Practical Eloquence Blog |

Lean Listening, Part 1: How to Use the Second Conversation

By Jack Malcolm / 6.1.2015 / 2 Comments

In my series on Lean Communication, I have so far focused on the transmission side of the communication: how to increase value and decrease waste in what you say or write.

But there is probably no aspect of communication which contains more waste than listening. We’re all guilty of divided attention, selective hearing, and overconfidence in our ability to understand. The result is error, inefficiency, wasted time, and damaged relationships.

Lean listening is such an involved topic that I will cover it in four separate articles. In this first one, we’ll examine the major cause of waste in listening, which by coincidence is also the best tool we have for ensuring maximum value with minimum waste. In other words, the obstacle is the way to lean listening.

The major reason for waste in listening is the second conversation that goes on in our heads while listening, which is caused by the bandwidth mismatch between speaking and thinking. Standard American English speakers produce about 125 words per minute, but we process words mentally at least four times as fast (and flashes of insight and intuition may be orders of magnitude faster). While that should make it easier to follow what the other person is saying, what happens instead is that the extra processing capacity usually goes to the second conversation that we have with ourselves while someone is speaking.

It’s extremely difficult to avoid the second conversation during a dialogue. When the other person speaks, we listen to their words, and at the same time we listen to ourselves: our reactions, impressions, questions, or rebuttals that spring unbidden into our minds in response to their message. Or we use the extra bandwidth to think about something totally unrelated to the conversation, maybe because something else has caught our attention.

Sometimes that second conversation helps our understanding, but more often it interferes, because we truly can’t carry on both conversations at once. Even if it’s momentary, we stop listening to the other person long enough to hear ourselves—but sometimes we don’t revert to the first conversation in time, and miss something that was said. Or, we automatically assume we know how the sentence is going to end, and begin forming our response, and we miss the zig where we expected a zag.

So, what can we do about it? The trick is not to try to silence your second conversation—you can no more slow down your rate of thinking than you can control your heartbeat. The trick is to use the second conversation to support your listening rather than interfere with it. The second conversation become a help and not a hindrance when it gets you focus tightly on the value of what is being said, find or impose order on it, and cut through the clutter of waste in their conversation.

Think of the second conversation as a coach who is in the room while you are talking to the other person, who is closely paying attention and is asking questions to make sense of what’s being said and not said. But not just any random thought that comes to mind: this coach is listening for lean communication from the other party.

To make sense of that last statement, think about it this way: if the other person is communicating in a perfectly lean manner, you would not have to improve your listening, because you would get exactly the information you need for your purposes. But since that usually doesn’t happen, the main purpose of lean listening is to help the other person be lean. You do this by listening for the aspects of lean communication that contribute to value and waste, and ask questions or adjust where there are gaps.

The important thing about the second conversation is to keep it focused on asking questions only about what is being said (which includes non-verbals), not about what you are planning to say in response. The questions you ask yourself are the ones that keep you focused on finding the five major elements of lean communication, which is the topic for the next three posts: Lean Listening for Value, Lean Listening for Waste, and Lean Listening Techniques.

Lean Communication - Persuasive communication

The First Rule of Effective Communication

By Jack Malcolm / 5.26.2015 / 1 Comment

This is my 500^th blog post, and I could think of no more fitting topic for such a milestone than this: the first rule of effective communication.

The first rule of effective communication is this: you must add value. I’ll describe what that means and share a checklist for measuring the amount of value you have added in any communication, whether it be a sales conversation, a presentation, or simply answering a question from your boss.

What does it mean to add value in communication? Remember that in lean thinking value is defined as anything the customer is willing to pay for. By analogy, value in communication is anything the recipient is willing to listen to, and use as a basis for a decision or action. What would make them be willing to listen and act? Because the information received is useful: it will improve their situation in some way.

Value is then defined as useful communication that respects the relationship. You know you have added value when one or more of the following things happen:

Either or both sides are better equipped to make a decision or take action that improves their personal situation.
The organization is better off or a higher purpose than individual gain is served.
The relationship is preserved or enhanced.

In an ideal world, you would be able to meet those three conditions in every communication, but of course that’s not always reality. Which of the three you emphasize when there’s a conflict depends on you: on your judgment, your values, and your appraisal of the situation. But having said that, you can usually find ways to accomplish at least two of the three, and you should probably not open your mouth unless you can do so.

Here’s a checklist to ensure that your communication adds value to the other person. At the end of the exchange, here are some questions that will tell you whether you added value:

Did you answer the question? When someone else asks you a question, it’s usually easy for all concerned to tell whether you provided an answer. But the same test applies when you are the one initiating the conversation. There is always the question that requires an answer, although it’s not so obvious. That question is: “What do you want me to do and why?” If someone takes your call or attends your presentation, this question is always on their mind, or should be. You can hear people talk for hours and not be sure whether the question was answered.

Did you improve their situation or outcome? The second part of the question is “why?” The bottom line of communication is that the information received is useful: it enables the recipient to solve a problem, take advantage of an opportunity, or deal with a risk. To pass this test, you must tell the other person what he needs to know, not what he wants to know. Focus on WIFM: “What’s in it for me?” Did you provide a personal benefit to the listener? While this is not always possible, ultimately all decisions are personal, so you should strive to frame communications in terms of the other person’s benefit. The only exception is when they need to do it to benefit a higher purpose, such as what’s good for the business. If your ask does not benefit the other person or a higher purpose, your only alternatives are begging or coercion, depending on who holds the power.

Did you maintain or improve the relationship? This is not always possible—sometimes what the other person needs to hear is not what they want to hear. But you should always be respectful and sensitive to the relationship if possible.

Who did the work? Remember that you’re a knowledge worker, not an information worker. Many communications are a “data dump” in which the speaker tells everything they know, and the listener has to draw conclusions from all the detail. If you present all the information in your head without analysis or recommendation, you are asking the other person to do your work for you. Give them your best finished thought.

Did you listen and adjust? One problem with giving them the best of your finished thought is that you may fall in love with your own idea, and you may miss opportunities to create even more value. During the conversation (and I use this term very broadly, to include any type of ongoing discussion or communication), you can jointly create even more value through dialogue. Dialogue enables correction, adjustment and improvement to the original idea, and can often spark new and better ideas—not to mention greater engagement and commitment. Of course, this will only work if you are willing to be influenced yourself, and if you actively listen and pay attention to how your ideas are being heard, understood, and processed by the other person.

These five questions may seem like a lot to remember, but they can become automatic through awareness and practice. The bottom line, and the first rule of effective communication is this: Before you open your mouth, stick in a slide, or hit send, ask yourself: “What value am I adding?”

Book reviews - General business books

Do You Really Know How Others See You?

By Jack Malcolm / 5.6.2015 / No Comment

Your success as a persuasive communicator depends on both your message and you as the messenger. Of those two, Aristotle told us that the most important is ethos, or how others perceive you. In effect, recipients of your message are asking three questions: do you have good will, good sense and good character?

So, as long as you are an honest, thoughtful and competent person who only has the best interests of others in mind when you’re trying to persuade them, selling and influencing others should be a breeze, right?

Unfortunately, Virginia, now that you’re grown up it’s time to break the news that there is no Santa Claus. Just because you think you have those qualities does not mean that you actually do (at least to the extent that you think), and even if you’re right there is no guarantee that others will see you in the same light. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who don’t have those qualities but are still effective persuaders, because they’ve convinced others that they do. As the old joke goes, sincerity is your best asset—and once you can fake that you’ve got it made.

Let me be clear: I am totally in favor of having good will, good sense, and good character, but just having them is not enough unless others see those qualities in you. And according to Heidi Grant Halvorson’s new book, No One Understands You and What to Do About It, the odds are that they don’t see you the way you see yourself. There are two reasons for this: The first is that people are not as good at decoding emotions and intentions as they think they are, and the second is that everyone makes snap judgments that are prone to error, and those first impressions can be very sticky.

So, what can you do about it? You first have to figure out how others see you, and then make changes as necessary to adjust their perceptions.

To figure out how others see you, there are several things you can do.

Ask a trusted colleague or two
Get 360° feedback
Video yourself
Get a coach
Run for president

If you see the need to change, Halvorson provides three useful “lenses” through which others view you:

The Trust lens. The first determination that people make about you is whether they can feel secure around you: what are your intentions (warmth) and can you act on those intentions (competence)? Halvorson suggests that you can increase the perception of your warmth by smiling, listening and in general taking a more active interest in the other person. If you need to kick up your perceived competence, look at people more directly, have a more upright posture, and in general act more confidently.

The Power lens. Power relationships affect how people view others, but it’s generally one-way: people in a one-up position tend to have a skewed view of the less powerful because they seem them primarily in terms of their instrumentality, or their usefulness to themselves; if you’re on the lower end you may not even get noticed enough too favorably impress them unless you can show them what you can do for them. For more on this, here’s an article I wrote recently on Selling Upward.

The Ego lens. The downside of projecting competence is that it can be a threat to the other person’s self-esteem. You can guard against this by being more self-deprecating; not necessarily by toning down your expertise or accomplishments, but by being more open about other weaknesses that you might have. You can also look for ways to praise the other person‘s accomplishment or abilities—as long as it’s credible. Finally, you can stress commonalities between the two of you, so that your abilities reflect favorably on the in-group to which you both belong.

No One Understands You is a good read, especially if you are new to these topics. However, the trust lens is the most powerful and the most practical of the three lenses, and there’s a lot more to it than is covered in this book. For more depth, I would suggest picking up two books: Compelling People and The Trusted Advisor.

Persuasive communication

Why Details Matter

By Jack Malcolm / 4.30.2015 / 1 Comment

My daughter Mackenzie and her fiancée Matthew got married last month, and the entire experience was magical and amazing, despite all my best efforts to the contrary.

Let me explain: from the moment we left the hotel where she got dressed, to the ceremony itself at the same church where my wife and I were married 33 years ago, and on to the reception, everything went perfectly and every single detail was just right.

During all the planning, my main contribution was a vain effort to rein in the costs. I would ask my wife, “Why are we spending money on two different-colored linens to cover the tables—aren’t the plain white ones good enough? Why do we need so many flowers? Do they really need menus, and does the printing have to match the color of the linens? Do we really need specially-ordered M&M’s!?”

Naturally, I lost all those arguments, and I’m glad I did, because I was wrong. The whole experience made me re-learn a lesson that I should have learned many years ago: attention to detail pays off.

When I attended the Air Force Academy in the 1970s, the upperclassmen constantly repeated “attention to detail” as a mantra, but I saw myself as a big-picture guy, so I bought into it with my mind but not with my heart.

Yet over the years, I’ve come to appreciate how critically important it is to pay attention to even the smallest of details. Of course it’s a good idea if you’re going to fly fast, expensive jets for a living, but it equally applies to sales and persuasion.

In sales, attention to detail can keep you in the game or knock you out immediately. Small, seemingly unimportant details can have a huge effect on outcomes, either negative or positive. Just as one small fly in your soup can ruin a whole meal, and one tiny grain of sand in your shoe can cripple you, one typo can scuttle a million dollar proposal.

On the other hand, a small gesture thrown in at the last minute can put a negotiation over the top; one unusual or telling detail can make a sales presentation memorable (I still remember a presentation from five years ago that involved a Chihuahua named Pedro); and three Cuban cigars that I gave a client almost twenty years ago still pay off for me today.

Detail shows professionalism. Speaking of M&M’s, David Lee Roth of Van Halen used to insist that they be supplied with a large bowl of M&M’s at every venue where they played—with all the brown ones removed—upon pain of immediate cancellation with full compensation. That might seem like a case of massive egos gone wild, but the band in fact had it in there to ensure that the promoter had read their contract. They had enormously heavy and expensive sets, and failure to comply with their directions could actually hurt someone. If Roth ever saw a brown M&M, he would not only trash the dressing room, he would also meticulously check every other detail to make sure it was safe to go out and play.

Detail drives deeper thinking. In my opportunity planning workshops, I urge participants to be as detailed as possible in their analysis of the situation, especially the business and personal drivers of the customer’s need. The first broad pass through the analysis doesn’t do much for them, but when they challenge themselves to come up with more detail, it invariably uncovers one or two small bits of information that they can use to craft a unique understanding of the customer’s situation and a much stronger competitive value proposition.

Details convince. To see how details can make you more persuasive, consider the following scenario:

Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations.

Please check off the most likely alternative:

Linda is a bank teller.
Linda is a bank teller and active in the feminist movement.

If you picked B, you are like 9 of 10 people who responded in this experiment by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.[1] Logically, it’s impossible that B is more likely than A, but somehow it’s more convincing. Kahneman calls this the representativeness heuristic, and concludes that as the level of detail in a scenario increases, the likelihood increases. That’s why detailed testimonials and recommendations work so well. Along the same lines, details also make things more real by making the abstract more vivid and concrete in the listener’s mind, and by making you much more human and approachable.

Would it have been a great wedding without all that attention to detail? Who knows, but I doubt I would have received this testimonial from a good friend of mine: “You made lifetime memories for a lot of people.”

Note: A version of this post ran in Kelly Riggs’ Business LockerRoom blog on April 15.

[1] Scott Plous, The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making, p. 111.