother this afternoon because she wants to stay out late this evening, she might be disappointed with the hearing she gets.
On the other hand, Arthur says to his parents, "I don't have to make a final decision until about six weeks from now. I wanted to bring it up with you as soon as it became clear in my own mind so that we could all get used to the idea. So, we need to chew it over together."
Giving people time is often to the advantage of the person making the case. While others may find flaws with it over time, they also begin to learn to live with it.
We make cases, at least ideally, because we think it’s the right thing to do, and because we will get something out of it. Be open about your own motivation. If your interests are legitimate and reasonable, there is nothing to hide. Disclosing your interests adds to your credibility.
Arthur says, "I think that my main interest is to see, no, to experience, the world in a radically different way. Also, part of growing up is getting away for a while. College takes care of part of this. But this is really getting away."
Note that since the case is something that will benefit Arthur, his reasons for it and his interests more or less coincide.
It’s often helpful to share your emotional commitment to the case you’re making. If you’re passionate about a cause, let others know. But don't think that strong emotions will take the place of solid reasons. Arthur speaks passionately about his desire to go, but he is also wise for his years and tempers his passion with realism.
Invite counter arguments. Don't set up straw men and then knock them down. If you make your case through dialogue, you will come to understand both your own and the interests of others better. Dialogue can also help you fine-tune your case and get a better fix on the reasons that support it. In a word, dialogue will help you learn more about the case. One thing that you will learn is that you may have to compromise a bit. But if others help you hone your case, then the final package might well be better than the one with which you started.
Arthur is not open to a great deal of compromise, but there is some room to move.
He says, "The same organisation also has high schools in Peru and Alaska with similar programmes. My second choice would be Peru. I'd have to learn some Spanish, but that would be fun. Classes are taught in both Spanish and English. A sort of distant third is the programme in Alaska. They say that it’s as challenging as the other two - but, well, you know, Alaska is in the United States."
They have a lively discussion around these possibilities. The parents bring up some other possibilities.
Of course, you don't have to go through the entire CRITIC checklist every time you’re making a case. Rather, the values that the list represents should permeate the dialogue as you make your case.
Making a case does not mean pushing your agenda down people's throats, getting what you want despite all opposition, or getting people to do things even when they think that it’s not in their own, or others', best interests. Clearly this would violate the win-win ideal and other values outlined earlier.
Then what about persuasion? Attempts to persuade or influence others are so woven into the texture of life that we often don't even notice them. If someone is trying to persuade you to do something, he, or she, need not be pursuing a win-lose game. In fact, the persuader might well be trying to influence you precisely because he, or she, thinks this will be good for you. Of course, many persuaders usually know that if they can convince you it will be good for them. "Vote for me." "Buy my wares." "Join our club." The point is this. If, in a conversation, you find yourself in persuasion mode, pause a moment and ask yourself what you're doing and why.
Some forms of persuasion are quite sinister. Words like seduce, entice, exploit, and threaten come to mind. The message is something like this: "Do this. It will be good for me even though it may harm you. I don't care."
When you make a case, the compelling nature of the case itself is central. The case itself should capture the minds and hearts of your listeners, not your ability to manipulate their minds and hearts. For instance, Ellen, a student at secondary school, makes a case with her parents for getting a new computer. Elements of the case include the new lower cost of speedy computers, how the computer will help her in her class work, and how she will work to pay for half of it. This is far from cajoling her parents, sweet-talking her father, playing one parent against the other, and using other manipulative tactics to get what she wants.
An important way of communicating clearly with your conversational partners is to make important connections clear to them. This relates to stories, messages, points of view, and cases. Your partners need to understand you. They need to know what you really mean. Often a great deal of your meaning is found in links or connections. Let's consider a few examples.
When using the SAME framework, it's important to be clear not only about the situation, your actions, what others do, and your emotional reactions, but also the important links among them. "I was depressed because she said she'd come but failed to show up." "What happened yesterday doesn't make any sense unless you know something about our relationship."
Luella is talking with her doctor about some symptoms she has been having, including headaches and lower-back pain. During the course of her examination she says,
"To tell the truth, I notice these aches and pains most often when I go out socially. You know, when I least need them."
This proves to be an important link. The doctor, after a thorough examination, finds no physical basis for her symptoms. It seems that Luella has been going to more social events because her husband wants to. Since she's more of an introvert, these social forays take a toll on her psychologically. Once she knows what the problem is, she can begin to look for solutions.
There are links among messages themselves, the reasons for them, and the implications that follow from them. Sometimes it helps to emphasise key linkages.
Clark says, "I'm calling it quits with Sandy. Let me tell you why. Both of us have fallen into some bad habits in our relationship. Lying and stuff like that. We do it automatically. My brother had an on-and-off relationship with his first girlfriend. During those years they both picked up some very bad relationship habits. They finally called it off, but these habits have been messing up other relationships he's been in ever since. I don't want that to happen to me. Or to Sandy."
Clark uses an example to illustrate the reasoning behind his decision.
In another case, Suzanne, talking with her 21-year-old son, says, "It's important for you to know why I'm not going to lend you the money to pay for the car. It's not because I don't have it. I do. So I'm not going to fudge about that. It's really about responsibility. Because your father wasn't with us, I just gave you things as you grew up. My fear is that I've conspired with you to develop some bad habits. You're out of college now and the world is not going to give you anything. I think this change is going to be painful for both of us."
Her son gets both the message and the key connection his mother has highlighted. Her tone makes it clear that she means what she says. What he doesn't know is whether there is any room to manoeuvre. So, as they continue to talk, he understandably tries to find out.
In the PRE framework, the reasons for the point of view should be linked to the point itself and the examples or evidence should be linked to both.
Eva, talking to a friend who has been making disparaging remarks about the city, makes her point: "You can't lump everything in the city together. All big cities have problems. But I like living here because it's one city where things are getting better. There are lots of job opportunities. Crime statistics are down. The city looks nicer every year - more trees, improved parks. They're doing something about the education mess. Enough to get noticed by both the national and international press. You can't beat the entertainment. And people in this city don't have an ‘attitude’. We're not better than others. But we like it here. Entertainment's great. All the cultural stuff you could want. And I have a lot of friends. We care about and watch out for one another."
Eva provides reasons and examples to support her point of view. All of this helps her challenge her friend's point of view
You can express yourself in a manner that’s technically excellent yet has oddly little impact. This might well be because your style lacks the human touch. This skill is about ensuring that you’re interesting, colourful and convincing, as well as clear. One of the keys is to pepper your conversations with examples and instances, since these hook what you say to real life.
Try to paint a picture in your mind of a ‘building’.
That’s an impossible task because the word ‘building’ is too general, too vague for it to be represented by an image in your mind. You can’t picture vagueness.
Now imagine a thatched cottage, surrounded by a pretty garden and bathed in sunlight. That's much easier to picture, because the description is concrete and specific.
Good Explainer/Tellers appreciate the power of being concrete and specific, whether they are telling a story, delivering a message, sharing a point of view, or making a case.
Stories, examples, and presentations that create pictures in the other person's mind — or take on some other form of clarity — usually have more impact. One term that’s been used to describe this quality is ‘imaginability’ — a measure of how hard or easy a description is to imagine or visualise.
Stories, illustrations, instances and examples bring messages, points of view, and cases to life. In person-to-person communication, clarity and accuracy of detail are often not enough. It’s vital that the points being made are and clear but even then, they may still be somewhat lifeless.
Effective Explainer/Tellers avoid off-the-shelf, generalised descriptions and clichés. Which of the following two statements has more meaning built into it?
"I felt let down by her. She did things that just weren't right."
"I felt betrayed. I really trusted her, only to discover that she'd been playing a game with me all along. I'd pour out my problems to her - I thought in confidence - but then she'd talk about me behind my back."
The first is a statement of fact, but is vague and lacks life. The second is not just a fact but a story that gives life to the fact. The details are explicit and precise.
Do people like listening to you? Do they get caught up in what you're saying? If not, perhaps you need to find ways of injecting more life into your conversations.
Some people consistently leave out feelings. Their stories are without emotion, their messages are lifeless, the points of view are without conviction, and passion is missing from the cases they are trying to make. If we fail to include a description of what's going on inside us: our thoughts, mental states, and feelings, we are leaving out what could be an important part of the picture. We can't expect people to be mind readers.
On the other hand, if our story concentrates too much on feelings, at the expense of other ingredients, we also run the risk of being misunderstood. That's because feelings only make sense when they are connected to the other ingredients of the story. Ordinarily, feelings don't just come from nowhere. They arise because of what happens to us and because of what we do or don't do.
There can be many reasons for our failure to share what's going on inside. We may be embarrassed because ‘talking about how we feel inside’ is not part of our style. Alternatively, we might be only partially aware of what we're feeling or are unable to find the words to describe them.
There are various ways of making stories and presentations more compelling.
Consider ways of bringing the SAME framework to life when telling a story or giving an example. Add a bit of drama to the background, if the background is important. Bring what you did, or didn't do - your Actions - to life. When telling a story about yourself make yourself the ‘leading actor’ in your story. Relive the incident as you talk. Recall the sights and sounds, the thoughts and feelings just as they were at the time. But also, consider the situation in which you’re telling your story. Don't go overboard.
In the following example, Nina is looking for a new job. She is talking to Lionel about her first interview. She wants to tell him about the interview with a view to getting his thoughts on how she might do better next time. She could have said, "Overall, I think I did a good job, but I could be fooling myself." Instead, she paints a more engaging picture of what happened during the interview.
As you read the following, review how Nina effectively uses the SAME criteria: providing the right background (S), explaining what she did or did not do (A), describing the actions of others (E), reliving feelings that accompanied her experiences and actions, and expressing appropriate feelings (M), in the telling of the story itself. What follows is a summary of what she told Lionel. The actual conversation was much more of a dialogue.
"When he asked me what I found most difficult in my present job, I knew he wanted to know something about my ‘weak spots’, you know, the things I don't do that well. Well, my heart pounded a bit, but I knew I could take something that sounded negative initially and turn it into a plus. So I began by saying that I thought that the ability to criticise oneself is an essential aspect of self-development. He looked surprised and said that he couldn't agree more. I was delighted. I knew I was on the right track."
"I said that one of my weak spots was, paradoxically, being too hard on myself and too easy on others. I tend to find fault even with the things I do well. I don't let others get away with murder, but at times I don't intervene quickly enough when things are going wrong. I need more balance. Of course, I didn't go on and on. He asked questions and made brief remarks throughout the interview. I answered all his questions in a direct way. He didn't press me on anything. I took this as a sign that he was getting the answers he was looking for."
In response to questions from Lionel, she gives a couple of examples of what she means by being "too easy on others." She also gives an example of what she means by being "too hard" on herself, describing how she referred a client to one of her colleagues because she doubted her own abilities. In retrospect, she realises that could have done a better job in a few places in the interview.
Nina obviously brings her story to life. This gives Lionel something to work with. The two of them go on to discuss the best points in her ‘interviewee’ style and ways in which she might improve.
There are ways of bringing messages to life, making them clear and forceful, but without overwhelming your conversational partners. A lively mix of the message itself (M), the reasons for it (R), and the implications for all concerned parties (I), can give messages the crispness and sense of urgency they need.
Georgina is talking to Tess, one of her close friends, about her dissatisfaction with college. She could have delivered her message quite starkly, "I've decided to take a year off."
Instead she starts with some background saying, "Tess, you know I've been unhappy the last few months. I've been missing quite a few lectures. I've been grumpy in conversations, even with you. The problem is I'm so unfocused in what I'm doing. I'm studying history, but I think I've made a mistake in choosing it."
Up to this point her emotional tone is muted in keeping with what she is saying. But now she continues with a much more upbeat and self-assured tone.
She starts with a headline, saying, "Anyway, I've decided to take some time off college. Maybe a year. The scholarship money will stop and I'm not sure it will be available when I return. But that's not the point. I want to get a job, forget the academic rat race for a while, and be myself. And take time to plan a college experience that makes sense for me."
At this point Georgina relaxes and speaks much more deliberately. "I'm at peace with myself. In fact, since I've made the decision, the headaches I've been having have disappeared."
Even in this short message, Georgina headlines the central message, "I'm taking time off college," gives some reasons for it, outlines some of the practical implications of her decision (the MRI package). In doing so, she expresses a range of feelings. She also reveals something about herself that Tess did not know - the part about the headaches. This, too, adds some depth to her message.
There are also ways of sharing opinions and points of view with conviction without giving your conversational partners the impression that you’re trying to ram it down their throats. A sprightly mix of the point itself (P), the reasons or evidence for it (R), and examples (E), that illustrate it can bring your point of view to life.
Harriet is talking with her husband, Nathan, about her mother. Nathan has suggested that Harriet was not paying enough attention to her mother's needs.
Harriet listens, feeds back some highlights, then shares her point of view. "I love my mother. Well, she's my mother after all. But that doesn't mean that she doesn't have faults or that I should overlook them. I think that she is much more self-centred and controlling than she comes across to people who see her only now and then. She adores you. She manipulates me. Or tries to. I know that this sounds stark. Maybe even harsh. And I don't want to overstate my point. Take the family gathering last week. I didn't want to play hostess. It just wasn't a good time for me. There were too many things on my mind. But I let her badger me into it. I don't think I helped her, or myself, by giving in. All this means that I'm not as open with her as I would like. I'm ‘careful’ when I'm around her. I don't like it that way, but that's the way it is."
And Nathan replies, "I know that you and your mother have a tiff every now and again. But I had no idea of picture you've just painted."
Harriet goes on, "Well, you and she get along so well. I've kept some of this to myself because I don't want to do anything to mess up your relationship with her."
Nathan reflects a moment and then says, "I don't want to mess it up either. But neither do I want to be a co-conspirator with her when she's playing games with you."
Harriet moves beyond the bare facts. She shares her point of view about her mother, shares her feelings, and uses an example. Notice how this leads to a dialogue with Nathan. Note, too, that Nathan's immediate response is not to feed back highlights. He might have sounded like a counsellor instead of a husband. Instead he shares a bit of himself in the spirit of understanding.
Bringing your proposal or case to life can make the difference between its being accepted or rejected. On the one hand, you want the substance of the case to speak for itself. The life that you give it should correspond to its substance. Otherwise you’re using selling, or persuading, as a substitute for substance - or, worse, pulling the wool over other people's eyes. The life you give your case should highlight its good points rather than obscure its faults.
Remember that you’re making your case with people, not robots. The CRITIC categories provide a logical framework but they often need to be humanised, brought to life. Stories, illustrations, examples, and the expression of feeling, can help you do justice to your case, set it in the right light, and give it life and definition. Sharing your own emotional commitment can be a sign of your conviction and credibility. If you have passion, express it.
Harry couldn't understand why his brothers and sisters rejected outright his proposal that their mother, suffering from Alzheimer's disease, moved to an assisted-living residential community. He provided them with facts and figures. He gave a good clinical overview of what assisted-living would be like. He pointed out that they all lived within reasonable driving distance of the facility he had chosen. He even estimated driving times. He gave a rundown of their mother's condition, pointing out how easily she forgot things and even people. They remained unmoved.
One day he was talking to one of his sisters. He said that all he was doing was trying to make sure that everyone's needs were met - especially his mother's. But he also thought that his plan showed consideration for his bother, Silas's, needs. Their mother was currently staying with Silas and his family. His sister told him that his argument went over so poorly because it all sounded so clinical.
She said, "It was like listening to someone read out a sales brochure.”
She also said that their initial rejection of his idea had a lot to do with the guilt they were feeling about ‘getting rid of’ mother. They didn't want to face the issue.
In a renewed attempt to make a case for new living arrangements for their mother, Harry said something like this:
He briefly mentions the background. "The last time we got together, I talked about a possibility for a different living arrangement for mum. But in retrospect, I think I made a mess of it. I've had feedback that my proposal didn't exactly go down well. I think that a lot of this had to do with the way I presented things. I've talked with a few of you individually, so I'd like to take another shot."
They have a brief discussion that centres around these opening remarks.
Then Harry goes on, "First of all, I don't want to give a speech here. So I'm going to bring up some ideas and we should all talk about them as we go along. I know we all want to do what's best for mum. And all of us want to share some of the burden, if that's the right word. Probably not. Silas, it seems that you and your family are doing most of the work. I know you do it willingly, but still it doesn't seem right to some of us."
They all discuss the current living arrangement and agree that something should be done about it.
Harry goes on to say, "If mum lives in an assisted-living residence, she'll get the best treatment. The facility I have in mind is cheerful. The staff are very accommodating to individual needs. They're experts in helping people who, understandably, become a bit difficult as they get older. And, let's admit it, mum's a bit difficult at times. When, and if, mobility becomes a problem for her, that's no problem for us. It's very easy to get around. She's been great to us. She deserves the best. Sue and I visited the residence the other day. Sue, would you mind giving your impressions?"
His sister gives her favourable impressions of the facility. "It didn't make me think of a nursing home at all." The family members ask questions and discuss some of the details.
Then Harry continues, "I know some of you’re worried about ‘abandoning’ mum. Actually, if she lives there more of us could get involved. I've already talked about how convenient it is to get to. And Linda [one of the mother's favourite nieces] has agreed to stay with mum until she gets orientated. They encourage people to stay over when times are difficult for their residents. The times I've been at the residence there have been lots of relatives around."
Harry goes on in this vein, encouraging dialogue, using examples, talking with emotion about doing their best for her, and sharing things about himself.
He ends by saying, "I personally think that the time has come for mum to move. But there's no need to take immediate action. We need to think about it and talk about it more. The time should fit mum's needs, not our timetable. You might come up with a better residence, or have other ideas. But the time to talk about it is certainly now."
All of this is completely different from his previous presentation. A compelling human picture replaces the clinical one. He ends the family meeting by suggesting that they not make a decision immediately. They need to talk it over further with their siblings and with their families.
How do you think Harry is doing in this second attempt to make a case? Apply the CRITIC guidelines (credibility, case, clarity, reasons, the interests of others, time to think it over, Harry's interests, room for compromise). Effective Explainer/Tellers, when sharing points of view or making a case, not only use examples to illustrate key points, but also have some in reserve to meet the needs of different Understanders. Obviously, this takes preparation.
Using examples to illustrate your messages, points of view, and cases, has an added advantage when your listener is not favourably disposed to the case you’re making. Opponents often say, "Give me a couple of examples of what you mean." Sometimes the request for examples is a legitimate search for understanding. At other times it’s a thinly disguised way of saying such things as, "I don't like what you're saying," or, "I don't believe what you're saying." What the objector really means is, "I dare you to come up with examples that will convince me." When you're put on the spot like that, it's very difficult dredge up some examples. If your listeners are really adversaries, then mountains of examples won't work.
Bringing your story, message, point of view, or case to life does not necessarily mean lots of words. Effective communicators provide the essentials in a lively way and then encourage give and take. They don't introduce drama for the sake of drama. They remain themselves. They prefer the role of authentic conversational partner rather than that of actor
The process of exchanging confidences is at the heart of building and deepening relationships. To use the jargon, relationships evolve as the partners ‘self-disclose’. The skilled and wise Explainer/Teller appreciates the power of personalisation, of revealing yourself through the telling of your experiences and points of view, but is equally sensitive to how it can be badly handled, or even abused.
One of the prime purposes of conversation is to establish, develop, maintain, and deepen relationships.
Intimate relationships — ones that are enjoyable, productive, and lasting - develop when people get to know one another in more than superficial ways. Intimacy usually involves some kind of mutual self-disclosure. Learning how to make self-disclosure serve relationships is a combination of skill and wisdom.
Ellen Berscheid, an expert in the field of interpersonal relationships, notes that "satisfying close relationships constitute the very best thing in life; there is nothing people consider more meaningful and essential to their mental and physical well-being than their close relationships with other people." On the negative side, she notes that troubled relationships, especially family relationships, are the most commonly presented problems of those seeking professional help. Dialogue can help. The kind of conversations we have with others affects our relationships with them profoundly. Conversations can build, destroy, maintain, or stultify our relationships.
Relationship building covers a lot of territory. You chat briefly with the postman. You get to know him a bit. He gets to know you a bit. You both enjoy these brief encounters. More than mere civility is involved. You’re friendly. However, at work you talk long and hard with fellow team members in order to develop and execute projects. On an even deeper level, you talk quite intimately with those to be numbered among your closest friends. More is at stake here. Conversations of increasing intimacy constitute one of the principal ways of developing friendships. Once friendships are established, deeper conversations about many different things become an end in themselves.
James Pennebaker has edited a guide entitled Emotion, Disclosure, and Health. The guide's many contributors look at self-disclosure, sharing details of one's life with other people, from just about every possible angle. The consensus is that appropriate self-disclosure contributes to both physical and emotional health.
Yet, some people actively struggle to avoid becoming known by other people. They have their reasons. Some people even spend energy constructing a false public self. There is the real self and the version presented to other people. Some of these ‘hiders’ become fearful of being exposed. For them, normal social interactions and conversations, instead of becoming a source of pleasure and support, become a source of anxiety. This kind of struggle to remain unknown can be quite stressful. In some cases, it can lead to both physical and emotional problems. It goes without saying that dialogue with someone who does not want to be known is inevitably constrained.
It goes without saying that ‘hiders’ often avoid intimacy. There are, of course, many different kinds of intimacy. The media can give the false impression that the most important kind of intimacy is sexual intimacy. But the intimacy of marriage, or other deeper relationships, is far more than sexual. The meeting of minds, hearts, and wills that constitutes friendship does not get a big play in the media. One of the most important kinds of intimacy for many is ‘work’ intimacy. The workplace provides a great deal of social satisfaction for most people. The intimacy of socialising with co-workers and working with team members on a project is very rewarding for many.
Self-disclosure, or openness, provides nourishment for intimacy. Good friends naturally want to know things about one another. Friends want to know what their friends think, feel, believe, worry about, and hope for. They often want to know the experiences that have shaped their friends' lives. And so friends naturally exchange confidences. Furthermore, personalising conversations often makes them more interesting.
The point here is that different kinds of intimacy are nourished by different kinds of openness or disclosure. Good communicators tailor self-disclosure to the situation and to the kind of intimacy that makes sense for the relationship. The fancy name for this is ‘appropriate self-disclosure’. It's a question of balance. Also, what is appropriate for someone else might not be appropriate for you. There is no one ideal level of openness. The kind of self-sharing that goes on in more intimate relationships might be out of place in a more casual setting.
Western societies, perhaps especially the United States, have had periods when telling ‘everything’ in small groups - or even to total strangers on trains and planes - was the fad. We can be thankful that this fad has had its day. ‘Letting it all hang out’ is a form of latter-day barbarism that creates its own set of problems. Indeed, the over-discloser is often seen as boring. Bores tend to over-personalise things and talk about themselves too much. Therefore, much of their disclosure is inappropriate. There is too much detail about everything.
Learning to be appropriately open with others has an added benefit. We get to know and understand ourselves better by communicating openly with others. Conversation, it turns out, is one of the best ways we have of exploring the full range and diversity of our thoughts, memories, and emotions. Talking candidly about ourselves not only helps other people to know us, it also helps us to get to know ourselves better and be more genuine.
The stories you tell, the messages you deliver, the points of view you share, and the cases you present say a great deal about you. They are modes of self-disclosure in themselves. You can also use these modes of communication to reveal more about yourself. That is, you can personalise them to the degree you think appropriate. We cannot not communicate. Silence and refusing to communicate are communications in themselves. Our actions communicate. Our nonverbal behaviour communicates. It follows that we cannot not reveal ourselves through our communication. Therefore, it’s wise to be in charge of what you want to communicate about yourself, and to whom.
A further word about using emotion as a way of personalising your communication. Expressing emotions appropriately adds colour, intensity, and spice to your stories, messages, points of view, and cases. On the other hand, don't make them up. They should flow naturally from you because they are you. People differ widely in styles of emotional expression. There is no one ‘right style’. But a bit of authentic salsa can add the right degree of piquancy to stories, messages, points of view, and cases.
You can, of course, tell stories about yourself. These, by their very nature, are acts of self-disclosure. For instance, you tell your wife how much you enjoyed a business conference you attended. But you can also use personal anecdotes to make stories about other things more interesting. Let's say that you’re telling a story about a friend's illness and his stay in the hospital. But you personalise it by sharing how learning about his illness affected you, and what it was like when you visited him.
At one point you say, "Every time he mentioned the word ‘cancer’ my whole body tightened. I was amazed at how freely he talked about his illness and I compared my own tight-lipped approach to problems with his openness. In a very matter-of-fact way he talked about probabilities of a complete cure. I felt my own life was in the balance. I admired how he was handling the whole thing. I began to wonder why I'm so uptight about any physical problem I have."
You go on to relate how the two of you react so differently to hospitals. You hate them. He sees a hospital stay as a break.
The messages you deliver are of two types. There are messages that you pass along about decisions that have been made elsewhere. For instance, if a company makes a decision to close a factory, you, as factory manager, have to deal with both employees and the community. However, the way you deliver this unpalatable message has a lot to do with how the decision will be carried out. Even though you have not made the decision and even though you think the decision may be flawed, your job is to communicate it and help carry it out. Therefore, in some way you must make it your own. When you communicate it, you need to put some of yourself in it. Eloise, a plant manager, talks to the members of her team about the decision.
She puts herself on the line. "This decision is difficult for all of us. It certainly is for me. Whether I agree with the decision or not, is no longer the issue. But I want to implement it with the same dignity and decency that I would, had it been my own. Since I'm paid by this company, it now is my own."
Eloise personalises the decision she is passing along. She wants her team members to know what she is thinking and feeling, as a prelude to their getting on with it as a team.
On the other hand, many of the decisions you make in your personal and work life are yours, rather than someone else's. Therefore, the messages through which these decisions are conveyed are personal by nature. They are a form of self-disclosure. You can further personalise them by revealing how you arrived at the decision, by using personal anecdotes to illustrate the message, by taking others through the reasoning process that led to the decision, by sharing the implications the decision has for you, and by revealing how you feel about how the decision will affect others.
For instance, Derek is talking to one of his married sons about his decision to put off retirement. "I didn’t realise how much I had come to identify with work. And I've done nothing to prepare for retirement. I just put it off. A couple of my buddies are overjoyed. We do a lot of things outside work and they feared that once I left that would be the end of it. But your mother is disappointed. That's the one thing that almost changed my mind. She and I spent evenings talking it through and came up with a definite plan for some mini-vacations. She calls them ‘mini-retirements’ and sees them as promising signs for the real thing. But I'm still not sure that she understands how important work is for me and how much I love being with my buddies there."
This kind of self-disclosure - which is certainly not self-disclosure for its own sake - brings life and humanity to his message.
Sharing a belief or point of view is, in itself, a form of self-disclosure. Points of view are part of you. In some ways they are you. Your opinions (P), when expressed, are windows that reveal the ways you see yourself and the world. The processes you use in order to form these opinions (R), when expressed, tell others a great deal about how you gather, sift through, organise, and form opinions from data. They tell others something about the breadth of your experiences, and what conclusions you draw from them. They say something about the degree to which you try to validate these conclusions. Finally, the examples you use to illustrate your opinions (E), tell your conversational partners something about you. They can show how thoughtful, (or how prejudiced and scatter-brained!) you are.
Aileen is talking with her friend, Liz. They have been talking about what keeps them going when things get rough. At one point, Liz tells Aileen that she's discovered that her husband, Bill, is having an affair.
Then she says, "You know all the clichés about when the going gets tough the tough get going. I suppose that there's something to that and it's not just a bunch of macho crap. But when I run into big problems, like this one with Bill, I try to put things in context by thinking about who we are and why we're here. I have to find some meaning beyond molecules and all the media hype that surrounds us these days. I meditate a little every day. I don't know, it builds up some kind of reserve, or strength, that I draw on when things don't go right."
Aileen never really knew her friend, Liz, until Liz shared with her some of her religious beliefs. These beliefs were a key to many of Liz's behaviours, including her kindness and her sticking to principle. Understanding the wellspring of Liz's behaviours helped Aileen appreciate her friend even more.
Making a case is personal, because a case is something you own, something you invest yourself in. You usually have feelings about it. Take some of the CRITIC categories. Your credibility, and the case (C) you’re investing yourself in, are quite personal. Furthermore, no set of reasons (R) for your position is completely objective. Therefore, your set of reasons says something about you. Sharing your interests (I), what you personally are going to get out of it is, by definition, an act of self-disclosure. Sharing with others how your position affects their interests (I), tells them something about you. Finally, indicating to what degree of manoeuvrability there is your position - your willingness to compromise (C) - is self-revealing.
Rebecca is talking with three of her friends. The four of them have, from time to time, talked about the possibility of getting a modest place at a nearby lake, to be used as a weekend getaway spot.
Early in the conversation she says, "I know that I can be very persuasive. But I don't want to talk you guys into doing anything you don't want to do. I'd really love to have such a place. And I'd like to have just for ourselves - or maybe one or two more. Not for relatives, not for boyfriends. Somewhere where anyone of us, or any group of us, could be alone. I think that's been the idea. But let me stop anticipating what we need to discuss.
"So here's what I'm proposing. Let's get together, sooner rather than later, to do a serious feasibility study, if I may use a fancy term, to determine what we want and what we'd be willing to pay. We'd also hammer out a set of rules for using the place. Rules we'd all be willing to abide by because none of us wants to start fighting about it down the road. Again, I've got some strong ideas about what they should be, but they have to be ours, not mine."
Rebecca knows herself. So, instead of, even unwittingly, trying to railroad the group, she suggests the preliminary step of hammering out a proposal as a group. She talks about her tendencies to be aggressive so that her friends can challenge her during their ‘feasibility study’.
You can use any of the CRITIC categories to share more of yourself, if you think that doing so is both relevant and appropriate. For example, Thea, a deputy head teacher in primary school, knows that some of the school’s staff don't trust her.
Therefore, when pitching a new approach to discipline in the school, she starts by saying, "I know that some of you see me as high-handed. I guess that I see myself as assertive. Maybe we are both partly right. Anyway, I'd like you to listen to the programme I’m suggesting and judge it on its merits - despite the fact that it's coming from me. It will work only if you put your ‘smell’ on it, mould it, make it yours."
This simple statement does not undo a history of distrust. But it’s a step in the right direction toward re-establishing her credibility.
A critic might say, "So this Guide aims at developing a world of raconteurs. Come on. Most of us have very modest talents. We are not ‘the life of the party’. Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone were the life of the party? Let those who have those talents use them. The rest of us will keep them from abusing the talents they have . . . And all this stuff about openness. I see you hedge your bets by taking about the excesses of encounter groups and things like that. I can see it now: “Excuse me while I personalise my message.” Let conversation flow. We're all different. Lots of little streams will do. We don't need rivers. Anyway, you're not going to get it."
Our friend could have included the harm done by some people, who have excellent Explainer/Teller skills. There are loads of fast-talkers who manipulate people in all sorts of different ways - some quite despicable. They use openness to lure in the unsuspecting.
Someone once said: "What an awful place it would be if everyone is the world were to develop all of his or her ‘potential’." I said: "Don't worry." So, I don't think we need to worry about filling the world with raconteurs. Most of us could use a bit more spark and punch in our conversations. Perhaps then many of us would move from dull to, well, neutral. No one is being asked to make up things to make their conversations interesting. This would be a travesty. Maybe some people will discover that if they want to make their conversations more interesting they will have to do more interesting things with their lives.
Being cynical about people's ability to improve is a disservice to human kind. This Guide is written, not for cynics, but those who are interested in self-improvement. Also, my bet is that those who become good at these skills will more easily recognise the phoney communication of manipulators and ‘fast-talkers’.
Finally, many people in relationships complain that their partners, or friends, are not very forthcoming. The fact that their partners don't reveal themselves does not, in the main, destroy the relationship - though this, too, sometimes happens. Rather, the lack of openness limits the relationship. Who brings out the best in you? What's he, or she, or they, like? Whom do you bring out the best in? What would they say about you? The Guide is not about a radical new lifestyle. It's about skills that increase your options. Come on. Live a little
One of the laws of human nature is that behaviour that’s rewarded will be repeated, while behaviour that’s ignored will fade away. So it is with questions and other forms of enquiry. If you deal with them in a perfunctory way, as if they are an irritation, then the other person’s questions will soon dry up, diminishing the chances of a good dialogue taking place. The trick is to treat questions as valuable opportunities to improve clarity and develop two-way communication.
Suppose you’re talking with Simon, a colleague at work, about how an order for an important customer, Doreen Fisher, was delivered late. You suggest that a reassuring phone call from Simon will go a long way towards calming Doreen down.
Simon asks you, “So how big was her order?”
How you deal with Simon’s question depends on how you perceive it. If you regard it as a potentially helpful intervention, you welcome it. In this case you might say, “Actually it wasn’t a particularly big order this time, but over the years she’s been one of our most valuable and loyal customers. I think she deserves some special treatment.”
On the other hand, if you see Simon’s question as an unhelpful interruption to the flow of the conversation, you resent it. In this case, you response might be very different. “Simon, it doesn’t matter how big the order was. That’s not the important issue!”
By and large, it’s a good policy to welcome questions since they provide you with the opportunity to further inform the Understander and clear up any confusion he, or she, may experiencing.
How you respond to questions can have profound effect on the course of the conversation. If the other person sees that you don’t welcome questions, they’ll think twice about asking any more. And that’s not good for clarity or dialogue.
Not all questions are straightforward to deal with. Here are some ideas on how to deal with more difficult types of question.
Lots of questions are not really questions at all but opinions in disguise. Suppose Simon asks, “Do you really think Doreen Smith deserves this kind of kid-glove treatment?” That’s not really a question but Simon’s veiled way of saying, “I don’t think the situation warrants this kind of response.”
One way of dealing with this situation is to rephrase the question so that the real meaning is revealed. So you might say back to Simon. “You think that calling her up is going over the top.” This provides an opportunity to get into dialogue about Simon’s point of view.
Some people are in the habit of asking elaborate, confusing questions. For example, Simon might have asked. “Isn’t the computer system supposed to catch these errors? Aren’t we supposed to have eliminated these errors? Why does our department always have to pick up the pieces and do the dirty work?”
Faced with a multi-part, confusing question like this, you have a couple of choices. One option is to break the question down and deal with it, item by item. You might say, “Okay. Well, let me deal with the computer system first . . .”
Another option is dig a bit deeper and get at where the question was coming from.
This time you might say, “It sounds like you think we shouldn’t handling this complaint at all. Is that right?” The response sets up the opportunity to have a dialogue about where the responsibility should lie, in Simon’s opinion.
Sometimes, questions come at the wrong time — from your point of view, at least, if not from the questioner’s. Let’s suppose Simon asks, “Why did the order get delayed in the first place?” This is a topic you want to deal with, but later on, after you’ve arranged for Simon to make the call to the customer.
A thoughtful response might be. “That’s a good question, but can we deal with it in a minute, after we’ve sorted out how to handle the Doreen Smith situation?”
Some people are in the habit of asking questions in the manner of a prosecuting counsel, or even an interrogator. They ask one question after another, nailing you to the wall, as if trying to trap or trick you.
Behaviour like this is counter productive for successful dialogue, so if it persists, take a time-out and say something like, “Can we stop just for a few moments? I’m finding your style of asking questions difficult to deal with. It feels like I’m under attack . . .”
Rather than assume you are getting through, take the trouble to check it out. There are different ways to do this, from asking directly for a summary to listening to your partner’s responses for signs of misunderstanding.
A good way to promote fuller understanding is to summarise your main points every once in a while. The idea is to pull all the threads of the conversation together in order to check whether your story is clear, your message and its implications have hit home, your point of view has been captured, or your case is being made. And, since summaries often have a ‘winding things up’ aspect to them, they are implicit invitations to have a dialogue.
A couple of examples:
In the first, Lucy has been talking with Mick about searching their calendars in order to find a long weekend when they can go visit some friends together. Mick's schedule is flexible, Lucy's is not.
Lucy summarises the dialogue to this point: "So, between family affairs and work commitments, February is out for both of us. The first and third weekends in March are okay for me so far, but the Easter weekend in early April is filled with family stuff. The first weekend in June is also open. So, between now and the end of June those three dates seem to be it. We should check with Anna and Bob as soon as possible."
Mick replies, "Oh, I missed the third weekend in March. Good. We've got three possibilities. I'll call and try to firm something up today."
Lucy's summary of her commitments gives Mick the opportunity to catch something he's missed. The clarification opened up another possible date.
Summaries can be used with stories, messages, points of view, and cases. Whenever any of these are complex, it helps to pepper the dialogue with mini-summaries.
In a meeting with his brother and sister, Ray says, "The arrangements for mum and dad's fortieth are proving more difficult than I thought. Let's see what ground we've covered so far." He goes on to provide a mini-summary of the main points they have covered.
If the message being delivered is an important one, with serious implications, then summaries are almost essential. Arthur, who runs shipping operations for a publisher, is talking with his team of supervisors.
Arthur says, "It's important that we leave this meeting with a very clear idea of our three major challenges for this coming quarter. First, we have to eliminate mis-shipments. With the new computer system there is no reason for mis-shipments. Second, customers must receive their Guides on, or before, the date promised. This means revamping our scheduling process. Third, we have to find a way of handling legitimate returns more expeditiously. This means a change in attitude. Handling returns well is just as much a part of customer service as shipping. Two questions. To what degree is there agreement on these challenges? And how do we make sure it all happens?"
Summaries do not necessarily signal the end of the dialogue. Arthur's supervisors may well have questions about these challenges and creative ideas about how to meet them. And so Arthur invites the team members to have a dialogue in order to get clarity and move on to problem solving.
In the next example, Luther and Kirstin have had a good dialogue about their plans for a visit to Glasgow, where they both have relatives. Each has played both the Explainer/Teller and the Understander role.
At this point, Luther volunteers a summary, saying, "If I've got this right, we both want to spend no more than a week there, but your main concern is to get there before the crowds arrive. That probably means April or May, rather than June, July or August. And we'd both like to have your mother come along. But she still isn't sure if she can take the time off work. So this leaves a bit of a question mark."
Kirstin replies, "That's about right. So, we'll have to find out the deadline for making final arrangements and let my mother know. If she can make it, great. If not, we can do something together later in the year . . . Hey, here's another possibility! If she's free in September or early October, we could all go then. Kids will be back in school and the crowds will be gone."
Luther's summary demonstrates that they are both in agreement. The summary does not end things. Rather it has an invitational quality. In fact, it kicks off further thinking on Kirstin's part.
When you're making a case, summarising for clarity and impact, is often very important. You want to keep the key ideas in front of your conversational partners.
In the following example, Gavin is talking with his wife, Bridget, about their living arrangements. Both of them work. He is making a case for continuing to rent rather than buy a house. There has been a lot of give-and-take so far.
At this point, Gavin provides a summary. "Here's how I read what we've said so far. Renting has an upside and a downside. The upside. We're both very busy. Renting means we are not responsible for all those household tasks we both hate — fixing the plumbing and so on. Also, in the current housing market, the economics of renting are better than buying. Remember the newspaper article with all the examples of when renting has more advantages than owning? We're both mobile and want to stay that way. Renting cuts down enormously on the hassles of selling a house and moving.
"But there's a downside. If we rent, it's not really ‘our’ place. There are things we can't change. We can't personalise it the way we want. There aren’t many houses to rent around here. Mostly flats. And if we live in a flat, we can't choose the people who live on the other side of our living room, or bedroom, wall. Finally, when we want to start a family, we won't have an established home in an established community."
Bridget chimes in, saying, "That sounds fair. It strikes me that joining a housing corporation scheme might be a good idea — you know, a combination of ownership and renting. At least it would be ours. But what we haven’t done is talk about which advantages we want the most and which disadvantages we want to avoid the most . . . And, as you know, the timing of starting a family needs some serious discussion."
Gavin's summary provides a couple of openings for Bridget. She seizes them. What she says sets the stage for further dialogue.
Summaries often act as a stimulus for getting a conversation out of a rut or for developing it further. The unspoken message is something like this: "Here, in capsule form, is what we've been saying so far. So now let's move on."
A practical note. Many of our everyday conversations are about reaching agreements of one kind or another. For instance, who is going to do what in, say, preparing for a get-together. If we could all get into the habit of summarising what's been agreed, a huge amount of misunderstanding could be eliminated. Though one wonders what the world would be like without statements like, "I thought you said that you were going to pick up the laundry. What happened?"
Instead of merely providing summaries, you can also ask those in the Understander role to give you a summary. You do this, not as a challenge to test their understanding, but to check your own success at communicating your ideas and to help them understand.
Let's take a very simple example.
How many t