Conversation conventions - thoughts on how not to derail meetings
/By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.
Reading time: 3 mins
We are taught about maths, we are made to write essays, we learn about chemical reactions… but we aren’t taught about quality verbal communications...
You’ll likely do a lot of verbal communicating in your life, your life will likely be better if you can communicate better.
An extraordinary amount of most companies is ‘verbal communication’. IMO if the company can verbally communicate well, it’s likely the company can do well.
People will often talk about how ‘culture is key’ for a company and they’ll actively work on culture. IMO verbal communication is upstream of culture. IMO if you can’t verbally communicate well you can’t have a culture!
IMO one should actively work on one's verbal communication skills.
IMO one should actively work on the verbal communication skills of people inside a company.
IMO verbal and written communication are likely the single biggest multiplier skills for almost every company. So improving at verbal and written communication is improving almost everything at a company!?! I think it so.
Conventions for when convening
Stay on the point
This is from Ray Dalio and Principles
If the conversation is talking about ‘Point A’ don’t respond with something about ‘Point B’.
Close out ‘Point A’ before moving on.
If someone raises ‘Point B’ then thank them for this and say that we’ll consider ‘Point B’ after we have finished discussing ‘Point A’.
Pick the right level: micro vs macro
When discussing you might need to be high level or in the detail. Normally if you are in a group meeting with people outside of your direct team you don’t want to be in the micro detail. If you work in the micro detail every day then it can be super tempting to go to that level.
Picking the right level to be at is core to being able to have a discussion.
Optimise for a ‘conversation rally’: ideally say one thing in one minute.
Saying one point in one minute = hitting one ball back in a way that can then be returned.
Do not say 3 things in 5 minutes = hitting back 3 balls at different times that can’t be returned easily.
Try not to start on one point, then tangent onto another and then another and then stop randomly with other participants now confused. Ie hit back 3x balls which cannot therefore be returned and therefore you aren’t optimising for developing an idea through a conversation rally.
If people say one point in one minute then others typically do not need to ‘interrupt’ to be heard. The longer some speaks normally the higher the chance of interruption and then conversation can just devolve into a series of interruptions with no points followed until conclusion.
This is a point (pun intended) for another day but the more participants in a discussion the greater the need for someone to run the metastructure of the discussion to have forward movement and eg stay on point.
Optimise for allowing alternative points of view
Try to provoke thought, not say how something categorically is. Ie “messaging confidence < message confidence”
Allow yourself enough rope to change your mind gracefully, allow others enough rope to change their mind gracefully.
Categories of messaging:
Negative sum = debate
Zero sum = discussion
Positive sum = discourse
Comment:
IMO positive sum discourse messaging is one of the key areas I find to having quality meetings. IMO one key to positive sum discourse is ‘optimising for allowing alternative points of view’.
A good discourse is one of the most energising best things I know of. A draining debate is one of the worst things I know of.
No direct brain => mouth connection
What not to do: say the first thing that comes to mind
What to do:
At minimum consider two options in your head and then pick the one you want to do
Often i’ll write down 2-5x words to remind what i want to say and then look at it as I’m speaking to not get off topic
Make sure you are making space for all people to be part of the discussion.
Intellectual flexibility with bending towards reality
Try as hard to see why your point could be wrong as why it could be right. No ‘picking a side’ and ‘rooting, not thinking’.
“When the facts change, I change my point of view. What do you do?” Keynes
Try hard to understand the different user segments and how they would see your proposal. What’s optimal for one segment isn’t necessarily optimal for the greater good (max number of users).
Will do ‘angels advocate’. Ie try to see how you can break a thesis in a positive sum way. If you can’t break a thesis then normally go ahead.
After a meeting i’ll often try to review myself and 1 other person’s ‘meeting performance’.
I’ll often use some of the above conventions as ways to try and provide feedback.