Making Contact at the Point of Conversation

by Mitch Anthony

Anyone who has jumped a car battery knows the risks. There are two points of contact necessary to bring it to life. If there is corrosion on a post, you are going to hear lifeless moaning. If the connections get crossed, you are going to hear an explosion or see a fire.

Our conversations possess a similar dynamic. In dialogue there are two posts of connection necessary to jumpstart a conversation. If we miss one of the connections, the result is conversation DOA. If we cross the connections, the result is conversation TNT. If we succeed in establishing contact with the polarities of both posts, the result is the transfer of energy––a positive experience for all involved, and one of the hallmarks of a defining conversation.

When it comes to conversation, the two terminals requiring contact are the outward (what’s happening) and the inward (emotional and conceptual). They require two distinct signals to connect. The outward post is looking for facts, accurate descriptions, agendas, and results. The inward post is looking for context, symmetry, understanding, and empathy.

The outward post of conversation represents demonstrating competence and gaining command of both the facts and the situation. We need to demonstrate our intent to follow through so that progress can be made. People feel energy if they get the signal that the following can––and will––happen:

• Progress will be made in the short term (the acute or immediate need).
• Progress will be made in the long term (the source of the issue).

To aid cognizance of the two posts of conversation, I like to use the expressions “in-words” and “out-words.” Each party has an inward and an outward agenda that is being addressed by word, tone, and authenticity. Out-words refer to words and conversation concerning the outward agenda:

What exactly is the issue here?

Who did what?

Who wants what?

What is at stake?

Is this a reasonable request?

What will it take to get this done?

The predominant concern with conversationalists who are outwardly focused is their concern with what is going to happen. Their focal point is the outward steps and action points that effect a tangible result. These are the individuals you’ve met who are magnetized to the phrase, “What are our next steps?” Their power is drawn from the outward post meeting the outward agenda. If someone tries to offer input on how this idea might rub someone the wrong way, this person may discount this input as irrelevant and ask again, “So what steps will we take?”

In-words refer to words and conversation concerning the inward agenda.  The inward post of conversation is about demonstrating empathy?by absorbing the other person’s story and understanding his or her feelings:

What is the story here?

What is the backdrop of this situation?

How does this tie into other issues I’m aware of?

Whose egos and feelings are on the line?

Who is affected by this, and how?

Am I being heard and respected for my views?

Conversationalists who are inwardly focused keep pushing back to the concept, trying to gain clarity about the idea because conceptually it doesn’t feel quite right. They’re hesitant as to how well this concept will integrate with what already exists.

There are people who are concerned with how to navigate through egos and emotions. They just want to make sure their views are understood. Concept, integration, emotional navigation, empathy, and respect are all functions involving the inward post of emotion. If these issues are not addressed, the power stops flowing to the inward post.

Quite often in conversations the outward agenda is given preeminence. In-words are easily discounted by phrases such as, “Let’s just stick to the facts.” In these situations, one individual’s sentiments and ideas regarding the matter are secondary to what the other individual perceives to be the facts.

We can ensure satisfaction for both conversational polarities by remembering that there are two distinct agendas that need to be satisfied, outward and inward. Great conversationalists gather more than facts—they gather the driving spirit of the conversation.

What fact-harnessed people fail to realize is that emotions are facts. What is more real to us than how we feel about certain people or situations? Not only is understanding and empathizing with the emotional aspect of a matter important, recent research indicates that focusing on the emotional side of the discussion can help retain factual aspects as well.

When people enter into conversations where they want to motivate or sway another person, they tend to focus just on facts and become frustrated when they fail to come to an agreement. But a defining conversation takes place by making contact with both posts of conversation––factual and emotional––resulting in mutuality and a higher likelihood that progress is being made.

Emotional facts contribute to why people leave companies, marriages, and friendships––and why people decline to get excited or buy into an idea. If we find our relevant emotions in a matter being dismissed, it becomes a defining context for our decisions going forward. Many personal and professional failures are found in the wake of dismissing emotional facts.

By attending to both the inward and outward aspects of a conversation, we validate the individual and bolster his or her confidence in the processes we employ for success. We communicate that we get the gist of the conversation, which is simultaneously factual and emotional in nature.

In your next conversation, commit to making both points of connection. The concept of making two magnetic polarities work in conversation is simple to remember. Great conversations, like great relationships, are the result of ensuring proper connections. When you succeed at gathering power on both posts of conversation, you can look the other person in the eye and truthfully say, “I get it, now let’s get it done.” This is the difference between ordinary and defining conversations.

Adapted from Defining Conversations:  A Little Book About a Big Idea by Scott West and Mitch Anthony.  ©2011 Advisor Insights Inc.  For more information, click here.

Mitch Anthony is the founder and president of the Financial Life Planning Institute, the leading provider of financial life planning tools and programs. 

For more than a decade, Mitch and his team have provided training and development for both individual advisors and major organizations throughout the world. Mitch personally consults with many of the largest and most-recognizable names in the financial services industry on both financial life planning and relationship development.

Mitch has been named one of the financial services industry’s top “Movers & Shakers” for his pioneering work, and is interviewed by the media on a regular basis. The Institute is partnering with both Texas Tech University and the University of Georgia to develop financial life planning programs for their undergraduate programs. Mitch is a popular keynote speaker, columnist for Financial Advisor magazine, and host of the daily radio feature, The Daily Dose, heard on over 100 radio stations nationwide.

Mitch is also the author of many groundbreaking books for advisors and consumers, including perennial bestseller StorySelling for Financial Advisors, cited by “Financial Advisor” magazine as the number one “must-read” book for financial professionals. Mitch’s other books include From the Boiler Room to the Living Room, The New Retirementality, Your Clients for Life, Your Client’s Story, The Cash in the Hat, and The Bean is not Green. For information on these books and more resources, click here.

© 2011 Mitch Anthony