Subtle Ways We Sabotage Ourselves When Communicating

I've written about empathy, and its importance, a few times on this blog. On this post, I wanted to highlight a subtle way that we sabotage our communication efforts with others, and thus our ability to build empathy. Unlike a lot of other communication tactics, this one is very easy to reverse and turn it into a positive.

It basically comes down to the use of one word - "but".

When we are in discussions with someone, our primary desire is to be heard. Agreement is nice, but more than anything, we want our viewpoint to be acknowledged. Look at any social media thread/flame war, and it's obvious that in those situations, there is no acknowledgement of basal viewpoints. That is an example on the extreme end of the spectrum, but it does help illustrate the type of dynamic I'm talking about.

Lets take a really basic example of an exchange where the word 'but' is counterproductive:

Person A: I think that we should do {Plan A}

Person B: But then {Issue X} will happen, so we should do {Plan B}, because then we will see {Result R}

So, what happened here, and why is the use of the word 'but' such a problem? Because 'but' is exclusionary. By starting the response with 'but' - Person B dismissed the entirety of Person A's thought process and value system. Person A had perfectly good reasons, according to their knowledge of the situation they had at the time, to go with {Plan A}. And yet Person B summarily dismissed all that, highlighted what they felt was a problem with Person A's approach, and then proposed something all together different. It may be that {Result R} is objectively the better result - but the way Person B handled their side of the dialogue, they never even tried to understand Person A's viewpoint. As a result, Person B never gave themselves a chance to get Person A on board with {Plan B} and become a potential proponent of that plan.

The empathetic response would be for Person B to listen to Person A, ask questions to find out why Person A suggested {Plan A}, and then the two can have a dialogue about what the important factors are to each person. If that happens, then perhaps they will realize they both hold the same value system for the situation in question, and they can come to a mutually agreeable position. Or maybe they end up realizing that they hold a different value system - but in the end, at least Person A knows what whatever path is chosen, their voice has been heard.

I call this listening to the other person vs waiting for my turn to speak. If I am Person B, and Person A is talking, it can be very easy for me to start thinking ahead, get to a point where I'm waiting for a pause in the conversation, and then deliver my conclusion. The issue there is that I wasn't actively listening - I was biding my time and, as goofy as it sounds, not being a good listener.

This is as equally applicable in business as it is in personal relationships. Think of a person you have butted heads with in the workplace. Chances are, some aspect of that oil/water dynamic is because you felt that person wasn't at least hearing what you were saying. In those situations, it can be very easy to take a tougher stance with that person in future conversations. "I have to stick up for myself," you say. Then, the next time you interact with them, you take a firmer stance to establish boundaries. Some tactics are more obvious, such as cutting them off, but others are very subtle, so subtle that they almost escape notice - others such as saying 'yeah, but...' after the other person has spoken.

That response almost escapes notice - it escapes pretty much everyone except for the person who is on the receiving end of that message. And yet, whether they consciously realize it or not, their input has been shunted, and they likely feel an emotional reaction.

So, how does one turn this around? Use inclusive words, such as 'and', and incorporate what the other person says into the response. For example:

Person A: I think we should do {Plan A}

Person B: I like how {Plan A} results in {Result Q}, and I think that {Plan B} does that while also yielding {Result R}

Obviously, this is a bit simplistic, and every dialogue is going to have its nuanced differences, but (see what I did there?) it illustrates how Person B can be more inclusive to get Person A on board, and still end up with the same {Result R}.

I urge you to try noticing how often you use words such as 'but' in an exclusive manner during conversations, and to try and reframe that in a more inclusive way. If you are anything like me, you will be surprised at what you find!

Tips to Improve Your Presentation Skills

It's pretty universal - we all think our presentations are good and engaging because we are interested in the subject matter, but when it comes to us listening to other peoples presentations, we usually feel at least a little bit of dread, because chances are the presentation is going to be dull, dry, and boring.

So, first and foremost - I'm going to start off by saying I am not the worlds best presenter. Far from it. But what I am going to do is list a few tips that I've discovered as a trainer of technical materials, and from courses on the topic of how to educate others.

Tip #1: Change modalities every 20 minutes.

In short, there is a reason TED talks are 20 minutes - because that is about how long audience attention span lasts per modality.

There are four modalities for absorbing information:

• Kinesthetic: This is hands on. Examples include role playing, or simulations.
• Tactile: This is notetaking, or drawing.
• Auditory: Learning by verbal instruction. Included in this is dialogue and discussion
• Visual: Learning from demonstrations, images, videos, etc.

Most people look at the above and recognize that they learn best by combining multiple modalities together. For example, when sitting in a lecture hall, a student who is writing notes is combining auditory and tactile modalities together; the act of listening to instruction, digesting it, and reforming it in a written way helps cement the message into memory. Presentations are often auditory, with maybe some visual component if the presenter added in pictures. Presentations for a class would be auditory combined with tactile, assuming students are taking notes.

Tip #2: Don't fall for the '1 minute per slide' rule.

Somewhere along the line, I heard this rule, and eventually I realized that it is not the overarching rule that should be followed. I've seen a lot of cases where the presenter has a boatload of information to provide, but only has 10 minutes to present. As a result, they cram all their information into 10 slides. It's information overload, and it's not effective. Depending on the nature of the material, some slides may be only 30 seconds, but others may be 4-5 minutes, especially if that 4-5 minutes includes some sort of audience engagement (see auditory: discussion in tip #1 above)

Tip #3: Don't display all information at once!

Recall back to some time when you were in the audience watching a presentation, and a slide came up with a wall of text. What's the first thing you did? Chances are you stopped listening and just read the slide. It's what most people do. Now, ask yourself - how easy was it to re-engage listening after you read the slide?

A much better tactic is to dole information out as it becomes relevant. It helps keep the audience engaged, and if they do space out for 10-15 seconds (it happens to all of us), it helps them get back on track much more easily. Much better to miss 15 seconds of material and get back on track quickly vs missing a whole slide, when you risk the audience member deciding it's more fun to play with their phone. By that time, you are competing with technology that is designed to be addictive. Good luck with that.

Tip #4: Speaking pace

This is one of my biggest challenges, personally. Most people talk faster when presenting. Whether its nerves or wanting to get information across, it is natural to speed up.

Slow down - less is more. Put pauses in your delivery, especially after salient points. Give the audience time to digest what is being said. There may be less information presented overall, but the retention of what is presented will be higher.

Tip #5: Be a little overdramatic

The best teachers in school were passionate about the material. The best instructors for professional education are those that modulate their voices throughout the delivery of their content. When presenting, you are asking the audience for a slice of their attention - a resource that is more precious than time. Help your cause out by being a little goofy, talking a lot with your hands, or showing some emotion if a portion of the subject matter is really cool, or some event is a real bummer. Don't be afraid to ham up the language a bit, too.

(Image Source)

Strengthen Your Language Skills by Removing These Four Words

Several days ago, both my wife and I realized that our son, who is three years old, was using the word 'just' in a way that caught us off guard.

Example: Parent: "It's time for dinner"

Child: "I'm just {insert whatever he is doing}"

We (my wife and I) realized that we had been guilty of doing the same thing, and that he likely picked it up from us. It was one of those about-face moments you have as a parent - we realized that we both had a tendency to use it a lot, and upon reflection, 'just' is a filler word that adds little value, softens the meaning of what has being said, and diminishes the value of what the other person has said.

Example: Me (to a coworker): "I'm having a hard time getting this stupid software feature to work"

Coworker: "Oh, you just click this, clack that, and there ya go"

Me (now feeling stupid): "..."

In fact, the only times we could think that 'just' is appropriate is in terms of justice (ie, "That is a just law"), or when used in a temporal context (ie, "I just finished painting the house").

We've since begun to call each other out when we hear the word 'just', and it is surprising how often I finish saying something, get called out for using the word 'just' (our son has even done it a few times!), think back and not even realize I said it. That is how engrained the use of that word is when I speak!

I was recently writing up a deliverable for a customer engagement, and during the course of writing it, I noticed there were a lot of times that Word underlined a phrase in blue, and the suggestion was to use more concise language. At first, I didn't think much of it, but after the umpteenth time, I started to think that maybe I had fallen into a habit where I use more words and syllables than is necessary. When I proofread my document through that lens, I found myself honing in on the words would, could, and should - three words that I've previously read are overused, soften language, and in some cases are passive aggressive.

Sure enough, when I re-read what I had written, anywhere there was a would/could/should, I realized I was couching what I was saying. I think that in my mind, after going through the mental exercise of distilling down all the technical factors of the situation into a written form, I wanted to hedge against coming across too strong or too forceful. Yet, when I read them from the point of view of someone who didn't go through the mental exercises I did, my writing came across as unconvinced of itself and a bit timid.

I've since looked into the words just, would, could and should, and there are certainly times when their use is appropriate. However, the vast majority of the time they are overused, so if you have to err on one side, err on the side of striking them from your vocabulary.