Whatever the reason, people no longer know how to
communicate. They might have mastered the art of texting but they do not know
how to engage in conversation via the spoken word.
As it happens, behavioral economists are at the ready to
teach them how to do it. Sue Shellenbarger does not mention that the techniques
espoused by the experts she quotes come down to us from those master
manipulators, but they do.
Shellenbarger reports in the Wall Street Journal on coaches
who try to show people how best to engage in conversations. She opens with this
example:
If
someone says, “I just got back from vacation,” three in four people give a
dead-end reply like, “Boy, do I need one of those.” A more inviting question,
such as, “What was your favorite day like?” can keep the conversation from
dying on the vine, according to research by Contacts Count,a
Newtown, Pa., consulting and training firm that advises employers on
networking.
True enough, the second question was more inviting than the
first. But it was also more intrusive. If you do not know someone you do better
not to be overly intrusive. It's rude.
The consultants ignore the larger issues: the gender of the
conversationalists, the circumstances that are drawing them together, their
relative marital statuses and their positions on the corporate hierarchy. Without
knowing these salient data points, we do not really know what is going on in
the conversation. A man accosting a woman at a bar with an intrusive question
is not the same as a man meeting another man at a corporate function and asking
an intrusive question.
We want to know whether the two people are getting to know
each other in order to do business or are trying to seduce each other. Dare I
say, that it is best not to play off the ambiguity that might pertain when a
single man starts a conversation with an attractive single woman, who is also
his colleague, his subordinate or his boss. Each different situation changes
the dynamics.
If you open a conversation with a jarring, intrusive question
you are in the world of seduction. Or, the world of the pick-up artist. You might not think so, but you are. If you
are doing this at a business function, you are acting inappropriately.
Much is wrong with the example Shellenbarger offers.
First, when you meet someone you should not announce
that you just got back from vacation. If I do not know you why would I care
whether or not you have just gotten back from vacation?
A better open gambit raises a topic that is common to the
two of you—the weather, the event, the markets, the ball game, the company you both work for. Anyone who
opens a conversation with a stranger by announcing that he has just gotten back
from vacation is not interested in connecting. He is interested in seducing and
manipulating.
Second, if someone does as the consultants suggest and opens
the conversation by announcing that he has just gotten back from vacation, the
correct response is: where did you go? How did you like it? I've always wanted to go there? Ask about the
vacation and draw the person out.
In order to maintain reciprocity you should then share some information about your last vacation or about your forthcoming
vacation. In conversations, reciprocity should be the order of the day.
I do not believe that three out of four people are so brain
dead that they would respond: “Boy, do I need one of those.” Yet, if you are
dealing with someone who is so gauche that he announces that he has just
returned from vacation, a throw away remark about
how much you need a vacation is dismissive.
Third, no one really asks, upon meeting someone for the
first time, what his favorite vacation day was? It’s intrusive and prying. It
fails to respect social boundaries and assumes that the person is an intimate
friend. Even if you are close friends what would happen if his favorite day was he and his wife spent the day in bed with someone they picked up at the bar?
Since her example sounds like a caricature Shellenbarger
offers us another example from another corporate trainer:
Vanessa
Van Edwards had been attending networking events for several years during and
after college when she realized she was having the same conversation again and
again. “It went like this: So what do you do? Yeah. Where are you from. Yeah,
yeah, been there. Do you live around here? Well, I’d better go get another
glass of wine,” says Ms. Van Edwards, a Portland, Ore., corporate trainer and
author of “Captivate,” a new book on social skills.
She
started trying conversation-openers that jarred people a bit, in a pleasant
way: “Have you been working on anything exciting recently?” Or, “Any exciting
plans this summer?”
“If I’m
feeling very brave, I ask, ‘What personal passion projects are you working on?’
” Ms. Van Edwards says. She began making contacts who followed up more often.
Again, we do not know whether Van Edwards is addressing men
or women or neutered beings. Perhaps people respond to her new
opening gambits because it feels like a seduction. And because she is good
looking.
Why did it take Van Edwards several years to figure out that
she was not connecting with people at corporate functions? Perhaps, her new contacts
followed up more often, but we do not know whether the contacts were male or
female, and we do not know what the stakes of the conversation were, so we
cannot draw any proper conclusions. Connecting with people and charming them are two different things. Being captivating is often being seductive.
At a time, when women complain about sexual harassment in
the workplace it might be a good idea to avoid conversational gambits that feel
like seduction. Just saying.
And, of course, asking probing questions might make you a
busybody:
Such
openers also risk falling flat. Ms. Van Edwards recently asked a stranger she
met on a business trip what he was working on that was exciting. The man
replied that he hated his job and was going through a divorce. She salvaged the
exchange by thanking him for being honest, empathizing and drawing him into
brainstorming about what’s it’s like being stuck in a rut and how to escape it.
Was she salvaging something or was she retreating into
seduction mode? She seems more to be offering therapy than engaging with
another person. One does not know what she means about meeting a stranger on a
business trip. Did she meet him at a bar or was she in a meeting with him? If
she met him at a bar, her approach seems more to be in the realm of the pick-up
artist than the corporate networker. A man who is getting over a divorce who
gets hit on by an attractive woman at a bar or in a meeting will probably not
be thinking of making a business deal.
Most people know better than to accost strangers with
intrusive and invasive questions—unless they are trying to seduce them. And if
they are not really trying to seduce them, adopting a seducer’s approach is
misleading and dishonest.
Shellenbarger continues:
Only
one in four people sees value in asking probing questions of strangers, based
on a Contacts Count survey of 1,000 people. Doing so can be risky, says Lynne
Waymon, the firm’s CEO and co-author of a book on networking. “I’m demanding
more of you when I ask thought-provoking questions. I’m making an assumption
that you’re in this conversation to make something of it—that you’re not going
to see somebody across the room and say, ‘Oh, I need to go talk to Susan or
Bob,’” she says. “But the connections you make are going to be much more
dramatic and long-lasting.”
Thought-provoking questions are rude and
intrusive. They show a failure to respect boundaries. If a woman adopts this
posture and is not trying to seduce the stranger, then she has been lying to
him and to herself.
In a last example Shellenbarger quotes a woman who is more
introverted, but who has learned a question to ask a stranger—which sounds like
a pick-up line.
Learning
to start deep conversations can be a relief to the people who dread networking
the most. Pamela J. Bradley says she’s an introvert. Meeting strangers used to
touch off an anxious voice in her head. The voice would scream, “I have a
terrible time networking, or I have a terrible time remembering names,” says
Ms. Bradley, human-resources manager for Keiter, a Glen Allen, Va., accounting
and consulting firm. Asking probing questions turns down that voice and puts
the spotlight on the other person, she says. Among her favorites is, “What’s
keeping you awake at night?” because it encourages clients to explain their
most worrisome issues.
If a female stranger asks a male what is keeping him up at
night, she is playing a seduction game. If
she is talking to a client who is not a stranger and is offering to help him
she would do better to ask how she can help his business.
Asking what is keeping someone up at night draws a picture
of the person, alone in bed, tossing around, unable to get to sleep. It’s not a
flattering picture, unless she wants to become part of it.
No man would ever ask another man what is keeping him up at
night. If he did he would be told that it’s none of his business.
8 comments:
Female consultant: "What's keeping you awake at night?"
Trig: "That 70s poster of Raquel Welch in 'One Million Years BC'. As long as we're sharing, what color is your underwear?"
For me, it's the Loni Anderson in the red swimsuit poster. Which reminds me of a Crock cartoon of that same time. Two prisoners in sweat boxes. One tells the other that he has an escape plan. He tosses it to the other. "This is a poster of Loni Anderson."
"THAT'S the escape!"
"If someone says, “I just got back from vacation,” three in four people give a dead-end reply like, “Boy, do I need one of those.” A more inviting question, such as, “What was your favorite day like?” can keep the conversation from dying on the vine, according to research by Contacts Count,a Newtown, Pa., consulting and training firm that advises employers on networking." Reminds me of this old parent child call and response: Where did you go? Out. What did you do? Nothing.
I am not much of a conversationalist, but I'd not hire Ms. Shellenbarger to improve me, from what I see here.
Knowing when not to converse is a more difficult for a lot people.
It should read; Knowing when not to converse is far more difficult for many people.
Geesh, I gotta start proofing my stuff.
That people need instruction in how to talk to one another is actually alarming. "What was your favorite day?" strikes me as one of those cloying Baba Wawa questions ("if you were a tree, what tree would you be?") and "What are you working on that you're passionate about?" is not just intrusive, it's a pass/fail question in which your opposite fails if he says "nothing." But otoh, I'm interested in why you think these questions are seductive.
Yes, the advice seems strangely naive, like someone who really hasn't extensively tried doing what she is offering. And I agree, context is everything, and some circumstances are more open to experimentation than others.
I recall going to parties in college and not really enjoying myself after an initial round of introductions and saying hi to people I knew, although an hour of ping pong or foosball helped break the ice and I might meet someone new that way. But I discovered after midnight the chaos died down and I could have some really interesting conversations with people more one-on-one, sometimes people I never met before, and never met again, but also with close friends.
In the bigger picture I also think of Scott Peck's idea of levels of community: Pseudocommunity (conflict avoidance), chaos (conflicts identified), emptiness (facades broken), and true community (understanding and acceptance).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#Community_building
I imagine the people who want "deep conversation" (more women, but also more introverts) are putting the cart before the horse. They want to skip the comforting facades, skip the intractable differences, and believe nothing has been lost.
The biggest problem with level 1 (conflict avoidance) is you really have to accept the otherwise unexpected truth that nearly everyone lies, exaggerates, and says things that are not true in any objective way, but are meant to cover over their self-judgments or insecurities and to efforts to fit in and all. So dishonesty is a sign of bad character at a deep level, but in pseudocommunity, the truth simply isn't a virtue, rather a luxury. So when someone is bragging you can say "this person is insecure" and try to say something that will help them relax, while not holding them to account when their stories don't make sense.
So I'd say a goal in pseudocommunity communication, along with finding safety and common ground, is to try to keep your integrity, and help others do the same.
"I recall going to parties in college and not really enjoying myself after an initial round of introductions and saying hi to people I knew, although an hour of ping pong or foosball helped break the ice and I might meet someone new that way. But I discovered after midnight the chaos died down and I could have some really interesting conversations with people more one-on-one, sometimes people I never met before, and never met again, but also with close friends."
Parties are always strange affairs. If you're not a stranger you're generally there because of who you are. If you're a stranger then you have to establish who you are to a bunch of strangers and at the same time establish who everyone else is to your satisfaction, not an easy task at the best of times. There are exceptions of course such as the person who doesn't "give a damn what everyone thinks" etc, but usually they were invited for that very reason.
This has all been worked over in the past many many times. This is the reason for "small talk" or the art of "conversation without saying anything".
"A better open gambit raises a topic that is common to the two of you—the weather, the event, the markets, the ball game, the company you both work for."
Or the size of the room or the number of couples ...
Post a Comment