Examining Our True Motives When Engaging in Conversation

Our goal should always be to maintain civility and respect in conversation, especially when we disagree. I previously outlined barriers that keep us from authentic, civil discourse. Top of this list is “our motives” for engaging in conversation which can deteriorate when we become frustrated, angry, or defensive, react negatively, and lose sight of our good intent for having the conversation.

“Motive” as a barrier to conversation concerns whether we intend to say and reveal what we want and need to discuss – and to do so in an authentic, civil manner – or whether we have hidden agendas, ulterior motives, unmanaged emotions, or distorted or unclear goals for having the conversation. Yet, we can struggle for clarity regarding the outcome we hope to achieve, which becomes further muddled when we are met with disagreement, resistance, disrespect, or other unfavorable response. We become further frustrated when the other’s apparent good intent is belied by statements, actions, and behaviors reflecting disrespect or uncivil discourse, causing us to feel confused, cautious, or distrustful. We then lose sight of our true motives in favor of different goals like winning an argument, defeating the other’s argument, leveling personal attacks, venting negative emotions, and waging other unflattering end games.

Overcoming this barrier depends on continually assessing our true motives for engaging in conversation, ensuring we remain focused on these motives when challenged, and working to correct errant behaviors so we may return to our true motives and commitment to civil discourse. Let’s examine some examples where motives have shifted, then consider corrections that can bring us back to civil discourse.

A sincere motive with clear goals deteriorates when challenged. Joe becomes upset whenever he talks with Marc. So, he tries one more time. He suggests they hear each other out, “put everything on the table,” and find mutually agreeable solutions. Marc agrees. Yet, as Joe begins, Marc quickly interrupts to state his own view, leaving Joe to feel Marc is intransigent and unwilling to comprehend Joe’s views. Joe begins to argue. He forgets his stated intentions and allows the conversation to escalate to a shouting match.

This situation can be corrected when you:

• Assess what you truly want to accomplish and stick to it. Joe did well to articulate ground rules, but quickly forgot them. It may take every fiber of your mental being to keep focused on your best motives, especially when the heat rises.
• Evaluate what has caused you to react negatively in the past. You can stay more focused if you prepare and review the triggers that have arisen in past conversations (or that you are prone to in any conversation), so you will recognize and manage them more proactively this time.
• Realize it is okay to pause, and breathe, before responding. Stop falling prey to the notion that you must respond quickly and immediately when challenged. You can think before responding. Take a minute (or two), then provide a more mature response than you might have otherwise.
• Apologize, if appropriate, and remind yourself, and the other person, of the ground rules. Joe might say, “You know, Marc, hold on. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to react again. Can we get back to what we agreed to. I’d like to hear your concerns, and hope you’ll listen to mine. Is that okay?”

A seemingly sincere motive is belied as conversation ensues. Marc has his own perspective about Joe. Joe usually jumps right into discussion, is adamant about the correctness of his views, and leaves Marc feeling he must blurt out a response simply to get a word in edgewise. Joe’s latest attempt to suggest ground rules is rich, as he is incapable of holding to his own suggestions. Marc tried but became frustrated after Joe again became angry. He feels Joe was never sincere in wanting a civil conversation.

This situation can be corrected when you:

• Recognize the unhelpful, and unhealthy, pattern you have fallen into. Perhaps Marc is the first to see that, despite good intentions, they are no further along than before in managing a civil conversation. Someone must be first to take ownership and explore a different way.
• Call attention to the pattern. Marc can call a halt, then objectively note their pattern of starting civilly, then falling into discord. They can realize together how previous attempts have been unsuccessful and how this will continue unless they find a different approach.
• Break the pattern and commit to different way. Marc can signal he will disengage whenever conversation deteriorates. If both agree, they can step back, assess where dialogue is in danger, and re-engage more productively. If either continues with unproductive behaviors, it is simply better to walk away than remain in a conversation that goes nowhere.

A sincere motive with unclear goals falls apart when challenged. Ben often feels disrespected and not listened to by team members. He requests time to express his concerns. After nervously sharing, they suggest sensitively that, rather, Ben is soft-spoken and not assertive. Ben feels slighted and continues to argue. They provide examples where they’ve shown respect and ask for examples when Ben felt otherwise. He is unprepared to respond and feels more discouraged than before.

This situation can be corrected when you:

• Do a gut check. We can convince ourselves others are to blame without owning up to our own contribution. Self-reflection is hard but necessary before we jump in and embarrass ourselves. Ben could, for example, discuss concerns with a trusted colleague to gain more insight about himself and the situation.
• Prepare thoroughly. Seek to fully understand a situation before you address it. What concerns will you express, and how might others respond? What aspects of the problem will you own up to, and what legitimate concerns remain for which consideration is due? How will you balance these interests to present an objective case?
• Let go of defensiveness and treat the conversation as an opportunity to listen and learn. Ben could acknowledge upfront he may not have a complete picture, and that he is approaching colleagues for information, constructive input, and help in how to improve their interactions.

A hidden motive violates trust, once discovered. Wesley tells his team he must make an important decision and would like their input. He ensures them he will make a decision that embraces their best ideas. After an hour of deliberation, he thanks them, says he’s made his decision, and shares what that decision will be. However, without forewarning, he implements a decision that bears little resemblance to anything they shared. They become quietly resentful and share little information at the next meeting.

This situation can be corrected when you:

• Recognize your power and the possibility that you have blind spots. As a leader, you may not recognize how your actions come across. Wesley may feel his actions are routine and that subsequently modifying his decision is simply doing business. He is unaware of how his engagement violated trust — and wasted the team’s time.
• Understand the difference between true dialogue and standard business discussions. Announcing your decision after an hour in the guise of deliberative dialogue is performative. Team members may expect this for standard business issues. Don’t confuse this with the need for true, and usually longer, exhaustive dialogue when the issue truly matters.
• Provide full transparency. Wesley began well, stating his intentions and his decision. Full transparency, however, requires follow-through. He may have had a basis for changing his decision, but he owed an explanation rather than allowing the team to learn after the fact.

We all want authentic, civil conversations, not dysfunctional communication held captive to high emotions and ceaseless argument. We each bear responsibility for maintaining the first and avoiding the second. It starts with being mindful of our thoughts and continually assessing, correcting, and returning to motives that promote dialogue and positive interactions.