How to Tell Anyone Anything

Breakthrough Techniques for Handling Difficult Conversations at Work

Richard Gallagher

• Publisher: AMACOM
• Year: 2009
• Print ISBN: 9780814410158
• eBook ISBN: 9780814410165
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Workplace Culture
• Index: Business

No one likes to be criticized, but this book teaches the communication skills needed to successfully get the message across while keeping feelings and relationships intact.

Drawing from the latest in psychology on how best to connect with others, How to Tell Anyone Anything steers you away from the common mistake of providing feedback by focusing on what’s wrong and shows you instead how to provide clear, constructive positive messages that create real behavior and performance change.

You’ll learn how to:

• be more candid,
• prioritize relationships,
• ask important questions,
• reframe difficult messages,
• control your emotions,
• and be graceful when you’re on the receiving end of difficult feedback.

Complete with illuminating examples and a unique step-by-step process, How to Tell Anyone Anything gives you powerful insight into how we all react naturally to criticism--and how to transform interactions that might become verbal tugs-of-war into collaborative problem-solving sessions.

Section II

The CANDID Approach in Detail

CHAPTER 3

Compartmentalize Your Message: The Neutral Zone

Compartmentalizing your message doesn't just focus on what you say. Instead, it involves taking the issue you want to deal with, unpacking and spreading it out in front of you, separating it into its safe and unsafe parts, and only then, creating a neutral opening that will get you into dialogue with the other person. You do it with a pencil and paper, and not with your emotions. It is a very different and very effective way of looking at a difficult conversation with someone. Let's break down the mechanics of how it works.

STEP 1: UNPACKING THE DIALOGUE

Let's take an example. You work in a machine shop, and everyone works hard and does their share—except for Slowpoke Smith off in the back corner. He is, at best, half as productive as everyone else. He's been there for a long time, back before people started measuring productivity in any kind of meaningful way. He has lots of great war stories and is “one of the guys,” but he drags down the performance of the whole shop.

First, let's look at how most people would probably approach this dialogue. They would probably start by telling ol’ Slowpoke that he needs to pick up the pace. Or perhaps that he needs to pick up the pace or else. While I am not particularly clairvoyant, I'll bet that I can predict his responses.

• “I've been doing this since before you were born.”
• “It's the fault of these dadgum new machines. They are too complicated.”
• “This used to be a nice place to work, but ever since you started managing us, you want to squeeze every penny of extra profit out of us. We're just like your equipment.”
• “I'm interested in quality, not quantity.”
• “The only time you pay any attention to us old timers is to hassle us to do more work.”

Meanwhile, the one thing you were hoping he would say—namely, “Golly, I should start working harder”—somehow never makes it into the conversation. And far too often, this kind of stalemate continues until you give up or he gets fired.

Now let's try a different approach. Take the whole issue, unpack it into its component parts, and lay it all out in front of you. Take your time and think through all of the facets of it, from both your perspective and his. Most important, have a pencil (or a word processor) in hand when you do this, and don't hold back on writing down anything that comes to mind. Start with what you think about the other person, his good and bad points in this situation, and where his interests are. If you do that in the case we just described above, here are some of the things that might end up on your sheet:

• He is slow.
• He has been here for a long time.
• He did not like the new machines we installed.
• He will be retiring in a few years.
• He likes to socialize rather than work.
• He files union grievances at the drop of a hat.
• He has had some good ideas for making products better.
• His quality is good overall.
• His co-workers are frustrated because they feel we let him get away with goofing off.
• He is proud of what he does for a living.

Don't stop there. Now look in the mirror, think about how you feel, and keep writing. Some of the things that might end up on your sheet about yourself might include the following:

• I am concerned about productivity. Competitors are always squeezing our margins.
• I am concerned about morale and turnover.
• Sometimes I push too hard on people, and don't get the results I want.
• I don't just want to make a buck, I want this place to be a good job for everyone.
• I don't like to play favorites.

By now, you should hopefully have a pretty good list. More important, you have a pretty good overview of how both of you might see this situation. Now, go down this list and decide which things are safe to talk about, and which things are not.

Slowpoke's tenure? That's pretty safe. He is very proud of that. And his quality is something he takes a lot of pride in as well. His productivity? That isn't quite so safe. And the way other co-workers see him? That probably isn't safe at all.

Now, how about you? Your concerns about morale and a good working environment are pretty safe because they are ultimately in Slowpoke's interest. Ditto being fair to everyone. On the other hand, your concerns about profitability are a gray area. You could unpack that a little further into a concern about making sure people keep their jobs, which is safe, and a concern for making more profit, which may not be so safe, particularly among employees who feel they are being pressured to work harder.

So what first seemed like a very difficult problem—namely, trying to get a crotchety old timer to pick up his pace—suddenly has all sorts of safe places to start. And more important, lots of unsafe places to avoid. You can see very clearly, in black and white, what kinds if issues will get Smith talking, and above all, which ones will not.

Now here is the punchline to this exercise: Yes, you are going to eventually talk about the unsafe parts of this situation. You simply aren't going to discuss them first. Unlike most people, you will focus on the safe parts first and the unsafe parts later. We'll discuss that step in the process in a later chapter, but for now, compare these two opening statements.

How most people start the conversation:

“Gee, Smith, you are really slow and always talking with people. We need you to work harder and save your socializing for after hours.”

How you will start the conversation, in a safe place:

“You've been doing this for a long time, and your quality is better than a lot of people. Could you walk me through the process you use when you manufacture a new tool?”

Do you notice a difference between how Smith will probably respond to these two statements? And more important, is there a difference to how you feel? Does a scary conversation suddenly seem a little less scary? Good. This is exactly what we want to see.

No matter what it is, every situation has safe and unsafe parts. The safe parts are those areas of interest and agreement for the other person, while the unsafe parts are clearly areas of criticism or disagreement. The following ideas will help you start thinking about these safe parts.

1. Does the other person have an agenda that relates to the issue? For example, when someone is difficult to work with, she may be highly invested in her way of doing things. Similarly, someone who dresses poorly may have strong ideas about being more casual in a work setting. In both cases, discussing how they feel about things may represent a safe place to start.

2. How does the other person feel about the situation? For example, if the other person is in conflict with someone, his side of the story is probably far and away the safest part of the dialogue. Likewise, if another person disagrees with you, she will usually be more than happy to share more details about why she feels that way.

3. What motivates the other person? Suppose that someone couldn't care less about how he is doing his job. A discussion about the potential to earn more money, feel more secure in their position, or a question about how they are doing in general, might be a better place to start thinking about this issue. Conversely, when someone puts a great deal of emphasis on personal or career success, this could be an appropriate lead-in for discussing behaviors that are keeping her from reaching her potential.

4. What things are sources of pride for the other person? When things make other people proud of themselves, they can be a great place to start provided they relate to the issue at hand. For example, someone who has a problem with anger may also be proud of his intensity, while someone who is slow and plodding may value her attention to detail. We will devote a whole chapter later to the subject of reframing people's behaviors, but for now, ask yourself what the other person values about him- or herself.

5. Are there “hot buttons” you should avoid? “Don't talk to her about that” is often a code phrase for situations where trying to discuss a specific issue leads to hostility and defensiveness. I would like to reframe this as a situation where no one has yet had a safe discussion about this issue with this person, one that ultimately speaks to her interests as well as everyone else's. So hold the thought for now that you may yet be able to have a productive, neutral, factual discussion on this issue, as long as you do not start out by pressing a hot button.

Even really bad situations have safe places to start the dialogue. For example, hopefully you never have to question someone who has been arrested for a crime, but good police officers will tell you that an effective formal interrogation often starts with understanding what is going on in the other person's head and then speaking to it. For example, instead of focusing on the crime first, the officer might begin by asking the person in custody if things have been tough for him lately. This may feel funny or even wrong to some people (after all, this person is a suspected criminal under arrest) but the question is, is your objective to get them talking or make them clam up and get defensive?

In general, it does feel funny to speak to another person's agenda, but as we walk through the process of managing a difficult dialogue, you will learn that it gives you more power, more influence, and less resistance than the old, blunt, painful way of giving feedback. This is why you need to start ignoring that little voice that tells you that speaking to another person's interests equates to being soft, and start learning where these safe places will lead you in the overall course of the discussion.

Perhaps the most important thing about these safe places is that they come from the situation itself—which means that you can use them to get into dialogue right away about this situation, which in turn is a key goal of a painless discussion. When faced with an uncomfortable subject, the majority of us either blurt out our concerns, or we decide to start the discussion with something “nice” to say: We talk about the weather, ask the other person about their kids, or compliment them about their work.

I don't want you to beat around the bush like this, for two very important reasons. First, the other person will often sense your discomfort and see through your “nice” intro, leaving you with the worst of both worlds: She will start to feel defensive, and yet have no idea what you are about to say. Second, once you snap the other person back to reality by shifting to an unpleasant topic, you are often poisoning the well for future casual dialogue, by setting up an expectation in the other person that a “yeah, but” may be lurking in the background.

This is why I want you to start your discussion totally on topic, and stay there until it reaches a conclusion. I want you to be honest, authentic, and yet aware of the other person's thoughts, feelings, hopes, and dreams at the same time. Above all, I want you to get comfortable with the idea that even the most sensitive subjects have a place where you can both agree to start talking.

Now, let's look at how you work the safe parts of this problem in a neutral opening that comfortably gets you both into dialogue.

STEP 2: CREATING A NEUTRAL OPENING

Let's recap. So far, you have examined the situation, ideally with a pen or keyboard in hand. You have broken it down into the parts that are safe and unsafe to talk about. The one thing you haven't done yet is open your mouth. So your next step from here is to take these safe things and use them to form an opening statement to the other person that I call the Neutral Zone.

Once you have established what things are safe and unsafe to talk about, creating the Neutral Zone can actually be a surprisingly straightforward process. This is because while there are more different kinds of situations with people than most of us could count, there are a limited number of ways to safely engage people on any of these topics. As we mentioned in the previous chapter, we could boil down the mechanics of a good neutral opening into one of four basic forms:

1. Ask the other person to describe what happened.
2. Ask the other person how he or she is doing.
3. Make a neutral observation.
4. Use the “I” technique.

In each of these cases, you take the safe things that you have identified from examining the situation and adapt them to one of these four types of neutral openings. Let's look at each of them in detail.

Have the Other Person Describe What Happened

The game is tied with seconds left. Your star basketball player is at the foul line. She shoots her first foul shot and it bounces off the rim. Looking more determined, she heaves the ball toward the basket one more time—and this time it isn't even close. The other team high-fives each other as time runs out and they win the contest.

It is this woman's job to sink baskets when the game is on the line. It didn't happen this time. Perhaps it hasn't happened other times as well. What do you say to her when you meet in the locker room the next day?

As an untrained observer, you might focus on how she failed. If you were being nice about it, perhaps you might ask the player what went wrong. If you weren't being nice, you might point out that her spot on the team is at risk. Either way, you have just changed the dynamics of the discussion to one where the player is defending herself. But I suspect what you really want to do here is troubleshoot the problem and hopefully fix it.

This is why, when something goes wrong, far and away the best neutral opening is to ask the other person to describe what happened—neutrally, factually, and without blame. For example, my opening statement to this player might be something along the lines of, “I'm sure you feel bad about those last couple of shots last night. Walk me through what was happening up there on the foul line.” Instead of a threatening confrontation, you now have offered an open invitation to talk. More important, you now have your very best chance to gather information to help you both fix the problem.

With a typical critical “what's wrong” kind of opening, you can almost alw...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Ebook Instructions
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: A New Way of Looking At Dialogue
• Section I: The Basics
• Section II: The CANDID Approach In Detail
• Section III: The Advanced Course
• Section IV: Putting It Into Practice
• Epilogue: Summing It All Up
• Appendix A: The Painless Conversation Worksheet
• Appendix B: Strength-Based Psychology: The Basis of Painless Communication
• Index
• About the Author