You observe a behavior of a person. Maybe you get a strange look, or some words don’t make sense. Then your mind starts looking for an explanation. Did I do something wrong? Is she mad at me?
You quickly start interpreting what you see. Our minds want to make a coherent story out of everything we experience. We cannot accept that some things we observe have no reason. But we know less than we think we know!
One of my favorite psychologists, Daniel Kahneman, has spent much of his career studying that human trait. According to his studies, people tend to create an immediate story in their minds from what they see. Kahnemann calls it the “WYSIATI” Theory (WYSIATI = What You See Is All There Is). The theory says our lazy minds jump to conclusions from what we observe without further investigation or clarification. We interpret what we see without a second thought.
But why do we take such shortcuts? Is this a bug in our brains?
By far, no. From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense. Thousands of years ago, when hunting for mammoths, we wouldn’t have survived questioning a saber-toothed tiger about his emotional state and the strange looks he gave us. Aiming for survival has forced us to instantly interpret what we see and intuitively decide on a flight or fight. We needed pre-programmed decision rules (today, we call them heuristics).
An interesting fact in human evolution is that we’ve changed the world around us much quicker than how our brains could adapt. To a large degree, we’re still programmed to survive a tiger attack in a forest by making quick conclusions. Our brains unconsciously use the same basic heuristics while we seldom run away from tigers. Instead, we use our brains more often for knowledge work & communication, where “jumping to conclusions” might sometimes become destructive. Misinterpreting a particular behavior can lead to unhappiness, bad decision-making, and negativity (and destruction) in relations.
As a successful rainmaker, you need to read people. In pitches, negotiations & business conversations, we investigate our counterpart’s thoughts as we want to find the best solution. The correct interpretation of words and non-visual communication, therefore, is essential.
But how can we make sure that our interpretations are correct?
Use the simplest explanation.
One tool for interpreting behavior is “Occam’s Razor.” It simplifies your thinking by saying that the simplest explanation is mostly correct.
When forming a theory about the motivation for a particular behavior, it’s wise to assume the most straightforward explanation first. The scientific principle of “Occam’s Razor” says to prefer the reason with the least amount of assumptions. If two or more causes compete, choose the simpler one (with fewer parameters or beliefs).
Label the observation.
There is a technique often used in current hostage negotiations called labeling (see also here in my summary of Chris Voss’s book “Never split the difference”). Labeling means describing your observations and sharing your interpretation with your counterpart. The goal of that technique is to deepen the relationship and create trust by eliminating misunderstandings.
The appliance is simple, but for this technique, it’s necessary to overcome a mental hurdle. We usually don’t feel comfortable speaking about our inner lives, emotions & thoughts. But we need to open up to make labeling work. Also, it requires us to show a slight weakness to the counterpart, namely that we’re incapable of giving correct interpretations—the good thing about showing that flaw is that it helps us to create trust.
How does it work?
Let’s assume you’re having a business conversation with another person. You’re making a price suggestion for a deal. Your counterpart doesn’t move, but the head turns red.
You could say: “It seems like you’re upset.”
If they reply with: “Why do you think so?” you could say, “I saw that your head turned red. And it made me think that you’re upset. But I’m aware that this might not be true.”
The last sentence, “But I’m aware that this might not be true.” and paraphrases like “It seems like..” are essential aspects of the technique. You signal that you need to know from your counterpart if your interpretation is correct. You also signal that you’re unsure which is an invitation for a conversation. If you’d say, “You’re upset,” the person could feel attacked and react defensively (which means closing down). We want the person to open up to engage in a conversation which the labeling technique can help us achieve.
Summarized, this is how you can handle the responses to your spokesperson’s behavior:
- Observe the behavior or physical reaction
- Interpret that behavior in your mind
- Use your simplest explanation
- Share your interpretation with your counterpart by labeling it
- Frame it in a way that doesn’t sound absolute, and it invites a conversation (“It seems like..”)