Communicating Is Science…Connecting Is an Art
It’s Only a Stage If You Don’t Engage…It’s Simply Farce If You Won’t PARSE!
Near the close of a stress and team building workshop for fifty members of a County Parks and Planning Division, an employee wondered aloud why so few of his colleagues had filed grievance procedures in light of a workplace atmosphere exhibiting tensions between a number of employees and some of the managers. One manager responded quickly and assertively, filling the void. He affirmed that Headquarters and the division management team (under the guidance of a fairly new director) have encouraged people to voice their concerns either directly to local top management or through a confidential HQ reporting procedure. The manager then carefully outlined the necessary steps. And the effect of his clarification was immediate and palpable. The employee slumped in his chair and group energy began draining from the room.
Without hesitating, I told the manager that he had provided a clear and logical response. However, the issue presented seemed less logical and more psychological. Whether an objective assessment or not, I heard the employee express concerns around employee-management trust and the potential for retribution. The outspoken employee nodded his head vigorously and an unspoken amen chorus vibrated through the collective. Before ending the session the Director proposed restarting Crew Meetings, whereby a representative group of managers and employees could begin to address some of the existing contentious issues. Several employees and managers seemed motivated to explore this possibility. We appeared to end on a cautiously hopeful note.
After the workshop, pondering the initial “message sent is not message received” interaction, I was struck by the obvious: clear and concise communication may provide information (even useful data) but may still basically miss the heart of its target. This is especially true if logical content does not take into account the social-psychological context as well as individual, interpersonal role and cultural differences. Especially when there’s conflict in the air, for genuine engagement, to have a “meeting of the minds,” consider my acronym for connection: “Learn to PARSE to bridge head and heart.” (“Parse,” a common word among media-political journalists and commentators, involves carefully examining sentences and words for grammatical and structural relations and nuances of meaning. Hopefully, my version of parsing, unlike for the media mafia, is not primarily an entrapment tool in the de-meaning game of “Gotcha.”) By illuminating, analyzing and interrelating the component letters, learning to P-A-R-S-E will provide skills and strategies for employing universal and contextual communication thereby heightening the potential for mutually respectful, discerning and meaningful connection. So let’s PARSE:
P= Psyche-logical and Paraphrase
a. (Be) Psyche-logical. When it comes to genuine or intimate connection, why have I replaced the prefix “psycho” with the term “Psyche?” The answer is a blend of myth and science. First, in Greek and Roman mythology, Psyche was a beautiful nymph, loved by Eros, and the personification of “the human soul.” Yet psyche, especially in the field of psychiatry, relates to “the mind,” specifically the mind “as an organic system reaching all parts of the body, and serving to adjust the total organism to the needs or demands of the environment” (Webster’s Universal Unabridged Dictionary). The psyche also reflects and influences individual motivation. For me, psyche-logical reflects a yin-yang perspective. This construction recognizes the need for thoughtful analysis but also the need to go beyond the logical, to not simply play (even if your intentions are benign) “mind games.” When trying to communicate genuinely, to motivate or move another, you must understand the environmental-communicational context while also connecting (with) head, heart and soul.
Why am I emphasizing placing communication in context? As was illustrated in the opening workshop scenario, by not recognizing the historical context of mistrust between management and employees, these communicants become two ships passing in the dark and foggy night. And when you don’t acknowledge context, it’s easy to succumb to attributional bias of a personal nature: seeing the problem as one of employee attitude, passivity, laziness or resistance. And a pattern of “attributional bias”…now that’s bordering on the “psycho!”
b. Paraphrase. Too often, “Message sent is not message received.” There’s a simple communicational safety net: paraphrase. Especially when dealing with an important or involved piece of communication, the wise message sender knows to ask the other party to paraphrase or repeat back the gist of the original message. Also, an effective communicator: a) knows when to pause, b) doesn’t overload a message with excess or extraneous facts or flourishes, and c) chunks a lengthy or complex message into digestible bites.) Conversely, a savvy receiver takes the paraphrasing initiative and says, “Let me make sure I got this straight.”
Paraphrasing is also a valuable tool in cooling hot or hyper reactive encounters. Agreeing to two-party paraphrasing may short-circuit or at least slow down escalating, offensive-defensive, and “one up” interchanges. (Sometimes it helps to make this a ground rule even before the opening bell.) And for longstanding couples or colleagues, paraphrasing may prevent you from falling into the “mind reader” trap, that is, assuming you know the other person’s thoughts even before words take flight. (Of course, such dyads may need to be wary. You can get caught in a common “double bind.” As a client of mine once said, “Why should I have to keep saying what I want? After all this time he should know what I want.” And when her spouse guessed wrong, the wife’s reply, naturally: “Don’t try to read my mind!”)
A = Ask (Questions) and Acknowledge
a. Ask (Questions). The old data gathering standards still apply: “what,” “when,” “where” “who,” “how” and, finally, “why.” However, prematurely confronting someone with, “Why did you do that?” or even “How could you possibly believe that?” is less a question and more a personal condemnation. The message goes from critical to caustic when you combine a testy “why” or “how” with a blaming “You”. Now you’re into “acc-you-sations” and, if a pattern, are becoming a “blameaholic.” (By way of contrast, compare the above quotes with the more neutral, “How did this happen?” or “Can you help me understand why this occurred?”) Actually, a clear exception to the “one down,” toxic “You” syndrome involves taking an accommodating or humble position: “Is there anything I can do for you?” or “I have a problem. Might I pick your brains?”)
In general, but especially in an ongoing relationship context, the honest and constructive question comes wrapped with underlying and unspoken messages: “I don’t have all the answers” and “I would like to hear (and perhaps learn from) your point of view.” Positive questioning signals a desire to “reach out and touch someone,” to affirm, perhaps to connect, and surely not to trap, catch or crush them.
a. Acknowledge. Let me reinforce the difference between blaming “You” messages and assertive and tactful “I” messages that turns on the choice of two words. Imagine an argument that’s getting heated and one party blurts out, “You’re wrong!” What if the person had said, “I disagree” (or ”I strongly disagree!”)? The former “You” message is dismissive. The latter, by definition, at least recognizes the other party’s position or viewpoint. A finger-pointing “you” message (and here I’m not thinking of that “proverbial finger”) may evoke defensiveness or stop a productive discussion in its tracks.
And this brings us to a key communicational mantra: “Acknowledgement does not equal agreement.” While not based on formal research, I suspect most people (at least the somewhat mature, non-authoritarian or non-egotistical variety) don’t automatically expect that when stating an opinion or belief the other party will immediately or completely agree with them. (Of course, one must factor in variables such as subject matter, perceived expertise, the nature of the role-relationship, etc.) But we all want to feel that our message has been truly heard, that attention has been paid. And people who can disagree while seeing the other’s message as both half empty and half full, that is, who can underscore the existing differences yet not lose sight of common or somewhat related positions, possibilities or perspective, definitely earn connector bonus points.
R = Respect and Reflect
a. Respect. Frankly, I’m a bit reticent about using this “R”-word. These days, so many injured and entitled lament others not giving them their due. For me, in most instances, respect is something earned over time. Also, consider the words of the much-admired former first lady and international icon of peace and justice, Eleonore Roosevelt: “No one can take away your self-respect without your active participation.”
However, a “respect” that relates less to “veneration” and more to “appreciation” should infuse any meaningful relationship and dialogue. For example, a common use of the word comes from the competitive arena – one is counseled to respect your opponent; don’t take him or her for granted. Conversely, hold your own strengths, skills and status in realistic esteem or estimation, especially when engaging others lower in the pecking order. Too often people in authority minimize their role power, greater knowledge (or insider information), educational background, verbal fluency and other advantages they have over a subordinate. And adding insult to imbalance (while exposing lack of emotional intelligence), the manager still expects the employee to interact as if there’s an equal playing field, to speak openly or to embrace change; the employee “should not” be cautious, skeptical or intimidated. (Of course, the bully, to cover up his own insecurity or inadequacy, wants the other party to be cowed or dysfunctionally deferential. Consider this Stress Doc axiom: “Those who never want you to answer back always want you to back their answer.”)
b. Reflect. In one of my communication workshops, I like to make the distinction between “reaction” and “response.” A reaction tends be impulsive as well as defensive; it’s often infused with aggressive energy or deep-seated pain, almost as if someone hit a psychic “hot button” or jabbed an emotional wound. There’s no time for thought; you’re into “fight or flight” mode. In contrast, the responsive individual knows to focus internally, not just count to ten. I need some understanding of the thoughts and especially what emotions, including emotional memories, are being personally stirred…and why. Self-awareness is the first line of a mature defense. Hence the Stress Doc’s mantra: “Count to ten and check within.”
In addition, when a response tactfully reflects back the other party’s emotional state, you demonstrate empathy: “Am I hearing some frustration with your company’s hesitancy to address the reorganization rumors?” Again, asking a question is often preferable over making assumptions (“You must be so upset about…”) or expressing righteous pronouncements (“If I were in your shoes, I’d be so angry”). Of course, the latter may be heard as, “Why aren’t you (more) upset?” or “You should be very angry?” Asking a question is less self-centered and also values the other’s perspective. Finally, when discussing powerful emotional issues, try acknowledging your own flaws and foibles. By sharing your experience with pain and self-doubt, you may help others feel less alienated and alone. Talk about the art of human connection!
S = Strategize and Summarize
a. Strategize. With both parties feeling valued and respected, how do you get them on the same page, and not just in the abstract? How can people, even in the heat of conflict, develop and implement a mutually beneficial yet realistic plan of action, one that pursues creative problem-solving possibilities while recognizing environmental constraints, emotional biases and limited resources? Consider these “Six Keys for Achieving Consensus (AC)”:
1) Avoid one right-way thinking or being egoal-driven. Recognize that it’s important to understand the other’s perspective; rarely is there absolute truth or one set answer or possible outcome. Such rigidity or arrogance often reveals a person who sets goals based less on the nature of the problem to be solved and more on an ego that needs to be pumped. When consensus is the goal, collaboration wins over competition.
2) Accept fact of loss. In a genuine negotiation, where power or status differential does not make the outcome a foregone conclusion, both parties may need to loosen their grip on favorite or familiar positions or traditional beliefs. A sense of loss – including feelings of sadness, doubt, fear and anger – are not uncommon. And loss comes in many shapes and sizes: from a loss of face and loss of control to questions about one’s identity (to be “at a loss”) and the end of a dream. Yet being vulnerable is hardly an axiomatic sign of weakness to be exploited but more the harbinger of psychological hardiness – a readiness for renewed fire and flexible resilience:
For the Phoenix to rise from the ashes
One must know the pain
To transform the fire to burning desire!
3) Affirm values, modify expectations. A genuine and respectful exchange does not ask any party to compromise core beliefs or moral standards. These are often psychological anchors in the middle of a communication or decision-making storm. However, consensus may require a questioning of basic assumptions, a willingness to challenge expectations and a capacity to let go of or at least rethink familiar operating procedures.
4) Clarify common ground. Often the initiation of dialogue occurs when both sides find some issue of mutual concern, even if it’s only a common enemy. (However, long-term obsession with such an enemy or other external hazard may become a smokescreen. Both parties can avoid confronting the salient conflicts or resentments that need to be on the negotiation table.) Of course, to find a common starting point sometimes you must start small, or begin negotiating with a relatively safe and workable issue. However, once tasting small success, parties may venture into tougher issues.
5) Create big picture. One of the biggest challenges for a consensus process is the amount of time it can take to share real concerns, needs and motives. Obviously, some trust must develop for this to occur. And trust only evolves with “good, (some) bad and (a bit of) ugly” give and take over time. Yet, often engaging in constructive conflict is a wise investment. Not only does a little patience help people get real, but also grappling with the diversity and individuality of honest and open expression – as opposed to groupthink – challenges people to resist the “b.s.” (“be safe”). In the long run, participants are motivated to risk and come up with more complex, creative and collaborative solutions into which all can live with if not totally buy.
6) Cultivate consensus culture. For me, the best definition of consensus is that everyone gives up a little for the common goal and the communal good. At the same time, everyone feels heard and, in addition, some meaningful concerns, needs and goals are addressed if not met. Mutual sacrifice for a worthy cause, think of the American home front during WW II, often generates a passionate commitment to a greater purpose and a heightened feeling of camaraderie and morale even amongst diverse cultures and communities. (Of course, what was done to the Pacific Coast Japanese community after Pearl Harbor is another story.)
b. Summarize. What paraphrasing is to an information segment, summarizing is to a dialogic sequence. Where paraphrasing checks if a specific message sent is message received, summarizing allows for reviewing both macro and micro understandings and agreements. Are we on the same page regarding philosophy, policies and procedures as well as with plans and action steps? Key operational summary questions often include, “Who will do what and by when?”
Summarizing also attends to extant disagreements and areas for further discussion. And a good summary doesn’t simply focus on outcomes, shortfalls and next steps. A good summation explores the nature of the communication and problem-solving process, including the negotiation setting, strategies and structures that helped bridge understanding while also identifying any remaining communicational and consensus building barriers.
E = Energy and Empathy
a. Energy. One sign of genuine connection, often unanticipated, is a palpable sense of two-way energy transmission. When conflict is engaged and resolved in a mutually satisfying manner – whether in the boardroom or the bedroom – there’s both a sense of relief and of rejuvenation. And this effect is strongly influenced by the fact that conflict, itself, ignites sparks of electricity both within and without. As John Dewey, pragmatic philosopher and the father of American public education, noted: