Com101 – Identifying Who We’re Talking To

Update: I just got my pre-order page on amazon to turn this series into a book!

Transform your life with healthy communication tools by simply sharing this with someone you love or posting a link on social media. Get your friends talking about this and watch your life transform! You got this! ~Danny

Here is the Table of Contents for Communication 101 series.

In my previous article, I talked about using our new communication skills for good. Now let’s talk about how to identify other people’s go-to patterns for communication and the types of outcomes they seek. This way we share our time and energy with people who have earned it and while also creating distance from people who have earned that.

This chapter is going to focus on the following boundaries.

Safe Space Boundary: we only participate in healthy conversations. Otherwise, we will walk away with an option to reschedule the conversation if/when it can happen in a healthy way, and/or we will pursue other avenues for getting our needs met.

Safe Space Boundary: we only participate in conversations that pursue solutions that benefit everyone. Otherwise, we will walk away. We will walk away and pursue other avenues for getting our needs met.

Safe Space Boundary: we will create a safe distance from people who have a pattern of having unhealthy conversations.

Safe Space Boundary: we will create a safe distance from people who have a pattern of seeking results that do not benefit everyone or results that hurt others.

That sounds wonderful, right? So, how do we do that? We are going to have to figure out a way to identify types of conversations and then identify the pattern of conversations that a specific person participates in.

We are going to do this by rating the quality of results a single conversation can produce. Then we’re going to look at the pattern of outcomes a person is involved with. We’re not going to use “intentions.” People can claim to have any type of intentions, and they can believe their own claims. Their actions and the results of their actions are the gold-standard here. There is a Brian Klemmer[1] quote that describes this approach perfectly, “there is no fairer way to gauge anything than by results – often harsh, but always fair.”

I’m just going to start with a picture of the results we’re going to pay attention to.

I’m trying to create a tool to visualize people’s conversations so we can easily talk about it and start identifying what types of patterns show up.

A dot on this chart would be a conversation. One dot quickly describes the quality and the results of the conversation based on the quadrant it falls in to, A, B, C, or D. The vertical axis gauges if a conversation builds or destroys a relationship. The horizontal axis shows if a conversation results in hurting or helping us and the world around us.

To be absolutely clear we’re all on the same page, I’m going to recap the definitions I’m operating from in this book and in the image above.

Healthy vs Unhealthy Conversations

Let’s start with the vertical axis.

In this book, “communication” is a collection of all the actions, verbal and non-verbal, that a person uses to get what they want, as well as all the actions they observe in the other person to interpret the other person’s behavior. These actions and behaviors may be conscious or unconscious.

When I say, “conversation,” I’m talking about a bunch of communication that has a start and a stop in time. Everything from a phone call, a text exchange, making eye contact with a stranger across a bar, bumping into a stranger, or attempting to merge into traffic.

In this book, “healthy communication” is any communication that adds to the long-term trust and goodwill of the relationship. These communications build and strengthen relationships.

As part of the chapter on Safe Space Culture, I defined “safe-ask culture” as a very idealistic version of “ask culture” where there is never any negative consequences, judgement, or punishment for asking for something, sharing something, or being truthful. A question is never considered impolite, nor is a truthful answer. In this idealistic, fantasy culture, everyone is a safe space when asking questions, when receiving questions, and when answering questions. Safe-ask culture is a type of healthy communication.

In this book, “unhealthy communication” is any communication that damages the long-term trust and goodwill of the relationship.

As part of the chapter on Safe Space Culture, I defined “punish-ask culture” as a culture where the asker is often punished for asking a question, sharing, or speaking the truth. As an added bonus, all responses are delivered as a put-down or a judgement. Everyone can count on punishing replies when someone disagrees, is inconvenienced, or offended in any random way. This punish-ask culture begins to describe a culture of normalized verbal and emotional abuse. In this abusive culture, everyone is often not safe to ask a question, receive a question, or answer a question. Punish-ask culture is a type of unhealthy communication.

The top and bottom of the graph are extremes. The middle would be 50-50; a conversation that was half healthy communication and half unhealthy communication. Therefore, anything above the middle would be a mix of the two where healthy communications begin to outnumber unhealthy communications more and more. The opposite would be happening below the middle.

Everyone Wins vs Everyone Loses

Now let’s talk about the horizontal axis.

On the horizontal axis, I’m pushing toward near-fictional extremes of results where “everyone wins” and “everyone loses”. Again, these are results, not intentions.

The mid-point between those extremes would be “we both got half of what we want.” As in, we both settled for less than what we wanted. Some would call this “compromise.” Since we are getting so specific with definitions right now, here’s the Oxford Languages definition of compromise: an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. Concessions are something conceded, given up, or sacrificed.

Let’s focus on the “everyone wins” side of the chart for a second. If we took one step in that direction, we would be taking about results where both parties got what they wanted. This is commonly referred to as a “win-win” outcome.

Here is a simple example that illustrates compromise verse win-win results. Two people want an orange. There is only one orange left.

If they cut it in half and they each take half, then they both get half of what they wanted. They both gave up half so they could receive half. This was a compromise.

If they talked a little more, they could have discovered that they both wanted the orange as the main ingredient for a recipe. The first person wanted to make a glass of orange juice. The second person wanted to make candied orange peels. When they realize this, a new option is created. They gladly give the inside of the orange to the first person and the outside of the orange to the second person. Everyone got 100% of what they wanted. That is a win-win result.

What’s interesting about a win-win solution is that it’s often not symmetrical and it usually only reveals itself after some healthy safe-ask style conversation. If these two never talked about their needs, they would never have realized they could both get what they wanted. Any on lookers, with no context, would think the person was given the orange peel had just been screwed out of an orange. The deal just doesn’t look fair from the sidelines. It doesn’t matter that the solution is asymmetrical, both people got exactly what they wanted.

Win-win is a solution where the two people involved both win. That’s just one step in the direction of “everyone wins.” On the graph, “Everyone Wins Result” is meant to be on a grand, nearly impossible, scale where we win and everyone in the whole world wins. If we could take one step passed win-win, we could think a little bigger and have a conversation that ends up benefiting more than just the two people in the conversation. It could benefit the people around us. We can think even bigger, and the results of our conversation could benefit our family, our friend-group, or our community. This is what I’m describing when I use the phrase, “multi-win”; we both win and a few people not in this conversation also benefit. We can solve a struggle between us with a solution that helps everyone. To continue our example with the orange, if part of the solution was to take the seeds of the orange and go plant them in the backyard so, one day, we might have an orange tree for ourselves and the people in our home, that would be a multi-win. If we could take those same seeds down to the community garden and plant them there, so everyone in our community might one day benefit, that would be an even bigger multi-win.

As for the grand scale, we could record all this in a video that shows how we overcame a struggle and found a multi-win for our selves and our community. We could place that video on a few different online social networks and mark it “public and free to share.” Then we would be getting close to an “everyone wins result” that could potentially span the globe. The potential is grand, but the dot on the chart might drift a little as we observe the actual results.

I want to be clear, a dot on this graph is talking about results, not intentions. If two people agree to share a high-five while exclaiming, “this high-five will save mankind,” yet they are not doing anything that results in saving mankind, that would not be a “everyone wins result”, that would be a “win-win” dot because the act of high-fiving and saying the words yielded a result of two people feeling what they wanted in that moment while not actually benefiting anyone else.

In the other direction, we have the “Everyone Loses Result.” Again, we are talking about a grand, near impossible, scale where all of humanity loses. Imagine results that destroy families, communities, cultures around the world, all of humanity, and even the world itself. Conversations that cause wars and destroy the planet are at the far end of this direction.

Starting at the middle, “compromise”, if we take one step in the direction of the “everyone loses result”, we would step into the realm of win-lose and lose-win results. Win-lose would be a result where we get what we want, and the other person doesn’t get what they want. A lose-win would be a result where we don’t get what we want, and the other person does get what they want. I want to clearly call out that both of these solutions will most likely damage a relationship. Both of these solutions create animosity, resentment, hurt, and even revenge. A win-lose or a lose-win has a winner and a loser. The loser will not be happy and that will fester inside them. It’s human nature. The relationship will also be damaged. Seeking solutions where only one person wins, or worse, one person wins at the expense of another, may seem like a benefit for one person today, but it locks in a future loss for both today’s winner and today’s loser.

Results that involve a loser, cultivate ill will and resentment. Future interactions will reflect this. Future interactions are headed toward lose-lose results. A lose-lose results is where both people lose. In some cases, this is benign as both parties realize, “oh, this conversation is not able to benefit both of us, so let’s just walk away and seek getting our needs met elsewhere. No harm, no foul.” In other cases, this can be vindictive and vengeful with phrases like, “if I can’t have what I want, no one can!”

Sticking with our orange example, lose-win or win-lose would be a case where one person got the whole orange and the other did not. However, a lose-lose might occur shortly after the winner walks away with the orange. The loser might be upset, snatch the orange, run outside, and throw it in a pond. “There,” they snap, “now no one gets the orange.”

It seems so obvious that no one would ever seek a lose-lose situation, but people are doing it every day by seeking win-lose or agreeing to lose-win. Lose-lose is often waiting for us in the future after we allow win-lose or lose-win to happen today. Things tend to come back and bite us in the end.

On the graph, as we continue passed lose-lose, we find all sorts of conversations that begin to harm us and people outside of the conversation. Decision are made that put the people around us at risk, like road rage. Results that destroy communities and create hostile situations like the decision to say racist or xenophobic remarks in the workplace or on TV. This is the realm of multi-lose results. The person speaking the remarks may feel that they have won today and “those people” have lost today. In reality, the person who said the remarks has also signed up for a future loss, they just don’t realize it yet. They have damaged their own reputation be declaring to the world that they push for win-lose results. Now people know what to expect from them in the future and how they themselves could one day be treated.

The person seeking win-lose/lose-win results will naturally attract more likeminded win-lose/lose-win people into their life, which guarantees future struggles. They will naturally repel the win-win people, which will also make their life harder. They sign themselves up for a future that is centered on struggling and fighting for results that involve someone losing and it will catch up with them. They will be fired eventually. They will be taken off the air eventually. They will be cut off eventually. They will eventually interact with the wrong person who shares the same win-lose/lose-win mentality but is on the other side of the equation and has had enough. They will create enemies and find themselves in wars they helped escalate.

If we are going to attract likeminded people with the results of our conversations, do we want to attract people on the everyone-wins side or the everyone-loses? I hope the answer is obvious. The only way to attract likeminded win-win people is to be one of them and not tolerate anything less.

Labeling the Graph

Now let’s update our graph to include all the steps and waypoints we just outlined on both the vertical and horizontal axes.

I’m going to give you three graphs, the one with everything labeled, the one with minimal labels and the one with no labels. Whatever make sense for you, use that. I’ve also labeled the four quadrants so we can easily talk about them.

Above: everything is labeled. Yes, it’s a little busy.

Above: minimal labels.

Above: no labels.

Types of Communicators

In our chart, if we imagined someone who had a bunch of dots all through the section marked, “A”, we would see their pattern of being a healthy communicator who tends to find solutions where everyone wins. This is the results we are striving for in this book, both for ourselves and for the people we choose to have conversations with. This is safe-ask culture that works for everyone. Do you know anyone that fits this description? What are the names of two people you know that have proven to you that they operate in section A?

A grouping of dots in section “B” would describe someone who uses punish-ask culture for the benefit of everyone. For example, when a poor communicator is yelling about how the smoke detector is making its ear-piercing sound and an argument breaks out over who’s fault it is, but ultimately, this person reaches up and switches the smoke detector to “off.” The sound has stopped. Everyone breaths a sigh of relief, however that person just damaged a few relationships with all their accusations and yelling. What are the names of two people you know that have proven to you that they operate in section B?

In section “C”, we have healthy communicators that have conversations that don’t benefit everyone. Safe-ask culture that results in people losing. In the best-case scenario, this could be something like delivering bad news in a safe and respectful way. For example, this could be a manager who has no choice but to tell a team how they have all just been laid off. Unfortunately, the more likely scenario in section C is polite, charming manipulation. This is the land of intellectual manipulators and sociopaths. Someone who has a pattern of conversations in this region uses excellent communication to seek win-lose results. These are people who will say anything to get their short-term wins. They are charming manipulators who intentionally screw people over and see no issue with it. After all, in their mind, everyone does it. This section includes personalities who believe it’s a dog-eat-dog world, and if they don’t play the game they will lose. Therefore, they strive to “win” at all costs. Can you name two people who operate this way?

In section “D”, we have the unhealthy communicators that destroy relationships and aim for results where everyone loses but them. However, in aiming for that, they often create results that hurt everyone, including themselves. This is the land of emotional manipulators and psychopaths. Their communication style involves a lot of emotion and drama. They use emotional manipulation to get their way and they may burn down everything around them when they feel slighted or hurt. The phrase “hurt people, hurt people,” falls into this section. People who hurt people in a fit of emotional dysregulation are in this section. People who hurt people on purpose on also in this category. Can you name a couple people in your life who are clearly in section D?

Of course, most of us don’t fall completely into one of those four quadrants. We have probably had conversations that would leave dots all over the chart. The question is, what is our pattern and what areas will we find clusters of conversation dots. What’s our pattern? What do we want our pattern to be? What are other people’s patterns? What kind of people do we want around us? We get to choose what type of person we want to be and who gets to be in our life.

Here’s the bottom line, since this chart is based on results, we can rate our conversations and we can rate other people’s conversations. We can look at the outcomes of a few conversations and start to see a pattern. We can begin to visualize where people are on this chart and then decide if we want them in our life or not. We can also get a better understanding of ourselves and our patterns and decide what kind of person we want to be.

The best part is, we can spot people’s patterns of unhealthy behavior without actually getting sucked into their B, C, or D conversations. Now that we are aware of the chart, we can simply observe how people interact with each other. If we see someone in a restaurant initiating unhealthy conversations with a server, their pattern will be obvious as they create dots in sections “D” and “B”. We see what kind of person they are because they prove it to us with their actions and their results. Now we can set our distance to this person accordingly.

When someone is always gossiping or giving us an unpleasant vibe, we can put words to our gut feeling. Patterns of gossip and blame fall in section D. Charming salespeople, smiling liars, and creeps in bars fall into section C. “Good people” who make a mess of things due to their poor communication skills are in section B.

When I say, we put people at the correct distance from us, I’m saying we can literally do this:

The vision here is to be a person who has healthy communication skills and “everyone wins” results. We are an A style person. Then we carefully curated the space around us by saying, all A style people are welcome in our inner circle and everyone else will be kept at a safe distance. Then we follow through on that. Notice people with style A are inside a line, while everyone else stands just outside a line. Those lines are boundaries. The line around A is our safe space, it creates a space that exceptional people are welcomed inside of. The boundaries lines for B, C, & D keep people out.

A is full of responsible adults. They would make great roommates, best friends, lovers, and business partners.

B is full of people that we know mean well, but they tend to make a mess of things with their unhealthy communication, so we don’t get too close to them. They are accidentally dangerous from time to time. These are friends, family, and coworkers that we chose to know and be friendly with, but also chose not be too close to. They can usually be trusted in light, low pressure, situations but they are not anyone we want to be building vulnerable and deep connections with because, in the end, they can’t be trusted to be able to talk things through with.

C & D are held very far away. Hopefully, they are so far away that they are not in our lives at all. They are purposely dangerous people. This group includes everything from accidental manipulators to hot headed sociopaths and charming scheming psychopaths. The common denominator with C & D is that they are selfish to the point where they will hurt others. Again, intentional or not, their results prove how the people around them get hurt.

I sometime imagine these various types of people on the chart as dogs or cats. I have no idea what dogs and cats are thinking, I can only observe and speculate. I do know, some of them are always kind and loving and I cherish having their energy near me. Others are randomly aggressive and unpredictable. They seem good, but I’ve seen them get spooked before and snap at people. I keep those dogs and cats at a distance, like the other side of the room. I treat them well, but I stay out of their unpredictable danger. The third group are full of dogs and cats that are clearly and consistently aggressive. They make loud growls often and have hurt me or my friend before. I want them on the other side of a fence at all times. Despite the fence between us, I still treat them well. I treat them with respect. I don’t taunt them. I also don’t spend hardly any time near the fence at all because there’s not reason to be anywhere near their aggression.

We can now start noticing what letter people are telling us they belong to and how close we currently have them to us. We can start making adjustments to people’s assigned seats. If we want to be surrounded by people of style A, we need to not tolerate anything less than style A energy in our space. We don’t let the dangerous dogs and cats come into our house, and we take the same approach with people. If we let B, C, or D energy into our safe space with all our A style relationships, we might find the A style people slowly creating distance from us. It’s the same way letting a dangerous animal into our house will cause everyone else to leave. Our inner circle will become overrun and no longer a safe space.

As we learn to set and hold boundaries, we will be able to keep our inner circle safer and safer. If we make a mistake, remember, it’s all an experiment and we get to try something different with our boundaries until we get better at it.

While all this is fresh in our minds, lets write down eight words, that will simplify and solidify all this knowledge. Let’s take a moment to make it real.

Make the graph real

Photocopy or print out this blank chart. You can also draw a big plus sign on a piece of paper if you don’t have a printer or copier handy. It doesn’t even need labels; just a big “+”.

Take a moment to clearly think of two people you know who clearly belong in the D section of the graph. Write their names in that section. Do this again with each section. The chart will come to life and be personalized to you.

Things will quickly fall into focus. Recall the figure that shows the distance we keep the four sections at. The types of people you want at various distances will now have names. If you feel inspired, write a few more names and start designing the life and support network you want.

Print out the next image or make a few concentric circles and label them “A”, “B”, “C & D”. Then start putting the names you’ve identified in the circles.

For a more introspective moment, put three dots on the “+” graph that represent your last three conversations, not serious conversations, just your last three, run of the mill, conversations.

Next, put three dots on the graph that represent your last three difficult conversations.

How did you do? Were you brutally honest? If the other person in those conversations were to rate you on those same exact conversations, where would they have made the dots? That’s a great way to discover where our mind is bending the rules from our point of view, just consider the other person’s point of view and compare the difference.

Where do your conversations land with your best friends and partners? How about your family, neighbors, boss, and coworkers?

Where do you want those conversations to land? What will you do differently to create those outcomes?

Transform your life with healthy communication tools by simply sharing this with someone you love or posting a link on social media. Get your friends talking about this and watch your life transform! You got this! ~Danny

Update: I just got my pre-order page on amazon to turn this series into a book!

What next?

Next article in this series: Com101 – Creating a Safe Space to Talk

Previous article in this series: Com101 – Using Our Safe-Ask Powers For Good

Go back to the Table of Contents for Communication 101 series.

Footnotes

[1] Author of multiple emotional master books and founder of Klemmer and Associates personal master courses. klemmer.com. More info in Recommended Resources.