On 24 Nov 99, at 11:52, Richard Karash wrote:
> >In trying to get a handle on the issue of both cooperative and
> >confrontation (suppresive) communication, I've come to the conclusion
> >that what one does is and should be largely determined by the context and
> >the relationship or lack thereof, and what one wants to create (and one's
> >moral and ethical standards).
>
> Robert, I like the notion of cooperative vs. confrontational language.
> And, your emphasis on directness and efficiency.
Thanks. The genesis of the idea is interesting at least to me. I work
primarily in the area of defusing hostility (generally with respect to
customers to government) and started noticing interesting patterns. A
number of the people I was training, I found, really made a number of
consistent errors in language use, resulting in increasing the hostility
directed at them. And of course, even in neutral situations, the choice of
specific words and phrases makes a huge difference. As a PS, I regret
choosing the term confrontational language. I probably should have chosen
something else, but I'm kind of stuck with it now.
Last year, with some help from the folks on the listening list, I
developed a list (almost a typology, but not quite) of language that
essentially stopped dialogue, the listening process and created
confrontation, often unintentionally. Which brought me to the question of
necessary conflict (issue based) and unnecessary conflict (that created by
poor language use). THEN (if you are still with me), I created a parallel
list of replacement phrases, etc, and rolled it all into a short book on
conflict prevenion (oops, sorry, my reader just messed up the quote
below).
you said:
>I would distinguish between
> - "No, that's wrong!" ..and..
> - "No, that's wrong, here's what right, and here's why."
>The first is just negation. The second feels more
>productive to me.
I agree about the first. I have mixed feelings on the second (I'm not
sure). Here are some alternatives that I use frequently in classes:
"I'm not sure I agree with that...my experience is.."
"My understanding is that there is evidence to suggest that..."
"Your perspective is one that is controversial since there
are others that suggest that...."
These are really dialogue starters. Notice the emphasis (at least at the
beginning) of staying away from right or wrong, but leaving wiggle room,
face saving, etc.
Then you said:
>I'll only add that I try to sense whether the other party is open to
>input on the matter. Sometimes I might ask, "I have a different view, can
>I tell you my point of view on this?"
That's pretty much identical to the examples I used above but uses the
questioning technique to add that extra dimension of shared choice and
options.
Just as an aside ( and I don't know how others work this); I've learned
that I need to spend my time communicating via dialogue where there is a
possibility of dialogue, and to NOT use dialogue techniques when it is
clear the opening and desire on one or both sides is absent.
That leads to some odd paradoxes for those that don't understand the
logic, because people see my use of blunt direct language as conflicting
with what I do. But one thing I teach people is that a) you try the
cooperative road until you are convinced the other person is playing by
the "confrontational, argumentative rules' (and there are language cues to
determine that). Then you have a choice. You either work to end the
interaction and move on, or you enter into the argument game. I tell
people the choice is their's but try to convince them to evaluate the
consequences and what the really want from the interaction.
Bookmark the search for anything page - websites, email addresses, books,newsgroups, lists.
http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/search.htm
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>