It’s a frigid winter day. You go outside to start your vehicle and hear nothing—not a crank, not a turn, not even a whine. You try to flag someone down who might have jumper cables. Fortune smiles at you and someone stops, eager to help. You’re relieved that you finally have some assistance, but slightly worried that given the harsh elements, your Good Samaritan could execute sloppily on the task.
Anyone who has jumped a battery knows the risks. There are two points of contact necessary to achieve success. If there is corrosion on a charging post, you will hear lifeless moaning. If the connections get crossed, you hear an explosion or see a fire.
Now consider what happens when you’re having a conversation with someone. How often do wires get crossed? Sometimes people just want to make sure their point of view is understood and can’t. Sometimes people are too concerned about navigating through egos and emotions. Far too often in conversation, how a person feels during a discussion is treated as meaningless or trite.
There are two people involved in any discussion, and there’s a two-way flow of information, kind of like with the cars’ batteries. If one of the connections is missed, the discussion is dead on arrival. If the connections are crossed, you have a disaster. But when the right contact is made, the result is a good transfer of energy.
You know what a good exchange feels like when you’ve walked away from one: You feel power and energy flowing. Great conversationalists gather more than facts—they feel the driving spirit of the talk.
Inward And Outward
There are two things going on in a good conversation, something on the outside (the subject being discussed) and something on the inside (the feelings being passed back and forth and created). That means there are two signals at work: An outward signal sending facts, descriptions, agendas and results. And an inward signal that gets the context, symmetry, understanding and empathy. If we could advertise precisely what we are promising to deliver in conversations, it would be both something material (“You’ll get what you need.”) and something intangible (“I get it. I get you.”)
On the one hand, a good conversation requires us to demonstrate competence and command of the facts. It also lets us show our intent to follow through so that the words lead to some kind of action or progress on people’s short or long-term needs. The inward signal, meanwhile, satisfies something more psychologically nourishing and comforting.
I like to use the phrases "in-words” and “out-words.” The “in-words” refer to what we say to further our internal agenda, whose needs are more visceral. “Out-words” refers to what we say as part of the outward agenda, where we need to hear concrete things and see progress being made through some action steps.
We use “in words” when we’re thinking about these questions:
• “What is the story here?”
• “What is the backdrop of this situation?”
• “How does this tie into other issues I’m aware of?”
• “Whose egos and feelings are on the line?”
• “Who is affected by this and how?”
• “Am I being heard and respected for my views?”
“Out-words,” meanwhile, are about these questions:
• “What exactly is the issue here?”
• “Who did what?”
• “Who wants what?”
• “What is at stake?”
• “Is this a reasonable request?”
• “What will it take to get this done?”
Those conversationalists who are outwardly focused are concerned about what is going to happen after the discussion. They are thinking about actions and seeing a tangible result. You’ve likely met people who move straight to the phrase “What are our next steps?” They often feel powerful if they’re meeting the outward agenda, even if it rubs the other person the wrong way.
Those inwardly focused, on the other hand, might want clarity on an idea if it doesn’t feel quite right conceptually. They want to know how well a new idea will jibe with the reality they already know. The inward discussion is the one in which we integrate concepts, navigate emotions and achieve empathy and respect.
Yet the person with the outward agenda often wins pre-eminence in conversations. “In-words” are easily discounted by phrases like “Let’s stick to the facts.” If someone is constantly reminding us to do that, they’re discounting our sentiments and ideas about things and making our feelings secondary. What they fail to realize is that emotions are facts: What’s more real to us than how we feel about certain people or situations? Not only are our emotions important in situations, but research indicates that focusing on the emotional side of the discussion can help us retain the facts as well.
Consider how much information the human eye picks up in a day. The observer forgets the flowers by the road, the 300 advertisements and the buildings—unless there is an emotion attached to the pictures. Data without emotion doesn't register in our long-term memory.
The process that sets those facts into long-lasting memory can be extremely fragile. It’s known as “consolidation,” and it allows emotions to influence the way memories are stored. The amygdala, the part of our brain associated with fear and aggression, is also critical for visual learning and memory. Furthermore, it’s responsible for memory consolidation (also known as “memory modulation,”) the process of transferring information from your “working” memory to “long-term” memory. Research has shown that the greater your emotional arousal level at the time of an event, the greater the chance the event will be remembered. Think of the question “Do you remember where you were?” when asked about a major event. The emotional impact was so great, you vividly remember details you may not have otherwise.
If you enter conversations to motivate or sway somebody and focus only on the facts, you’ll often become frustrated by your inability to persuade. A defining conversation occurs when you touch on both sides of it—factual and emotional—and only then is progress more likely.
In other words: If you insist on sticking to the facts, the facts don’t always stick.
Emotional “facts” are the reason people leave companies, marriages and friendships. They are why people don’t buy into an idea or get excited by it. If we dismiss people’s relevant emotions in a matter, we are likely failing to really communicate with them, and it could lead to personal or professional failure as well.
By attending to both the inward and outward aspects of a conversation, on the other hand, we validate the individual and bolster their confidence in the processes we’re using for success. We communicate that we get the gist of the conversation—one that is simultaneously factual and emotional in nature.
Commit To Connect
In your next conversation, see if you can commit to making both kinds of connection. Try comprehending both the outward and inward agendas by understanding: (1) what progress needs to be made, and (2) the backdrop of the story and emotions that are driving the conversation. Be aware as a listener that the “out-word” agenda is understood with “what,” “when,” “where” and “who” questions, while the “in-word” agenda is understood with “how,” “who” and “why” questions.
Great conversations—like great relationships—are the result of proper connections. The difference between an ordinary discussion and a defining conversation is when we can look the other person in the eye and truthfully say, “I get it. Now, let’s get it done.”
Mitch Anthony is the creator of Life-Centered Planning, the author of 18 books for advisors and their clients, and the co-founder of ROLadvisor.com and LifeCenteredPlanners.com.