You
can only achieve a successful conversation if you understand what success
means for you and others. People often work together to achieve a succesful
conversation but they don't really understand what the other person wants to
achieve. The end result teeters between a battle of wills as each person
struggles to assert their view of success, or lack-lustre output because no one
has really said what is important for them. If we assume that everyone is
different and has distinct goals and ambitions, then we can understand what real
success is for the people we work and live with.
The
leader of the conversation must understand two primary
types of directional language, the nature of advocacy and inquiry
Advocacy
-- making sure other people know what you want and need by having the
courage to tell them.
Inquiry--
understanding other people's goals, dreams and desires, by showing
consideration and seeking to understand what success means for them.
As
these two dimensions interact we can realize four different types of
conversation patterns:
Selfish
-- an appropriate strategy when you use the conversation as a means to
achieve what you want and ignore other people objectives and feelings.
Squandered
-- the result of low advocacy and inquiry skills. You'll see this in
committee meetings where people just turn up because the diary says
there's a meeting and have a conversation but little or nothing is realized
at the end of the session. It means the companies' resources, including
its managers' time, are squandered.
Subordinate -- where you've spent too much time inquiring and questioning what others want and too little time on what you want out of the conversation.
Shared
-- achieving a balance between: strength and courage to set out just
what's important for you; and enough consideration and care to listen to
others. This requires genuine listening, not just polite nods and smiles.
Unless you're engaged and listening with your heart and your head, you'll
never understand what success really means for the people you're with.
The
nature of a successful conversation has a wide bandwidth of possibilities. The
resolution of a political debate in Parliament is usually viewed as a success.
But is this true when the solution is a fudge to get it through the legislative
and political process? And does this really draw up the politician's
capabilities to enhance the lives of their constituents? The final bill might
simply be a political compromise that satisfies the base needs of each party but
doesn't really help transform and resolve some of the deeper problems that
weaken society. What's missing is a sense of collaboration and synergistic
thinking that takes people's deeper ideas and beliefs and transforms them into
something new and original.
An highly effective conversation will function at the highest shared level level, reaching a synergistic stage where people feel they have won and something new and unique has been created as a result of the conversation. Our goal is to ensure that the conversation operates at a compound level because the true worth of a relationship comes from the ability to create something from nothing. Like investing a pound in a high deposit account and watching it grow effortlessly, investment in compound relationships give a good return on investment.
Compound
conversations are founded on two principles. Exposed advocacy, where
you're prepared to expose your deep personal success criteria and share them
with other people; and empathic inquiry where your goal is to use an inquiry
structure that enables the other person to expose their inner personal success
criteria. Where both principles are employed a shift is made from compromise to
compound success.
Exposed Advocacy
Advocacy
is about putting forth a personal idea or feeling in order to stimulate a
specific outcome. In his book The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge suggests
that advocacy is the ability to solve problems by enlisting support, winning
arguments and getting things done. It is a head-based process where you present
data or logical thought. The head dimension is employed to filter data in and
out of the positioning argument in order to ensure that a win is achieved.
However, exposed advocacy is a process where you attempt to expose your deep
feelings and values to other people to help realize an outcome that satisfies a
deeper set of ambitions and needs. The idea is to retain the head function but
to achieve a sustained shared success based on shared values, principles and
deep desires.
Expose
private wins -- have a clear and focused understanding of what
good means to you. How would you define success from your perspective and
how can you make it clear enough for others to understand?
Discuss
undiscussables -- the essence of exposed advocacy is to surface
the shadow desires, to feel comfortable enough to expose and explain the
deep personal factors that really drive your behaviour to another person
Welcome
debate -- offer the recipients the chance to explore and
understand the ideas being put forward. Unless the other person feels able
to explore the success factors you're aiming for, there is a chance they
won't fully understand what the aims are and how they can be achieved.
So
that shared success does not fall into selfish success where your effort is one
sided with your needs taking pole position, Exposed Advocacy should be balanced
by Empathic Inquiry.
You
probably think you're a good listener. But how good are you at empathic
listening, where the skill is to inquire about the other's person goals by
helping to make the unconscious conscious? Inquiry is a formal process to take
in information, whereas empathic listening is about listening with the heart
without the need to impose your personal interpretations.
Empathic
inquiry means you:
Decide
to listen. This might sound silly, but it's the conscious desire to put the tacit
receptors into gear and to listen with your heart. This is a very specific
and conscious process, not something that simply happens as you're walking
along the corridor chatting with someone.
Manage
the inner voice . Develop a
sense of rapport and put your own needs, thoughts and values temporarily
aside. As we listen to other people describe their goals it's easy for the
inner voice to jump in and challenge or disagree with the statement being
made. Your inner voice must be tightly managed to ensure it doesn't
corrupt the inflow of thoughts and feelings from the other person.
Love
paradox. You must be able to agree with the speaker's wish to achieve a set of
goals, even if you don't agree with the actual goals. This is the art of
listening without prejudice and accepting other people's wishes without
acting as critic.
Manage
air space. You must stay conscious to the balance between listening
and telling as there is always competition for air space. Try to ensure
that the balance is appropriate for the outcome you wish to achieve.
The
shift from a conversation based on compromise to one that is driven be compound
langugae and behavior is based on your ability and desire to take the advocacy
and inquiry dimensions to the limit. If the relationship isn't reaching its full
potential, are you really using the full power of exposed advocacy and empathic
inquiry? Is all your energy and passion focused on extracting from the other
person their personal success criteria and helping them understand your own?
The highest level of interaction is one where the communication between groups of people results in compound outcomes.As people expose their thoughts, ideas and personal patterns, so the level of understanding and knowledge within the room will expand. However, to ensure that the ideas are new from within the group and not just a compromise, there needs to be a concerted effort from all parties to focus on the give-and-take aspects within the relationships.
(c) Mick Cope