Mind the Gap! Persuasion Requires Shared Understanding

WHY DOES PERSUASION REQUIRE SHARED UNDERSTANDING?

It is very difficult to distinguish information and beliefs that you have internalized from the perspective of the person you are trying to persuade. If there is a significant disconnect between you as an advocate and that person, you will not be persuasive. There is the risk that they will misunderstand what you say, will “fill in the blanks” with their own assumptions, or will draw conclusions that are contrary or inconsistent with your proposal.

Remember what it was like to be a child when you would eavesdrop on your parents’ conversation and you would only understand some of what they said? You were forced to invent the parts that would connect what they were saying so that you could make it coherent.

Have you travelled to somewhere you have not been to before where you understand a bit of the local language and customs but not enough to truly understand? In that situation, when someone gives you directions you don’t really know what they are telling you, or when they tell you some piece of local history you can’t really grasp its significance.

Bad advocacy puts the audience in the position of the child who doesn’t completely understand, or the traveller with a basic understanding of the local language or custom. It is very unlikely that person will clearly explain that they don’t understand and they cannot simply do nothing to try to understand your statements. What is most likely is that they will be forced to try to connect the bits that they do grasp by building their own bridges.

Effective advocacy requires you to identify these gaps and make sure that they are closed so that the person you are attempting to persuade feels informed and understands your argument.

There are three key categories of gaps:

1. Gaps of Vocabulary.

2. Gaps of Expectations.

3. Gaps of Responsibility and Consequence.

WHAT IS A GAP OF VOCABULARY?

There is a great running joke in the movie The Princess Bride where one of the characters keeps using the term “inconceivable” whenever something happens that he does not want to happen. After this has occurred several times, another character responds by saying “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Many words have multiple meanings, and many words are used improperly. Additionally, words carry within them a connection to other words and concepts.

When you are using a word, that you want to have a specific and distinct meaning, it is important to clearly state what the meaning is so.

A common example in the context of Stratas is when someone refers to the Strata’s bylaws as the “rules of the Strata”. Under the Strata Property Act, the bylaws and the rules are two distinct things. Bylaws are adopted by all the Owners at a general meeting and can deal with the use and enjoyment of Strata Lots while Rules are adopted by the Council and can only govern the use, safety and condition of the common property. It is important that you are clear if you are discussing the bylaws or the rules.

Another very common example is referring to the common property as the “Strata Corporation’s property.” The Strata does not own the Common Property. The Common Property is owned by every Strata Lot Owner in proportion to their unit entitlement. If someone says “the Strata Corporation’s property” this like will trigger connections to the concept of ownership of property including the ability to make decisions about it, to sell it, to lease it, to dispose of it. None of these concepts apply to a Strata.

A risk of not addressing gaps in vocabulary at an early stage is that the person you are talking to will be developing an understanding of your position with all the assumptions connected to their understanding of the vocabulary you are using. Even if there is eventually a recognition of this difference in understanding of the meaning of words, it does not mean that they will be able to reverse their existing understanding of your position.

WHAT IS A GAP OF EXPECTATION?

There is a saying that “common sense is not common”. This is very true because what you consider to be a normal expectation is shaped by your particular experiences and perceptions. Your expectations are not universal.

When discussing what your expectations are, it is important to state them explicitly and it is often productive to explain why you have that expectation and the consequences of the other person not agreeing with that expectation.

Similarly, even if your expectation is based on what you think is required by the “law” (bylaws, Strata Property Act, prior decisions) it is very likely that the person you are trying to persuade does not have the same understanding of the law. They may be unfamiliar with concepts that you take for granted or they may have considered different decisions.

Also, a lot of expectations are subject to discretion.

An example, is that the Strata Property Act explicitly states that the Strata “is responsible for managing and maintaining the common property.” This may appear to be a clear statement that if something requires maintenance, then the Strata must do it.

However, courts have stated that the standard of maintenance required is “reasonableness not perfection” which both permits discretion on what maintenance must to be done, it creates further uncertainty about whether a decision on maintenance is “reasonable”.

Additionally, there is an exception to maintaining Common Property in which a Strata disposes of property instead of maintaining it. When an expectation is stated as a conclusion instead of explained it can perpetuate a disconnect with your audience and make your arguments less persuasive.

If you are trying to persuade someone that the Strata must do some aspect of maintenance and all you say is that the Strata is responsible for maintenance that may create a gap of expectation. Your expectation from that statement may be that there is no discretion, while the person you are attempting to persuade might have the expectation that you are going to explain why it would be unreasonable not to do that maintenance or whether it is a better decision to dispose of something instead of maintaining it. If you do not explain your expectation, your audience may infer that you have no justification for your expectation and simply hope that they accept it. That is not persuasive.

WHAT IS A GAP OF RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSEQUENCE?

The third significant gap that you must be conscious of and articulate, is who you believe should be responsible for something and the consequences of them not taking that responsibility. If the person you are trying to persuade does not appreciate that you want them to take responsibility for something, then you will not be persuasive because they will not be fully engaged in the communication.

In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” there is a clever concept called “A Somebody Else’s Problem Field” that makes objects or issues invisible to people who do not think they are responsible for dealing with that thing.

When trying to persuade someone, you need to make sure that they have some sense of “ownership” or “accountability” for both the problem and the possible solution.

PRIOR TO BEGINNING YOUR ADVOCACY YOU MUST TAKE TIME TO IDENTIFY THE POSSIBLE GAPS BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR AUDIENCE

When there is not a shared understanding between you and the person you are attempting to persuade there is the risk that they will misunderstand what you say, will “fill in the blanks” with their own assumptions, or will draw conclusions that are contrary or inconsistent with your proposal.

Prior to beginning your advocacy, you should take the time to identify the possible gaps in your understanding and at the beginning of your advocacy state what your premises are so that the person you are trying to persuade understands what you mean (even if they don’t agree).