People Skills_How to Assert Yourself, Listen to Others, and Resolve Conflicts
Page 9
You feel that graduate school is a “must” sometime in your life, but you’re not sure if going directly from your undergraduate work into more-formal education is wise. You worry about my financial situation because your education has cost me thousands of dollars already. You want to marry Lea, and you wonder if she’ll wait for you for two years or if she’ll think you’re just a perennial schoolboy. You are feeling pressure from the graduate school to make a decision soon in order to receive the graduate assistanceship you would need if you decide to go on to school now.
A summary is also useful when the speaker seems to have exhausted everything she has to say on a topic. The recap of what the speaker said can help bring that part of a conversation to a conclusion and/or provide direction for the next segment.
When listening to someone over a period of more than one session, a summary can be used at the beginning of a new session. Since the speaker may have had important thoughts or experiences between sessions, it is important to ask if she has had any and, if so, whether she would like to discuss them. If not, the listener can summarize the last conversation. It demonstrates the listener’s interest, helps prevent the speaker from repeating old material, and can help her build on the previous session.
One of the purposes of summarizing is to give the speaker a feeling of movement in exploring content and feelings. This sense of progress may lead more quickly to the development of action programs. Summarization also provides an accuracy check on the listener’s overall impressions of what has been said.
A reflective summary is effective when the listener (1) gathers together points that the speaker brought up, and (2) selects relevant data—that which will help the speaker more clearly understand key elements of her situation. “A summary,” says Egan, “is not a mechanical pulling together of a number of facts; it is a systematic presentation of relevant data.”9
The use of the following sentence stems can help you get started using the skill of summarization:
“One theme you keep coming back to seems to be …”
“Let’s recap the ground we have covered so far …”
“I’ve been thinking about what you’ve said. I see something that may be a pattern and I’d like to check it out. You …”
“As I’ve been listening to you, your main concern seems to be …” (Then give examples.)
The effectiveness of a summative reflection can be best judged by the other’s reception and use of it. A good summation should enable the other to speak in more depth, with clearer directionality and/or greater coherence. A good summary often helps the speaker understand her situation more clearly even though it is a recap of what she had already said. Even though there is no new material in a summary, it may seem new to the speaker because she is hearing it all put together for the first time. Also, an effective summary can tie the loose strands of a conversation together at its conclusion.
SUMMARY
The good listener responds reflectively to what the speaker is saying. She restates, in her own words, the feeling and/or content that is being expressed—and in doing so, communicates understanding and acceptance. There are four basic reflecting skills. Paraphrasing, the first of the reflective responses, focuses on the speaker’s content. The reflection of feeling occurs when the listener concentrates on feeling words, infers feelings from the general content, “reads” body language, asks, “How would I feel if I were doing and saying that?” and then mirrors the feeling back to the speaker. The combined reflection of feelings and content is called the reflection of meaning. Summative reflections are very condensed recaps of the most significant elements of a fairly long segment of conversation.
CHAPTER FIVE
Why Reflective
Responses Work
At most points in communication where others would interpret, probe, advise, encourage, we reflect…. Reflection can be, in the hands of an imitating novice, a dull wooden mockery. On paper, it often looks particularly so. Yet, it can also be a profound, intimate, empathically understanding response, requiring great skill and sensitivity and intense involvement.1
—J. M. Shlien, therapist
People who are learning to listen more effectively often wonder why such importance is placed on reflective responses. I explain that what Winston Churchill said of democracy applies to reflective listening: it is the worst possible method—except for all the other alternatives! Most of the other options don’t work nearly as well when the speaker is under stress or has a problem or other strong needs.
When people are first introduced to the concept of reflective responses, they often think that this way of listening is too structured, too mechanical, and not “natural” enough. This chapter will explore some of those concerns and then will examine six problems of human communication that can be alleviated by reflective listening. The chapter concludes with what I believe is the best method of dispelling one’s doubts about the effectiveness of reflective listening.
STYLE AND STRUCTURE
IN LISTENING
People in our seminars often say, “When I listen reflectively, I have to stop and think of how to respond. I’m not myself when I do this. Using these listening skills is too contrived and too lacking in spontaneity.” One or more of three basic issues is usually relevant to this kind of concern.
First, when people learn a new set of skills, they usually go through an awkward and self-conscious stage before they are at home with the skills. A person’s ability often decreases when he begins using a new method. When I went out for basketball, the coach made me change my method of taking a particular shot. For the next few days, my percentage of baskets dropped significantly. Soon, however, I was shooting better than ever. Similarly, when people first try using these listening skills, they often tell us that they are trying so hard not to send roadblocks and are working so diligently to phrase reflective responses that they miss what the speaker is saying! This does happen to many people, but fortunately only for a brief period.
Someone has said there are four stages in the process of improving communication. At first, when a person learns about the impact of the roadblocks he has been sending all his life, he feels guilty. Then he tries the skills but this “new” way of relating seems wooden and artificial. He feels phony. Fortunately, most people go through these two stages fairly quickly.
After using the methods for a few weeks, people often become quite skillful with them. They reflect fairly well, but they are still working at it and are conscious of what they are doing. Finally, after using the skills regularly for a couple of years, this way of relating becomes so integrated into the person’s life style that he often does it well and without conscious awareness. He then is like a violinist who has mastered the techniques of his art. The skills become virtually automatic. He plays the music as though the problems of fingering and bowing never existed. Similarly, in time and with practice, these skills of communication can become so integrated into your life that they are natural to you.
A second issue that is relevant here is the amount of structure involved in this kind of listening. Beginners at listening skills often think that reflective responses are too rule-governed and therefore that they seem artificial and impede the free flow of a conversation. Actually, even the freest-flowing interactions are very structured, rule-governed interchanges. Richard Bandler and John Grinder write:
When humans communicate—when we talk, discuss, write—we … are almost never conscious of the way in which we order and structure the words we select. Language so fills our world that we move through it as a fish swims through water. Although we have little or no consciousness of the way in which we form our communication, our activity—the process of using language—is highly structured.
For example, if we take this sentence which you are now reading and reverse the order of the words, the results would be nonsense. Here it is in reverse order: “Nonsense be would results the, words the of order the reverse and reading now are you which sentence th
is take we if, example for.” Bandler and Grinder continue:
Our behavior … when communicating is rule-governed behavior. Even though we are not normally aware of the structure in the process of … communication, that structure, the structure of language, can be understood in regular patterns.2
There is no such thing as unstructured communication. Some of the rules that foster clear communication have been transmitted fairly effectively in our society while other important structures of communication, like reflective listening skills, are rarely transmitted. As a result, when we learn these new skills, they seem strange and artificial at first. But they are no more artificial than the rules of sentence structure, spelling, and so on.
Even when I adhere to the patterns of language and the structure of listening skills, I can infuse my individuality into a conversation by what I call style. Style expresses my unique self through nonverbal elements, special wordings, rate of speaking, and other factors that disclose the real me. Though I may choose to use the same skills someone else uses, that does not mean we will communicate alike. Our styles will be very different, so each of our ways of relating will be unique.
This kind of distinction can be found in many fields. When learning to play the banjo, certain fingerings are recommended. Individual banjo players using identical methods (fingerings, etc.) may sound very different from one another, even when playing the same song, because their styles are so dissimilar.
The third issue is that while some kinds of spontaneity are highly desirable, other kinds are very destructive. People need to examine their “natural” reactions and learn what effects they have. At the least, roadblocks—which tend to be used very spontaneously—drive wedges between people and tend, when used repeatedly, to diminish both parties. At the worst, they psychologically maim people for life.
When people use reflective skills often enough to become proficient at it, when they realize how much all interpersonal communication is governed by rules, and when they realize the destructiveness of spontaneous use of roadblocks, they are often willing to discipline themselves to engage in reflective listening when it is appropriate.
SIX PECULIARITIES
OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION
There are six problems of human communication that make reflective listening especially appropriate. Four of these problems are common to speakers, two to listeners. The first speaker problem is that words have different meanings for different people. The second problem is that people often “code” their messages so that their real meaning is masked. Third, people frequently “beat around the bush”—they talk about one thing when another agenda is far more important to them. Finally, many people have trouble getting in touch with and constructively handling their feelings. Listeners have their problems, too. They are easily distracted from the speaker’s message and they often hear through filters which distort much of what was actually said. Let’s take a closer look at each of these problems.
Words: Imprecise Vehicles
of Communication
Often the experiences we most want to express do not fit into words and sentences very well. We are not able to say precisely what we mean. As philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said: “The success of language in conveying information is highly overrated….”3 Danish scientist Piet Hein also commented on this difficulty: “Ideas go in and out of words as air goes in and out of a room with all windows and doors widely open.”4 And T. S. Eliot tells us in poetry:
Words strain,
Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,
Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place,
Will not stay still….5
Reflective listening enhances communication because it helps the listener verify his understanding of what the speaker said. At various points in the conversation, the reflective listener repeats in his own words his impression of what was said. If there is some misunderstanding, the speaker can correct it immediately.
Guesswork Is Involved
in Understanding the Meaning
of the Speaker’s “Code”
When the president wants to convey directions to the Seventh Fleet and does not want other countries to know about his plans, he sends a coded message that he hopes will be unintelligible to agents of other countries. In the course of normal conversation, we frequently do a similar thing. At times we are very ambivalent about our desire to express ourselves accurately. Part of us desperately wants to make ourselves known and part of us wants to stay in hiding. So we often find ourselves speaking obscurely about our thoughts and even less clearly about our feelings. Just as the military conceals its messages in code for national security purposes, so each of us sometimes chooses ways to code our messages for personal security purposes.
Often we code our messages without trying. We have been trained from early childhood to express ourselves indirectly on many topics and feelings.
All of us have spent a lifetime coding our own messages and decoding the messages of others. When my children were young, for example, they asked a lot of questions at bedtime. Usually, those questions really meant, “Please stay with me a little longer.” A husband brings his wife coffee in bed at the beginning of each day. She decodes the behavior and hears the message: “He loves me and wants to tell me daily in small ways.” A manager informs his subordinate that he showed the subordinate’s report to the president of the company. The subordinate decodes the messages and hears the meaning: “He is pleased with my ability.”
Unfortunately, the unscrambling of coded messages does not always proceed this smoothly. For one thing, we often forget to consider whether we need to decode the other person’s message.
A couple of years ago, I received a letter from friends who, unknown to me, were having serious marital problems. I thought it an interesting letter and showed it to a mutual friend. He said, “Their marriage is in trouble and they are sending this letter as a call for help.” I reread the heavily coded letter and discovered the hidden signs of distress and the plea for help. I made it a point to visit them soon after and discovered that our friend was right—their marraige was on the verge of breakup and they desperately wanted to talk with me.
One of the basic reasons for miscommunication is that decoding is always guesswork. We can hear another person’s words and we can observe his actions, but we can only infer what the words and actions mean.
The diagram in Figure 5.1 suggests that a person’s behaviors are easily observable—they are on the outside. A person’s thoughts, however, are not directly observable; our only clue to these are the person’s behaviors (words and actions). The emotions are pictured in the core of the individual’s being because they are often concealed very carefully. As with thoughts, our only clue to a person’s feelings comes to us indirectly through his behaviors.
p class="caption">Figure 5.1. One person can see or hear another person’s behaviors. The thoughts and/or feelings can only be guessed at.
When one person tries to say something to another, a very inexact process takes place. The way a statement is sent and received can be portrayed as in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2. The inexactness of the communication process.
HOW MEANT
HOW SENT
HOW RECEIVED
Speaker’ Thoughts and Feelings (Private, known only to himself.)
Speaker’s Actions and/or Words (These are often imprecise or veiled expressions of his thoughts and feelings or even attempts at concealment.)
Listener’s Interpretaion of the Meaning Behind the Speaker’s Acts and Words (Private, known only to the listeners.)
Let’s take a look at how these imprecise sending and receiving processes work in daily life. A sales manager spoke sternly to his subordinate: “You’ve got to start getting serious about your job. You’re just not on board like the rest of us!” As often happens, what was meant was not what was received. The coding (putting his feelings and/or thoughts into
words and/or actions) and the decoding process for that comment went as pictured in Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.3. Typical coding—decoding process.
HOW MEANT
HOW SENT
HOW RECEIVED
“You’re 20% below your sales quata.”
“You’ve got to start getting serious about your job. You’re just not on board like the rest of us.”
“He doesn’t think I’m right for this job.”
Our tendency to decode another’s message inaccurately leads to needless misunderstanding on both sides. Since the speaker’s thoughts and feelings are private and known only to him, the listener can only guess what they are. And since the listener’s interpretation of the speaker’s meaning is private and known only to the listener, neither may be aware that a misunderstanding exists.
Misunderstandings like this need not happen. In the above situation, the boss could have expressed himself more directly and accurately. We will work on that skill in the assertion section of this book. But the subordinate could have clarified the communication problem by using reflecting skills.
Sales manager: You’ve got to start getting serious about your job. You’re just not on board like the rest of us.
Salesman: It sounds as if you didn’t think I’m right for the job.
Sales manager: No, it’s not that. I think you are the right man, but as of this date you are 20 percent below your sales quota and I’m worried about that.
Salesman: Basically, you’ve been satisfied with my work except for my falling 20 percent below my sales quota. That upsets you.