Winning & Influencing Mindfully

I have no idea how many times I say something, or write an email, or post, with irritation on my mind. Or hit the numbers for Verizon, with exasperation. I do know that when I do, the result is often not great.

When I remember to be mindful - to consider my timing, be honest, and be kind no matter what (and no matter who) –the result is decent. The other person seems more interested and relaxed. And I feel ok, even when I don’t get what I want.  

Timing, honesty, and kindness: I’m loving this recipe because it feels like a win. And seems to influence everyone’s experience for the better. 

Maybe you’re already using it. Awesome. If not, check it out. If it works, pass it on.

Transcript

Hi everyone, it’s Judi Cohen, and this is Wake Up Call 454. We’re making our way along the Eightfold Path, which is the path to the end of suffering, or to waking up. We’ve explored wise view and wise intention. 

Today I want to talk about wise communication, which is the first of the three middle steps on the path. The other two are wise action and wise livelihood. These three steps, taken together, are often referred to as the ethical elements of the path. 

100%, and, these three path elements are a little bit different than the way we tend to talk about ethics in the law. In the law, at least in my experience, when we’re talking about ethics, we’re talking about rules. What am I allowed to do and what am I not allowed to do, and what happens if I blow it and do something I’m not allowed to do, and when should I gently tell, or call out, a colleague for doing something they’re not allowed to do?

Wise communication, wise action, and wise livelihood aren’t quite like that. They’re not rules. They have guidelines and I’ll give you the guidelines for wise communication in a minute, but they’re just that: guidelines. And the invitation is to relate to them not a set of rules to be followed, but rather as aspirations. 

Of course it’s great when we can feel completely aligned with the guidelines. But in mindfulness, there’s an understanding that we probably can’t be completely aligned all the time until we’re fully awake: that invariably we’ll say and do unwise things on occasion; that it’s inevitable that we’ll make unwise choices about how we conduct ourselves and make a living; and that what’s most important is that we use our mindfulness practice in two ways: courageously, in order to notice when this happens and course-correct rather than turning away or denying or getting defensive; and with compassion, noticing when we’ve said or done something unwise, noticing the impact it has on others and on our own hearts and minds, and then caring about those impacted and for ourselves, for how it feels to cause harm and to experience its reverberations.

The guidelines for wise communication derive in part from a teaching that includes a simile called the Simile of the Saw. The teaching says, in part: 

There are five [ways] another may address you: timely or untimely, true or false, affectionate or harsh, beneficial or unbeneficial, [and] with a mind of good-will or with inner hate….. In any event, you should train yourselves [to be] unaffected and [to] say no evil words; [and to] remain sympathetic to that person's welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate…. 

The invitation is a big one: to use the five positive guidelines – good timing, truthfulness, affection, benefit, and a mind of good will – even when others don’t. I’ll say something about others in a minute but first let’s look at the five.

Good timing, to me, means, simply, think about whether it’s the right moment to speak, or write, or post. I love the acronym WAIT, why am I talking?, as a reminder. Is it important for me to say this thing, right now? Can whoever I’m communicating with, take in what I’m about to share, right now? Or is there a better moment?

Truthfulness is tricky in the law. How do I conduct a settlement negotiation, knowing my client will take less than what I’m demanding, and still truthfully say, “this is our bottom line?” In a way we have a kind of structural issue with truth in the law. So what about honesty? I can always say, “I can’t say more.” If I can’t share the whole truth and nothing but the truth, can I be honest about that? If so, I think I can begin to have a reasonable expectation that others will be honest, too, and maybe that’s enough. It might even be progress.

Affection, I would translate as kindness, friendliness, metta. When I’m communicating in any way, I can often see the positive effects of kindness and friendliness right away, whenever I remember to take a moment and call them to mind. They make a huge difference in my effectiveness, my ability to be persuasive, and in how I feel later. 

“Beneficial?” I find this to be complicated because so often in the law, we have to deliver bad news. But if we’re using appropriate timing, honesty, and kindness, and from there, consider how we can benefit the person or people who’ll be getting our communication, maybe we can find some benefit. And if not – if it’s just terrible news we have to deliver – then to shift to compassion – not pity, its near enemy – but compassion: for the people getting our communication, and for ourselves, because it’s hard on us, too, to deliver terrible news. 

All of which seems to me to be summed up in the fifth guideline, which is that everything we say, write, and post, be done with a mind (or heart) of good will. I find that when I can say whatever I’m saying with a mind and heart of good will, the rest generally falls into place, so sometimes for me, it’s easier and more effective to start at number five, take a few moments to cultivate a mind and heart full of good will, and work backwards through beneficial, friendly, honest, and timely.

And there’s one more thing. In that same teaching, as I mentioned, there’s a simile called the Simile of the Saw. In that simile, the texts answer the question that might be on your mind and which I mentioned at the beginning, which is, what about the other guy? The teaching says that we’re supposed to aspire to follow the guidelines even if someone is really terrible to us, is communicating to us at a terrible time, or is lying, or is hateful or trying to cause us harm or has a mind filled with animosity. Here’s the guideline for that: “Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, [anyone] among [us] who let [their] heart get angered even at that would not be [practicing as instructed].” So there’s the answer. ☺ 

Let’s sit.