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!
No comments:
Post a Comment