We routinely edit messages in the workplace and life. A friend asks for our opinion about a gaudy sports jacket and we rapidly calculate the balance between honesty and caring. The boss asks for opinions at a staff meeting and too often the unspoken reaction is, “How much truth is safe?”
This artful dodging can only be circumvented by strategies that are designed to ferret out the person’s true feelings. For example, the practice of reverse decision making requires brainstorming groups to assume that they want to mishandle the mission. They are then asked to list what steps should be taken if the goal is to produce a genuine disaster. The joke, of course, is that when the list is examined, the group often finds it is on the verge of adopting some of the items.
Although reverse decision making is helpful, it is a formal and lengthy process. On a day-to-day basis, a shorter and easier technique is needed. Instead of asking for a quick, personal take on your position, tell people that you want them to think of what a harsh critic – note, not the person – would cite as the weakest point or points. This gives them time to collect their thoughts and to refine their observations. Once they’ve had a chance to mull things over, ask them for a blunt statement of “the critic’s opinions.” This “third person” approach permits your friends and associates to be brutally frank via a fictitious proxy. They have less concern that you’ll take offense because (1) you asked for it and (2) they aren’t saying that the critic’s opinions are their own.
This escape clause may seem odd but human interactions are poetry, not prose. The same people who erect barriers to resist a direct attempt to obtain their feelings will open their gates when an indirect strategy is employed. The role playing is a helpful fiction that permits both sides to pretend that a disinterested opinion is being surfaced. It saves face and preserves relationships while tacitly acknowledging the benefit of candor.
No comments:
Post a Comment