Most people, it seems, talk more than listen. They want to be heard, want to make their point. But don’t we all respond better to someone who listens to us? Really listens, so that we feel that we are actually understood? The difference is profound.

It is important advice to remember in discussions where there are different points of view, such as with people from different departments in a company. In fact, this is where our client usually found the reminder most helpful. A company’s president, CFO, head of HR, and head of marketing typically have a very different points of view about issues that affect the company.

The advice is important in negotiation. Rather than just pressing for what you want, if you first understand what is most important to the party you are negotiating with, you may well be able to come to an agreement that gives you both more of what you want.

The advice is important in personal relationships. Many arguments stem from a simple misunderstanding. Mismatched expectations or underlying assumptions are often the problem. Rather than reacting to what was said, if we seek first to understand what the other person expects and assumes, the conversation may not turn into an argument at all.

Being a marketing guy, I’ve found that this great advice is rarely considered in marketing or in sales. Most companies’ marketing reflects the company’s point of view rather than the customers’. But we know that isn’t effective. Prospective customers want to know what the product or service will do for them, not just what it will do. They want to know how what the company offers meets their needs, relieves their pain, or fulfills their desires. They want to know why they should deal with that company, not just why the company thinks its offerings are worth buying.

Here is a sales example: Let’s say you are shopping for tires. The salesman tells you all about the latest performance tires that look cool and really hug the curves. But if you are interested in tires that will last the longest, guess what? He has lost you.

If he pushes the latest “in” thing like tires have the lowest profile, and you are interested in tires that give a comfortable ride or have the best safety rating, he has lost you.

But, if he seeks first to understand what is important to you rather than just telling you what he think is sales-worthy, he can connect with you. And probably sell you some tires.

By seeking first to understand, we can then communicate more readily with the people in our lives, and, in business, with clients and customers.

Understand?

Photo by maldiviandude.

No related posts.

Despite their differences, the two boys become friends across the barbed-wire fence that separates their two worlds.

Based on the stories they hear from the adults in their lives, Bruno (the General’s son) says that he and Shmuel (the Jewish boy) are supposed to be enemies. You can see Bruno wrestling with this concept starting at the 6 minute 49 second mark in the video with this post.

This movie is set in a time filled with racism and violence. A time when the differences between us became much more important than the similarities. And, I wonder, have people really changed? Have we gotten better? Or, are we just better at hiding our thoughts that condemn others because they are different from us?

As we work to collaborate, build teams, forge relationships, and work with others; can we get past our differences? Is different necessarily bad? Do we all have to look, act, and think the same? Is there room for differences in our relationships? Can we work for common good despite them?

Just because we might be different, are we really supposed to be enemies?

No related posts.

Instinctively he reacts in one of two ways:

1. Stepping Back (saying little, going blank-faced, silent or even walking away) or
2. Escalating Up (counter-attacking, speaking louder, standing closer).

It’s instinctual – beyond our conscious choice. These are rapid, thin slices of gut reactions and responses. The charged air change happens in milliseconds. We’ve already made each other wrong.

Worse, we know it is easier to escalate up into conflict rather than over into connection – and more likely to end badly. That happens because our primitive brain is wired for survival.

Put more bluntly, self-protection trumps happiness or helpfulness in the sequence of gut instinctual reactions. Yet we can reduce the fear response and increase our ability to make connection, even in times of potential conflict. With practice, these steps have helped me, with this caveat: One can be convincing without being right.

“There is no greater mistake than the hasty conclusion that opinions are worthless because they are badly argued.” ~ Thomas Huxley

Unless I fairly state his position first, he and bystanders will instinctively doubt mine.

The most likely way to change your mind or his is to:

1. Slow down your responses, especially when you feel like acting more rapidly.
2. Speak to his positive intent, especially when you feel like maligning his motives.
3. Re-state his view fairly, completely, without negative, emotion-laden descriptors As the author of Trust Me, Nick Morgan advises, “You have to argue the other side’s case on its own merits. To forestall criticism and avoid inflaming a debate further, understand and be ready to give the other side’s position. Fairly. First. And forthrightly.”
4. Ask for confirmation that you got it right, listen fully to his response and then confirm you hear any modifications he suggested.
5. Then and only then can you state your position and expect to be heard.
6. Brevity is better. It is less likely you’ll be interrupted and more likely you’ll be understood. (This is a point I struggle to practice.)
7. Ask others to comment. That’s when you see your stand through their eyes.  In so doing, you will know how to address what most matters to them. You may change how you feel about the issue.

“Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi

There’s an added benefit in taking this approach.

You are strengthening the thread of conversation – so others are more inclined to keep talking about the issue rather than getting sidetracked.  I called this Triangling in a book I wrote long ago, Getting What You Want. When two people can focus on the issue in front of them (the third point in the triangle) rather than on each other’s reactions, then it becomes safer to talk about the issue. You may feel less instinctual need to attack the other person or defend yourself.

Bottom line benefits: Afterwards, you may like yourself and the other person better.

Plus with this approach:

1. It is easier to stay calm and in the conversation.
2. Everyone has a greater chance of being heard rather than feeling attacked.
3. You are more likely to sway others and to be open to change.
4. Rather than being destroyed, relationships may even be strengthened.

No related posts.

In recent years, society has all but relegated the pursuit of the collective interest to the world “as it ought to be,” a pursuit given lip service at religious services, political rallies, and during half time at sporting events as coaches try to motivate their teams.  Meanwhile, we have grown to accept self-interest as the real world of making a living and paying the bills, and of running a political machine.  The thought that, outside their own immediate families, people are motivated by anything other than ambition and greed is considered naïve.  To see the world as fundamentally Machiavellian is considered rational.

The problem with these assumptions is not only that they are simplistic and misleading, but that by accepting them as factual, we perpetuate a tyranny of low expectations, and we fail to employ other levers for cooperation and human advancement that are at our disposal.

Humans are an obligatorially gregarious species, meaning that we have always lived in social structures in which our survival is heavily dependent on one another.  According to the “social brain hypothesis,” the driving force behind the evolution of enhanced intelligence was the need to manage the intricate social bonds that kept us alive.  The line of hominids that led to us branched off on its own distinctive path as much as seven million years ago.  During 99.9 percent of that vast expanse of time, the interest of the individual and the interest of the family or tribe were so tightly intertwined as to be almost indistinguishable.  Even if a brutal egoist could survive for a while at the expense of those around him, without a healthy and sustainable framework of social bonds to protect them, rarely if ever would his heirs live long enough to reproduce.  Thus the genes that survived as part of our biological heritage are heavily biased toward the formation and attentive maintenance of human attachments and collective efforts.  That is evidenced by how social context “gets under our skin” in profound ways: Loneliness, for instance, can alter the DNA transcription in your immune cells.

I don’t buy the justifications for greed, either from the school of “rational self interest,” or from the “they’re all a bunch of crooks” school that simply abdicates responsibility and looks the other way. Top down efforts to constrain self-interested behavior—legal sanctions and moral codes—can only do so much.  The most effective lever for improving human behavior is bottom up: it lies in what we as individuals envy, expect, accept, and celebrate.

– John T. Cacioppo and William Patrick

No related posts.

These descriptors almost universally come from clearly observable behaviors, thought processes, or attitudes common to a group of people. In and of themselves, most descriptors are neutral – neither good nor bad. It is what we do with them and how we use them that determines their worth and value relationally.

For example, I am a man and my wife is a woman. I have read many books and articles, listened to many audio programs, and attended many workshops in an effort to learn what I need to learn to make our relationship as powerful and dynamic as possible. In nearly twenty years of marriage and after many efforts to understand this other human in my life, I have come to two startling conclusions:

1. In general, men and women do not process information the same way. They do not tend to see the world through the same lens, interact with people in the same way, or have the same emotional needs.
2. No matter how hard I try, my wife will not think the way that I do and I will not think the way that she does.

There, I said it. Men and women are different.

Now, what do I do with this information?

I see two clear options. One, I can label, classify, and put my wife in the “woman” box so that the word “woman” becomes a label on her and her approach to life. Or two, I can use the  “statistical norm” that describes the female perspective to create a reference frame for entering her world to understand her in a deeper and better way.

The first approach leads to stereotyping, criticizing and tolerating the other person. In my experience, I have never met someone who wanted to be stereotyped, criticized, or tolerated.

The second approach leads me to use what I have learned about the “typical” female perspective to discuss things with my wife. (No, I do not believe that there is a “typical” female response. I am using this phrase very lightly, and just to make a point.) Based on this understanding of how women often interpret a situation, I can engage in conversation and dialogue with my wife to better understand her unique perspective. I use the “statistical norm” describing the general female perspective to help me understand how we might see a situation differently. Understanding the general differences gives me a lens to see into her world rather than to reach a judgment of her.

As we work, interact, and communicate with others, understanding our differences can help us to connect at a deeper level. Using this understanding to build bridges to others rather than to label and judge others creates a positive environment where we can move past tolerance to celebration.

Related posts:

1. We Have To Find A Way To Make This Work
2. Seek First to Understand