Interaction At Work: Whose Meaning Is It?

"We see things not as they are, but as we are."
   --H.M Tomlinson

Meaning is in the Response You Get

We often deal with new ideas, with changing how things are done, with trying to persuade others about our point of view. The longer you've lived, the more you realize the number of obstacles to people automatically accepting and absorbing your information.

Maybe the greatest single stumbling block to real communication is the one-sided nature of speaking.

I know that you already know about this: intellectually. But let's face it:  Most of us concentrate on what to say and how to say it. In our zeal to  get our message across we forget that at the other end of our message is a real, live person with her own zeal, goals, and concerns. These may not coincide with ours, especially at the moment when we are about to start communicating our new ideas.

So, Do This:

1. Openly acknowledge the areas of similarity first.

2. Re-state why you are together and what you hope to accomplish.

3. List the areas of disagreement or fuzziness. Don't discuss them yet, just list them.

4. Identify and work through the items that have the least value or emotional attachment. This creates a quick track record of successes.

5. Get to the tougher ones, with this important element:

Explain why it is important to you.

It's a lot easier to work together when you understand the deeper issues involved. Without this, you aren't really operating at a human level--you are just exchanging information whose underlying realities may be much more sympatico and understandable than the statement given on the surface.

Remember: Meaning is in the response. The deeper, more honest the response, the more chance you have of understanding the truth of each other's reality.

How do you approach these kinds of situations?

Comments

[Mile High Pixie]

You make some good points here, Steve. I've often thought that the best way to convince someone of my viewpoint is to show how it helps them, what the gains are for them, how it fits into what they believe. But knowing what people want and need is a matter of listening, and not just asking and then listening but of listening between the lines--listening for understanding, not agreement, and not assuming you know what someone means when they say x or y.

[Wally Bock]

Good points, Steve. Peter Drucker used to remind us that "communication happens at the ear."

[Steve Roesler]

MHP and Wally,

Thanks for the affirmation. And who the heck is going to argue with
Drucker?

What actually prompted this was a coaching gig with an exec who had a high profile presentation to make. It was also controversial. He was as knowledgeable as one could be about his side of equation. When people asked questions, he simply refused or was unable to hear what they were actually asking. Each word triggered some auto-responder that caused him to repeat a factoid from the presentation. Had he done as wisely instructed:-) and turned off the projector to have a chat, he would have had the conversation needed.

He is now looking at a forced early retirement. For real.

Communication is a catch-all kind of word but that's because so much that is important can fall under that banner. Listening and hearing is at the top of the list, eh?

[Chris Witt]

Steve,
My mother always used to tell me "You can't listen yourself into trouble, but you sure can talk yourself into it." (If only I had listened to her...)

As an articulate extrovert, I've been working on becoming a better listener, on the listening side of the communication equation. But my default, whenever there's miscommunication or conflict, is to fall back on talking -- on thinking I can explain my way through the problem.

At my best I keep listening and asking questions and listening some more. I know I've heard -- really heard -- the other person when he/she says, "That's it. That's exactly what I'm getting at." Once we get to that point, the other issues we have to work on become much easier.

Thanks for raising this issue.

[Steve Roesler]

Ah, Chris, somehow the wisdom of our moms returns again and again.

But I am buzzed by the way you figured out how to work around the extroverted thing: by asking questions until the other person smiles and says, "You've got it!" That is a heck of a useful tip for about 60%-70% of the "I just gotta say something" population.

Dare I say, you have out-Witted the best of the behaviorists!

Thanks, Chris.

[Jo]

This is a good post for celebrating the inauguration - finding common ground!

[Shaun Kieran]

Hi Steve-

Yes, yes, and yes - I’m signing on to all the comments.

It’s the practical utility, the fewer mistakes and the actual learning – in addition to the wisdom and creativity it allows to flourish – that’s so compelling to me.

Years ago, I was profoundly affected by a particularly powerful demonstration of “deep listening,” appreciative inquiry, and the elevated quality of the results. I thought it was the beginning of a true revolution in workplace culture – especially because of its obvious benefit to the bottom line.

Wrong.

It seems that only SOME workplaces are able to really embrace that approach. I’ve had many managers say to me, “I know you’re right, but….”

And, for them, it boiled down to not having the time, the patience, or the confidence to wait out the twists and turns of the process. “The bottom line can’t wait.”

Workplaces are businesses, and they’re also subcultures. All too often, it’s the focused, single-minded, “warrior” approach that’s admired and relied upon. It’s seen as actually getting things done, overcoming the real-world obstacles and resistance, and producing the “real” results.

I affectionately apply the term, “lunkhead” to people like the exec you described who fell by the wayside because of his rigidity. Some lunkheads are highly intelligent, but their main tool is their zest for competition and argument. Regrettably it still “works” more than I wish was true.

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Shaun, glad you could stop in again.

"The bottom line can't wait" was actually the underlying issue with the exec I mentioned, so you've tied this whole thing together very nicely. His unwillingness to listen was the observable symptom of your "lunkhead" syndrome. And he was, indeed, quite intelligent in the "factual" sense. Yet like so many, the human side of the equation got him in the end.

Like you, I mull over the question,"Why does this still "work" so often?" The only answer I can see is that immediate results are viewed by many as more important than the longer-term consequences of related, negative behaviors.

There's still a lot to be done out there, eh Shaun?