Leading Questions

 Leading Questions introduce contradiction and redundancy into communication systems in that they compete with existing ideas and/or introduce opinions that do not solicit the integration of other ideas. Instead, leading questions tend to straight-jacket the receiver into either compliance with the speaker or defiance. 

As a ‘red light’ behavior, leading questions represent a form of communication that is less likely to resolve basic problems associated with communication and more likely to increase dissonance within the system. While its true that to some extent all questions tend to move conversations in particular directions, leading questions do so without inviting authentic input from the receiver, and without a genuine response (which is considered ‘green light’ behavior) the leading question becomes competitive behavior.

An intervention that can help loosen the vice-grip characteristic of leading questions is to separate the embedded opinion from the question. For example, a response other than “yes” or “no” to the leading question “Don’t you think we should take the toll road instead of the interstate?” might be, “It sounds like you think we should take the toll road, and you want to know if I agree.  Is that true?" which could help open the system to integration.       

Yes, But...

Speaker A:  I'd like to be able to increase the budget this year for our project.

Speaker B:  Yes, but with money so tight it would be hard to justify an increase to central office.

Speaker A:  Well, I understand that.  But this is the third year of success with this project and I think we can really expand and do good things.

Speaker B:  Your right, the project has been successful.  But you have to remember that there's other departments that have really been hit with budget cuts, and it would look funny if your department had an increase.

Speaker A:  Right, I get that.  But if our project could expand we could actually bring revenue to the company!

Sound familiar?!  This could go on forever (and typically does).

'Yes-but’ statements introduce a competitive element to the communication system, and this tends to avoid the maintenance of relationship, topic or process. A way to communicate in a manner that helps assure that your message will be better received and understood by others would be to use communication that 1) does not build on any avoidance elements brought into the conversation, and 2) introduces a direction to the communication that helps maintain the relationship, topic or process.

A good place to start when presented with a 'yes, but...' is to check your own impulse to defend with a retaliatory version of the same ‘yes-but’ pattern.  In other words, go against instinct and try something different! One way to accomplish this is to first join and then build on ideas introduced by others, which establishes an integrating element to the conversation. Generating three builds to another person’s idea helps that person feel heard and understood (easy to say, harder to do in practice).

Once a true join has been established, other perspectives can be introduced more successfully.  The challenge is to present new information in a way that invites others to explore that information with you (as opposed to tying them down in order to move on without them). That can be accomplished by introducing a new idea in connection with the idea introduced by the other person.

A broad question helps with the challenge of integrating ideas, such as “What are some ways that we could [my/your idea] while [my/your idea]?" Broad questions invite the other person to respond- and 'responding' helps maintain relationships, topics and process, thus increasing the liklihood that an authentic exchange of information can take place.

Speaker A:  I'd like to be able to increase the budget this year for our project.

Speaker B:  Yes, but with money so tight it would be hard to justify an increase to central office.

Speaker A:  It's true that we have less money to work with.  And I know central office is really picky about asking for more funding right now. And approaching central office has never been the easiest thing in the world to do.  What are some ways that we could expand this project while keeping close to our present budget constraints and not rely so much on central office increases?    

Yellow Light: Potential Behavior

A third class of verbal behaviors is defined by SAVI as 'potential'.  Behaviors defined as 'potential' do not directly reduce tensions generated by dissonance found within a communication system, nor do they sufficiently discriminate between approach and avoidance.  Instead, determining the function of potential behavior within a communication system depends upon the level of noise already present in the system.  In other words, the function of potential behaviors depends not on the potential messages themselves, but rather on what response they generate.  Direction of either approach or avoidance for potential behaviors can not be established until an approach or avoidance pattern can be established through responses.  
 

The function of potential behavior depends on context, which is why potential behaviors are referred to as 'neutral'.  Potential behaviors characteristically inquire about information or contribute new information to the system, serving as a resource for either 'red' or 'green' behavior, whichever is more prevalent.  When potential behavior is followed by more potential behavior, no evidence exists that information is getting used at all (cross-purpose communication). 

Potential behaviors are neutrally toned.  If not, they join 'red' behavior when tone indicates a goal to fight, obscure or compete.  Personal information can be defined as 'potential', differing from 'green' light behavior in that, while personal, the information contained within the message is limited to factual information about the self, like personal history, credentials, personal likes and dislikes.  This type of personal information lacks the 'feeling' aspect that characterizes approach behaviors.      

see SAVI GRID

Green Light: Approach Behaviors

A decrease in the amount of dissonance within the system results with the introduction of approach behaviors, meaning that the chances that information will actually transfer are increased. Solutions and resolutions to problems are more likely to take place with approach behaviors due to the clarity they bring to relationships- relationships between the topic and the individuals, between the individuals and themselves, and between the individual and others.
 

Approach behaviors contribute to solutions because they help the system process and evaluate by responding to and integrating with the input of others. The ability to process and evaluate supports the development of more effective solutions by creating an environment where information can safely be accepted, rejected, modified or organized without individuals seeing themselves as personally accepted, rejected, modified or organized.

Openness characterizes approach behaviors as a result of information within the message and the emotion used to deliver the message being aligned.  These messages tend to be composed of personally relevant meaning to the speaker (resonating messages). Approach behaviors allow for the communication of deeply held beliefs or positions, even if those beliefs or positions are not popular, and support the rights of others to do the same; in fact, an attribute of approach behaviors is that they invite others to do the same.
 

Feelings are clearly defined and openly revealed with approach behaviors. Feelings are marked as the speaker's own, and create a space that recognizes and confirms feelings communicated by others. As a result, an atmosphere of hearing and being heard is established, resulting in a system where information is more likely to be integrated and more effectively used to reach goals and solve problems.

see SAVI GRID

Red Light: Avoidance Behaviors

Avoidance behaviors are verbal interactions that introduce ambiguity, contradiction or redundancy (Shannon and Weaver, 1964) into the communication process. This introduction of dissonance into the communication system functions as a way to reduce tension by moving further away from actual problems by using behaviors like fighting, obsucring or competing. 

Avoidance behaviors tend to illicit additional avoidance behaviors, generating a cycle of tension-driven communication that prevents the sharing of personal information. Ironically, in situations where personal information is most needed, this cycle of avoidance assures that personal information becomes the scarcest resource available. 
 

Interestingly enough, tone of voice can render any statement a 'red-light' behavior. While statements that blame, complain, attack, put-down or criticize self or others are composed of words that clearly place them into 'red-light' behavior, a voice tone that is bombastic, righteous, whining, sarcastic, bullying, blameful, or self-defensive can place even the most neutral of comments into the 'avoidance' category.
 

see SAVI GRID

What's the Problem?

Yvonne Agazarian writes that people are always solving and resolving experiences as they are experienced (Agazarian, 1968).  She basis this on work by Howard and Scott in 1965, who conceptualized the concept of 'problem' as any condition that establishes disequilibrium without implying an awareness of how the condition can be resolved rationally.

Howard and Scott explain that when dissonance is encountered, people mobilze their resources to re-establish equilibrium.  If the situation is too stressful for the mobilized resources, then people do what they can to avoid the situation.  Successful problem-solving, Howard and Scott concluded, takes place when the activity around the circumstance reduces stress.  Conversely, unsuccessful problem-solving results in increased stress. 

The output of communication observed during group interaction, then, can act not only as a barometer of the stress related to the circumstances, but also as a compass that allows the direction of the exchanges underway to be identified, either toward re-establishing equilibrium or toward increasing disequilibrium. 

Practicioners would do well to develop a presence of mind during unbalanced and de-stabalized interactions with others that allows us to observe and interact with intention and deliberation .

Communication and Life Enhancement

Agazarian defines communication as "the medium through which people in groups relate to each other as people," adding that communication is "the method by which decisions are made affecting the group's social and working life" (Agazarian, 1968). How important it all is, and yet typically we communicate without active thought or consideration!

Regardless of our level of cognizance, our words always have immediate and consistent impact. Yet the intentional practice of communication skills, a seemingly excessive exercise considering concerns that dutifully throw themselves in front of us on a daily basis, is rarely undertaken despite the far-reaching effects communication has on the lives of self and others.

How the process of day-to-day living could improve if one were to be disciplined enough to intentionally develop personal communication skills on an ongoing basis.  The idea that communication and the quality of life are fundamentally connected, where improvement of communication skills directly improves the quality of life, doesn't seem too far a stretch.