The Conversational Key to Unlocking Change in Young Adults
At any given moment on this planet there are roughly as many ways to have a conversation as there are people (and that’s not including pets, plants, and other things we fancy talking to). But when it comes to change-based conversations (i.e., conversations where one person is trying to help another person make a positive change), there are three distinct styles to consider – directing, following, and guiding (Miller & Rollnick, 2013). In order to best illustrate the differences between these styles, let’s momentarily imagine a series of brief, hypothetical conversations between two public domain figures, Wendy Darling and Peter Pan. In this instance, let’s pretend that Peter Pan is an angsty teenager with a troublesome tobacco smoking habit, and that Wendy Darling is a fifty-year-old, maternal figure who is concerned with Peter’s health.
First convo:
Wendy says, “Peter, you’re a good kid, but don’t you know that smoking is terrible for your health? You need to quit.” On the surface, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this kind of language. Wendy has expressed her concern and made a valid point. However, if you look closely, and you read my blog on the righting reflex, then you should be able to spot the giant (righting-reflex) red flag. The problem is this: the phrase “you need to...” is basically a bullet that Wendy just fired into her conversational foot. It is rooted in the righting reflex, ignores the ownness bias, and will likely trigger reactance and ambivalence from Peter. In sum, all these pitfalls are symptoms of the conversational style known as directing. And the closer we look at Wendy’s language, the more obvious it becomes that she is trying to “direct” Peter’s behavior. However, this isn’t to say that such statements don’t have their time and place. For instance, if Peter Pan is crossing the street with Wendy and a car comes zipping down the road. Wendy is well within her rights to tell Peter to “Get out of the road!” But conversations about change are far less black and white. They are some of the most delicate conversations we can have with one another and require the utmost care.
Second convo:
Wendy and Peter have the same conversation as before, yet this time around Wendy does her best not to direct Peter at all. In fact, she gives Peter her complete attention and fully hears him out. Peter says, “I know smoking isn’t great, Wendy, and I don’t want the Lost Boys to pick up on my habit, but it honestly helps me cope with the stress of being constantly under attack by Captain Hook.” To which Wendy replies, “I hear you, Peter.” In this instance, Wendy is doing what is known as following. She is essentially letting Peter take the wheel of the discussion and has resigned herself to the passenger seat. Like directing, following also has its time and place. For instance, if Peter was sharing a harrowing tale about a recent scrap with Captain Hook and his bloodthirsty gang of swashbuckling pirates, it would be perfectly alright for Wendy to go along for the ride and hear him out. But when it comes to helping Peter make a positive change regarding his smoking habit, Wendy is still no closer with her following style than she was with her directing style.
Third convo:
This time around, Wendy takes a different approach. She doesn’t try to direct Peter’s behavior and she doesn’t follow along either. Instead, she splits the difference, and practices what is known as guiding. In so doing, Wendy is not unlike a river guide (if we can briefly imagine Wendy and Peter going canoeing together). And like any good river guide, Wendy does not tell Peter how to paddle, where to paddle, and she certainly doesn’t let Peter do all the paddling himself; rather, Wendy helps Peter paddle and navigate the many thrills and perils conjured by their conversational waters. Wendy does this by being aware of the righting reflex, reactance, ambivalence, and the ownness bias. Furthermore, Wendy uses her OARS which is an acronym for: open-ended questions, affirming statements, reflective listening, and summary (Miller & Rollnick, 2013). How bizarre that they happen to be in a metaphorical canoe together. Let’s now consider a few examples of each of these skills and how they lend themselves to the guiding style.
Like any good conversation about change, it’s natural for Wendy (let’s think of her as the change-advocate) to want to ask Peter (let’s think of him as the change-resistant) some questions. But how exactly should she do this? Let's see what happens if she tries this... “Peter, do you really have to keep smoking?” Well, as honest and simple as this question may seem, it doesn’t leave Peter with many options. This is what is known as a closed-question because it essentially leaves Peter with only two choices – he can either answer “yes” or “no.” And when it comes to the guiding style, we want to be sure that we are asking open-ended questions. Why? Well, open-ended questions provide far more conversational options than a simple “yes” or “no.” They also give the change-resistant an opportunity to contemplate their situation in their own words, and to do so without feeling like they are being led in a specific direction. Let’s compare a couple of similar questions that Wendy might ask Peter and examine the subtle differences...
1. Do you have a good relationship with smoking? vs. What can you tell me about your relationship with smoking?
2. Do you need help with quitting smoking? vs. How can I help you quit smoking?
In each one of these comparisons, the second, open-ended question is far more likely to elicit an actual response from Peter.
Another tool that Wendy has at her disposal are affirmations. Affirmations are statements that essentially recognize the change-resistant person’s efforts, strengths, and struggles (Miller & Rollnick, 2013). They work by strengthening rapport and trust between the change-advocate and the change-resistant, and they also help to strengthen confidence in the change-resistant’s ability to change. Here are some examples of affirmations that Wendy might be wise to say to Peter while they are having a change-based conversation.
1. I appreciate that you were willing to talk with me today about your smoking habit.
2. I notice that you really care about the Lost Boys and that you don’t want them to pick up on your smoking habit. I think that shows a lot of awareness on your behalf. Young boys are very impressionable.
3. If I had to keep fighting Captain Hook, I don’t know if I could have managed nearly so well.
Like open-ended questions, affirmations help the change-resistant person remain open and receptive during a difficult conversation about change. That said, affirmations are not to be confused with ass-kissing, which is a great way to immediately sabotage a change-based conversation. Affirmations must be completely 110% genuine and used sparingly.
Next on our list of skills is reflective listening. But before we go any further, we must first understand the subtle differences between change-talk (when the change-resistant person implies that they might be ready for change) and sustain-talk (when the change-resistant person implies that they want to maintain their status quo) (Miller & Rollnick, 2013).
For instance, when Peter says something along the lines of “Wendy, I know smoking isn’t great, and I don’t want the Lost Boys to pick up on my bad habit, but it honestly helps me cope with the stress of being constantly under attack by Captain Hook.” He has used both change-talk (“I know smoking isn’t great...”) and sustain-talk (“...but it honestly helps me cope...”) in the same sentence (as many people do). The key here is for Wendy to help reflect the change-talk back to Peter (Miller & Rollnick, 2013).In practice, Wendy would respond with something like, “I hear you saying that ‘smoking isn’t great’-- what is it about smoking that makes you think so?” By doing this, Wendy has successfully reflected the change-talk back to Peter, and followed it with an open-ended question. This gives Peter an opportunity to explore the pros and cons of smoking for himself and in his own words.
Last, but not least, we can assist our change-based conversations with summaries. Summaries are basically extended reflections that synthesize the key moments of a change-based conversation (Miller & Rollnick, 2013). They help to consolidate change-talk, keep the conversation on-track, and demonstrate to the change-resistant person that we have been listening attentively and thoughtfully. Summaries also help the change-advocate to transition to new conversational terrain. For example, a summary from Wendy might go something like, “So far, I have heard you say that “You know smoking isn’t great for your health,” “that it helps you cope with the stress of being constantly under attack by Captain Hook,” and that “you don’t want the Lost Boys to pick up on your bad habit.” Have I missed anything? What other concerns might you have regarding smoking?” This gives Wendy and Peter an opportunity to reflect on the status of their conversation thus far and to keep building positive momentum together.
When fully equipped with a guiding style of conversation, OARS, and an understanding of the perilous pitfalls of the righting-reflex, Wendy can be sure that she is well on her way to fostering productive change-based conversations with her friend, Peter Pan.