Friday, July 25, 2008

Growth and Changes

In order to support the growth that Pathfinder has been enjoying (thanks again, everyone) I am making some changes to the way we do things.

1) I am going to add a message board available to anyone that has taken at least one Pathfinder class. The message board will be a place you can log in anonymously and tell of your successes or issues related to improving your communication skills. I am restricting it to people that have taken classes so that the input will be from informed sources that take these things seriously. I of course will be on the board nightly to give my two cents worth (how could I resist?).

2) I will be adding some video of powerpoint presentations available on the website. These will be short and on specific topics, and basically be the slide show and my narration. These will be available for free to anyone that comes to the site.

It is my hope that these two features add value and extend my capability in deploying ways for business people to work more harmoniously and prosperously.

Unavoidably, there will be some interruption to things as I make the changes. Please be patient. The .com suffix will be up and down but I will do my best to keep the following working:
http://www.pathfindercommunication.net/
gregg.oliver@pathfindercommunication.net
the blog at http://www.pathfindercomm.blogspot.com/

You can still sign up for courses at www.pathfindercommunication.net/services.cfm

Hurry for the August 22nd courses.



Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Protocol for Critical Discussions

Critical discussions are discussions in which we are critiquing something - that is, exploring its value or nature. These are the conversations that make us nervous because we are concerned about the impact our criticism may have. There is a great deal to learn about these exchanges and I will limit this message to one difference in protocol between unproductive and productive discussions.

In unproductive discussions, typically party A will make a statement. Party B will interpret that statement and respond with a statement. Example:

Party A - "Capital Punishment is nothing but state-sponsored murder"
Party B - "It is nothing of the sort. It is simply the ultimate penalty being applied to the ultimate crime"

In this example, all we know is that the two parties disagree and if we imagine the continuation of this, we can picture statement after statement being traded without any real understanding being developed. These two parties are not collaborating; they are advocating positions. There is no exploration being done.

In a productive discussion, the protocol is different. Example:

Party A - "Capital Punishment is nothing but state-sponsored murder"
Party B - "What makes you say that?" or "Tell me more about why you think so"

In this case, party B is exploring the thinking behind Party A's statement. It is a request for evidence. Party B may agree or disagree with party A, but that is not the focus. The focus is on understanding the evidence and inference behind party A's statement.

We may find that Party A has a point of view that we've never considered before, or that we feel they are wrong, or that their evidence is based on bad information. How will we do that if we aren't curious and open?

We probably won't. That is why staying curious is so important when being critical.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Monday, July 21, 2008

When Your Collaborator Can't

The other day, I was having a critical discussion about something at work with an indirect superior (a big boss, but not MY big boss). We disagreed on some details regarding how to do something we were doing together. We had gone back and forth a few times and finally he conceded and said "Ok...whatever. We'll do it however you need".

And I knew that I had failed.

By his tone and body language, I knew that he was not committing to the SUCCESS of the project, but to its COMPLETION. I had not gained willing assent, but reluctant surrender. While this may be highly-prized by some, it is NOT what one wants in a collaborative environment.

The objective of critical discussion is to attain agreement, willing assent, and commitment FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHEIVING A DESIRED RESULT. We don’t keep score by how many times someone agrees with us; we keep score by the results the team gets. I know that, if I accept his "surrender" now, that when it comes time to honor our commitment we will disagree about it and re-do it. That is rework, and rework is waste of resource.

His remark (“Ok… whatever”) was a withdrawal from the conversation, and I know it is a manifestation of unexpressed feelings. I believe he was distracted with work and non-work events of higher priority and would have said “We’ll have to come back to this – I can’t give it the attention it deserves right now” if he had felt ok to do so.

I asked (and received) his permission to work with one of his trusted people on it until we can create a recommendation that fulfills what we BOTH need. This trusted person thinks very much like him, and has the bandwidth to collaborate with me on the project. This will make sure his perspective (or one like it) is represented making it very likely to develop something he can support.

Instead of accepting surrender, I empathized with his frustration concerning the demands on him. I know he wants to do what's best, and I will support him in this by using a surrogate. The important thing is that what ever we commit to is worth it.





Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Upcoming Classes

Critical Discussions (8am - 12:00) and Relationship Management (1pm - 5pm) will be offered on 8/22/08. We will be doing some new exercises to make sure students know how to get through a discussion in which you are being critical of something and have it end well. Go to the Public Workshops page to enroll.




Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Curiosity

Whether you are engaged in a relationship conversation or a critical discussion, one of the hardest and most important things to do is to remain curious. That means DEEPLY curious about the other party's perspective. Many students write me after trying some things they've learned in class and tell me about "unexpected" things that happen. Almost always, the problem lies in their level of curiosity.

Curiosity is hard to attain because:
1 - It is common for us to hear a little bit of the other party's perspective and "fill in the blanks" for ourselves. This is gives us the impression that we heard the other side out, but clearly we didn't. We are taught early on to try to guess what the other party thinks from their actions. We have learned that we are usually wrong, and thus the need for curiosity.

2 - The "voice in our head" that helps us in our dealings with others is busy preparing what we will say when the other side is finished. Thus we aren't really listening to them.

3 - We feel that our perspective is more important, or more correct, than the other party's.

It is imperative that we hear the other side out for several reasons:
1 - If the other side feels that we aren't "getting it", they will escalate until they feel heard. This is usually the cause behind raised voices. What we commonly attribute to anger is usually due to frustration from not being heard. When you get to the point of raised voices, you will usually have to stop talking about the topic and shift gears in order to re-connect again. Sometimes, this is where we get defensive and one party withdraws or attacks.

2 - The purpose for the conversation is almost always mutual understanding. You won't achieve mutual understanding unless you ask questions about their perspective and listen to their answers

3 - The other party has information you don't have that could be critical to understanding the issue at hand. It is important to gather this data in order to develop an informed conclusion.

In order to maintain curiosity in spite of the desire to react, try the following:
1 - Instead of filling in the blanks for the other party, use active listening skills (listen, paraphrase, acknowledge). Ask questions that help you understand why they think the way they do ("what makes you say that?", "can you tell me more about that?", "help me understand why...").

2 - I frequently try to help the other party make their perspective and help them find supporting evidence for it. In doing so, I quickly come to understand it. Also, this lets the other party see you are objective. If you find something that you don't understand, they becoming willing to question it with you.

3 - Stop trying to silence the voice in your head. I have tried it endlessly, and it doesn't work. But it is EASY to train that voice to be curious, rather than distracted by preparing responses. When your inner voice is curious (asking questions like "I wonder how he/she got from point A to point B?"), then your inner voice is aligned with your mission - to understand the other party's story - and your manner is more authentic.

4 - Realize that you will NEVER understand the other party's perspective as well as you understand your own, but that should be your aim.

Simple Test - Before you begin analyzing the differences between your perspectives, ask yourself the question "Are there things that I see as differences between the two perspectives that I didn't actually hear the other party state?". If there are, then you either filled in the blanks or have some more questions to ask.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Credibility = Trust + Expertise

Henry David Thoreau said that "I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor". We are not victims of our circumstance. We can, at any time, decide to change our situation.

I suggest that a good place to start is to develop credibility. Why start there? Credibility is made of Trust and Expertise. So increasing our expertise through study and practice is a great thing to do. We learn curiosity and openness at the same time, because that is what it takes to study and practice. Increasing people's trust in us and ours in them is done by developing strong character and solid relationships. In order to do that, we learn humility and empathy. So in choosing to start by developing our credibility, we choose to learn a great many valuable skills. We choose to elevate our lives.

With credibility comes the beginning of influence.

With credibility comes the hope of relationship.

With credibility, you are given permission to show others what is possible.

With credibility, you are given permission to mentor.

With credibility, leadership can happen wherever you are.






Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Monday, July 14, 2008

Influence vs Persuasion and the 9 laws

I suppose there are a number of ways to look at the subtle difference between these two verbs, but I am looking at them like this: persuasion is something that occurs between just two people, is generally unidirectional, and deals more with emotion than reason. Influence is something that occurs between groups larger than just two people, can be multi directional, and deals more with reason than emotion.

Persuasion is very much related to the state of the relationship between two people. Influence is more related to the difference in power between two entities. So persuasion is affected far more by what you think of me than influence is, although what you think of me is important in both cases.

To contrast the two, let's say I wanted to change the way we view our Customer Service organization, transforming it from a cost center to a profit center. I would need to exercise influence to change a general mindset. It would involve a bit of reasoning and the rationale or even the objective could likely change by the group as we do our fact-finding. The change would rely on my making a case and assuring that we have identified and possess the necessary skills as well as explaining how it will be worth it for us to go through the transformation.

If, however, I simply wanted to get funding to increase the Customer Service organization's size, I would likely have to persuade a boss or two to do it. I would prepare a credible "pitch" and present it to someone that liked me and could make a decision.

I would use the 9 laws of persuasion in a one-on-one, but I would use interpersonal problem solving skills (critical thinking and argumentation) to influence a broad change.

(these are from http://www.synergyinstituteonline.com/ , and are included in a great book by author Kevin Hogan. For more from Kevin, go to www.kevinhogan.com )

Persuasion Law #1: The Law of Scarcity

The law of scarcity states that when a person perceives that something or someone they want is in limited quantity, then the perceived value of that which they desire is greater than if it were overly abundant.

Example: If I went to a party with my girlfriend and she picked up an interest in talking to other guys there instead of me, then my interest and perceived value in my girlfriend would increase dramatically because of the implied scarcity that I have attached to her.

Persuasion Law #2: The Law of Reciprocity

The law of reciprocity states that if a persons gives another person something or performs a service of perceived value, then that other person will be so inclined as to give something back of equal value.

Example: If my neighbors invited me over to their house for dinner, then I would be inclined to return the favor by inviting them out to dinner at a later time.

Persuasion Law #3: The Law of Association

The law of association states that people are more likely to accept, try, purchase, or like things which are endorsed by other people we like or have respect for.

Example: Commercial producers always want to use high profile celebrities to endorse their products or services because the majority of the public will associate the celebrity's popularity with that product and boost sales.

Persuasion Law #4: The Law of Contrast

The law of contrast states that when two items or people are different from each other, we tend to see them as even more different if they are place close together.

Example: I was at a major electronics retailer recently and was purchasing a laptop for $1000. After I committed myself to the purchase, the salesperson offered me an insurance policy for an additional $150 dollars. Afterall, $150 is a small amount compared to the $1000 that I just put down. Fast food restaurants use the same tactic of contrast when they ask you if you want to "super size" your meal for only a buck extra.

Persuasion Law #5: The Law of Expectancy

The law of expectancy states that when a person whom you respect expects you to produce a certain result, then you will tend to work towards fulfilling that expectation, whether the end result is positive or negative.

Example: There was a case that I remember in a hospital where an outpatient was being treated for a minor, non-life threatening ailment, and somehow the patient charts were switched on the poor guy. The doctor came in and looked at the charts and told the otherwise healthy patient that at best he only had a day to live. That guy died the next day.

Persuasion Law #6: The Law of Consistency

The law of consistency states that when an individual announces, either verbally or in writing, that they are taking a position on an issue, then that person will strongly defend that position regardless of its validity or even in the face of overwhelming evidence against it.

Example: When former President Clinton denied that he had "sexual relations" with white house intern Monica Lewinsky, he aggressively defended it despite the fact that the majority of Americans were convinced he had cheated on the first lady and should just own up to it.

Persuasion Law #7: The Law of Power

People who are perceived to have greater strength, fame, expertise, or authority have power over other people who accept this perception of that person.

Example: A doctor has a great amount of perceived power over a patient because of their extensive training. Their word is usually gospel.

Persuasion Law #8: The Law of Friends

The law of friends states that when someone you trust or like asks you to do something, you are strongly motivated to fulfill that request.

Example: If an attractive girl asked a single and available guy for a favor, then that guy would be strongly motivated to fulfill her request.

Persuasion Law #9: The Law of Conformity

The law of conformity states that an individual is more likely to agree to proposals that are well received by the majority of other people in their group.

Example: At a company meeting the CEO asks for a show of hands who likes the new idea. Approximately 85% of the meeting participants raise their hands. John Doe also raises his hand, not because he liked the idea, but because he felt the pressure to conform with the majority of the group.

author Kevin Hogan, Copyright 1996, 2008




Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication



Sunday, July 13, 2008

Indicating the Compatibility of Positions

Often in conversations, we will discover conflicts between positions. For instance, let's say you would like me to attend a meeting on a day that I have a very busy schedule. There are two positions:

  1. You have a meeting that you would like me to attend

  2. I have a very busy schedule that day


I could frame the conflict using "but" as in: "I recognize you want me at the meeting, but i have a very busy schedule that day". Framing the statement that way infers that I have heard you, and am implying that I won't be attending the meeting. 'But' is an 'exclusive' conjunction, excluding, denying, or somehow discounting the message of the first phrase. "And' is also a conjunction (an INCLUSIVE conjunction) which infers that, although the two elements may be in opposition, they are both viewed equally (at least without exclusion).

Compare these four:

A. "I recognize you want me at the meeting, but I have a very busy schedule that day."
B. "I have a very busy schedule that day, but I recognize you want me at the meeting."
C. "I recognize you want me at the meeting, and I have a very busy schedule that day."
D. "I have a very busy schedule that day, and I recognize you want me at the meeting."

The first two infer that the two statements are not compatible, that I will have to choose. The second two don't indicate exclusion; they infer that both could be accomplished.

Use 'but' when suggesting the views are not compatible and that the view in the first phrase is to be discounted. Use 'and' when suggesting both phrases are to be viewed as compatible.

Ken Fields, owner and principle counselor at Open Mind Counseling says: "The use of "but" is extraordinarily common. In fact, few people actually recognize the subtle influence of using but. If you were to consciously attempt to change "but" to "and" in your speaking, you will notice how odd it feels. But, it is a worthwhile exercise if for no other reason than to become more comfortable with the ability to switch from one to the other. However, there can be a more important reason: using "and" instead of "but" can positively influence dialogue. When using "and" instead of "but" there is a sense of inclusion and acceptance even if the conclusion is a denial or refusal."

Try it out over the next several days. Listen to others' sentences and when you hear "but" change it in your own mind to "and." Then, start listening to your own sentences. When you hear yourself about to say "but" change it to "and" but remember one thing…oops…and remember one thing…




Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication



We Can Do This!

This article is based on a couple of separate but related incidences that occurred recently.

  1. I received an email message from a former student regarding some issues she had in communicating with a co-worker. The co-worker was her boss, and the issue seemed to rotate around safety. Thanks. Donna!

  2. The other night, I had the good fortune to speak at the Society for Software Quality monthly meeting. I spoke on developing influence within an organization. An attendee asked a great question; "Are there some people that you just can't influence because they have reached the limit of the "Peter Principle?" Thanks, attendee!

  3. I had a terrific discussion with my work friend Dave, which gave me some insight. Thanks, Dave!


I find that when someone describes another person as "impervious to influence", many times they are expressing a frustration because the other party won't accept the idea that is being "pitched". In other words, one party is trying to persuade another party to adopt a position, and if they are unsuccessful the other party is written off as "resistant" (or worse). There are many reasons that people remain un-persuaded after hearing a position, but they all add up to one thing: They (the listener) thinks they know something about you (the speaker) or the idea you don't know, or aren't revealing. For instance:

  • You are not an authority on the subject, and therefore don't know what you are talking about.

  • They believe the idea is bad. It is clear to them that it won't work.

  • They can't tell you what they really think because you'll "get mad".

  • You have a track record of contributing few ideas that work.

  • The math doesn't add up.

  • They don't want to lose control of the situation by letting you contribute to decisions in their area of responsibility. " Your premise is wrong because you don't have all the facts, and they can't share what they know.

  • Solving the problem is a low priority and resources are better used elsewhere.

  • They have heard a better solution.

  • Everyone knows that will never work.

  • They learned a long time ago that if they adopt your idea, then you have power over them.

  • can't sell it to those that need to implement it.

  • The people above them will never buy into it.

  • It's not in the budget.

  • Business is bad and they can't afford it.

  • They have evidence that the opposite is true.

  • Adopting your solution would make them look bad, and they don't want that.

  • Adopting your solution would make you look good, and they don't want that.


Certainly I could go on (and so could you), but you get the picture. They have a story, too. And in THEIR story, YOU are the one that is inflexible, under-informed, or ill-advised.
It's critical and fundamental that you have the skill to understand their story BEFORE you go too far down the road explaining your own. There are only three reasons to have this kind of conversation:

  1. to tell your story

  2. to understand their story

  3. to do problem solving (which requires the other two conversations as well)


IF you want a solution to the problem, then recognize that you have to address all the obstacles that prevent its adoption. Fortunately, there is only one obstacle: the parties don't understand each other's position. So "seek first to understand".

First, you must build safety. They must feel that having an open conversation with you is possible and beneficial, and only you can make that happen. You must be appropriately humble (rather than try to overwhelm with all you know), speak tentatively (so that the other party can feel free to explore your story with you), and suspend your desire to "be right" in favor of your desire to get all of the information out on the table. THAT is the central skill that distinguishes "the fox among the hounds". It is about being authentic and genuinely interested in the quality of the outcome.

If the person with whom you are speaking is your boss (or any boss), there is another factor to be addressed in maintaining safety. Occasionally, a conversation can become so "equalizing" between two parties, that the boss can begin to feel as if they are losing (or you are taking) their "positional power" and they can feel disrespected. In order to have a productive conversation the two parties must feel Mutual Respect and Mutual Purpose. When the other party feels disrespected, they become defensive and the conversation stops. There are easy methods to establish and maintain mutual respect and mutual purpose in your conversations.

Next, you must be able to discuss the differences that exist between your stories. That means you need to be able to skillfully listen, recognize differences, and resolve them using inquiry and reason. You must be observant of changes in your own and the other party's emotional state and be able to address changes that affect the productivity of the conversation.

Finally you must be able to describe a course of action that will implement the solution. How we come to a decision and how we implement it differs with the kind of impact carried by the decision. It also involves arriving at a decision to which all affected parties can commit, and influencing stakeholders to honor their commitments.

THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS ARTICLE: Realize that the other party doesn't have to know anything or do anything different than they are doing right now. Re-read the above and see that YOU are the one using YOUR skills to accomplish this.

It doesn't matter if you initiate the conversation or they do, nor if emotions begin to rise or not. You are not born with these skills, and few people develop them naturally to any significant extent. They are, however, easily trained and implemented. Better communication, better decisions, better results - that's why we do this.




Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication



How do I handle this face-to-face?

Of all the questions I am asked on the subject, the most frequent by far deal with emotion. Interestingly, they fall into two distinct categories:

  1. How do I keep from sounding emotionless (robotic, rehearsed)?

  2. What do I do if I find myself (or the other person) getting upset with the way things are going?)?


To answer the first, the simple approach is to only rehearse the conversation model. Understand the components of your story, think through your purpose in having the conversation, get into your appropriate engagement stance and start the conversation. Note that I am not recommending that you rehearse the words you are going to say, or your inflection, or your facial expressions. In fact, I advise against it. If you have a well-rehearsed prepared statement, you practically have to be a professional actor to make it sound authentic. If you don't sound authentic, it is unlikely that you will connect with your collaborator. And connecting with them and learning their side of the story is critical.

The second question comes up when we are either trying to control the outcome of the conversation OR have failed to maintain enough safety for the other party to stay open and communicative. When we find ourselves getting emotional, recognize it immediately and focus on hearing their side instead of expressing your own. Peter Senge (director of the Center for Organizational Learning at the MIT Sloan School of Management) actually repeats the words "I am trying to learn" in his head like a mantra in order to stay focused. When I find myself being carried away with emotion in a conversation, I try to remember all the times I have thought I was right, but changed my mind when I was presented with one critical piece of information I hadn't considered. The fact that it is quite possible that I am wrong allows to me to refocus to hear that data that will clarify things for me.

As far as maintaining safety goes, it is critical to step out of the content of the conversation and step into the process - to clarify that the important thing about the conversation is that it leads to a greater understanding of the topic. It is critical to re-establish Mutual Respect and Mutual Purpose.




Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication



Influence

When I ask someone to associate a word with "influence", the common response is "power". Frequently we think of influence as something to which we yield in order to avoid consequences that can be delivered from someone with power. I think this is a negative way of viewing influence, and is chiefly responsible for us being wary of power and people that seek power.

Power is a positive thing; in engineering it is sometimes referred to as "potential". A hand can be used to hurt or to help, but the hand is not evil by itself. The same is true of power. Certainly the absence of power is negative, and we all have more than we think.

In business, there are three kinds of power that are relevant: positional, relational, and personal. Positional power comes from one's level of responsibility in the organization. Relational power deals with how one relates to others - it is their openness, accessibility, and willingness and ability to collaborate. Personal power is found in a person's nature - it is their credibility and authenticity, their expertise, and their general attitude.

These are all things that can be learned and must be nurtured, and they are each associated with deeper foundational skills and techniques. For instance, developing expertise involves knowing how to choose the best skill areas to learn and knowing how to optimize our learning of them. In doing that, we will likely learn how to coach effectively, which is a critical leadership skill. Similarly, in learning collaboration skills, we learn how to approach inter-personal problem solving, which builds from knowledge in critical thinking and relationship management. We must also recognize that the tools and techniques for influencing individuals are different than those used for influencing groups.

The things we sense are wrong in leadership styles are often linked to a dependence on positional power. Influence includes learning how to collaborate with those that possess complementary skills in order to maximize the effectiveness of the organization.




Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication



Fixing it

This is what we know: it won't get better on its own. It is almost certain that someone is going to feel threatened or defensive or competitive in a cross functional team - especially if they feel like some kind of "secret" is going to be revealed. Maybe you're working on something that they have known to be a problem, but they hoped nobody would find out. Maybe you are working on something that they could be blamed for. Maybe they don't believe in what you are working on and are actively (or passively) trying to sabotage it. Maybe they don't want to "stir up" whoever is responsible for the problem.

It won't get better on its own. Talking about it works.

Would you be surprised if I told you that over 90% of the team leaders asked (in a survey of over 900 six sigma team leaders and participants in 20 companies on 200 projects) had experienced these issues?

It doesn't get better on its own. Talking about it works.

When a skillful leader, the study says, created even a MODERATELY safe environment for the team, the likelihood of success increases by 50%-70%.

Hat's off to skillful leaders - we may fix it. If we start by creating safety.

How do we create safety? We are rigorously authentic and engaged and open and empathetic. Many of us hold back from this because it makes us feel vulnerable - but it actually gives us power. If you think of every true leader you can remember, you will remember that they were authentic and they were powerful. Otherwise, we won't follow them. The power originates in the authenticity. We trust those that are honest with us; that share with us. We feel safe with them. Engagement is taking time to understand the other person's point of view - for NO REASON OTHER than to understand it. Openness is being willing to be persuaded based on new information. Empathy is experiencing another person's feelings about something - sharing emotion.

Leading - living - from that mindset is how we create safety.

And that's how we start to fix it. It doesn't get better on its own.




Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication



Scapegoating

I was asked recently about what to do in a situation in which someone is being treated as a scapegoat - being blamed for another's actions. This was posed to me by someone that was watching this take place (a 'third person' point-of-view). That is, they were watching someone else being "scapegoated".

As I analyzed this, I decided that the 'third person' is in a great position to stop the behavior by performing as follows:

  1. Gather FACTS. Make sure that you understand the facts of "who has done what". Work through any differences in the stories that seem to be in conflict with the facts.

  2. Examine the contribution system for the situation. Often we try to focus all the blame on source, which is not useful in problem solving; finding all the contributing sources is the best method for correcting a problem. If everyone truly has contributed to a failure in a given situation, then scapegoating tends to disappear.

  3. Evaluate the relationship between the target and the scapegoater - sometimes there is more at play than is immediately apparent and the conflict is about something else entirely.

  4. If you are convinced that scapegoating is going on, address it head on. Speak about it as the negative behavior that it is. Make it clear that it is not tolerated in healthy groups - it is not what we do. Point it out when it is happening, and make sure that you reinforce the value of taking responsibility in your group. If it is more acceptable to accept responsibility for one's contribution than it is to spread blame, then the behavior will change.

  5. Be vocal about the behavior when you see it even if you are not the target.

  6. Don't have any private dealings with the perpetrator until they renounce the behavior and they stop blaming the target. Mentor them regarding contribution systems and how to see their own contribution in problems.

  7. Make sure that you exhibit respect for all involved; these are human behaviors and are best corrected by praise for doing the right thing and not punishment.

  8. When the behavior stops, get back to normal as soon as you can. People do strange things when they are frightened and scapegoating is one of them. The best way to counteract fear is by building safety around desired behaviors.


In summary, do not tolerate scapegoating! Help the scapegoater (or any blame-oriented teammate) to understand how a contribution system works to make problem solving effective. Help the team to master fixing the problem and not fixing the blame.




Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication



Ben Franklin's Rules of Persuasion

Benjamin Franklin was a very good persuader. His style was to win people over slowly and, often, indirectly. Franklin would say that, if you don't win the bargain today, go after it again tomorrow. His advice on bargaining included:

  1. Be clear, in your own mind, about exactly what you are after.

  2. Do your homework, so that you are fully prepared to discuss every aspect and respond to every question and comment.

  3. Be persistent. Don't expect to "win" the first time. Your first goal is to start the other person's thinking.

  4. Make friends with the person with whom you are bargaining. Put the bargain in terms of their needs and benefits.

  5. Keep your sense of humor.


It is clear that Franklin's model covers many important points. One must have a clear purpose in their business communications, and it is not only prudent but respectful to do sufficient homework so that you understand, believe, and can fully and honestly communicate the merits of the facts as you understand them.

Further we agree that, when one is trying to shift another's ideas, it is best to be patient and persistent. After all, when was the last time you changed YOUR values or beliefs the first time someone challenged them? In those instances in which facilitating change is part of the communication's goal, Ben's ideas are right on target. We might add that the important thing is to get all the information the group has out in the open so that the decisions are well-informed by all available data. The idea is to collaboratively arrive at the "winning" idea.

Franklin's observation about "making friends" is interesting. One of the ways that statement can be read would lead one to think that "making friends" so you can find out what the person values, and then use that knowledge to persuade them is what Franklin had in mind. We would hope that is a misinterpretation of his message. We would hope that the correct interpretation would be to understand what the other person values in order to assure that their needs are considered and embodied in any decisions because we want the best possible outcome for all involved.

Keeping your sense of humor is important, and even MORE important is your sense of curiosity, your openness, and your humility. In a collaborative discussion where the desired outcome will require someone changing their mind, it is important to be as willing to be persuaded as you are willing to persuade. One of the 13 key principles regarding collaborative problem solving developed by Aristotle is the principle of fallibility which states that "in an argument, it is likely that there is only one correct position and there is a possibility that NONE of the positions presented are correct." Yours may be one of those incorrect positions, so stay humble and speak tentatively. Think back to a conversation in which you were SURE you were right, and then one piece of information was shared that changed everything.





Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication



Threats Disguised as Arguments

"The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence." Ayn Rand

"He who strikes the first blow admits he's lost the argument." Chinese Proverb
"How many divisions does the Pope have?" Joseph Stalin

Argument from intimidation (also known as 'Argumentum ad Baculum' or 'Appeal to Force') takes many forms, but boils down to one thing - believe the conclusion, or you will be punished. This argument is fallacious whenever it fails to address the subject at hand (a fallacy of relevance). It is generally, but not always fallacious, however. Physical or emotional threats in the nature of directive discourse or commands are not arguments and so are not fallacies (E.g. "Study hard or your grades will fall.")

An example of a subtly worded ad baculum: "We need a strong military in order to deter our enemies. If you don't support this new spending bill to develop better airplanes, our enemies will think we are weak and, at some point, will attack us - killing millions. Do you want to be responsible for the deaths of millions, Senator?"

Sometimes we are asked to do things that we know we shouldn't do. If the other party resorts to an ad baculum argument, you can be pretty certain that you are being asked to do something you shouldn't, that your participation is needed, and that you will be held responsible should things go badly.

No fallacy, the Appeal to Force included, can give rational reasons to believe a conclusion. This one, however, might give prudential reasons for action. If the threat is credible and bad enough, it might provide reason to act as if you believed it.

Being a fallacy of relevance, the best way to challenge such a fallacy is to challenge its relevance such as; "I understand there are potential risks associated with this decision, like most others; but is there any argument relevant to the MERITS of the case?"




Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication



Common Sense & Plain Dealing

Ralph Waldo Emerson said "Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing."

If there is one critical requirement of high-performance communication, it is authenticity. Being able to create trust and safety so that people can communicate is a key skill, and authenticity is mandatory. In our workshops we go through the methods and tools used to accomplish this.

The purposes of meaningful communications are limited to three choices: understanding the other party, sharing our point of view, or problem solving - many times we do all three. This represents a noticeable shift from how we have learned to hold business conversations, which is usually entails someone selling their idea as a "winning idea". We favor the approach of getting all the ideas out on the table and collaboratively working through the process of developing the best approaches through critical thinking. To support this, and to build safety into the team, we positively manage our relationships with our collaborators - because we all rise and fall on the same tide. We are always willing to be influenced and willing to influence others in constructive ways.

What REALLY astonishes men about "common sense and plain dealing" is the astonishing quality of the resulting decisions and results!




Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication



Seven Deadly Sins

Ashley Cooper, an influential 17th century philosopher, wrote this description of an alternative set of “Seven Deadly Sins”:

  • Truth, if it becomes a weapon against persons.

  • Beauty, if it becomes vanity.

  • Love, if it becomes possessive.

  • Loyalty, if it becomes blind, careless trust.

  • Tolerance, if it becomes indifference.

  • Self-confidence, if it becomes arrogance.

  • Faith, if it becomes self-righteous.


It seems that overdoing a good thing can make it a bad thing! In critical thinking and argumentation, one of the factors in determining the strength (cogency) of an argument is its absence of fallacy. There are many well-defined fallacies, but the most dangerous are those that are true to an extent, but when stretched give a distorted. For instance, one might ask a man what he witnessed at a given event. Another person might caution us against accepting the man’s word, as he is known to drink and is therefore unreliable. While it may be true that a person that has had too much to drink may be an unreliable witness, we haven’t established in the above scenario that the person had drunk too much or even if he had drunk at all; just that he was known to drink. This is an example of an ad hominem (‘against the person’) fallacy that attacks a characteristic of a person (the witness) without addressing the content of the argument (his testimony).

These kinds of fallacies can used to try to persuade us in the absence of facts, or out of innocence by someone that is completely sincere but misguided. It is important to study the key logical fallacies in order to understand how to build strong arguments, and how to test arguments advanced by others.




Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication



Speaking of Sailing…

Dr. Joyce Brothers, psychologist, points out that “There is a rule in sailing where the more maneuverable ship should give way to the less maneuverable craft. I think this is sometimes a good rule to follow in human relations as well.”

It is important to show respect to others that may be having a hard time expressing their thoughts quickly or succinctly on a difficult subject. When someone is having difficulty expressing things, it can be because they are revealing new information – maybe something they haven’t thoroughly thought through yet. Or maybe something that they aren’t sure they can share safely. Criticism or analysis isn’t helpful at this point – patience and interest are. Asking questions to help your partner fully develop the thought or just waiting for their thoughts to develop are good ways to help difficult conversations along. Nothing shows respect like being patient and listening from the point of view of an interested collaborator. Certainly, nothing discourages open communication like judging or criticizing someone’s thoughts even as they are being formed.

The comment reminds me that those of us that study communication have a responsibility to mentor others and help move conversations along by improving the process as well as the content.





Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication



Narrative

Tom Peters, management trainer and business writer, is quoted as saying "The best leaders…almost without exception and at every level are master users of stories and symbols." Of course, he is absolutely right. Using stories (narratives) in business is common - they are one of the six inferences used in argumentation. Narratives are tricky, though, in that they are not considered very strong when used as an inference. They pale in comparison to a hard example, or a strongly correlated relationship. Why? Correlations and examples have roots in the real world, whereas narratives are inexact and usually illustrative. They tend to address the way something "could be" and can seem divorced from the way things "are" unless they are well crafted.

So how does one go about crafting a strong narrative? First, as one always does for an inference, think about the warrant. For a narrative, the warrant is that the story line will play out as described, allowing us to predict an outcome. Given that, here are some thoughts on using narratives.

  • Use them! Use them to inspire and call groups to action. While they aren't among the strongest inference types, they are essential for influence and inspiration. That's why the quote from Tom Peters is right…master storytellers often hold influence because their stories inspire people.

  • A good narrative has a beginning, middle, and an end. It has an arc that the listener can follow. Twists in this kind of story are small or humorous - they don't change direction. The story is coherent; it holds together and is realistic.

  • A thoughtfully prepared narrative has a central conflict and a resolution of that conflict. The conflict is something that the listener can relate to, and is eager to see resolved.

  • A good narrative uses language to which the listener can relate. Not many of us can relate to the inside moves of politics, so it is common that political stories use terms like those in sports (the two teams arrayed in opposition, ready to face off; the handicap that one team may have, but overcomes just in time).

  • It has characters that the listener can easily picture or imagine. Their actions are plausible and consistent. The kindly grandmother character doesn't slay the dragon - that's what the knight does. Otherwise, you're engaged in creative writing, not the inspiration of imagination.

  • Lastly, does it resonate? Can the listener see and imagine it playing out just as you have told it? Dr. David Zarefsky of Northwestern University pointed out in a lecture on this topic that he was reading a couple of novels set in a town with which he was quite familiar. When the novel made reference to places he had been, it had great resonance because he could actually imagine himself there. Steven King, Dean Koontz, and Robert B. Parker are famous for writing about specific geographic areas.


Click here for an example - one of the most inspirational narratives of all times, written as a speech. Also, note the great use of a figure of speech called anaphora (repetition of "we will fight"). All the elements of a great narrative are here and you can feel the effect.

Recap -

  • Best use for a narrative is a vivid, vibrant, inspirational call-to-action

  • Keep it Coherent

  • Promote Plausibility

  • Cultivate Consistent Characterizations

  • Resounding Resonance




Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication