Resolving problems when communication fails.

Based on the new book, When Talking Makes Things WORSE!

This is the second of four excerpts based on the new book/audiobook, When Talking Makes Things WORSE! Resolving Problems When Communication Fails (Whitehall & Nolton, 1997), available to CIM members at a 20% discount. To purchase the book, call Andrews and McMeel, 1-800-826-4216.

"What we've got here is a failure to communicate."

So many people have repeated that platitude for so long, it's become so ingrained in our way of thinking, that we actually believe it. In a dispute - whether with another executive, an employee, a supplier, or a customer - the instinct is to try to talk things out, to clarify communication.

There's one thing wrong with that approach.

Often, poor communication is not the cause of the problem. So if you keep trying to understand each other better, you will not resolve the problem - and you may worsen it. Before plunging in, you need to identify the real problem you are facing.

Consider, for example, an incident that occurred at one Fortune 500 company, a rocket manufacturer in southern California. The story appeared in one of America's major newspapers. I cannot comment on the truth or lack of truth of the article; I can tell you only what the newspaper reported:

Workers were being laid off and a pay freeze was instituted. The company had an 'open-door' policy to encourage communication with senior management, so an engineer named Tom Shackleberry wrote the company president. He complained that workers were being told to sacrifice their raises even though, he said, the company had reported a 10% increase in profits and even though, he said, senior management was giving itself increases up to 22%.

Mr. Shackleberry continued: "For top management to claim they are trying to reduce overhead costs ... while their own compensation skyrockets is abhorrent and unethical."

By now you are wondering just how open that "open door" really was. Shackleberry found out when he got a reply from the VP for Human Resources: "I suggest you have a calm discussion with your management. If, after getting a full explanation, you still feel like writing about the 'abhorrent and unethical' behaviour of the Company's leadership, you probably will feel better doing so from a position at an employer more in keeping with your theories."

Well! Mr. Shackleberry was so taken aback by what the newspaper calls the "implied threat" that he "shared copies of the two letters with a few friends. Those friends sent copies to a few of their friends.

"And so on.

"And on.

The incident caused so much controversy that the company president commented in a company newsletter. He acknowledged that "a response written to one employee's letter gave rise to concerns about the reality of open, two-way communication." Since his employees did not seem to understand the reality, the president clarified it: "Let me emphasize that I intend to continue my policy of open communication." Finally, he did meet with Shackleberry. Do you think he apologized even for the tone of the VP's letter?

According to the newspaper, he did not.

But then, why should he? There was no problem with senior management, was there? Senior management was misunderstood - first by Shackleberry, then by other employees. Shackleberry needed to get a "full explanation," The employees needed to get clarification.

The Great Myth of Hidden Harmony

The company president was acting according to a pervasive belief which I call the Great Myth of Hidden Harmony: Deep down, we all agree. There is no conflict, only poor understanding. If only we understand each other, we'll agree. The president's twist on it was: If only you understand me, we'll agree.

If this approach strikes you as patronizing and self-centered, it should also strike you as familiar. Because this is the approach many of us take when we get into an argument, from the plant floor to the boardroom. We try to make the other person understand our view.

This approach can solve the problem if everyone's engaged in a joint search for truth, rationally and dispassionately, with no egos or interests at stake. Such cases, alas, are rare indeed. As a rule, when people feel under attack, they react emotionally. They defend themselves and attack the other side.

When people aren't talking, we assume they must not understand each other and they need to listen and explain things openly and honestly. But often, people stop talking because they do understand. They know they disagree.

This was the case when union leaders broke off contract talks. They understood management's pay offer; they wanted to protest it by breaking off talks. Poor communication was not the cause of this problem.

It was the result.

When is greater understanding the answer?

More understanding will help only if lack of understanding is the problem. You need to know what you're dealing with - a misunderstanding or a true disagreement.

This distinction is crucial for you to make as a manager. A true disagreement will persist despite the most accurate understanding. In a true disagreement, if you listen, understand the person, and then stand firm, you won't settle anything - and you can easily make things worse.

For example, neighbours were outraged at a chemical company's plans to build an incinerator behind their homes to burn toxic waste. The neighbours said, "We want you to listen and understand us." So that was what the project manager thought he literally needed to do.

He held a community meeting so they would have the satisfaction of being heard - and also to clear up their misconception. The neighbours thought that "incinerator" meant "poison gas". He would demonstrate that his incinerator would meet stringent health standards. He was sure that listening and explaining would solve the problem. So what happened?

The more he talked, and the more the neighbours talked, the angrier they became. One angry neighbour after another was parading up to the podium, and Mr. Feemley was telling each speaker, "We hear you, we hear you." Finally, someone stood up and shouted: "You say you've heard us? Stop construction!"

Mr. Feemley was speechless, unprepared to handle this true disagreement.

"I can't stop construction," he finally admitted.

"What?!" The neighbour shouted, "You liar! You said you'd listen to us! Why did you even hold this meeting?"

"Well," Mr. Feemley said, looking at the floor, "We wanted to give you a chance to vent."

I thought the crowd was going to lynch the man.

The Myth of the Miracle Meeting

Like Mr. Feemley, many managers are seduced by the Myth of the Miracle Meeting, in which controversies are supposed to vanish, thanks to the magic of understanding.

But in a true disagreement, if you hold a meeting to improve understanding, you accomplish only one of two things: (a) you do no good whatsoever, or (b) you make things worse.

Frequently, you make things worse.

Why? Because in the process of improving understanding your meeting can actually provide a forum for people to fight each other. That's exactly what happened in Mr. Feemley's case. In a true disagreement, improving understanding can produce deadlock.

How to identify the problem

How can you distinguish a true disagreement from a misunderstanding? A simple test is to ask yourself: "Would the problem disappear if we understood each other better?"

In other words ...

* If you explained yourself, would the other person change their mind?

* If you only listened and understood the other person, would the person feel satisfied and stop opposing you?

* If they explained themselves more to you, would you change your mind?

If your answer to any of these questions is yes, then you have a misunderstanding, and greater understanding could help.

If your answer is no, you have a true disagreement. As in Mr. Feemley's predicament, you may also have a misunderstanding, but the key is that in a true disagreement, better understanding won't resolve the whole problem. Listening and explaining could clear up the superficial misunderstanding - about whether the incinerator met safety standards; but the underlying true disagreement remained - about whether the facility should be built.

Example applying the test

Lisa had to hire an administrative assistant. She waded through resumes and found only one good applicant - a guy named Jeff.

She called him back for a second interview. She began with chitchat: "I see you moved here recently. How do you like it?"

"Well, the location is great, but my wife's work schedule makes life crazy. She's a nurse and goes to work in the evening - which means I've got to pick up our three kids from day care every night at five o'clock and feed them dinner."

Lisa nodded. "My husband and I were on different schedules for several months. Now we both work until eight at night."

They talked more, Jeff seemed to be the perfect candidate, and Lisa gave him the job.

Within six weeks she regretted the decision.

She ordered Jeff into her office. "We need to discuss you lack of commitment to your job."

Jeff looked at her, astounded. "Lack of commitment??"

Lisa continued, "You leave every day at 5 pm, no matter how much work there is."

Jeff protested, "But I told you I have to pick up my kids from day care and give them dinner. When you hired me, you understood I'd have to leave at 5 pm."

Lisa replied, "And I told you that I work until eight. You're my administrative assistant and I need you here."

Lisa asked me, should she clarify communication with Jeff about job requirements? I said, "That depends whether you have a misunderstanding or a true disagreement. What was your understanding about job hours?"

She sighed, "Honestly, it wasn't clear. You see, I really wanted to hire him. I was reluctant to make an issue about hours. And he didn't raise the issue, because he needed the job.

In other words, both people chose to skirt the subject. Jeff chose to assume he could leave at five, and Lisa chose to assume he had tacitly agreed to work until eight.

So: Would this problem between Lisa and her new employee disappear if only they understood each other better?

No.

True, they misunderstood each other - deliberately. But now, even if they each explained what they meant, they would not agree, because they never did. On the subject of work hours, they had a true disagreement, going all the way back to the job interview.

How to uncover a true disagreement

If you're dealing with someone who wants to downplay or deny the existence of a conflict, they will not tell you if they have a dispute with you. You can ask them, "Do we have a misunderstanding or do we disagree?" and you won't get an honest answer.

To help you to identify the type of problem, here are some questions to consider:

Do your goals conflict? Does the other person have a reason for acting against your wishes?

Does the other person benefit by downplaying the problem? Ask yourself:

* Would this person want to avoid dealing with a true disagreement.

* Would they like to project a more positive image by pretending there is no conflict?

* Would they prefer to smooth things over for the sake of politeness?

* Would they call it a "misunderstanding" to imply you are partly to blame?

Is poor communication a problem?

Conventional Wisdom:             Strategic Communication:

There is no conflict,            In a true disagreement, there
only poor communication.         is often plenty of communication.

People who disagree do not       People often stop talking
understand each other.           because they understand each other
                                 - and disagree.

Poor communication is the        Poor communication may be
cause of all interpersonal       the result, not the cause.
problems.

Does this person have a history of hiding disagreement? Does the other person regularly claim to "misunderstand" you whenever they disagree with you, no matter what the issue is?

If so, that should send off alarm bells in any manager's head that the problem may be more than a misunderstanding.

When you identify a problem as a true disagreement, you avoid futility trying to resolve it by improving understanding. By identifying the type of problem, you determine the type of solution. (In a misunderstanding, you need to improve understanding; in a true disagreement, you must develop a strategy to persuade them.)

In the next Canadian Manager: How to get what you want - when they refuse.

Dr. David Stiebel is a Fortune 500 negotiation advisor to corporate and government leaders in Canada and the US. In addition to teaching at the University of California, Berkeley, he's appeared repeatedly on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. His new book has won raves from CBS, ABC, NBC, and Pulitzer Prize-winning humorist Dave Barry.