In preparation for a complex communication, it is important to articulate the purpose of the communication. If we start a conversation without really understanding what we want from it, it often turns out that we are focused on the problem and only show the accumulated irritation. No wonder we can not change the situation, and if we can – only for the worse. What to do, we understand together with the book “Emotional Intelligence in complex communications.
So much for talking
…
Few people think that defining the goal of complex communication is not easy. Very often, when formulating the purpose of a conversation, people use words like “discuss” or “talk.”
From this point of view, any communication, if it has taken place, is already successful! After all, we have already talked.
And it does not matter that we did not like the result of this conversation … This formulation of the goal leads to the fact that afterwards we feel that this conversation is a rather wasteful communication, for which we have wasted time. In other words, we discussed and talked about something for a long time, but never really got around to it. Good thing we didn’t quarrel yet.
There we have
persuaded
…
Another common formulation of the aim of communication uses the word “persuade” in one form or another: “insist”, “persuade”, “deliver”, “explain”, and so on
. In principle, communication rarely succeeds in persuading anyone of anything, much less in persuading someone to change their mind.
If we are planning to have a difficult conversation, a conversation in a conflict situation, then we would venture to assume that this is not the first time we have communicated about it. Most likely, on previous occasions we also intended to persuade the interlocutor to accept our point of view, but so far nothing has come of it. Obviously, to do the same and expect different results is at least strange – Einstein said this already. (The scientist is credited with the phrase “the greatest folly is to do the same thing hoping for a different result.”)
How then to formulate a goal?
To formulate the goal of complex communication, we suggest using the following formula: after we talk, who will do what?
And we should formulate it with verbs expressing the most concrete actions.
What is good about this formula? It forces us to think about the real changes we want to bring about by our conversation. Often this is not at all obvious. Let’s explain with a few examples.
A lean project manager articulates the goal of a conversation with a supervisor in production: “After I talk, he will become more committed to lean manufacturing.”
Do you see a verb expressing a specific action here? Correct, you do not see it, because it is not here. And this raises the question: how can the initiator of the communication make sure that he has achieved his goal? What should happen? Does this leader have to beat his chest and say, “Now I understand everything and agree with everything”? Will there be a twinkle in his eye? By what criteria will we measure his commitment?
Perhaps in some conversations it would be enough to simply ask at the end, “Do you agree?” or “Have I succeeded in convincing you?” or “Tell me what you disagree with?” And thus conduct a target check.
What happens in this case is that the production manager nods at the end of each conversation and says, “Yes, of course I agree,” but nothing changes. And what should change in his behavior when he becomes committed? For example, he gathers all his employees and conducts with them one of the procedures required in lean manufacturing.
When the specific change we want to achieve is clear, the purpose of the communication also becomes quite obvious. In our case: “After we talk, the supervisor will schedule a meeting with the subordinates and conduct the procedure in question with them.” This means that at the end of the conversation the participants are likely to record an agreement on when and how this procedure will be carried out.
Another example.
The supervisor says, “I need to inform the probationary employee that he or she is not currently achieving the required performance measures.”
Question: why? (In most cases, if we want to inform someone about something, why do we need to schedule a face-to-face conversation at all? Why not just get by with an email or messenger message?
If for some reason we realize that we can’t just take it and write about it in an email, then we intuitively feel that the purpose of the communication is not just to inform. We just haven’t had time to think about it and formulate it properly.
So, why does the manager want to inform the employee that he is not yet doing the required amount of work during his probationary period? What does he want? For the employee to pull himself together and become more efficient? Or does he want to set the stage for dismissal? Obviously, these would be two different conversations.
Yes, it can look that way as meticulous prescribing. That said, it is the “meticulous prescribing” that helps you to be more specific about the outcome criteria – not only for yourself, but also for your interlocutor.
If you are the initiator of the communication, you need to achieve something as a result, then it is your task to make sure that the other person unambiguously understands what you mean and what you want from him/her. The lack of specificity and the expectation that the other person, if he or she is smart and good, will somehow understand what you want from him or her, is probably the most common cause of conflict and miscommunication.
From the book Emotional Intelligence in Complex Communications.
The post Secrets of communication: how and why to formulate a goal before negotiations appeared first on Business.
