And the Winner Is! Competing Behavior

The third square in the SAVI grid addresses competing verbal behaviors.  They include the following types of statements:

• yes-but
• discount
• leading questions
• oughtitude
• interrupt

'Yes-but' comments are easily identified, and seem to be a place many people feel more confident to start modifying their communication once they understand what "Yes-but" statements are and how they function.  A previous post in November of 2012 is dedicated only to "Yes-but" statements.  Find it in the archives.     

'Discounts' include verbal statements that function to get the other person to stop talking about their idea , including negative or contradictory opinions.  Any denial of another person's ideas or feelings or facts is consider a 'discount'.

'Leading questions' are really not questions at all.  'Leading questions' are 'opinions' in question form:  "You don't really think that's going to work, do you?"  Again, a previous post focuses on nothing else by 'leading questions'.  That blog entry is located in our archives in December of 2012. 

'Oughtitudes' are statements that intone a superior, dogmatic, judging observation about life rules.  They express an attitude that the speaker is tuned in to way things "ought to" be, and that everyone else "ought to" already know how things should be (the words "ought to" may or may not actually be used).  Listen to any political debate for plenty of examples of 'oughtitudes'. 

'Interrupt' is simple to understand.  We all do it.  We rely on it.  It's so common place, many use it without being aware. 

Competitive verbal behaviors are easy to find within any group that moves beyond the initial 'obscure' comments (social ritual) that characterize exchanges whenever people first come together (see previous post). 

'Competing' comments are topic statements that orient the listener to the speaker's personal position on information.  Competitive statements are characterized as those the avoid the maintenance of personal relationship and/or the topic under consideration, and ultimately avoid solving the inherent problems inherent within the act of communicating with others.       

Say What? Obscuring Behavior

Appropriately entitled 'obscuring', the second square on the SAVI grid is made up of verbal behaviors that are topic/factual in orientation, but ultimately avoid the true maintenance of topic.  Avoidance occurs by generating statements 'as if' the information found within is factual, when in fact reality could very well be something completely different:

• mind reading
• predictions (negative or positive)
• gossip
• joking around
• thinking out loud
• social ritual

'Mind reading' occurs when the speaker is engaged in verbal behavior where he or she talks as if s/he knows another person's thoughts better than the person himself or herself.  Examples include statements like, "I know you think this is a bad idea!"  And, "He thinks anything to do with reform policy is a waste of time!"

'Predictions', either negative ("That'll be the end of the line for him!") or positive ("That's going to solve all our problems!"), always introduce ambiguity into a conversation.  After all, who can really say with 100% accuracy what will work or not, or whether everything is going to be fantastic or not.

'Thinking out loud' includes comments like, "Well, it's like... you know... I mean... right!" 

'Social ritual' includes statements like, "Nice to meet you," "So glad you could come," "Thank you so much for the lovely gift!" 

'Obscuring' behavior can seem quite charming and entertaining.  When there's work to be done or problems to tackle, however, 'obscuring' behavior will decrease productivity and morale every time. 

Take That! Fight Behavior

According to SAVI theory, 'fighting' verbal behavior includes:

• attacks/blames
• righteous questions
• sarcasm
• self-attack
• self-defend
• complaints 

Fight behavior is identified as 'personal' because it allows the receiver/listener to understand the current state-of-mind of the speaker.  While there may be many 'you' statements associated with fight behavior like "You never listen to me!" (attack/blame) or "How can you possibly agree with that?" (righteous question), the communication actually functions to reveal the current inner-state of the speaker. 

When you were young and were being taught about blame you might have been told, "Remember when you point your finger at someone else three fingers are pointing back at you." That's the idea associated with 'fight' behavior.  Even though the speaker might be saying 'you', the behavior functions as a way to expose the listener to the speaker's current personal inner state. 

While characterized as 'person' oriented, 'fight' behavior is also identified as 'avoidance' behavior.  Remember that all 'avoidance' behavior contains high levels of dissonance and 'noise' (ambiguity, contradiction, redundancy).  And in the particular case of 'fight', the behavior functions to avoid the maintenance of personal relationships. 

More About the What of Communiction: Topic Facual and Topic Orienting

A major premise behind SAVI is that all verbal statements are made up of two elements:  person and topic (see previous blog entry).  As a quick review, let's look at the following two examples.  Determining which statement is more heavily 'person' oriented and which more heavily 'topic' oriented is rather intuitive.

Example 1:  SAVI stands for System for Analyzing Verbal Interaction.

Example 2:  I use SAVI at work every day

The first example is 'topic' dominated.  The only 'person' element associated with the statement is introduced by the speaker's tone of voice.  For example, I can deliver the statement with a tone of voice that is calm as I answer a question from a colleague who has never before heard of SAVI, or I can use a tone of voice that is irritated and condescending as I once more clarify the term with a colleague who has asked me the same question five times in the last hour!

The second example is 'person' dominated because it allows the listener to understand personal information about the speaker.  There are, of course, 'topic' elements associated with this statement, such as SAVI, work, day; however, the overall orientation is more heavily 'person' than 'topic'.  Tone of voice is also an important 'person' element as well, which only increases the 'person' orientation of the statement as a whole.

But what about the following example:

Example 3:  SAVI is a wonderful communication tool that is very helpful during meetings.

According to SAVI analysis, 'topic' and 'person' elements in the above statement are represented in relatively equal amounts.  The listener finds out that SAVI is a communication tool that can be used during meetings (topic), and the listener also learns that the speaker thinks SAVI is wonderful and helpful (person). 

SAVI identifies verbal statements as belonging to one of three person/topic orientations.  Personal statements allow the listener to learn about the speaker's identity.  Topic: Factual statements focus primarily on the topic under consideration.  Topic:  Orienting statements focus on the topic, yet introduce the speaker's personal orientation regarding the topic.  You can say that 'orientating' statements are 'topic' statements with a personal push.

See if you can identify which of the following three statements represent which of the three person/topic orientations:

A:  My favorite book is The Grapes of Wrath.

B:  Steinbeck wrote it during the second half of the 1930s during the Great Depression.

C:  It has just as powerful an impact today as it did when it was first published. 

• Below is an example of how the person/topic elements are represented on the SAVI grid.  The answers to the above three statements are found after.

A:  person
B:  topic:  factual
C:  topic:  orienting
(Remember that tone of voice introduces a 'person' element to all statements)

The Who and What of Communication: Person and Topic

SAVI builds on a major theory in communication that suggests all verbal statements are composed of two elements- person and topic.  Consider the following:

Example 1:  SAVI stands for Systematic Analysis of Verbal Interaction.

Example 2:  I use SAVI at work every day.

Intuitively if asked to decide on one or the other, a person can identify the first as a predominantly 'topic' oriented statement and the second as predominantly a 'person' oriented statement. 

'Person' statements are those that reveal something about the individual who is speaking.  When the speaker uses a 'person' statement, the listener learns something about how that person operates in the world.

'Topic' sentences include everything else, including when a speaker talks about another person.  Following are two examples that further demonstrate this distinction:

Example 3:  I never trust people like him. 

Example 4:  He's always looking out for himself. 

SAVI would define example three as a statement that reveals how the speaker operates (a 'person' statement), while the next would be defined as a 'topic' sentence.  Even though example four is about a person, it is about another individual other than the speaker, which places it in the 'topic' category.

Notice that the introductory information states that all verbal statements are composed of two elements.  That is, all verbal statements contain BOTH 'topic' and 'person' elements.  However, if we return to the first two examples, identifying both 'topic' and 'person' elements in the second example is much easier than determining that both exist in the first. 

Example 1:  SAVI stands for System for Analyzing Verbal Interaction.

Example 2:  I use SAVI at work every day.

The second example has clearly identifiable 'topic' elements:  SAVI; work; day.  Yet it also clearly fits the definition of a 'person' dominated statement in that the listener learns about how the person operates at his or her workplace.  So, while both 'topic' and 'person' elements can be identified, the 'person' element emerges as dominant.

How can that same analysis work with our first example?  The first example is clearly a statement that is 'topic' dominated.  If we accept the premise that all verbal statements are composed of 'topic' and 'person' elements, the 'person' element associated with the first example isn't immediately apparent.

This is where the 'verbal' piece of Systematic Analysis of Verbal Interaction helps us out.  In a 'topic' dominated statement, the 'person' element is determined by tone of voice.  Try saying the first example in the following two ways:

A:  You are answering a question asked by someone you've just met.

B:  You are correcting someone who always gets the acronym mixed up (and who, by the way, you think is a total idiot!)

And there you have the 'person' element in a 'topic' dominated statement.   

The Third Trigger: Redundancy

Speaker A:  I'm so happy to be here!

Speaker B:  I can see that you're happy!

Speaker A:  I am! I'm so pleased!

Speaker B:  You look pleased!

Speaker A:  Are you happy that we're here?

Speaker B:  I am!  I'm very excited!

Speaker A:  You sound excited!  I can hear the excitement in your voice.

Speaker B:  And that makes me feel so at peace, that we both feel the same way!

Speaker A:  And I feel at peace, too!  That makes me even more excited, that we both feel pleased and at peace to be here.

Wow!  What would be your reaction if you were part of a conversation that continued in this same mode for too much longer?

The above represents a dialogue between two people using 'resonating' behavior.  Remember that 'resonating' behavior, according to SAVI, represents verbal behavior that is relatively clear of 'ambiguity' and 'contradiction'.  So, why do we react to this example in a way that makes us feel that something just isn't quite right with what's taking place?

We're reacting to the redundancy associated with this interaction.  There's really nothing else but 'resonating' behavior to be heard as far as the ear can hear!  The repetition of the same type of behavior causes us to respond in ways that make us want to shut down or get out!

According to SAVI, redundancy can be established within any type of communication- approach, avoidance, contingent- and can muddy the waters of our interactions with others, making the information found within less easy to accept and work with. 

For example, redundancy becomes the fuel behind any memorable one-on-one 'attack/blame' on another person:

I told you not to that, and you did it anyway!  How many times do I have to tell you, "Don't do that?!" I say the same thing over and over again and again, and you don't listen!  You never listen!  What's the matter with you?!

We react to redundancy within the communication of two or three people, like in our opening dialogue.

And we react to redundancy in the communication taking place within whole groups.  For example, it's easy to find oneself in a meeting where everyone is passing facts, figures, opinions and proposals back and forth like balls in a tennis match, but no solutions are developed, no productive output results from all the discussion- there are no points scored.  The old saying that a meeting is where minutes are taken and hours are lost captures the spirit of this familiar redundancy of endless contingent communication with no direction.

SAVI informs us that redundancy is the third trigger for defensive behavior, the other two being 'ambiguity' and 'contradiction'.  The three together - ambiguity, contradiction, and redundancy - are defined by SAVI as 'noise'.  And with SAVI, we are always on the lookout for any type of  'noise' that makes its way into the communication system.

Defense Triggers: Ambiguity and Contradiction

A central premise to SAVI is the idea that verbal communication can be ambiguous or contradictory.  The idea is that the higher the level of ambiguity or contradiction, the less likely the information found within a message will be received or understood. 

Someone says to you, "So, you don't really think that's a good idea, do you?"  A leading question like that boxes the other person into a corner.  It's really not a question at all.  It communicates to the receiver that there's a better way to think about things, and the other person doesn't get it!  The likely reply is going to be a defensive response like, "What's wrong with it?!"  We've set the stage for a debate, at least, or possibly the groundwork for a good fight!  

Our natural tendency is to react in defensive ways when we encounter ambiguity and contradiction. One benefit SAVI provides is that it allows us to have a more highly developed awareness of ambiguity and contradiction when either or both are introduced into a conversation.  SAVI helps us identify less defensive ways of responding to and working with the ambiguity and contradiction we find in our daily interactions with others.  

Here's an example of how a person might respond to the leading question in the above example using SAVI in a way that leads to higher productivity and morale:

A:  So, you don't really think that's a good idea, do you?

B:  It sounds like you don't agree with my idea, and you have another way to approach this situation.  Do I have that right? 

Problem Solving Behavior

How satisfying to be involved with a group that actually solves a problem!  The energy within a group can actually be heard, seen and felt when people successfully work together to find a solution. And yet, how hard it can be to actually find oneself within a group working on a problem that achieves outcomes characterized by high productivity and high morale!

SAVI identifies groups engaged in the process of problem solving in very specific terms.  According to SAVI theory, verbal interactions that define a problem-solving group are ones that can be classified within four categories:  finding facts; influencing; responding; integrating.

Each of these categories (finding facts, influencing, responding, integrating) is composed of specific verbal behaviors.  For example, 'influencing' behaviors are defined as comments that express opinions, proposals, commands or impersonal reinforcements. 

Just this little bit of knowledge has many implications both personal and professional for those who find themselves interacting with others each day.  Being able to recognize when people are actually working toward a solution (and, subsequently, when they are not ) can be just the type of perspective required to help steer a group toward success.