CHAPTER 1

Can This Conversation Be Saved?

Communication breakdowns are bad news for our lives and work. At best, they're asource of irritation and frustration. At worst, they can threaten our jobs,families, and friendships—and in some cases, even our health. Researchsuggests that failed communication is one of the leading causes of preventablemedical errors.

The Surprising Common Factor in All Communication Breakdowns

How can we go about improving our conversations? First we need to get clearabout exactly what's going wrong. We can't solve a problem if we don't knowwhat's causing it. However, when it comes to communication problems, the causeis often tricky to spot. Consider the following conversation between a physician(Dr. M) and his patient's daughter (Sarah). As you read it, see if you canfigure out what's causing the trouble between them:

Sarah began by saying, "It's so upsetting to see my father in thiscondition. I know this is not how he'd want to spend the last days of his life."

"I'm very sorry," replied Dr. M, emotionless.

"I think it's finally time to take him off the respirator."

"I can see how you'd feel that way now," said Dr. M, "but this new medicationmay start to improve his quality of life."

"At this point, that's just not enough. He's never going to get to the pointwhere life is worth living again."

"Wouldn't it be better to wait and be certain? I'm sure you want to explore allthe options."

"We've waited so long already," said Sarah, whining now, "and nothing hashelped!"

Still very calm, Dr. M replied, "The morphine has helped to make him morecomfortable, and his breathing seems a little easier today."

"Look," said Sarah, exasperated, "I just can't talk to you about thisanymore!"

What's going on here? What made that conversation so difficult? When we presentthis dialogue in our training sessions, people usually come up with twodifferent types of explanations: blaming the people and blaming the issue. Infact, these are the most common reasons people give for any type ofcommunication failure. Unfortunately, neither explanation is particularlyuseful.

Explanation 1: Blaming the People

If you blamed the problem on Dr. M or on Sarah, you're using the peopleexplanation. From this point of view, communications fail because ofpsychological factors, such as attitudes, emotions, intentions, motivations, orpersonality traits. In the hospital case, we might decide there's somethingwrong with Dr. M (he's cold and insensitive, and doesn't care about Sarah'sconcerns), with Sarah (she's too emotional or too pessimistic), or with both ofthem (they're both too rigid and set in their views).

The psychological perspective has a strong intuitive appeal. It may seem likecommon sense—of course people's bad attitudes, hidden agendas, and ragingemotions ruin conversations; you can probably think of a few examples off thetop of your head. However, this type of thinking also leaves us in a bind, withno good way to solve our problems.

Suppose you decide that the real trouble with your communication is someoneelse's defensiveness or overemotional reaction. That's not something you havethe power to control. In fact, if you try to control it and force the person tochange, you're likely to make things worse. If you don't believe us, ask anybodywho's tried to resolve an argument by saying things like, "Stop being sodefensive," "Calm down," or "You need to relax." (Imagine what would havehappened if Dr. M told Sarah to be more rational, or if she told him to showsome feeling.) Moreover, even if it were possible to make someonechange—perhaps by convincing them to get coaching or go intotherapy—that's a long-term process. It's not an efficient strategy formaking your conversations work better right now.

Sometimes it may seem as though the only solution is to get the difficult personout of your life—quit your job, fire your employee, seek a divorce, and soon. Even if you haven't gone through this type of thought process yourself, youlikely know people who have. You probably know more than one person who's actedon that reasoning, only to end up having the very same conflicts a few monthslater in their new job or new relationship. And of course, it's often notpossible to exclude someone from your life. In our example, so long as Dr. M iscaring for Sarah's father, they have no choice but to talk to one another.

The Usual Suspects

When a conversation fails, it's easy to blame:

The people. Difficult personalities, motivations, or emotional states

The topics. Touchy issues and irreconcilable differences

Explanation 2: Blaming the Topics

If you don't blame a communication breakdown on the people, you might be temptedto blame it on the topics being discussed. Perhaps some topics are socontentious or emotionally charged that a certain amount of frustration—oreven bitter fighting—is simply inevitable. From this perspective, nobodyis to blame because no better result was possible. The conversation was doomedfrom the outset.

Sarah's conversation with Dr. M, evaluating whether or not her father's life isworth living, certainly falls into the category of highly charged topics. Thequestion of taking a person off life support can stir up a lot of controversyand moral outrage, even when the person involved is a stranger. It's easy to seehow this contentious issue could be a big part of the problem.

Unfortunately, that explanation gets us no closer to finding a solution than thepeople-blaming approach. When you identify the subject matter as the source ofyour trouble, you're basically admitting defeat. There may be some difficultconversations you can simply avoid. For instance, you could decide not to talkabout religion when you're around a particular colleague, or to avoid politicaldebates with your parents. But much of the time, avoidance is not an option.Whenever you have a real problem you need to resolve—your employee ismaking costly mistakes, your department is facing tough layoff decisions, yourspouse is threatening to leave you, one of your kids has started using drugs, oryour dying father is suffering in the hospital—sidestepping the issuewon't make it go away.

Explanation 3: The Real Reason Why Conversations Fail

Focusing on who's talking or what they're talking about doesn't just leave uswithout solutions. It also distracts us from the true cause of communicationproblems: how people are talking to one another. We can understand whyany conversation succeeds or fails just by listening for the particularcombinations of words and voice tones that are being used—thecommunication behaviors.

The Hidden Culprit

All communication breakdowns can be explained in terms of one common factor:

Behavior. The specific combinations of words and voice tones people areusing

Whatever message you're trying to get across, the communication behaviors youuse will have a strong impact on the way your message gets received. You canthink of communication behaviors as the packages that carry our ideas out intothe world. Often we're so focused on the content of what we're saying that we'recompletely unaware of the package we're sending it in. We fail to notice thatour brilliant idea is wrapped up in the conversational equivalent of a stinkbomb or a sign that says "kick me"—making it highly unlikely that ourmessage is going to come across in the way we intend. (See the followingsidebar for an example from a business context.)

Failure to understand this sort of effect can also cause trouble when we're onthe receiving end of somebody else's message; we may be so distracted by thepackaging that we can't see the valuable information it's carrying. Forinstance, it's extremely difficult to take in feedback that's given in the formof a hostile accusation or sarcastic jab, even when that feedback couldpotentially be very useful.

Change Your Behavior, Change Your Results

Say you'd like to hire a new administrative support person, but you're not surewhether your manager would support the idea. There are many different behaviorsyou could use to express your thoughts:

• "Everyone here is working so hard, and day after day we get more overloaded."(Complaint)

• "I know you're going to say we can't afford to hire more staff." (Negativeprediction)

• "I realize that finances are tight right now, but hiring more administrativehelp would free us up to take on more projects and bring in more money." (Yes-but)

• "Don't you think we could use some more help around the office?" (Leadingquestion)

• "The amount of overtime my team is working has doubled during the past threemonths." (Fact)

• "I suggest we take a look at the budget and see if we can afford to hire anadministrative support person." (Proposal)

• "If we could find enough money in the budget to bring a new support person onboard, would you support that decision?" (Narrow question)

It makes a big difference which of those statements or questions you use. Whilesome may help get you approval for a new hire, others are more likely to get youinto an argument.

Let's return to our hospital scenario. When we look at the behaviors that eachperson used, we can see exactly why the conversation went downhill. In thecourse of this book, you'll learn to recognize the six patterns of behaviorsthat most frequently cause breakdowns in communication. All of them occurred inthis one brief dialogue:

1. Yes-buts. Token agreement followed by a different idea.

Dr. M: I can see how you'd feel that way now, but this new medication maystart to improve his quality of life.

2. Mind-reads. Assumptions about someone else's thoughts or feelings,stated as a fact.

Dr. M: I'm sure you want to explore all the options.

3. Negative predictions. Negative speculations about the future, statedas a fact.

Sarah: He's never going to get to the point where life is worth livingagain.

4. Leading questions. Questions that make it obvious what the rightanswer is supposed to be.

Dr. M: Wouldn't it be better to wait and be certain?

5. Complaints. Frustrated, whining, or resentful comments implying thatpeople or circumstances are unfair.

Sarah (whining): We've waited so long already and nothing has helped!

6. Attacks. Venting of strong negative feelings in a hostile or blamefulway.

Sarah: Look, I just can't talk to you about this anymore!

With this perspective, it's easy to understand why Sarah and Dr. M ran intoproblems. The behaviors they used are enough to cause trouble in anycommunication. What's more, we can now see a clear path to making someimprovements. There's no need to avoid the topic or change anyone's personality.All that's needed is a shift in behavior.

How Bad Conversations Turn Good

This book will give you the tools to turn around all of the most common types ofdifficult conversations, whether they're driven by mind-reads or yes-buts orverbal attacks. If Sarah or Dr. M had possessed these skills, their conversationprobably would have gone in a more positive direction. Here's one possibility:

Sarah: It's so upsetting to see my father in this condition. I knowthis is not how he'd want to spend the last days of his life.

Dr. M (with feeling): I'm really sorry. I hear how difficult this isfor you.

Sarah: It is so hard. I'm starting to think it's finally time totake him off the respirator.

Dr. M: Many people consider that option when several differenttreatments have failed, and they start to lose hope. Are you feeling thatway?

Sarah: Yes, I am. I'm feeling totally hopeless and also feelingguilty. I don't want to prolong his life just to save me from the grief oflosing him.

Dr. M: I can see how hard it is to face all these decisions, notreally knowing what's going to be best for your father.

Sarah: I just don't know what to do.

Dr. M: We do have a support group here to help family members dealwith these types of issues. It sometimes helps people to know they're not goingthrough it alone. Is that something that would interest you?

Sarah: I'm not really comfortable in groups, but I could use someoneto talk to.

Dr. M: Our support services department could set up an individualcounseling session for you. Would you like me to connect you with them?

Sarah: I'd really appreciate that. Thank you.

Dr. M: Great. I'll do that. And as you prepare to make a decision, Iwant to be sure you have accurate information about your father's new medicationand the types of effects it can have. Is now a good time to discuss that?

Sarah: Sure. Go ahead.

Dr. M: All right, let me tell you what the studies show ...

Can you tell what changed? You may have noticed that Dr. M's side of theconversation sounded quite different. Be careful how you think about thatdifference. It can be tempting to go back to focusing on psychological factors,thinking that Dr. M must have changed his attitude (becoming more open-minded),his emotional state (feeling more compassionate), or his motivation (attemptingto help Sarah, rather than just push his own views). He may have done any or allof these things, but that doesn't tell us why the communication went well.Plenty of caring people, with all the best intentions, have conversations thatfail miserably. What turned things around was a change in Dr. M'sbehavior—what he actually did. This is a key point to remember:Intentions alone do not change conversations. Actions changeconversations.

Dr. M did very specific things that helped show Sarah that he understood herconcerns and was receptive to hearing what she had to say. For instance, insteadof arguing with yes-buts and leading questions, he mirrored her emotions ("Ihear how difficult this is for you") and asked straightforward, nonleadingquestions ("Would you like me to connect you with them?" "Is now a good time todiscuss that?"). Starting out in this way also left Sarah more receptive tohearing his ideas about the new medication.

Now, Dr. M is not the only one with the power to transform this conversation.Remember that when he yes-butted Sarah in the original dialogue, she repliedwith a negative prediction. A more skillful response might have led to a muchbetter outcome:

Dr. M: I can see how you'd feel that way now, but this newmedication may start to improve his quality of life.

Sarah: So you're saying you think this new medication may make adifference for him. How big a difference?

Dr. M: If he responds well to the drug, it could extend his life forseveral months. It could also allow him to return home, as long as he had 24-hour care available.

Sarah: Wow, that could make a huge difference to Dad. He's alwayssaid he'd rather spend his final days at home. How long will it be before youknow if it's working?

Dr. M: Most people respond within a few days, but it could take upto two weeks to know for sure. I'll check in with you every day to let you knowwhat's happening.

Sarah: Thank you! This is the first sign of hope we've had in a longtime.

Again, what made the difference here were not just intentions, but actions. Themost natural response to being yes-butted is to argue back. It takes skill toresist doing that and try something else instead. What Sarah did was toparaphrase Dr. M ("You think this new medication may make a difference for him")and ask a question ("How big a difference?"). By using this approach, she notonly avoided an argument but also gained important information that helped easeher distress and give her new hope.

Part of our aim in this book is to give new hope to you, the reader. Once youunderstand the factors that cause your conversations to succeed or fail, it ispossible to dramatically improve them, even in situations where the people andissues you're facing seem overwhelmingly difficult. We've seen it happenhundreds of times, in families, couples, and all sorts of organizations. Evenafter a discussion begins to go downhill (for instance, with Dr. M's yes-but),there's almost always a way to turn things around.

In fact, some of the most successful and transformative conversations start outwith whining complaints, defensiveness, snide remarks, or personal attacks. Whatmatters is that at some point, someone takes the initiative to do somethingdifferent. That someone can always be you. At any moment in a conversation, fromany position in the conversation, you have the power to intervene and change thecourse of events. You just have to know how.

(Continues...)