Now that the basics are covered, let’s go further into both the “what” and the “how” of our interactions…

As we become more adept at interpersonal interactions, what we say and how we say it interact to shape higher-order dynamics.

As a starting point, four topics can begin to weave these together:

Psychological Safety — How do you promote an environment where individuals are comfortable engaging in discussion or dialogue?

Emotional Intelligence — How can the concept of emotional intelligence facilitate more effective interpersonal interactions?

Depth of Engagement — How does one ensure a discussion doesn’t remain superficial? How can one engage in productive versus unproductive lines of questioning?

Entrainment — How do individuals coordinate their actions, speech, emotions, and even ideas as they interact over time?

The concept of psychological safety emerged in the context of organizational psychology, where researchers in the 1960s wished to understand how teams and organizations (particularly businesses) effectively manage significant change to their operational or organizational dynamics.

Broadly, psychological safety refers to the perceived consequences of interpersonal risk-taking in a given context (Edmonson & Lei 2014). In a psychologically safe environment, individuals:

• Feel accepted and respected for who they are

• Believe their contributions are valued

• Feel free to express themselves and/or share their beliefs without fear of negative consequences

From an early focus on change management, research on psychological safety has identified broader impacts across levels of analysis ranging from individual employee wellbeing, to creative problem solving by teams, to the ability of an organization to learn from successes and failures (ibid). In the context of interpersonal interactions one can consider how to foster psychological safety in 1:1 interactions as well as within groups.

In the context of interpersonal interactions, emotional intelligence shapes visual cues, postural cues, and vocal cues, as well as the substance of what is being said. Consider how perceiving emotions in others can offer insight into underlying motivations. Consider how one can manage which emotions are displayed at a given time, and which may be best kept under control, as a means of shaping the dynamic of the discussion. Consider how emotions can be used to rally people to a cause or shape an approach to problem solving. A group with a high degree of emotional intelligence amongst its members will also be enabled to effectively foster psychological safety.

Consider how emotional intelligence can directly affect both:

Wassermann differentiates between “unproductive,” “less-than productive” and “productive” questioning, which in turn relates to both the substance and style of posing questions (1992; 2005; 2017). While the supporting literature is primarily from education, the approaches described can be observed across a variety of contexts. Consider where you have encountered examples of these kinds of questions:

Unproductive Questions

• “Stupid” questions

• Too complex questions

• Teacher-answered questions

• Trick questions

• Questions that humiliate

The above types of questions diminish psychological safety and are often posed to further the narrative or position (or ego) of the person asking the question, rather than a genuine overture for input.

Less-than Productive Questions

• Trivial questions

• Abstract questions

• Ambiguous questions

• Hit-and-run questions

While none of these types of questions deliberately belittle others, they will nonetheless diminish psychological safety because they don’t enable others to make thoughtful or meaningful contributions to the conversation (and thus feel valued).

The hit-and-run style of rapid and typically somewhat trivial questioning is a common strategy used by individuals wanting to feel they are engaging the other party. 

While it can appear engaging given the frequency of engagement (as opposed to a lecture), this engagement is at best superficial and can diminish psychological safety. The questioner wholly controls the topic and rapid flow of questions (typically with a desired end-point already in mind). The person responding may recognize they are not shaping the discussion in a meaningful way, and even wonder whether they are being listened to at all. This dynamic will diminish their sense of agency in the conversation, foster mistrust that their ideas are considered of value, and can lead to more general disengagement over time.

Productive Questions

• Respectful of the individual

• Focus on “big ideas”

• Can be grounded in values

Productive questions promote psychological safety by making space for individuals to engage deeply with a given topic and share their thinking. They can also be questions that allow individuals to clarify or share their values or personal opinions, which promotes psychological safety. Responses to these kinds of questions will typically go beyond surface-level considerations and require analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. See the chapters on (Non)evaluative Responses and Complex Questioning for further elaboration on psychological safety and promoting depth of engagement. For further elaboration and examples of these question types, consult Wassermann 2017.

Picture two individuals engaged in a productive conversation. Does one person dominate? Do they use a shared vocabulary? How do they take turns? Do they appear to be “on the same page,” and if so, how can one tell? 

Entrainment is the process of synchronization of two people’s behavior. It is particularly present in productive conversation. Two forms relate to what you say and how you say it in the classroom: lexical entrainment and postural/vocal entrainment.

Lexical entrainment refers to the process by which two individuals in conversation use a shared set of specific words or examples— as Brennan describes individuals talking about particular concepts, “while there is a great deal of variability across conversations, there is little within” (1996). This entrainment can be considered a form of cooperation between the participants: removing ambiguity and fostering agreement. While this will take place naturally, one can consider how to deliberately shape the working terminology for a given conversation. When relevant, one can consider how deliberately using previous words in future context-specific conversations will facilitate understanding.

Postural and vocal entrainment refers to the process by which individuals synchronize their movements and engage in turn-taking during a conversation. This widespread phenomenon reflects the cooperative nature of communication, and is linked to building a shared sense of rapport, familiarity and group identity.

Indeed, research has shown quantifiable differences between the postural and vocal entrainment found when friends or like-minded individuals converse, versus strangers. Such entrainment has also been suggested as one factor that can contribute to more successful clinician-patient interactions in therapeutic settings (see Latif et al 2014 and further sources). In dubbing this the “chameleon effect,” Chartrand & Bargh note that this mimicry of postures, mannerisms, facial expressions (and more) is typically done unintentionally and without conscious awareness, yet significantly contributes to perceptions of likability and friendship. They further note that individuals considered “dispositionally empathic” exhibit this entrainment to a greater degree (1999). While the basis for this behaviour may be non-conscious, one can nonetheless reflect on the extent to which you might engage in this behaviour, and whether you have any habits that may facilitate or hinder this type of entrainment (do you typically sit or stand fairly stiffly, for example).

Mirror neurons are a topic that have received a lot of attention in the pop-psychology literature of the last two decades. Investigation of mirror neurons began with an intriguing discovery: when an individual observed another individual perform an action, neurons would fire in areas of the observer’s brain as if they were making the gesture or motion as well. (Rizzolatti et al 1996; 2004). The discovery seemed to relate to something we intuitively understand as humans: don’t we wince when another person stubs their toe? Don’t we look at someone reaching towards an object and understand what is happening? When you interact with someone who is angry or sad, isn’t there a tendency to understand their emotion and perhaps even feel that way yourself?

Mirror neurons were proposed as the neurobiological basis of this kind of “action understanding,” and extended to being described as the basis of the capacity to learn from observation, and even as the foundation of human empathy and our social reality (Ramachandran 2009). While this claim is compelling (and made for many articles and TED talks), other neuroscientists favor a much more conservative interpretation of the evidence (Hickok, 2009).

While the jury is still out on the specific role of mirror neurons, it is worth it to recognize that your facial expressions, gestures, and body language may have a significant and direct effect on the other party in a conversation. Consider how your gestures and displays of emotion may be consciously and unconsciously shaping the dynamic of your interactions.