The Peacemaker (detail), Ernest L. Blumenschein,
1913, courtesy of the Anschutz Collection.
“A contract isn’t
about saying what you meant. It is meaning what you say” - Oliver Wendell
Holmes, 19th century physician and poet
“Change is a door that can only be
opened from the inside” - French proverb
Threatened Relationships
The hectic, strident and demanding
world that we live in, accompanied by inadequate and often indirect communication
(fake news, rushed meetings, cryptic social media exchanges …) can challenge
our communication and relating efforts in society, at home and at work.
Aggressive,
verbally-violent talk also seems to be becoming more acceptable in some
cultures (Not only directly but also in email exchanges, on social media …).
Australian cricketers are known for their practice of aggressively “sledging”
(badgering, chirping, insulting) opponents as an act of ‘gamesmanship’ to gain
an advantage. English parliamentarians are usually less brash, and adopt (less
subtle?) sarcasm, belittling, and innuendo to put down their debate opponents.
American and South African politicians set an example of downright rude,
divisive, hate-filled speech. The list goes on. What is happening to civility?
Does one merely keep quiet? What are the consequences of speaking out against
such disgusting behaviour?
In workplaces this
communication challenge can be exacerbated when people don’t feel
psychologically safe enough to speak out on certain issues or within certain
relationships, and when necessary and well-intended organisational rules,
formal agreements, roles, responsibilities and processes further impede
natural, transparent communication.
This week, in
conversation with a South African university department head who is involved
with a student exchange programme with an Oslo university, reported Black
students complaining bitterly that their Norwegian hosts didn’t understand
them, didn’t make enough effort to help them fit in. The Norwegians on their
side were also struggling to understand the discontent from people receiving
free hospitality, accommodation, board and lodging and education. Clearly
expectations, communication of needs and requests from both sides are simply
not happening.
Clearly similar
situations in the workplace can impact performance and productivity, even
result in conflict, and this creates a need for us to find a way that is above
and beyond.
An Informal, Collaborative Engagement
Here
is a simple workplace mechanism that I designed many years ago and which works
so well that I advocate its use whenever feasible and desirable.
Two
work members who interact fairly often, or only occasionally but on matters of
importance, who may be from different units or departments, and may be at
different levels in the organisation, get together to improve their working
relationship. Prior to meeting for their conversation they each fill in the
document below, and the objective of the conversation (or conversations, if
necessary) is to arrive at a jointly agreed document.
So I Graham, may convey to Eva these requests:
TASK EXAMPLE: “When we do stocktaking, I need
you to arrive at the appointed time and not try to rush through the
exercise”.
RELATIONSHIP
EXAMPLE:
“(I sometimes struggle with looking up
product codes), and need you to be
understanding
and patient”.
Each item (task and relationship) that is
raised, is discussed, altered if agreed, or excluded/ postponed because it is “not
yet agreed”.
The
conversation:
·
may
be instigated by either party.
·
is
voluntary. A free choice.
·
Is direct,
face to face
·
is
more about hearts than minds
·
is
held between equals, irrespective of any formal difference in level or position
in the organisation
·
occurs
as a nonviolent communication, where the parties are respectful, mindful and
tuned in to the other
·
is
confidential unless both parties agree to it being shared with anyone else
·
takes
place in a psychologically safe space
·
often
reveals to the parties that which they previously did not know about the other,
and themselves – and is a growth opportunity
It
usually works best when the participants contain their needs and requests to
what really matters. Longer lists don’t result in better outcomes.
Progress
against the collaboration as captured in the jointly agreed document is
followed up at a time scheduled by the parties involved. They may also agree to
instigate further impromptu communication should the need arise.
Background Explanation/ The Logic Behind the
Informal, Collaborative Engagement Mechanism
A psychologically safe space experienced in those workplaces that
employees feel are caring, fair and reliable; where they know that they are
appreciated, belong and are free to fully express themselves, to safely engage
and contribute their views and concerns without any fear of adverse
consequences or of being ignored. A fuller coverage of this topic will appear
in the September 2019 issue of Human
Capital Review. (Williams, G & Kennedy, J. 2019)
Nonviolent conversation is characterised by a
focus NOT on issues or problems, but on the joint consideration of needs and
requests. It requires patient listening, and empathic understanding.
“Habits of thinking and speaking leading to the
use of violence (social, psychological and physical) are learned through
culture. NVC (Nonviolent Communication) theory supposes all human behavior
stems from attempts to meet universal human needs. The needs are never in conflict. Rather, conflict arises when
strategies for meeting needs clash. NVC proposes people identify shared needs,
revealed by the thoughts and feelings surrounding these needs, and collaborate
to develop strategies and make requests of each other to meet each other's
needs”.
Rosenberg invites NVC practitioners to focus
attention on these components:
·
what we are actually
seeing, hearing, or touching – not interpreted, filtered, evaluated
·
hearing and sharing feelings that reflect vulnerabilities
and needs
·
clear, simple requests for a specific positive
action, free of demand and accepting of a ‘no’ that then gives rise to further,
later conversation.
(Rosenberg, M.B. 2003)
Terry Real’s Relationship Grid for couples has application in all one
on one relationships. It resonates with a number of other assertive relating
and communicating behaviour models. In the diagram below a healthy balance
is at the centre, and the extremes are at the ends of the self-esteem and
boundaries axes. The self-esteem axis runs from inferior to superior, and
psychological boundaries run from thin-skinned/ over-sensitive/ connected but
not protected, to thick-skinned/ protected not connected. The four quadrants for
both participants to stay out of, are:
Superior/ No Boundaries. Bossy,
abusive, entitled
Inferior. No Boundaries. Play the victim, “Please love me”
Superior/ Thick-skinned. “You’re
not up to my standard and I feel contempt for you”.
Inferior/ Thick – skinned. Disengaged.
Given up.
(Real, T. 2015)
Daniel
Siegel’s “research work has demonstrated that mindful practices have
significant positive effects on our interpersonal relationships … The
pre-frontal cortex is where neurons are activated and when our secure love
grows, the prefrontal fibres in our brains extend to other parts of the brain.
This process is called pre-frontal integration and has been proved
scientifically to be the foundation of well-being and happiness in people.
Hence
we know that strong relationships, filled with empathy, resilience and
attunement are effectively grown from the pre-frontal cortex of the brain.
Interestingly, it is also this part of the brain that is activated through
mindfulness …. when we learn to be in attuned adult relationships, we
physically start to rewire our brains to create more joy in our lives”.
(Odyssey Magazine, 2013)
“Several studies demonstrate that
emotional disclosure can produce significantly enhanced health functioning”.
(Tugade, M et al. 2004) The Johari (Joe Luft and Harry Ingham) Window is a
model of giving and receiving feedback and disclosure in order to open the
window to our understanding of self and others. Asking and telling. Sharing
stories. Learning about how others see us. (Luft, J. 1984)
Richard Rohr is
always spot on: “Nonviolence training has
understandably emphasized largely external methods or ways of acting and
resisting. These are important and necessary, but we must go even deeper.
Unless those methods finally reflect inner attitudes, they will not make a
lasting difference. We all have to admit that our secret thoughts are often
cruel, attacking, judgmental, and harsh. The ego seems to find its energy precisely
by having something to oppose, fix, or change. When the mind can judge
something to be inferior, we feel superior. We must recognize our constant
tendency toward negating reality, resisting it, opposing it, and attacking it
in our minds. This is the universal addiction” (Rohr, R. 2019).
So the simple
informal, collaborative engagement mechanism that I advocate is rich in
opportunity for relationship repair and improvement, personal growth, building
of trust, bonding … and this is reinforced as task performance and
relationships reach new heights, and as has been often reported, leads to
greater productivity and quality outputs.
An African greeting, sawubona
means “I see you”, and an African response sikhona means “we are
here”. This encapsulates Martin Buber’s
I-Thou oneness. Is a social contract every time two people meet.
“Towards you I
Moved out of myself
Out of my way
To stretch myself
To reach out to
you”. (Mphutlane
Wa Bofelo)
It is like
taking an empathy walk in the office or factory!
©Graham Williams 2019
References
Luft, Joseph Group Processes: an introduction to group dynamics (3rd
edition) Mayfield Publishing Company 1984
Odyssey
Magazine Mindfulness in Relationship http://www.odysseymagazine.co.za/
index.php/articles/34-general/654-mindfulness-in-relationship.html
September 2013 citing Dan Siegel
Real, Terry
(2015) The Relationship Grid: 4 quadrants for creating healthy relationships New
Rules for Couples
Rohr, Richard
(2019) Love Is Our Nature Center for Action and Contemplation 15th
September, 2019
Rosenberg,
Marshall B. (2003) Nonviolent
Communication: A Language of Life PuddleDancer Press
Tugade, Michele M; Fredrickson, Barbara L and Barrett, Lisa Feldman (2004) Psychological Resilience and Positive
Emotional Granularity: Examining the Benefits of Positive Emotions on Coping
and Health PMC US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of
Health. December, 2004
Williams, Graham & Kennedy, Justin (2019) The Psychologically Safe Imperative: applaud employees for speaking
out
To
be published September, 2019 in http://www.kr.co.za/human-capital-review
No comments:
Post a Comment