Trust, influence, relationships and challenging conversations

Author: | Date: 15 Oct 2015

Take home messages

  • Effective communication enables productivity, makes life more enjoyable and is an essential ingredient of cooperation.
  • We have an innate capability to copy the behaviour of others. Choose to be around, and to copy, people whose behaviour you admire - and copy their behaviour a little more consciously.
  • Practice positivity in your interactions with others to build better, more productive relationships. They will respond positively, they can't help it.
  • Social sensitive is a key predictor of team performance. 'Check-in' with the other person or your team mates first. Then proceed with the conversation, meeting or work.
  • To improve communication plan your conversation simply, prepare for your conversation and engage by paying attention to the other person first.

Introduction

We communicate in order to share information and build relationships. Effective communication enables productivity, makes life more enjoyable, and is an essential ingredient of cooperation.

Most of us assume that we communicate by talking and listening, but these are just two elements in a very complex process. Our interpretations of our lives and our motivations to act are tied up in a range of chemicals and electrical signals that course through our bodies in very complex patterns that respond to other people and to our environment. If we aim to influence others, it helps to understand these processes, and to acknowledge that; while the processes are similar in all of us, different people respond in different ways to different stimuli.

In order to improve our ability to communicate, it helps to understand some of the sub-conscious activity that underpins human communication and influence.

Human motivation, emotion and interaction

Whenever we experience something; a response, an emotion, an urge to act, hormones are secreted within our body and contribute significantly to the way we ‘feel’ about what’s happening. Those same hormones also prime us to act more effectively in particular ways to particular stimuli.

For example, cortisol and adrenaline are released when we perceive particular stressors; they focus our minds on action, and enable certain physical processes that might be useful in the circumstances. On the other hand, dopamine and serotonin are associated with feelings of both happiness and contentment, and also with a tendency to relax - and not act at all!

If we are to have lives that are happy and productive we need to call on different hormonal responses at different times, and we can indeed stimulate our own hormonal responses, and those of others.

If we are willing to explore these core processes of ‘being human’, we can improve our understanding of relationships, and our abilities to influence other people.

Effective teamwork

Essentially, we communicate in order to cooperate more effectively with others, so that we can achieve desired outcomes (e.g. build a building, resolve a conflict, run a sporting club).

Anita Williams Woolley led the team of researchers that conducted the most scientifically rigorous exploration of teamwork to date. Her team investigated the behaviours that yield better results in teams, and found that emotional (or ‘social’) sensitivity was the key to better human performance in groups. Our awareness of others’ emotional state has genuine value.

In short, they found:

  • ‘Social sensitivity’ is a key predictor of team performance. While we don’t yet know for certain (from a scientifically rigorous viewpoint) whether or not we can develop our skill in this area, various other pieces of research indicate that we can all improve our abilities over time (e.g. Ericsson, 2003). It is therefore probably very productive to spend time at the start of each meeting, and each interaction, ‘catching up’ with others: How are they feeling? What’s on their mind? What’s going well? And not so well?
  • ‘Equality of distribution of conversational turn-taking’ was a factor in team performance, and this can clearly be controlled. In any group discussion, somebody (or preferably everybody) should accept responsibility for ensuring that everyone has approximately equal opportunity to speak and add to the conversation. If you haven’t said anything, speak up for your team! If you’ve spoken a lot, take some time to listen instead. And, if you’ve noticed that particular others have not spoken, ask directly what they’re thinking or feeling.
  • The proportion of females in the group correlated with team performance. If you’re appointing a team for any purpose, be sure to keep this in mind.

Personality types

As we all know, not all human beings respond to things in the same way. There are a range of ‘tests’ that we can use to identify aspects of our character in ways that can be helpful.

Unfortunately, many ‘personality tests’ are deeply flawed, and have little psychological / scientific or practical value, but even some of the not-so-rigorous tests can teach us a key insight: just because I react a particular way to something doesn’t mean that others will respond in the same way. It is very important to reflect on the fact that other people have very good reason for behaving and responding differently, and the more we embrace this notion in our communication, the more our communication will improve.

In our workshop, we will probably explore aspects of two ‘tests’. The ‘Mind in the Eyes’ test, which helps us to measure and reflect on our own levels of ‘social sensitivity’, and a ‘Big Five’ personality test, which offers snippets of information about our own preferences in relation to five quite rigorous aspects of our personalities that we can work on over time… and also helps us to understand why other people might respond differently to information or stimulation.

Emotional contagion

V.S. Ramachandran is a neurologist with a deep understanding of human empathy.

He proposes that human culture is the sum process of human beings copying each other. Think of a small child, innocently learning one culture by copying the adults in the community. This is natural human behaviour. The capability is innately within us. We are born to copy.

We continue to be capable of copying other people, even as adults. We pick up foreign accents when we live in foreign countries for significant periods of time. We adjust ourselves physically and emotionally - constantly - to be more socially available to people around us… and to ‘fit’ into groups by behaving as other members of each group behave.

Around 10 per cent of the activity in the pre-frontal cortex of our brains (the part that does the heavy bulk of the conscious processing) is involved in ‘mirroring’ the people around us, which helps us to understand what they’re experiencing, and improves cooperation. (This is colloquially referred to as the work of our ‘mirror neurons’.)

Our (your) innate empathy has two very significant ramifications

  1. If we want to change our own behaviour, we have an innate capability to copy the behaviour of others, by just spending time around them. In fact, we are doing this constantly. A tip: choose to be around, and to copy, people whose behaviour you admire - and copy their behaviour a little more consciously.
  2. Other people are constantly copying us, subconsciously. One of the most certain ways to influence other people is to simply behave as we want them to behave. 'Be the change you want to see' is more than just wisdom; it is good science.

Sigal Barsade, based at the very highly regarded Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania, has done some fascinating research in large organisations, confirming the power of emotional contagion in commercial contexts.

Evolution and communication

Why do we feel uncomfortable when we have disagreements or difficult conversations with other people?

It’s because, for the better part of four million years of human evolution, conflict within tribes was very dangerous for us. Think about it this way: when we lived on the plains with very little in the way of either shelter or protection being alone was very dangerous. Not surprisingly, we have evolved to prioritise worry and danger in our minds. If we didn’t worry, or if we didn’t prioritise risks in our thinking, we would get eaten, and our genes would not survive. On the other hand, the worriers amongst us took fewer risks, and their genes survived.

We weren’t just attuned to our exposure to predators. We needed to be highly sensitive to the views of powerful people within our tribes, because we needed them to like us, and to value our presence in the group. If we offended them, they could ostracise us from the tribe (we’ve all experienced this at school, whilst growing up - it’s a genetically coded learning mechanism). Ostracism from a tribe meant death through most of our evolution (and, therefore, deselection of those genes). This is why we are highly tuned to ‘negative’ signals from others.

Keith Johnstone is a guru of improvisation and of creative behaviour (there are some engaging interviews with him available on YouTube). He has extraordinary experience in this area, having held workshops teaching drama all over the world for more than 60 years.

He suggests that we have powerful tendencies to ‘block’ ourselves because of a fear of social vulnerability. Now, this can get a little mind-bending, but: we have powerful impulses to choose not to do what it was that we really wanted to choose to do… because we worry about how we will be perceived by others.

Unfortunately, this creates a never-ending conversation of self-doubt in our minds, which is counter-productive to success in the modern world (as we shall explore).

Professor Martin Seligman (University of Pennsylvania) suggests that we tend to either over-evaluate or under-evaluate our own ideas, and that ideal ‘creativity’ is simply a case of getting the balance right when we evaluate our own ideas: Which ideas should we pursue? Which are not so promising?

When playing Word Association, we will tend to censor our own contributions to discussion, while constantly second-guessing whether our partners in conversation are judging us; particularly negatively. And this also occurs regularly when we are engaged in meetings and conversations with others.

The benefits of positivity

There is a wide range of research demonstrating the value of positive emotional states and interactions. Here is a very, very brief overview:

  • Optimistic expectations correlate with sales productivity, Shulman 1999
  • MBA students primed into good moods make measurably better commercial decisions, Staw and Barsade 1993
  • Frequent positive affect leads to more energy, creativity, stronger immune system, better relationships,higher productivity and longer life, Lyubomirsky, Deiner & King (meta-analysis) 2005
  • Long term correlation (causality?) between optimism and positive health outcomes, Peterson and Bossio 1991
  • People who express more positivity live up to a decade longer, Danner, Snowdon & Friesen 2001

Evidence is abundant that ‘being positive’ yields positive outcomes. (Not in every single moment of every single day, and not in every circumstance, but generally speaking, it pays to be positive rather than negative.) However, we can’t just suddenly be far more positive; like all personal change or skill development it takes time, study and effort (e.g. Ericsson, 2003). If you want to be great at anything that you haven’t practised in the past (e.g.: piano, golf, cooking, running a business), you will need to work at it over a long period of time. This is probably true for ‘positivity’.

Now, consider the notions of (i) positivity, and (ii) emotional contagion together.

Importantly, if you want to build better and more productive relationships with other human beings, it is definitely worth practising positivity in your interactions with others. Others will respond positively. They can’t help it.

Rumination versus savouring

One of the worst ‘choices’ we can make is to ruminate. That is, to turn something negative or frustrating over and over in our minds. Ruminating influences our behaviour: it makes us negative, grumpy and irritating. Also, it is not good for our health (remember, there is abundant evidence that positive outlooks are good for our health and productivity, and that chronic stress is not).

Whenever you find yourself ruminating, try choosing to do something else interesting or compelling; anything that demands your attention to help you stop ruminating.

Importantly, don’t ruminate about relationships, and don’t ruminate about forthcoming difficult conversations.

On the flip-side, choosing to reflect on positive experiences can stimulate both strong performance (see the earlier references to positivity) and wellbeing benefits. (It is important to understand, however, that spending too much time reveling in positive memories and undirected positive thinking can reduce our motivation to act, and therefore impede performance.)

Think about the most productive work relationships you’ve ever had: your best boss, or teacher, or manager, or mentor, or business partner. It is very likely (based on many statistical studies) that the person you are thinking about was very good at engaging you positively in conversations about work. That person can be a great role model for you, and remember, you are well equipped to practise imitating / copying their effective behaviours. Connect with others the way your best teachers and mentors have connected with you.

Practising positivity

Many of the world’s best comedians have been taught methods for interaction that were first developed to help young disadvantaged children to socialise more effectively. The formal methods were first taught by Viola Spolin, who worked with disadvantaged kids in Chicago in the 1920s and ‘30s, teaching them to be more engaged and outgoing by using drama games.

Spolin’s son, Paul Sills, established the ‘Second City’ theatre company in Chicago, using those same methods, and its list of alumni is a jaw-dropping who’s who of 20th century American comedy.

These methods can be learned by anyone. Spolin is quoted very straightforwardly: ‘Everyone can’, she said.

Positivity of the type that Spolin taught is now better understood. Shelly Gable has led some terrific research which illustrates that ‘active-constructive responding’ builds the levels of trust and satisfaction in relationships. ‘Trust’ and ‘satisfaction’ are specifically what we are aiming to build in our commercial relationships.

Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton are two management researchers in the U.S. who found that negative response undermined the ability for management teams to execute effectively. The evidence for practising positivity is abundant.

Understanding and building confidence

A key challenge for many of us is: how can I manufacture confidence (an element of positivity) when I don’t feel it?

Fortunately, there are sound methods for doing so. Amy Cuddy and her colleagues have demonstrated that practising various physical poses for just two minutes can build the level of testosterone in our bloodstream, which in turn influences others’ perceptions of our confidence level. i.e. these exercises work!

Simply take two minutes to behave (quietly) in the ways that dominant, confident people do… Strike Super(wo)man poses! Amazingly, it’s that easy.

By balancing our body language and vocal tones, we can demonstrate - and practise - both warmth and confidence, thus becoming better, more effective, and more confident communicators over time, no matter how challenging our conversations might be.

A confident person is, essentially, a person who does not entertain their own self-doubt.

Key take-outs for improving communication

Plan your conversation simply

When preparing for any conversation, think about the valuable factual information you can share with your team-mate. (And always think of everyone you converse with as a team-mate).

Sharing accurate information builds trust over time. Distinguish between facts, forecasts (guesses) and opinions. Emphasise the facts. Don’t embellish information. Tell it as it is. Share it. Work together with the real facts and information. Ask for opinions about the facts. Learn about what matters to the other person in the conversation.

Don’t aim to convince the other person of something. Aim to walk away understanding their point of view, and what matters to them.

Think about what you are most enthusiastic about; what you’re most confident about, and include that as part of your conversational plan. What can you work on together that could work? Share this. If you feel confident about it, you don’t have to fake it.

Prepare for your conversation

Visualise a friendly meeting. Aim to make a good connection. Practise caring about what they think and feel. Practise caring about people who think and respond in different ways from you!

Be clear about the factual details you need to share, and the factual details you need to collect.

Breathe deeply. (Love the world and all the people in it). Practise confident stances for two minutes before each meeting.

Don’t overdo it.

Engage

Pay attention to the other person first: check in with them. Ask how things are going. Observe their facial expressions (mind in the eyes) and body language. Tell them gently how you perceive their responses (‘You seem happy’; ‘You seem a little worried,’ etc.). Let them know that you notice, and that you care. In doing so, you should improve your skills at reading other people.

Try to share every conversation equally.

Check that you have shared your facts, early in the conversation. Check that you have gathered facts from others in the conversation.

Be very clear about any decisions that you have made in the meeting.

Ask, near the end of the meeting: ‘What decisions have we made here?’ Gain complete agreement on the decisions made.

Write them down; copy them; ensure everyone gets a copy.

Ask: ‘Who is going to do what?’ and make notes. Distribute them.

Check in again about how others feel about the meeting, and about progress on key issues.

References and useful reading

Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative science quarterly, 50(3), 367-403.

Barsade, S. (2002) ‘The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behaviour’ Administrative Science Quarterly 47. 644

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of general psychology, 5(4), 323.

Covey, S. (1989). The seven habits of highly successful people. Fireside/Simon & Schuster.  [Note: This Covey book is not really a rigorous academic work, but Covey did study ‘success’ in his PhD, and the piece about Circles of Influence and Concern is generally regarded as a strong summary.]

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61-149. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2601(07)00002-0

Cuddy, A. J., Kohut, M., & Neffinger, J. (2013). Connect, then lead. Harvard business review, 91(7), 54-61.

Danner, D.D., Snowdon, D.A. & Friesen, W.V. (2001). Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the nun study.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 (5), 804-813.

Ericsson, K.A. (2003). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine 79 (10) S70-81.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American psychologist, 56(3), 218.

Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(2), 228.

Gazzaniga, M., Heatherton, T., Halpern, D. (2011). Psychological Science. Norton & Company. New York.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 268.

Johnstone, K. (2012). Impro: Improvisation and the theatre. Routledge.

Lally, P., Van Jaarsveld, C. H., Potts, H. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998-1009.

Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., Van Doornen, L. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference?. Personality and individual differences, 40(3), 521-532.

Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy. Journal of management development, 21(5), 376-387.

Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the life you want. Penguin.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. & Diener, E. (2005). The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success?  Psychological Bulletin. 131 (6), 803-855.

Morris, D. (1977). Manwatching: A field guide to human behaviour. G. Desebrock (Ed.). New York: HN Abrams.

Peterson, C., & Bossio, L.M. (1991). Health and Optimism. New York: Free Press

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2013). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Harvard Business Press.

Ramachandran’s wikipedia entry is interesting, refers to his papers, and the Mirror Neurons wiki details the differing views in the scientific community. Positive mindset and positive spirals are two very interesting ideas within the field of positive psychology. You may be interested to read accessible books by Carol Dweck (‘Mindset’) and Barbara Fredrickson (‘Positivity’ *, ‘Love 2.0’). These books are not specifically about emotional contagion, but they explain much of the good scientific research about ‘positive’, vis a vis, ‘negative’ attitudes and emotions. Both authors are highly regarded in this field. * ‘Positivity’ includes chapters referring to some work undertaken with Marcial Losada which has been withdrawn due to a specific discredited mathematical application, and other concerns arising about Losada’s previous work; the rest of the book is based on sound research.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.

Seligman, M. E. (2011). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. Random House LLC.

Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. American psychologist, 60(5), 410.

Shulman, P. (1999). Applying Learned Optimism to Increase Sales Productivity. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. 19 (1), 31-37.

Spolin, V. (1999). Improvisation for the theater: A handbook of teaching and directing techniques. Northwestern University Press.

Staw, B.M. & Barsade, S.G. (1993). Affect and Managerial Performance: A Test of the Sadder-but-Wiser vs. Happier-and-Smarter Hypothesis.  Administrative Science Quarterly. 38 (2), 304-331.

Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Rumination reconsidered: A psychometric analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27(3), 247-259.

Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686-688. doi: 10.1126/science.1193147

Contact details

Andrew Bayly
Dramatic Scenarios Pty Ltd
abayly@me.com