Years ago, a mentor and friend who is one of the single most effective change agents I’ve ever seen within a large corporate environment, particularly from her level, once gave me advice about my writing: “Change your ‘but’s to ‘and’s.”
While I absolutely adore this person, I will say here and would say to her face: that’s absolute bollocks (to borrow a term I adore when used by my British friends and sounds so polite in that British accent).
Now let me hedge: it could be effective if the person using that technique has done the work to use it and is doing so genuinely, with authenticity.
A good rhetorical technique gone wrong?
I see legions of people out there who have adopted the preposterous technique of simply swapping “and” for “but” (which is grammatical nonsense) or the similar “yes, and” popularized by so many well-respected corporate pundits. Surely, these luminary corporate pundits didn’t begin espousing this technique without some insight. These are people whose thoughts and opinions I respect, after all.
So, what am I missing?
Every single time I hear someone stop themselves saying “but” or “no” followed by emphatically saying, “yes, AND” after they catch themselves, all I can think is, “This person disagrees with me and is trying to make it sound like they don’t.”
It takes mental effort on my part to “read between the lines” or decipher what their actual position is. It’s tiring. It’s frustrating. Frankly, it’s condescending and disrespectful.
Now, I know what some of you are already thinking: that’s your problem, Dan. That’s your insecurity. You’re not assuming positive intent or charitably interpreting their words. Yes, you’re correct. All those things are absolutely possible.
Let me offer another possibility: these people have adopted some rhetorical technique because they’ve been told that’s the “right” way to do it, but they haven’t actually done the work to get there or they’re misapplying it.
Skirting the work to get there
In the Agile1 world, there's this ongoing discussion about how some seem wont to take practices from successful companies and simply apply those practices without considering their unique context. These well-meaning people, the argument goes, are lifting-and-shifting the wrong thing: they're taking the practices resultant from hard work and experimentation rather than adopting the principles that guided the hard work and then doing their own experimentation.
I posit the same thing is going on here. There are people like me who, in some contexts with some people, have struggled to be effective. They’ve read the books, heard the TED talks, and been advised by mentors; the solution to their problems is clear: change “but” to “and” or use “yes, and.”
That shortcut approach may get you lauded by those who similarly adopted the same technique (who may be up the org chart and influence your career trajectory), but are you really more effective, or are you just making people work harder to decipher your intent and causing conversational churn?
I posit it’s the latter.
It’s incumbent upon the adopter of this practice to do the hard work to make the rhetorical technique work. The rhetoric must flow genuinely from a place of authenticity, rather than to mask your intent in the conversation to avoid conflict, or offend others, or be “likable.”
The lightbulb for me
If you’re like me and you’ve heard this advice before, but you’ve struggled to implement it because it seems like linguistic hogwash that muddles your intent and makes corporate conversation absolute landmine-laden gobbledygook, take heart: you’re not alone and, frankly, you’re right.
The reason it’s pure linguistic hogwash that muddles your intent is because you need to alter your intent. Yes, you need to alter your intent. (Likely, so do people you hear employing the rhetorical device in a way that gives you the heebie-jeebies, but you can’t change them so let’s focus on you.)
If all you do is alter your language, it’s insincere. It adds confusion rather than clarity to the conversation and doesn’t actually help achieve the goal of the conversation. This is what happens when someone employs what a dear friend of mine just yesterday dubbed “the Passive Aggressive ‘Yes, And…’” (PAYA2). Using a PAYA is immediately transparent to the receiver and doesn't help.
What will help is altering your intent.
My guess is that you’re an incredibly logical thinker and you have this uncanny ability to near-instantly arrive at a solution that’s solid, logical, and has considered obvious (to you) failure paths that others might be offering up as their solution. Not only are you great at coming up with solutions, you’re a rockstar at finding the logical flaws in other people’s ideas or arguments. If you’ve heard that you’re “intimidating,” this could be why.
Your intent probably closely matches this:
Seek first to be understood, then understand.
Find the best solution as quickly as possible.
Make others see that your solution is well thought out.
Don’t waste time exploring or being able to articulate other people’s (wrong) ideas.
If you really give it an honest think, you’re actually listening for where you disagree rather than where you agree.
Also, if you reflect on how you engage in the conversation, you probably stop listening the instant you find a flaw in an idea so you can remember the thing you need to say the second they stop talking. This is, of course, only if you don’t cut them off to tell them you disagree or that they’re wrong.
Instead, try making this your intent:
Seek first to understand, then be understood.
Start with unconditional positive regard: the other person is offering ideas and they deserve to be heard and understood just as you do.
Listen for understanding, such that you could accurately repeat their idea and why they believe it will work.
Listen until they’re done speaking for all the things you do agree with. Make it a game if you have to: find even the smallest things that you do agree with.
Listen for evidence the other person is striving for the same goal as you. (Even in an adversarial conversation, say, dealing with an insurance adjuster after your car was hit, you have a common goal of resolving the claim.)
This is the mindset switch that’s required to make these rhetorical techniques work. You and your mindset, not just your words, must be different.
Revisiting the Kantor Model
My revelation about changing mindset not just words hit me in our discussion of the Kantor Four-Player Model of Conversation last week, which I wrote about here.
We discussed how we observed that successful oppositions (ones that didn’t derail the conversation) seemed to follow a pattern in which, using Kantor-speak, the Opposer took two or more conversational actions together: Follow→Oppose.
We further noted that it’s generally a good idea to lead with a Follow, as in Follow→Bystand or Follow→Move3.
(Note that while it may be possible to hide your intention of Opposition into one of these latter two modes of action, I suggest that this is what leads to the PAYA. For the purposes of this post, I don’t consider these modes of action to be a valid form of opposition, and what’s of interest to me in this post is exploring how someone who is struggling to Oppose successfully can dramatically increase their effectiveness.)
As we explored this notion of marrying a Follow to the next action, there was a suggestion that a fallback “Follow” you can use if you can’t readily find something you agree with to follow is, “I hear you.”
For me, when I hear someone say, “I hear you,” which they immediately follow with a contradictory point, I don’t believe they heard me. Maybe I’m weird that way. It’s about as good as PAYA in my opinion.
Upon my expressing that thought to the group, there was another voice that offered it may be better to get more specific, as in, “I’m hearing you say <specific observation/summation>,” followed by going into your point. This is better because it means the person following has genuinely heard the other person and has attempted to understand it.
It was in this discussion of marrying a Follow to the next action as a means of more gracefully opposing that it hit me: in order for this technique to work, one must change not just their words with a superficial Follow, but also their mindset so the Follow is genuine. The Follow can’t feel like (or actually be) a blow-off.
Graceful Opposition
Upon reflection and through writing this post, I’ve come to my own conclusion that I will use Opposition as a last resort in many if not most cases. Before getting to a position of opposing an idea, I’m going to get curious and ask questions to make sure I fully understand first. Rather than assume the other person isn’t working toward the right goal, I might say something like, “I thought we were working towards <goal> and I’m struggling to see how your proposition gets us to <goal>. Can you help me connect the dots?”
Being genuinely curious and seeking to understand will help explore options and ensure that the other person feels that both they themselves and their ideas have been given due respect. It also has the glorious side effect of not putting me in a position of stating my assumptions that results in me eating my own foot.
After exploring options, there will come a time for disagreeing, and that’s got to be done gracefully and respectfully.
Graceful Opposition means both (1) respecting the other person and their ideas and (2) being respectful of the other human by making it clear that you do, in fact, disagree. If either is lacking, the Opposition fails. The latter is where we so often fail in conversation today out of fear of being labeled disagreeable, which makes conversations ineffective and leads to things like the evermore ubiquitous “meeting after the meeting” where decisions are actually made.
Graceful Opposition, put another way, is to “disagree without being disagreeable” in the words of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
I believe the hierarchy of Graceful Opposition goes something like this: Look first for agreement with the other person’s content, then for agreement with the goal you’re working towards, then demonstrate you’ve understood their point, and finally something you appreciate about the other person’s problem-solving approach or general demeanor.
I’ve taken a stab at some examples below. Frankly, they’re harder than I thought they’d be as I was coming up with example after example in my head while jogging (if only I could have captured them!). I’ll add to and edit these over time. I’d love feedback, additions, modifications, etc. Please feel free to share ideas you have!
Best case: find something you agree with in what the other person said
I agree <idea> could work, but I see <observation, context, insight> and think <other idea> might work better.
I really like <partial idea/suggestion>, but see <other partial idea/suggestion> differently and think <your own idea/suggestion> would work better.
<specific observation about something you love in their idea/proposal> is really great, but I’d like to change <specific things you want to change>
Next best: recognize how the other person is working towards the same goal as you
Yes, I agree <idea> would help get us to <goal>, but I prefer <your alternative approach> instead.
I can hear that we share the same goal because I’ve heard you say <identify the specific thing that makes you believe this>, but I think <idea/proposal/approach> will better help us reach our goal by <give specific reasoning>.
Next best: demonstrate you’ve understood their point
If I’ve understood correctly, what I’ve heard is <accurate summarization of their stance as you’ve understood it>; I would rather <your proposition>.
I hear you saying <summarization> and I see it differently. What I see is this <your viewpoint>.
I hear you saying <summarization>, but my experience has been <summarize your experience>.
I understand you think <idea> will achieve our goal by <the result they think will happen>, but I think <some insight/observation that hasn’t been given the proper weight> will interfere with meeting our objective.
Last Resort: recognize something you appreciate about the person’s approach or demeanor
Be careful here, because, done inartfully, this one could easily be perceived as a passive aggressive blow-off technique. It likely requires built-up trust and credibility between you and the other person.
I respect <name the thing you respect> and appreciate the dialogue we’ve had, but I’m struggling to get past <name the thing>. I think <idea/solution/proposal> is the better option and I don’t see us being able to agree on a solution yet. What do you think we might do to resolve this?
I can tell you’re passionate about this topic and have put a lot of thought into it because <specifics about what makes you believe this>, but I see it differently.
I appreciate the effort that you put into <name the thing they put effort into>, but I think what still remains to be resolved is <name the thing that needs to be resolved>.
Here, when I use capital “A” agile, I am using it to denote the concept, movement, community, or philosophy related to principles and practices that achieve little “a” agility. The debate over whether “agile” is capitalized or not bores me. I’ll leave that to others. My intent here is to explain my usage and the difference. You are free to disagree and think me an idiot.
I just made this acronym to use it later, and I love it. I hope it catches on and people use it like “ELMO” (enough, let’s move on). Maybe we call it “paPAYA”
Follow→Move by the way, is “yes, and.” It agrees then builds. It doesn’t agree then contradict, or, worse, agree then totally change subjects and ignore the original idea (which some might call a “passive oppose”).