Communication is Key
Good communication is tricky.
Because tongues can be sharp and people are very different, and those differences have a propensity for being annoying, communicating thoughts, feelings, and ideas to other people effectively is a difficult process. Unfortunately (?), it's also one that's absolutely necessary in the world that we live in for survival and thriving. The question, then, becomes how to handle it in such a way that ideas can be shared effectively and conflict can be avoided.
I think that it's important to point out that controlling our communication, (reverting to one of my previous posts on this blog,) not simply reacting to a situation, but controlling that reaction and responding in control to something, is not natural. The natural response to a circumstance that could cause contention or conflict is just that -- contention and conflict! But what comes naturally is not necessarily the best. My personal belief is that our natures, in many respects, are to be overcome through perseverance in this life, which is why what I'm about to talk about means a lot to me. It's a model for effective communication developed by a Dr. David Burns. It includes three basic elements, which are broken down into more. These first elements are empathy, assertiveness, and respect.
Empathy:
When conflict first arises, instead of saying something angry, Burns suggests that one should instead employ empathy by using something called the disarming technique: When someone has just said something to you out of anger, the last thing that they often expect is to be agreed with, and this is exactly what this technique is. Even when that person might not be right, there is almost always an element of truth in what they're saying; in the disarming technique, you find that piece of truth, even and especially if it's something you yourself are doing wrong, and highlight it. This is kind of infuriating, but shows the person with which you're communicating that you don't want to fight as much as you want to understand. After using this technique, empathy needs to be employed further by breaking down feelings into thoughts, and asking the other person what exactly is going in inside their thought process, why they're feeling the way they are. This happens through gentle inquiry: asking inspired, sincere questions to understand the other side of the conflict better. This is so fun. :)
Assertiveness:
Once empathy has been established, more two-way communication needs to be employed.
On my mission in Colorado, my mission president presented us with a concept that he called "I-statements". For anyone reading this that might have gone on a mission, you'll know that companionship inventory can either be awesome or exceptionally hostile. (For those of you who don't know what that is, it's a designated time given to missionaries every week to talk to each other about collective and individual strengths and weaknesses they possess, and what they can collectively and individually change to be better people and better missionaries.) "I-statements were meant to make these inventories lean more to the awesome side, and further from the hostile in that, in these inventories, instead of saying things like, "You never wake up on time, and I hate it. You need to be more obedient, Sister,", which is honest, but not kind, we would focus on ourselves in the statements, and what we were feeling or thinking or doing, in order to convey the need for a change. "Sister, it's really hard for me to get up in the morning; I've struggled with it my entire mission, but it's been even more difficult lately. I want to be more obedient in that respect; can you help me? I think it would be easier for me if I knew you were getting up then, too." It's a more vulnerable approach, but it's saying just about the same thing, isn't it? "When ______, I feel _______ because _______. I would like ________." This is the kind of communication that needs to happen in any conflict; it allows for honesty without blame creeping into the equation, and it needs to happen both ways.
Respect:
Once empathy allows for people to start to work through a problem, and honest communication happens, something that Dr. Burns calls "stroking" needs to happen. I'm not a big fan of the title, but all that this is is expressing genuine appreciation for the other person. Issues are negative, yes, but we don't need to focus on the negative once we've done something to resolve it. The purpose of communication is to strengthen things, isn't it? Personal control and bonds between people, both.
I learned a few months ago that honesty without tact is cruelty. (The Internet seems to be a little conflicted about who to attribute that statement to, so I'm afraid I can't source it correctly; it remains true nonetheless.) Honesty is necessary in order for relationships to thrive, but it needs to be given in ways that help communication to happen effectively, not tear it down into base conflict. I think the key to this is to remember that every conversation has an outcome that leads to another conversation, and if people can avoid getting into the downward spiral of conflict, so much the better.
Dr. Burns' model for effective communication isn't the only way to avoid conflict in difficult circumstances, I'm positive. It's just one that I know from experience works to help to strengthen one without having to regret so many things. I like that.
Because tongues can be sharp and people are very different, and those differences have a propensity for being annoying, communicating thoughts, feelings, and ideas to other people effectively is a difficult process. Unfortunately (?), it's also one that's absolutely necessary in the world that we live in for survival and thriving. The question, then, becomes how to handle it in such a way that ideas can be shared effectively and conflict can be avoided.
I think that it's important to point out that controlling our communication, (reverting to one of my previous posts on this blog,) not simply reacting to a situation, but controlling that reaction and responding in control to something, is not natural. The natural response to a circumstance that could cause contention or conflict is just that -- contention and conflict! But what comes naturally is not necessarily the best. My personal belief is that our natures, in many respects, are to be overcome through perseverance in this life, which is why what I'm about to talk about means a lot to me. It's a model for effective communication developed by a Dr. David Burns. It includes three basic elements, which are broken down into more. These first elements are empathy, assertiveness, and respect.
Empathy:
When conflict first arises, instead of saying something angry, Burns suggests that one should instead employ empathy by using something called the disarming technique: When someone has just said something to you out of anger, the last thing that they often expect is to be agreed with, and this is exactly what this technique is. Even when that person might not be right, there is almost always an element of truth in what they're saying; in the disarming technique, you find that piece of truth, even and especially if it's something you yourself are doing wrong, and highlight it. This is kind of infuriating, but shows the person with which you're communicating that you don't want to fight as much as you want to understand. After using this technique, empathy needs to be employed further by breaking down feelings into thoughts, and asking the other person what exactly is going in inside their thought process, why they're feeling the way they are. This happens through gentle inquiry: asking inspired, sincere questions to understand the other side of the conflict better. This is so fun. :)
Assertiveness:
Once empathy has been established, more two-way communication needs to be employed.
On my mission in Colorado, my mission president presented us with a concept that he called "I-statements". For anyone reading this that might have gone on a mission, you'll know that companionship inventory can either be awesome or exceptionally hostile. (For those of you who don't know what that is, it's a designated time given to missionaries every week to talk to each other about collective and individual strengths and weaknesses they possess, and what they can collectively and individually change to be better people and better missionaries.) "I-statements were meant to make these inventories lean more to the awesome side, and further from the hostile in that, in these inventories, instead of saying things like, "You never wake up on time, and I hate it. You need to be more obedient, Sister,", which is honest, but not kind, we would focus on ourselves in the statements, and what we were feeling or thinking or doing, in order to convey the need for a change. "Sister, it's really hard for me to get up in the morning; I've struggled with it my entire mission, but it's been even more difficult lately. I want to be more obedient in that respect; can you help me? I think it would be easier for me if I knew you were getting up then, too." It's a more vulnerable approach, but it's saying just about the same thing, isn't it? "When ______, I feel _______ because _______. I would like ________." This is the kind of communication that needs to happen in any conflict; it allows for honesty without blame creeping into the equation, and it needs to happen both ways.
Respect:
Once empathy allows for people to start to work through a problem, and honest communication happens, something that Dr. Burns calls "stroking" needs to happen. I'm not a big fan of the title, but all that this is is expressing genuine appreciation for the other person. Issues are negative, yes, but we don't need to focus on the negative once we've done something to resolve it. The purpose of communication is to strengthen things, isn't it? Personal control and bonds between people, both.
I learned a few months ago that honesty without tact is cruelty. (The Internet seems to be a little conflicted about who to attribute that statement to, so I'm afraid I can't source it correctly; it remains true nonetheless.) Honesty is necessary in order for relationships to thrive, but it needs to be given in ways that help communication to happen effectively, not tear it down into base conflict. I think the key to this is to remember that every conversation has an outcome that leads to another conversation, and if people can avoid getting into the downward spiral of conflict, so much the better.
Dr. Burns' model for effective communication isn't the only way to avoid conflict in difficult circumstances, I'm positive. It's just one that I know from experience works to help to strengthen one without having to regret so many things. I like that.
Comments
Post a Comment