Here’s Why Nobody Listens to Your Opinion
And the power of communicating with no intent to convince
Oftentimes, we face difficulty to make our ideas stand out on discussions. From that small argument with your partner, to important meetings with your peers and managers, we often feel unheard. In this fiction, I would like to share a story about three colleagues at Conflict, Inc. and how they can overcome communication challenges with four simple strategies.
Tom and John are working on a fantastic project with promising returns. As a manager, Tom's role is to make sure John has the support he needs to achieve the project's goals. They both were convinced of the potential to unlock a great competitive advantage for the company until Sarah, the Director of their department, walked in. Surprised, they turned to Sarah waiting to hear how they could help. After all, Sarah seldom showed up.
"Tom, I know you're running a very important program." — She said. "However, a big client needs urgent changes that cannot wait. We may need John's help for a week." — Said Sarah referring to one important member of Tom's team.
Understanding the situation, Tom did his best to accommodate Sarah's request. After a few weeks, the same happened. And again in the month after. John started to get involved in recurrent meetings without Tom's consent, consuming big part of his productive time, and consequently putting Tom's project in jeopardy.
Tom got very disappointed by seeing his project derailing. Something needed to change. In a genuine attempt to save the project and the team's motivation, he decided to meet Sarah and surface what bothered him.
"Sarah, it is getting hard to predict the outcomes of my project! These frequent interruptions have been disruptive. It needs to stop, otherwise we won't get anything done" — Said Tom, exhausted of finding alternatives to get the project back on track.
"Excuse me? I think you are not being reasonable, Tom! Emergencies happen and John has always been one of our most demanded employees. You are being unrealistic to think fires won't happen anymore! This is just how life is!" — Sarah replied with a harsh tone.
Tom walks away from Sarah's office furious. In his mind, his boss was dismissive and selfish. Trust erodes when they approach each other by pointing issues in an accusative way, instead of owning their part of the problem.
The Problem — Two modes of thinking
In his book Think Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahnman explains how human beings shift from two different types of thinking. The fast, used to solve quick problems like 2+2, drive in a known neighborhood, or type something on your cell phone. You just don't need to think about that. It is instinctive.
The other mode is the slow, that demands your attention. We use that when driving under adverse conditions, to make complex arithmetic operations, to write an essay, and so on. This mode forces us to make use of critical thinking instead of instinctively reacting to the environment.
By communicating using fast thinking, we perceive only our side of the story. After all, we are mostly interested in solving our own problems. Despite our genuine intentions, this mode is ineffective for debates and tends to trigger our defensive instinct.
Below, you can find some strategies they could have adopted to be more persuasive and avoid the reactiveness driven by fast thinking.
1 — Own the problem and speak with humility
The fast thinking mode often makes us perceive the problem as caused by others. As we speak, we should acknowledge we're part of it, thus, should be also part of the solution, if not entirely. After all, one reasonable person is sufficient to avoid an argument. Here's how Tom could have approached Sarah.
"Sarah, our project is getting sidetracked. John is an integral part of the team. His contribution is paramount to make it successful. I feel disappointed and frustrated for failing to keep the team motivated."
Above, Tom stated the issue and surfaced the cause and how the situation made him feel, not accusing Sarah of being the root cause.
2 — Listen to what others have to say
Sarah could have shown empathy for Tom's situation by listening to what he had to say instead of being defensive. That would inspire Tom to be open and listen. After all, who wants to listen to someone that never does so?
She could still disagree with Tom. Listening is not the same as agreeing. It shows the intent to understand. Being reactive made him shy away and lose interest in listening to her.
3 — Seek to understand
Even if Sarah kept her stance with Tom's different approach, he could still have tried to understand Sarah’s concerns. Despite her behavior, Tom knew very little about her situation. Essentially, people don’t want to just be heard, they want to be understood.
Listening doesn’t mean Tom should agree with Sarah’s point. It means he’s giving Sarah a chance to share her reasons and seek to understand her. Asking clarifying questions always helps to understand others' standpoint.
"Sarah, I understand you think this is unrealistic. Can you tell me why you think that?"
At the same time Tom stated to Sarah that was her own understanding, he gave her the chance to substantiate her argument, sharing more details.
"We are facing a wave of instabilities on this other project. The CEO got directly involved. There is a lot of pressure to get things right. There is a high risk we'll lose this deal!"
With this information, Tom learned there are competing priorities. Sarah has been under pressure from executives. She often needs help from Tom's team. Tom needs resource allocation to be more predictable.
This is the time they either yield or negotiate.
4 — Ask questions that provoke thoughts
Tom has a great advantage since he understands both sides now. With the context set, he can nudge Sarah with specific questions driving her to his same conclusion.
He should not expose directly his point of view. Instead, ask questions that guide her settling into common ground. Provoking thoughts. People very often get to the same conclusion as us when asked the correct questions. It forces them to use the slow-thinking mode.
To induce Sarah to the conclusion many people can help other than John, he could focus on Sarah's project specific needs.
"Well, it sounds like John is really needed to help with that deal. What has him been able to help with?"
Sarah could then reply stating John's contributions and providing more details. Tom could then ask Sarah if there are other people with the same skills as John needing an opportunity to showcase their expertise, matching her needs with growth opportunities to others.
"That’s actually something I haven’t thought about. What if we create a rotation where other people can also help?"
Sarah just came up with a solution for her problem at the same time Tom could have the predictability of resources once he would know when John would be in the rotation within weeks.
Asking Sarah the questions above nudged her towards a solution that helped both of them. Even if Sarah disagreed, it would still make her commit to a decision at the end based on the facts and priorities, not on her own opinion.
At the end, we should strive to communicate with no intent to convince. Instead of trying to force your own conclusions, provide context and ask questions so both sides can get to alignment.