Designing for Common Ground & Understanding

Oftentimes, when groups are trying to create unified, broad understanding, members get caught up in efforts to find consensus; essentially, they skip a few steps and begin efforts to persuade. This is a natural human tendency and may reflect an individual or group’s bias towards a particular outcome, especially when that outcome is beneficial to them, such as bonuses, recognition, etc.

Designing conversations strategically, however, anticipates the natural human tendency to resolve tension and “achieve” inauthentic alignment.

“Creative tension is one of the (if not THE) most fundamental principles of design. Great designers have had a capacity to plant a flag on a seemingly impossible future and then found a way to arrive there, inspiring those around them” (Starnino).

One way designers “find a way to arrive” through the tension is constructive criticism. Over the course of our education and practice, even the most soft-skinned of us have developed an appreciation for this invaluable step in our design process, even if it brings a degree of discomfort. Constructive critique challenges our tunnel vision, preconceived notions, our automated responses, and frames our concepts in new light. We know our work is better with it than without it; critical analysis, tension, and redesign are integral parts of any successful design process.

Our team members from other fields may be less experienced in this process and initially, may be less open to it. When open feedback is shared, these individuals may retreat to ‘save face’ (Marsh). Their true feelings may be hidden underneath politeness or evasive tactics. These are often not malicious in intent; in fact, they are tactics mostly employed to avoid hurting another person’s feelings or feeling humiliated in front of others (Marsh).

In The Designful Company, author Neumeier discusses the tension between expression and impression as a tug of war that, if executed adeptly, becomes a bit like an accordion as it moves back and forth. “When small teams or individuals work separately (expression), they bring deep experience to bear. When they work together (impression), they expose their opinions to a wider view. By working back and forth from expression to impression, the result is not compromise but addition. The sum of each session is a measurable leap in shared thinking” (Neumeier 110-11). Much like prior discussion around deductive and conductive processes, the back-and-forth between modes of “expression” and “impression” can build upon one another and create a shared foundation of common ground around an issue.

Allowing an equal flow between modes is an art in which conversation designers must be skilled. Exploring this tension (rather than running from it) is an essential component of forming understanding and can stop any one individual or group of people dominating by jumping ahead and attempting to persuade.

In our day-to-day routines, we often overlook the delicate conversational dances we perform. This is never more evident than in the words and phrases we use as we try to lay the groundwork towards insight. You might be familiar with a few: “Tell me more…” or “Do you mean…” or “Am I hearing you say…”

As mentioned above, humans are naturally drawn to harmony in group dynamics. Our minds and bodies desire a state of equilibrium, and we can—often without realizing it—encourage movement quickly through a discovery phase that lacks any significant discovery. We nod while going “mm-hmm,” we might say “I see” when we do not, we give half-truths, and we circumvent to avoid hurt feelings.

Consider this example in Jessica Marsh’s article “What say it that way?: Evasive answers and politeness theory,” where she illustrates how elusive or polite answers can create a lack of clarity on someone’s intent:

“(15)    A has posted a poem on an internet forum.
A: What do you think of this poem: I want to send it to my girlfriend?
B: You put a lot of effort, and i’m sure she’ll appreciate it” (Marsh 67).

Marsh explains: “…B’s answer could well be taken to implicate, ‘I don’t like your poem.’ However, it is impossible to judge for certain whether this is in fact how B intends A to interpret his/her response” (Marsh 71).

A designer mediating conversation would be on the lookout for such types of answers and would aid in challenging “B” to expand on their response with verbal cues that solicit additional “needs” in a non-threatening way. Whereas someone inexperienced with conversation may quip “that didn’t answer the question,” a designer experienced with asking questions that draws people out into safe, contemplative spaces can clarify expectations. For example: “I think ‘A’ was hoping you might share your reaction to his/her poem… How did you find yourself responding to it?” might be one way to draw out a clearer response.

Great words don’t equal great conversation. Words need support and we can support conversation with great visuals like never before. People have come to appreciate how important it is to include visuals as part of important conversations, but often these visuals fail to engage or impress. Designers can support efforts to capture the data accurately, translate it to reflect the audience, and revise it when it misses the mark. But first we must understand why it is important designers are present long before they are tasked with simply creating a graphic for a presentation; they need to be at the development stages, and participate in strategic conversation about the topic, the data and the audience.

Judi Brownell’s HURIER model (figure 1) was developed to recognize the six aspects of listening processes: hearing, understanding, remembering, interpreting, evaluating and responding (Brownell 14). While visuals also support other steps along a conversation (such as interpreting), they are crucial in helping us remember; in essence, visuals help the data “stick” long after the conversation has ended.