The most effective technique I use to help people prepare for important conversations can be remembered by the acronym GAS:
GOAL: “What do you want to accomplish in the conversation?”
AGREEMENT: “Where do your interests overlap with the interests of the other party? How can the other party benefit from what you are proposing?”
STOP: “In a conversation that is succeeding, when will you stop talking and lock-in your goal? In a conversation that is failing, when will you postpone your goal in order to prevent relational damage and allow your goal to survive for another day?”
We have discussed Goal and Stop in previous entries. Below, we explain how to use Agreement to increase your chances for conversational success.
AGREEMENT.
Strategic communicators are conversational diplomats, lubricating the gears of human interaction to facilitate agreement, understanding, and conversational success. Twentieth century Italian diplomat Daniele Vare said it this way: “Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way.”
Sadly, in an attempt to achieve conversational goals, people often resemble plundering Vikings instead of polished diplomats. Conversational goals are often mortally wounded when people respond to resistance by intensifying their advocacy. Such escalation is usually backfires, leading the other party to resist and rebut even more.
Identifying and advancing areas of joint agreement represent a much better way to achieve your conversational goals. And fortunately, you can almost always find an area of mutual agreement to build upon.
When it comes to areas of agreement, research shows that the problem isn’t determining another person’s interests and identifying the mutual overlap; most people can figure this out. The problem is that people don’t deliberately incorporate areas of agreement into their communication strategies. We focus—and sometimes even obsess—on where our interests diverge, shortchanging the interests that we have in common.
Failing to incorporate areas of agreement in our persuasive strategies is rooted in expediency and self-interest: We fear that incorporating another perspective will take longer than just sticking with what we want to accomplish. This fear is counterproductive. Self-interest is indisputably a powerful factor in human interaction, but flip it around and use it to your advantage by uncovering the other person’s self-interest.
There will usually be some alignment or overlap between what you are trying to accomplish and what the other parson wants. Think practically: How does what you are trying to accomplish (that is, your conversational goal) make the other person’s life easier? How does your idea solve a problem that the other person is having? What’s the benefit to the other party in supporting your cause?
Don’t mince words when describing how your conversational partner can benefit from what you are proposing (that is, from your conversational goal). Focus on the way that your goal will give the other person more time, money, freedom, or opportunity; or less heartache, hassle, paperwork, and trouble. Clearly connect the benefits of what you are proposing to the other person’s life.
In the relatively small number of cases where there aren’t any areas of agreement, don’t make them up. It will be obvious that you are fabricating a common interest, and this will be self-defeating. If what you are proposing will bring the other party nothing but more work, extra hassles, and some new headaches, address the downsides directly but without fanfare. Be honest, but bland.
Finding and using areas of agreement will fuel your conversational success. Clearly describe the benefits of what you are proposing to your conversational partner, and you will have made a concrete connection between what the other person wants and what you are trying to accomplish. And that’s a powerful, persuasive piece of conversational diplomacy.