Too often I observe and participate in conversations that needlessly take unproductive turns. Factors such as emotional activation, imprecise language, symbology and semantic riddles cloud and derail otherwise worthwhile attempts for people to find common ground and conduct themselves with care and kindness. Below is a little table to demonstrate the ways that people can be productive and unproductive in their dialogue.
Unproductive approaches are often taken when an adversarial and illogical mindset is used. ‘Unless he agrees with me, he’s not listening!’ ‘A good relationship includes this.’ ‘That perspective is unhealthy.’ ‘Our friends don’t do it like you’re suggesting.’ ‘I know you’re thinking x.’
A work in progress, I have stratified some categories under which communication issues arise, and further delineated among productive and unproductive utterances.
Representation of Parties – Refers to how it is unproductive to speak as anything except yourself and your own subjective experience. Too often people want to assume and intuit the thoughts and feelings of others, or point out why this issue is the same they are experiencing with their mother, but this is overreach and commandeers more authority and wisdom than one truly possesses. We can only know our own experience, and talking about it in any other way attempts to suggest our perspective is more than our own perspective, which is unproductive and likely to create conflict.
Quality of Statement – Refers to what is actually being said or the content. Per the table, much of this can be innocent imprecision in language, confusion among thoughts and feelings, or concepts relayed not fully formed. The content is better understood when it is clear whether it is intended to be conversational or a monologue that is informational. Neither is unproductive, but it is helpful to be clear what is for discussing and what is for hearing. It is unproductive to communicate with symbology, to combine topics or concepts, to pass off platitudes as valuable and relevant, or to be combative rather than conciliatory. Speaking in normative ways of how things ought to be is similarly unproductive, or expecting and demanding a certain response during the delivery of the message (‘you are showing no emotion’).
Delivery of Statement – What you say is sometimes eclipsed by how you say it. Nothing screamed at someone will be parsed productively for its content, so the method of delivery is another key factor in communication success. Emotional neutrality or an absence of contorting emotions such as anger are important, even if its the absence of sadness as this can also contort the outcome unproductively. Like any other form of communication, parties should relay messages aligned to topics. If someone says, ‘I don’t like when you interrupt me’, and the other responds with ‘Then maybe you should stop doing that to me’, they are conflating by combining two separate topics that need to be separately addressed. The contours of each topic are things like a specific issue to be raised (and resolved), and are addressed fully and completely before another topic is broached, and if unable, appropriately parked for future address. Critically, delivery should be done in a way that reflects the care and closeness of the relationship and the intended outcome. Threats and insults cannot accompany goals of understanding and conciliation, nor can aggressive and combative tactics. Using a kind tone, inclusive pace, loving language absent of accusations, and respectful timing will all support a productive outcome. Take turns talking and allow parties to speak and hear, and use echoing to demonstrate a shared understanding. Understand that disagreement is not conflict, it is an inevitable and wonderful facet to any dynamic that deserves honouring.
Authority of Statement – Refers to how parties attempt to build power and legitimacy in their arguments. Regardless whether you are a psychologist or trained scientist, in communications there is a level playing field. Nobody has the strength of a profession behind them. Nobody is allowed to label something as healthy or unhealthy, right or wrong, good or bad, by citing some authority. People can only speak about their opinion, their feelings, their beliefs, and not attempt to enlarge this as what a psychologist would say, or what is normative in the community. Facts are useful when uncontroversial. When they are controversial, they cannot be treated as facts. This means nobody can speak in a universal sense by declaring truths. Even if 6 people agree, if the other party doesn’t, and you attempt to invalidate their perspective by citing the 6 other people, your approach is unproductive.
The person you are dealing with is not someone to dominate with your opinion. Disagreements are not conflict and there is no winner. This means you should not try to convince someone of your point of view, rather you should simply share yours and allow them the free will to retain theirs or alter theirs as they deem worthy. There is no space for threats, aggressions, ambushes or explosions.
If you find you are not fully clear of your message, like whether it is a feeling or thought, have not strategized the optimal delivery method, or found the way to communicate to avoid unproductive approaches, take the time first to ‘discuss’ it with yourself. See it from both sides so you can understand that there are other perspectives. Strip out the emotions that distort the delivery and outcome, and omit references to authorities. A well contoured, well thought out communication that is free of unproductive approaches and content can result in dramatically better dialogue and in turn a closer and more intimate relationship.
