Having a ringside seat at other people’s quarrels can be unpleasant. But they’re valuable events for me when I realise some of the ineffectual behaviours in use resemble my own. When conducted in public, especially with as much acrimony as the occasion discussed here, they offer similar mirroring to a much wider audience. To intentionally change a behaviour we must first become aware of it.
Golden rules
Understanding our own part in creating a problem is the beginning of wisdom. Kong Qiu [aka Confucius]
This isn’t the Golden Rule Confucius is most famous for, though it deserves precious metal status. With that understanding, problem-solving progress is eased because we’ve found among the contributing causes, those we are entirely free to remedy independent of others’ permission or cooperation.
His better-known Golden Rule begins, Do unto others … and is best expressed as Don’t do to others what you don’t want done to yourself.
In the real-life incident I describe below you will easily see, because it’s an extreme illustration, what can happen to dialogue if we fail to apply those two good-sense principles. Very many everyday interpersonal difficulties arise from that same failure but are unnoticed when less dramatic and more subtle.
To what extent does this illustration shed light on some of your own part in creating conversational complexity and problems?
Getting attention but not a hearing
A New Zealand City Councillor recently wrote a public submission to his neighbouring District Authority objecting to the proposed placement of a new bridge. He included derogatory comments about the recipients so offensively written that they were redacted in public media releases. In less corrosive content he advised the Authority’s mayor to “get off your fat arse and do your job.”
When criticised for this, he claimed it was “the only way to get their attention so that they actually listen … being polite has no effect whatsoever”.
It’s a common approach to interpersonal conflicts. If our “politeness” (or simple repetition, greater clarity or firmness) isn’t persuasive, become resentful. Ramp up the intensity of the message with sarcasm, sullenness, unkindness, hostility or aggression in order to persuade them differently, especially when we believe we are right and they are wrong.
Since we think our own beliefs are based on the facts, we conclude that people who disagree with us haven’t been exposed to the right information. So when we have failed to ‘educate’ our opponents – they still refuse to become enlightened – we move from the assumption that they are ignorant to the conviction that they are stupid. Or even that they are wilfully turning their backs on the truth, and are therefore evil.
[Kathryn Schulz]
Lost in delivery
But that tactic is counterproductive when it turns people’s attention from the substance of the message to their own distress, angry judgements and defensive reactions about its mode of delivery. Then, instead of listening to the message sender, they’re tuning-in to themselves, likely considering fight or flight options.
In this case, the Councillor’s message has attracted some support but greater fight and flight. Some colleagues are avoiding him. Social and public news media has been awash with condemnation. Code of Conduct breaches are alleged, with calls for harsh(er) penalties. Lawyers became involved. An independent investigator found his “expletive-laden attacks” were “unreasonable, unwelcome, insulting, and degrading”.
Did he want his views respectfully heard and understood, explored with curiosity, collaboration and constructive dialogue? Uh oh . . ! Looks like you’ve shot yourself in the foot. Did he intend to harm his own cause by provoking uproar, defensiveness, anger, contempt, avoidance and unwillingness to engage in considered debate? Bullseye! Great shot, mate!
The resulting drama will take considerable time to blow over. Meanwhile, the bridge …
Digging a deeper hole
It is easier to argue with another person than it is to argue with the dark recesses of oneself. [Rachel Joyce]
Defending himself against censure, he explained “… there’s a hell of a lot of frustration out there” and “allowing people to vent is better than shutting them up so that they bury the anger inside them and then do something more physically aggressive”. He appears to see value in de-escalating frustration but equates venting with emotional violence. There’s also an implied threat of future physical violence in his explanation. The hole he originally dug is now deeper and more complex.
Berating, dumping-on and threatening others are win-lose, lose-win or lose-lose approaches to interpersonal conflict that usually provoke returned hostility, resentment, and long-lasting relationship problems. They have no place in efforts to promote genuine collaboration.
Certainly an outburst of anger can cleanse the soul and clear the air. But anger engaged in, nursed and nourished begins to act like anger suppressed: it begins to poison the air with vengefulness, spitefulness, distrust, breeding grudge and resentment, brooding endlessly over the causes of the grudge, the righteousness of the resentment. [Ursula le Guin]
What might we improve – and how?
If we really want to address or manage shared interests collaboratively, we must learn to engage constructively – and easily – with whatever differences, conflicts and other conversational complexities emerge in the process. We should seek common ground to bring together thinking across divergences in pursuit of beneficial outcomes for all the parties. (Even an agreement on our shared passion for the disputed issues can be a step towards that end.) These intentions require uncommon levels of self-management and interpersonal communication competence.
Personal responsibility for developing or enhancing the necessary dialogue practices can be illuminated by first scrutinising our embedded habits against a clear set of ideals. This will help identify where we are under-developed (our own part in the problem) and what we must abandon, modify or learn for greater competence. My new book, Collaborative Dialogue is designed to ease those processes and help you make rewarding personal progress.
Consider some of the interpersonal differences, conflicts and conversational complexities that occur from time to time in your life. What personal habits do you bring to those occasions? Which are truly fit for beneficial purposes? Which of them form part of your creating, perpetuating or worsening problems? Where might you benefit from some improvement? Where and how could you begin?
If you want to understand how well you communicate with others around you, and how you can continuously improve it, Collaborative Dialogue is your roadmap. You will go back to this book whenever you encounter a challenge that stems from communicating with others … whether assessing complex situations, understanding why you are not being heard, how to better advocate for yourself or your team, [or revealing] what skills you should hone to further your aims.
[Francis P Abercrombie, USA, in a review at Amazon.com]
Tom Watkins
Tom has owned a number of professional training and consultancy business, coached several other consultant trainers and facilitators into successful careers, and authored a range of well-respected publications.
