One challenge to helping others make improved decisions is how it often requires the helper to violate the implicit social contract that we should always lend a sympathetic ear to hard luck stories. Although some situations do require this approach, consoling someone for their poor outcome rarely helps them make better decisions in the future. One of Duke’s suggestions for overcoming this problem is to form a group dedicated to improving decision-making skills. I thought this was good advice but perhaps not always realistic. For the most part, the only opportunity we get with others is conversation, so I figured today I should think about such conversations and consider ways to help a person become better at making decisions without jeopardizing the social contracts that govern our closest bonds.
The goal at the start of any conversation is to establish an open dialogue and this applies to any discussion aiming at improving decisions. My first objective would be to gently steer the conversation away from any self-pity that might otherwise prevent honest reflection. A good way to do this is by avoiding disagreement. This doesn’t mean both parties must agree throughout, it just means using certain words and phrases to keep both parties in a conversation on the same side of the table. The age-old improv standard of ‘yes, and…’ is the most important expression to use for these conversations. By starting a comment with these words, a sense of agreement is established and the next step in the conversation starts with the previous exchange as a building block.
The key point to remember is that it rarely matters if both sides agree. Even if the listener feels that bad luck actually played no role in the outcome, the point here is to establish a sense of agreement with the aggrieved party before moving forward. Once the listener's sympathy is established, the conversation can move forward to talk about what happened. I recommend putting this sympathy on active display rather than passively implying via merely listening to someone's extended sob story. Once the sympathetic foundation is established, the conversation can move forward to explore the decisions that led to the outcome. If the initial response to this attempt results in defensiveness, just revert back to providing reinforcement or validation. Eventually, it should become possible to explore ways to improve the decision-making process without backlash.
Finally, always remember that dismissing another’s decision is a sure path to disaster. The better approach is to focus actively on what someone does well and frame everything in that context. This way, a might help someone see that a decision went poorly not because of a bad choice but because of a failure to stick with strengths. The best way to help others improve their decision-making skills is to help them recognize ways to leverage their own strengths or abilities. This is always challenging in the aftermath of a bad outcome but a sympathetic listener can do a world of good by helping someone gradually recognize how good outcomes are linked to decisions that position us to do what we know we do best.
