Sunday, March 20, 2011

Techniques to Steer a Conversation

I received a request to describe some ways to “steer” a persuasive conversation in a specific direction. I offer the following thoughts:


1) I frequently make reference to asking questions (inquiries) aimed at examining claims. When you want to explore a statement or perspective in more depth, a great way to do that is to ask questions about it.

a. ‘That statement you made about “x”…what makes you say that?’

b. ‘Tell me more about…’

c. ‘Is what you are saying that “x”…?


2) Another kind of steering question is called a “redefine” and it looks like this:

a. After your counterpart has delivered a perspective that ends with “x”, you would The issue is not so much “x” as it is “y” – what are we going to do about “y”.

For example, your counterpart ends with “…and that’s why it is critical that save social security”; you would say “The issue is not so much saving social security as it is the quality of life for our parents generation – what can we do to see that they are well cared for?”

The power of this method is that you can change the topic pretty radically, for instance; “The issue is not so much saving social security as it is unemployment – what can we do to get people working?”

The nature of question’s format, called a “pattern” in neurolinguistic programming (NLP), leads our brain into the second topic without much trouble allowing for a lot of flexibility in steering.

3) A third steering method is another NLP pattern called an “Agreement Frame”. The agreement frame is based on the fact that people enjoy listening to us when they believe we are agreeing with them, so we use the momentum of that enjoyment to introduce our own ideas. The added impact of this is that it is difficult for them to disagree with us, because they feel that if they do, they would also be disagreeing with themselves. It looks like this:

a. “I agree, and would add…” OR

b. “I almost agree, and would add…” OR

c. I could agree, and would add…”

Example – your counterpart says “We need to take steps to assure that we preserve social security.” YOU say “I agree, and would add that we need to get people back to work as well!”

You would use the variation of “I ALMOST agree” or “I COULD agree”, if you are seeking your counterparts assent to your perspective. They will almost automatically accept the perspective you append to the pattern, because to do otherwise would make them feel they were contradicting themselves.

4) A VERY powerful steering method is to combine the two patterns:

a. “I agree, and would add that the issue is not so much saving social security as it is putting people back to work…what are we going to do to get more companies to advertise employment opportunities in the newspaper instead of online?”

As you can see, you steered the topic from social security to advertising in the newspaper, which is quite a jump.

You might say that it is unlikely that such a technique would work, and I would say I agree, but the issue is not so much about a technique working but if communications techniques in general are fully appreciated…how are we going to get people to be better communicators? Maybe they should subscribe to a newsletter.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Gregg,

Thanks for your articles. Your articles encourage and inspire better practice in communications.

Anonymous said...

what she said