On Monday, I wrote about two fundamentally different paradigms of communication, drawing on the work of McGregor, Schwarz, Rosenberg and Goleman and expanding on an article I recently wrote for Discuss HR. Today, I continue this series of postings by discussing the focus of each communication paradigm.
Two different paradigms of communication. Two different sets of underlying values and assumptions, strategies for execution and ultimate outcomes. If you want to adopt either one of these approaches, you need to know how the underlying values and assumptions translate into practice. One area in which the difference is starkly visible, in my experience, is in the focus of attention adopted by users of each approach.
Let’s begin with McGregor’s Theory X; what Roger Schwarz (in his book The Skilled Facilitator: A Comprehensive Resource For Consultants, Facilitators, Managers, Trainers, and Coaches) calls a Unilateral Control Model and Rosenberg calls a domination approach. The aim of the user is to win and not to lose and the user is not concerned about the experience of others. Implicit in this approach is the belief that there is a single right answer and that all other answers are wrong. It follows, then, that the user of a domination-based approach to communication will tend to focus on who or what is right or wrong and to gather data which supports the case. He or she will often favour some kinds of data and dismiss other kinds of data though there may be some internal inconsistency here. For example, the user of this approach tends to favour objective data and dismiss data concerned with the feelings of others. At the same time, he or she may take the view that his or or her feelings are justified, especially when they are concerned with judgements about the other person or people.
Marshall Rosenberg, in his book Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life, identifies judgements as a key area of focus for the user of this unilateral, domination approach. This is not about discernment, for the user of this approach often lacks the ability to discern, conflating his or her beliefs, for example, with the facts and confusing observations with conclusions. Rather, it is about being judgemental. This is true even when the person concerned is giving positive feedback, which is given in the form of praise and which implies that it is the giver of praise who is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. In this sense, the emphasis is on what the communicator thinks and believes.
In making the case for a particular approach, the user of the domination approach is likely both to emphasise the use of data and to be keen to control its use. This might include avoiding scrutiny of his or her own data and ignoring or dismissing data which does not support his or her particular way of thinking or forward path. Parties to communication become opponents, seeking to prevail, galvanising their arguments in order to win. This approach may be explicit (in the request for a presentation to support a proposal, for example) or implicit (in the way we think about our colleagues behind the scenes).
What, then, is the focus of a Mutual Learning Model? This is McGregor’s Theory Y – what Rosenberg calls Nonviolent Communication (or NVC). This approach is about collaborating in order to achieve a variety of outcomes, including business and personal outcomes. This paradigm has as its central focus desired outcomes, underpinned by needs or – to use the language of negotiation – “interests”.
What is meant by needs – or interests – in this context? I tend to favour Rosenberg in the way he clearly differentiates needs from the strategies by which we meet them. This is something that we often confuse. The leader who says to a member of staff that “I need you to get that paper to me by 5pm today” is not talking about the need itself but about the strategy by which he expects it to be met. Nor can we infer his needs directly. Perhaps, for example, he has a meeting the following day for which he wants to prepare – but not by staying late at work and at the expense of his family. In this case, his needs might be for connection and intimacy and he plans to meet them by spending time with his wife and family. Perhaps, though, he knows his own job is on the line if he doesn’t get this paper to his boss in good shape by 9am the next day. In this case, he might be trying to meet some fundamental survival needs – for food and shelter, for example – by taking action to secure his ongoing employment.
Why is this distinction important and how does it facilitate successful communication? Because when needs are shared it becomes much easier to reconcile the irreconcilable. Knowing that the writer of his paper can’t start her final read through until 4.30pm, for example, gives the leader the opportunity to make different arrangements. If his concern is to spend time with his family, he might choose to take his lap-top home so that he can take delivery of the revised paper on-line or asking another colleague to check the paper whilst its author is in her meeting. If his concern is to hold onto his job he might be more inclined to stay late to review the paper after his colleague has got it to him or even to ask her to prioritise the paper over the meeting she was planning to attend. This is essentially a “win, win” approach: one which aims precisely to achieve outcomes which meet the needs of everyone involved.
It follows, then, that data is seen and handled very differently. Instead of using data to make a case, users of this second model of communication share data and test it carefully in order to build understanding and to open up new ways to achieve desired outcomes. Data, in other words, is seen in relation to needs rather than in relation to who or what is right or wrong.
The idea that communication might seek to identify and respond to diverse needs tends to gladden the hearts of many people in the workplace. Until, that is, they realise that holding real conversations means standing close to the fire. I’ll be writing about this in my next posting. Meantime, I wonder: where are you placing your attention in your communication with yourself and others? If you’re willing to share, please leave a comment below.
The idea that communication might seek to identify and respond to diverse needs tends to gladden the hearts of many people in the workplace. Until, that is, they realise that holding real conversations means standing close to the fire. I’ll be writing about this in my next posting. Meantime, I wonder: where are you placing your attention in your communication with yourself and others? If you’re willing to share, please leave a comment below.