How to Spot a Conversation Saboteur

by Mitch Anthony

Very often when we think we are entering into a conversation, we are flummoxed to learn that, in fact, we are not there to be heard or understood. We are there to be told something, presented to, or controlled—to be messaged in one form or another. If you don’t like the message, that’s your problem.

Why do most of us loathe going to meetings to partake in group “conversations”? In part, because so much gets said and so little gets done. We labor through these discussions and wonder how in the world we survived before the Blackberry® was invented.

One undeniable factor impeding progress in conversations is that certain, but identifiable saboteurs supplant the point of conversation—in this article, we will learn how to identify them. But first, it is important to distinguish between a dialogue and a monologue.

A simple method for illustrating the difference is to draw upon the words’ origins. Both words are derived from the Greek roots mono logos (one meaning) and dia logos (the merging of meaning). Monologists enter a conversation for the purpose of getting their point across. Monologists are readily identified by their tones, whether they are dominant, argumentative, condescending, entertaining, or droning. Monologists are not present to hear your point; they are in the room to prove their own points or to simply dominate airtime.

Dialogists, on the other hand, first attempt to understand your meaning and then search for a way to merge their point and yours. The dialogist’s approach hearkens back to the idea that understanding (in the form of mutuality), along with significance, are the true goalposts of conversation. Think of dialogue as a puzzle; its purpose is to discover what the other party’s puzzle pieces look like and how and where they merge with your ideas.

Many meetings and conversations, instead of functioning as dialogues, end up being more like open-mic night at the Improv. People prepare their material and look for acknowledgment and approval for what they bring. When you enter into dialogues, you must ask yourself whether you are present just to have your say or to put all the pieces together. Monologues reflect personal interest. Dialogues reflect interest in another person.

Monologists, like actors on a stage, are primarily concerned with delivering their own lines and winning approval and attention. We are betting you’ll recognize some of the following types of conversation saboteurs.

Talk Show Hosts 

You will never have a real conversation with the talk show hosts. These individuals will cut you off at their whim and continue their monologue. With little or no prompting, they will wrestle away the microphone and never give it back. Talk show hosts never really engage in dialogue because they view conversation as an opportunity to have an audience.

Graffiti Artists

Graffiti artists are the individuals who are unable to prevent themselves from marring or distracting from another person’s message with their own artistic expressions, often taking the form of entertainment or artistry. They often view the conversation as a platform for their wit. The end effect is the obscuring or defacing of the central message that matters in a dialogue. Some graffiti artists are talented, witty, and fun to listen to, but they denigrate the process by relentlessly bringing attention back to themselves.

Sir Edmund Hillary (Mountain Climbers)

These skilled conversationalists always have a better story than you—they’ve always climbed a higher mountain: “Jim, that’s a great story you told about climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro. It reminds me of something that happened to me the fifth time I reached the peak of Everest…I’d done it solo and was so exhausted…” Blah, blah, blah. More than likely they are driven by their insecurities that someone else may have had an experience more vibrant than their own.

Psychics

Believing themselves to be clairvoyant regarding what others are thinking, psychics habitually jump in during the middle of your thought and finish it for you. Or believing themselves to be superior thinkers, they jump in before you can further demonstrate your paucity of intelligence, thus saving you from yourself––at least in their minds. They have an internal clock ticking away and when the alarm goes off, they need to be heard again.

Ultimate Fighters

Laying in the bush waiting for the wrong thing to be said, a naïve suggestion to surface, or an idea to get floated that is well within the range of their weapons of pessimism and scorn, ultimate fighters ambush the conversation process with negativity and cynical clichés. Their role requires little intellectual rigor or creativity. They are intense individuals who are agenda- and ego-driven combatants in conversation, and view each conversation as a competition with a clear winner and clear loser. Ultimate fighters are not satisfied until they get you to tap out and surrender completely to their agenda.

Parachutists

Have you ever had a conversation with someone where you were scratching your head and asking yourself, “Where is this person coming from?” These are the individuals who drop in on a conversation, unannounced and uninvited. Parachutists assume their input is wanted and needed. Feeling strongly about themselves and their input, parachutists presume that there is always a global demand for their opinions. When engaging in significant conversations, keep an eye out for parachutists showing up in no-fly zones. This individual generally doesn’t have anything relevant to add or is unaware of the context of the conversation.

Forewarned is forearmed. Allowing that this cast of characters can sabotage any meaningful conversation at any moment, there arises a need for authentic participants in the process—participants who understand why we are having a conversation and allow others to share the space. Dialogists understand that conversation is a space where things need to happen and people need to know that they matter. Progress and significance are the goals. 

In order to keep the saboteurs at bay, you need to put the quest back into the question and convergence back into the conversation. Make sure your role is that of dialogist, not monologist—and watch out for those saboteurs!

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