Paul: 0:09

Welcome to Employing Differences, a conversation about exploring the collaborative space between individuals.

Karen: 0:15

I'm Karen Gimnig.

Paul: 0:16

And I'm Paul Tevis.

Karen: 0:18

Each episode, we start with a question and see where it takes us. This week's question is, "May I interrupt?"

Paul: 0:27

So Karen and I have both been having conversations with people recently, and thinking a lot about the role that interruptions play when we're working together, when we're doing thinking together, trying to figure stuff out in groups, in pairs. And we discovered that there's nuance to it. There always is. And so we kind of want to explore that, the role that interruptions play. And where we wanted to start is this idea of what happens when we don't interrupt. If you are anything like me, then when someone else is talking, you might have an idea and might be possessed by the incredible urge to share the idea that you have. Sometimes that's useful, and sometimes it's not. And what I've been finding, in the work that I've been doing over actually the last very many number of years is that if I just give in to my impulse about whether or not to say something, I'm not actually attuned to whether or not that's useful in the moment. So kind of the first thing that we're thinking a little bit about here is noticing what is your tendency with regards to interrupting and we're not defining that term yet but just noticing what is your natural tendency? And do you adjust that based on what's happening in the situation, what's going on around you? Because interrupting people has effects, and those effects are different, and they're beneficial or not depending on the situation that you're in. So we just kind of wanted to start to tune in a little bit to what are those effects and when are they beneficial? And when are they less so?

Karen: 2:14

Yeah, so what we're talking about is sort of consciousness and intention, like getting aware so that we're not just doing it unintentionally, or even unconsciouslyl not even realizing that that's what's happening. Why would we want to do it and will it actually have the impacts that we intend for it to have? And I think that one of the places I engage with about this is that in a number of circles where I run, there's sort of a rule or a judgment attached. There the rule is "no interrupting" or the judgment is that "interrupting is disrespectful." It carries all of this meaning with it, that if you've interrupted me, it means you don't value me and you don't respect me or whatever. And so there is, in some spaces, this expectation that interrupting is sort of inherently a wrong and horrible and terrible thing to do. And as a child who grew up being accused of interrupting quite a lot, probably quite honestly. My brother gave me a poster that said, "If there's anything I hate it's someone who talks while I'm interrupting." This being my natural tendency, it was before I got a conscious at all was to jump in and interrupt and I think I then learned, never, ever, ever do that. And as a facilitator, there's a certain amount of hold enough structure so that people don't get interrupted. And I'm beginning to question that. I think interruptions do have purpose in certain cases, and there are times when interruptions are important and necessary. And so getting curious about how to discern which interruptions work and which interruptions really don't.

Paul: 4:07

So one of the things that I watch for, both as a coach in one-on-one conversations and as a facilitator in groups, is, "Is this going somewhere?" Is this thought developing? Is this idea expanding? Is the person who is talking is something being generated by that process. Maybe it's generating inside of them, because they're talking it out and they're figuring it out? Or it may be "Oh, this is expanding possibilities for the group" sorts of things. And so when that's happening, in general, I'm unlikely to interrupt. Where I become a little more concerned is where things appear to be going in circles. Where it isn't generative. It's stagnated. Where this is pattern that just plays out over and over again and it's not actually going anywhere. My challenge there is I often will try to disrupt that pattern. But that may not be by interrupting. And so I see where you're going on some of this, where there is that idea of there are times when groups and people are just stuck and so so we need to shake things up in some way. That's oftentimes why they engage us as facilitators or as coaches. And also, how can I do that in a way that is still respectful, that isn't about demonstrating my power-over, that that does not break the connected frame? How can I help shift that while staying connected, while staying in relationship with them? Because I think oftentimes, the way that interruptions work, what causes us to interrupt is the thought that our idea is better, or we have a better way, or we're just tired of listening to them and we don't want to listen to them anymore. And that's much more about a power dynamic, and a relational dynamic than it is about a conversational one, necessarily.

Karen: 6:14

Yeah. And I think another way to say what you're pointing to there is that most of the time interruptions at least the ones we don't like, the ones that we get that reactivity to are about taking the attention of the group away from the speaker and giving it to the interrupter. Or the interrupter claiming the floor, claiming the space, claiming the direction energy of the group. And so it's really shifting from, we're in the world of one speaker to a different speaker claiming that space, and we go into their world. And so if I'm with you, and we're just talking, and you're in your world, because you're telling your story and your views and your thoughts, and I disrupt that to say, "Be in my world." That is very jarring and upsetting. And that is the disrespect thing, that is the "Your world isn't as important as my world" message. And I think that's why it lands that way. What's interesting to me is to think about other things that interrupting can do. So for example, "Wait a minute, I don't think I understood what you just said. Would you run that piece back again?" So I'm not shifting to my idea or my world. I am interrupting your flow, which may or may not work for you, but I'm staying in your story. It's about wanting to be with you in that story. And I think that's pretty different.

Paul: 7:41

And one of the things that's interesting to me about that, that idea of asking a clarifying question is, part of that is having discernment about whether or not you being clear on what's going on is actually important. Is that necessary or useful in this situation?

Karen: 7:59

Yeah, it's so situational. And it's also interpersonal. Some people have been so interrupted and hate it so much that it won't matter what your purpose is. If they're getting interrupted, that's not going to work for them. And other people, yeah, no big deal. You know, we can flow with whatever. So some of it is knowing who you're with, and what difference that makes. But then I think also being really clear about why am I interrupting, which is kind of where you started us. So is it to add clarity? And another example that's interesting to me is when someone sort of starts with misinformation something that they wouldn't think that if they knew the thing that I know and they're going on at length about what flows out of that misinformation, to pause and say and that's sort of that "May I interrupt?" thing, which, of course, by the time you've asked it, you have interrupted, you've done the thing, but, you know, is there a point where you can say "Hold on, I think there's a piece of information that would help you here." And again, it depends on the relationship, whether that's tolerable, whether they can handle being interrupted to get that and then go "Oh, right, okay then", you know, so you don't spend 10 minutes going on about how meeting Wednesday morning, what worked for you, only to discover that the meeting was never scheduled for Wednesday, it was always going to be Tuesday.

Paul: 9:24

It's funny, what that reminds me of is a piece from Marshall Rosenberg, in Nonviolent Communication, talking about the idea of"Connection before correction" where what he actually says is when someone has a completely incorrect piece of information, don't start by telling them it's wrong. Start by connecting with them about like, what is it that matters. Like "I can see that Wednesday morning early would be a really bad thing for you. Also, we're not planning on doing that." But is that whole piece of how do you prevent the interruption from disrupting the relationship, in a lot of ways is what we're kind of pointing to. It's like how can we how can we preserve the connection that we've got and then also clarify or correct or shift or disrupt the pattern? Right, in a way that is still that is still connected?

Karen: 10:23

Yep. Yeah. And it is that connection thread, I think that in the end determines whether whether it's going to work or not. I mean another example of interruptions, public speakers get interrupted all the time by applause and nobody says it's disrespectful. Right. And there's the gladhands or the things that are happening more and more on zoom with people wanting that kind of supportive expression. And so are there ways in which that sort of,"Yeah, me too. And I'm right there with you it," or adding another example, they're making their point and here's another example, in three words, and you know, those kinds of drop-in interruptions. And does that work or not? Most often I think it does.

Paul: 11:17

Yeah, I am fairly high effect in my receiving, which means I will have a tendency to go, "Hmm, yeah, uh-huh." And some people have told me,"That's really disruptive. I can't think when you're doing that, I know you're trying to be supportive." And so just recognize those in a way could be interruptions. So it's interesting to think about obviously, it's highly contextual what's actually working in this space, what's actually working for us here and now, and being able to tune your own responses, your own tendencies to be aware of them, and then to be able to turn them up or down, depending on the needs of the situation and the people that you're working with.

Karen: 12:08

Yeah. So I feel like we're tracking a number of things. One is to be cautious of absolute rules like"interrupting is always bad." And to be thoughtful about what's the intent there. And then there's a piece about being aware of who's involved in this. Is this a one-on-one conversation? And if so, with my partner, what's their tolerance? What's our usual cadence between us? What works between us? And then, what's trying to happen with the interruption? Is the interruption about shifting attention, shifting focus, shifting topic? In which case, you've got one set of reactions, that's likely or one set of impacts, that's likely. Or is the interruption sort of facilitating conversation, facilitating communication and transfer of information by adding clarity or slowing things down, or possibly even correcting errors or faulty assumptions or misunderstandings? And if that's the case that the likelihood that it lands well goes up, and it still matters, who you're with and what the dynamic is, and kind of how that plays out, interpersonally.

Paul: 13:20

Yeah, well, I think that's gonna do it for us for today. Until next time, I'm Paul Tevis.

Karen: 13:26

And I'm Karen Gimnig. And this has been Employing Differences.