Our lives are often spent trying to make our desires come
out exactly as we want. A futile effort, especially since it may involve
attempting to control others, an interaction or relationship dead-end. Yet
there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to obtain an outcome in a
conversation. Like conflict itself, persuasion is normal. Both can be carried
out poorly or well.
None of us likes being controlled, and we resist the
manipulation. In the post titled “What’s Wrong With ‘No Borders’”? I gave
examples of devious methods boundary invaders use to control others, such as
anger, guilt trips and a victim posture. Boundary invaders MUST HAVE their
outcome, justifying repellant and counter-productive tactics. And adding to the
unique interpersonal challenges around control, societal uncertainty pushes us all
the more to get what we can from others.
You can easily spot a conversation controller. He asks no
questions. If he does, the questions will be attacking and inquisitional, loudly
voiced and often accompanied by sarcasm and anger. Having THE answers, what is
there to know? Most often, though, the controller avoids questions and deluges
his opponent non-stop with anything that will aid him to win, regardless of accuracy
or relevance. A controller will concede nothing. There is no point, no matter
how valid, that deserves anything other than attack. Counter-punching at its
worst! But even without overt hostility, an adversarial, “I-win, you-lose”
style means nothing positive will come from the exchange.
Although we might deny it, most of us at least
occasionally act out the controller. We continue this in spite of the lousy
outcomes until we learn there’s another way.
“Influence” conversations are very different, even though
they arise out of the same conditions as adversarial ones---two people
disagreeing about something, and each desiring something from the other. But
with influence, there is no manipulation in which one party loses while the
other gains. At least one of the parties recognizes the interpersonal dangers inherent
in a difference of view. She changes how she interacts with the other, who is
usually primed for a knock-down, drag-out match. She manages the interaction for
the positive benefit of both, ensuring that her desire for a particular outcome
does not depend on the other person losing something. Critically, she gives up
the needs to win, change or punish the other person, all of which will produce
resistance and hostility. In Zen terms, she is not attached to an outcome. She
sees that if she wants to influence the other, she cannot pose a threat. Her actions
will more likely be indirect than direct, including the removal of all
unhelpful non-verbal cues.
A client who owned a number of businesses once told me
about a potentially volatile interaction with a staff member who stormed into
his office and angrily shouted, “What is this crap about transferring me to
another department without even talking to me?” Instead of following the
employee’s lead and starting a screaming match, my friend used influence. Anger
or fear meant only bad outcomes, so control of his emotions and actions was
vital. He remained seated, consciously removing all adverse non-verbal signals
and adding only beneficial ones---he relaxed his body, softened his voice, and
spoke normally but a little slower than usual. He calmly asked the employee to
sit and tell him what was going on. Apparently expecting a battle and not
getting one, the employee was a bit taken aback, a questioning look in his
eyes. He sat down, but was on the edge of the chair and still visibly upset.
My friend asked again what was going on. The employee
said that another employee told him about the intended transfer. After thanking
the employee, which further calmed him, my friend told him that no such
transfer was in the works. The employee sat back, embarrassed, and stumbled
through an apology. A potentially unpleasant interaction was avoided. Once the
employee’s issue was resolved, my friend did deal with the employee’s
aggressiveness and anger.
My friend recognized immediately that the first thing he
needed to do was assist the employee in calming, but he knew that saying
something like, “Calm down” would only make things worse. Instead, he used non-verbal
cues to signal receptivity and safety. At no point did my friend interrupt or
try to counter the employee’s incorrect view. Beyond the calming his goal was
to understand. Only then could he properly deal with the issue, in terms of
both content and behavior. My friend wisely allowed the employee to get his
story out and dealt with before bringing up his issue of how the employee
initially addressed him.
Although this example occurred in the workplace, the same
influence technique can be used at home with family or friends. Failure to
control hidden agendas or strong emotions will be readily apparent to the
spouse or life partner, and those will get all the focus. What is said is no
longer part of the conversation, even if it looks like it on the surface. The
interaction will be all about one person’s emotions overwhelming the other’s, a
nasty but common occurrence.
There are critical influence lessons for all of us from
this story, even if persuasion is not involved.
·
The first person to bring up an issue has the
floor, with no interruptions, denials, or counter-punching.
·
The listener has the job of gaining clarity and
understanding (not necessarily agreement), and only that.
·
The listener must maintain control of emotions
and behavior, and be acutely aware of
non-verbal signals that can obstruct or enhance the conversation,
choosing the helpful ones.
·
Understanding is best accomplished by fully
attentive, non-judgmental listening, and by the use of carefully phrased,
non-inquisitional, questions.
·
The listener must assist the speaker in reaching
some resolution, if only partial or temporary, before bringing up his/her
concerns, if any.
·
When it is the listener’s turn to raise a
concern or issue, she must maintain the same non-attached, non-emotionally
driven posture as when listening.
This post can be coupled with the recent one entitled
“Conversations: Restrictive and Expansive,” offering a prescription for healthy
conflict interactions.
