Can This Conversation Be Saved?

What follows is a very special blog post. It’s the first of several drawn from a new project that we’re really excited about: what we hope will become the first published book based on SAVI. We’re starting off with text from the introduction, and after that we’ll move on to Chapter 2 (on Yes-Buts). Now, more than ever, we’re very eager to get your feedback. You, loyal blog readers, will be the first to read and review this material. Please let us know what you think — what you like, what you don’t like, and any edits or additions you’d like to see. As soon as we have these two chapters completed, we’re ready to go look for a publisher. Help us create a proposal that they can’t refuse!

Thanks in advance! We hope you’ll enjoy reading this as much as we’ve enjoyed writing it.

Introduction:
Can This Conversation Be Saved?
The Surprising Common Factor in all Communication Breakdowns

Communication breakdowns are bad news for our lives and work, and even our health. At best, they’re a source of irritation and frustration. At worst, they can threaten our jobs, families, and friendships — and in some cases, even our lives. Research shows that communication failures are the leading cause of serious medical errors.

How can we go about improving our conversations? First we need to get clear about exactly what’s going wrong. We can’t solve a problem if we don’t know what’s causing it. And when it comes to communication issues, the cause is often tricky to spot.

Consider the following dialogue, taken from an actual conversation that took place between the daughter of a patient (call her Sarah) and the patient’s physician (Dr. M) at a major Boston hospital. As you read it, see if you can figure out what’s causing the trouble in their communication:

Sarah began by saying, “It’s so upsetting to see my father in this condition. I know this is not how he wanted to spend the last days of his life.”
“I’m very sorry,” replied Dr. M, emotionless.
“I think it’s finally time to take him off the respirator.”
“I can see how you’d feel that way now,” said Dr. M, “but this new medication may start to improve his quality of life.”
“At this point, that’s just not enough. He’s never going to get to the point where life is worth living again.”
“Wouldn’t it be better to wait and be sure?”
“We’ve waited so long already,” said Sarah, whining now, “and nothing has helped!”
Still very calm, Dr. M said, “The morphine has helped to make him more comfortable, and his breathing seems a little easier today.”
“Look,” said Sarah, exasperated, “I just can’t talk to you about this anymore!”

What’s going on here? What made that conversation so difficult? When we present this dialogue in our communications trainings, people usually come up with two different types of explanations: blaming the people and blaming the issue. In fact, these are the most common reasons people give for any type of communication failure. Unfortunately, neither one is particularly useful.

Explanation #1. Blaming the People
If you blamed the problem on Dr. M or on Sarah, you’re using the people explanation. From this point of view, communications break down because of psychological factors, such as:

• Personality traits or attitudes
  Dave is too closed-minded. Rachel is defensive. The employees have a negative attitude. Andy and Karen are passive aggressive.
  
  
• Intentions or motivations
  Paul isn’t really interested in what we have to say. People have hidden agendas. Ann always spends the entire meeting trying to win people over to her side. Carlos is more concerned with making Jamie look bad than with finding a solution to the problem.
  
  
• Emotional state
  The customer gets way too emotional. Angela lets her anger get out of control. Matt is out of touch with his emotions; he says all the right things, but you can tell he doesn’t really feel it.

In the hospital case, we might decide there’s something wrong with Dr. M (he’s cold and insensitive; he just wants Sarah to agree with him and doesn’t care about her point of view) or with Sarah (maybe she’s too emotional, too stubborn, or too pessimistic).

The psychological perspective has a strong intuitive appeal. It may seem like basic common sense — of course people’s bad attitudes, hidden agendas, and raging emotions ruin conversations; you can probably think of a few examples off the top of your head. However, this type of thinking also leaves us in a bind, with no good way to solve our problems.

Suppose you decide that the real trouble with your communication is someone else’s defensiveness or overemotional reaction. That’s not something you have the power to control. In fact, if you try to control it and force the person to change, you’re likely to make things even worse. If you don’t believe us, ask anybody who’s tried to resolve an argument by saying things like, “Stop being so defensive,” “Calm down,” or “You need to relax.” (Imagine what would have happened if Dr. M told Sarah to be more rational, or if she told him to show some feeling.) Moreover, even if it were possible to make someone change — perhaps by convincing them to get some coaching or go into therapy — that’s a long-term process. It’s not an efficient or practical strategy for making your conversations work better.

Sometimes it may seem like the only solution is to get the difficult person out of your life — quit the job, fire the employee, seek a divorce, etc. If you haven’t gone through this type of thought process yourself, you certainly know people who have. You probably know more than one person who’s acted on that reasoning, only to end up having the exact same conflicts a few months later in their new relationship or job situation. And of course, it’s often just not possible to exclude someone from your life. In our example, so long as Dr. M is caring for Sarah’s father, they have no choice but to talk to one another.

In our next post, we’ll explore explanation #2 — blaming the issues — and then reveal the real reason behind communication breakdowns. Stay tuned!