The Debates

If you have taken any classes thorough Pathfinder, you may remember me saying that this is the season for rhetoric and persuasive speech. As we enter the last 40 days before the election, things will reach a pitch. It will be fun to see what you remember from class. For instance:

· Can you restate the controversies in one to three simple sentences?

· To what issues would the topoi lead us in the various controversies? (example - for a claim of fact, the topoi would suggest the questions "How would we know if it is true?" and " Have those conditions been met?")

· Are the candidates meeting their burden (Burden of Proof, Burden of Supporting Assertions, Burden of Rejoinder)

· What kinds of claims are being made? (Fact, Definition, Quality, or Policy)

· What kinds of evidence are used? (Objective evidence, Credibility, or Social Consensus)

· What inferences are being drawn? (Example, Cause, Sign, Analogy, Narrative, or Form)

· Do they see value in having strong relationships, or do they believe that relationships get in the way of good communication?

· When they speak in the past tense, is it usually for blame? Present tense for values or duty? Future tense for choices?

Even though these debates will be about advocating positions instead of collaborating, see if you can tell which of the candidates are more likely to collaborate once elected. You can judge this by trying to detect which one tends to project that they have all of the answers, and which tends to project that they would likely draw opinions from other sources in order to arrive at the best possible decision.

NOTE – this forum is not a political forum and Pathfinder won’t endorse either candidate. The purpose of this article is to point out that the candidates debates and speeches use the same rules as business speech and can be helpful in illustrating concepts that you have learned in our classes or at my speaking engagements. Feel free to leave some comments.

Public Workshop 9/19 is full

Actually, the workshop isn't public - a local company booked the time for some training. So the 9/19 class is full. I am considering revamping my current classes (and adding some new ones) and making them available as Webinars. I attend Webinars all the time and love them. Please give me your thoughts or share some experiences so I can make them just the way you want them. Also, give me some general guidance - what subjects, what times and days, etc. Where are you having your communication issues at work these days?

either add your comment in the blog or email me at gregg.oliver@PathfinderCommunication.com


Thanks to all of you!



Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Defensiveness

Last time I wrote about Advocacy as an impediment to the logical give and take that distinguishes collaboration. I characterized it as a learned behavior, and one that can be partially or fully managed by a skilled communicator that recognizes it and knows how to steer a group around it. I also mentioned another impediment - Defensiveness. That is the subject this week.

First of all, I know it is a little obvious that these are learned behaviors. I mean, we are not born knowing how to communicate a position as an advocate. Our natural position (so I am lead to believe) is simply to want to do what is best for us, and we are not at all picky about being the author of the idea. Early in life, it seems that we become aware that what is often best for us is to be the author of good ideas. And not just a few, but a LOT. And we should have them frequently. And they should outstandingly productive and profitable. This is recognized as competitive advantage and one highly sought. We learn this in school – that we are rewarded for having the best ideas. This teaches us that it is wise to be able to advocate a position, and exclude others. There comes a time in everyone’s life when they are presenting their idea, sure that it is the right one, and we hear another one – a better one. If at that moment, you begin to support the better idea, or you choose to question it to see if it is really better, or you begin mixing the best parts of your idea with the best parts of theirs; CONGRATULATIONS! You are collaborating.

If (on the other hand) when faced with the better idea, you dismiss it, or discredit the person presenting it, or use half-truths to make your idea look better, or omit important unknowns about your idea to make it more likely to be accepted (and therein increase your competitive advantage), you are advocating.

Defensiveness is just as universal as Advocacy, but not nearly as simple. Defensiveness comes into play when some parties in the conversation feel that an open and authentic exchange of information is not safe. They begin to tailor their words and their level of participation because they feel a need to defend themselves from some threat, real or imagined.

So Defensiveness is the impediment to a collaboration resulting from a real or imagined lack of safety. What causes that?

The answer is that it depends on the individual, and I know that is a TERRIBLE answer so I will try to fix it. There are two general categories:
· Credibility – The person doesn’t feel safe because they perceive a problem with the credibility of someone in the collaboration. If someone thinks they are dealing with someone that isn’t credible, they often begin to censor what they say.
· Respect – The person doesn’t feel safe because they feel disrespected by or feel disrespect for someone in the collaboration. If someone feels they are being treated disrespectfully, or their dignity is being threatened, or that the person with whom they are dealing is unrespectable, they often begin to censor what they say.

These are the general categories, and their contents vary from person to person based on many things. I once worked with a person that kept me at arm’s length, never really sharing their thoughts on our business dealings with me. It was very uncomfortable for us both. After a series of talks about it, she admitted that she considered me unprofessional. I was very surprised. We had done a lot of good things together and I considered myself to be VERY professional in all if my dealings with her. After a few more conversations, she told me it was my appearance. My hair was long for her tastes, and I seldom (very, very seldom) ever wore a suit or even a tie. We had some conversations and eventually we agreed that I could be very effective in doing my job and would wear a tie on any occasion she felt would be enhanced by that level of “professionalism”. We further agreed that she would tell me when those occasions arose.

My point is that the root causes of Defensiveness in communication vary, but fall into a small number of general categories. In the next few newsletters, I will describe the most common things that underlie defensiveness and ways to create sufficient safety to overcome them.

This is very important because keeping Defensiveness under control is the way to keep collaboration productive.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Advocacy

In communication, the single largest difficulty for nearly everyone comes when a critical discussion transforms from the logical "give and take" that I described in my last newsletter into something less productive. Two familiar forms of this are Advocacy and Defensiveness. I will talk about Advocacy today.

Advocacy is the situation where, instead of coolly examining alternatives, one or more participants begin advocating a single position to the exclusion of any other and are not open to modifying that position. To others in the discussion, it feels as if that participant has made up their mind and that the discussion has shifted from "mutually finding a best solution" to "defending a given idea as the best solution". This begins a polarization that is needed in the final decision making process, but is counterproductive before then. This is why it often "feels" that the discussion is over and it is time to decide before any one position is mutually acceptable. People will in fact say at this point that "I guess there is no sense in discussing this further; your mind appears to be made up".

The mindset of the advocate is based on years of conditioning that "the rewards accrue to the person that owns the best idea", like the smartest kid in school. It is very tempting to re-live the joy of being the one to have the best idea, because we have seen the individual rewarded for a good idea many more times than seeing a group rewarded for a GREAT idea. The job of collaboration is just that; producing GREAT ideas that are better than a single individual would produce and in less time. in other words, we are trained to advocate and be competitive rather than collaborative. In business, it is FAR better for the organization to be collaborative because we need the BEST ideas. So, the root of solving the advocacy issue is overcoming the conditioning that we have been immersed in since childhood.

The earlier you can spot advocacy in a conversation, the better, because you can deal with it before the advocate becomes so invested in a position that they can't change course without feeling weak or losing face (in their own mind). Here are two themes to employ in doing this:
· Trust - Ask the group (not singling out the advocate) to trust all the members and the process. That is, explicitly request that, even though it seems that we have mentioned an idea that COULD work, we trust that the people in the group and the process of inquiry COULD result in a better idea than any we currently have with little effort. Ask the group to stay open to being influenced and to try to be productive in creating and questioning all the ideas. If an advocacy begins to develop, ask the advocate to mention the downside of the position. This will help to keep their thinking fluid.
· Purpose - Ask the group to recall the purpose of the discussion; that is, to to create a great idea that has been thoroughly vetted through inquiry. This means we need all members to participate in the inquiry until we have found the idea with the best ratio of positive to negative points. Remind them that the purpose is NOT to "single-handedly" develop the great idea, but to contribute to its creation.

If you arrive at a point where one or more members feel that "their mind is made up", it is a good time to ask all involved for any downside risks associated the position and discuss if their manageability. If the downside risk is not manageable, the group needs to do more work or get some new perspectives.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Conducting a Critical Discussion

For the last few weeks, I have elaborated on the elements of attitude that provide the best point of view from which to approach a discussion. Studying these elements and learning how to incorporate them authentically into your communication will help you remain collaborative and avoid falling into the advocacy trap. More on this in upcoming weeks. Now it's time to look at some of the elements critical to conducting the discussion.

Let's look at the instance in which you are challenging the status quo. In most businesses, the biggest threat is NOT the outside competition, but the status quo, so understanding this model is important.

Presumption and Burden of Proof

For our purposes, Status Quo means "the way things are". The status quo carries with it the presumption that things are like they are for a reason, and therefore there is no reason to change. Of course this is not always right, or we would never need to discuss it, but the fact is that in critical discussions the status quo carries this presumption. It is up to the person challenging the status quo to prove that things should change. This is called the "Burden of Proof".

So, the person supporting the status quo is said to have "presumption" and the person challenging the status quo bears the "burden of proof". The idea is that the challenger must have a good enough position to convince the other party that things should change. If they can't support such a position - can't dislodge the status quo, then things will stay as they are.

These two elements (presumption and burden of proof) are very important. In the case of a tie, the win goes to presumption. In some discussions, a great deal of effort goes into declaring presumption because, in the case of a close call, presumption wins. Sometimes, a good approach is to gain agreement that the status quo is flawed. If one can do that, our new approach only has to cause less harm and is we can prove that, we can then say that another approach is "worth a try". This works because we have short-circuited the presumption that the status quo is satisfactory, which is sometimes easier than gaining agreement that a new approach is clearly better.

Burden of Proving Assertions

In the course of a discussion, each side is going to make statements that support a position. Those statements are called assertions. After making an assertion, the other party can either accept the assertion as stated or can ask for data that backs up the assertion. This data is called evidence or proof. Asking for evidence needn't be more complicated than asking "What makes you think so?' or "Tell me more about...". The point is that unless you accept the other party's assertions (and sometimes even if you do) it is wise to ask for THEIR reasons for believing the way they do. This is very important in understanding their perspective fully.

Burden of Rejoinder

This is the responsibility to respond to the perspectives expressed by those that are challenging your perspective. If someone asks a question of you, asks for evidence, or in some other way is actively asking about your perspective, then you have a responsibility to reply in a way that addresses the question. And they owe the same to you. Stalling, withdrawing, attacking, sarcasm, and manipulation are typical way is which someone demonstrates failure to meet the burden of rejoinder. Knowing that these responses (and the underlying fallacies) is very helpful in judging the strength of a position.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Safety and Trust

There have been many times in our lives when we have wanted to say something, but elected not to. Afterwards, we may wish we had and ponder why we didn’t. Sometimes, we remember when we said something and wish we hadn’t, or a time when we blurted something that was harsher than we meant it to be, or the other person was offended even though we were “diplomatic”.

We feel like the other party will get mad. Or we don’t feel like it will help. Or we feel that the other person won’t understand. Or we feel they will say something that we don’t want to deal with.

You get the picture. We either worry that we will be “attacked” or we don’t trust that they will follow the direction of conversation that we want them to. In the final analysis, we don’t feel safe.

Feeling safe in the conversation is the most fundamental position. It allows us to start, and all parties constantly check their safety levels in formulating their statements. When someone becomes defensive, it is because they feel threatened – a.k.a. “not safe”. When someone becomes defensive, the productivity of the conversation falls to zero until you re-establish safety. Pretty simple to understand, but how do you do it?

The task is twofold; 1) to feel safe yourself and 2) create safety for others in the conversation. Why do YOU have to do it? Because they don’t know this stuff!

Making yourself feel safe takes practice and concentration. You have to stay curious, open, engaged, authentic, empathetic, present, and collaborative. You MUST believe that if you do that, the conversation CAN’T go anywhere you don’t want it to, because you AREN’T STEERING IT!

Take curiosity – if you are truly curious about the other party’s point of view, what exactly is it that will make you defensive? The answer is “nothing” because nothing they say is an attack – it is just their point of view, which is what you are seeking. Let’s say I ask someone a very unsafe question like “What do you think of my performance on the Jenson project?” If I am curious, and they say “Frankly I thought you could have done better.” I would naturally ask “How?” If I am not curious, I might have a different response. If I remain curious and ask how I might have done better, they might say “Well, at times you seemed a bit unprofessional when we were meeting with them.” Again, if I fall out of curiosity I might guess at what they mean and try to excuse myself, or I might just tell them they’re wrong, or I might attribute it to my style, or I might tell them that if they knew more about what I do they would understand, or I might tell them “that we will agree to disagree (yuck!)”. If I stay curious, they might tell me “Well, in many meetings you showed up late and several times without a tie!” AHA! Guess what? You just learned what the other person’s definition of professionalism is and how they apply it. YOU STAYED CURIOUS AND LEARNED SOMETHING ABOUT HOW OTHER PEOPLE DEFINE PROFESSIONALISM. It of course will be up to you to determine what you do with the information, but by staying curious is the only way to earn that option.

Making others feel safe should be thought of as making a safe environment for discussion. YOU have to be sensitive to the rhythm of the conversation and observant enough to see when the exchange isn’t going smoothly. The earlier you detect changes in the timbre of the exchange the easier it is to keep things safe. You can tell they are feeling unsafe if they start to withdraw (sarcasm, subject changing, or silence), attack (name-calling, controlling, anger), or begin to act as if you have diminished their dignity. At that moment, you should stop talking about the subject of the conversation, and try to talk about the way the conversation is being conducted (“What you just said makes me think that I may have said something offensive. I didn’t mean to say anything hurtful and if I did, I apologize”). Note – only apologize if it is warranted.

Some things to remember:

Focus on the deeper purpose that you both hope to achieve in the conversation. You hope to understand their side IN ORDER TO accomplish something that will benefit you both. Make sure you BOTH understand what that something and its benefit is. You may see one way solve a problem and the other party may have a totally different solution. You need to assure that you both are committed to solving the problem and agree on what it is. The mutual purpose will help carry you through the discomfort of the conflict over methods IF you explicitly state it. “I want to tell you that, even thought we differ on some of these details, I am delighted to be working with someone that is as passionate about solving problem x as I am.”

Don’t try to accomplish everything in one conversation. The healthiest way to work through things is generally in several small conversations. Difficult topics take some time to work through and the best way to allow the time is to hold several conversations rather than one or two long ones.

Be sensitive to other points of view. A good way to show this is to be tentative. “I may be wrong about this, but I think we should…” is less likely to put someone on the defensive than “Any schoolboy would easily see that we should….” Along those same lines, being humble is a great help. There is no need to hammer someone with your credentials after they have been established. Humility and tentativeness will automatically be part of your demeanor if you are practicing openness.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Authenticity

All of the components of the engagement stance are important, but if you miss out on authenticity, you will have a hard time establishing credibility. When someone you speak with lacks authenticity, it feels manipulative, even if there is no evidence of manipulation.

Think of a time when you complimented someone and came back later and asked them for a favor. Sometimes, the person doesn't connect the compliment with the favor, and sometimes they believe that the compliment was inauthentic, and was given just to "set up" the favor. The immediate reaction is to think that it varies with the other person - but the real variable is your credibility with that person.

When we describe a person as having "integrity", we are describing the integration of their words and their actions - do they "walk their talk". People that are authentic are viewed as credible because they don't say they will do one thing and then do another. They may not always do what you want them to, but they do what they say.

Credibility and integrity both have their roots in authenticity, which is why it is so important to good communication.

To check your authenticity, you must be introspective and thorough in your consideration. Impusiveness may come naturally to you, but if you change your mind frequently (especially without new evidence) as impulsive people often do, you will lose credibility. You needn't always be sure, but you must always be thoughtful - so you may need to learn to recognize when you are being impulsive in order to become more effective.

This means that that you express your views with the actual degree of certainty that you have. It is ok to be tentative - in fact, it is preferable to say "I am not sure that I am right about this, but the way I see it is....." if you are unsure.

If you find yourself having many regrets, you are probably not being authentic. If you are, then you have to work on developing your judgement. People with adequate judgement that are authentic in their approach to life seldom have many regrets.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication