Booher BanterBusiness Communication Consultant

Tariq Zohair, from Karachi, Pakistan, reached me at askdianna@booher.com and asked this question: “How can we open closed minds—people who do not want to listen to any arguments or logic?” I’ve been spending several blogs tackling this problem since there are so many ways to deal with people who are difficult to reason with. (For Tips 1-21, check out past blogs.)

22)  Dig for unspoken reservations. 

Don’t stop at recognizing the signs of resistance.  Get them on the table.  When people seem reluctant to accept your ideas, be persistent in recovering the reason.  You can’t respond to an unasked question.  You can’t calm an unspoken fear.  You can’t compare options if you have no idea what the other options are.  Encourage your decision maker to think aloud so you can either confirm or correct your presentation along the way. 

Try statements such as:  "Why not"  "How do you think your people will like this?"  "Do you think your own customers will welcome this change?"  "If somebody comes up with an objection later in the process, what do you think that might be?"  "What else would stand in the way?"  "Is there anything else that would keep us from moving on this?"  "What about other things that would make you reluctant?"  "Are there related issues?"  "What else stands in the way of an okay?" 

Keep pushing until you get the resistance on the table.  Silence doesn’t necessarily mean consent; it may mean that the obstacles are looming so large against what you say that the listener doesn’t see the point in even discussing the matter further.  You have to see the hurdles to jump them.

23)  Don’t make the other person wrong for you to be right.

Ego blinds people to logic.  Let the other person save face if he or she wants to agree with you:  "Perhaps you didn’t have access to the data I just received. . . ."  or “The situation has changed drastically since you were last briefed. . . ."  or  "Despite what he told you, the customer has obviously changed her mind again. Here’s her latest wish. . . ."

Share and Enjoy

Posted at 8:29am in Communication—Interpersonal | Permalink | Add Comment » |

When asked questions meant to goad, offer bait, or subtly glean information, stay in charge by deciding what information to divulge and what to withhold.
 
In his September 19 article for Investor’s Business Daily, columnist Cord Cooper cited several of my tips for handling difficult questions.  Click here to read the full column.

Share and Enjoy

Posted at 2:26pm in General Communication | Permalink | Add Comment » |

Tariq Zohair, from Karachi, Pakistan, reached me at askdianna@booher.com and asked this question: “How can we open closed minds—people who do not want to listen to any arguments or logic?” I’ve been spending several blogs tackling this problem since there are so many ways to deal with people who are difficult to reason with. (For Tips 1-18, check out past blogs.)

19)  Prepare for the standard objections. 

Objections in the workplace are, unfortunately, standard:  "We’ve never done it that way before."  "We can’t afford to."  "We can’t afford not to."  "It’s risky."  "Let’s let somebody else work out the bugs and then we’ll see."  "We’ve got too much invested in the status quo."  "We don’t have the time to devote to it."  "We don’t have enough people."  "We don’t have the expertise."  "That’s somebody else’s job."  "I just don’t think we can make it work."  "Our people won’t like it." 

Plan your response to the objections you know will arise in your discussions.

20)  Agree before you disagree.   

To avoid the appearance of not listening to points others raise, hear them out, pause, and then agree with at least something they’ve said:  "That is a related issue, all right.  The first thing, however, we need is…" or "You have a point.  Do you think that should be our primary criteria?" or "You’re right about that.  I wonder if…"  They’ll tag you as a reasonable, flexible person.

21)  Don’t aim to "outargue" them.   

As my mother used to say, even if you argue "until you’re blue in the face," you will lose if you make the other person feel outdone.  You can outtalk, outsmart, outreason, but still fail to gain agreement if the other person doesn’t feel good about the decision in the long run.  The best approach is to present your point accurately, enthusiastically, and sincerely.  Then listen.  Know when to be flexible and offer a compromise.  Even if you smell blood, don’t go for the kill.

Share and Enjoy

Posted at 9:41am in Communication—Interpersonal | Permalink | Add Comment » |

Tariq Zohair, from Karachi, Pakistan, reached me at askdianna@booher.com and asked this question: “How can we open closed minds–people who do not want to listen to any arguments or logic?” I’ve been spending several blogs tackling this problem since there are so many ways to deal with people who are difficult to reason with. (For Tips 1-15, check out past blogs.)

16)  Package ideas like products. 

People are lazy thinkers if you permit them to be.  Make your concept understandable by its packaging.  Politicians, policies, and plays are packaged like soaps and telephone services.  For example, insurance rates, employee compensation, unemployment, and tax incentives can all be packaged as "health-care" issues in Washington.  Think beginning, middle, and end (idea, action, implementation) and tie them all together in one packaged concept.

17)  Prefer powerful phrasing. 

"I would suggest . . ." sounds like you’re not quite sure, that if you were in a position to make a suggestion and if it didn’t fluster anyone, you might suggest that maybe . . ."  Use instead:  "I suggest."  Rid your language of such weak phrases.

Not:  "I think we should attempt to get approval on this before it’s too late." 
But:  "Let’s get immediate approval on this." 

Not:  "It seems to me that . . ." 
But:  "I believe . . ." 

Not:  "I’ve been thinking lately that maybe I could . . ." 
But:  "After careful thought over the past month, I’ve decided that . . ."   

Not:  "This plan could work if we really push it." 
But:  "With our support, this plan will work." 

Can you hear the ring of positive thinking and authority?

18)  Prefer understatement to overstatement. 

When you overstate your case, the listener raises his guard.  Everything becomes suspect.  A gross overstatement begs a customer to knock the wind out of your sails/sales.  With understatement, the other person often takes up your cause for you.  Your statement:  "We can save a minimum of $10,000 annually."  Supporters will often chime in:  "And in our situation this year, we saved twice that amount."  Your credibility has gone up, not down.  Reverse the comments and your estimation loses credence.

Share and Enjoy

Posted at 3:45pm in Communication—Interpersonal, Communication—Sales, General Communication | Permalink | Add Comment » |

Tariq Zohair, from Karachi, Pakistan, reached me at askdianna@booher.com and asked this question: “How can we open closed minds—people who do not want to listen to any arguments or logic?” I’ve been spending several blogs tackling this problem since there are so many ways to deal with people who are difficult to reason with. (For Tips 1-13, check out past blogs.)

14) Speak metaphorically. 

Metaphors create powerful pictures.  One metaphor can convey a lifetime of experience or a head full of logic.  In one of my client workshops, a sales rep presented an analogy of data files to socks.  Black dress socks worn every day to the office represent data files needed daily; dress socks go in the top drawer for easy access just like data files you retrieve often must be easy to access.  White athletic socks worn for exercising only on the weekends represent data files that you need only monthly or quarterly; these white socks are stored in the middle bureau drawer for limited access just like data files you don’t need to get to often.  The rep’s green plaid socks, worn only when Aunt Martha comes to visit, represent the data files needed only once a year.  Those plaid socks are stored in the bottom bureau drawer for infrequent access just like files you may never need again.  His audience immediately understood his explanation about quick access to disk storage space. 

We occasionally explain the various fee arrangements of our licensing of training programs to customers with this analogy:  "As you determine which is the best fee arrangement for your organization, consider it a mortgage."  You can pay for a house all cash up front, or you can pay for it over time with interest.  With our licensing fee, you can pay for the entire course and all master copies up front, or you can pay participant by participant.  The last arrangement will cost you more over time, but you have your money free to use for other things as you go along.  Customers understand the concept: they can make an outright purchase or they could take out a mortgage. 

Metaphors clarify what would take hours to explain in detail.

15) Use humor to raise receptivity. 

Humor acts as a pleasant distracter, lessening tension so people feel more comfortable examining the pros and cons of an idea.  A humorous approach—we’re not talking slapstick, just witty or light—keeps attention and drives away boredom.  Laughter lowers defenses and raises receptivity.

Share and Enjoy

Posted at 8:06am in Communication—Interpersonal, Communication—Sales, General Communication | Permalink | Add Comment » |

Tariq Zohair, from Karachi, Pakistan, recently reached me at askdianna@booher.com and asked this question: “How can we open closed minds—people who do not want to listen to any arguments or logic?” I’ve been spending a few blogs tackling this problem since there are so many ways to deal with people who are difficult to reason with. (For Tips 1-11, check out past blogs.)

12) Vary your intensity.

If you intend to build to a passionate appeal, you can’t start out screaming. Consider how the singer begins with a timid croon, builds with up-and-down variations, and finally crescendos to a rousing finale. Do the same with your own delivery.

13) Personify abstract concepts or inanimate objects.

People have a difficult time dealing in abstractions. Because they are emotional beings, people respond to things they can touch, feel, and understand. Give human characteristics to abstractions to arouse the listener’s emotions.

Examples: “This machine is temperamental; you have to make love to it before it responds to what you want.” “This company is like an octopus; it has so many arms reaching out in the marketplace that one arm can get cut off without severe pain to the rest of the body.” “This organization is sick; it’s underfed; its energy is drained. We’ve simply got to find operating capital.”

Share and Enjoy

Posted at 9:35am in Communication—Interpersonal | Permalink | Add Comment » |

Ever since cheerleading from the sidelines, I’ve hated watching football players “pile on,” particularly when my boyfriend lay at the bottom of the heap.  The media plays pile-on when catastrophes occur; they bombard those in charge with accusatory questions and issues of woulda, coulda, shoulda.  We always hear from those Monday-morning quarterbacks with all the answers that would have prevented the loss, saved the day, turned back the tide—after the fact.

So I hate to join that crowd.  I really do.

But we must reconsider the Virginia Tech massacre, when 32 people were killed and 23 others wounded on April 16, 2007, in light of the report that was released this week.  In a nutshell, the report hit hardest in two areas:  This governor-appointed panel of eight criticizes university officials’ lack of prompt and complete communication. 

Speed of communication has become the new measure of quality communication.  That was the chief complaint from students and parents at Virginia Tech immediately after the tragedy—and the primary conclusion of the report.  After the first two students were shot and killed, two hours was an inordinate amount of time for the school administration to decide to issue a statement to the student body. 

A second key communication strategy for leaders is to give complete information.  I know. I know. I know.  At Virginia Tech, the two issues—speed and completeness—are related.  As they often are.  That is, many leaders fail to respond quickly to situations—whether crises, questions, or rumors—because they rarely have complete information.  Their thinking goes like this:  “If I don’t have all the facts, why upset people?  I’ll just wait until I get all the facts, have all the answers, or work out the solution, and THEN I’ll explain what happened and how we plan to handle it.”   The problem is that in the absence of real information, people fill in the gaps with “what MIGHT be happening.” 

Certainly, leaders must weigh the dilemma of giving out information that may alarm people unnecessarily against what may save their lives. Rest assured, if you err in either direction, you’ll be criticized (see paragraph one).  But all things considered, it’s far better to “alarm a few people” than to wish you had.  Virginia Tech serves as a classic case in point. 

The report also cited two components of incomplete information: 
1) failure to share information about Cho’s mental instability—the threat he posed to the student body
2) inadequate assumptions about the extent of impending destruction.   

Although university officials believed they were prohibited by law from sharing information, the panel determined otherwise. They say there was plenty of leeway to share pertinent information about Cho’s mental state.  The report concludes that this incorrect interpretation of the law and unresponsive approach toward Cho resulted in a failure of communication on many levels.

Like the officials at Virginia Tech, leaders in general fail to give complete information for any number of reasons. 

“Leave the thinking to us” mentality:  On various occasions, leaders may take the stance, “We’ll let you know if something becomes important, so just don’t worry about it.”   Great attitude for a parent of a two-year-old.   Not so commendable for a VP managing a team of 22 engineers.

Fear of giving bad news and handling negative reactions:  Saying as little as possible as late as possible may put off the unpleasant temporarily, but this tactic often backfires.  Delay often compounds a problem. 

Control:  Being the only one “in the know” does put you in a position of power—put often creates animosity, destroys trust, and lowers morale.

Busyness:  Some people fail to give complete information (answer questions, send out announcements, inform people about changes/dangers) because they’re too busy putting out fires.  They operate seat-of-the-pants routinely and have no procedures in place to handle a crisis situation.  Consider some of the natural disasters we’ve seen lately across the country.

Lack of complete and speedy communication had drastic repercussions on April 16, 2007, for 55 people and their families.   Certainly, every day at the office is not a do-or-die situation, but we’d all do well to ponder these questions as we delegate, manage, lead:   Is my communication quick?  Is my communication complete?   

(Note:  For more information, these are two of the ten key strategies addressed in my book The Voice of Authority:  10 Communication Strategies Every Leader Needs to Know.)  www.booherdirect.com

Share and Enjoy

Posted at 2:59pm in Uncategorized | Permalink | Add Comment » |