Head On Page 7

  WORDS CREATE REALITY

  Three umpires were talking shop over a beer one evening, discussing how they call balls and strikes. There were some notable differences in their perspectives. The first umpire said, “I calls ‘em as they is.” The second umpire said, “I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.” The third, and cleverest, umpire said, “They ain’t nothin’ til I calls ‘em.”

  We can learn from the ways these three people see the world. The first umpire sees an objective reality that is “out there”; it is his job to apply established labels to what he sees. The second umpire views a more subjective reality and acknowledges that perception plays a role in the matter. The third umpire, however, understands that reality is constructed through the language used to label things, namely balls and strikes.

  Most Americans have been to a baseball game and seen a pitch come across the plate differently than how the umpire called it. But the umpire’s decision is what goes down in the statistics. The game he describes is the one that exists.

  In conversations, too, the words we choose shape reality. They influence not only the outcome but also the reality that is experienced by our conversational partners. What do I mean by that? Every single time we speak, we are creating an experience for the other person – and an experience for ourselves as well. Imagine someone walking into a colleague’s office and saying, “I learned at a young age to pick my battles carefully,” before launching into a difficult subject. The speaker is labeling the situation, the upcoming conversation, as a battle. Is this opening likely to make the person defensive? Absolutely. What else does one do in a battle but anticipate being attacked, defend oneself, and attack back?

  Alternatively, the speaker could say, “I’ve got a sensitive issue to discuss with you. Is now a good time?” This is a better approach, but there is still room for improvement. When an issue or situation is labeled as “sensitive” most people will jump to the conclusion that something is wrong and that they might be blamed for it. It’s a short leap for the brain (remember, the brain is always sensing stimuli, on the lookout for danger – that’s its job) to imagine possible scenarios in which an attack will come next. And of course, after an attack comes the involuntary need to defend oneself.

  We need to consciously create a shared space in which neither party feels attacked. This requires using language that does not provoke defensiveness. What we choose to call things matters a great deal.

  Consider the language that some retailers use to refer to their staff and their customers. At Walmart-and other stores including Family Dollar, Aldi, and Publix-the employees are known as Associates. A term that was once reserved for attorneys and sales roles, “Associate” creates a reality (or attempts to) that the staff members are held in high esteem by the corporation and are peers to management-level employees. “Associate” suggests a business relationship as well-maybe even one in which the employee has a financial stake or partnership in the business.

  Another major retailer, Target, calls its customers “Guests.” Again, this creates a particular reality for both the “Guests” and the employees, who are incidentally called “Team Members.” How you choose to treat a Guest may be significantly different from how you treat a customer. In the same way guests are invited into our homes and treated with care, so too are the guests at Target expected to be hosted by the Team Members. And with a name like Team Members (even at the corporate headquarters, not just in the retail stores), the expectation is clear that teamwork is inherent in the work and highly valued. Employees are not merely running cash registers and restocking shelves, writing marketing plans and developing software. They are playing a specific role on a team that aims to accomplish a larger goal.

  When we understand our influence on how reality is constructed through language, we begin to sense how much power we have. This changes how we open conversations on difficult topics. Recall the women in the locker room from the beginning of the chapter. The topic was difficult but the words that Michelle selected made the conversation friendly. Like Michelle, we can carefully select words and phrases that carry the meaning and nuance most appropriate and strategic to the outcome we desire. Namely, reaching agreement. Rather than laying the lines for a battle, we can build the foundation for a productive discussion that takes both parties’ needs into consideration.

  When we begin with an intentionally crafted opening, using words selected to create a particular reality, we are more likely to succeed in opening the conversation without making the other person defensive. The next section offers a specific methodology that will help you accomplish this important objective every time.

  THE “FACT AND …” MODEL

  Imagine this scenario:

  Emily steps into her boss’s office. “Steve is getting all the good travel opportunities,” she begins. “You give him all the interesting projects and I get what’s left over and I’m so frustrated I’m about ready to quit.”

  Phil, her boss, is caught off guard. Emily is typically a team player and has always been a good sport about the project assignments she is given. She is a natural with mid-market clients and, as a consequence, is more apt to be sent to Sandusky than to San Francisco. Technically, she is right. Steve does get the better travel opportunities. Phil is inclined to agree with her on that point, but because her demeanor is so aggressive and blaming, he is having a hard time being anything but defensive himself.

  If Emily had used the Fact AND model for opening this same conversation, it might have gone something like this:

  “Phil, you know I enjoy the travel of this job and you know it’s one of the things I love about working here. I absolutely love being on-site with our clients and helping them in person. And my accounts are typically located in smaller cities like Toledo and Tulsa. I’d like a chance to work on some of the accounts in larger cities like Dallas and Detroit. I have to admit that I’ve been concerned about this for a while. It’s really affecting my satisfaction with my job. I’ve even been looking a little bit for a new job. I could have come to you with it sooner and I didn’t, so I’m partly at fault for the situation getting this bad.”

  In the first scenario, Phil has nowhere to go but to defensiveness. Emily comes out swinging with accusations, blame, and threats. In the second scenario, Emily shares the same information but in a manner that will make Phil more likely to help her-by following the Fact AND model.

  The Fact AND model, much like its name suggests, begins with a fact that is generally agreeable to both parties. That fact is connected with another fact using the word “and.” Emily starts with the fact that she enjoys the travel in her job. This is something presumably Phil knows, and we expect he would agree with this information, maybe even nodding his head. She has passed the first step of opening without defensiveness: begin with an agreeable fact.

  The next step is to add on another agreeable fact. In our example, Emily adds that she loves being onsite with clients and helping them. Repeat the process, adding more facts and getting closer to the “area of impact” as Emily does as she notes the cities in which some of her clients are located. The area of impact is the last thing that is shared; it is the thing that’s bugging you, the problem, the issue at hand. Emily connects the area of impact without negating any of what she’s just said. It all flows together agreeably.

  By building a fact set that leads to the area of impact, you guide the other person into a conversation where you can, together, critically examine the issue using all of your faculties and without becoming defensive. The Fact AND methodology will keep the person in an open and curious state of mind rather than pushing them into fight or flight. They will be able to use their prefrontal cortex and their neocortex, bringing their best listening and critical thinking skills to the conversation.

  Let’s take a closer look at the methodology and the rationale for each part of the process.

  As explained above, we start with an agreeable fact or shared opinion. It must be a suitable premise for the discussion, ho
wever. For example, “Jessica, those are beautiful earrings” is not suitable for a conversation about someone’s tardiness to work. Neither is “Jessica, you are five-foot seven.” These opinions and facts don’t relate to the issue at hand.

  In selecting an agreeable and germane fact, we begin in a way that arouses, but does not alarm, the other person. We’ve started from a basis of agreement. Our conversational partner is not defensive. Rather, on the arousal continuum, they may move from calm to aroused but not to fear or terror. Note that you may substitute beliefs, values, and strongly held opinions for facts, provided that they are agreeable to both parties. For example, you might start a conversation with a colleague in which you think they are not pulling their weight on the project by saying, “The deadlines on this project are intense.” While this is not a hard fact, it is a strongly held opinion that you both presumably share.

  Next, we use “and” to connect subsequent facts. While I stress the AND in the model (fact AND fact AND fact AND fact AND …), the meaning of AND can be conveyed a number of ways, linguistically speaking. Of course, there is the straightforward “and” as in “Phil, you know I enjoy the travel of this job and you know it’s one of the things I love about working here.” (Emphasis is added for your attention and should not be applied in an actual conversation.) AND can also be accomplished with a short pause, the equivalent of the period at the end of a sentence, as in “it’s one of the things I love about working here. I absolutely love being on-site with our clients and helping them in person.” If I could bold an empty space, I would-the pause between the two sentences serves as a silent AND and continues connecting the facts.

  I refer to AND in this model as the Grand AND because of its importance. It is critical to the process.

  AND is a conjunction. The function of a conjunction is to connect things. AND is doing precisely that: joining the facts in the set together. The ANDs build relationships between each fact and they build agreement.

  It is critical that AND or its silent equivalent, the pause, be used throughout the opening of the conversation. Left unchecked, most people will use “but,” another conjunction, or “however,” a conjunctive adverb, when bridging from the last fact to the impact. These words disrupt the agreement you’ve developed. “But” connects through contrast, suggesting “with the exception of.” “However” does much the same.

  The Fact AND model creates agreement in the mind of your conversational partner as you build your fact set. To disrupt that agreement with “but” or “however” diminishes the chances of a successful conversation. Linguistically, whatever comes after but or however in a series (in this case, a series of facts or mutually held opinions) is different from what came before it. If your listener is agreeing with you and then you use but or however, it is a signal to the brain to disagree with what comes next-before they’ve even heard what it is!

  Just look at how the above example would be different if “however” or “but” were used to connect the area of impact to the fact set rather than AND:

  “Phil, you know I enjoy the travel of this job and you know it’s one of the things I love about working here. I absolutely love being on-site with our clients and helping them in person. My accounts are typically located in smaller cities like Toledo and Tulsa. However, I’d like a chance to work on some of the accounts in larger cities like Dallas and Detroit.”

  Listen closely to what’s occurring in this version. Fact (I enjoy the travel) AND fact (travel is one of the things I love about working here) AND fact (I love being on-site with clients) AND fact (accounts are located in smaller cities) HOWEVER (I’d like a chance to work in larger cities). By using “however” in making her case, Emily destroyed the agreement she’s worked so hard to build. Rather, if she connects instead with AND, the agreement remains intact and Phil is less likely to get defensive.

  As you build your fact set, you’ll eventually arrive at the area of impact. This is the reason for having the conversation. Think of it not as a problem, however, but as simply the next (and final) fact in the set you’ve just laid out. Alternatively, you could think of it as the conclusion to the fact set you’ve just laid out; the final AND could be replaced with “as a result.”

  Once you have laid out your fact set and the impact, all connected with ANDs, the next step is to stop talking. Yep. Shush. Count to ten in your head if you have to. Or twenty. If you’ve successfully opened the conversation without defensiveness, your partner is thinking at this point, considering what’s been said so far. That’s exactly where you want them. Congratulations, the most challenging part is complete. The conversation is not yet over, though. You’ve still got some work to do.

  And Then It Got Very Quiet

  Let’s suppose Emily followed the Fact AND model and concluded her thoughts. Phil had been nodding as if in silent agreement. At the completion of her fact set, she was quiet. But the silence felt disturbing and uncomfortable. Emily got a little nervous. She was about to say something but then she remembered that some quiet is okay. A good thing even.

  Many people feel this same discomfort with silence. This silence is critical, however. When people give in to the discomfort and say something, they will often either recant or justify, both of which work in disservice to the opening of the conversation. Recanting – saying something such as “Well, it’s really not that important, don’t worry about it, I’m probably overreacting”-minimizes the area of impact and damages your credibility. Your facts were compelling and interesting. The area of impact sounded significant. Now you’re backpedaling? That’s confusing.

  Justifying is equally ineffective, and typically includes adding more information, repeating facts you’ve already shared, and becoming more entrenched in your position. At least that’s how it will come across to your conversational partner. It sounds like this: “Really. Steve does get to go to better cities than I do. He does. And there aren’t even good restaurants in the cities I go to and the best hotels are these mom and pop places where I don’t even get hotel points.” Justifying is defensive behavior and it is likely to spur defensive communication behavior from your conversational partner as well. Who, incidentally, was carefully considering your well thought-out fact set before you interrupted him.

  The silence marks the end of one way of thinking about something and creates a transitional space where a new beginning can emerge. Dr. William Bridges, a leading researcher on successfully navigating change, aptly labeled this moment as “fertile emptiness.”

  As Bridges explains in a discussion of transitions and turning points, “Things end, there is a time of fertile emptiness, and then things begin anew.”20 While Bridges was referring to life transitions and turning points such as career decisions, getting married, becoming parents, or the death of a loved one, his framework is equally applicable to transitions in conversations. In fact, many life turning points begin with a conversation-a discussion with a spouse about a job change or starting a new company, a conversation with the person you are dating about spending the rest of your lives together, or talking with an aging parent about ensuring they live out their final years in dignity.

  Is the space really empty? From Emily’s standpoint, it seems so. There is a temptation to say something, anything. She has just shared important and personal information and in so doing she has made herself vulnerable. But if she can remain grounded during this uncomfortable part of the conversation, the results will outweigh the discomfort.

  Because from Phil’s vantage point, the emptiness is not, in fact, emptiness at all. Phil is busy thinking and examining the new information Emily shared. He needs time to consider what she said, make sense of it, and integrate it with his own fact set before responding. And he is likely to do this if he has not gotten defensive. Phil may not even have noticed the silence. After all, there is a great deal of activity going on in his mind as he considers Emily’s fact set and thinks through his available courses of action and what he might say next.

  CON
CLUSION

  Congratulations! You’ve successfully completed the second step in facilitating a difficult conversation. You might actually find it’s not so difficult after all. In fact, the other person might thank you for the information you’ve shared, just as Amy, the new member at the YMCA, did with Michelle. You’ve voiced your concern in a matter of fact manner and given your partner something to think about. They’re considering the issue and they are not defensive, so they can bring their best reasoning and critical thinking skills to the conversation. Great work!

  It is worth noting that in some cases, despite your best efforts to open the conversation in a manner that does not provoke defensiveness, the person might move rapidly up the arousal continuum to fear and exhibit the corresponding defensiveness anyway. It is important to understand that those with a history of trauma, failure, or humiliation will move up the arousal continuum faster, often in the face of a fairly small challenge or perceived threat. They may also escalate up the continuum if there is an established pattern in which the person typically gets defensive whenever you interact. Regardless of the cause, if the other person gets defensive, it is important to be patient, slow down, and work on building trust.

  If defensiveness is running high on either your part or theirs, it is okay to take a break in the conversation if the context allows it. Perhaps not in a meeting with many people, but if it is just two of you, it is okay to suggest you revisit the topic later in the day or at another time. This will provide an opportunity for stress hormones to dissipate and will give a fresh start to the conversation. Sometimes a break, even as little as five minutes, can have a measurable impact on reducing defensiveness.