'Difficult Conversations: How To Discuss What Matters Most' by Bruce Patton, Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen

When I first read Difficult Conversations: How To Discuss What Matters Most I was struck by two things. Firstly, the magnitude of the impact that our communication skills can have on our relationships, wellbeing, and daily life. Secondly, how easily we can improve all three by understanding some basic ideas.

A ‘difficult conversation’ is simply anything you find hard to talk about – whether with your partner, your boss, or your neighbour. What the authors suggest, however, is that we can have Learning Conversations instead – inviting the other person into the conversation with us to help us figure things out. The principles are simple and instantly resonating, especially learning to recognise the assumptions we often bring to the conversation, such as;

• Truth: our version of events is The Truth (and the only truth)
• Intention: We can see clearly the underlying intention of the other person
• Blame: the other person is to blame, we are not

Blame, if I was to misleadingly focus on just one of the many insights offered in the book, is particularly ripe for the context of social change because as an antidote the authors introduce the idea of contribution. That is, what is our contribution to the situation around us and, rather than focussing solely on the actions of others, what can we do about it? Ultimately it involves looking at ourselves, and recognising our feelings and self-image also play a role in how we approach every situation.

This isn’t supposed to be a book review, so I’ll simply say that the book has much to offer on a subject many of us take for granted, and I recommend reading it.

David Joseph Bohm (1917-1992)

Several months later (and in the same way I came to appreciate the first Stone Roses album only after playing  the ‘Second Coming’…) I was introduced to On Dialogue – a transcript of a lecture by David Bohm, a physicist who founded a new solution called Bohmian Dialogue that many others have since adapted and progressed.

Dialogue as in talking? Well, not really. Dialogue as in becoming aware of our thoughts as they change. That may sound nothing like dialogue, so if you consider how we are aware of our own physical movement – a raised arm,  a stretched leg, a nod of the head – Dialogue in the ‘Bohmian’ sense seeks the same awareness when we move or change our thoughts. Doing so, Bohm believed, was at the root of redressing the “essential cause of the endless crises affecting mankind”. What Bohmian Dialogue actually is, is a group practice where participants learn to suspend their beliefs, opinions, impulses, and judgments while speaking together. What can it achieve? Well, there are many books and articles that can do a far better job of answering that question than I can, and I have listed a few at the end of this post. I urge you to try one and consider whether you agree with David Bohm’s declaration that “such a form of free exchange of ideas and information is of fundamental relevance for transforming culture and freeing it of destructive misinformation, so that creativity can be liberated.”

And with the idea of “transforming culture” we come back to social change. Can the broad subject of Dialogue (Bohmian or otherwise) really have an impact on our society at root level? There is a lot to suggest they can. Our natural quest for progress requires us to be open to different ideas and perspectives. Some we will understand, relate to and even agree with. Others may challenge our core beliefs and assumptions. And with those challenges comes uncertainty, and a trigger for powerful emotions to which we instinctively heed. It is our awareness of these emotions that will determine our ability to learn from each other – and therefore our ability to create positive change.

This is only a brief introduction into the broad subject of Dialogue. There is undoubtedly much more to learn. What’s clear is that how we talk can be a barrier to change, or it can be a tool for change. It may even be the only change we need to make.

——–

Reading

• Dialogue – A proposal by David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett
• On Dialogue by David Bohm
• Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together by William Isaacs
• Difficult Conversations: How To Discuss What Matters Most by Bruce Patton, Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen

Video

• Adam Kahane – Power and Love: A theory and practice of social change

Wikipedia articles:

• David Bohm
• Bohmian Dialogue

It’s an important mindset. A customer-focused mindset that any business needs – social or otherwise. A mindset that says instead of competing with or challenging organisations, a social business is there to offer another option for people to try – “if people are interested they will use it, if they don’t think it’s interesting it will disappear”. The role of the social business – or anyone serious about positive change – is not to challenge other organisations. It is to stand alongside them and let the customer decide.

Why is this important? It’s important because it helps focus on the solution, not the problem. For anyone who feels strongly about specific issues and the need for change, it’s easy to demonise organisations that we believe could or “should” be helping more. This doesn’t always help if change is genuinely your goal. It’s not conducive to creating new solutions or taking action. It doesn’t focus on the needs of the ‘customers’ who need our ideas. And it closes the door to those organisations who could do more to help if only they could learn from us.

So my biggest lesson from Muhammad Yunus’ talk is not to waste time pointing the finger, and to stay focused on actually doing something to solve the problems that matter to me. After all, and in his words, “each human being has the capacity to change the world. The question is ‘am I going to use it?’”.

Muhammad Yunus is a Bangladeshi economist and founder of the Grameen Bank, an institution that provides microcredit (small loans to poor people possessing no collateral) to help its clients establish creditworthiness and financial self-sufficiency. In 2006 Yunus and Grameen received the Nobel Prize for Peace.

In this video, Avy introduces Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) in his response to the What One Change question. REBT is  an approach to counselling and psychotherapy which is based on the idea that people experience emotional and behavioural problems mainly because they hold self defeating, unhealthy beliefs.  Avy talks about the importance of being able to accept ourselves and others as “worthwhile but fallible or imperfect human beings”, the impact that it on our judgment, and the social issues it affects.

I am particularly pleased to bring Avy’s ideas to the debate – not just because of his reputation in his field, but because he brings a much-needed ‘social’ balance to a debate that is typically dominated by economic and political theory.

Is social progress really a function of our mental health? That’s for you to decide…

Add your comments below, or submit your own response to the What One Change question. If you would like me to video your response, please get in touch.

What are your thoughts on Hannah’s suggestion? Please add your comments below, or submit your own response to the What One Change? question.

What are your thoughts on Professor Hon’s suggestion? Please add your comments below, or submit your own response to the What One Change? question.

What ONE change would have the biggest positive impact on our society?

Here are some pointers:

1. Firstly… think big! This is about root causes – big ideas that change society.
2. You don’t have to know how to implement your idea – this is about the what, not the how.
3. Do explain why it will work. What are the social mechanisms at play?
4. Please – no whingeing! This is about positive change, so please… be positive!

So now it’s over to you. What one change would you make? Do you support the evidence about income equality, or perhaps it’s about our approach to happiness? Maybe the biggest change will only come from a new social economic theory? Whatever you think really drives social behaviour, whatever you think the root causes of our social issues might be, please share your ideas.

What’s wrong with happiness?

The problem’s not happiness per se, but more that our collective actions suggest as a society we have  little understanding of what happiness is, where it comes from, or how to get it. Do we know how to be happy? Are we actually aiming to be happy? In his book, Richard Layard states that happiness is our ‘programmed goal’ and that it can be achieved primarily via work – specifically ‘meaningful’ work (i.e. work that helps others). This will come as no surprise to many, but his point is that the consumerist / individualist approach we have widely adopted as a society isn’t the path to happiness. We may be confusing the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of income.

The problem with pursuing income is that the benefits of income are not only temporary (a pay rise may make us happier, but it soon wears off and needs to be replaced with another pay rise) but they are also relative. Relative to our neighbour, relative to our society. Our gain in relative income therefore is to the cost of someone who earns less – who becomes relatively poorer. Income, Layard argues, perpetuates the zero sum game. There is loss for every win. And we are no better off as a society as a result.

What can we do?

Although Layard’s book offers nothing about happiness you wouldn’t be able to get from the classic philosophies / religions – help people, do a job that satisfies you, stop chasing material wealth – what you do get is a perspective on how our actions as a society belie what we have been told for centuries. Our approach to happiness could be described as at best reactive, responding to mental health problems when they happen but with little focus on halting the social conditions in which they prevail. The alternative is to be pro-active – putting happiness and helping others on the public agenda as an objective. Re-establish the Common Good, and put a halt to individualism. This is something for which we can surely take responsibility ourselves.

The role of government

Accepting we have our own role to play, what role does the state play in our happiness? Certainly by making more ‘meaningful’ work available, but in broader terms there is a growing focus on happiness as the correct priority for public policy. That means public policy – including economic policy – should focus on increasing happiness, not GDP. This may seem a daunting task – not least because GDP is internationally recognised as the measure of the value of our economic output, correlating it to our standard of living, but calls for alternative approaches to ‘growth’ are becoming bigger. In France, Spain and Italy a strong degrowth movement has developed, and the UK is also contributing to the search for a new economic model – including the Sustainable Development Commission’s Prosperity without Growth and the new economics foundation’s Great Transition. Even MPs are calling for a move beyond GDP.  At this stage I’m tempted to quote Kenneth Boulding (“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist”) but before I do (oops…) I should point put that some economists, too, are keen to be part of the solution (not least Richard Layard who is also an economist).  Alternative theories such as behavioural economics attempt to address the flawed principles of traditional economics and more accurately reflect ‘real world’ behaviour. Maybe we’re already on our way to a happier society.

The more I read the more I see encouraging evidence of a groundswell of change. But returning to the purpose of this blog… Is happiness – or specifically a focus on happiness, helping others and the Common Good – the root that feeds social prosperity?

However, the idea I suggested – making governments accountable to the policies in their election manifesto – shouldn’t really have been a surprise given I was already building the Vote For Policies website at the time.  Monitoring how closely governments deliver on their election promises is the next logical step ensuring we focus on policies when we decide who we vote for.

The general consensus from the program was that legally binding manifestos would place too much of political power in the hands of lawyers. Also, how do you account for unforeseen circumstances (disasters, war) that affect budget and resources. What if there is a hung parliament? My take is that all of these issues can be considered and dealt with fairly in advance, without relying on lawyers to interpret rules for us (why not let the Supreme Court make the rulings?). Given the current climate it’s hard to imagine relying on our politicians to play by the rules, or even resist our own temptation to lynch them at the slightest sign of foul play. But if this is the right approach, I believe we’re intelligent enough to find a way to make it work. Let’s face it, we’ve solved bigger problems than this.

We don’t need to work out ‘how’ at this stage, just the ‘what’. What is the best solution, and putting our bias aside can we all agree? If we can, the rest will be easy.

Some other resources

If you listen to the program you’ll also hear a mention of what is now known as the Robin Hood Tax, as well as the ‘No Vote’ ballot paper option – the most popular suggestion on the night, and at the time of writing is also one of the top 10 votes in the nationwide Power2010 campaign.

Fullfact – part of their Vision states that “Politicians, journalists, lobbyists and campaigners to be held to account for the claims they make”. Inspiring stuff.

Winston Churchill, presumably warding off more 'average voters'

So said Winston Churchill, apparently. Was he right? It’s not difficult to see his point, let’s be honest. I say this because I include myself in the ‘average voter’ category. In fact, as someone who would struggle to tell you what the main political parties actually stand for (I mean really stand for) I wonder if I could even claim to be in the ‘average’ category at all.

Or maybe I’m being too hard on myself. After all, I only have the benefit of 17 years of education. How can I be expected to understand the difference between the political parties?  Just turning up at the polling booth is commendable enough, right?
Erm, no. That would be wrong.
Let’s face it, I doubt that Churchill would have changed his mind after a five minute conversation with me.

So if Churchill has a point, what’s the solution? Is he implying we should strip ‘the average voter’ of the right to vote? That would surely be a fairly drastic step backwards! My background in web usability reminds me that there is no such thing as user error, only usability error.  If we apply the same principle to politics, we can see the need for a better system for helping voters (like me) to make better use of their vote.

So how do we cut through all of the media spin, squabbling and negative advertising to make an informed decision about which party supports our vision for the future? Surely we would have to read through all of the party manifestos, extract policies for the issues we care about most, then compare them with each other. Who honestly has the time for that? And where do you start? If only someone else could do the leg-work for us… Maybe provide concise policy summaries from each party so we can pick those we agree with most, then find out which party they belong to. That would help us make a more informed choice about who to vote for based on real policies rather than personalities or media spin, right?

Well, guess what readers – someone has! This is my first foray into this arena, and I humbly offer you access to a very simple version of the kind of tool I have described above. More policies and parties are to be added so please offer your suggestions and feedback via the comments form on this post. If you’d like to get involved on any level, please also get in touch.

Try it here then post your comments!

“The health and social problems which we have found to be related to inequality tend to be treated by policy makers as if they were quite separate from one another, each needing separate services and remedies. We pay doctors and nurses to treat ill-health, police and prisons to deal with crime, remedial teachers to and educational psychologists to educational problems, and social workers, drug rehabilitation units, psychiatric services and health promotion experts to deal with a host of other problems. These services are all expensive, and none of them is more than partially effective.

“…And even when the various services are successful in stopping someone re-offending, in curing a cancer, getting someone off drugs or dealing with educational failure, we know that our societies are endlessly recreating these problems in each new generation.”

To paraphrase (perhaps unnecessarily), policy-makers would serve us better by treating the root rather than the symptoms. Furthermore, and in the context of The Spirit Level, authors Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett believe that income inequality is just such a root, given that common social problems are many times worse in unequal societies.

Is income inequality the root of our social problems? The evidence is pretty compelling (although I’m now curious about everything that could drive inequality) but it is the approach that I am highlighting here. We must understand and treat the root, not just the symptoms. We need to join up our thinking – find the links between the remarkable research that exists to help us understand how societies work.

With this in mind, it is important to research ‘root causes’ like income inequality and offer them for comment and debate. I want to join the search for root causes – to help identify them beyond any reasonable doubt, and consider how best to treat them.

And then? What next? Wait for policy-makers to take it on board? Hope that the next government listens a bit more? The aim, should we get to this stage, is to present the evidence and support for it in a way that is not only impossible for politicians to ignore, but enables our own communities to take action without waiting for legislation. We have a wonderful opportunity to learn and share knowledge that can impact all of our lives for the better – not just the poorest, but all of us. Let’s take it.