Reverse your logic to communicate effectively

Effective communications for an introvert - by Phil W

The meeting hadn't quite descended into an all out shouting match. But I was getting an absolute drubbing from the CEO in front of his direct reports. He was having a go at me and challenging the purpose of my function (i.e. Internal Audit) and my rationale for picking the areas of his business to be audited throughout the year. I was completely caught off guard as my segment started off ok, he gave me the usual "I couldn't care less" face, and pretty much just ignored everything I said. Anybody who works in risk or Internal Audit would at some stage have had the same experience. Our work is seen as a necessary evil, something to keep the Board and Regulators happy, a box that needed to be ticked.

As I wrapped up my segment, out of professional courtesy, I reported on the proposed review areas outside of this CEO's space that might require some input from his teams. One would think that given his nonchalant approach to my segment, this would be non-controversial and he'd probably prefer I stopped talking so he could get on with his meeting. Yet, this simple act of professional courtesy triggered an avalanche of passive aggressive attacks, ranging from my rationale for picking the areas I had chosen to review, to challenging the value of my profession. As the attacks progressed, some of the more politically savvy direct reports to the CEO, jumped on the band wagon, articulating examples where my team had done things that exactly matched what the CEO was complaining about. 

Those who disagreed, were politically savvy enough to stay on the sidelines. As the most junior person in the room, it was quite a shock to have the CEO, CFO, and a number of their direct reports attack you verbally. All I could do was put up a meek argument, trying hard to balance the need to maintain a good working relationship while stating that in reality I report to the Board and therefore I could choose to review whatever I want. The attack felt like it went on forever. I felt powerless, speechless, and importantly friendless in that room. All I wanted was for a hole to open up in the room and swallow me and with any luck, the embarrassment of what had happened would not leak out. As an introvert, any challenge to what I propose, felt like a failure (which isn't true at all; others in the room spoke to me afterwards one on one and stated how well they thought I handled the situation). Once all the bullets had been fired at me, the CEO fired one last insult, and denied me the chance to rebut my accusers. His exact words were "We can't get to a solution here. You've heard our thoughts so please take it as feedback to your superiors and we can get on with the rest of the meeting". With that, I left the room with my tail between my legs.

This meeting happened three years ago and as you can tell given the amount of detail I could recall, it had left a deep impression on me. I've replayed the meeting in my head so many times. Yet, it was only when I was listening to the Art of Charm's Podcast interview with Robert Cialdini (the author of the book Influence) on the topic of "presuasion", did an enlightening moment trigger in my head. To effectively communicate with someone, they have to be in the right state of mind to be receptive to what you are saying. If they are not in this state, no amount of facts or soft talk, small talk, or pleasantries is going to make a difference. Communication is only successful if the recipient has heard you. The fact that you've finished what you're saying and the fact that you think you're right is insignificant. 

To further support this, another Art of Charm Podcast interview with Scott Adams (the author of Dilbert cartoons) highlighted a similar message on the topic of "master persuader", where he discussed why Donald Trump won the US election. Putting aside political differences, a big contributor to Trump's success is his ability to trigger the right emotions in the audience. Once the right emotions have been triggered, it didn't matter what was said, all would be well received.

Both Podcasts had a single aligned message: successful communication is via the engagement of emotions. It's about how you say things, not what you say. This is the same reason why some actors can trigger your emotions in movies, while other actions reading exactly the same lines trigger nothing. 

And with these two Podcasts, I realised where I had gone wrong. The avalanche of passive aggressive attacks was the cumulation of multiple meetings over the years where the CEO has had bad experiences with Internal Audit functions (not just with my function but with functions before mine and at other organisations). Throughout the years, I had used indisputable facts to justify my conclusions and yet, I can't recall a single meeting where he'd agree with me, if he responded to me at all (every now and then he'd grunt at me a grudging acceptance of what I was saying). Where I had gone wrong was thinking that the mountain of facts was sufficient to sway him to my point of view. I had spent so much time preparing what to say, preparing responses to possible rebuttals and yet I've spent no time at all on what state of mind I want the CEO to be in when he is listening to me. I'm not saying that I had done that in the now infamous meeting that I could've changed the outcome, but had I focussed more on assessing his state of mind over the course of several meetings, I could've at least been prepared in the right way and possibly (as remote as it is) have changed his natural mindset towards my function and averted the unpleasant encounter.

Therefore, my next test and learn is to try and answer the following questions:

• How to you prepare for a meeting where you trigger the right emotions and an open mindset?
• How do you know when you've been successful and what are the signs along the way?
• Why does this come naturally to some people you meet with but not to others? 

I think I can already answer some of the above based on my own experiences as a recipient. Think of times when people have tried to communicate with you using facts that just didn't work. Think about the politicians that try to woo your vote. Think about opposing teams at work that tried to get your support for their project and failed. For me, an encounter with a street vendor in Paris, France hit the mark. It was around 10PM and my first time in Paris. I wanted to see the famous Eiffel Tower at night. As I walked towards the tower, I couldn't quite see it just yet. I was a little worried I was lost. The street vendor approached and aggressively tried to sell me a scale model of the famous tower. I rejected his first offer of 20 Euros, which he quickly reduced to 15 Euros, followed by a final offer of 5 Euros. The thing was, I hadn't actually seen the Tower yet and as far as I was concerned, he was slowing me down in getting there. It didn't matter how low the price was. Even he was to give it to me for free, I wouldn't want it. I hadn't seen the tower so there was no sentimental emotion, I was worried I was lost so a little frustrated, and I was in a foreign country, so a little defensive when approached. In hindsight, if he wanted to be successful, he should've offered to show me how to get there quickly, and I would've happily paid 20 Euros for the cheap tower. It's amazing how little things go unnoticed but can make such a bit difference once you know what to look out for.