How to Coach Yourself and Others Coaching and Counseling in Difficult Circumstances | Page 150
This book is in B&W, not color - Print page in Grayscale for Correct view!
argumentation. (As art rather than science, it goes back at least to Aristotle.) In a nutshell: When an audience is
uninterested and uninformed, and likely to remain uninterested and uninformed, one-sided arguments are more
persuasive than two-sided arguments. But when an audience is aware of information that supports the other side,
or is interested enough to acquire such information later, then two-sided arguments are more persuasive.
In other words, you should plead guilty before you’re accused when you’re talking to people who are likely to
hear you accused sooner or later – and especially when you’re talking to people who are already accusing you in
their minds. When stakeholders are thinking but not saying something negative about you, a lot of their energy
is inevitably focused there – energy that could be better used elsewhere. They keep thinking it, muttering it
under their breath, no matter whether they’re trying to keep themselves from saying it or trying to find the
courage to say it. When you acknowledge it proactively – say it for them – you free up that energy.
Once again, you’re not necessarily (and not usually) just plain pleading guilty. At worst you’re probably
pleading guilty with extenuating circumstances. More likely still, you’re acknowledging a few senses in which
you’re guilty, while clinging to your plea of overall innocence. Even lawyers, for whom one-sided
communication comes most naturally, understand the value of admitting the other side’s best arguments in their
summation – the jury’s already thinking about those arguments, and they’ll loom all the larger if they’re not
conceded and put into context. And lawyers understand the value of mentioning the other side’s best arguments
in their opening statement as well – the jury’s surely going to hear those arguments soon, and they’ll hurt less if
they’ve already been previewed and put into context.
Yes, there’s a heritage of colonialism and your mining company might still act like a colonial oppressor if it still
could, but the shoe’s on the other foot now. Yes, it wasn’t transparent to suppress news of that low-pathogenic
bird flu outbreak and you can understand why people might mistrust your agency because of it, but you really
didn’t want to provoke an unjustified international boycott of your state’s poultry.
Sometimes, of course, you’re completely in the wrong, and what’s called for really is a proactive total mea
culpa. It would take something like saintliness to decide to own up proactively to misdeeds no one is ever likely
to know about unless you come clean. But all it takes is wisdom to confess proactively before they inevitably
catch you or when they already know you’re guilty. Parents know (and so do wise children) that proactive
acknowledgment in such cases provokes forgiveness and reduces punishment.
But most of the time there is truth on both sides. Acknowledging the part of the truth that’s not on your side
doesn’t come naturally. But it shouldn’t be that much of a stretch when you sense that your stakeholders already
have that part of the truth in mind anyway and you realize that it will loom far larger if it isn’t acknowledged
than if it is … or when you predict that your stakeholders are bound to find out eventually and you realize that
they will feel totally betrayed if you weren’t the first to tell them.
I did a consultation today – literally in the middle of final editorial changes in this column – with an oil
company whose newly hired CEO was involved in a big accident at his previous company. The major question
on the floor was what the new CEO should say about the accident. I argued that he should raise the topic
proactively, assuming it to be in stakeholders’ minds – and that once it’s under discussion he should never be
the one to change the subject. And I argued that he should concede proactively, without waiting to be asked, that
he feels responsible. Of course he can’t depict himself as legally responsible; he doesn’t believe he is, and he’s
involved in litigation where he’ll be claiming he isn’t. But he needs to tell people what he has learned, what he
would do differently if he had it to do again, and what he will do differently in his new job. Above all, he needs
to confirm people’s unspoken belief that a tragic accident on his watch is a blot on his record.
Even when you are mostly in the right, and even when your stakeholders are mostly on your side, there are still
points of divergence. I sometimes call these the “yes buts.” (The term as applied to risk communication
originated with Caron Chess.) When my clients tell me their stakeholders are likely to support a particular
position they’re taking, I ask them whether there are any aspects of the position that their stakeholders will see
as negatives. Those are the “yes buts.” Unexpressed “yes buts” can often keep a plan from going forward, even
when most people are mostly in favor.
If stakeholders are raising the “yes buts” on their own, fine; acknowledge them. But if for some reason
stakeholders are harboring “yes buts” they’re not raising, I urge my clients to raise the “yes buts” themselves.
Most importantly, I urge my clients to proactively acknowledge the validity of the “yes buts” that are valid. If
you’re doing empathic risk communication, “Here are the downsides of our proposal….” is the sort of thing you
For [email protected]
Property of Bookemon, do NOT distribute
152