THE WATTS CONNECTION
Dialogue vs. Debate Jane has serious concerns about the way a project is progressing. She explains her views to Jim in the hope of addressing them. Remember… it’s all in how you say it!
Jim responds by criticizing Jane’s opinions and offers a “better” way to view the situation at hand, angering Jane.
Sound familiar?
This is just one example of the problems that can arise when we blur the lines between a dialogue and a debate. Both forms of communications have their rightful place, but they do not share the same purpose.
When we dialogue, we are looking to develop a shared understanding. We use this to understand what someone is thinking, why, and how important it is to the person. When we dialogue, we open ourselves up and speak more authentically from who we are: we speak of our thought processes, our beliefs and perhaps even our feelings. These are not subjects that can be treated lightly; they speak to the person’s sense of identity. Belittling, arguing with or dismissing the person is a guaranteed way to make them feel bad about you and perhaps themselves. It leads to tension and conflict.
When we debate, we are establishing our position and thoughts as the dominant ones, convincing others that we are right, that we have better ideas. We focus on issues, not the person. When considering the merits of different business plans, car models or the latest movie seen, debate can be good. We can even debate who is a better candidate for something – a debate focused on skills and observable performance.
Why do these cause so many problems? Dialogue, being more personal, can leave a person feeling vulnerable. If someone responds with a debate, it can quickly be perceived as an attempt at domination and control, judgment, and perhaps as an attack. This can lead to a feeling that it isn’t safe to express oneself or that their input doesn’t matter. If someone you know doesn’t speak up, this could be one reason.
This doesn’t mean we have to agree with everything someone says. Listening does not mean agreement!! Let me repeat that – listening to someone respectfully does not mean agreement! It means, rather, that we acknowledge their thoughts and respect their right to their opinions.
How could Jim have handled the situation better? He could start by asking questions and reflecting back what he hears so Jane knows she was heard and understood. Once Jane knows she has been heard, and there is great power in being heard and understood, Jim can proceed with his view of what has been said by sharing what he agrees with and what he disagrees with.
Many times I see problems that stem from the fact someone responded to a dialogue with a debate. Before doing so, it pays to stop and consider if that is the appropriate response and if the other person wants to engage in a debate. Often, you can save yourself a lot of trouble by trying dialogue instead.
© 2008 The Watts Connection All Rights Reserved
Talking “To” vs. “At” Ben is standing in your doorway talking about his golf game over the weekend. You are busy trying to finish a report due that day, but when you ask if you can finish the conversation later, he simply continues on with his story. Remember… it’s all in how you say it!
Sarah is excited about a great new dress she found and is going on, and on, about how pretty it is and what a deal she got. You can’t get a word in edgewise.
You have probably experienced this at some point: the person who appears to be talking to you and yet leaving you feeling like you aren’t, or don’t have to be, there.
There is a difference between talking “to” someone and simply talking “at” them. Ben and Sarah are both talking “at”.
Someone who is talking “to” you is having a conversation with you. It is interactive; both you take turns talking and information is being shared. When someone is talking “at”, there is only one party engaged in the conversation. There is no give and take, and no sharing of information. Someone talking “at” you is simply talking; the talking would continue in the same manner if you left a brick in your place and walked away.
Why do people insist in talking “at”? Sometimes the person is so excited about something they can’t help themselves. Sometimes he/she is simply bored and looking for a release, or thinking out loud, or lonely, or distracted by something major going on in their life. There can, of course, be a lot of reasons.
If we allow it to continue unchallenged, talking “at’ someone can be a great time waster. When we find ourselves in a situation where someone is talking “at” us, we have to take it upon ourselves and decide how much time to give the person. We can always gently change the subject or excuse ourselves from the situation.
We also need to aware of the times we may be the one talking “at”. Some clues: the person we think we are talking “to” is preoccupied with something else, or doesn’t respond to our questions, or simply asks us to leave and/or continue another time.
When this happens, it is a good idea to stop and take a reality check on ourselves. We can ask ourselves what we expect from the “conversation”, and if we are simply venting or chattering we can find a more constructive outlet. If we want the exchange to be two-way, we can start asking questions – and listening for the answers – to bring the other party back in. We can ask ourselves if we are perhaps being perceived as an irritant, or even rude, and take steps to alter those perceptions. We can take ownership of our role.
Talking “at” happens more often than we might like to think. In casual conversations, it is usually not a big problem, although it can become one if someone monopolizes the time in this manner. In work situations, it is costly and counterproductive, and needs to be managed.
© 2008 The Watts Connection All Rights Reserved
It’s About Them John’s boss calls him in to learn if a serious business problem has been fixed. John explains how he developed a unique and elegant fix to the problem, talking about his solution at great length. Remember… it’s all in how you say it! © 2008 The Watts Connection All Rights Reserved
Sally’s boss wants to know about a problem she is working on. She is still struggling to find a solution; so far all she has uncovered is a series of contributing missteps. When she reports to her boss, she explains the series and how they worked together to create the problem.
In both cases, the boss simply wanted to know is whether or not the problem had been fixed. John’s boss got the answer – along with an earful of John’s self-congratulatory comments. Sally’s boss heard a litany of problems that could be perceived as either important news or excuses – whining or complaining.
This is not a rare communications issue. Just like John and Sally, we tend to focus on what is happening in our world and sometimes lose sight of the fact that those with whom we are communicating have their own issues and perspectives. This can result from excitement, frustration, fear – any number of reasons. But, it isn’t about us. It is about conveying information.
When we are trying to communicate, it is important we stop and think first about what is it that the person we are talking with wants and needs to hear. If the boss asks a yes/no question, we want to give a yes/no answer. If we are trying to persuade someone to adopt a new perspective, we want to talk about how this new perspective will enhance the quality of the person’s life. Whatever we are trying to communicate, we want to address our comments to the listener’s needs and wants, not ours.
This does not mean John is wrong to talk of his elegant solution; he deserves to get credit the next time his performance is reviewed. And Sally isn’t necessarily wrong to list the issues uncovered; she may need her boss’s help in enlist the help of higher level management to make some critical decisions. Since managers rarely like to be surprised, it is also a good idea to give a boss a quick heads up that there is more, important information to be conveyed. It means there is a time and place for this. If the boss is on the way into a meeting where a yes/no answer is required, that is all we need to provide at the time.
This problem is related to some others we have explored in the past, such as bottom-lining information and talking “to” someone instead of “at” them. When we focus on what we want to say instead of what they need or want to hear, we are more likely to be verbose and lose sight of the purpose of communications.
Before telling someone what we want to tell them, we need to ask ourselves: is this the right time and place? Does the other person care about what I want to say, or need to know it, or am I simply talking from my own ego? If we must proceed with our own agenda, with what it is we want to say, we can always ask permission first. John can say he wants to share his solution when the boss has a moment. Sally can say she might require assistance accessing others to implement her solution. This keeps the boss informed without risking creating a bad impression.
Neutral Language Susan’s boss, trying to inspire the troops, talks about how everyone will benefit from upcoming changes if he is willing to adapt.
A campaign worker opines that the super delegates should be locked in a room and the selected candidate not be let out until he is confirmed.
These are typical examples of the exclusionary language. Both these cases happen to be non-gender-neutral – the type we perhaps most often hear. In the first the boss implies the men can benefit if they adapt and women aren’t addressed or included at all. In the second, similar to an actual statement in the news this weekend, the implication is that the chosen candidate will be a man. In this second case, the speaker tried to claim he meant the “universal he” (not a specific gender) but the damage had already been done and his credibility weakened.
Is this simply political correctness or is it a legitimate issue or concern? The answer is yes; it can at times be political correctness, but much of the time it is a legitimate issue.
Gender is just one of the ways we slant our language. Religion, culture, political affiliation – many other labels are used to exclude at various times. Problems caused by the lack of a gender-neutral pronoun go back centuries, leading some to claim the “universal he”. Our Declaration of Independence states “all men are created equal”. This sounds great, but under our Constitution “other people” (i.e. slaves) counted as 3/5 of a person and women didn’t count at all. This generated a lot of hard feelings. As a result, many people are sensitized to language that includes and/or excludes them.
Why do we want to use neutral language? How does it impact our communications?
We all have a need to feel valued and we like to feel included. Some of us are more sensitive to these issues than others, whether from a history of being excluded or a personal belief system. We don’t always know how others will react to language that is perceived to be exclusive. Therefore, the more important it is we get our point across, the more important it is we select our words carefully so they do not unintentionally exclude others and create a wall between us.
If we are in the habit of using a “universal he” or other exclusionary language, we can break the habit. If you are unsure how often you use it, try (temporarily) switching to a “universal she”, taking you out of your comfort zone. Once we are aware of how often we use such language, we can then more easily focus on eliminating it.
It is also, always, important, that we temper our sensitivity. Just as someone might not realize their words offend us, we cannot be sure of the speaker’s motive – whether it is a thoughtless remark or intentional.
How could Susan’s boss and the campaign worker have made their point without risking excluding and alienating others? The boss could have said that everyone who adapts will benefit. And the campaign worker could have said no one should come out until a candidate has been selected.
Remember… it’s all in how you say it!
© 2008 The Watts Connection All Rights Reserved
I Don't Care You are working on a project report and need information from a team member who is not forthcoming – he doesn’t care. You are left trying to work around his inaction. We can’t just say we need something. Our needs must be expressed in terms of the other person’s needs and interests. We can tell them all the delivery trucks are idled and the CEO gets a telephone call at 3:00 in the morning if the report isn’t done on time. We can talk about the synergy between what you and he/she do and the possibility their boss could be blind-sided in a meeting with higher management because our work is incomplete. We let them know what is in it for them. We can and must assure them they are part of the team and get credit for helping. Remember… it’s all in how you say it! © 2008 The Watts Connection All Rights Reserved
Your boss asks you to so something, and you agree but your heart really isn’t in it. You don’t care. You might not give it your best effort; you get around to it – eventually.
There are a number of reasons people don’t care about their work. Perhaps the most obvious: our job isn’t well suited to our particular skills and interests. It’s just a paycheck and we are simply going through the motions.
Other reasons can be less obvious. Perhaps we don’t care because what we are doing has become too routine; in these cases, we need to find new ways to challenge ourselves. Perhaps it is because we don’t know how or why what we are doing is important; we might view it as busywork. Or perhaps we don’t feel like we are a valued member of the team.
When someone’s attitude of not caring is causing us problems it is all the more important we take our communications up a notch. It is not always easy to inspire someone and get them on board with something that is perceived to benefit us and not them. We do this by emphasizing two important facets of the request:
When we are the one who doesn’t care, we motivate ourselves using the same tools. We remind ourselves how this information or task fits into the bigger picture. We tell ourselves how it will look to others, especially our bosses, if we don’t perform at our best. We look at how doing this now will benefit us later. If need be, we remind ourselves how much we need the job.
Though we should never expect to get our emotional needs met at our jobs, we are human and our jobs do affect us. If we are truly uninspired at work, we would be well advised to consider making a change – it is better to do so on our terms than to have our bosses force us into it if we aren’t performing adequately. Besides, life is too short to spend that much time being bored and simply going through the motions.
Gossip Did you hear what happened to Tom? Gossip is known as the cancer of any organization. It is dangerous. Regardless of why we choose to gossip, we cannot ignore the potential pain, stress, confusion, distrust and conflict that might result. Nor can we escape accountability and responsibility for these consequences. When in doubt, don’t.
Remember… it’s all in how you say it! © 2008 The Watts Connection All Rights Reserved
Can you believe what Shirley did?
Did you hear the scuttlebutt about a planned reorganization?
Gossip. We all do it sometimes, some more than others. It is so common that we seldom notice that quiet voice in our heads trying to tell us that, just perhaps we shouldn’t be engaging in this type of behavior. And we almost never stop to think about potential consequences.
Sometimes there is no harm is passing along information. But often there often can be some very real, negative consequences. There are many reasons this is true, including:
Before deciding whether to pass along a juicy tidbit of gossip, ask yourself a few questions:
Triangles John is anxious because he is afraid Joanne will get the promotion he is expecting. He relieves his anxiety by talking to David about Joanne and what he perceives are some of her shortcomings. Together they create some negative buzz about the quality of Joanne’s work and create a division on the department based on accepting Joanne. What do we do if we find someone is trying to draw us into one? We need to maintain our own boundaries and priorities. Some tips to remember if you think you are being pulled into a triangle:
Keep yourself above the fray by acting professionally and rationally. Triangles can hurt everyone involved.
Remember… it’s all in how you say it! © 2008 The Watts Connection All Rights Reserved
Pamela is upset because she thinks her new supervisor, Ellen, is making changes simply to make changes. She confides her dislike for Ellen to Martha and soon they find there is conflict in the department between those who want things to stay the way they were and those who embrace Ellen’s new ideas and attitude.
These are examples of how triangles work in the office – or anywhere else. Triangles result when one person tries to relieve his/her anxiety by drawing in another person resulting in conflict and/or tension. At best they can be difficult to manage and, like gossip, they can be deadly. Remember when as a child a new kid in school came between you and your best friend?
Triangles are common. We experience them all the time. They are almost always present in a conflict. Often we are not aware we are creating a triangle. It is the anxiety we bring into a triangle that makes them so troublesome. When we ally ourselves with someone in a triangle we create a false – and often tenuous – sense of closeness. We may think we are trying to manage conflict, when we are in fact generating it. We may or may not realize we feel uncomfortable about what is happening.
The problems, whether recognized at a conscious level or not, usually result from a conflict of principles.
Humor A co-worker tells a joke that is funny but is demeaning to some group, perhaps a race, gender, ethnicity or disability. Remember… it’s all in how you say it!
An official survey has a category labeled “Orientation”. Contrary to what first goes through the minds of most people, the allowable answers (visible only when the survey taker pulls down a menu) are funny and have nothing to do with sexual preference.
Do we laugh? Are we laughing at someone else’s expense?
To paraphrase an old axiom, humor is in the eye, or ear, of the beholder.
Humor is a good and necessary part of life. We all need to laugh now and then, and we all need to be reminded not to take ourselves too seriously on occasion.
However, humor that belittles others is not funny. Certainly the person(s) being debased wouldn’t find it humorous. People who have experienced a lifetime of discrimination, exclusion and/or belittling might well be tired of it all, and it isn’t up to us to judge them for that. Being a target is hard on the ego and self esteem, and often has lasting, negative effects on the person they grow to become. It generally makes them more sensitive to and less tolerant of it.
People may become indignant or sad. They might lose their trust in and respect for the humorist. They even break the relationship. In a work environment, they may consider the environment to be hostile.
It is always risky to try to use humor as someone else’s expense. We don’t usually know how it is going to be heard by others, how far (and to whom) it might get passed along, or what kind of past trauma in someone’s life it might bring to the surface.
In professional settings, I advise people not to engage in humor that has the potential to cause damage. Unless you know the audience extremely well, it is also wise to avoid using such humor in private settings. Knowing your audience is critical. Would the person being targeted think it was funny? This can be difficult to gauge, especially in a work environment where people might not feel free to say what they really think.
Before using humor, first check for sensitivity by imagining the different ways it might be interpreted or push someone away. One simple test is to change the story line so you are the target, “spinning” it to experience the impact. How does it feel to be the target? How would it feel if you heard it repeatedly? If there is any doubt, skip it. If you find you can’t resist using the joke, used the changed version instead. It isn’t worth the risk of alienating others for a fast laugh.
Two more caveats:
© 2008 The Watts Connection All Rights Reserved
The Dreaded Political Discussion I was in the steam room the other day enjoying a moment of complete relaxation. Someone came in and, almost immediately, asked if I am Republican or Democrat. Not wanting to get into a political discussion, I responded “Independent”. She then went into a rant against one of the candidates, ruining my quiet time. Be intentional and polite, and you can have a great time.
Remember… it’s all in how you say it! © 2008 The Watts Connection All Rights Reserved
It seems to be happening everywhere during this highly charged political season. There is a lot at stake and tensions are running high. Most of the “conversations” I hear are arguments, and many are barely civil. Sadly, we don’t seem to have calm, rational discussions of the issues any more. Instead we avoid discussing politics, religion and other hot-button subjects.
This is too bad. We are, after all, a society of richly diverse peoples and it not reasonable to expect we will agree on everything. Nor is it reasonable to expect we can force our opinions on others without creating increased tension and conflict. Civil conversations are the basis for creating understanding, expanding our knowledge and developing solutions that benefit all.
So how can we have calm discussions? Here are six simple guidelines to help you navigate a civil political conversation:
Politically Correct I often get questions about “politically correct” language. Many consider it a joke. Many are confused and don’t understand the reasoning behind it. There is a rationale, and there is a time and place where it is totally appropriate. Remember… it’s all in how you say it!
Politically correct language is a response and reaction to language that diminishes people in some respect. For example, language might create an uneven perception of power and authority, exclude people or be perceived as condescending, even belittling.
An example of language that tilts the power scale would be introducing and/or calling some people by their surnames and others by their first names. “I would like to introduce Mr. Brown” and “I’d like to introduce Susan.” The more familiar naming creates a perception of lesser power or stature.
A prime example of exclusive language is contained in our Declaration of Independence, where it says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” School teachers spend a lot of time trying to convince girls that the word “men” really means “men and women”. Sadly, the dictionary agrees. The confusion this causes girls, and the sense of exclusion that so often carries over into adulthood, attest to the insensitivity of this language. It is too often perceived as perpetuating patriarchy.
Condescending language includes calling someone “honey”, “dear” or “sweetie”, or using a diminutive of their name – Billy, Susie, etc. It is a form of diminishing a person’s power and authority.
Why do we care? In the workplace, language that diminishes people will over time also diminish productivity. People disconnect. It also can undermine their authority when working with others. In the other parts of our lives, it is not always as harmful, though repeated use may sensitize people over time. It then puts people on edge, and builds walls in relationships.
What can we do? We start by being aware of how our words might impact others. We can ask ourselves, is this how I would introduce or talk to the President of my company? If not, reword the message so it shows that same level of respect. We can ask ourselves if we would want to be talked to that way. Would we want to hear language that lumped men and women together by calling them women (using the feminine), be called by the familiar name when all around us are being called with the formal names, or be called “Tommy” or “boy”, especially in front of bosses, peers, clients, suppliers, and others with whom we need to establish our credentials. Consistency, respect and inclusiveness are always appropriate.
Does this mean we have to be careful 100% of the time? No. At work it is important, as it is in any more formal situation. And it is also important around children, so they learn how to treat others with respect. When we are kicking back with friends, and they don’t mind, it is less important.
Political correctness is not a joke. The costs of diminishing people over time are high. The benefits of treating people with respect, equally simple, are also high.
© 2008 The Watts Connection All Rights Reserved
When You Have to Give Criticism I often get questions about delivering criticism. Very few people like to do it, few do it well and some do it unnecessarily. It is not unusual for both sides to dread such a conversation; sometimes the person giving the criticism dreads it more that the receiver. I’ve written about this before, but it deserves another look. With these two goals, in mind, we can plan exactly what we will say, where and when. Remember… it’s all in how you say it! © 2008 The Watts Connection All Rights Reserved
There are, of course, times we do need to give someone critical feedback. At work, there are periodic performance appraisals. Sometimes people do something that costs us time or money. Some people leave us feeling belittled or dominated. Others may leave us frustrated because we have to guess what it is they want or need. It is important to identify the reason for giving criticism before acting, as this will help with the delivery.
It is, of course, the emotions that make these conversations difficult. We may be afraid of hurting someone’s feelings, causing a breakdown, or making the person mad. We may be afraid we cannot deal with the consequences. We may simply find it unpleasant, or dislike conflict.
When we decide we need to say something, there are two overarching goals:
Performance appraisals are relatively simple. Both parties know they are necessary, and there are (or should be) clear job descriptions, policies and procedures against which to measure performance. Starting with what the person is performing well is a good way to lead into the areas where improvement is needed. As long as performance continues to be measured against the written expectations, it is easy to keep the conversation intellectual.
Other situations may be more difficult. The receiving party may not be expecting it, often there is no clear guideline to use as a measure, and it may be more emotional in nature. In these situations it is critical we be clear about what the problem is, why it is a problem, and what it is we want to see happen. It is also important we speak our mind in a constructive manner, without blaming or accusing. If we find ourselves feeling dread or fear, we can stay on track by focusing on why it is we are having the conversation, the problem we are trying to resolve.
Some people will get emotional. We will be okay with that if we maintain our professionalism and our boundaries. Some people will not agree to the changes we request, and we have to be okay with that as well; we can devise other strategies for minimizing the problem, including brainstorming solutions together.
What is important is that problems be identified and discussed so they can be addressed. Often we are surprised to learn the other party already knew of the issue, is grateful for the feedback as a learning experience, or is simply relieved to know what was causing the tension. Most people will deal with our well-delivered criticisms professionally. When this happens, we are left wondering why we dreaded the conversation so much.
Saying NO and Meaning It Will you plan the conference? How does all this look when put together? If someone wants us to plan an event, we can say: “Thank you for thinking of me. It sounds like fun, but I really do not have the time to do it at this point.” If someone is trying to sell us something we don’t want, we might say: “Thank you for that information. This isn’t something I need right now, but I will be glad to keep you in mind if my needs should change.” We can also take a little time to consider the request (“Let me think about that”) and get back to the person a little later. Whatever we say, we want to say with confidence and clarity so there is no doubt about our intent. If the person keeps asking, we can simply repeat the answer and change the subject so they know we are serious. Remember… it’s all in how you say it! © 2008 The Watts Connection All Rights Reserved
Will you bake three dozen cookies for the school bake sale?
The requests for your time never seem to end. We are asked to lend a hand at work, at home, at school – anywhere we are connected. Far too often we find ourselves saying YES automatically and regretting it later. Often we over-commit because we are nice people and we like to help out. We may be afraid of hurting someone’s feelings, or of not being seen as a team player. These are understandable, but they are external – they keep other people in control of our lives. Someone else’s potential feelings become more important than our own.
Instead of looking outward, we are better served by focusing on our own needs and wants, keeping our focus internal. Before agreeing to something, it is important we have an internal dialogue to make sure we have time to fulfill the request, that it won’t interfere with other commitments, that we want to do it and the political implications of our answer.
If we are unsure how to say NO politely and firmly, we need simply remember three things:
Knowing that the requester’s need was heard and considered is critical to having a NO answer accepted. They also help maintain an attitude of respect between the parties and make it easier to protect our own needs.