Do me a favor.
Pull out a notebook, virtual or physical. Then, read the following statement and write down any words or phrases that are vague, confusing, or you don’t recognize.
Here’s the statement:
“He's not a team player, and his attitude is affecting morale.”
Done? Great.
Next, write down questions that could be asked to gain clarity on each of the words and/or phrases.
I’ll give you another minute.
Okay, done? How was that? Were you able to come up with a lot of questions? How about your perspective of the issue before you created the questions and after? Did your assessment of the situation change?
I did the exercise, too. Here’s what I came up with. I italicized and bolded each word that I found vague or requiring clarity.
“He’s not a team player, and his attitude is affecting morale.”
Here are my questions:
He’s:
- Who is he?
- How long has he been on the team?
- What’s his role?
- How long has he been doing that role?
Not:
- Has he always been this way?
- If this is a change, when did that change happen?
- What was going on around the time he changed?
- What does “better” look like?
Team Player:
- What does it mean to be a team player?
- How big is the team?
- Who on the team acts like a team player?
- Who else on the team doesn’t act like a team player?
- How do you know that they are clear on what qualifies as a team player?
- What have you done so far to correct the behavior?
- How long have you been working at it?
- How often are you meeting with him?
- What’s worked?
His attitude
- What makes an attitude bad?
- Is it just his attitude?
- How do you know if someone has a good attitude?
- When have you seen him have a better attitude, even if it was for just a few minutes?
- What was happening?
- How have you tried to replicate it?
- Have you asked him what’s making his attitude the way that it is?
Affecting:
- In what way?
- Who is affected?
- How do you know they’re affected?
- What would you see taking place, specifically, that would tell you his effect on the team is no longer an issue?
Morale:
- How is the team morale overall?
- How long has it been in this state?
- Did it start with him?
- What have you tried when working on improving morale?
- What’s worked?
- What didn’t work?
- What did this teach you?
Each one of these questions holds the possibility of another question, a next step, or even a breakthrough. Each data point collected adds insight to the cause of the issues, like paint added to a canvas. The image begins to take shape.
These questions aren’t fluff, either. I believe that these are the questions we need to be asking. Not only because they hold the knowledge we seek, but because the alternative often ends up looking like assumptions that ingrain us in our preconceived notions. And these questions are useful in nearly every circumstance. From day-to-day work conversations to life and death scenarios.
In his book, Never Split the Difference, ex-FBI negotiator Christopher Voss writes at length about how the FBI negotiation team built listening to understand the perpetrator(s) worldview for the subtle yet profound information into their process framework. This is because they learned the hard way that people can easily miss key details that can change the trajectory of a negotiation and thus walk into disaster. Coupling this with the Paradox of Power – the principle that increasing force often increases resistance and escalates tensions - they needed to get the information quickly and without unnecessary threats.
I honestly recommend this book to my clients on what feels like a daily basis. The skills taught in its pages are some of the most effective I’ve found, and the stories illustrate how impactful they can be.
Voss emphasized this point in one particular negotiation story in which a tobacco farmer by the name of Dwight Watson drove to DC hauling a tractor covered in banners and an inverted U.S. flag, saying he had filled the tractor with explosives that he would detonate to show how recent legislation was crippling the livelihoods of US tobacco farmers.
Voss writes,
“In any negotiation, but especially in a tense one like this, it’s not how well you speak but how well you listen that determines your success. Understanding the ‘other’ is a precondition to be able to speak persuasively and develop options that resonate with them… …Once you’ve understood your counterpart’s worldview, you can build influence.”
Throughout the entire ordeal, snipers were trained on Watson as he sat in his Jeep talking to Voss on the phone and had been given the order to fire if he made the wrong move. This meant that Voss had to keep him as calm as possible while talking him out of blowing up a good chunk of the city.
As they negotiated with Watson, a team of agents listened to every word traded between him and the negotiator. They tried to capture every bit of information about him and his beliefs. His work as a tobacco farmer, his experience as a veteran of the 82nd Airborne, his religious beliefs as a devout Christian…anything he said was seen as a potential nugget of information that may lead to a breakthrough.
That breakthrough happened around the 36-hour mark of the negotiations when one of the agents, Winnie Miller, made a connection that changed everything. She recalled that Watson had shared earlier that, while in the military, he had been taught that it was only honorable to withdraw from behind enemy lines if reinforcements hadn’t arrived after 3 days. She also noted that in the story of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion in the bible, he rose after three days in a tomb. Since they were nearing the third day of negotiations, she said, “If Christ came out on the Dawn of the Third Day, why not Watson?”
So, they formulated their argument to Watson within the bounds of his worldview and hoped for the best. I’ll let Voss share the rest:
“In the next conversation with Watson, we mentioned that the next morning was the Dawn of the Third Day. There was a long moment of silence on the other end of the line. Our Negotiation Operation Center was so quiet you could hear the heartbeat of the guy next to you.
Watson coughed.
‘I’ll come out,’ he said.
And he did, ending a forty-eight-hour standoff, saving himself from harm, and allowing the nation’s capital to resume its normal life.
No explosives were found.”
It may feel satisfying to force your position. It’s an all-too-common vice within humanity to lust after opportunities where we can wield power over those we deem as our enemies. In fact, it can feel like we are betraying our own dignity to do the opposite by fighting for the humanity of those with whom we grapple. But we must unlearn seeing catharsis and revenge as guides for justice and instead fiercely pursue restoration and reconciliation.
Understanding another person’s worldview and validating their perspective does not mean that we agree with them or condone their beliefs and actions. It means that we recognize how to work smarter, not harder.
The connection Winnie Miller made would have been missed if it were just Voss on the phone. But because they were all listening, and listening with the trained intent to catch any subtle, easily assumed away, or glossed over information that could turn the tides of the moment, they accomplished what seemed impossible.
As you go about your days, here's your challenge: The next time you hear a vague complaint or sweeping statement about a person, a situation, a problem -- stop. Count how many assumptions you're making. Then ask three questions before forming your conclusion.
Just three.
You'll be surprised how much you learn, how often you were wrong, and how many lives can be changed by looking at the little things everyone else glosses over.
The answers were always there. You just had to ask.
