Myths About Rapport

October 2, 2018

1. The Symmetry of Rapport

What is rapport, from my perspective? I see it as a way to signal to another person’s unconscious that we are together, that I understand them, that we’re on the same side. It’s like Kipling’s phrase from “The Jungle Book”: “We be of one blood, you and I.” But instead of being said once, it’s a state that’s constantly maintained. I’m truly “walking alongside” the other person’s unconscious, genuinely trying to understand them, and we really are together… in every action and at every step. Any insincerity is instantly picked up by the unconscious. Rapport is a joint walk and a deep conversation between the inner structures of two people.

That’s why any talk about the “manipulativeness” of rapport seems, at the very least, strange to me—because rapport is a completely symmetrical and equal interaction. It doesn’t matter who established rapport first or how it was done. Just like when you’re walking in a park, listening to the rustling leaves, and having a calm conversation, it doesn’t matter who first suggested the walk. It’s a dialogue, an exchange of thoughts and knowledge.

So what about the so-called “leading”? In my view, it’s just an invitation, nothing more. It’s not even an explicit invitation—you just start doing something, and if you’re truly acting together, the other person joins in. Imagine you’re on a walk with a friend, having an animated conversation, and you come across a puddle. Your friend, still talking, veers right to avoid it. Would you stop and choose a different route, or just walk alongside to keep the conversation going?

Or at a fork in the path, your companion turns down one alley, and you like that path too (as well as the others). Do you need to focus on which way to turn, or is it better to listen to the leaves underfoot and reflect on the conversation?

So who’s leading? Who’s choosing the path? The one who first suggested the walk? Not necessarily. At one moment, it might be one person, at another, the other. Often, it’s the one who’s more attentive, who notices the puddles first, who picks the more comfortable paths—the one who spends some attention on watching the road while also keeping up the conversation and caring about the other’s comfort.

Here, the limits of “leading” become clear. For example, if you start going around the puddle to the right, but that path is wet (even if you prefer it), and your companion is wearing light shoes, they’ll probably stop the conversation to go around the other way and express surprise at your choice. In short, rapport is lost.

So the limitation of “leading” is ecology—the acceptability of the proposed actions for the other person. If the action is unpleasant for them, rapport breaks down and “leading” becomes impossible.

2. You Already Know This…

I’ve heard people say that “rapport” is strictly a professional psychological technique (especially in NLP). But everyone has experienced moments in life when they established rapport with others at a very high level—even without knowing what it was called.

I remember an incident from my student construction crew days. A truck arrived with bags of cement, and a friend and I were heading to the driver’s cab to ask for a ride to the city. Suddenly, a guy in the back of the truck must have thought we were there to help unload, and yelled, “Hey, catch the bag!” and tossed one down. My friend and I caught the bag in perfect sync, bent our knees to absorb the impact, looked each other in the eye, then simultaneously set the bag down, straightened up, and shouted in unison, “What the hell are you doing?!” There was complete synchrony in our movements, words, and even breathing. That was rapport.

Maybe you’ve had similar experiences, or maybe you remember dancing with someone when your movements were more in sync than the music required, forming a shared pattern… and sometimes you could even guess what the other person was about to say next.

These are all examples of deep rapport. Sometimes it’s less obvious, but any pleasant and easy communication is based on rapport, because communication is not just about the meaning of words, but also the feeling of being understood.

3. Who Are We Connecting With?

There’s a saying: “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” If there’s a myth that rapport is about “manipulating others,” it’s worth understanding where that comes from.

When we see rapport as an equal interaction based on mutual understanding, there’s nothing inherently manipulative about it. So what’s the issue? The key question is: “Who is the rapport established with?” As odd as it sounds, this question matters.

Earlier, I talked about two friends as whole, unified individuals, but how many of us can say that about ourselves? Whether we use the NLP metaphor of “parts of the personality,” Jung’s concept of “complexes,” or something else, the point is that rapport can be established not with the “whole person.”

If “the parts are not in agreement,” such rapport can become more like an alliance. For example, in a family, a wife might team up with her mother against her husband. Clearly, this creates fertile ground for all kinds of manipulation. But what does that have to do with rapport? Using the same family analogy, we don’t demand that the wife or her mother be forbidden to speak, do we? (And if someone does, they know it’s just in the heat of the moment…)

So why does the myth shift the focus from internal division to rapport? It’s pretty clear—it’s a way of shifting responsibility. We usually feel responsible for our own internal conflicts, but when someone else establishes rapport (with a part of us), it’s convenient to “pass the buck.”

Does this approach help us? Clearly not. Even if there’s no one around who knows how to establish rapport professionally.

We’ve already said that rapport is present in any comfortable communication, whether with friends, acquaintances, or loved ones. We can even recall times when a friend’s words supported one of our conflicting impulses, and we followed them. There’s no clear line between all these cases…

I believe the only reliable way to protect our interests while treating others with ease and trust is our own internal wholeness. As I finish this note, that’s exactly what I wish for you.

Author: A. Zubarev