The morning I finished reading Charles Duhigg’s Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret of Language Connection, I was unaware that a potentially difficult conversation was coming that afternoon. It was the thesis of this book, know what type of conversation you’re having, that saved me.
In an earlier blog, I wrote about determining whether someone wants to be helped, heard or hugged. Recently, I wrote about the pitfalls of doling out unsolicited advice. You can’t know what another person wants from a discussion unless you ask or listen very carefully. In Supercommunicators, Duhigg identifies three conversational goals: practical, how we feel, and who we are.
A practical conversation is exactly what you’d expect. Many of our daily interactions at home and at work are this type. Examples: who is picking up the groceries or the kids, how the department will address a complaint or when a meeting can be scheduled.
A how we feel conversation is an empathetic exchange to enhance mutual understanding. It’s my opinion that these are some of the most satisfying dialogues. We tend to feel a bond when we discuss values, emotions, and what’s important to us. But wanting to share on this level when the other person has a practical agenda in mind makes for a disappointing interaction.
The who we are conversation is about social identities and commonalities. These are the “getting to know you” chats that open the door to further exploration. Examples: where we live, professions, hobbies, sports teams or any number of demographics. Finding similarities sparks what could develop into a more meaningful relationship.
It was an understanding of these conversational purposes that paid off several hours after I finished reading the book. A third party had reported that an acquaintance was angry with me. If you’ve read my blogs or the book Work Jerks, you know I don’t subscribe to triangulation, so I contacted the individual directly to set up a time to meet. Based on the informant’s story, I expected to have a how we feel conversation with the purportedly aggrieved person. But when we met, that wasn’t their agenda at all. I quickly understood they wanted a practical conversation, a “here’s what you need to know” talk. I tested the emotional waters by asking if we were okay, to which I received a puzzled look before they returned to their message. Since fishing for feelings yielded nothing, I let it go and followed their lead. As we were wrapping up, I mentioned I’d had previous experience with the topics they’d addressed. “We have more in common than I thought!” was their delighted response, a who we are or shared social identity moment.
Truthfully, I was relieved there was no relationship repair required, especially since I had no idea there was a problem. The episode was another reminder that triangulated messages are completely unreliable. My conversational partner signaled their agenda right off and the information proved useful, the relationship was fine, and we found we had experiences in common. If I’d insisted on moving into a how we feel conversation, we would have gone down the rabbit hole of who’d said what about whom. Whew, bullet dodged.
You, too, might want to remember Duhigg’s three conversational purposes: practical, how we feel, who we are. Here are some other things to keep in mind:
More than one goal can be addressed as a discussion unfolds.
You can’t assume all parties have the same idea of what needs to be discussed even if the reason for meeting appears to be obvious.
If you aren’t committed to a specific agenda, feel free to go with the flow. But if you have expectations, it’s vital that you express yourself. Don’t wait for someone to read your mind, state what you want directly.
Clarify what they want by asking them. The alternative is to listen and notice how they steer the conversation to meet their needs.
There are few books on general communication that ring my bell but Charles Duhigg’s Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret of Language Connection is one that does. It’s a great combination of being grounded in the research and providing an approach that can be applied immediately. I enthusiastically endorse it—check it out!
Comments