LIVE BY DESIGN | Beyond the Single Story: Lessons in rebuilding friendship through ‘timed talk’

This week, I am witness to a fallout between two friends whose relationship has spanned decades. They have shared their highs and lows, both personally and professionally. I had expected they would enjoy more time together in their elderliness. Indeed, it was not so many months ago that they discussed how their property investments and activities could be leveraged for mutual benefit.

But something has happened, and their totally different perspectives on this specific event have caused dissonance between them.

I’ve spoken separately with each of them. If you, the reader were to be listening, I would venture to bet that you’d be totally convinced by the story as told by each one of them. Both are convinced that their version of the truth is the one and only correct version.

Each separately reflected on what had happened. As I listened to each of them, I realised that they had been in conversation with one another but without fully hearing each other.

Both told me of things that they said they had said and which the other denied had ever been said. Have you come across such situations?

My coaching self immediately thought of the process designed by Nancy Kline and described in her book Time To Think. As a trained Time To Think facilitator, I used the process as a line manager in my corporate career.

It works like this.

You’re in a situation where parties have offended one another or hold different perspectives on a set of events, and both agree they would prefer to find a constructive way forward. That, indeed, is step one – each party needs to have clarity of intention about the wish to achieve a positive outcome. This is not a process to accomplish the settling of scores.

Step two is about the environment created for conversation. There needs to be an awareness of honouring certain non-negotiables, such as listening attentively, pledging not to interrupt, and respecting each other’s equality as thinkers, thus putting aside any social or professional hierarchy.

Kline proposes a suite of ten components to secure the environment in which each person can do their own best thinking for themselves as well as their listening exquisitely when the other person speaks.

Step three of Timed Talk is to agree to use a timing device and simply give each other turns of, say, 3—or 4-minute speaking time. You can choose to speak for less than the agreed-upon minutes but not run over. As soon as the time is up, you have to stop talking and let the other person begin. Back and forth, ping-pong, ping-pong.

People usually set a maximum time limit of 60 minutes, meaning you will have 7-8 speaking and listening opportunities.

I have watched people’s expressions change and noticed body shifts, usually emphatically, as they begin to give themselves the opportunity to listen seriously to the other person’s point of view.

The role of the facilitator is to support the creation of a safe environment and ensure boundaries are respected. There is also the role of witness. Words spoken aloud are often more emotionally powerful when spoken in the presence of a witness.

On one occasion, when I facilitated this process for sixty minutes without apparent resolution, the two colleagues initially concurred that I should convene a follow-up. Later that week, when I tried to do so, each told me there was no need. They had heard each other, and something had already changed enough. A new beginning had already begun.

Optimistically, I proposed the Timed Talk process to my two sparring protagonists and offered to facilitate it. One was in favour of trying the process, and the other declined.

I respectfully accepted the decline. I am also disappointed. I have seen the process work magically and had hoped that this possibility might happen again for the two people in my orbit.

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TED Talk (Beware) “The Dangers of a Single Story” reverberates in my head. I’m so with her. A single story, adhering to only one perspective, can too easily lead a person or a society to accept only one interpretation of events.

The single story is dangerous because later, when a different perspective, supported by additional information, is offered, the narrative may not stand the test of challenge.

But the single story will always prevail unless we are committed to seeking the opportunity to listen to others, especially those with differing viewpoints.

I observe my protagonists out of sync, not accurately hearing what each is saying. They have endangered themselves.

Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche ends her talk saying, “The consequence of the single story is this: It robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasises how we are different rather than how we are similar.”

Whatever the issue—close to home, it is Stilfontein; further afield, it is Gaza—we better support our shared humanity when we commit to hearing different perspectives. We also need to accept the possibility that truly listening may require acceptance that different perspectives may each be true.

I hope my protagonists make peace. This would require them to accept the co-existence of their different perspectives that currently destructively vie for dominance. The way forward is not about establishing one truth. The starting point will be to accept the truth of the divergent perspectives. This requires open-hearted listening.