Taking The War Out of Our Words – A Book Review of Sharon Strand Ellison’s “The Art of Powerful Non-Defensive Communication”
Review by Garth Edwards
Ms. Ellison reveals her technique for communicating effectively in any and all forums, whether at work, at home or in the community.
The premise is that human communication is based on a war of words focused on defensive self-protection. Faced with a perceived attack (which may or may not be real), we retreat into the inner brain; in anger we stop thinking and we stop learning.
By using her technique of powerful non-defensive communication you express yourself strongly without being adversarial, give direct feedback without being judgmental and learn more about yourself and those around you. By doing so, you avoid or heal conflict and enhance your self-esteem.
A. The Defensive Model
Ms. Ellison identifies three forms of defensive reaction, all of which have a passive (self protective) mode or an aggressive (undertaken for retaliation) mode. These are:
a) surrender (giving in);
b) withdraw (flight, or avoidance); and
c) counter-attack (fight).
We tend to perceive others as adversaries:
“When we react defensively, treating even a loved one as an adversary, we stop seeing the complexity of the other person’s motivations. We aren’t focused on the loved one’s experiences or insecurities. Our focus, instead, is on construing the other person as intentionally motivated to hurt, manipulate, or control us. This view allows us to slide easily into the dual belief that we are morally superior to our opponent in the conflict and that we are being victimized.” Page 9
Ask yourself:
1. Do you feel safe when you are being defensive?
No. You feel insecure and threatened. You feel like a victim.
2. Do you feel confident?
You get an adrenalin rush maybe. Usually confidence goes down because you create insecurity.
3. Do you feel more competent?
No. Defending yourself makes you feel less adequate.
4. What happens to your ability to learn when you are defensive?
You shut down. You are closed. You increase stress and conflict.
5. What is the goal in a power struggle?
The goal is to win.
6. What should the goal be in a power struggle?
The goal should be resolution and understanding.
–
Avoiding conflict does not resolve it.
We communicate with questions, statements and predictions. Our tools are words, tone of voice and body language.
- We may use questions adversarially to make a statement or to entrap another.
- We may use statements to control others’ opinions and feelings, instead of using statements as tools for clarity and understanding.
- We may use predictions as a weapon to threaten others or to dictate their choice instead of as a constructive tool.
B. The Non-Defensive Model
Ms. Ellison uses “Babe” the movie as an example. Unlike a sheep dog, the pig (Babe, if you have not seen it) does not view sheep as stupid and inferior. He talks respectfully, asking questions, expressing opinions and predicting consequences. He does not bite, frighten or coerce. The sheep respond cooperatively. Ms. Ellison says “is it fantasy or a projection of the future”. To her it is a paradigm shift.
The model is:
1. Ask sincere questions to gather information;
2. Make open, honest statements to clarify thought and feelings;
3. Predict for others how you will respond to their various choices.
1. Questions
Questioning is done without trying to convince the other to agree with you or to control how they respond. To be successful you must show sincere curiosity. You ask a question solely for discovery. The question is neutral and inviting the other person to speak. Ask yourself:
- Are you sincere, calm and relaxed?
- Have you given up the need to control the other person’s response?
- Are you willing to hear the answer?
- Is your question curious, sincere, innocent, open, neutral and inviting?
This is not easy, even for trained psychologists and counselors. It takes a lot of practice and a shift in the way we think.
There are numerous examples in the book. One follows:
A woman goes into a tire store and asks questions about the recommendations of the male sales person. He tells her that she does not need to know the answer to her questions. She becomes angry and considers staying silent (surrender) or walking out (withdrawal). The non-defensive question is “do you believe that I have no need to know about the tires I am buying”. Her assumption is that the sales person is being sexist and she is very angry. His response is that he taught college and his students always challenged his knowledge and he felt that she was challenging his knowledge as well. He apologizes and explains the merits of the tires. She left with a clearer understanding of him and of her tires, not feeling angry and with a better relationship with the sales person.
There are 2 formats of questions:
a) Ask about content (the topic under discussion), why, what, when and how, in order to get the story straight; and
b) Ask questions about process (the interaction going on between the people).
A process question focuses on some reaction either person is having apart from the topic. It may be attitude, (sarcasm) or emotion (irritation or hurt). The reaction may be triggered by the topic or by the dynamics between the parties:
“My own rule of thumb is, if the conversation is getting bogged down because either person resists talking cooperatively or senses tension, to switch from questions about content to questions about the process going on between the people involved.” Page 119
2. Statements
Seeking clarification of statements made to you is important so that you truly understand what is being said. This increases self-awareness in both sides and can help change attitudes and behaviors.
Generalizations lead to much misunderstanding.
“If we do ask questions about a statement someone makes, we often ask about the whole idea, rather than the particular words. If someone says, “Italian woman are very nurturing”, we might say “What do you mean”? asking the person to clarify the overall statement.
Rather than asking a general question, we could ask about each word, beginning with the words, “Italian” and “woman”: Does the person mean all Italian woman or just those who are mothers? Young woman? Old woman? Both? Does the person mean that they are inherently nurturing or that they have learned it from modeling? What about “nurturing”? Does it have to do with cooking or with how much affection the mother shows? Are Italian woman more nurturing than woman who are not Italian? When we ask questions about individual words and phrases, we often become more curious and gain much more accurate information.
There is an irony here. Asking questions about smaller bites from the statement can give us a great deal more information. . . .” Page 104
A non-defensive statement is clear and unguarded. We express weakness as well as strength, fear as well as hope, doubt as well as certainty.
The format of a non-defensive statement is:
1. Convey your understanding of the overt message;
2. Convey your perception of the covert message;
3. Describe any additional meaning you attach to the message such as cause or motive; (all objective) and
4. Express your reaction (subjective).
These may be done separately or all in one statement. Be specific. Offer your observation only once (remember you are not trying to control). For example:
[1] “When you say you can learn this computer program without help, and at the same time [2] I see you frowning and speaking through gritted teeth, then [3] it is hard for me to believe that you feel confident and [4] I feel confused about whether to leave you alone or offer to help you”. Page 161
3. Predictions
“Either by manipulating with a covert bribe or by coercing with an overt threat, we have conventionally used predictions to get others to comply with our will.” Page 165
“Many of us think a prediction is not effective unless the other person does what we want but when we try to control what choice another person makes, our prediction backfires. We usher in more resistance and power struggle, and we pay the price of eroded trust and diminished productivity”. Page 166
A prediction should have two alternatives at least, and both should be stated directly:
“If you mow the lawn today, it’s okay with me for you to use the car tonight. If not, then I won’t give you permission to have it. … If you state only the first half of the prediction, you may sound coaxing.” (and the teenager is more apt to argue with you later). “If you state only the second half, …, you are likely to sound punitive.” Page 169
The key is you must be willing to accept the choice the other person makes and you must follow through. A prediction is a promise. There is no further discussion.
In summary, the question is to gather information. It is curious and open.
The statement is to impart information. It is vulnerable and direct.
The prediction is to provide security through predictability.
Other important elements of the technique are not only the choice of words, but the tone of voice and body language, both of which must be neutral. Ms. Ellison espouses a downturn in our voice at the end of a question rather than an upturn as we normally do. She has a CD to illustrate the point.
Ms. Ellison also espouses practice in front of a mirror or with tape on her forehead and lips in order to feel facial nuance that may betray emotion that we might not even be aware of.
Ms. Ellison believes using the non-defensive format creates an internal shift resulting in a sense of calm and freedom from power struggle. By revealing your vulnerability, you lay down your arms.
“Phil told me about a situation where some fellow members of an organization were doing things he regarded as unethical. He felt disturbed about the course they were creating for the organization. While talking with one of the men during a meeting, he asked questions in a tone he realized was accusatory. He thereupon apologized for his tone, only to have the other man respond condescendingly and without acknowledging any responsibility for his own actions.
Phil found it very hard to apologize for asking an accusatory question; it seemed minor compared to the other person’s violations. He found it even more difficult to sit there and not try to get the other guy to admit anything. After inwardly railing against himself, almost believing he was weakening his position, he realized he didn’t have to maintain a martyred silence. He could continue with his own statement and predictions. What he said was this: “Your response feels condescending to me, as if I made a major error and you made none. My apology is for my own defensiveness, and it doesn’t change my viewpoint. In fact, it was hard to apologize for asking an accusatory question when that feels small to me in comparison to some of the things you and others have done, which I believe are unethical. If you are not willing to change your course of action, I will ask that the board investigate this issue.
Holding ourselves accountable, especially when someone else denies being a part of the problem, can be stretch. Yet when we do so, we often gain rather than lose. By being accountable for his own defensive behaviour and then continuing his efforts to deal with the issue non-defensively, Phil added to his strength rather than diminishing it. After witnessing this conversation, two other people who had been fence-sitting requested that the course of action be changed.” Page 225
“. . . the primary goal of a non-defensive attitude is to develop your own character and strength”. Page 226
“I want to emphasize again that if we stay focused on our own non-defensive process, there is no way for us to fail regardless of how the other person responds. We can strengthen our own confidence and self-esteem by maintaining our own clarity and not getting drawn into the power struggle. We can walk away with a sense of integrity and dignity, no matter what challenge we have faced”. Page 228
There are many more detailed examples in the book dealing with different situations and relationships; co-worker relationships, group relationships, responding to sarcasm or to the naysayer are some.
Ms. Ellison concludes with a discussion of power, power over v. power within. She views the process as being transformational.
“As each of us shifts to using our energy non-defensively, we create just such open channels. And we can still protect ourselves. Even in our open vulnerability, we are protected because we are able to make predictions that limit how much we give to anyone who is non-reciprocal.
I believe that at the very heart of non-defensiveness is the call to reject the concept of power over others as a viable understanding of sustainable power, and to use our power from within to manage our own energy in reciprocal ways.
I see no way to force others to change their concept of power or make one group of people stop hating another. However, I don’t think we have to go out and try to persuade others to change their basic beliefs about how to use power, or even how to talk to each other, in order to succeed in using this process. Each of us who wishes to make a change in the use of our energy can simply begin to speak and listen non-defensively. Every time we do, we change how we use our own power. Interacting non-defensively, not bound in a struggle to gain control over someone else, we may find the other person more willing to disarm than we could have imagined. The whole process can be contagious, as each disarmed person offers the opportunity to another”. Page 268
