A Reflection Compassive Communication and Peaceful Conflict Solving
Hello,
My friend Robert kindly sent me this material about COMPASSIVE COMMUNICATION and I share it with you.
'I have heard of Rosenberg’s practice and though I would hardly consider myself an expert on such matters, my general opinion of this is much like my opinion of "anger management" techniques and seminars....they just don’t work. The individual has to practice the inner work of self-realization (or in Buddhist terms, this mean the "no-self" realization.
Thus, Buddhist practice is the ultimate answer IMO, but in the realm of interpersonal communication, there are some techniques that really help us communicate effectively and respectfully to one another. I would like to offer you one.
In our consulting practice, we use a model for communication based on active listening....the "EARS" model. I would say that all non-violent communication starts and ends with skillful listening. If one does not have listening skills, his/her communication risks turning sour and perhaps even violent by creating a separation between people. Of course, listening is not the same thing as hearing!! Morton Kelsey said it best, “Listening is being silent with another person in an active way.” Many people make the mistake of thinking that listening is a passive activity, but it is not!
Here is how the "E.A.R.S." model works. It is an acronym that stands for....
Enthusiasm
Attention
Responding
Sensitivity
1. ENTHUSIASM
People want to know that their listeners are interested in what they have to say. There are many ways to let another person know that you want to listen. You can use your actions and your words to send this message. Some examples of actions that indicate that you want to listen are:
• Use body language (i.e., leaning forward, smiling, nods of the head, eye contact and an open, non-judgmental facial expression and posture) that says, “I want to know.”
• Pausing, instead of starting to speak as soon as the other person finishes talking.
• Listening without interrupting.
Some phrases that let someone know you are interested are:
• “I’m interested in hearing about it.”
• “Tell me about it.”
• “That sounds very interesting. Tell me more.”
People need the encouragement these “door opener” phrases provide because they are often unsure of your reaction to what they want to say. Remember though, saying, “I am interested” won’t work if your tone of voice and body language says, “I’m too busy,” or “Get lost!”
2. ATTENTION
The second part of the EARS formula asks us to give complete attention to the speaker. Some of the ways you can be certain to do this are:
• Stop talking.
• Avoid distractions that can take your mind off what the speaker is saying.
• When appropriate, take selected notes on what the speaker is saying.
• Read the speaker’s body language and tone of voice in order to gain as much information as possible.
• Focus on what you can learn.
• Avoid hasty judgments.
3. RESPONDING
Speakers need and value a response from their listeners. Three types of responses are particularly important if you want a speaker to know that you are interested in his/her message. They are:
• Paraphrasing.
• Clarifying.
• Expanding.
Paraphrasing asks us to use our own words to tell the speaker what we understand. Paraphrasing is a powerful and important response tool because it helps the speaker know that she/he has been understood and that you have thought about his/her message. It helps you, the listener, be certain that you have fully understood the message. It also gives you additional time to think about what has been said and what your next response will be. Some examples of how you would begin to paraphrase are:
“What I’ve heard so far is…”
“Let me tell you what I am understanding…”
“So what you are telling me is…”
If the speaker corrects your feedback, accept his/her version; the speaker is the authority on what she/he meant to say.
Clarifying involves asking the speaker to restate information she/he has shared or to expand on a subject for the purpose of better understanding. Clarifying helps to ensure that you understand exactly what the speaker means. Clarifying is encouraging to the speaker because it reassures him/her that you are trying to understand. Some examples include:
“Can you give me an example of…”
“What do you mean by the phrase…”
“Are you saying that…”
Expanding, is the third type of response, and it is used to keep the other person talking and to help him or her deal with unpleasant feelings. Some examples of expanding statements are:
“Tell me about it.”
“Please explain exactly what happened. Start at the beginning.”
“Have you told me everything?”
Expanding also allows the listener additional time to think about what was said and to prepare for the next response. People speak at a rate of about 120-180 words per minute. We listen at the rate of about 500 words per minute. We can use this rate difference to our advantage. While we’re listening, we can be assessing the speaker’s mood, determining options for problem solving, etc.
4. SENSITIVITY
Everyone wants to be heard and understood. When people know you’re listening to what they’re saying and you understand their feelings, they usually feel better about how the conversation went and about you as a listener. In order to be a sensitive listener we need to set aside our own prejudices, defenses and feelings, and concentrate on how the speaker perceives, thinks and feels.
Some of the ways we can demonstrate sensitivity are:
• Concentrate on what is being said verbally and nonverbally
• Use a body language that says we are open to the speaker and his/her message
• Use eye contact
• Be empathetic
• Listen objectively
• Do not rush the speaker
Some examples of phrases that show sensitivity are:
“It sounds like the whole situation was quite unnerving.”
“You really disagree with the change that is being proposed and the effect it will have.”
“You really made a difference by going the extra mile. I know that wasn’t easy, considering all that was going on at the time.” '
This is a first reflection about how to FAIR CONFLICT SOLVING in a man and woman relationship, borrowing some ideas from business world. I would really like to read your ideas on this topic.
Power and Manipulation are essentially neither good nor bad. Love and Ethics or their lack will define the character of their manifestations, moment by moment. Their lack in human relationships will basicaly lead to dishonest, dissimulated, mean and oppressive manovers, while their presence will determine generous, loyal, transparent and liberating courses of action.
The difference between the two fight styles sets is that the first one can even be good and the second one cannot be bad.
DESTRUCTIVE STYLES
Skipping the confrontation
1. Evading the ’Toe to Toe Confrontation’; walking out; withdrawing; falling asleep; refusing to listen.
2. Applying the ’silent treatment’.
3. Refusing to take the fight seriously.
4. Apologizing prematurely.
5. Being a ’Pseudo-Accommodator’ by pretending to go along with partner’s point of view for momentary peace, but hoarding doubt, secret contempt, resentments, private reservations.
6. Character Analysing by explaining what the other person’s feelings and motivations are.
7. Being a ’Double Binder’; setting up expectations but making no attempt to fulfill them.
Attacking from the back
8. Giving a rebuke instead of a reward.
9. Attacking indirectly against some person, idea, value or objetc which the other person loves or stands for.
10. Saying double reading phrases.
11. Attacking not to have to defend oneself or give explanations about one’s actions.
12. Using intimate knowledge of the partner to hit ’below the belt’; playing the humiliator.
13. Chain-reacting by throwing in the kitchen sink from the left field, bringing in unrealted issues to pyramid the attack.
14. Bad-mouthing and backbitting.
Terrorism
14. Demanding always more - GIMME - nothing is ever enough.
15. Withholding affection, approval, recognition, material things, privileges, anything that would find pleasure or make life easier for the partner.
16. Undermining by deliberatly arousing or intensifying emotional insecurities, anxiety or depression; keeping the partner on the edge; threatening disaster.
17. Focusing on positions.
CONSTRUCTIVE STYLES
Preparation procedures
1. Check your opinions and unsettled issues, if there are any.
2. Define clearly what the fight is about.
3. Discover where the two posistions coincide, as well as differ.
4. Each partner defines their ’out of bounds’ areas of vulnerability.
5. Preview all possible approaches and the reactions and results they can generate.
6. Develop your acceptable alternatives.
7. Think and write down your points before fighting.
8. Determine how deeply each partner feels about their stake in the fight and how much can be yieled.
9. Plan fights - place and time - to avoid wear and tear on innocent bystanders; leave plenty of time to handle emotions and feelings.
Conflict Solving itself
10. Each partner gives full expression to their own positive feelings.
11. Each partner gives full expression to their own negative feelings.
12. Recognize Yablonsky (spontaneous explosion WITH reason) and wait for it to subside, but don’t ’hook in’.
13. Each one replays their partner’s argument in that person’s own words, to ensure it is thouroughly understood - ’what do you mean by that?’
14. Offer correctional critiques of conduct; both parties develop positive suggestions for improvement in each other.
15. Decide how each partner can help the other concerning the reduction of the conflict area.
16. Entertain the ’Feedback’ of the other person’s evaluation of your behaviour; by ’chewing over’ evaluations of yourself before accepting or rejecting them.
17. Work as ahrd as possible towards an agreement.
Assessment of Conflict Solving
18. Compare your improvements and results with each other, if there are any.
19. Try to score the fighting by comparing the learning it generated against any injury it may have created. The ’winners’ are those who learn more than get hurt, but mainly those who teach more than hurt.
20. Declare a fight holiday, at a truce, a period of time in which no fight engagements are to be made; this will provide the conditions to exercise the fine art of making up and enjoying its benefits, such as warm body contact, good sex and intimacy.
21. But be prepared for the next fight; intimate fighting can be more or less continuous, and paradoxically if it is accepted and expected, the quality of the fighting will be less vicious, the fights shorter, the injuries smaller and the learning of new aspects more and deeper.
22. Still fight once to stablish the limits; then create a set of rules and maintain them.
Just for the sake of providing you some more material for a deeper reflection on this topic I will reproduce part of the Index and part of the Introduction of a book called ’Getting to Yes’, by Fisher and Ury.
"I. THE PROBLEM
1. Don’t Bargain Over Positions
II. THE METHOD
2. Separate the PEOPLE from the Problem
3. Focus on INTERESTS, Not Positions
4. Invent OPTIONS for Mutual Gain
5. Insist on Using Objetive CRITERIA
III. YES, BUT...
6. What If They Are More Powerful?
(Develop Your BATNA - Best Alternative To a Negotiation Agreement)
7. What If They Won’t Play?
(Use Negotiation Jiujitsu)
8. What If They Use Dirty Tricks?
(Taming the Hard Bargainer)"
"TEN QUESTIONS TO ASK
Questions about FAIRNESS and ’PRINCIPLED’ NEGOTIATION
1. Does positional bargaining ever make sense?
2. What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness?
3. Should I be fair if I don’t have to be?
Questions about DEALING with PEOPLE
4. What do I do if the people are the problem?
5. Should I negotiate even with terrorists or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate?
6. How should I adjust my negotiation approach to account for differences of personality, gender, culture, and so on?
Questions about TACTICS
7. How do I decide things like ’ Where should we meet’? Who should make the first offer? How high should I start?
8. Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments?
9. How do I try out these ideas without taking too much risk?
Questions about POWER
10. Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? How do I enhance my negotiation power?"
When at the PREPARATION PROCEDURES, I would suggest the three following questionnaires to be asked and clearly answered by both partners.
The PLANNER'S SET OF QUESTIONS:
THE COURSES OF ACTION
0. What are the possible Courses of Action to be taken?
1. In the name of what is it necessary to take any of them and each one of them?
DIFFERENCES AMONG THE COURSE OF ACTION
2. How many people will really Benefit from each one of them?
3. What kind of Benefit will they get?
3. How many people will stay Neutral?
4. How many people will really suffer any Damage from each one of them?
5. What kind of damage will they suffer?
CONSEQUENCES OF THE DIFFERENT COURSES OF ACTION
6. Which will be the Present Results for each one of them?
7. Which will be the Future Results and Consequences, from the most probable to the most improbable ones?
The MODERATOR'S/ NEGOTIATOR'S SET OF QUESTIONS:
ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION
1. Identify Individual: Strengths = Resource(s)
Weaknesses = Limitation(s)
Limit(s)
Goal(s)
2. Identify Common: Strengths = Resource(s)
Weaknesses = Limitation(s)
Limit(s)
Goal(s) - MAINLY
3. Identify: Conflict(s)
DECISION ABOUT COURSE OF ACTION
4. What is the best Course of Action to be taken?
BASIC WAY TO FOLLOW
4. Start from Common Goals, pass by Conflicts to reach the Agreement.
EVERYONE'S SET OF QUESTIONS when chosing the words:
1. Is it true what I’m going to say?
2. Is it necesary to be said?
3. Will I praise anyone by saying that?
4. Will I make anyone to stay indifferent by saying that?
5. Will I hurt/ offend anyone by saying that?
6. What are the possible good consequences of saying that?
7. How many people would benefit from listening/knowing what I’m going to say?
8. How much would they benefit from it?
9. What is the possible neutrality of saying that?
10. How many people would stay neutral after listening/knowing what I want to say?
11. What could be the bad consequences of saying that?
12. How many people would suffer from listening/knowing what I’m going to say?
13. How much would they suffer from it?
14. What can be the Present Consequences and Results of what I’m going to say?
15. What can be the Future Consequences and Results of what I’m going to say?
16. Is it the right place and time to say it?
17. Have I chosen the right words to express myself about it?
These are my friend Robert’s comments on this text:
'One perspective I would like to add here, is the importance of eliminating the "fight" concept from our language and from our minds.
If you and I were to become upset or frustrated by something happening between us as friends, it is important to discuss it as soon as possible/appropriate (and I like your idea of scheduling/planning a time to talk). While talking, it is important to refrain from using hurtful speech at all times. One way I have found to work is to avoid using the verb "to be" aimed at the other person. So, instead of saying "You are so frustrating!" instead the focus is on specific behavior "What you said to me yesterday left me feeling very frustrated." There is a big tendency in our society for people to attached "who you are" to something you were observed doing, saying, behaving, conducting, etc. which may be based on a complete misunderstanding in the first place! : )
So, if I describe what I saw you do, or what I heard you say, followed by how that made me feel or how I reacted to it, this offers you an open chance to reply and to explain your perspective to me so I can better understand. If my ears are truly open, then there is a 99% chance I will see things from your point of view. Given that there was probably a reason I became friends with you and decided that I cared about you in the first place, this approach almost always this openness leads to a positive outcome and reconciliation.
Unfortunately, I see couples overuse the verb "to be" which only serves to generalize the other person and escalate negativity. "You are such a [fill in the blank]" or "Why must you always be..." [this way or that way].
The bottom line is that the people we have in our life are enormous blessings to us. They give our lives great meaning, joy, happiness, and offer a sense of purpose and opportunity. But all relationships, even the best/easiest relationships require a lot of work and attention in order to grow and remain positive and healthy. I view the joy and contentment of those I love as my life’s calling and my life’s main purpose. So, if they opt to "fight" with me, I will be as engaging as they want me to be (with them/for them), but the whole time I control what I say and how I say it. Even if the other person still remains angry afterwards (which is rare in my experience), they will nevertheless leave the conversation feeling loved and respected by me, because that is the truth at all times, and the truth must be given the chance to be seen, heard, and felt. When someone I care for is upset with me, it does not matter whether or not they are "correct" or "incorrect." That is not my primary focus...instead I focus on paying careful attention to things I should indeed apologize for. If instead, I were to spend my time on defense ("you are wrong! You do not understand!") or offense ("let me tell you what YOU do..." "You are no better, you did the same thing yesterday") or what I call "fighting", then I miss the opportunity to really listen to the person fully and without judgment. There is plenty of time for me to communicate my needs and my thoughts/feeling afterwards....and of course to do so with respect and love.'
Thoughts?
Bea
My friend Robert kindly sent me this material about COMPASSIVE COMMUNICATION and I share it with you.
'I have heard of Rosenberg’s practice and though I would hardly consider myself an expert on such matters, my general opinion of this is much like my opinion of "anger management" techniques and seminars....they just don’t work. The individual has to practice the inner work of self-realization (or in Buddhist terms, this mean the "no-self" realization.
Thus, Buddhist practice is the ultimate answer IMO, but in the realm of interpersonal communication, there are some techniques that really help us communicate effectively and respectfully to one another. I would like to offer you one.
In our consulting practice, we use a model for communication based on active listening....the "EARS" model. I would say that all non-violent communication starts and ends with skillful listening. If one does not have listening skills, his/her communication risks turning sour and perhaps even violent by creating a separation between people. Of course, listening is not the same thing as hearing!! Morton Kelsey said it best, “Listening is being silent with another person in an active way.” Many people make the mistake of thinking that listening is a passive activity, but it is not!
Here is how the "E.A.R.S." model works. It is an acronym that stands for....
Enthusiasm
Attention
Responding
Sensitivity
1. ENTHUSIASM
People want to know that their listeners are interested in what they have to say. There are many ways to let another person know that you want to listen. You can use your actions and your words to send this message. Some examples of actions that indicate that you want to listen are:
• Use body language (i.e., leaning forward, smiling, nods of the head, eye contact and an open, non-judgmental facial expression and posture) that says, “I want to know.”
• Pausing, instead of starting to speak as soon as the other person finishes talking.
• Listening without interrupting.
Some phrases that let someone know you are interested are:
• “I’m interested in hearing about it.”
• “Tell me about it.”
• “That sounds very interesting. Tell me more.”
People need the encouragement these “door opener” phrases provide because they are often unsure of your reaction to what they want to say. Remember though, saying, “I am interested” won’t work if your tone of voice and body language says, “I’m too busy,” or “Get lost!”
2. ATTENTION
The second part of the EARS formula asks us to give complete attention to the speaker. Some of the ways you can be certain to do this are:
• Stop talking.
• Avoid distractions that can take your mind off what the speaker is saying.
• When appropriate, take selected notes on what the speaker is saying.
• Read the speaker’s body language and tone of voice in order to gain as much information as possible.
• Focus on what you can learn.
• Avoid hasty judgments.
3. RESPONDING
Speakers need and value a response from their listeners. Three types of responses are particularly important if you want a speaker to know that you are interested in his/her message. They are:
• Paraphrasing.
• Clarifying.
• Expanding.
Paraphrasing asks us to use our own words to tell the speaker what we understand. Paraphrasing is a powerful and important response tool because it helps the speaker know that she/he has been understood and that you have thought about his/her message. It helps you, the listener, be certain that you have fully understood the message. It also gives you additional time to think about what has been said and what your next response will be. Some examples of how you would begin to paraphrase are:
“What I’ve heard so far is…”
“Let me tell you what I am understanding…”
“So what you are telling me is…”
If the speaker corrects your feedback, accept his/her version; the speaker is the authority on what she/he meant to say.
Clarifying involves asking the speaker to restate information she/he has shared or to expand on a subject for the purpose of better understanding. Clarifying helps to ensure that you understand exactly what the speaker means. Clarifying is encouraging to the speaker because it reassures him/her that you are trying to understand. Some examples include:
“Can you give me an example of…”
“What do you mean by the phrase…”
“Are you saying that…”
Expanding, is the third type of response, and it is used to keep the other person talking and to help him or her deal with unpleasant feelings. Some examples of expanding statements are:
“Tell me about it.”
“Please explain exactly what happened. Start at the beginning.”
“Have you told me everything?”
Expanding also allows the listener additional time to think about what was said and to prepare for the next response. People speak at a rate of about 120-180 words per minute. We listen at the rate of about 500 words per minute. We can use this rate difference to our advantage. While we’re listening, we can be assessing the speaker’s mood, determining options for problem solving, etc.
4. SENSITIVITY
Everyone wants to be heard and understood. When people know you’re listening to what they’re saying and you understand their feelings, they usually feel better about how the conversation went and about you as a listener. In order to be a sensitive listener we need to set aside our own prejudices, defenses and feelings, and concentrate on how the speaker perceives, thinks and feels.
Some of the ways we can demonstrate sensitivity are:
• Concentrate on what is being said verbally and nonverbally
• Use a body language that says we are open to the speaker and his/her message
• Use eye contact
• Be empathetic
• Listen objectively
• Do not rush the speaker
Some examples of phrases that show sensitivity are:
“It sounds like the whole situation was quite unnerving.”
“You really disagree with the change that is being proposed and the effect it will have.”
“You really made a difference by going the extra mile. I know that wasn’t easy, considering all that was going on at the time.” '
This is a first reflection about how to FAIR CONFLICT SOLVING in a man and woman relationship, borrowing some ideas from business world. I would really like to read your ideas on this topic.
Power and Manipulation are essentially neither good nor bad. Love and Ethics or their lack will define the character of their manifestations, moment by moment. Their lack in human relationships will basicaly lead to dishonest, dissimulated, mean and oppressive manovers, while their presence will determine generous, loyal, transparent and liberating courses of action.
The difference between the two fight styles sets is that the first one can even be good and the second one cannot be bad.
DESTRUCTIVE STYLES
Skipping the confrontation
1. Evading the ’Toe to Toe Confrontation’; walking out; withdrawing; falling asleep; refusing to listen.
2. Applying the ’silent treatment’.
3. Refusing to take the fight seriously.
4. Apologizing prematurely.
5. Being a ’Pseudo-Accommodator’ by pretending to go along with partner’s point of view for momentary peace, but hoarding doubt, secret contempt, resentments, private reservations.
6. Character Analysing by explaining what the other person’s feelings and motivations are.
7. Being a ’Double Binder’; setting up expectations but making no attempt to fulfill them.
Attacking from the back
8. Giving a rebuke instead of a reward.
9. Attacking indirectly against some person, idea, value or objetc which the other person loves or stands for.
10. Saying double reading phrases.
11. Attacking not to have to defend oneself or give explanations about one’s actions.
12. Using intimate knowledge of the partner to hit ’below the belt’; playing the humiliator.
13. Chain-reacting by throwing in the kitchen sink from the left field, bringing in unrealted issues to pyramid the attack.
14. Bad-mouthing and backbitting.
Terrorism
14. Demanding always more - GIMME - nothing is ever enough.
15. Withholding affection, approval, recognition, material things, privileges, anything that would find pleasure or make life easier for the partner.
16. Undermining by deliberatly arousing or intensifying emotional insecurities, anxiety or depression; keeping the partner on the edge; threatening disaster.
17. Focusing on positions.
CONSTRUCTIVE STYLES
Preparation procedures
1. Check your opinions and unsettled issues, if there are any.
2. Define clearly what the fight is about.
3. Discover where the two posistions coincide, as well as differ.
4. Each partner defines their ’out of bounds’ areas of vulnerability.
5. Preview all possible approaches and the reactions and results they can generate.
6. Develop your acceptable alternatives.
7. Think and write down your points before fighting.
8. Determine how deeply each partner feels about their stake in the fight and how much can be yieled.
9. Plan fights - place and time - to avoid wear and tear on innocent bystanders; leave plenty of time to handle emotions and feelings.
Conflict Solving itself
10. Each partner gives full expression to their own positive feelings.
11. Each partner gives full expression to their own negative feelings.
12. Recognize Yablonsky (spontaneous explosion WITH reason) and wait for it to subside, but don’t ’hook in’.
13. Each one replays their partner’s argument in that person’s own words, to ensure it is thouroughly understood - ’what do you mean by that?’
14. Offer correctional critiques of conduct; both parties develop positive suggestions for improvement in each other.
15. Decide how each partner can help the other concerning the reduction of the conflict area.
16. Entertain the ’Feedback’ of the other person’s evaluation of your behaviour; by ’chewing over’ evaluations of yourself before accepting or rejecting them.
17. Work as ahrd as possible towards an agreement.
Assessment of Conflict Solving
18. Compare your improvements and results with each other, if there are any.
19. Try to score the fighting by comparing the learning it generated against any injury it may have created. The ’winners’ are those who learn more than get hurt, but mainly those who teach more than hurt.
20. Declare a fight holiday, at a truce, a period of time in which no fight engagements are to be made; this will provide the conditions to exercise the fine art of making up and enjoying its benefits, such as warm body contact, good sex and intimacy.
21. But be prepared for the next fight; intimate fighting can be more or less continuous, and paradoxically if it is accepted and expected, the quality of the fighting will be less vicious, the fights shorter, the injuries smaller and the learning of new aspects more and deeper.
22. Still fight once to stablish the limits; then create a set of rules and maintain them.
Just for the sake of providing you some more material for a deeper reflection on this topic I will reproduce part of the Index and part of the Introduction of a book called ’Getting to Yes’, by Fisher and Ury.
"I. THE PROBLEM
1. Don’t Bargain Over Positions
II. THE METHOD
2. Separate the PEOPLE from the Problem
3. Focus on INTERESTS, Not Positions
4. Invent OPTIONS for Mutual Gain
5. Insist on Using Objetive CRITERIA
III. YES, BUT...
6. What If They Are More Powerful?
(Develop Your BATNA - Best Alternative To a Negotiation Agreement)
7. What If They Won’t Play?
(Use Negotiation Jiujitsu)
8. What If They Use Dirty Tricks?
(Taming the Hard Bargainer)"
"TEN QUESTIONS TO ASK
Questions about FAIRNESS and ’PRINCIPLED’ NEGOTIATION
1. Does positional bargaining ever make sense?
2. What if the other side believes in a different standard of fairness?
3. Should I be fair if I don’t have to be?
Questions about DEALING with PEOPLE
4. What do I do if the people are the problem?
5. Should I negotiate even with terrorists or someone like Hitler? When does it make sense not to negotiate?
6. How should I adjust my negotiation approach to account for differences of personality, gender, culture, and so on?
Questions about TACTICS
7. How do I decide things like ’ Where should we meet’? Who should make the first offer? How high should I start?
8. Concretely, how do I move from inventing options to making commitments?
9. How do I try out these ideas without taking too much risk?
Questions about POWER
10. Can the way I negotiate really make a difference if the other side is more powerful? How do I enhance my negotiation power?"
When at the PREPARATION PROCEDURES, I would suggest the three following questionnaires to be asked and clearly answered by both partners.
The PLANNER'S SET OF QUESTIONS:
THE COURSES OF ACTION
0. What are the possible Courses of Action to be taken?
1. In the name of what is it necessary to take any of them and each one of them?
DIFFERENCES AMONG THE COURSE OF ACTION
2. How many people will really Benefit from each one of them?
3. What kind of Benefit will they get?
3. How many people will stay Neutral?
4. How many people will really suffer any Damage from each one of them?
5. What kind of damage will they suffer?
CONSEQUENCES OF THE DIFFERENT COURSES OF ACTION
6. Which will be the Present Results for each one of them?
7. Which will be the Future Results and Consequences, from the most probable to the most improbable ones?
The MODERATOR'S/ NEGOTIATOR'S SET OF QUESTIONS:
ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION
1. Identify Individual: Strengths = Resource(s)
Weaknesses = Limitation(s)
Limit(s)
Goal(s)
2. Identify Common: Strengths = Resource(s)
Weaknesses = Limitation(s)
Limit(s)
Goal(s) - MAINLY
3. Identify: Conflict(s)
DECISION ABOUT COURSE OF ACTION
4. What is the best Course of Action to be taken?
BASIC WAY TO FOLLOW
4. Start from Common Goals, pass by Conflicts to reach the Agreement.
EVERYONE'S SET OF QUESTIONS when chosing the words:
1. Is it true what I’m going to say?
2. Is it necesary to be said?
3. Will I praise anyone by saying that?
4. Will I make anyone to stay indifferent by saying that?
5. Will I hurt/ offend anyone by saying that?
6. What are the possible good consequences of saying that?
7. How many people would benefit from listening/knowing what I’m going to say?
8. How much would they benefit from it?
9. What is the possible neutrality of saying that?
10. How many people would stay neutral after listening/knowing what I want to say?
11. What could be the bad consequences of saying that?
12. How many people would suffer from listening/knowing what I’m going to say?
13. How much would they suffer from it?
14. What can be the Present Consequences and Results of what I’m going to say?
15. What can be the Future Consequences and Results of what I’m going to say?
16. Is it the right place and time to say it?
17. Have I chosen the right words to express myself about it?
These are my friend Robert’s comments on this text:
'One perspective I would like to add here, is the importance of eliminating the "fight" concept from our language and from our minds.
If you and I were to become upset or frustrated by something happening between us as friends, it is important to discuss it as soon as possible/appropriate (and I like your idea of scheduling/planning a time to talk). While talking, it is important to refrain from using hurtful speech at all times. One way I have found to work is to avoid using the verb "to be" aimed at the other person. So, instead of saying "You are so frustrating!" instead the focus is on specific behavior "What you said to me yesterday left me feeling very frustrated." There is a big tendency in our society for people to attached "who you are" to something you were observed doing, saying, behaving, conducting, etc. which may be based on a complete misunderstanding in the first place! : )
So, if I describe what I saw you do, or what I heard you say, followed by how that made me feel or how I reacted to it, this offers you an open chance to reply and to explain your perspective to me so I can better understand. If my ears are truly open, then there is a 99% chance I will see things from your point of view. Given that there was probably a reason I became friends with you and decided that I cared about you in the first place, this approach almost always this openness leads to a positive outcome and reconciliation.
Unfortunately, I see couples overuse the verb "to be" which only serves to generalize the other person and escalate negativity. "You are such a [fill in the blank]" or "Why must you always be..." [this way or that way].
The bottom line is that the people we have in our life are enormous blessings to us. They give our lives great meaning, joy, happiness, and offer a sense of purpose and opportunity. But all relationships, even the best/easiest relationships require a lot of work and attention in order to grow and remain positive and healthy. I view the joy and contentment of those I love as my life’s calling and my life’s main purpose. So, if they opt to "fight" with me, I will be as engaging as they want me to be (with them/for them), but the whole time I control what I say and how I say it. Even if the other person still remains angry afterwards (which is rare in my experience), they will nevertheless leave the conversation feeling loved and respected by me, because that is the truth at all times, and the truth must be given the chance to be seen, heard, and felt. When someone I care for is upset with me, it does not matter whether or not they are "correct" or "incorrect." That is not my primary focus...instead I focus on paying careful attention to things I should indeed apologize for. If instead, I were to spend my time on defense ("you are wrong! You do not understand!") or offense ("let me tell you what YOU do..." "You are no better, you did the same thing yesterday") or what I call "fighting", then I miss the opportunity to really listen to the person fully and without judgment. There is plenty of time for me to communicate my needs and my thoughts/feeling afterwards....and of course to do so with respect and love.'
Thoughts?
Bea
Comment
Welcome to
iPeace.us
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by David Califa. Managed by Eyal Raviv.
Powered by
You need to be a member of iPeace.us to add comments!
Join iPeace.us