October is Conflict Resolution Month. Estes Valley Restorative Justice Partnership and the Estes Valley Library are hosting a month-long series of programs to promote collaborative problem-solving, civility, and meaningful conversations. To better equip citizens in resolving conflict, different aspects of conflict and helpful ideas and resources regarding conflict management will be addressed through weekly columns. Estes Valley Restorative Justice Partnership offers free processes to assist residents of the Estes Valley in conflict resolution. For more information regarding conflict resolution services visit https://ift.tt/2ENnJlA. Learn more about Conflict Resolution Month programming and register to attend at www.estesvalleylibrary.org/crm2020.
Too often people find themselves in tense conversations. Amid the tension, our active listening skills begin to falter. Our mind is too busy preparing a response framed in terms of how we align (or misalign) with another’s stated belief. Imagine a conversation where instead of focusing on whether we agree or disagree, we shift our thinking and engagement toward empathy.
If we view conversation as a means to document where we disagree, it mimics a debate (a win-lose event), where one is judged by their argument and those who participate are identified in terms of victory or defeat. If we think of conversation as a win-lose engagement, it’s no wonder then that communication gets cut off quickly. In the win-lose context, we’re not there to hear what the other is saying. Neither side is very likely to learn much from the other, or discover a new approach, when they are busy guarding their intellectual turf.
While we likely aren’t doing this consciously, we can bring awareness to where our behaviors (and communication habits) are moving us in a direction of meaningful dialogue or adversarial stalemate. Imagine, for a moment, the following example (and think about whether or not is has been true for you): You’re conversing with someone and immediately after they finish their thought, you chime in (perhaps
thinking that you’re enhancing the conversation and showing that you are actively engaged and listening) to state, “I disagree.” You then proceed to explain the flaws in their thinking and how your own stance in that instance is seemingly better. Sound familiar? I can certainly think of many times when I’ve done this. Or perhaps you felt so elated by the moment, that you could barely contain your own opinion on the subject, didn’t wait for them to finish, and instead interrupted. Also guilty! While these instances may show an enthusiasm for the topic, the person with whom we are talking might suddenly feel misunderstood, frustrated, perhaps even disrespected. Maybe they shut down, or get angry, and the conversation takes a nose-dive.
So why do we do this? We sometimes think that if we don’t put our “disagreement” out there, the other person will assume we are in alignment with their beliefs. That, if we remain silent or opt not to share our contrary belief, we are assenting to their belief. Popular phrases like, “Silence implies consent,” might be the basis for this behavior. If we truly disagree, then don’t we need to make sure the other person knows that with certainty?
Something must be motivating our need to draw the “disagreement” line in the sand. Perhaps it is distancing self from an identity or association that we don’t want to have? Or maybe it is about ensuring others know that we have disdain for what was said? Or could it be that we think we are right, while the other person is wrong? All are possibilities.
When we focus on ‘agreeing’ and ‘disagreeing’ as a mandatory choice that must be made right away, we risk steering conversation into unnecessary pitfalls.
When I think about my own participation in this type of communication, I can immediately visualize the other person becoming defensive, more attached to their originally expressed idea, fervent about justifying it, and less open to hearing what would now be perceived as dissent. My framework shifts to seeing the person with whom I am communicating, not as a co-contributor to the conversation, but as opposition, someone who perhaps needs additional explanation, education, etc. But as studies suggest, facts don’t change people’s minds, and the conversation usually fizzles out or becomes so heated that neither of us wants to proceed.
If we are really trying to connect with the other individual, both to help them to understand us and to be understood, it behooves us to think about engaging not to agree or disagree, but with empathy. Imagine that same conversation, where, even when we disagree, we take a moment, acknowledge that impulse, and instead remain involved through generous listening (noting that perhaps something could be gained by trying to engage instead in empathy).
Listening to understand is not the same as listening to agree. You can still hold your own beliefs. You can even share them with others. And perhaps, as a result of the small shift in thinking — not about whether you agree or disagree, but whether you can relate through empathy — will create a better and stronger sense of understanding and camaraderie.
Interested in practicing the skills mentioned above? Join one of the four upcoming Living Room Conversations being hosted locally as part of Conflict Resolution Month. Learn more and sign up at https://ift.tt/2G9P6H8.
"conflict" - Google News
September 29, 2020 at 11:42PM
https://ift.tt/3idUxBT
Conflict Resolution: Focus on listening not to agree or disagree, but with empathy - Estes Park Trail-Gazette
"conflict" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3bZ36xX
https://ift.tt/3aYn0I8
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Conflict Resolution: Focus on listening not to agree or disagree, but with empathy - Estes Park Trail-Gazette"
Post a Comment