When you are in the Understander role, your goal is to understand what the other person wishes to communicate. Not to agree or disagree with them, but simply to understand. This is the role you are in when you’re listening to a story, message, point of view or case. The job of the Understander is to work hard at understanding what the Explainer/Teller is saying, not only by listening but also by asking for more information and by checking their understanding as the conversation goes along.
When Jeff tell his wife, Martha, about his visit to the doctor, she’s in the Understander role as she listens to him describe his experiences and concerns. When Chris, the decorator, listens to Alison explain why she’s disappointed with his work, Chris is in the Understander role, as he works hard at understanding her points. When Natalie summarises Tim’s reasons for preferring a walking holiday rather than the usual beach vacation, she’s in the Understander role, demonstrating that she wants to be fair-minded in deciding where to go.
Some people seem to be naturally curious. They like to know what’s going on around them. They like to know how things work. They don’t wait to be told things, but seek out the answers for themselves.
Lynne is naturally curious. In the shop she manages, she likes to keep up to date with what’s happening in her employees work lives. She asks for their ideas on how customer service could be improved. She likes to know what her staff think about the products they are selling. It’s a similar picture at home. She makes sure she knows what’s happening with her children at school and what kinds of pressure her husband is under.
Since Lynne is a good communicator, she’s careful not to specialise exclusively in the Understander role. She puts just as much energy into the Teller role, expressing her own thoughts and feelings ideas with enthusiasm and clarity.
By way of contrast, Mary is not a curious type. She listens well enough but seldom seeks out information on her own initiative. She is a passive, rather than active, Understander. People who know her well say they rarely get the feeling that Mary’s actually interested in what you are saying. She listens more out of politeness than a desire to know.
If you are more like Mary than Lynne, then perhaps it’s time for you to start cultivating and greater sense of curiosity.
Another important quality required for excellence in the Understander role is patience — patience with yourself and with the Explainer/Tellers with whom you are conversing. Effective Understanders are willing to provide their conversational partners with the necessary time, attention, and encouragement to get their stories, messages, points of view, and cases across.
In the following example, Ian has been talking to his brother, Martin, about how to help their mother deal with the afflictions of old age. Diane is their sister.
Ian says, “Mum is out of hospital now. But it would be good to get together with Diane and make plans for whatever might happen next. Mum’s not going to live forever. She knows that better than the rest of us."
Martin replies, “A plan would be good. If Mum ever becomes disabled, we'd need to be able pull together to cope with that. . . . By the way, when you say ‘we’, I'm assuming that includes mum."
Ian, obviously a little taken by surprise, goes on to say, "Well . . . well, of course. It's her life. We shouldn't be planning for her, but with her. But to tell you the truth, I was thinking of the planning you, Diane, and I were going to do and wasn't including her. But she has more common sense than all of us. What do you think about all of us getting together with her and taking a realistic look at the future?"
In that conversation, Martin in the Understander role listens carefully, responds with understanding, and checks an assumption. By checking his assumption with Ian, he provides an ‘opening’, which Ian ‘enters’ and deals with the issue. "We won't plan our mother's life for her. We're a family. All of us are affected. We'll do it together."
We are acutely sensitive to signals that indicate whether or not the other person is paying attention to what we’re saying. Once we get the feeling that we are being ignored, or that the other person has more important things on their mind than our words, the conversation is in trouble. It’s not enough to just tune-into the other person, you need to be seen to be tuning-in. It’s the vital first step towards connecting.
If you've ever driven a car, you know what it's like to be on auto-pilot. As you drive along, lost in your own thoughts, you're hardly aware of the passing scene. Suddenly, your attention returns to driving and you realise that miles have passed by without your noticing. Sometimes you wonder why you haven't had an accident.
A similar experience can easily happen in a conversation if you fail to consciously tune-in to the other person. At best, you're only half involved. You go through the motions, but you're not really there.
A good communicator, when in the Understander role, works hard to focus on the other person and the story, message, point of view, or case he, or she, is conveying. It's like tuning-into a station on the radio. The trick is to get rid of interference from all other sources. In conversations, ‘noise’ comes from many different sources. As you listen, you might be distracted by your surroundings. The place is too busy. You find it hard to focus. Or the noise might be inside your own head. You can't stop thinking about the fight you've had with your sister-in-law.
So, the challenge is to clear your own mind as much as possible to make room for what the other person has to say.
It's important that your conversational partners are aware of your attention. This is the vital first step towards encouraging someone to express himself, or herself: be visibly tuned-in. Your conversational partners ‘read’ your body language. They can tell if you are paying attention to them or not. You sense when people are really tuned-in to what you have to say, don't you? Your conversational partners do the same.
Here are some tips on how to demonstrate that you're tuned in and interested in your conversational partner.
(a) Orient yourself toward your conversational partner. This doesn't mean a military face-off. Rather let the ‘attitude’ of your body tell the other, "I'm here, I'm with you, I'm listening."
(b) Maintain eye contact at a comfortable level, but, of course, don't stare. Your conversational partners notice when your eyes wander.
(c) Use your facial expressions to show you're in tune with the mood and message of the other person. So, if the other person is being serious, show your understanding by looking serious yourself. Looking glum when your conversational partner is talking about some success she has had at work hardly indicates interest.
(d) Use gestures to indicate you are in touch. For instance, nod from time to time. It's a simple thing to do, but is perhaps the easiest way to show that your receiver is switched on. Or use some other gesture like leaning slightly forward both to pay attention to critical points and to show the other that you are in tune.
(e) Be natural, relaxed, and open, rather than formal, stiff, or hunched up. Don't send signals that distract the other from your ‘I'm listening’ posture. In the end, be yourself. No one wants an actor or a clown.
Watch two people deeply engaged in a conversation. They do all these things, but they do them naturally. They're not acting. They are instinctively ‘punctuating’ the conversation with nonverbal modifiers, many of which are signs that they are tuned in to each other. Some of us would be unpleasantly surprised if a ‘hidden camera’ were to pick up what we look like when we are in the Understander role.
It goes without saying that tuning-in visibly should be an outward sign of what's happening inside you. It’s hypocritical if your body is present while your mind is elsewhere. In a word, physical attending should mirror psychological attending.
Your listeners want you, not just signs of you. This means clearing your mind of clutter so that you can listen carefully to what the other has to say. If this is difficult, let the other know: "I just got a call from my wife. My son is ill. There's nothing I can do about it right now, but I am distracted." Then proceed with the conversation. Or put it off, if you are so distracted that you cannot really listen.
The Golden Rule of Tuning-in is, ‘Tune-in to others as you would have them tune-in to you’. You know what makes a difference to you, whether it be eye contact, a nodding head, an animated face, an open posture, or a relaxed style. You can safely make the assumption that others feel the same way about the way you attend to what they have to say.
There's a bonus for those with the ability to tune-in. Careful tuning-in sends a signal to Explainer/Tellers that you are making an effort to understand. This allows them to move forward in what they are saying. They tell their stories, deliver their messages, share their points of view, and make their cases more clearly and more crisply. The opposite is also true. Explainer/Tellers who encounter a stony, expressionless face must consider the possibility that they are not making their points. They then circle back, repeating what they have already said. This is called ‘going around the mulberry bush’. When a story becomes repetitive, it’s often as much the fault of poor tuning-in as it is of poor telling.
When Explainer/Tellers repeatedly ask you, "Do you know what I mean?" or, "Do you follow what I'm saying?" and the like, it’s often because they are no longer sure that you know what they are saying. The unspoken sentiment is, "Judging from your blank expression and the near total absence of any movement in your body, I'm not sure you're with me." In such cases Explainer/Tellers may not repeat themselves, but abandon the effort gracefully - "Well, thanks for listening . . ." Some may abandon the effort with less grace: "I'll get back to you on this when you're in a better frame of mind." To sum up, in conversations be there when you are in the Understander role.
Listening is not a passive act, something that ‘just happens’. It requires concentration and effort to do it well. Even if you are listening hard, it’s easy to distort, or filter, what your conversational partner is saying. The goal must be to listen with an open mind, as free from prejudice, preconception and assumption-making as humanly possible.
CONTENTS
a. Issues with listening.
b. Listening well.
To verbal messages.
To nonverbal messages.
To feelings.
c. Listening with an open mind.
Listening without distortion.
Enemies of open-minded listening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective listening is not a state of mind, like being happy or relaxed. It's not something that ‘just happens’. It's an activity, like calculating or making an effort to recall something. In other words, effective listening requires work. We have all, at one time or another, been both perpetrators and victims of different forms of ‘inactive’ listening. Here are three of them.
Non-Listening: Sometimes we go through the motions of listening, but we really aren't engaged. Sometimes we get away with it. Sometimes we are caught. "What would you say to her?" the wife asks her husband after telling him about a problem a friend of hers has. Embarrassed, he replies, "Say to whom?" Staring him down, she says, "You haven't been listening to a word I've said." For whatever reasons, he has tuned her out.
Partial listening: This is listening that skims the surface. The person in the Understander role picks up bits and pieces, but not necessarily the essential points the Explainer/Teller is making. For instance, Janice's teenage son, Benjamin, is talking to her about a canoe trip sponsored by his Boy Scout troop. She only half listens.
Later, when he returns from the trip, she starts yelling at him, "You didn't tell me that the canoe rental was extra!"
The point is that he had. Inadequate listening helps neither understanding, nor the relationship.
Tape-Recorder Listening: At other times, we may be present physiologically but not psychologically. In this case, the Explainer/Teller often picks up some signals that her partner is not listening very well. Ultimately, the Explainer/Teller, frustrated, challenges the person in the Understander role, saying something like, "You're not listening!" Then the other person lamely replies, "I am too. I can repeat everything you've said." It's obvious why this response provides little solace for the Explainer/Teller. Your conversational partners want you, not a tape recorder. Your auditory equipment is in order, but your humanity is elsewhere.
Of course, communicators in the Understander role can go overboard on listening. Remember that you are a human being listening to a human being, not a vacuum cleaner, indiscriminately sweeping up every scrap. Which brings us to the next topic - listening well.
Listening well has a lot to do with accuracy. You hear what other people are actually saying rather than what you ‘think’ they are saying, or ‘should’ be saying. It does little good to expend a great deal of energy listening actively if we fail to pick up the essentials, that is, the main points your conversational partner is trying to get across.
Listening well includes:
(a) Listening to what Explainer/Tellers are saying verbally.
(b) Listening to the nonverbal behaviour that modifies what is being said verbally
and factoring in the context that gives further meaning or definition to what the Explainer/Teller is saying.
Listening well also has a lot to do with picking up the essentials, that is, the main points the Explainer/Teller is trying to get across. Since you are not a vacuum cleaner, your job is to identify the things that are relevant to the other's story, message, point of view, or case.
But relevance is not enough. As you listen, you must also focus on the important parts. Active listening is focused listening. Perhaps one of the best questions you can ask yourself in order to listen well is: "What are the main points the Explainer/Teller is making?" A ‘main point’ is something that is both relevant and important in the Explainer/Teller's story, message, point of view, or case. Let's take a look at what listening well means in terms of the Explainer/Teller's verbal behaviour, nonverbal behaviour, and the context of both.
First of all, you need to listen to the Explainer/Teller's words and their meaning. Your job as Understander is to help Explainer/Tellers get their main points across as clearly as possible. To do this you need to first capture what they are saying. The four kinds of Telling outlined earlier - telling a story, delivering a message, sharing a point of view, or making a case - can help you organise your listening. For instance, you might say to yourself, "Maria is making a case for sending our daughter to a private school." Knowing this can help you listen to the words more effectively.
Let's take a look at a couple of examples. In the first case, Serena is talking with her brother-in-law, Christian. He's looking for a new job. She's heard of a job she thinks might be tailor-made for him. But she notices some hesitancy when she mentions that the job requires a fair amount of air travel. She asks Christian about his hesitancy.
He explains himself through a personal story. "At one time, I didn't give flying a second thought. But then two things happened. On a holiday trip last year I noticed that the inner window I was sitting next to during a charter flight was loose. I told the stewardess, and one of the pilots eventually came. After taking a look at it, he said, `I wouldn't sit here if I were you.' That's the last time I took a charter."
"Then, on a scheduled flight later in the year, the plane I was on hit severe turbulence. Flight attendants fell on passengers, food trays went flying about, and the passenger in the seat beside me threw up. So now I fly when I absolutely have to, but I dread it."
Let's say that Serena replies by saying, "But, Christian, it's a really good job. And I think I can get you on the inside track. You'd be perfect for it!"
She obviously has been listening to herself - what she has to offer - rather that his concerns.
However, if Serena had read this chapter first, she might have said, "So these incidents - sounds like both were terrifying - have put you off flying . . . Well, I'm not going to push you. It's too bad. Other than the flying you probably would like the job."
To this Christian says, "Well, let me think it over. I'll get back to you quickly - one way or the other. It might not hurt to find out what the job is like."
The main point is the dramatic impact these two events have had on Christian's attitude toward flying. His learned fear is both relevant and important to the job prospect. On the other hand, in the second interchange Serena doesn't hear an absolute “no” to the job. So she knows that it’s probably all right to explore the possibility with him further.
Not all of your conversational partner's points are verbal. Explainer/Tellers also ‘emit’ nonverbal signals or messages. Some, like the nodding of the head, are messages in themselves. But often, nonverbal behaviour gives colour to, or modifies, what is being said verbally. Sometimes a gesture or a frown even, change the meaning of verbal messages completely. Consider this example. You are talking to Kenton, a friend of yours. You haven't seen him for a while.
Towards the end of the conversation you say, "Kenton, how about coming over for dinner tonight? Ingrid would be delighted to see you."
Kenton hesitates, strokes his chin with his hand, looks down, and then slowly says, "Well . . . ah . . . it's kind of sudden notice . . . but I think I can make it . . . Umm, I think so."
Even though his words ultimately indicate "yes," he has actually said "no." But let's say you ignore all these nonverbal modifiers and reply, "Good, we'll see you around seven." You haven't been listening.
If you had listened to Kenton's hesitations, you might have said something like this:
"I tell you what, Kenton. This is short notice. In fact, I'm not sure that Ingrid is free. But let me call you this week and make a date."
The relief on Kenton's face should be reward enough. But what you are doing here is recovering from a mistake. Don't set traps for people.
You could have said something like this in the first place, "Ingrid and I would love to have you over for dinner. I think we're free tonight. But tonight might not be the best time for you at all. Or for Ingrid. What I'm really saying is that we'd love to have you over sometime soon."
This is a socially intelligent offer. There will be more about social intelligence and communication in a later chapter.
Reading nonverbal messages is not a modern invention. People of common sense have been reading such messages from time immemorial. The face and body are extremely communicative. Here are some of the nonverbals that can give a particular spin to verbal messages:
(a) Bodily behaviour, such as posture and gestures.
(b) Facial expressions, such as smiles, frowns, and raised eyebrows.
(c) Voice‑related behaviour, such as tone of voice, loudness, speed of talking, pauses, and silences
(d) Automatic responses, such as fast breathing, blushing, and paleness.
A person's nonverbal behaviour has a way of ‘leaking’ hidden or half-stated messages to others. When David said to Jennie, "I hope you don't mind my taking up your time like this," Jennie replies, "Well, this is hardly the best time." But at the same time she moves the papers on her desk aside, pushes her chair back, and faces David squarely. Her nonverbal modifiers seem to say, "Well, although this is not the best time, if the issue is important to you, I'm certainly ready to talk."
Nonverbal behaviours modify and punctuate verbal messages in much the same way that periods, question marks, exclamation marks, and underlining, punctuate written language. Here are some of the things that nonverbal ‘punctuation’ can do:
Nonverbals can confirm what is being said verbally. For instance, Kurt, in the Understander role, shares a highlight with Constance. She not only says, "That's right!" but her eyes light up (facial expression), she leans forward a bit (bodily motion), and her voice is very animated (voice quality). Her nonverbal behaviour confirms her verbal message.
Nonverbals can deny or confuse what is being said verbally. When Danielle challenges Barry about his rude behaviour, he denies that he is upset, but his voice wavers a bit (voice quality), and he blushes (automatic response). His nonverbal behaviour probably carries the real message. Or his message might be, "Of course I'm upset. I hate being challenged, but I'm still willing to listen."
Nonverbals can emphasise what is being said. When Joseph says, "You're wrong! I don't want to sell my apartment," and looks you right in the eye and pounds the table, it’s quite clear that he isn't saying, "Well, I could sell under certain circumstances." Nonverbal clues often add emotional colour or intensity to verbal messages.
Of course, effective communicators, when in the Explainer/Teller role, actively use nonverbal behaviour to ‘punctuate’ their messages, stories, and points of view. They also make sure that their nonverbal behaviour does not deny or confuse their verbal messages.
In reading nonverbal behaviour – ‘reading’ is used here instead of ‘interpreting’ - caution is a must. We listen in order to understand our conversational partners rather than to dissect them. It’s important not to focus too much on this or that bit of nonverbal behaviour. A frown, for instance, can be a sign of concentration as well as confusion or disapproval. So, rather than jumping to conclusions, take a few moments to consider and confirm your hunches. While concentrating on folded arms, or tight lips, you might miss the message. If you make too much of a half-smile on the face of conversational partner, you might seize the behaviour but lose the person.
Body language and other forms of nonverbal communication constitute a huge subject that could easily fill a book on its own. Fortunately, you already have a ‘lab’ close at hand - your own body and your conversations with others. Pay attention to how your own body language either hides, or highlights, your messages. Scrutinise yourself first, then consider others. But don't overdo it.
Full listening includes listening to the feelings and other mental states that people express, as they are telling their stories, delivering their messages, sharing their points of view, and making their cases. It’s a mistake to ignore feelings. We don't ignore our own. Why should we ignore those of others? They are an important part of our humanity. They are drivers of our best and worst human behaviours.
On the other hand, it’s also a mistake to focus too much attention on feelings and emotions. Asking questions such as, "How do you feel?" is often, if not always, inappropriate for a couple of reasons. First, the other person probably has expressed some emotion. If that is the case, it’s your job to recognise it. Or you're fishing for emotions because you think they should be there.
One of the most important things to note is that feelings and emotions are usually caused by what we do (or fail to do) and by what happens to us (our experiences). Feelings and emotions don't dangle out there on their own. Dorothy is unhappy because her boyfriend has left her. Abner is elated because he has completed a complicated project successfully. Therefore, when you ‘listen to’ another person's feelings and emotions, it's important to note the links to situations, behaviours, and experiences.
Consider Buford. He is talking to you about a business deal he has pulled off.
At one point you say, "You're elated because you've earned a good bonus from the deal, but it sounds like you're even more pleased with proving to your colleagues that you are capable of handling a deal that size on your own.”
And he replies, "You've hit it on the button. I knew I could do it, though my boss wasn’t so sure.”
You not only picked up his emotional state, but you got the reason right. Listening well means identifying the right feeling or emotion, its degree, and the linkage to what is causing it.
So when Bert pours out his tale of woe about an encounter with his boss and you respond, "So you're still fuming. Blaming you for something you didn't do was bad enough. But doing it while you were with an important customer. That was just stupid."
Here you got the emotion right (anger), the degree right (fuming, not just annoyed), and the linkage right (not just the inappropriate blame but embarrassing you in front of a customer). And, as always, the quality of listening is best found in the quality of the response.
Listening with an open mind means being willing to be influenced by what you hear. It’s the opposite of being dogmatic. It doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have strong views of your own. But it does require you to be willing to consider the merit in what other people say.
Open-minded listening calls for self-discipline. We all have a strong tendency to jump to conclusions. The skill is to slow down the process so you have time to think about what you are hearing.
The hardest time to listen with an open mind — the time when you need all your reserves of self-control — is when you are listening to something you don’t want to hear.
A good example is critical feedback. Let’s suppose your boss is debriefing you on your behaviour at a meeting, where you lost your temper. It’s painful to hear and difficult to take on board with an open mind. But it’s usually worth the effort.
Dialogue requires listening without distorting what your conversational partners are saying, even when you might not like what is being said. You first job is to get in touch with your partner's perspective, not to colour it with your own. We all have our own opinions on just about everything. So when we're listening, it's tempting to judge what we're hearing from our own perspective. As we listen to other people, we often say things to ourselves like, "Why'd he do that?" or, "What a stupid idea!"
People who listen with an open mind avoid anticipating what they think their conversational partners are going to say. They don't jump to conclusions. How many times have you made up your mind about the other person's message even before it's fully delivered? Distorted listening is one of the major causes of misunderstanding.
Here are two fragments of a conversation.
George, in the Explainer/Teller role, is discussing his relationship to his estranged wife with his friend Bill. "She's left me, but she keeps ‘returning’ in little ways. . . . You know, she calls to ask questions about possible divorce proceedings . . . She wants to meet for lunch to discuss, what to me, are inconsequential issues . . . I don't know."
If Bill is listening with a closed mind, he might say to himself, "There goes George again, feeling sorry for himself. When's he going to get over it?"
However, if Bill is listening with an open mind, he might say to himself: "George seems confused because his wife seems to him to have left him, and yet, not left him. He's probably wondering what her ‘game’ might be."
There are many enemies to the kind of open-minded listening needed for real dialogue. Some of them are listed here. Note that they are interrelated. More than one of them might be happening at the same time.
Judgmental Listening: The Understander listens in order to determine whether what the Explainer/Teller is saying is right or wrong. Joanna ‘listens’ to Rupert talk about disliking his job. He finally blurts out that he's just quit without having another job to go to. Joanna says to herself, "Well, that was a crazy thing to do."
Distorted Listening: In this case the Understander listens through filters that distort what the Explainer/Teller has to say. Personal prejudices fall into this category. For instance, Sheila is talking about Terry, a close friend of hers who belongs to a particular religious group. Tanya, a colleague at work, has a distorted image of the ‘kind of people’ who belong to that group. Tanya says to herself, "If she's going out with him, she's asking for trouble." She misses the good things Sheila has been saying about Terry.
Stereotype-based Listening: Ned, a manager, is talking with Nadia, a clerical worker, about a new product the company is proposing. Nadia makes some comments about the new product, but Ned listens to her as ‘just a clerk’ and fails to hear the rather insightful observations she is making.
Resistive Listening: Some people immediately dislike new ideas that are not their own. Or they are so conservative that they see new ideas as the enemy. When they hear new ideas, their fault-finding mechanisms go into high gear. When Jeremy hears a fellow church member talking about getting involved with other churches, he says to himself, "Why don't people just leave things alone?"
Interpretive Listening: In this case, we use our own frameworks to interpret, rather than understand, what the other is saying. For instance, Alexandra, a big fan of Sigmund Freud, is listening to her cousin Norbert talk about his problems with his father. At one point she says, "Oedipus lives on. When are you going to stop competing with your father for your mother's affections?" She listens to her cousin through the filters of a psychological theory.
Past-behaviour-based Listening. You assume that the person you are listening to is always the same. You don't allow for change. For instance, knowing George, you expect that everything he says will be tinged with self-pity. You hear self-pity even when he is trying to break free from this behaviour.
Attraction-based Listening. The Understander believes that what the person is saying is as attractive (or unattractive) as the person saying it. Paul is attractive. His ideas always sound good to you. Edna is not attractive. Her ideas never sound right.
These and other kinds of distorted, or filtered, listening lead inevitably to misunderstanding and often to strained, or unproductive, relationships.
On the other hand, open-minded listening avoids filters to the degree that this is possible. The phrase, ‘to the degree that this is possible’, is necessary because we grow up immersed in various cultures - family, country, religion, and so forth - and cultures spawn filters. Sometimes they seem to be hard-wired into our thinking. Effective communicators understand that they grow up with filters but still try to focus on what the other person is actually saying. Filters and frameworks may be useful later on, in an analysis of what someone has said, but the starting point should be, to the highest degree possible, the unvarnished perspective of the Explainer/Teller understood as fully as possible.
Open-minded listening is not the same as internally approving what the other is saying. You can listen openly to Ian's ideas about politics without approving of his points of view. But if you listen with an open mind, you might learn something.
One of the reasons why it’s so important to listen both actively and well, is something philosophers noticed long ago. A small error in the beginning can lead to huge errors later on. If the foundation of a building is out of kilter, it’s hard to notice with the naked eye. By the time construction reaches the 20th floor, the building is uninhabitable. Or it looks like the leaning tower of Pisa. Tuning-in to Explainer/Tellers and listening actively, well, and with an open mind, are foundation Understander skills. Ignore them, and dialogue is impossible.
Understanding someone means boiling down their messages to their essence — or what TalkWorks calls a ‘highlight’. An essential Teller skill is being able to distil the underlying messages and feelings from people’s words. The job could well be called ‘processing for meaning’.
The process of moving towards understanding looks something like this. First you tune-in visibly, in order to prepare yourself to listen. Then you listen actively and make every effort to do so with an open mind. This keeps you ‘clean’, that is, it keeps you from contaminating what the Explainer/Teller is saying. Then you process what you hear in order to identify the Explainer/Tellers' highlights, that is, the main points they are making. All at the service of understanding.
Of course, in reality this is not a laborious, drawn-out process. This chain of events often takes place instantly. But that's the problem. If you have developed some bad listening and processing habits over time - and most of us have - it’s helpful to slow down a bit in order to re-learn this listening and processing sequence. Once relearned, you can put it back in habitual mode, as it were. You will communicate instinctively, but more effectively.
Something happens between listening and responding. In some way, you process what you hear. The quality of your response to the Explainer/Teller depends on the quality of that processing. We have already outlined different kinds of flawed listening and the flawed processing that goes with them. For instance, judgmental listening involves processing focused on determining the ‘rightness’, or the ‘wrongness’ of what the Explainer/Teller is saying. Of course, this means ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ as defined by the Understander.
For instance, Miranda is talking to Jeremy about what her doctor said about possible medicinal uses of marijuana. Since Jeremy is totally opposed to all illegal drugs, he starts listening judgmentally. Everything that Miranda says is either right or wrong. In this case, mostly wrong. By doing this, he totally misses the point she is trying to make.
There is a form of processing that serves the purpose of dialogue much more effectively. Processing is a form of inquiry that requires reflection. Elinor and Gerard highlight the importance of these processes for dialogue.
"Inquiry is about asking questions and holding an attitude of curiosity, opening the door for new insights. Reflection is about holding the door open long enough for new perceptions to emerge."
Inquiry is a search for meaning, "What are the key things this person is saying? What does my conversational partner mean to say?" Without the conversational patience implied in reflection, the ‘door’ closes too quickly and the meaning may be missed.
Understanders who have mastered the art of active, open-minded listening are able to identify highlights —key points the Explainer/Teller is trying to get across. You tune-in, visibly, in order to listen. You listen in the spirit of inquiry and reflection, in order to identify the highlights of what the other person is saying.
A highlight is an idea, just a few words, perhaps a sentence or two - that captures the essence or main points of what the person in the Explainer/Teller role has been saying. A highlight, uncontaminated by your own judgments or point of view, is your best shot at understanding what the Explainer/Teller means. The question you need to ask yourself that gets at the Explainer/Teller's highlights is: "What are the key things this person is trying to get across to me?"
Yves, an unmarried bartender, is talking with Bill, one of his ‘regulars’. The general topic is career. Bill has been talking about what he likes and does not like about his present job.
During the conversation, Yves, 32, says a few words about his own career aspirations: "I've been thinking a lot recently about my job. Since I'm not married, the main thing in my life is my job. Currently it's this job. It's not that I don't like it. I do. But I've got an itch to do something better. You know, something that'll make me feel better about myself . . . No, that's not it. I don't feel bad about myself. But I'd like to be using more of myself, more of my talents, whatever they are. Maybe something that makes me think I'm contributing more. I'm not sure to what. But just contributing more."
There are obviously some highlights here. What are they? What's important to Yves? What are the main points he's trying to communicate? How does he feel about what he's saying? These are the kinds of questions you can ask yourself to get at Yves's highlights. For instance, you might say to yourself, "Yves is saying that he has talents he's not using in this job. In some way it's a waste." What other highlights are there?
The term highlight is broader than headline. Highlights include key points the Explainer/Teller makes in the ‘paragraph’ that follows a headline. Yves's headline is: "I've been thinking a lot recently about my job." This gives focus to what he is about to say. But, in the ensuing paragraph, he touches on a number of different points.
A good way to ‘process’ what you hear is to put yourself in the other person's shoes and try to see what the world looks like from his, or her, perspective. If you were in Yves shoes, what might you be thinking and feeling? You might say to yourself, "Here's a guy that wants more from a job than he's currently getting. He feels he has talent, but he's using only a bit of it. He's dissatisfied, not so much with the job he has, but with the fact that he's not making some kind of contribution to society, though I'm not sure what kind of ‘contribution’ he's talking about." Seeing things from Yves's perspective helps you identify highlights.
You can use the frameworks outlined elsewhere - SAME for stories, MRI for messages, PRE for points of view, and CRITIC for cases - to help yourself identify possible highlights.
For instance, Gina, a correctional officer in a low-security, campus-like correctional facility, is making a case for more flexible visiting hours. She is an excellent officer, so you are already tuned into her credibility. Highlights can be found in the other CRITIC categories.
Gina says, "A policy of more flexible visiting hours is more in keeping with the nature of this place. It does not detract at all from the principal form of punishment, that is, incarceration. It does mean more work for us, but not that much. And I think that most of us see working here as relatively easy duty. Most of us wouldn't mind a little inconvenience. And it’s more compassionate for the relatives of our inmates. Many of them can't get here during our restricted visiting hours without undue hardship."
As you process what Gina is saying, it becomes clear that one important highlight is a balance between the interests of the prisoners and the interests of the facility's staff, two of CRITIC's categories.
Another example: Ernest is a patient recovering from surgery in a hospital. He is very dissatisfied with the post-operative care he has been receiving. He tells the doctor in charge of the post-operative team looking after him that he is going to leave the hospital. The doctor challenges Ernest's decision to leave (Message). Ernesto goes on to list his complaints; indifferent staff, long delays in receiving his pain medication, cold food, little interchange with the members of the team who come in to do routine procedures, and no straight feedback on his condition from the doctor (the Reasons for his message).
The doctor replies by saying, "The hospital is the best place for us to monitor your condition and to make sure that no post-operative infection, or other complication, arises."
His reply focuses on his own agenda, not Ernest's concerns. He completely ignores the highlights in what his patient has said, that is, the reasons why he has decided to discharge himself. Ernest discharges himself against medical advice, pays for nursing care at home, and writes scathing letters to the hospital administration and to the hospital association.
As you listen, you process not just words but also the nonverbal ‘modifiers’ that go along with them. Let’s look at an example:
Mariah, who has just finished secondary school, is talking about college. She has signed up at a local college in town. Therefore, she'll live at home and be a day student. Family finances are tight, so her choices are few. She will probably have to get a part-time job to help with expenses and spending money.
She’s talking to Edna, the mother of one of her friends who’ll be attending a university in another city. Edna has been congratulating Mariah on doing so well at her ‘A’ levels, and talks about the excitement of going to college.
At one point in the conversation Mariah says, "Yeah, it will be great to get the freedom that goes with college. I can plot my own life. Choose my own subjects. Organise my own schedule to a degree. Nothing like high school. And, as someone told me the other day, it's up to me. I can get as good an education as I want without having to go away.”
As Mariah talks, her voice is flat, she speaks more slowly than usual, and she lacks animation. This, in a young woman who is usually bright and vivacious. Edna's processing takes note of this. She says to herself such things as "Her words are all about advantages, but the way she's saying it takes it all back. She sounds disappointed, as if she's pushing herself to be appreciative." Mariah's nonverbal behaviour modifies her verbal behaviour in important ways. In fact, the real message lies there.
Don't overlook feelings, emotions, and other mental states such as puzzlement and conviction. They, too, can be an important part of a highlight or highlights in themselves. A few examples:
Telling a story: Harry, your neighbour, is talking with you about a problem he is having with a local department store. He is still angry about the way he was treated by the customer service department. His anger is a central issue. It’s likely to fuel whatever further action he might take.
Delivering a message: Leah, a friend, is telling you about her decision to change jobs. She is elated by her decision because she will be able to spend more time with her children. Her elation is a critical factor, especially in view of the fact that she took a pay cut in her new job.
Sharing a point of view: Emma, who lives near you, is sharing her opinion about noise in the neighbourhood. She is puzzled why others in the neighbourhood don't share her point of view on noise pollution. Her consternation is an important part of her communication. She's asking herself, "Who's out of sync?"
Making a case: Christopher, a friend of yours, who is a manager in a local software company, is discussing with you how people get promoted in various companies. He is passionate about his desire to get his company to base both pay and promotion on performance. His conviction probably gives some indication of his credibility and is an important factor in the case he's presenting.
Unnamed emotions and feelings: Some of your conversational partners will simply express their emotions without naming them. When you're talking with Cindy, it's clear that she's sad, though she does not say so. Jonathan, on the other hand, usually names his emotions: "I'm really annoyed by the poor reception I'm getting on my new phone." At any rate, since emotions are often drivers of behaviour, they are an important part of the communication package.
Sometimes your conversational partners express emotions, but it’s not clear what is causing them. Then processing involves your saying to yourself things like, "I can see that he's anxious, but it's not clear why." Instead of making assumptions, you can ask what's going on if you think it appropriate to do so.
People rightfully complain when others take their remarks ‘out of context’. This usually means that someone has taken one or two remarks from a longer set of, often interrelated, remarks. These stripped-down remarks take on a new meaning, sometimes the opposite of the meaning they had in context. For example, Trudy listens to Nathan discuss his fantasies about travel. In relating what he said to Nora, Nathan’s girlfriend, she fails to mention that these are only fantasies. Nora feels let down because she has not been included in Nathan's travel plans.
Effective Explainer/Tellers provide the background needed to understand the points they are making and effective Understanders use this background to get a clear picture of what the Explainer/Teller is trying to convey. But there are other kinds of context, besides the context provided by the Explainer/Teller, that are usually not spelled out but which greatly help to understand the Explainer/Teller's remarks.
Context includes things we already know about Explainer/Tellers and their circumstances that help us understand what they are saying more fully. These broader contextual realities help ‘frame’" the conversation more completely.
Recall Edna who listened to and processed Mariah's nonverbal behaviour as the young woman talked about going to college. Edna also does what good Understanders do, that is, she processes what Mariah is saying through a wider context. She says to herself, at least implicitly, such things as, "Financial restraints mean that she can't go away to school like her friends. And the local college is decent enough, but not as good or as exciting as the state university. And, although her home life is quite decent, she probably wants to get out on her own like the other kids." See listens to Mariah through this wider context, but she is careful not to fall into the assumption-making trap.
Since we listen faster than Explainer/Tellers speak, there is time left over for processing. There is time for reflection. That's why it's so important to clear out the ‘noise’ in your head so that processing can be as objective as possible. If you are distracted, if there is a lot of noise in your head, you won't capture the Explainer/Teller's highlights. Or you will contaminate them. Then, inevitably, your responses will be flawed.
Let’s look at some examples:
Your friend, Kyle, tells you that he has to cancel out of a trip you and he had planned together. He tells you that one of his cousins is ‘in trouble’ and that he wants to go see her. He doesn't elaborate and you don't think that you should ask a lot of questions.
You know from previous experience that Kyle is a solid, dependable friend. He doesn't easily make excuses. You process what he has to say in this broader context. The context helps you understand him. You listened to what Kyle had to say through the context of his dependability.
Now, suppose it was your friend, Wally, who cancelled the trip at the last minute. Wally, in your experience, has a history of changing his mind at the last minute and making excuses. This annoying pattern of behaviour makes you think twice about what he is saying. Perhaps the time has come to challenge his behaviour.
Here’s another example to think about:
Your cousin, Patrick, calls you and asks for an aunt's phone number. You wonder why he wants the number of someone he hasn't talked to for years. You ask him, but he sounds a bit evasive to you. After you hang up, you wonder what's going on.
Contextual information is missing. Patrick has had a gambling problem for a number of years. You thought that he had reformed his ways. He says he has. But the aunt in question has inherited some money recently. You wonder whether there is any connection. You call her and find out that he has asked her for a ‘loan’. Since you were instrumental in getting him to forego his gambling ways, you call him and ask, "What's going on?" You find out that he has fallen into his old ways and is looking for money to pay off a gambling debt.
In this case, you didn't know contextual facts, but you suspected that there were some and made an effort to find out.
Of course, despite this example, searching for relevant context does not mean that you have to become a detective, digging up dirt behind people's backs.
Consider this example:
Your son, Mark, is a secondary school student. You are talking about him with his form teacher, who refers to Mark’s ‘unacceptable’ behaviour in Spanish class. You don't doubt what she's saying, but since Mark’s not generally a trouble-maker, you search for some bit of context, asking, "What's that class like in general?" She says that the new, somewhat naïve, teacher is having all sorts of problems. The students have played practical jokes on him and your son's behaviour is actually relatively mild in comparison with the average. This is something that you can factor in when talking with him about that class.
Here are two examples, where processing doesn’t take the broader context into account:
Zoe is criticising her daughter, Sybil, for coming in past her curfew time. Sybil tries to explain her point of view, but receives a poor hearing. Zoe knows that exams are over and that this is the last week of her senior year in secondary school. She also knows that the parents of Sybil's friends are ordinarily more lenient than she is, and even more lenient because school is coming to an end. Zoe, with her steadfast "what is right is right" attitude, factors none of this into the conversation with her daughter and lectures her about coming home on time.
This is an example of someone knowing context but for whatever reason, failing to take it into account. If Zoe’s mum had paused for thought, she might have given her daughter a better hearing.
A final example:
Lars, a manager, is talking with Abby, a member of staff who reports directly to him, about changes she wants in her vacation schedule. He tells her that the days she has chosen won't work out. But Lars also knows that the company's policy on vacations is strict. Those who fail to take vacation time within the calendar year lose it. Even worse, Lars fails to factor in the fact that Abby deferred her vacation because he needed her for a new project.
Clearly, Lars was not taking the bigger context into account at all when he should have.
The overall point here is this: Enrich your understanding of what the Explainer/Teller is saying by placing it in a context that is appropriately broad. Far from distracting yourself from the story, message, point of view, or case being presented, you can use context to understand the Explainer/Teller's meaning more fully.
Feeding back your understanding during a conversation does two things. It convinces the other person that you are listening and capturing their meaning. Second, it allows the other person to adjust your understanding if it’s not accurate or complete. The importance of this skill can’t be over emphasised.
The basic idea is this. You tune-in in order to listen, and you listen and process in order to capture the Explainer/Teller's highlights. The next step is to share selected highlights with the Explainer/Teller.
If you are listening to Adam talk about his fear of going to the doctor, how does he know that you understand him, that you are ‘with’ him? There's only one sure way. And that's to tell him what you think his key points are. Not just by repeating what he says, of course, but by putting it into your own words.
As you listen to Adam, you identify a couple of highlights.
At one point you say, "So, the way you see it, it’s the stress and pain associated with the tests that you find particularly difficult to handle.”
Adam responds by saying, "Let me tell you. Last year my gut was in a terrible state. But I kept putting off seeing the doctor because I just dread invasive tests — even if I know they’re necessary. The attitude of the doctors I saw seemed to be ‘tough luck’!"
A sure sign that you’ve captured one of Adam's highlights is the fact that he responds by giving an example from his own experience. In essence, Adam says, "That's my point, all right. And here's an example of it." That's what people do when they feel understood. They move on, expanding their stories, clarifying or adding to their messages, elaborating their points of view, or spelling out their cases in greater detail.
But what if you had responded to Adam by saying something like this?
You say, "Adam, aren't you making a mountain out of a molehill? Everyone has to face up to medical tests. You're making too much of them. It's your psychology that needs some revamping."
This is not sharing a highlight. Such a response is a product of judgmental listening and processing. The fact that there may be some truth to what you are saying is not the issue. The way you delivered your ‘truth’ was almost bound to get an adverse reaction. How does Adam respond? Well, first of all with silence. He's been stopped dead in his tracks.
When he recovers, he says, "You may be right . . . By the way, when are you going to be available for tennis? Give me a call when you’ve thought of a suitable date.”
He probably feels put down. But he doesn't want to damage the relationship, so he merely pauses and then changes the topic. Others might have responded differently, saying such things as, "I'm certainly glad you're not my doctor," or, "Oh, listen to Mr. Hero talk; I'd like to see you on one of those tables," or, "You're about as sensitive as a toilet seat." You get the point. Perhaps Adam's view of medicine does need to be challenged, but this is hardly the way to do it. It’s important to take the time to understand his perspective before you start challenging it.
Since sharing highlights well is an extremely important - and underused - Understander skill, a few more examples are in order when people tell their stories, deliver their messages, share their points of view, and make their cases.
Lucy, 28, is talking to a couple of co-workers at the store where she works. Her story is about her experiences as a volunteer worker in a developing country. Though she has been back for over a year, she is still reliving the time she spent overseas and the benefits she has reaped from her work there.
She says, "The first day I arrived there everything seemed completely strange. It was chaotic. The first night I stayed with a family. I lay awake for hours wondering whether I had made the right decision. But the next day I threw myself into the work to be done at the local school. I got involved with so many things that there was no time to think about myself. A month later I felt I was part of the community. I belonged. Everyone was so welcoming. I'm not sure why, but I even worked hard at getting to know people who at first turned me off. A couple of these people turned out to be my best friends."
Tina, one of her co-workers listens and then says, "It must all seem like a dream now. So far away. And long ago. I bet there were some nightmare moments, too. I'm not sure I'd want to go. I'd be scared to death."
Lydia, another co-worker, interrupts and says, "Two things strike me. Throwing yourself into work solved a lot of problems. And not letting yourself get turned off by your first experiences with people led to new friends. Both paid off."
How do these two responses differ? Analyse them by applying what you have learned so far about listening, processing, and sharing highlights.
You can use the SAME elements - situation or background, Explainer/Teller's actions (or lack thereof), Explainer/Teller's mental states, and Explainer/Teller's experiences to alert you to possible highlights.
Sandra responds to Jim's story about his daughter, Lisa’s, recent escapade at school by saying, "So, once you stepped back and looked at the whole school year, this incident didn't seem that important. It was really out of character for Liza."
Sandra sees the context or background presented by Jim as an important part of the story and feeds it back as a highlight.
Bertrand has been thinking about his friend Beatrice. He likes her a lot, but when they get together they tend to gossip a lot. Sometimes they end up making fun of the people they call friends. He doesn't think that this is such a hot idea. He feels hypocritical. At their next meeting he brings the issue up.
At one point he says, "I like gossip as much as the next person. But sometimes we seem to go overboard. At least I think we do. Or I certainly do. It bothers me afterwards. Last night Jake called. Todd and I had been taking him apart earlier in the day. I felt like a hypocrite talking with him. He's not like the caricature we were making of him. This is beginning to bother me."
Let's pretend that Beatrice has multiple personalities.
Beatrice A responds, "Don't shove your morality off on me. Get off your high horse. Look at yourself in the mirror before accusing others." And she stomps off.
Beatrice B says, "Bert! Everyone gossips. Don't you think that the others are talking about us when we're not around? It's a kind of social sport. It doesn't really hurt anyone. Come on! We’ll all still stay friends."
Beatrice C replies, "Oh, oh, we're being serious, aren't we? Sorry, I don't mean to kid. So you're making a distinction between, well, sort of ‘normal’ gossip and nasty gossip. The second goes over the line and is demeaning. It makes you feel sleazy afterward. So why not indulge in the normal type and get rid of the sleazy stuff?"
Analyse these three responses to Bertrand's remarks in the light of Explainer/Teller and Understander skills and the values that should permeate dialogue. What do you find?
You can use the MRI elements of a message - the message itself, the reasons for it, and the implications for both the message giver and other people - to alert you to possible highlights. James is talking with Lucy who has just told him that she is breaking off her engagement with her fiancé, Seymour.
At one point he says, "So this really has little to do with Seymour. You're really not sure that you're ready for marriage."
This highlight focuses on the reason behind Lucy's decision. Your choice of highlight depends on what the Explainer/Teller emphasises in delivering the message.
Frieda is sharing a point of view with Aaron. They are senior citizens living in an assisted-living facility. The issue centres round house rules laid down by management.
Frieda says, "We need rules. But the problem is, what kind of rules and who should make them? I wouldn't want to live around here if there were no rules. Frankly, I don't like it when people violate the rules on playing radios and TVs loudly after 10:00. But other rules, like lingering in the dining room after meals, and the kind of curtains we are ‘allowed’ to have, and bringing food in from outside - these are things we could decide for ourselves. Or at least, the residents should be polled on them. Getting old is bad enough. I don't want it to be worse by being treated like a child."
Aaron responds by saying, "It's no use talking to me about it, Frieda. I don't make the rules. I just try to keep my head down and get along."
Analyse Aaron's reply. Then take a moment or two and list what you see as some of Frieda's highlights. Remember that feelings can be part of the highlight package. Then write down (or share with a partner) one highlight that you might feed back to Frieda in order to promote good dialogue.
You can use the PRE elements of an opinion or point of view - the point of view itself, the reasons for it, and evidence or examples that back it up - to alert you to possible highlights. For instance, Bernard is talking with his friend Tom about his misgivings about internet stocks and shares.
At one point Tom says, "So, you see many of these stocks as, well, houses of cards, ready to collapse. You see a lot of hype, but you don't see the financial or economic infrastructure that will hold them up. (Chuckles) You're not a ‘true believer’ in the ‘new economy’."
In sharing a highlight, Tom focuses on the point of view itself and a couple of generic reasons Bernard offers for holding his position.
In a final example, Sylvester, talking with a neighbour, is making a case for community policing in their neighbourhood. His neighbour feels ambiguous about it, fearing someone is going to get hurt.
Part of what Sylvester says goes something like this, "Your point about someone getting hurt is important. I've dug up what information I could on this. There are about a dozen community policing programmes in the city and suburbs and so far, no one seems to have been hurt. But maybe we should look at it from a different angle. How many people have been saved from getting hurt because of these programmes? This is the kind of stuff that's hard to show through statistics. I'm not saying that no one could get hurt. Rather, I'm looking at things from a trade-off perspective. What if a couple of people, volunteers, mind you, got hurt in some way each year, but dozens or even more were saved from getting hurt? This is the way I think about it."
Once more, take a moment or two and list some of the highlights here. Then write down (or share with a partner) one highlight that you might feed back to Sylvester at the service of dialogue.
Once more you can use the CRITIC elements of making a case - the case itself (together with the Explainer/Teller's credibility), the reasons for the proposal, the interests of concerned stakeholders, the time needed by stakeholders to come to grips with the proposal, the Explainer/Teller's interests, and the flexibility, or compromise, that might be needed to make the proposal viable in the eyes of stakeholders - to alert you to possible highlights. For instance, Esther wants to change some of the house rules of the women's club to which she belongs. She is talking with a few of her fellow members, including Carmen.
At one point Carmen says, "So you want to try to push these changes through at the next meeting because the more time the full membership has to think about them the more they will nitpick. And then nothing will ever get done. But you think that you've discussed the changes with enough solid members to reinforce your feeling that the changes are a good idea."
In her highlight, Carmen focuses on the time element together with the interests of stakeholders, that is, the members of the club.
The highlights you identify might not always hit the target, even when you are taking pains to tune-in, listen, and process what your conversational partner is saying. Take Joseph, who has been talking with you about his views on the incumbent political party. You have been listening carefully and noting the highlights of what he has been saying.
At one point you say, "So when you look at their platform, they seem to be all for the ‘little guy’. But when you review their actual legislation, the ‘little guy’ seems to get lost. As you see it, they seem to be no different from their opposition in this regard."
If you're right, he'll tell you. Either directly — “You've got it!" — or by continuing with his story, confident that you are with him. In Joseph's case, he might have said, "That's right! Let me give you a couple of examples of just how bad it can get. Let's take taxes . . ."
On the other hand, if you're wrong, then the misunderstanding can be cleared up on the spot. Let's say your response to Joseph didn't quite hit the mark.
He says, "Well, you're right on the legislation part. But I still think that they're doing a better job than the opposition with the average citizen. For instance . . ."
You had most of it right. But sharing your highlights enabled Joseph to acknowledge what you had understood correctly and amend what did not quite hit the mark. This makes for mutual understanding.
In Joseph's case, feeding back highlights did two things. First, it showed him that you were interested in understanding his point of view. Second, it gave you an opportunity to check your understanding.
Of course, it would make for a very strange conversation if you demonstrated your understanding every few seconds. Even so, effective communicators, when they are in Understander role, make a conscious effort to regularly check to see if their version of the story or message is the same as the one that the Explainer/Teller is intending to tell.
Sharing highlights is also a way of helping your conversational partners clarify their thinking. You're talking with Manny, who is thinking about taking early retirement. You feedback a few highlights and this helps him to see some of the flaws in his own arguments.
At one point he says, "You know, bouncing ideas off you like this really helps. If I sit and stew about things on my own, well, sometimes I don't make sense."
In virtually every situation, in fact, it can be quite helpful to deliberately demonstrate your understanding as the conversation moves forward.
Feeding back selected highlights of the Explainer/Teller's story, message, point of view, or case is a good way to ‘lubricate’ the conversation, just as a good engineer would lubricate a machine. When you feed back highlights, the Explainer/Teller, confident that he, or she, is making contact, is encouraged to move on. Everyone likes to be understood. It's one of the best feelings we can have.
Remember that good communicators switch between the Explainer/Teller and Understander roles, sometimes quite frequently. So you don't have just one person feeding back highlights. In good dialogue both communicators do this quite naturally. But good communicators, when they are in the Understander role, tend to persist in feeding back highlights until they make sure they have both understood and have communicated their understanding.
The amount of time you spend in the Understander role depends on the kind of conversation you are having. If you are talking with a friend about some problem he, or she, is having, you will probably spend more time in the Understander role. However, if the two of you are planning to start a business together, a great deal of switching between roles is more likely to be the case. You both want to make sure that both of you get your needs met.
Here are some guidelines for feeding back highlights when you are in the Understander role:
When you are in the Understander role, reflect before you speak. Not everything that the Explainer/Teller says is a highlight. If you feed back too much, you will sound like a parrot or a tape recorder. It sounds phony. If you've really understood what has been said, sharing highlights should be natural. Use SAME, MRI, PRE, and CRITIC, to help you identify key points.
If the Explainer/Teller goes on without providing openings for you, you will soon find that you've ‘saved up’ too many highlights to share. While there are times when it’s best to let the Explainer/Teller have his, or her say, generally speaking, conversations go better when there is real dialogue. Consider Gloria. She is having some problems with her rather domineering mother, who, as might be expected, tends to go on and on. Her mother in this instance is complaining about her husband's lack of stamina.
Not too far into a particular topic, Gloria ‘interrupts’ and says, "Wait a minute, mum. I'm not sure whether you are saying that you think that something is wrong with him physically. That maybe he should see a doctor."
Her mother replies, "Well, not exactly. I think it's more psychological. A slowed down lifestyle. He can't keep up with me. You've seen him recently. What do you think?"
In this case, Gloria's sharing a highlight helps her mother moderate what she was saying and invite her daughter into some semblance of a dialogue.
Be concrete and specific. Vague highlights lose their impact. Don has been talking about the things he doesn't like about the neighbourhood in which he lives.
You say, "So this area has its downsides. But what seems to annoy you most is the attitude of the people. They don't seem to be friendly at all. At least, not as friendly as the people in your last neighbourhood."
And Don replies, "Well, that's it, isn't it? In fact, if the people were more friendly, this would actually be a better area in which to live . . . Of course, I haven't had much time to get to know anyone."
Feeding back a highlight about the attitude of the people in the neighbourhood helps Don temper his view somewhat. There are things he likes about the area and maybe he'll have to work at making a few friends.
Feelings, emotions, and other mental states, such as puzzlement and conviction, often constitute an important part of a highlight. Indeed, sometimes, the emotion is the main part of the highlight. For instance, Joan has just found out that Claude, one of her cousins who was supposed to be a good investment counsellor, has lost all the money entrusted to him by family members. Joan, herself, has lost a significant chunk of her savings. She is bemoaning the fact that no one listened to her when she questioned the whole set-up, that she was stupid enough to go along with the rest of the family, despite her misgivings, that her parents have lost a lot of money and this will affect their retirement plans - and so on.
You say to her, "I've never seen you this angry."
She replies, "I've never been so exasperated in all my life. What bothers me most is that there is nothing we can do about it. Nothing. I've talked to lawyers. We just have to stew in it."
Feeding back the emotion was all that was needed. Joan gets to the heart of it. Nothing can be done about the family's plight. The members of the family are going to have to grit their teeth, manage their emotions, and get on with life.
In feeding back emotions, make sure that you get the right emotion and the right intensity. The statements, "You feel hurt," "You feel relieved," and "You feel enthusiastic," specify different families of emotion. On the other hand, the statements, "You feel annoyed," "You feel angry," and "You're furious," specify different degrees of intensity in the same family (anger). The words ‘sad, mad, bad, and glad’ refer to four of the main families of emotion, while, "sad, very low, and extremely depressed," refer to different intensities in the ‘sadness’ family.
If your conversational partners express their emotions but don't name them directly, be careful to get both the emotion and its intensity right. For instance, Jessica is talking with you about a problem she's having with her sister.
In sharing a highlight, you say, "So, you're amused at her goings on, especially her escapades with younger men."
She replies, "Absolutely not! Her ‘goings on’, as you call them, annoy me no end. Why doesn't she act her age?"
You got it wrong. You misinterpreted what she was saying or, in this case, expressing.
If you had said, "Sounds like all this immaturity on her part really ticks you off."
Jessica might have responded, "Right. So being with her is not much fun. And I'm not the only one in the family that finds her behaviour more than annoying."
Sometimes your conversational partner may actually be talking about emotions felt in the past, that is, at the time of the event being discussed. At other times, they express feelings during the conversation itself. Consider this interchange between Clive, who is going through a divorce, and Thelma, a friend of his. He is in the middle of a child custody proceeding.
He says, rather calmly, "I get furious with her [his ex-wife] when she says things, little snide things, that suggest that I don't take good care of the kids."
Thelma replies, "You really hate it when she intimates that you're not a good father."
Clive isn't angry right now. Rather, he's talking about his anger.
In the following example, Fidel is talking to his wife, Helga, about one of his colleagues at work.
He says in an enthusiastic way, "I threw caution to the wind and confronted him about his sarcasm and it actually worked. He not only apologised, but behaved himself the rest of the trip."
Helga replies, "It's great to take a chance like that and have it pay off."
In this case, Fidel expresses his emotions without naming them. Helga sees the look on his face and responds. Often enough, you will have to read your partners' emotions - both the family and the intensity - in their nonverbal behaviour.
A friend of yours, Jeremy, calls you, tells you he ‘needs’ to see you. He comes over to the house, sits down, looks at the floor, hunches over, and haltingly says: "I don't even know where to start."
And then he falls silent.
You reply, "Well, Jeremy, you're obviously feeling pretty miserable, though I have no idea why."
Jeremy, after a pause, goes on to say, "Well, let me tell you why. . ."
You see that he is depressed and his nonverbal behaviour indicates that the feelings are quite intense.
Link emotions to what gives rise to them. When you include feelings and other mental states in your highlights, link them to the event or experience that caused them. Generally, feelings are caused by, or accompany, experiences and actions, both your own and those of other people. The generic formula for expression this is, "You feel X because Y."
For instance, in responding to a friend's story, you say, "You feel disappointed because she failed to show up."
Kristin feels bad today because she was so impatient with her aging mother yesterday. Allen feels good because he just received a long newsy letter from a good friend. In the following example, Ernest has been talking about a meeting he has just had with his boss.
At one point, you say, "So you were surprised by her opposition because everything she said up to then indicated that she was on board."
And he replies, "Surprised? I was dumbfounded. From my point of view it was a total about face."
You had the right emotion, but not quite the right intensity. In all of this, however, as has been mentioned before, don't start sounding like a counsellor. "I think you feel bad, not because she jilted you, but because you've discovered unacceptable parts of yourself." Come on.
If somebody is experiencing strong emotions, it’s often a good idea to recognise these emotions right away in your response. Karen has just heard some gossip that a supposed friend has been spreading about her.
You say, "This is just the kind of back stabbing that really makes you furious. You're still steaming over it."
When someone tells you that he has just received a diagnosis of advanced cancer, you say, "Jamie, what a shock. It's almost unbelievable."
Jamie replies, "It's almost as if I can't catch my breath. My world changed in an instant."
Sometimes recognising and naming a child's feelings can make a difference between the conversation going places or turning into a confrontation.
Lilly says to her six-year-old, "I know you're disappointed because your Dad wouldn't let you go with him. He just couldn't do it this time."
This might not clear everything up but it can keep things from escalating.
Don't start sounding like a doctor, or lawyer, or professional counsellor. Be yourself, even if it means stumbling around a bit every once in a while.
Let’s say your friend Richard has been telling you about starting to date again after a bitter divorce.
If you say, "So you believe that this might be an opportune time to expand your social life," he'll probably think that you've gone weird.
It might be better had you said, "So it's time to move on."
If you begin sounding like the examples in this book, then you are probably off track. Examples often sound stilted. They are used to make a point, not to put words in your mouth.
Finally, don’t fall into the habit of so-called ‘mirroring’. This technique, still popular with some old-school sales people as a rapport-building device, involves repeating back to people some of the exact words they’ve said to you. The idea is to convince the other person the two of you are on the same wavelength because — hey — you even use the same words. It’s not much better than playing back a tape recording.
Don't pretend to understand when you don't. Don't be afraid to ask for a repeat. Jasmine is discussing her relationship with her husband. You're not sure what her point is.
You say, "Jasmine, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you've ‘had it with him’. That has a drastic sound to it."
Jasmine replies, "Oh no. I'm talking about going to arts events with him. He's just not interested. What I mean is that I'm not going to try to force him to go any more. I'll go to plays and the ballet with friends who like that sort of stuff."
Confessing your uncertainty helps Jasmine clarify her point. Pretending to understand does nothing to create mutual understanding.
Base your highlights on what you've learned so far, not on what you think is coming. And, generally speaking, don't finish the sentences of your conversational partners. You might think you're being understanding, while they might think you're just trying to be smart.
Sharing too many highlights can be just as bad as not sharing any. It's true that many people don't share highlights at all. But sometimes when a person discovers the value of sharing highlights, he or she goes overboard. If you do this, you will begin sounding like a counsellor. A poor counsellor at that.
This is a cliché and is usually a good indication that you don't understand. A string of "uh-huhs" isn't much better.
Sharing highlights is a great lubricant for dialogue. The reason for this is that it gives you an opportunity to show that you are working at understanding and at the same time to check how successful you've been.
Here’s an overriding principle that will help you neither overdo, nor under-do, direct sharing of highlights.
Every response you make should indicate that you have been listening and trying to understand.
So, if your response is a question, the question itself should indicate that you have been listening carefully.
If Gloria is going on about a recent fight with her mother, you might say, "You have lots of fights with your mother. I'm not sure what makes this one so special."
While your response is not, technically, a highlight, it does indicate that you have been listening, that you have been identifying key points, and that you are working hard at understanding. Your response is based in part on your understanding of the context, that is, the overall relationship between Gloria and her mother.
The way you tune-in to what your conversational partners are saying can convey understanding. Opening your eyes wider when someone makes a key point is a way of sharing understanding without using words at all.
Even if your response involves moving into the Explainer/Teller role, the way you do it can indicate understanding.
For instance, you might say to Gloria, "I have lots of little disagreements with my father. None of them is that important. But sometimes they add up and I find myself overreacting to some little incident or other. I explode. It seems silly. But at the time I've just had it up to here."
And Gloria pauses a bit, relaxes, and responds, "You know, you're right . . . There were a lot of little incidents last week. So yesterday, I suspect, everything overflowed. I just flew off the handle. The issue we were talking about wasn't that important in itself."
Sharing something of your own experience in order to foster mutual understanding keeps you from sounding like a counsellor. Those who are close to you don't usually want a counsellor, but they still want to be understood.
Often enough, simple gestures can convey your understanding. Ethan is at a party with Luna, his wife. They have gone their separate ways, mingling with the crowd. A little later, Ethan glances across the room and sees his wife pinned down, as it were, by an enormous bore. She happens to look his way. Ethan's nonverbal response to her is subtle but unmistakable.
It says something like this: "I see you're caught. It's obvious you're not enjoying your encounter. I'll get over there as soon as I can."
If your relationship with someone is itself empathic, one characterised by closeness, respect, and understanding, there is less of a need to feedback highlights explicitly. Even in these relationships, however, when things get tense, feeding back highlights more explicitly and perhaps with greater frequency can help take the edge off the conversation.
A critic might say, "Come on. Isn't it enough to say something like this: ‘First, it's important to be a good listener and understand the other person's key points. Second, it's important to find some way of letting your partner know that you've understood what he or she has said.’ But all this detail. Is it necessary? Why make things more complicated than they are? I don't have to take a car apart in order to be a good driver.
"For instance, what's all this nonsense about ‘processing’? I never heard of that before. If it were important, I'd know something about it by now. What you're doing is taking something that is fundamentally rather simple - one human being talking to another human being - and making it complicated because that's what academics do. That's how they make their living. Then they argue with one another."
Well, our critic may have something there. Life can get complicated enough without complicating it further - and needlessly. However, the intention is not to complicate the communication process, but to take it apart in order to understand it better. This is especially important for those who are in communication-intensive jobs. But it’s also important for anyone who wants to be a better communicator in his, or her, daily life.
Actual ‘processing’ is not as clumsy and burdensome as it seems when it’s taken apart. Effective Understanders do it almost automatically. But the same is true of effective golfers. Their route to effectiveness, however, often includes ‘taking apart’ and analysing their swing and they way they line up the hole when they are putting. When, after a lot of practice, golfers become good at all the details that make for a good golfer, they no longer need to take things apart. At least, not until they fall into bad habits once more.
So, if you want to get better at either of the skills discussed in this chapter - listening well and communicating highlights at the service of mutual understanding - then taking a look at the ‘anatomy’ of the skills is not a bad idea. Doctors do it. Dentists do it. Lots of professionals do it. Amateur golfers do it. Why not communicators? After all, communication is more important than golf for everyone, even golfers.
In some conversations, Explainer/Tellers needs little help, just the occasional question to move things along. They express themselves freely. They tell you what you need to know. Conversations like that are, perhaps, the exception. More commonly, people in the Explainer/Teller role need support and stimulation if they are to make themselves fully clear. The skill here is to respond to Explainer/Tellers in ways that encourage them to express themselves well. Asking questions is only part of it.
Even when communicators are skilled in the Explainer/Teller role, the ‘product’, that is, the communication of the story, message, point of view, or case, is inevitably better when both Explainer/Teller and Understander become partners to make it happen.
There are two things you can do when you are in the Understander role to help Explainer/Tellers deliver the full picture in a clear and interesting way. picture. First, you can ‘encourage the flow’, that is, you can do things to encourage the Explainer/Teller to move forward. Second, you can probe for greater clarity and detail.
Some Explainer/Tellers do better when they are actively encouraged, especially at the beginning of a conversation or at difficult points during a conversation. There are a number of ways you can do this.
Like new-born babies, some conversations are at their most vulnerable during the first few moments of life. So make sure your first responses are encouraging. For example, you might say such things as: "That sounds important to you," or, "I'd like to know about more about this." Whatever is natural to you. Your nonverbal behaviour will also tell the other person a great deal about your interest - or lack of it. Ideally, your expressions of interest, both verbal and nonverbal, will complement the Explainer/Teller's efforts to engage your attention. You become a team.
Don't assume that your conversational partners will automatically know you are interested in them. If you don't make your interest clear through body language and words, they may well decide that you are closed to communication - especially if they are feeling insecure about the conversation in the first place.
Drop in a few remarks that demonstrate you're listening and are involved. Interjections such as "uh-huh," or, "I see," and the like, act as encouragements - provided that they are not misplaced or merely routine. Of course, sharing highlights is a good way of encouraging the Explainer/Teller. But you don't have to give out whole chunks of highlights all the time. Rather, feed back smaller segments of a highlight to nudge the dialogue along. For instance, if someone is telling you how he has been ‘knifed in the back’ by a boss whom he trusted, interjecting words like, "And this is the guy who was going to ‘help’ you," encourages the flow. When done well - and not overdone - these prompts help the Explainer/Teller develop the story, message, point of view, or case, more fully.
Don't feel compelled to fill in all the conversational spaces. Sometimes it's a good idea to give the other person time to gather his, or her, thoughts. Recall what was said earlier about the spirit of inquiry and reflection. You are leaving room, not just for the Explainer/Teller, but for yourself. The Explainer/Teller pulls his or her thoughts together. You give yourself time to reflect. Staying silent for a few moments may be all that's needed at times, provided you've demonstrated your initial interest. But don't overdo it. If the silence drags on, the Explainer/Teller might feel like he, or she, is on the spot. Then verbal encouragements should be used.
In the following example, an eleven-year-old boy is talking, in a halting way, to his father about how he let his team-mates down in a game. His father gives him plenty of room. But at one point the boy stops dead. His father gives him a tad more space then says, "It's not easy to talk about stuff like this."
The boy snaps back, "I hate talking like this. I feel so dumb."
The father replies, "Well then, let's see what can be done to make you smart. I bet there are a lot of things you can do to get back on track."
The boy relaxes a bit, "Like what?"
His father goes on, "How many of the guys on the team have been sitting around since the game thinking about what you did wrong? I know you have, but what about them?"
The boy laughs, "They've got better things to do!"
And his father says, "Then, that's probably part of the solution."
They go on to discuss how short people's memories are in cases like this. They talk things through in a problem-solving rather than self-blame mode.
As you build your understanding of what the other person is saying, there will be times when you realise that you need more information to fill in the picture, clarify the message, explore the point of view, or puzzle through the case. This does not necessarily mean that the person in the Explainer/Teller role is doing a poor job. It does mean that you are taking responsibility for your own understanding, no matter what kind of job the Explainer/Teller is doing.
The technical word for getting the Explainer/Teller to provide you with more information is ‘probing’. The problem with that word is that to some it sounds like what you might do with an instrument you'd find in a doctor's, or dentist's, office. For some, probing is something that is done to them rather than something they do with them. That said, let's translate the term into practical things to do.
The first step in getting the full picture is to work out what it is you want to know but don't know. Go for the most important missing pieces rather than smaller details. Going after detail for the sake of detail might be useful in a research project, but your conversational partners are not research projects.
If the Explainer/Teller's story is not clear to you, ask yourself questions based on the SAME framework outlined earlier. Here are some questions you can ask yourself in order to determine what would be useful to ask about. Of course, no one should routinely and rigidly go through these sets of questions. That would make communication a horror. Consider the follow scenario. A friend of yours is talking about a very painful break-up with her boyfriend.
You might not understand the background, that is, the situation or context, well enough. You ask yourself questions such as, "What was the relationship like in general? Were there expectations of marriage on either side?"
You might not be clear about what the Explainer/Teller's actions, what she did or did not do. "What did she do when she began to suspect that the relationship was not going right? Was there anything in her behaviour that might have put him off him?"
You might not know much about the Explainer/Teller's feelings, emotions, and other mental states. "Was the relationship usually on a steady course or was it an emotional roller coaster? How did she take it when she got the letter? What has her emotional life been since? What was the emotional tone of the relationship?"
You might feel that you don't know enough about the actions of the other players in the drama. You're not sure what happened to the Explainer/Teller. Then questions like this come to mind. "What was his behaviour like before the break-up? Did he just cut off his relationship with her or was there another woman involved? What in his behaviour put her off? What part did other people, such as friends or relatives, play?"
In order to understand you might need to know what is connected to what in the story. "How did his getting a new job relate to the break-up? What impact did her reactions to his becoming more distant have on him?"
Not that you would ask either yourself or the Explainer/Teller all these questions. Rather, once you realise what key elements of the story are missing, you can take steps to find out what they are. "When you found out that he was going out with other women, how did you react?"
If you are having a hard time understanding a message because you missed the context, then getting the context is a goal.
In discussing an upcoming school event with its organiser, the building superintendent says, "I know you want me to get the hall in shape for the parents' meeting. But it would help me to know what kind of meeting it will be. Then I can make sure that the ‘look’ of the hall fits the purpose of the meeting."
If the Explainer/Teller's message is not clear, ask yourself questions based on the MRI framework. In the following example, Andy is trying to get information he needs to understand more clearly his supervisor's e-mail message about a new project. He asks himself questions like the following, in order to prepare for a conversation with his boss:
If he doesn't know enough about the situation or background to understand the message, he might wonder, "How does this project fit into our overall work programme?"
If the supervisor's message is itself unclear, he might ask himself, "Is he implying that I am the one who should write the report? Or does he want me to make sure that it gets written on time, no matter who writes it?"
It might help Andy to know the reasons behind the message. "Why do we have to get the report in so quickly? What role does it play in the project? What factors might suggest that the report is not as urgent as it’s said to be? To what degree are some of the reasons given opinion rather than fact?"
Andy might need to know key implications for himself, for his supervisor, and for other team members. "Does this mean I should postpone the visit to the World Services Corporation until the report is finished?"
Is the message cast in stone or is there some room to manoeuvre? "What kind of flexibility is there with respect to the content of the message? How fixed are the deadlines?"
Once Andy realises what he needs in order to understand the message more fully, he can ask his supervisor for clarification. Finally, asking oneself questions like those outlined above and asking one's conversational partner, are two different things. The wording of some of the above questions might not be right for the Andy's actual dialogue with his supervisor.
If the Explainer/Teller's point of view is not entirely clear to you, then you can ask yourself a number of things. In the following example, Mary is sharing her views about vegetarian diets with Marshall, her cousin. As Marshall listens actively, he might ask himself questions like these: Note that these questions are based on the PRE framework for sharing points of view.
What background information would help me understand the point of view being shared? "I wonder what led up to her becoming a vegetarian? She ate meat with us the last time the family came over for dinner. But that was more than a year ago. I am curious about what has happened since."
What is the core of this person's point of view? "I know she's a vegetarian, but to what degree is she implying that this approach to nutrition is for everyone?"
What are the reasons the person gives for this particular point of view? "Why does she insist that the only true vegetarian is a vegan? To what degree is this a health issue or is there some kind of almost religious, or ‘cause’, slant to what she is saying?"
What kind of examples or evidence might clarify the background, the point of view itself, or the reasons? "What benefits has she experienced from becoming a vegetarian? How does this point of view affect her social life?"
Once more, the spirit in which these questions are asked is important. They are meant for understanding, not interrogation.
If the Explainer/Teller's case lacks clarity or focus, ask yourself what is missing. Let's say that your neighbour is making a case for putting up an eight-foot, redwood fence between his property and yours in place of the existing five-foot high, chain-link fence. He says he wants to do this for mutual privacy reasons and for some garden projects he has in mind. You ask yourself the following questions based on the CRITIC framework.
Are their background factors that would help me understand the case better? "I wonder whether this has anything to do with the fact that I voted with the board when they denied his request to widen his driveway last year? Or is this really about privacy - his and mine?"
What is the Explainer/Teller's credibility like? "What is his track record in designing changes to the outside of his house? How well have the changes he made turned out? How do they look?"
How clear is the case itself? How well does it hang together? "What are the ‘garden projects’ he is talking about? How is the fence involved with these projects?"
What reasons does he give for the project? "The privacy question aside, what kind of garden project requires a fence that high?"
How well does he focus on my interests and the interests of the neighbourhood? "How well has he thought through such issues as light and a sense of openness in the backyard? How does such a fence fit into the character of this neighbourhood? I wonder whether he can show us examples of places where the project he contemplates has been done?"
What about the time frame being suggested? "Is he giving us sufficient time to think this through? Will more time help mature the project in his own mind?"
What will the Explainer/Teller get out of this? "What is his overall plan for his house and garden? What are the real benefits for him? How well has he thought this through?"
How open is he to compromise? "How willing is he to consider a lower fence? What about a lattice fence instead of one that is solid wood? To what degree has he already made up his mind on issues like this?"
Remember that these are possible questions you can ask yourself about the case someone is presenting. There might be a problem with the ‘sound’ of this particular set of questions - too much like a lawyer preparing a case for a plaintiff. But if the actual conversation between the two neighbours is carried out in the spirit of respect, it will not have the feel of a lawyer's office or courtroom. To be realistic, however, the fact that the fence-builder was denied permission to widen his driveway might possibly give a somewhat contentious cast to the questions.
One very important issue: If you sense early on that you don't agree with the Explainer/Teller's message, point of view, or case, it’s important to work even harder to fill in the picture. The fact that you don't agree can distort what you hear. However, working hard in the Understander role is not, as we have indicated earlier, the same as agreeing with the other person, or overlooking issues that are important for you. Were you to do so, you would be overlooking our own rights.
A second important issue: If you sense early on that you agree with the other person's message, point of view, or case, it’s still important to work hard to fill in the picture accurately. The fact that you hear one or two points that you agree with does not mean that your thinking and the Explainer/Teller's thinking are exactly the same. Listen for nuances that indicate that you and the Explainer/Teller might not be in total agreement. You may even find that you don't really agree at all.
Once you know what information or clarification you need, then you can ask intelligent questions. Asking questions is easy, but asking intelligent questions is a tricky business. Make questions serve the dialogue, not your desire to have more and more information.
Questions that can be answered by a simple "yes" or "no" are called closed questions. "Is he going to stick to his promises?" "Is that what you want?" "Does that mean that you're not going to come?" The problem with closed questions is that they tend to close the conversation down rather than open it up.
Serena and Rudy, a neighbour, have been talking about Serena's struggle to get the contractor to redo some shoddy work in her home. Serena mentions that she has asked the contractor for certain kinds of information. Rudy asks, "Did he respond to your request?" and Serena replies, "Not really." That didn't get us very far, did it? "You mean you didn't get what you needed?" "That's right." That doesn't get us much further either.
The problem with closed questions is that they tend to generate more closed questions. And too many questions in a row - even good ones - can make the conversation feel like an interrogation or even an attack rather than a dialogue. Serena feels that Rudy is accusing her of being incompetent. Peppering Explainer/Tellers with questions is tiresome for both parties. It's as if the person in the Understander role has to extort information from the Explainer/Teller.
There are times when only a closed question will do — for instance, when you require absolute clarity on an issue. When you need to nail things down. Joe has been discussing family finances with his sister Claire.
At one point, he says. “I’m confused. Did Mum receive the cheque or not? I need to be clear on this.”
Open questions, on the other hand, cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no." "What's the likelihood that he will stick to his promises?" "How do you think you can repair the damage?" Such questions tend to open the conversation up. Back to Serena and Rudy.
Here's what the above drama might have looked like had Rudy asked an ‘open-ended’ question like this, "How did the contractor respond to your request?"
Serena replies, "Well, in a rather strange way. He quickly sent me lots of documents, but not the pertinent ones. Not the ones I had asked for. So he seemed to be responding enthusiastically to my request, but I have a suspicion that he was stonewalling me."
Open-ended questions leave the responsibility for elaboration with the Explainer/Teller. That's where it belongs.
Here are some ways you can ask for information without using direct questions. Indirect questions tend to emphasise your desire to understand rather than an impersonal need for data. They are less ‘interrogatory’.
A simple request is an alternate to a question. Explain what it is you want to know and, if it’s important, why you want to know it.
"Cray, I need some background. It's not clear to me what led up to such a violent argument? I thought they got along well."
"June, I can see why Sally was angry with Timothy, but tell me why David was so upset. He wasn't directly involved at all."
Ask the other person to build on what they've already said.
"Tom, you said that you were very interested in doing some volunteer work, but I don't think you've told me what possibilities you've been considering."
"Julie, your new assignment sounds exciting. Tell me more about it."
You can put some of yourself in the request to show you are interested and involved.
"So, tell me more about the other teachers' reactions to your plan, at the faculty meeting. So far, their reactions don't sound anything like mine."
Making reasonable requests for information, or clarity, furthers mutual understanding.
Instead of direct questions, use phrases that emphasise your own lack of clarity.
"You said John sometimes behaves in an irresponsible way. I'm not sure what you mean by ‘sometimes . . ."
"It's not clear to me why you think that firing him is the best solution to the problem."
Very often, the lack of clarity comes from not understanding connections or linkages.
"I don't know what he did to get such a violent reaction from you."
"I'm wondering what the implications of the new plan are for me."
If someone's story, message, point of view, or case is murky, work hard to get clarity. Encourage people to give the kind of detail that makes the picture, message, point of view, or case, concrete and specific. If you are puzzled, say so and ask for clarification.
Many people, when in the Understander role, ask the Explainer/Teller lots of questions in order to get more and more information. "Who, what, where, when, how, and why," spill out with ease. Often with too much ease. Such people mistake the search for information with a search for clarity and meaning. Once they get the information, they don't know what to do with it. Remember that you are looking for core elements, highlights, the important things. You are not seeking evidence for the courtroom. To sum up: don't ask questions unless they add value to the conversation.
Here is a brief checklist that can help you make requests and ask both direct, and indirect, questions wisely.
Make sure that your questions demonstrate, at least implicitly, that you have been listening to, and have understood, what the Explainer/Teller has been saying. "If he is as uncaring as you say, I'm not sure why you want to stay with him."
Don't ask a question, if feeding back a highlight will get the Explainer/Teller to elaborate.
Make sure that your questions add value and move things on. "I know that Fiona's going to be there, but I'm not sure how you want me to help her."
Use questions to understand key connections in the Explainer/Teller's stories, messages, points of view, and cases. "If you move to out of town, how will this affect mum?"
Ask questions in such a way that the Explainer/Teller can respond, rather than react, to them. Don't ask, "Why don't you act more civil towards her?" but rather, "I know she can be difficult. But what could you do to make meetings with her a little less tense?"
Do not ask leading questions. "When did you stop caring about him?" Rather, "It sounds as if you've stopped caring for him."
Do not ask questions that already contain the answer you want. "Don't you think that we should leave by 4:00?" Rather, be straightforward. State your preference. "I think we should leave by 4:00 to avoid rush-hour traffic."
Don't use questions to play games. Don't ask, "How do you want me to prepare for the meeting?" when you already know that the other person doesn't want you at the meeting at all. Be direct: "I believe you'd rather have me skip the meeting, but I'm not sure why." However, don't be overly direct, or direct at the wrong time.
The ideal approach on the part of the communicator, when in the Understander role, is to respond with a mixture of prompts, highlights, and probes. Remember that the objective of the Understander role is, first, to understand the Explainer/Teller's story, message, or point of view, and second, to let the Explainer/Teller know that you have understood the main points.
A good process for communicators, when in the Understander role, looks something like this:
1. Share highlights selectively as you identify them.
2. Use direct or indirect questions to help the Explainer/Teller provide the information you need to fill in the picture.
3. Once the Explainer/Teller responds to a question, feed back a highlight or two, in order to both share your understanding and check the accuracy of it.
When appropriate, move into the Explainer/Teller role, for instance, to share your own experience as a way of helping both you and your conversational partner understand the issues at hand and move the conversation forward.
Consider the following example. Earl has been talking with Cindy, a colleague at work, about the difficulties he is having with his teenage son, Jerad.
At one point Cindy says, "I'm not sure what role your wife is playing in all this."
Earl replies, "Well . . . [he sighs] . . . that's the sore point. We should have a combined approach to dealing with Jerad. But she tends to leave the ‘heavy’ stuff - the discipline and all that - to me. . . . And . . . well, it's hard for me to say this . . . but when I'm not around, she seems almost to be undermining what I do. I just don't know."
Consider two possible responses on the part of Cindy. Let's call them Cindy A and Cindy B.
Cindy A says, "Why do you think she's doing this?"
Such a response has all sorts of things wrong with it. It's another question. Cindy A does not share highlights prompted by her first question. It’s a form of complicity because it intimates that his wife is guilty. It's asking for ‘whys’, when the ‘what’s’ are not yet clear.
Now let's listen to Cindy B. "So, as you see it, she's letting you be the heavy, while she . . . well, you're not sure what's really going on. . . And that's got you worried."
In this response, Cindy B simply shares what she has understood. She's understandably cautious and does not take sides. She doesn't jump to any conclusions.
The best way to determine how ‘good’ your response has been is to observe the impact it has on the Explainer/Teller, and on the conversation itself. If the Explainer/Teller seems to react well to what you say, that's a good start. If your response acts as a stimulus to move the conversation forward, even better.
Consider the difference between Earl's response to Cindy A and Cindy B. Let's start by replaying Earl's words,
"Well . . . [he sighs] . . . that's the sore point. We should have a combined approach to dealing with Jerad. But she tends to leave the ‘heavy’ stuff - the discipline and all that - to me. . . . And . . . well, it's hard for me to say this . . . but when I'm not around, she seems almost to be undermining what I do. I just don't know."
Cindy A, as we have seen, says, "Why do you think she's doing this?"
Earl replies, "Well, if I knew that, I wouldn't be in such a quandary, would I?"
Earl's response to Cindy A indicates that her question did not open things up but closed them down, even though she didn't ask a closed question. Be careful of ‘whys.’ They tend to get Explainer/Tellers to speculate too much. Questions that begin with ‘why’ are open to multiple answers, all of which can be merely speculative. Now let's try Cindy B, and Earl's response.
"So it seems that she's letting you be the heavy, while she . . . well, you're not sure what's really going on . . . And that's got you worried."
And Earl replies, "Very worried. I worry about what's happened to my relationship with her. But what I worry about the most is how all of this is affecting Jerad. These days, life is hard enough for a teenager without getting conflicting signals from his parents."
When Cindy shares a highlight, the conversation moves on. Earl says what is troubling him most. A little later Earl begins to bounce some ideas off Cindy about how he might deal with the conflicting signals Jerad is getting. They move into problem solving mode.
There are many different ways to respond to what someone has said to you. Some responses help you to do your job well in the Understander role — that is, they help you to understand what the other person is wishing to communicate, at the same time as encouraging him, or her, to talk freely. Other responses, however, do the opposite. They get in the way of the dialogue developing. For example, when we give people instant advice or we trivialise their feelings, these responses can only help destroy dialogue, not build it.
Imagine you go to see a doctor. You begin to tell her about your situation. You'd like her to listen carefully to your story and to encourage you to talk fully and openly about your symptoms before giving you advice on a recommended treatment. But instead, she responds in one of the following ways:
She immediately writes out a prescription before you've had the chance to explain your situation.
She tells you off for being ill — for not taking care of yourself in the first place.
She dismisses your illness as trivial, even before you get out what you believe to be the main symptoms.
She offers you some pills she's taking herself.
She starts to talk about the state of her own health.
Such a scene might take place in a dark comedy, not in real life. If you were to experience a situation like this, you would probably feel outraged and quickly change doctors and then report her to the appropriate regulatory board.
From a communication point of view, none of the doctor's responses contribute to the creation of understanding. They all take the conversation off-course. Each undermines the communication process in its own way.
Yet many of us do similar things in our day-to-day conversations, even though we may not be aware of it. It's easy to sabotage a conversation with an inappropriate response. Remember, the job of the communicator, when in the Understander role, is first to learn what the world looks like from the other person's perspective. Responses, which divert the conversation from this essential goal, are not helpful.
When it comes to inappropriate responses, we're all familiar with the ‘usual suspects’ because we have been victims of them and, unfortunately, perpetrators, too.
Have you ever responded with unwanted advice? Have you ever responded judgementally? Of course you have. We all have.
But if you reflect and give yourself time to think, you can prevent any of the following ill-conceived responses by coming up with a constructive one, that is, one that achieves the goal but in a much more dialogue-friendly way.
Some people are into giving instant advice. For instance, Taylor, after listening for a couple of minutes to Alistair talk about problems he's having with Cassandra, says, "Drop her! She's obviously trying to take over your life." But can you give useful advice without knowing the full story? Build your understanding before even thinking about offering advice.
All of us, at one time or another, fall into the trap of giving unwanted advice. Does Taylor really want Alistair's advice at all? Perhaps all he wants to do is share his thinking. If Alistair had acted as a sounding board, Taylor may well have come up with his own solution, which is preferable.
Some people begin advice-giving with the words, "If I were you." "If I were you, I'd put her in her place." However, you are not the other person, and what works f