You, We, I

Are you looking for a way to increase your effectiveness with people?

We're going to look at that right now. And I want to share something that I've learned.

Think this way: You--We--I

When you approach someone to talk, you're asking for their time and their attention. Your topic might be interesting, it might have some tension attached, or maybe it's about something you want to change. Regardless, the other person wants to know that you are thinking of them.

The next time you need to engage someone--especially if it's a difficult conversation--approach it by thinking this way:

You are important to me and this conversation.

We are in this together.

I (hope, need, want) ...

Examples:

"Sarah, you've been designing our marketing materials for three years. We need to sit down and see if there are new ways to look at our product line. I have a new stretch goal to get into the Asian market and believe you can be a  big part of that success."

"Raul, you and I have been talking for a few months about how to improve your performance in presentations. Your information is good. We need to talk about how you can become more engaging and hold people's attention. I want to discuss some ways to do that and what you think might be getting in the way."

The principle

This is the most engaging and least threatening psychological sequence.

You are putting the other person first; providing emotional support by indicating the "we" nature of the discussion; and laying out your own needs last. It is not manipulative. In order to do it you have to care to prepare.

Isn't that what you want from other people, too?

Photo Source: www.ciadvertising.org

Comments

[Robyn]

Steve;

As always, I love the thoughtfulness of your posts. Those examples would indeed be excellent ways to support someone. But I wonder how many managers would be able to come up with something similar. I can get a kind of "template" out of your examples, but I know there are going to be people with lower levels of EQ than you wondering how they are going to approach such a meeting. How does one go about coming up with the tools and approach?

[peter vajda]

Hi, Steve,

The books Crucial Conversations and Crucial Confrontations (no affiliation for me here), among others, speak to this area: asking three questions:
1. What do I want for me?
2. What do I want for you?
3. What do I want for the relationship?

The answers will inform the focus, tone and tenor of the conversation.

In love relationships, the greatest challenge is moving from I-You to We. Most relationships that fail (and that's a majority) do so because of the inability or unwillingness of one or both partners to move away from an I-You ego, (often defensive) perspective to a mutually supportive, open and honest "we" perspective.

Both scenarious (work-home) require a great deal of consciousness, emotional maturity, empathy and reflection and less reactivity and ego.

Whe folks have shared visions, values and goals and then recognize there are obstacles in the way of achieving these, they'll often see the widsom of the "we" approach as one major way of smoothing out the bumps in the road---often moving from a "blame and pointing fingers" approach to a "taking shared responsibility" approach...a "Can you help me help you?" approach which is wrapped in a "we" conversation...where first I seek to understand before being understood, where respect (not necessarily agreement) for another and another's point of view, and needs, is paramount, where each recognizes (and owns) how they allow their ego to get in the way....

The deal, for me, is not putting anyone first, it's putting "we" first. A tough choice for many. But, life is choices.

[Tom Haskins]

Steve: The problem of "ego getting in the way" comes up a lot in my experience, just like Peter mentioned. When people tell me "I'm important to them" it often comes across as manipulation, taking me hostage or controlling me. There's a subtext of "don't leave me", "don't hurt my feelings" or "don't scare me with your ideas". Your examples are not controlling or fear-based. I'd characterize the first step in your template slightly differently: "Your accomplishments(endeavors, intentions) are worthy of respect (on my radar, admired by me)".

[Dana Zurbuchen]

Steve,

Another great resource is the book "Fierce Conversations" by Susan Scott. My clients have gained so many valuable tools from the book, very similar to the insights you share here.

I recently reviewed the book for a regional business publication. You can see the review on my blog (http://www.danazurbuchen.com/blog) - the publish date was June 4.

[Steve Roesler]

Robyn,

You know, that's an excellent question. What seems like a template to me may look very fuzzy and undefined to someone else. That's something I continue to work on.

In fact, I've done quite a few workshops on using this approach. The context and introduction is a lot more thorough than the blog format and attention span permits. But most people, regardless of background and experience, really do get it. The key is to explain the principle of human nature that asks for attention to, and validation, of one's self. Then, the importance of "we are in this together", especially if the conversation is a tough one. Finally, when the listener is in a place to hear, the person initiating the conversation has a platform to explain personal feelings regarding whatever the situation happens to be.

I've watched this be successful in business and personal relationships. And, I've watched the same approach cause criminals to actually confess to a crime in the most natural, conversational way one would ever imagine.

Robyn, I'm wondering if this isn't a good topic for an eBook or a training aid for organizations?

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Peter,

That is the issue, isn't it?: having a heartfelt approach that focus on the health of the relationship.

I like the idea of first working through what one wants for the other person and for both parties--that takes the mind to a place where it processes the situation differently.

[Steve Roesler]

tom,

That makes a lot of sense to me. If I hear the word "respect," I feel valued and honored--which then make it much easier to continue with whatever the topic happens to be.

[Steve Roesler]

Thanks for offering up the resource, Dana, as well as your blog. Will stop by for a visit.

[Jim Stroup]

Hello Steve,

Not only is this excellent advice for drawing your conversant in to your endeavor, it seems to me it is an excellent template to examine before the conversation, in order to assess whether or not you need to have it at all, or to assure that you are having it with the right person.

As always, thought provoking on many levels - thanks Steve!

[Steve Roesler]

Hi there, Jim,

Thanks for the other way to look at the model; that's definitely a useful take on it.

Been off the commenting radar screen as the result of a week-long off-site with a business team; looking forward to getting back in the rhythm of things next week.