Some time ago I was reflecting on the idea of communication. Often, the communication dynamics are described in the reference texts or during the training courses referring to the metaphor of dance. We imagine the parties (the classic sender and receiver) engaged in dance steps which, if moved in unison, produce a good result, otherwise there is a risk of incurring some “stomp”. Indeed, this metaphor manages to convey the idea of synchronicity and compatibility of the messages that are communicated.
With these images in mind, I thought of another representation of the concept we are talking about: what if communication were a banquet, consumed in company (or at least, referring to communication with ourselves, alone)? In this case we could certainly refer to the concept of healthy or less useful “nourishment”: communicating in one way rather than another, can represent a healthy “food” contribution (for us and for others) or poison our spirit and our mind. Furthermore, when we eat a meal, we do it sitting at the table (most of the times): we can then set the table in an elegant, hasty, more or less functional way … it depends on how much attention we pay to the preparation of our communication., from which cutlery and tools we will put on the table. The initial conditions (which still require a conscious commitment) will allow us to enjoy every bite, rather than getting dirty and having a messy and unsatisfying meal.
These images came to my mind during a refresher course that I was giving to some middle school teachers; we were dealing with what, in many schools, is a rather thorny subject: interviews with parents. Teachers often find themselves (or at least definitely more times than they would like) to confront parents who are determined to assert their reasons or those of their children, apparently without showing the willingness to listen to the teachers’ reasons. Most of the time there is a “wall to wall” that damages all the parties involved: the teachers (tired from the interview and left alone in the educational commitment they have towards the children),
If the teachers (but the same goes for parents called to interview, of course) were able to effectively “prepare” their communication, the results would probably be very different.
How is it possible to prepare one’s communication well, especially in those situations at risk of “conflict”?
I believe that one of the most effective ways is summarized by the now well-known expression “tracing and guiding”: going towards the other person’s point of view (even if initially distant from one’s own), recognizing their motivations and respecting their value regardless of their value, it allows us to create an initial setting that is decidedly more favorable than the possibility of starting immediately to support one’s point of view. At this point a couple of quotes come to mind that summarize what has just been said:
“You get good results by always putting yourself in the other person’s shoes and thinking about what you would do if you were him” – AC Doyle
“When one wants to reproach with usefulness, and show the other that he is deceived, one must observe from which direction he considers the thing, because generally from that direction it is right, and recognize this truth to him, but reveal that other verse to him. whence it is false. And he is content with this, because he sees that he was not deceived and that his fault was only not to see all sides of the question “- Blaise Pascal
In fact, being able to gradually change the point of view of others is an essential prerogative for those who compare themselves, for work or in their personal life, with other people, with other points of view (and who does not?). Graduality lies precisely in accompanying our interlocutor from his own way of seeing and perceiving things to ours (when I talk about these topics, I always make the premise that the intention behind this process must obviously be “positive” and indeed, sometimes it is a duty to take this responsibility – think of the case of a teacher or a parent).
“If you want to persuade someone, do it through their own arguments” – Aristotle
In fact, in Aristotle’s words we can intuit the need to make the other person fully understand what we think is best for them: this is a very delicate step. There is a risk of being presumptuous in believing that you know what can be best for someone else; in situations in which an educational role takes place, as already mentioned, we have the duty to take a position and guide the choices of those who have recognized us the role of educator (parents, teachers, etc.).
“No one can understand something well and make it his own when he has learned it from another, compared to when he has learned it by himself” – Descartes
Alberto De Panfilis
SHARE THIS ARTICLE!
.