‘Bulldozing’ to ‘Win’ is Costly

Annetta Wilson

Communication exchanges are likely to be less stressful experiences with more beneficial outcomes when the goal going in changes and the approach is smarter rather than aggressive.

“One of the most critical mistakes women or men can make when communicating is to go into a conversation with the objective of winning,” Annetta Wilson, president of Annetta Wilson Media Training & Success Coaching, was quoted as saying in an article by Cindy Barth in biz women.

That creates an avoidable, obvious problem.

“When you do that, the first thing that happens is that you don’t put yourself in a position to listen. The other person feels like they’re being bulldozed throughout the ‘conversation,’” Wilson said. “Leaders or managers who communicate that way are going to have a hard time ever building trust, loyalty or respect because there’s always going to be collateral damage.”

This poisonous behavior is high risk, even if it has worked well in the past. Success and winning as obsessions can come, at least at times, at great cost.

Diane DiResta

“I agree with Ms. Wilson’s observations,” says Diane DiResta, a communications strategist, the founder of DiResta Communications, Inc. — and the author of “Knockout Presentations.”

DiResta, who works with leaders and organizations who want to show up powerfully and communicate with confidence, clarity, and influence, elaborates on the errors of the at-all-costs mindset and the bulldozing communication behavior to achieve it.

“If the objective is winning, a competition is set up where there is a winner and a loser, not a good dynamic for developing trust,” DiResta says.

She recommends a distinct change that works and has staying power.

“Change the objective to learning. When you approach a conversation with curiosity, it reduces the stress and competition and changes the dynamic,” DiResta says.

“If you’re focused on winning from the outset, you’re going to miss information that could change your mindset and your original definition of winning. You won’t make an informed decision unless you let go of the outcome of winning and stay present in the moment,” she asserts.

People don’t improve upon and change what they don’t recognize and acknowledge.

“The first step in changing this behavior is to create awareness,” DiResta states. “It needs to be pointed out (to the aggressor) that the communicator is more interested in their own agenda and it’s having a negative impact on the other person.”

That means this type of communicator must go back to school, she says. “They need to learn the power and skills of listening. Most people are not trained (in the skill) and only engage in surface listening.”

The so-called carrot on a stick could be understanding possibilities.

“Listening enables a communicator to win or reach consensus,” DiResta says, but “A person who feels bulldozed will not be forthcoming with information and the conversation could shut down.”

That’s natural.

“Bulldozing has the affect of dehumanizing a person,” she adds, because, “The conversation is seen as a means to an end.”

Feeling bulldozed is not an enjoyable experience for anyone. There is an technique, if done civilly, that can inform the person committing it.

“The best way to change the behavior is to give the person an experience of what it feels like. Role play a scenario and (politely) then ask them how it felt,” she suggests. “Ask them to observe the other person’s body language or reaction.”

Aggressive personalities or people having a stressed moment can come to communicate in a manner that is less competitive, more assertive and collaborative and not come across as untrustworthy and offensive.

“People often don’t know how they come across or if they do, they don’t feel their impact on others,” DiResta says. “It’s been my experience that many people don’t know the difference between assertive and aggressive behavior. They think their aggressive behavior is assertive.”

She explains.

“I’ve started by defining non-assertive, assertive and aggressive behavior by objective, body language, vocal tone and language,” DiResta says, going on to say that, “Once understood, people need to practice the skills in a safe environment where they’ll receive balanced feedback.

“Additionally, learning stress reduction techniques can help by knowing their triggers and anticipating them, by using breathing exercises before the conversation, and by practicing the pause so that they don’t react emotionally.”

It is also helpful to think “curiosity” and make oneself act that way within their communication.

“Another way to handle stress is to ask more questions,” DiResta says, and, “Don’t respond until you clarify or paraphrase. It helps to have bridge statements that will allow people to interject or disagree. ‘That’s a good idea and my take on it is…’ or ‘Let me piggyback on that…’

“The person could come up with a code word and a friend could say the word when the communicator is becoming aggressive,” DiResta advises.

The “bottom line,” DiResta says is that, “Communicators must first have awareness of how they come across to others.”

At that point, comes next steps.

“They then need the skills and feedback,” she points out, “to be a more effective communicator.”

At the same time, “they have to understand that there are consequences,” DiResta says, for errors of various types of communication behavior.

“Competitive or aggressive communication can result in a loss of credibility, an inability to influence or gain trust, fewer high level assignments and a loss of business,” she says point blank.

And, “If there are no consequences, they will be less inclined to change. And with any change, it takes motivation and a lot of practice.”