Nolan Martin :
Hey everyone! Thanks for joining us on the NEGOTIATEx podcast. We are continuing our conversation with Elaine Lin Hering, facilitator, author, and speaker. If you haven’t already checked out part A of this show, be sure to do that first. Let’s jump into the conversation with Elaine.
Aram Donigian:
I want to stay getting a little uncomfortable. You said this is not a safe book, and you said that one of the audiences were well intentioned leaders. I think one of the things that struck me was recognizing that I have been guilty of silencing others at times. I think you make the suggestion in there that many of us are guilty of silencing others.
Why might that be? What causes us to quiet others, because it seems so, whether it’s disingenuous or it seems contrary to building relationships, it certainly seems contrary to getting the most out of someone. Why do we do it?
Navigating Silence & Understanding Human Barriers In Communication [01:32]
Elaine Lin Hering:
Because we’re human. I mean, fundamentally, because we’re human in chapter five of the book, I outline nine different ways in chapter nine, I get prescriptive of what you can do instead. But fundamentally, I would argue, not just suggest, I would argue that we all silence one another, not because we intend, but because we are human. And as we are figuring out how to meet our own needs, we’re often exhausted, pushed to the limit, burnt out. We’re not showing up as our finest selves. But let me get more granular of what I mean by silencing someone, because it can sound really mean, really hard, really harsh.
And by silencing someone, I mean make it harder for them to use their voice. Make it harder for them to show up as they intend. Is there space in the family system, in the work system, on the team, for their needs, goals, hopes, concerns? You know, interest based negotiation would just say, for their interests, because the way that we are set up in hierarchy, we tend to solve for the interests of the leadership team, the board, and not necessarily for each team member or employee and it can feel like there’s not room for that because this is work. This isn’t about me, just do the job, get out, get paid. It’s a transaction.
When I talk about well intentioned leaders silencing people, number one, one way that we, we silence the people that we lead is we fundamentally underestimate how hard it is for someone to express their point of view.
And that could be culturally, that could be from their family of origin, that could be they were the youngest child, that could be you remind them of their uncle, you know, whatever it is, but we as human beings tend to assume that other people are wired like us. So if we don’t struggle with speaking up, often because our voice has been normed, or because we were outgoing, we were extroverted, we were the oldest child, whatever, origin story there is, we forget that someone else could have a different experience.
And how that manifests is we don’t necessarily ask for their opinion. We just assume that if Nolan had something to say, Nolan would say something because I would say something. But if Nolan comes from a different background, a different context, and your facial expressions are telling me something, I don’t know what it’s telling me, so you can explain, right? There’s an assumption there that other people would just do it versus do I need to be invited into the conversation in order to express my opinion?
If you are doing a PowerPoint presentation, can I interrupt you, interject in the middle of the presentation for questions, or am I supposed to hold my questions to the end? If I assume, because my former workplace had the norm of, you know, let them finish and then ask questions at the end, but in this workplace, it’s actually go along. And interject. And if you haven’t asked anything, then I guess we’re good. We’ll just end, you know, click out of the meeting, walk out of the room.
Then I’m sitting here thinking, whoa, whoa, whoa. Where’s that part of the meeting where we ask questions? And can I actually ask without being invited? And the way that we solve for that is not necessarily to say, okay, now I have to invite you in, although that can be helpful, but to at least name the norms on this team. So that means before your presentation, say, I’m expecting that you’ll ask questions, offer perspective as we go. Or let me get through these 10 slides and we’ll take questions at the end so that we’re not having to demystify, to navigate, to test the waters. And if we get it wrong, get penalized for, oh my gosh, they’re so disrespectful. Like they interrupted me when it’s all a mash and a mismatch of expectation, norms and assumptions about how we do things.
AD:
It sounds like some of that there is good process management. Is that some of the prescriptive advice that you offer these well intentioned leaders who want to create more space for others to speak in? I’m curious, I mean, do you have, do you have an example that you could share of a powerful moment when, when somebody was able to stop silencing others or maybe inverse that and say, create space for others to find their voice within.
Understanding Communication Styles In Leadership [05:59]
ELH :
Totally, and I love that you picked up on process because in the book I name it “the three levers for voice” and this is classic negotiation in my mind right comes out the Harvard Negotiation Project in the 80s, substance, process, relationship, every mediator knows this.
Why aren’t we thinking about it in our day to day interactions? Because so often we think I need to be the SME, the subject matter expert in order to speak up in a meeting. Well, you could, and there are a couple other levers, which is process and relationship, happy to talk more about those, but a process piece is even. I mean, there’s so many examples. Let me just give you one instead of the mashup.
One example is a leader who had the expectation that, you know, anyone who has something to say, we’ll speak up. So if my team isn’t saying something, then they must not have anything to say. And we’re also solving for wiring, right? There are real time processors who process most effectively in real time in conversation. The more that we talk about something, the more clear an idea gets.
In contrast, many of us are post processors, which is 20 minutes after the meeting. You’re like, that’s what I wanted to say. And so often in workplaces, how post processors are wired is seen as weakness rather than wiring. So your 30 minute meeting, your one shot has ended, and so I guess I can’t say that anymore.
And the post processors of the world are back at their desks thinking, oh, do I say something? Do I not? Do I email them? Do I put it in Slack? Do I reply all? Do I just reply to my manager? And, I mean, notice how many cycles is being spent, are being spent, in just trying to figure out, do I do this, do I not? Versus a manager saying, alright, here’s where I think we’re landing. Everybody sleep on it as you post process as things come up as you post process reply all on the initial email thread to this meeting, right? You’re taking the guesswork out of it, and also solving for those of us who communicate more effectively by typing, rather than talking, those who process most effectively after the fact, rather than in real time.
And that, I mean, that’s sort of the thematic version of how leaders who want to or need to lead people who are wired differently than them can create a process that works for both the real time processing and the post processing, both the talking and the typing, but taking the guesswork out of it, you’re just saving energy that can be channeled elsewhere on your team.
NM:
I love that. I’m curious, earlier when you were discussing finding your voice, you said that there are times when we should be silent to be more effective communicators and collaborators. How do you self manage that choice to remain silent?
Understanding The Meaning Of Autopilot And The Costs Of Silence In Decision-Making [09:02]
ELH :
Remember that you even have a choice, because as we’re moving so quickly, going from meeting to meeting, picking up the kids, doing soccer practice, all of these things, we’re just in autopilot.
An autopilot means we operate based on unconscious habits, which we need to, right? You can’t stop and pontificate about everything. There’s not time and energy in the world for that. But do you even remember that you have a choice? Do you realize that you might be self censoring? And of course, talk a lot about the different ways that we might self censor from engaging in mitigated speech to the illusory truth effect, meaning we’ve told everyone else in our lives about that issue at work, but we haven’t actually talked with that person at work about it, right?
There are all these checks that we can do of might I be self censoring? And if I am, am I doing it intentionally? Because that calculus of, is it worth it for me to share, our brains focus on what are the costs of using my voice and what are the benefits of staying silent. Our brains over index on those two and fail to analyze what are the costs of staying silent? And what are the benefits of using my voice?
And of course, Amy Edmondson at Harvard Business School and others have analyzed the voice silence calculus of if I use my voice, I incur the costs now. And they’re personally incurred by me versus the benefits of changing a system or changing a process at work are enjoyed by a group.
So there’s a self versus group aspect. There is a time span now versus later analysis that all comes into play. But that to me is the, are we thinking about what are the costs of staying silent? What are the benefits of actually engaging in agency? And are we thinking short term or long term? In addition to remembering, you actually do have a choice. The choices may not be great, but there is a choice.
AD:
You know, many of our listeners, Elaine, will operate in many different cultures around the world. I’m curious, as you were just talking about, there were things you were talking about there that made me think a little bit of, you know, Hofstede’s different dimensions of culture. How do different cultures view silence versus voice and what’s some of the advice that you would give to, whether it’s a negotiator or a manager who finds themselves working with people with different cultural perspectives on how best to communicate, elaborate, deal with conflict.
Understanding & Articulating Norms For Better Collaboration [11:38]
ELH :
Let me go to a little bit of my own story around culture of silence. I am the youngest daughter of an immigrant family from Taiwan to the United States. I was raised in the Christian church. I share all of those things because it highlights assumptions around who should stay silent, and how voice is interpreted, right?
As the youngest daughter, I am supposed to stay silent because silence is how I respect my elders, is how I respect the men in my family, because there’s this thing called patriarchy. And so therefore to ask a question, to offer a perspective is inherently disrespectful. So then what do you do with that?
And of course in the church there was a lot of “turning the other cheek,” “be the bigger person.” And so there’s so much that’s unspoken about that. And you could do large swaths of Asian cultures versus Western cultures, or individual cultures versus collective cultures. And that analysis that I go deeper in the book, I mean, it is this mesh of lots of misunderstanding.
And so to me, the tactical thing that is most useful is to develop an awareness of what learned behaviors, what narratives around respect are attached or associated with silence, with censoring, with keeping your mouth shut in different cultures. In addition to that, if you’ve got cultures intersecting, the points of friction come from the misunderstanding of behaviors.
So you often hear about Asian workers in America being good entry level workers because they’re quiet, because they work hard, because they don’t cause trouble. Well, it’s not because those individuals don’t have opinions of their own, right? There’s a cultural norm of, I need to be asked, or there needs to be, again, going to process, there needs to be a clear process and entry point for me to offer that thought versus stop the speaker in the middle of the conversation.
So, to me the answer is actually making clear what the norms are and that, you know Chinese culture is huge, it’s massive, there’s so much diversity in it. You can’t lump it all together so it’s not even to say Chinese people or Japanese people or Eritrean people negotiate like this so much as what are the norms that we are co creating on this team? What are we going to do on this team? Because we think it leads to better outcomes, because we think it honors human dignity more, because it gets us, allows us to collaborate more effectively, and that we are co-creating it, and we are naming it, we are explicit about it, rather than you have your in group and your out group of people know how things work around here because they’ve been here a long time or because they were with a legacy company and the people who came in through the M&A have to read the room and try to figure it out. Can we articulate them so we can discuss them so we can utilize them and mitigate the misinterpretation, miscommunication that causes so much friction on our teams?
AD:
So, Elaine, let’s imagine for a moment what you just described was advice that you gave to a leader in an organization and they say, I love it. I like what you’re saying. I recognize it. It’s true. I need to do this, but we don’t have a culture where we’ve done that in the past. So how do I even get started and introduce when I’m trying to now reverse, maybe the direction of where we’ve been.
Clarifying Processes & Goals For Effective Team Collaboration [15:30]
ELH :
I mean, I think you actually just started the conversation right there, which is, hey, in the past, we haven’t been explicit about how, maybe, what we’re building, how we’re building it, how things work around here. As a result, it has caused XYZ. Friction, disadvantages, inefficiencies, whatever the net negative impact is, and so therefore, what we want to try is to do this, and here’s the process for how we’re going to go about it, which could be, hey, here’s, let me just name it now, it could be, are we actually co-creating it, you know, do we really want to go down the working team way, or, is it enough actually to name the intention and name the hypothesis and invite perspective in, right?
Here’s how I think things actually work here. Is that actually how things work here? And this is where all those different process pieces come into play, depending on how big your team is. If you’re a team of three, that could be a small group meeting. If you’re a team of 120, you’re probably socializing it with some people beforehand rather than doing it at an all hands meeting.
But the key piece of it is to name where you think we’ve been. What you’re hoping to do and why and then what are the next steps forward rather than not naming anything at all.
NM:
At the beginning of our discussion you mentioned that emotions are data. Is it appropriate for emotions to come out in our voice? I feel like that’s common reason why someone might not want to speak is fear of how they’re feeling coming out too strongly in the words.
The Role Of Self-Awareness & Regulation In Effective Communication [17:08]
ELH :
So this is where I’d say there’s both sides of the equation. One is how much do I want to share? And as a negotiator, I’m thinking, how am I in control of my emotions, aware of my emotions and in control of them rather than having my emotions be in control of me?
That’s a key question. And that is self awareness. That is self regulation. That is, can I say and identify, I am feeling overwhelmed rather than just letting you have it because I am frustrated, right? And so that’s work for each individual negotiator to do. I would argue that as a communicator on the receiving end, understanding how the other person is feeling, what’s going on for them is incredibly helpful.
And I may or may not be able to read you. Certainly, on screen, I have some cues, you know, but even earlier in this conversation, I was like, I see you smiling, I’m not quite sure what’s there. Is that awkwardness? Is that discomfort? Is that resonance? Is that fill in the blank. And so there is that, let me check in with you, because even if I think I can read you, I may not be reading you accurately.
Even if you think you could read yourself, you may not be reading yourself accurately. But the more that we can make it part of the conversation, rather than emotions just being part of the underlying ecosystem impacting us, we’re all human beings, so we would all have emotions, so often they’re labeled as negative, labeled as you need to leave them at the door when you come into work versus, okay, you’re angry. Where is that coming from? You’re frustrated. You’re overwhelmed.
That’s all data as to what’s working or not working, right? Is this a good idea? Is it not? Was the way that you communicated an idea effective or not? The other challenge is: What is the range of acceptable emotion or behavior at work?
And that often there are double standards based on gender and based on race. So often in organizations, if a man or male presenting person gets angry, it means they’re passionate. If a woman does it, she’s overly emotional and therefore not credible. If a black woman does it, they’re aggressive. And therefore, we are silencing people’s A: emotions, and B: what is acceptable for them to communicate in the workplace when that frustration could be because it was a really bad idea.
And we know that it’s going to burn the team out, or we know that that feature is not going to work because of this technicality, but we haven’t quite gotten to being able to articulate it. And so, to me, there’s all these different leverage points, right? Our own self awareness, regulation, decision to communicate, and also how do we lower the barriers for people to communicate that information, that data?
And to me, that’s not having the prerequisite that you have to have, you know, your three succinct bullet points about the rationale of why this is not going to work before you can be heard, that we could each do for each other, that unpacking and that clarification of what’s running through your head, what’s coming up for you, I’m seeing you wrinkle your forehead, what’s going on there, rather than assuming, or essentially, I’ve had so many people say, I’ve been told to fix my face, right? Because I’m not leadership material if I’m too expressive.
How much energy is going into trying to contort your face to keep it monotone or neutral? Well, why is that not landing with you? What’s the concern? Let’s unpack that and get that information into the mix.
AD:
You know, so much of this conversation has been focused on a lot of interpersonal skills. You’ve talked a little bit about maybe some societal norms or systems, structural perspectives that maybe we could consider. I’d love to dig in there quickly and just to set it up. I mean, we’re sitting in 2024. It is an election year in the United States. There is no doubt that it is going to be fiery as we head into November.
And that’s certainly going to impact people’s kind of voices. We see college protests occurring, around what’s occurring in Israel and Gaza from a societal perspective. From a societal perspective, from a structural and systems perspective. What is your call to action for organizations and communities when it comes to silence?
Promoting Dignity & Understanding In Human Interactions [21:52]
ELH :
The call to action is how do we continue to treat each other with human dignity? How do we continue to see each other as human? We’re going to have differences of perspective, differences in who we vote for, differences in what we think is right and wrong, good or bad, allowable or not. But can we figure that out and communicate those perspectives without as much damage? Loss of life, trauma, devastation. We’re all human beings at the end of it.
And I’m starting with a mindset piece because of double loop learning, right? Mindset drives behavior, which drives result rather than just a behavior. And also that if I were to see that person, these people, these community members, as my neighbors, as other fellow human beings, what would I do? That, I think, unlocks so much.
AD:
Well, I think it’s powerful because the moment we go into vilifying others, I shut down, whether I shut down listening or I shut down their ability to speak.
ELH :
And we have done that and built our echo chambers around that based on what is a catchy headline or what gets the new snippet. And we’ve forgotten our humanity.
NM:
We’d like to say that our podcast is about elevating one’s influence through purposeful negotiation. What final thought would you leave with our listeners on how Unlearning Silence can help them become more impactful influencers and leaders?
Choosing Authenticity Over Conformity In Pursuit Of A Meaningful Life [23:38]
ELH :
Unlearning silence is about excavating the things that might have long been hidden or buried because you were focused on doing what you thought other people thought you should, right? There are a lot of caveats in that. Focused on becoming the person that you thought you were supposed to be. But the supposed to be was because that’s what your parents told you. That’s what your teacher told you. I was supposed to climb the corporate ladder and this is what leadership looks like on the corporate ladder versus what are the things I really care about?
What are the things that make for a meaningful life for me? I often go back to the question, if we have one life to live, how do we want to live it? Because where we spend our energy, our time, our resources, our mental, emotional bandwidth really does determine our life. So when we wrestled with the subtitle of the book, you know, “How to speak your mind, unleash talent.”
And the UK version actually says “lead with courage,” but the US version we went with “live more fully.” What is a full and meaningful, impactful life for you? And that inherently is going to look different than anyone else because you have different life experiences, different wiring, different strengths, different perspectives. So fundamentally, who are you and how are you wanting to show up? Because there’s enough versions of everyone else. What about being you?
AD:
Yeah, I have to say, I kind of like the UK version. The “lead with courage.” I like that. Alright, Elaine, here’s the wild card. We didn’t tell you we were going to ask you this, but what’s next? You’ve written the book. You’re probably over your head in the kind of the work around this right now. But yeah, what’s next for you immediately, but also maybe looking down longer term, three, five years, maybe longer.
Unlearning Silence: A Vision For Transformative Leadership [25:43]
ELH :
Yeah. I love it. Cause immediately is going to my kids school and volunteering, cleaning, you know, wiping tables for school lunch and hoping it’s not spaghetti day because apparently kids like mush the overcooked pasta into the table. So, if you’re talking about immediately, that’s an immediate. I would say, I’m aware that this is hard work.
It is essentially, it is a paradigm shift to say, we actually need to solve for silence, not just tell people to speak up and that we each have a contribution in that. We both may silence ourselves, parts of ourselves, part of our thoughts, and we do it to other people. That’s a big ask and I’m aware of that. So to me, it’s going to take three to five years.
I’d love to see this book embedded in every leadership development program, in every organization around the world, if we’re dreaming big. Because it is not just each of us using our voices, it is also each of us leading in a way where we honor the humanity of the people on our team. What I hope to have done with this is give a name for this thing that we have to solve for, which is silence.
If we can name it, understand it, understand the role it plays on our team, then we can make conscious choices of how we either want to disrupt or perpetuate the role that it plays. That’s the three to five years, and I’m alongside everyone else asking, What does a meaningful life look like? To me, getting unlearning silence into the world in a deep way, transforming the way that we lead and the way that we love, I mean, that to me is a life worth living and I’ll continue to ask the question of what do I learn along the way? So stay tuned.
AD:
Well, Elaine, thank you very much. This has been wonderful, we really appreciate your insights. Encourage folks to pick up your book and be challenged themselves. I know it’s been challenging for me, probably more on the lines of how have I silenced others and taking myself on in those ways. So thank you. Thank you for the contributions you’re making.
ELH :
Of course. Thank you for continuing to learn together.
NM:
Well, that is it for us on today’s podcast. If you haven’t already, please rate, review, and subscribe to the NEGOTIATEx podcast, and we’ll see you in the next episode.
