Clicking

When I got into this business, I saw my role as pretty straightforward and cut and dry: present all the facts and all the law and then explain the parts that weren't immediately obvious or apparent. By and large objective, black and white, and uncomplicated. Of course, some of the material might be complicated, but that just means systematically breaking it down before communicating it. The hearer (decisionmaker, opposing counsel, client) might not agree, but would at least understand.

Over time I've learned, (not as quickly as I would have liked), that the way I communicate (tell a story) sounds great in my own head but often doesn't resonate. Too much information, speaking too fast, using too many acronyms. Trying to sound smart and making sure I didn't leave ANYTHING out . . .

What gets in the way of true communication (clicking, being on the same page or wavelength, connecting, grooving)? How can I be understood if my own story is the only one I tell?

The below episode of the Good Life Project Podcast sheds some welcome light.

The story playing in our own heads steers the conversation. We've got our own view of the world, which colors every interaction we have. And part of our story is the tools we use.

In the legal profession, where problem-solving is the game, a hammer enjoys a privileged status.

Here's the rub: driving a nail (trying to solve a problem) might not be the conversation your counterpart is having. What if someone just wants to be heard, or is just looking to relate to you on a human level?

Perhaps the best example of this disconnect is shown in this conversation between Rosie Perez and Woody Harrelson.

When I say I'm thirsty, I don't want you to bring me a glass of water . . .

Recognizing whether someone wants to be helped, heard or hugged goes a long way toward explaining those frustrating and infuriating exchanges.

Think that only applies in a personal context? Anyone who has ever mediated a legal case or been involved in contentious disputes knows full well that analyzing the problem using a dispassionate legal lens is futile. As Fields puts it, it's crucial to get to the real issue:

Shorthand the fact to get to the feeling.

I keep beating this drum, but the failure to recognize the power emotions play in the way we experience the world is limiting at best, and extraordinarily dangerous at worst. Meeting people where they are (and where we are) is a necessary predicate to making those real connections and getting the real work done. Of course clicking is magic, but it doesn't happen unless we open up a little.

All the more reason to get to the feelings and work toward processing them while we still can . . .