How Can I Connect Better with Others? – Part 3

By Dr. Victor Schueller | communication

This is the final installment of the series of articles in which I talk about what I call the top three contributors to “interpersonal discontent” and misunderstanding.  There are three main contributors, that I believe make up over 90% of the problems we face when it comes to living in peace and harmony with others, and that get in our way as we attempt to connect with others.  I would contend that if everyone did these three things a little better, the world would be a lot better place to live.

In my first article, I talked about the “hammer in the toolbox” problem.  This arises when people have difficulty articulating how they feel, and then they have an even more difficult time articulating what it is that they need or what value of theirs is in misalignment.  Finally, people have a very difficult time making requests of others that will help them either get what they need or help them reach a place of alignment with their personal core values.

Then, in my second article, I went into detail about the inability to appreciate multiple perspectives at the same time.  Many times this shows up when someone views other people’s ideas as “stupid,” or when people assume that others have ill intentions or ulterior motives behind their actions.

The second installment flows pretty effortlessly into this article’s topic, which rounds out this series, and it is concerned with making interpretations, evaluations, or moralistic judgments about another person.  This one is a tricky one to catch, because in many instances we do this without even giving this a second thought.

So what is involved here?  It’s quite simple — it involves looking at the actions of someone and then drawing a conclusion about what you think the other person’s motivations or thoughts might be.  For example, if you observe that someone is naming other people who had been involved in a project — one that didn’t go well, by the way — you may interpret this behavior as the other person’s attempt to “throw others under the bus,” or you may think that they’re “trying to pin it on other people,” or that they are “playing politics.”

Do you see how these are all interpretations and evaluations of a person’s behavior, and how there is this undercurrent of implied “wrongness” in what that other person is doing?  This is how conflicts start, and this is how conflicts endure.  When we tell other people what we think they’re thinking, very rarely does it end positively!

I had a client who would tell me that they had a hard time with the idea of trying to help other people get their needs met, and that was because they didn’t like how some people were trying to “get out of trouble,” because they had done something “wrong.”  Do you see how this line of thinking is inundated with interpretations?  When we view other people through the lens of interpretations, moralistic judgments, and implied wrongness, it’s hard to see a real person beneath all of that.  In this case, I would suggest this client is not yet able to help another meet their needs because they need to work on overcoming interpreting and diagnosing first.

So what can we do to overcome interpreting and diagnosing?  It’s pretty simple.  You just say it like it is.  If someone’s voice got louder, their voice got louder.  I would suggest that you refrain from saying to the other person, “When you yelled…” and may I suggest you say “When your voice got louder…”  This is an objective statement, that cannot be argued by the other person.

Instead of saying “You threw us under the bus…” you may want to stick to the observable facts, and alternatively consider saying, “You started naming all of the people who were involved in the project when they asked who was responsible.”

Also, if you refrain from saying “I think…” you can steer clear of interpretations and diagnoses.  It’s really easy to slip into that mode when you say something like, “I think you’re just trying to get out of trouble.”  That’s an interpretation, and a judgment that implies wrongness.  You are implying that what they are doing is wrong.  What do you think the other person’s reaction is going to be when you finish telling them that they’re “just trying to get out of trouble” (Especially when that wasn’t even close to what they were intending to do)?

Now that you have awareness of interpreting, diagnosing, and making moralistic judgments, I’d ask you to observe and listen to the conversations that go on around you.  Take time to listen to discussions, especially those that are aimed at avoiding or resolving conflict.  Listen for the “I think…” statements, and listen for the interpretations and diagnoses.  You may be surprised at how many of these occur in our regular conversations.  These types of conversation pieces do not bring us closer together and allow us to connect better with others.  They actually keep us further apart, because we are judging the behaviors of others as “wrong,” as if we are “better” and “less wrong” than they are.

The more we are aware of these three potential contributors to “interpersonal discontent,” the better we will be able to avoid the pitfalls associated with the use of them.  We can listen better to people when they are pulling out their “hammer” from their “toolbox,” and listen for the “please” embedded within their abrasive and critical statements.  We can be a much better listener when we focus on broadening our perspective beyond our narrowed egoic perspective, and attempt to appreciate the perspectives of others at the same time.  When we can leave out the interpretations and moralistic judgments of others, and just observe what is for what it is, we can decrease the likelihood that others will get upset or offended by what we have to say about what we see others doing.

We have the true power to positively impact every interaction we engage in on a daily basis.  Now that you have knowledge about the three big obstacles to interpersonal harmony, you can positively impact everyone you communicate with every day.  Even if you can improve one conversation per day with someone, you’re having a tremendous impact on others that won’t be forgotten.  Let’s continue to build a more positive and harmonious world together.

Photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/joegratz/117048243

Follow

About the Author

  • Grant says:

    Really interesting read. Thanks, Grant – http://www.homedetox.co.uk

  • J.D. Meier says:

    > inability to appreciate multiple perspectives at the same time

    So true.

    I think one of the most useful models I learned for understanding multiple perspectives was from the book, “Dealing with People You Can’t Stand.” It was a simple wheel of perspectives raning from Task-Focus to People-Focus, and Passive to Aggressive.

    At work, we’re trained to use “The Mush Separator” and distinguish between, “I want,” “I think,” and “I feel” so that we practice building awareness of whether we’re speaking from gut, mind, or heart.

    I remember long ago Tony Robbins mentioned the best thing we could do about other people is assume good intentions (and the worst thing we could do is assume bad intentions.) It’s a great way to see the Pygmalian Effect in action — you get what you expect.

    I found Edward de Bono’s Six Hats to be useful in terms of being able to walk multiple perspectives, deliberately and intentionally. I also found his How To Have a Beautiful Mind to be especially enlightening in how we can train our thought patterns to adopt a more curios exploration of topics, and how to be more interesting.

    Dr. Ann McGee-Cooper did a great job of framing conversation types as the 3 D’s:

    1) Dialogue – Listen with an open spirit.

    2) Debate – a verbal “fight”.

    3) Discuss – “break apart” an issue.

    The book Thank You for Arguing really opened my eyes to rhetoric and how it’s really the art of arguing without anger.

    At the end of the day, I’m still amazed at how many people argue two sides of the same coin, and how quickly it turns into a fight, flight, or freeze scenario.

    I get why de Bono used the hats to make it safe to switch personas and perspectives that might be out of your natural character, and why there are several patterns in Crucial Conversations to build safety and trust.

    In the end, it seems like the ability to really use empathic listening (where the other listener *feels* heard), and the ability to live and breathe the ABCs (Agree, Build, and Compare), while maintaining a curious mode (vs. argument mode), really seem to go a long way.

    I always remind mysef the phrase, “Rapport before results”, and to try to build some rapport around values, as well as the Needs-Based Communication styles epoused by Dr. K (Action, Accuracy, Approval, and Appreciation). To this day, I’m still surprised by how this is such a powerful rapport builder, and yet it flies under the radar, because it’s not something we would normally look (er, listen) for.

    • Victor Schueller says:

      Hello J.D.

      Thanks for sharing. Wow, I love the wealth of resources you referenced here. Some I am familiar with, while some will be future reading/learning for me. I agree with the thought you shared about assuming good intentions of others. It certainly does lead to better outcomes than assuming the worst of others. I’ve found that out through personal experience.

      Thanks again for all these great resources. I really appreciate you stopping by and sharing. I love to learn more through the perspectives of others, and you’ve provided me with more opportunity to do that. Take care.

  • >