How to Speak Effectively:
Influence,
Engage,
& Charm (How to be More Likable and Charismatic Book 29)
Written by
Patrick King, narrated by russell newton.
In the chapter that follows,
we’re going to look closely at
exactly what makes communication
effective ...and what makes it
miscommunication.
We’ll consider the importance of
understanding the other person’s
frame of reference,
how to frame your own position,
what “chunking” is and how to use
it,
and how to adjust your mindset so you
become a conscious,
clean communicator.
But first,
what is miscommunication?
Have you ever been speaking with
someone,
feeling as though you are “reaching
them,” when all of a sudden,
they say something that lets you know
that you are both on completely
different wavelengths?
It can be a disorienting and
frustrating experience,
but miscommunication happens for a
reason—and it can be avoided.
Poor communication arises as a result
of a mismatch of perspectives,
approach,
or conversational skill.
Being an effective communicator means
appreciating that the complicated
process of communication doesn’t
happen by accident.
To avoid misunderstandings you need to
consciously and actively take charge of
the process—and this is especially
true when your message is subtle,
nuanced,
or very abstract.
If you examine any moment of
miscommunication clearly,
you’ll see that understanding breaks
down for a few reasons -
•One or both of you has failed to
understand how the other is viewing
things.
•Faulty assumptions have been made,
or someone has jumped to conclusions.
In 1974,
business professor Chris Argyris
created a handy tool for better
communication,
which he called "the ladder of
inference" (sometimes called "the
ladder of inquiry").
The ladder is a metaphor for the way
people think whenever they are given
new information.
It’s about how new data and
information is processed.
What’s useful about his metaphor is
that it reminds us in a simple way that
different people tend to process
information in different ways.
If we are unaware that this is
happening,
we can talk at cross-purposes—and
miscommunication arises.
Before we look at the ladder,
let’s consider an example.
Imagine a couple working together on a
household budget.
Jamie is looking back at the past six
months and trying to find out where
they overspent and why.
Alex is looking ahead to the next six
months and trying to figure out what
kind of summer vacation they can afford.
They end up having an enormous
argument,
with Jamie thinking that Alex is not
taking money concerns seriously,
or taking responsibility for
overspending,
whereas Alex cannot see why Jamie is
stuck on what is in the past and cannot
be changed.
They both find themselves saying
“I’m just trying to get a handle on
our financial situation!” and yet
mysteriously they also both feel that
the other one is getting in the way.
What’s happened here?
According to Argyris,
communication has broken down,
and it’s because Jamie and Alex are
on different rungs of the ladder of
inference.
If you’ve ever experienced a
communication breakdown of this kind,
you’ll know that it can be very
subtle and hard to pinpoint.
Often,
we are only actually aware of our
assumptions,
expectations,
and frames of reference when they
conflict with someone else’s!
But this is where the ladder comes in.
It looks as follows.
Imagine a ladder with each rung getting
gradually smaller from bottom to top - .
ACTIONS. .
BELIEFS. .
CONCLUSIONS. .
ASSUMPTIONS. .
MEANINGS. .
SELECTED DATA. .
OBSERVATIONS. .
Now imagine that this ladder is
standing in a big puddle of water,
which we’ll call the POOL OF
OBSERVATIONS. .
This pool contains all the possible
observations we can make about the
world—theoretically,
there are infinite possibilities.
The next rung up is OBSERVATIONS.
These are all the observations that you
select from the candidates of potential.
We’ll look at what causes you to
select some observations and not others
in just a moment.
The next rung is about the pieces of
information you further select from
these selected observations,
SELECTED DATA. .i.e.,
it’s a subset.
You’re further narrowing down the
data you are focusing on.
The next rung is MEANING,
which is the significance you attach to
these selected observations.
The next rung,
ASSUMPTIONS. . is what you do with
this meaning.
You extrapolate or make assumptions
based on the meaning you’ve extracted
from the observations.
On the next rung you come to
CONCLUSIONS. .to make sense about what
this all amounts to,
and finally,
these conclusions inform your BELIEFS.
.about the world and your place in it.
Consequently,
every ACTION you take,
the last rung,
is informed by this long chain of
inferences and meaning making.
Furthermore,
the ladder doesn’t just go one way.
Once you make meaning and take an
action in accordance with those
beliefs,
then those beliefs actually tend to
affect the data you are likely to
select next time round on the SELECTED
DATA. .rung.
Can you see where this is going?
There are two potential problems - 1.
Though everyone may begin in the same
puddle of potential observations,
each person ends up constructing their
own unique ladder from those
observations all the way up to the
actions they take.
If those ladders lead to completely
different assumptions,
meanings,
beliefs,
and ultimately actions,
then conflict can arise.
2.
Conflict can also occur,
as we saw with Jamie and Alex,
when two people are on different rungs
and trying to talk with one another
from different positions.
In our example,
Jamie is on the SELECTED DATA. .and
MEANING rungs,
trying to understand what went wrong
and piece it all together (and,
honestly,
assign blame ...).
Alex,
however,
is on the BELIEFS. .or ACTIONS.
.rung,
and is already looking for ways to move
on from the fact that they overspent.
It may be,
however,
that even if Jamie and Alex were on the
same rung,
they may disagree on what meanings to
ascribe to observations,
and what beliefs and actions to take as
a result.
However,
good communication doesn’t
necessarily mean agreement—it means
understanding.
Jamie and Alex can have a fruitful,
productive conversation even though
they ultimately disagree.
At the same time,
they can have an argument even when
they both want the same thing and
essentially agree!
How To Use The Ladder In Your Own Life.
The ladder is an excellent way to
identify,
defuse,
and resolve conflict.
It’s a way to shed light on
misunderstandings and get everyone
moving forward again.
If you find yourself in a situation
where you or others are “talking past
one another,” then this is your
signal that communication is going to
break down—or already has.
The first thing to do is check which
rung each speaker is on.
If the person you’re talking to has
an objection that comes from a rung
lower than yours,
it needs to be addressed first before
moving on.
Your discussion should focus on
bringing you both up the ladder
together.
For example,
if Alex identifies that Jamie is on a
lower rung,
then the objections made start to make
more sense.
Alex can now address them.
Jamie - “You’re not listening.
We spent five hundred dollars more last
month on eating out than we said we
would.
That’s a big deal!"
Alex - “Okay,
it seems like you’re really worried
about how much we overspent.
I agree with you,
it’s a lot.
Why do you think it happened?"
(Here,
Alex is asking Jamie to move to the
next rung,
MEANING. )
Jamie - “Well,
we were careless,
that’s all.
We weren’t paying attention."
Alex - “I agree.
It crept up on us.
Now I’m sure you’ll agree with me,
though,
that there’s nothing we can do about
it now.
And if we want to do better next time
round,
we need to start looking at the future."
(Now,
to the next rung—can you see the two
ASSUMPTIONS. .made?)
Jamie - “Yes,
okay.
Let’s do that."
Alex - “Unless we make some changes,
we’re going to be in big trouble (
CONCLUSIONS-ellipses.- Now I know
money’s tight,
but I still believe that going on
vacations is very important,
and I don’t want to suddenly stop
doing everything we enjoy (
BELIEFS-ellipses.- So I think moving
forward,
I want to figure out some smart ways we
can still do the things we love without
spending too much money ( ACTIONS...”
Jamie - “Yes,
that makes a lot of sense.
I want to do that too."
Now,
there is no more disagreement in which
Jamie keeps reiterating how bad they
were to overspend,
while Alex feels guilty for planning
vacations.
They’re communicating again.
Granted,
in this example,
we’ve kept things very simple and
straightforward;
in real life,
each of these “rungs” may take a
long time,
perhaps even days.
And though in our example Alex very
neatly “leads” Jamie,
in reality this process would be a lot
more subtle,
complex,
and collaborative.
There may well be disagreement or
compromise.
But ultimately communication is
improved because people are reasoning
together,
rather than at cross-purposes.
The ladder can also be useful any time
you are trying to get someone to
understand your own actions,
or proposed actions.
Whenever you want to “bring someone
around” to your point of view,
don’t start with the top of the
ladder—bring them along with you and
take each step of the ladder at a time
so they can see how the inferences and
assumptions of your argument gradually
build on one another.
It’s true that someone understanding
your thought process doesn’t
necessarily have to agree with you
afterward.
The good thing is that if you use the
ladder technique,
you will almost always avoid
misunderstandings and miscommunication,
and you will give yourself the best
chance of actually being heard.
Another great thing about the ladder is
that it shows you that the process of
thinking contains many separate,
sequential components—and skipping
one can sometimes lead to sloppy
thinking and,
of course,
miscommunication.
It can be useful sometimes to use the
ladder to slow down and examine your
own thought processes.
Try working backward almost
“forensically” - 1.
What beliefs have inspired your actions?
2.
What conclusions do you have about a
situation,
yourself,
others,
or the world that informed those
beliefs?
3.
What assumptions are you making?
(A great question is to ask whether you
really have much evidence for them,
and investigate what changes if you
make different assumptions or none at
all).
4.
What meaning are you ascribing to your
experiences?
5.
What are you focusing on?
What data are you selecting from your
environment to act on—or else,
what information have you discounted,
ignored,
or forgotten about?
6.
Finally,
can you look once more with fresh eyes
at the observations around you?
For a moment,
can you do this without any
interpretation?
Asking these questions can reveal
interesting ways that our own thinking
has gone astray,
and if we can get a better
understanding of that,
we instantly become better
communicators.
After all,
how can we expect clear and conscious
communication with others when we
ourselves are unclear on our
motivations,
expectations,
and the meaning we ascribe to any
situation?
The ladder can be used formally or
informally,
and for big complex chunks of data as
well as more simple information.
It is highly adjustable,
but its strength is that it forces you
to look at things you might have taken
for granted.
For example,
you might use the framework in a
meeting you are leading.
If you understand the meeting as an
exercise in getting everyone to
“think together,” then you can
structure the meeting so that it moves
deliberately from one rung to the other.
This gives you time to iron out
objections or confusions rather than
rushing ahead to the higher rungs and
risking a full-on conflict.
A few further key insights as you use
the ladder in your own communication -
Nobody is “wrong."
The ladder is not there to help you
find out who is to blame!
Also,
the person who is higher on the ladder
isn’t necessarily faster,
more intelligent,
more correct,
or more motivated.
As we’ve seen,
misunderstandings usually arise because
of mismatch—that doesn’t mean that
there has to be a good guy and a bad
guy.
It just means something is not aligning.
Switch focus from content to process.
Too many arguments are sustained
because people are distracted by the
content of what is being said—but
usually the problem is the way it’s
being said,
and the reasoning behind that.
As you talk to someone,
become tuned in to the way they are
thinking—and the way you are thinking!
Keep your ego out of it.
Disagreement and conflict have a way of
activating our defenses and making us
wrongly believe that we are the model
of good reasoning,
and everyone else is mistaken,
stupid,
crazy,
wrong,
bad,
etc.
But slow down and consider your
reasoning,
their reasoning,
and the way the two are interacting.
Remember that you are not just applying
the ladder analysis to them,
but to yourself as well.
You might feel like you want to stand
on the top of your own ladder and yell
your opinion to all who will hear it,
but this is just ego talking and will
get you nowhere.
Ask questions.
Finally,
one way to become a better communicator
is to actively engage them in the
process of examining the underlying
reasoning behind action and opinion.
Ask with genuine curiosity.
Why do they think X. Y. Z. ?
What facts do they know,
and what do those facts mean to them?
Why?
How?
To conclude,
most of us experience the objective
world subjectively and selectively.
We focus on specific facts only,
interpret what those facts mean based
on certain assumptions,
come to conclusions based on these
assumptions,
allow these conclusions to shape our
beliefs,
and then let these beliefs guide our
action ...as well as determine what
facts we focus on in the future.
This process can be an opportunity to
create a strong,
effective,
and healthy way of looking at the
world,
or it can become an unconscious echo
chamber that ends up amplifying and
replicating the same errors again and
again.
Framing.
If you’re like most people,
you listen to respond.
You’re reactive.
You let conversations go whichever way
they go.
But good communicators approach things
a little differently.
They are more likely to proactively set
the frame for a conversation.
What is a “frame”?
It’s simply the way you position your
line of thinking by your particular
choice of words and expression.
It’s the kind of thing that will
appear to be everywhere once you know
to look for it.
It’s how we develop our arguments,
“lead” our listeners along paths of
reasoning and inference,
and deliberately use language for a
special purpose we have chosen.
Consider the following speech made by
Barack Obama at the 2004 Democratic
National Convention - “There’s not
a liberal America and a conservative
America;
there’s the United States of America.
There’s not a Black America and white
America and Latino America and Asian
America;
there’s the United States of America
... We are one people,
all of us pledging allegiance to the
stars and stripes,
all of us defending the United States
of America.
In the end,
that’s what this election is about.
Do we participate in a politics of
cynicism,
or do we participate in a politics of
hope?"
Notice how he has structured his
speech—notice the frame by which he
is delivering his message.
He did not simply stand up on the stage
and announce - “It’s important for
us to remember who we are as
Americans” or even “it’s time
there was an African American
president,
and I’ll give you some reasons why."
Rather,
he took seventeen long minutes to lead
the audience to this conclusion
themselves.
Note in the above that he asks a
rhetorical question,
to which the only answer can be “we
participate in a politics of hope."
Notice the rhythm and repetition in the
way he lays out the artificial
differences between different types of
Americans,
then leads to his conclusion - “we
are one people."
Obama (and indeed anyone delivering a
persuasive speech of this kind)
succeeds not because he effectively
shows people what he thinks,
but because he constructs a compelling
frame in which to communicate that
message.
His listeners,
then,
go a step further from understanding
and are stirred up enough to be
inspired by him and agree with what he
says.
When the frame of a conversation
changes,
everything changes.
Everything takes on a different meaning.
Therefore,
it’s simply not something we can
leave to chance.
Obama,
of course,
would have had this speech carefully
written by experts,
and he may well have rehearsed it for
hours.
Obama was known as a powerful and
persuasive speaker,
and it’s in big part due to his
understanding of how to frame himself
and his message.
George Lakoff is an author and
professor of cognitive science and
linguistics.
In his book Don’t Think of an
Elephant!,
he explains how talking to people’s
frames is a powerful way of having them
really hear you,
saying that we mistakenly think that,
“if we just tell people the facts,
since people are basically rational
beings,
they’ll all reach the right
conclusions.
But we know from cognitive science that
people do not think like that.
People think in frames ...to be
accepted,
the truth must fit people’s frames.
If the facts do not fit a frame,
the frame stays and the facts bounce
off.
Why?
Neuroscience tells us that each of the
concepts we have—the long-term
concepts that structure how we
think—is instituted in the synapses
of our brains.
Concepts are not things that can be
changed just by someone telling us a
fact.
We may be presented with facts,
but for us to make sense of them,
they have to fit what is already in the
synapses of the brain.
Otherwise,
facts go in and then they go right back
out.
They are not heard,
or they are not accepted as facts,
or they mystify us - “Why would
anyone have said that?"
Then we label the fact as irrational,
crazy,
or stupid."
So,
a frame is the way we work with
pre-existing concepts to ensure that
the message we’re sharing has the
highest chance of being received.
Interestingly,
it’s also why Lakoff recommends
resisting the frame of someone you’re
pushing against by refusing to use
their language.
This is because it is language that
builds the frame—and if someone is
not working in your interests,
then the frame they choose will not be
the frame you want.
In Obama’s case,
framing is used to persuade.
But frames can have other uses and are
especially helpful in navigating
difficult,
uncomfortable,
or emotionally charged conflicts.
Maybe the other person just refuses to
listen or believe you.
Maybe you both keep saying the same
things over and over,
and it’s escalating.
What’s the solution?
According to Lakoff,
you both need to find a way to get into
the same frame.
As a good communicator,
it’s your job to find out what story
you could tell that will resonate with
the other person.
Remember—it’s not about facts.
It’s about all the many different
ways to look at those facts,
and what that means for two people who
find themselves in a conversation about
them.
Here are a few things to keep in mind -
1.
Make sure that,
as far as possible,
you begin every conversation with a
good idea of where you want it to go.
Be proactive.
2.
What is your frame?
Your source of truth?
The framework you’re embedded in?
Really own this—it will help you find
the metaphors and stories that will
help you express your position.
3.
Get the other person to see into this
frame of yours by asking them questions.
You want them to agree.
Be careful and avoid using their story
or their words.
4.
Deliberately engineer the structure of
your story so that it leads toward the
kind of solutions you want.
It’s about focus.
Reading the above,
you may think that setting a
conversational frame may be a little
manipulative.
Isn’t thinking in this way precisely
the thing that leads to stubborn
standoffs in conversations?
Well,
yes and no.
The truth is,
we are all using frames all the time.
It’s just a question of whether
we’re consciously aware of it,
how those frames work,
to what end,
and in service of whom and what.
Being a good communicator means
understanding all this and proactively
taking charge.
This is more often than not a win-win
scenario.
Let’s look at an example.
Imagine a potential client is
interested but has concerns about the
price you’re charging.
What you don’t want to do in this
case is bombard them with facts (you
might call them “reasons”)
to change their mind.
It won’t work.
What you need to do is consider the
best frame for the case you want to
make.
And to do that,
you need to understand the frame
they’re already in,
the nature of their objections and
fears,
and what exactly it is you’re asking
them to do.
This might allow you to realize that
the person is hesitant because they are
unsure of the real value of what
you’re offering.
They are very,
very tired of being aggressively
marketed to and just want something
that works.
So you say that they’re right—it is
expensive.
There are people who don’t buy
because it’s not in their budget,
and that’s okay.
But you do have many satisfied clients
who,
having taken the leap,
are now really glad they did—and
you’d be happy to put them in touch.
Otherwise,
you totally respect their decision
either way,
and they know where to find you if they
change their mind.
Can you feel the frame?
Can you see how this response actually
pulls the potential client into that
frame with you?
There is nothing in it for the person
to push against—and a lot to agree
with.
As Dwight D. Eisenhower said,
“Motivation is the art of getting
people to do what you want them to do
because they want to do it.” In this
example,
you are using a frame that gives you
the best chance of actually reaching
this prospective client and getting
them to behave in the way you want them
to behave.
In the same way,
a frame can change anything.
It can turn a restriction and a limit
into “safety” and “comfort."
It can position a loss as a gain or a
gain as a loss.
It can appoint an adversary as a
teacher,
and a friend as a saboteur.
The luxury fashion brand Hermes sells a
handbag,
the “Birkin."
But not just anyone can buy the
handbag;
there are only a limited number
available,
and you have to be invited to spend the
roughly fifty thousand dollars to have
one.
The company will only sell to those
they consider worthy,
and in fact don’t even fully
advertise their selection criteria,
and do not display the bag in ordinary
stores.
Their tactics around this item are kept
under a deliberate veil of mystery.
Hermes has completely inverted the
conventional buyer-seller frame and
created their own .- In this frame,
instead of the company marketing
themselves so they are selected by the
consumer,
the consumer fights to be considered a
potential buyer and feels privileged to
cough up the fifty thousand dollars.
Every person you ever communicate with
will have a lifetime of experiences
behind them,
and these have taught them in gradual
increments to adopt certain beliefs and
worldviews (hopefully not too many as
bizarre as Hermes’).
Many of these views will be unconscious.
But that doesn’t stop them from being
strongly influenced by these beliefs,
which seep through and infiltrate
everything they do and say,
as well as everything they’re able to
hear or agree with.
Think again about Obama’s speech.
There would have been many different
people in the crowd that night,
and a lot of them will have possessed
viewpoints and frames that didn’t
match the one Obama was presenting.
For example,
many Democrats who are politically
involved enough to attend conventions
and rallies do tend to think that there
is such a thing as a “liberal America
and a conservative America,
a Black America and white
America”—after all,
they were there to show support for the
democrats,
not the conservatives,
and specifically for Obama himself
precisely because he was a Black
American,
not because his race didn’t matter.
This is the power of framing—it can
so thoroughly change context,
shift meanings,
and create new understandings that it
allows you to not only have a
conversation but steer a conversation.
This steering is so powerful that it
can actually remake meaning entirely
and cause people to completely change
not just their opinions but the way
they arrive at those opinions.
Obama could have framed himself as a
victim or as an angry avenger.
He could have highlighted the frame of
justice,
or the frame of prosperity.
He could,
in essence,
have chosen any frame in the world.
When someone uses their power to frame
and influence in a good way,
we call them leaders and are happy to
be inspired by them.
When their frames dominate and diminish
us,
we call them bullies and tyrants.
Importantly—it’s the same skill!
Reality is fixed ...but the meaning of
reality is dynamic and subject to
change.
It is not absolute but contextual,
not passively received but actively
constructed.
This is where communication takes
place,
and where you have your greatest chance
for making connections,
being heard,
and influencing others.
Chunking .- Adjusting The Zoom Button.
Take a look at this conversation - A
.- Oh,
wow,
so you’re a music teacher!
How long have you been doing that?
B .- Oh,
about ten years now,
at least.
A .- Cool.
And that whole time you taught the
French horn?
B .- Well,
no.
That’s my main instrument,
but I do oboe as well.
A .- Huh.
I’ve heard that the French horn is
really difficult.
B .- Yeah,
it can be.
A lot of my students end up quitting,
sorry to say!
A .- Oh,
yeah?
How long do they stay before they
usually quit?
B .- How long?
Uh ...I’m not sure.
Everyone’s different,
I guess.
I’d say the ones who leave do so
pretty quickly.
But that could be for all sorts of
reasons.
It’s complicated,
I think.
But you know early on whether you love
the instrument or not.
A .- Oh,
totally.
So maybe,
like,
they’d quit after the first lesson?
B .- Uh ...no,
not always.
Sometimes a month?
I don’t know.
A .- Do they ever tell you before they
go or do they just disappear?
And on and on.
What’s your feeling about this
conversation?
Reading it again,
can you spot the point at which is
starts to kind of grind along?
You can almost feel the moment where B
starts to get bored.
Why?
Before we consider the answer,
let’s look at another example - A .-
Oh,
wow,
so you’re a music teacher!
How long have you been doing that?
B .- Oh,
about ten years now,
at least.
A .- Cool.
That’s a long time.
Do you think you’ll always teach?
B .- Well,
I do sometimes wonder.
It’s rewarding,
but ...people’s attitudes to learning
have changed so much over the years,
you know?
A .- I can imagine.
People seem to just have less and less
patience these days.
What do you think’s causing it?
B .- Well,
who knows.
Take your pick,
right?
I mean,
I have some very good students,
so I can’t complain.
A .- Oh,
I’m sure.
Do you think that overall your
students’ motivations are changing
over time?
B .- Hm,
could be.
It’s hard to say.
A .- Do you think that you’ve had to
adapt the way you teach them to
accommodate for how different students
are today compared with ten years ago?
I often feel like we focus too much on
technique in this country,
and so little on the art side.
Do you find that?
Now consider what you think of this
conversation.
It’s completely different,
but somehow something is still not
quite working.
The big problem with both conversations
(other than A asking a barrage of
questions and B being somewhat
unresponsive)
is a question of chunking.
In neuro-linguistic programming,
the word "chunking" is used to describe
the way in which we can group pieces of
information.
We can chunk “up” or “down -” .
Chunking up means to ask questions or
make comments in such a way as to
combine information and make it more
abstract and more general.
It’s the process of looking for
things that are coming,
or “zooming out” to see the
overarching theme,
pattern,
or structure that simplifies all the
smaller details you’re looking at.
So someone gives you a long list of all
the pets they’ve had throughout their
life,
and you chunk up by saying,
“So you’re a real animal lover,
huh?"
Chunking down goes the other way.
It’s when we ask questions or make
comments that move the conversation
from the general and abstract to the
more specific.
Someone says they love animals,
and you ask them,
“Do you have a pet?"
In doing so,
you’re asking for a more specific
instance of the general claim they’ve
just made,
i.e.,
zooming in.
Basically,
chunking is a way to turn the dial on
the level of detail occurring in a
conversation.
Let’s return to our examples above.
In the first example,
Speaker A asks questions that lead to
them zooming in on the idea of students
quitting and exactly when they quit and
why.
It’s as though each question drills
deeper and deeper into this one chosen
thread—perhaps to the boredom of
Speaker B!
The second conversation has a different
problem.
Here,
Speaker A keeps asking questions that
open up the conversation to a more
abstract level.
But in time,
these questions just seem to go nowhere.
They are soon talking about students in
general,
and then all people and their total
lack of patience,
and then the entire system of music
education in the whole
country—there’s a load of sweeping
generalization and broad abstraction.
Again Speaker B is not quite enjoying
this flight into the abstract!
Chunking up questions/phrases/themes
can look like -
•What does that mean?
•Let's look at the big picture ...
•How does that connect to ...?
•Why did all of that happen?
•What pattern is emerging?
Chunking down,
on the other hand,
could sound like -
•What happened next?
•Can you provide a specific detail?
(For example,
what was his name?
How much did it cost?)
•Tell me more about ...
•When did this happen,
and in what order?
Which is better to use—chunking up or
down?
The answer is neither,
because a good conversation contains a
dynamic balance of both of them.
We can zoom in and out to various
levels of detail and abstraction
according to our needs.
(We’ll explore this more in a later
chapter when we look at “funnel
questions.”)
Start at a broad,
general level and work your way down.
This may correspond with more
open-ended questions,
but it doesn’t necessarily have to -
1.
Start with chunking up to define the
“territory” of your conversation,
state the parameters of the problem,
or gently introduce a new conversation
or topic.
2.
Gradually chunk down,
but do not ask more than three chunking
down questions in a row.
Find out things like specific goals,
motivations,
problems,
interpretations,
examples,
etc.
3.
Then zoom out again with another
chunking up question.
Again,
try not to ask more than three of these
in a row.
The point of zooming in and out is to
avoid either extreme .- Get too
abstract and lofty and you risk
creating a stiff,
impersonal,
and vague conversation about nothing
and everything.
On the other hand,
linger too long on chunking down
questions and you can get lost,
stuck,
or distracted by irrelevant details.
A good metaphor is to imagine that you
and your conversation partner are
mutually navigating your way up a
winding mountain path,
using a map.
Sometimes,
you’ll both want to lean in and
engage with the finer details of
exactly where you are—the rocks and
trees and so on.
You’ll focus on this turn or that
turn,
and the one foot in front of the other.
But every once in a while,
you have to consult the map and get a
bigger picture of what you’re doing.
You need to look up and take in the
horizon,
or glance behind you to see how far
you’ve advanced up the mountain and
how much longer you have to go.
You might even take a break and
consider the whole reason for climbing
the mountain in the first place!
In any case,
good mountaineers have both
skills—they pay attention to the
gravel beneath their boots,
but also look up and around them and
engage in the broader task.
The ideal conversation,
then,
would be a comfortable mix of the first
and second of our examples above.
For instance,
instead of continuing to dwell on the
students who quit,
and exactly when they quit and why,
Speaker A could take a metaphorical
step back,
allow the conversation to breathe a
little,
and take the opportunity to chunk up.
Similarly,
three or four chunking up questions
into the second conversation is a good
time to stop talking abstractly and
probe for some specifics.
Conversational Extremist .- The
Nitpicker.
In our examples,
chunking up or down is something we can
locate in a single question or comment.
But it can often be more subtle than
this.
“Nitpickers” are people who have a
longstanding tendency to have
conversations constantly take place on
a concrete,
literal,
and detailed level.
The result can be a conversational
style that is felt by others to be very
dull,
dragging,
and uninspired.
It’s like the conversation gets
“stuck in the weeds” and never
really launches.
This is the person who,
when you tell them you’ve met the
love of your life,
will be curious about what time in the
morning you met them and what their
name is and whether you spell that name
with one L or two.
We tend to become conversational
nitpickers ourselves for a few reasons.
We may be anxious and trying to control
the course of the conversation but
inadvertently keep it muzzled to
endless mundane details.
We may be bored ourselves.
The way out is simple .- If you find
that you or your listener is getting
bored or distracted,
sit back (sometimes literally!)
and ask an open-ended,
completely abstract question.
Say something about an intangible
concept.
Introduce a metaphor,
or even a controversial and nuanced
opinion.
This should kick the conversation back
into gear.
Conversational Extremist .- The
Philosopher.
The other extreme is the person who
never,
ever comes down from some towering
abstract conversational heights and
seems to always be looking down at
humans and all the petty details of
their lives ...a bit like a philosopher.
These are the people who will
constantly try to make isolate
observations or single anecdotes mean
something about a grander political,
social,
or philosophical narrative.
You might want to rant a little about
someone who was late,
and they respond with a
deep-and-meaningful deconstruction of
the entire notion of lateness,
of all mankind’s tendencies to rebel
against artificial segmentation of this
imaginary construct called time,
and to finish off,
some complex psychoanalysis of the late
person—not just this person in
question,
but all people who are late.
The conversational philosopher is
someone who is always looking for
theories,
patterns,
and overarching themes,
but this can come across as pompous,
cold,
and irrelevant.
The solution,
here,
is also obvious .- Come back to earth
with a question about this person’s
specific life in the here and now.
This should immediately anchor and
ground the conversation,
with a side effect of making you seem
more human,
more approachable,
and more relaxed.
Chunking up or down,
then,
is not just a cognitive exercise about
how information is managed.
It’s also about the degree of
openness or closedness in a
conversation,
the overall sense of flow,
and the extent that either levity or
seriousness is allowed to dominate.
Use chunking up questions when you want
to summarize,
contextualize,
consolidate,
or get some distance—theoretical or
emotional.
This is a focus on an overarching
organization,
on purpose and intention.
Use chunking down questions when you
want to expand on some point,
zoom in,
confirm,
or get to grips with the more
“real” aspects of the conversation.
This is a focus on how the overarching
themes express themselves in specific
ways,
on unique experience,
and on the details - who,
where,
when,
how,
what,
and why.
Finally,
pay attention to chunking in conflict
situations.
You may discover that at least part of
the problem is that two people are
talking with different chunking
tendencies.
For example,
your boss may call you in with the
intention of discussing an issue.
Your boss keeps listing out all
instances of this issue and expanding
on the details of each.
You get impatient because you are eager
to understand what all of it
means—what is the single insight or
conclusion you are meant to come to?
Your boss sees you wanting to boil
everything down and find some common
cause for each transgression,
but assumes this means you are not
accepting the fact that there are many
offenses,
not just one.
You see your boss endlessly listing
grievances but without synthesizing
them into anything you can act on.
And round and round you both talk,
both unable to reach one another
because you’re operating at
completely different levels of detail.
When communication has devolved to this
extent,
the way back to a shared frame of
reference is to ask questions or make
comments that gradually close the gap.
“What is that an example of?"
“Is there something that connects all
these observations?"
“What one thing do you want me to
take from this conversation?"
On the other hand,
if you’re having a conflict with
someone who is being overly vague and
abstract,
try to help them zoom in by asking
things like - “Can you give me a
specific example of what you’re
talking about?"
“When did this event happen?
With whom?
How?"
“Can you pinpoint the exact moment it
all went wrong?"
Think Before You Speak.
“I just call it like I see it."
“I’m being honest."
“That’s not what I meant to say."
“I’m just being me."
“I don’t do small talk."
Have you ever said any of the above?
One major impediment to health,
effective communication is a set of
subtle but very damaging beliefs about
what is actually required of us as
humans when we speak to others.
Some of these beliefs come from the
idea that as long as we are authentic,
sincere,
and share our emotions,
that’s enough;
in other words,
our intentions matter,
and how we articulate ourselves is less
important.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
Good communicators know that you cannot
just,
well,
blurt out whatever enters your mind.
You need to be deliberate.
You need to consciously filter what you
say.
You need to speak with purpose and
discipline.
If you’ve ever said something you
later regretted or really “put your
foot in it,” then this is a sign that
you could use more deliberation in the
way you communicate!
The first thing is to subtly challenge
the idea that communication is solely
about expressing yourself,
your position,
or your emotions.
It is not really relevant whether you
have a strong feeling about something,
whether you feel like you’re right
(or even if you are right!),
or whether you are overcome by this or
that impulse in the moment.
Since communication is a social
activity,
it involves others,
and that automatically means that a
portion of all communication is simply
not about you.
People who understand and work with
this insight are ultimately better at
communication than those who keep on
stubbornly insisting “it’s not my
fault that they misunderstood me!"
Being a conscious and careful
communicator means you avoid causing
offense or misunderstanding,
you boost your credibility and maturity
in other peoples’ eyes,
and you generally keep yourself out of
trouble!
Speaking without thinking,
however,
often occurs because we’re impatient,
we’re conversational narcissists
(more on this later in the book),
we are not good at listening,
or simply we’re excited and get
carried away with sharing what we want
to share.
Not everything you think and feel needs
to be shared.
Not everything that pops into your head
needs to be expressed.
To decide what qualifies an idea to be
shared,
ask yourself the following questions -
1. Do I have good motives?
Is what you’re going to say helpful
or useful to yourself or anyone else?
Be honest about what your motives are.
Many people butt in during
conversations to share some tidbit of
information that is completely
irrelevant,
simply because it satisfies their own
ego to say something and impress others.
Be real and assess whether what
you’re saying moves things forward
and contributes to the shared goal of
the conversation (i.e.,
not some hidden agenda of your own).
Some people will say something along
the lines of “if you can’t say
something nice,
don’t say anything at all."
But sometimes,
you will have to express something
that’s not “nice,” especially if
you are defending a boundary or
addressing conflict.
Still,
your motives should be to share any
grievance or disagreement with the
intention of clarifying and resolving
it,
rather than to blame and shame.
This is why motive matters.
You may be able to fool the other
person that you are saying something
out of concern or genuine
misunderstanding,
but at least be honest with yourself
and check whether you’re speaking for
some other,
less noble reason.
2. Is it true?
Opinions,
perspectives,
and desires are one thing.
But ask if,
beyond this,
you are actually saying something you
know to be a falsehood.
This may seem an obvious point to
labor,
but often we insert little falsehoods
into what we say without being
conscious of it.
We exaggerate,
we minimize,
we omit important information,
or we present our best guess as more
certain than it really is.
Again,
it ties into motive.
Are we genuinely and honestly sharing
what we know,
or are we trying to come across as an
expert?
In the realm of our own perceptions and
experiences,
of course,
nothing is really “true” or
“false”—it is our unique
experience.
But be careful that you never act as
though something being true for you
automatically makes it true for another
person.
Here,
being truthful means owning and
acknowledging your own perspective,
while not overstepping and behaving as
though that perspective were truth.
3. Am I breaking confidences?
It goes without saying - never share
something you’ve been asked to keep
private.
Gossip is awful and degrades the
speaker,
the listener,
and the person being talked about in
equal measure,
but you can still break confidences
even without technically being in
gossip territory.
Ask yourself this question .- If the
person you’re talking about was
present,
would they be okay with hearing what
you’re saying about them?
4. Is it considerate?
No,
you don’t always have to be kind.
Some situations in life call for
communication even when we don’t like
or approve of the person in front of
us,
or where “kindness” isn’t really
appropriate.
But you do have to be civil,
polite,
and considerate.
You do have to show the other person a
degree of non-negotiable respect.
Sometimes,
what you want to say may be true,
it may be necessary,
and you may be well within your rights
to say it—but that still doesn’t
entitle you to be rude about it.
In this case,
remember that etiquette and manners are
not something you do merely for the
other person’s sake,
but something you do to communicate a
degree of respect for yourself.
An option is to use the THINK
acronym—which stands for True,
Helpful,
Inspiring,
Necessary,
or Kind.
As we’ve seen,
you don’t need to have all of these,
but if what you want to say ticks only
one or two boxes,
you’re probably better off keeping
silent or rewording your message.
All of this can only be achieved when
you do something essential - stop and
think.
Get into the habit of pausing before
you talk,
or even just mentally pausing.
Even a few seconds of forethought can
be enough (deep down,
we usually know whether something is a
good idea or not even without going
through the above questions—we just
need to slow down enough to realize
that we know!).
If you’re not really sure,
then err on the side of staying silent.
It’s always possible to speak up
later;
it’s never possible to un-say
what’s already been said.
Understanding “Clean Communication”
.
Imagine that a woman says to her
husband,
“Can you please take out the trash?"
Now imagine that she instead says,
“Can you please take out the trash
for a change?"
You can probably see which one is
“clean” communication,
and which one is a little dirty.
Saying “for a change” adds a
hostile blaming element that is not
part of the main message,
but forms a secondary piece of
communication.
This charge may be added in consciously
or unconsciously.
On the other hand,
clean,
smooth communication conveys a message
without adding in any kind of
“negative charge."
Any time your communication is serving
a double role of delivering extra
shame,
anger,
ridicule,
guilt-tripping,
manipulation,
lies,
and so on,
it’s no longer clean.
Imagine the husband hears the second
phrase from above and responds,
“Take it out yourself."
The wife may then (rightly)
see this as an attack and respond,
“Why are you so mean to me?
All I did was ask you nicely to take
the trash out!"
As you can imagine,
a fight ensues,
in part because the wife’s initial
communication was unconsciously unclean.
That didn’t stop her husband from
responding to what she was really
communicating!
Whether consciously unclean (arguably a
bit easier to deal with)
or unconsciously unclean,
this type of communication is a kind of
anti-communication.
It creates misunderstandings,
hurt feelings,
and barriers.
Have you ever had a conversation with
someone who on the surface seemed to be
saying and doing all the right things,
but you still somehow felt bad
afterward?
Maybe you had a weird physical
sensation in your gut,
or you felt like something was amiss.
It might have felt like you were being
lied to,
manipulated,
or subtly insulted ...chances are,
you were the recipient of some unclean
communication.
Let’s take a look at another example.
The wife says to the husband,
“Can you please take the trash out?"
The husband hears this and,
in his mind,
interprets it to mean something like,
“You’re a lazy good-for-nothing and
I have to talk to you like a child!"
He responds in the same way,
“Take it out yourself!"
As you can see,
the misunderstanding is now on the part
of the listener/receiver.
Here,
the husband is overly sensitive,
and has allowed his own issues to
distort the message he’s receiving.
Again,
the communication is unclean.
Whether snags happen on side A or side
B,
and whether they are done consciously
or unconsciously,
they can degrade communication.
Even worse,
little snares and hiccups can compound
over time,
creating animus and a feeling of
negativity that is hard to shift once
it’s underway.
This “toxic residue” can lead to
more intense conflict in time or even a
big blow out,
so it’s best to keep on top of
communication as it happens,
practicing,
if you will,
a kind of routine “communication
hygiene."
This cleans up little misunderstandings
and conflicts before they become big
ones.
You’ll know that there is some
residue in your communication with
someone when one or both of you feels -
A little wary,
nervous,
or uncomfortable.
Any combativeness and defensiveness.
Lies,
deception,
or lowered trust.
General upset or high emotional
intensity.
Now,
the “dirt” in communication can be
accidental,
or it can be deliberate.
If it’s accidental,
the idea is to stop,
take a step back,
and address it.
Many innocent mistakes turn
not-so-innocent if not addressed in
this way.
“Hey,
I just wanted to talk to you about
something.
You asked me earlier to take the trash
out,
and it felt like you were kind of
implying that I don’t pull my weight
or something.
I don’t know if I’ve got that
wrong;
is that what you were trying to say?"
Importantly,
in addressing something,
you need to work hard not to introduce
more unclean language!
If,
however,
the unclean communication is intended,
then the approach is to go in to
conflict resolution.
“Well,
actually,
if we’re going to be honest about it,
I have been feeling like I’m doing
too much of the housework lately."
The thing is,
communication can be clean even during
conflict.
So long as messages are being shared
without introducing extra negativity,
then the conversation is clean and
likely to be productive.
First make a promise to yourself that
you will use clean language as often as
you can.
Make a commitment that you will be
straightforward,
honest,
and respectful,
and will never resort to
underhandedness,
passive aggression,
or innuendo.
This takes a degree of conscious
maturity as well as discipline.
According to clean communication
experts Matthew McKay,
Patrick Fanning,
and Kim Paleg,
the ideal communication attitude is
"taking responsibility for the effect
of what you say."
It also means owning the consequences
of your speech,
even,
and maybe especially if,
you’re not quite conscious of what
you’re doing.
Do your best to create a conversational
space where you can work honestly and
respectfully through any conflicts or
disagreements.
Leave out harmful speech,
accusations,
“barbed” language,
and insinuations that might hurt and
attack another person—and do it no
matter how upset or wronged you feel.
Follow the “ten commandments of clean
language” to keep you on the straight
and narrow and spare yourself and
others a load of unnecessary drama -
1. Don’t use judgment words and
loaded terms (“pigsty” or
“lazy”).
2. Don’t use “global” labels,
i.e.,
make sweeping generalizations or use
absolute statements (“you haven’t
taken out the trash in two weeks”
rather than “you’re an untidy
person,” which takes a swipe at the
person’s entire being,
not just their behavior).
3. Don’t send “you” messages of
blame and accusation (“I’m
stressed” is better than “you’re
stressing me”).
4. Stay away from old history—stick
to the issue at hand and let bygones go.
5. Avoid negative comparisons
(“You’re a slob just like my ex
was”).
6. Never threaten,
even subtly (“If you can’t be
bothered to do the trash,
it makes me wonder why I bother to do
any of my chores”).
Control and manipulation only create
escalating defensiveness.
7. Describe your feelings rather than
use them as a weapon or a “point”
you’ve scored (“You’ve really
gone and riled me up this morning!
Why do you always insist on hurting me
like this?”).
8. Keep your body language open,
relaxed,
and receptive.
Call off a difficult conversation until
you’re calmer,
if necessary.
9. Use whole messages.
Incomplete messages are more likely to
be taken out of context.
A whole message contains observations,
thoughts,
feelings,
and needs/wants.
For example,
“I see the trash is piling up
(observation),
and I realize you haven’t taken it
out for a long time (thoughts).
When I see that I have to do it,
even though it’s your chore,
I feel overwhelmed and annoyed.
I’d really like for you to keep up
your end of the housework as we agreed
(wants/needs)."
10.
Be clear.
If you have a question,
ask.
If you want something,
request it.
Avoid using passive language,
innuendo,
or hints (“Is there some special
reason you’ve decided to let us all
live in filth,
or ...?”).
Be direct and clear.
Summary -
•Poor communication arises as a
result of a mismatch of perspectives,
approach,
or conversational skill.
People process information differently,
but to avoid misunderstandings,
communicate consciously and use the
“ladder of inference."
It shows the unique way that people use
their experiences to make meaning -
observations > selected data > meanings
> assumptions > conclusions > beliefs >
actions.
•Conflict can occur when people are
on different rungs.
To improve communication,
see where people are and how their
ladder of inference is working for
them,
then speak to that,
in sequence,
and without blame or shame.
•Good communicators deliberately
create their own frames during
conversations and position their line
of thinking by using specially chosen
words,
expressions,
and images.
Change frames and you change meaning.
•Deliberately engineer your
conversational frame and invite the
other person in using pre-existing
concepts they’re familiar with to
improve the chances they’ll be
receptive.
Remember that reality is fixed,
but the meaning of reality is dynamic
and subject to change.
•Chunking is about the way we group
information.
Chunking up is grouping specific
instances into a larger overall
abstract pattern or theory,
while chunking down makes inferences
from the general to the specific.
Keeping the level of detail varied and
appropriate creates a better flowing
conversation than one that relies too
heavily on chunking up or chunking down.
•It is a mistake to think that
authenticity,
expression,
and sincerity are enough—how we
articulate ourselves matters.
Consciously filter what you say .- Is
it true,
kind,
and helpful?
•Take responsibility for what you say
and practice clean
communication—i.e.,
without hidden negative meanings.
This has been
How to Speak Effectively:
Influence,
Engage,
& Charm (How to be More Likable and Charismatic Book 29) Written by
Patrick King, narrated by russell newton.