Anyone traveling in a foreign country can recall a moment when a tourist — not speaking the native language — asks directions louder and louder, convinced that more elaborate gestures and higher decibels will cause a miraculous breakthrough in communication and solve the problem.
In business, a similar dynamic can happen. There are moments in every working day when the more you talk, the more muddled the message becomes. Whether having a one-on-one conversation or voicing an opinion in a meeting, knowing when to quit can sometimes be the key to eventually reaching a solution.
“Women have grown up being taught that they need to keep talking and that talking is how you negotiate,” says David Stiebel, author of “When Talking Makes Things Worse! Resolving Problems When Communication Fails” (Andrews & McMeel, $24.95).
“The error is thinking better or more communication is the answer,” says Stiebel, a Palo Alto, Calif.-based negotiation adviser who also teaches at the University of California at Berkeley. Sometimes the strategy that is necessary in solving the business problem is to stop and regroup.
“You have to stop people from talking and trying to dominate the group,” says Susan Harper, an organizational consultant in Chicago. One or two individuals who keep saying their points over and over can intimidate the rest of the group, she says. And when you have a group decision to make, you can be just plain stuck and the talking goes nowhere.
“What happens is people take a position, try to defend it to the hilt, dig a hole and the positions get polarized,” says Bob Genua, author of “Managing Your Mouth: An Owner’s Manual for Your Most Important Business Asset” (AMACOM, $17.95).
“Most of the people who have problems in business have them because of getting themselves into trouble with what they say,” adds Genua. “If you disagree with someone who is your superior, walk away from it,” he says.
“A miscommunication is easy to handle; you just recommunicate and set it straight,” Genua continues. “But a disagreement may require a third-party negotiation or arbitration.”
To avoid the stalemate of communication gone awry or going nowhere, Stiebel suggests looking for warning signs in a conversation. If you are getting angry or the other person is speaking louder and repeating herself and showing signs of frustration, what is happening is not a miscommunication, but a disagreement. No amount of oral volleyball is going to improve the situation.
Genua suggests when one person is repeating the same point over and over and the other person is not accepting it, that one person should say, “Your point is well taken, let’s move on.” He also suggests that if this roadblock is during a meeting, that the leader should say, “If you want to discuss it further, we will meet later,” and continue with the meeting agenda.
Another question to ask yourself in this kind of situation: Would the problem disappear if you understood what the other person was saying better? If not, you have a true conflict.
Stiebel also recommends playing a game of mental chess and anticipating the other person’s next move. For instance, in a salary negotiation, if you are asking for a raise and your manager says she can’t justify one, foresee that and suggest you receive a new title and new responsibilities.
Then “use their own perceptions to convince them,” Steibel advises. For instance: Two departments in a company need to cooperate on a project but everyone is butting heads. Each blames the other for incompetence and resistance. If one leader suggests to the other that her team just doesn’t understand what is needed and requires her department’s help with new skills, then she is validating the manager’s perceptions and reaching a resolution.
“You can’t always get consensus,” Harper allows. “But you can get people to a point to agree to disagree.”
Harper also suggests that any contentious communication should be “de-personalized,” before it escalates. For instance, she suggests two people who are at odds in communication pause to say, “We disagree about this situation. No one is wrong.”
Genua tells a story of a vice president who consistently took issue with the boss. In staff meetings, he would voice his opinion repeatedly, even if it was in conflict with the manager and the entire staff. He failed to see the opposition was not a function of miscommunication, but a disagreement going nowhere. “He did not know when to let go,” Genua says, adding: “Eventually he got fired.”
