Deaf & dumb communication

Nawal has chosen to tell the story about her conversation with John. They have known each other since childhood. They enjoy having strong debate. They know which subjects are the best to start a conflicted situation and where is the point of no return. 

Obviously she cares a lot about their relationship. She confesses easily he is an intelligent and interesting person to talk to. Nevertheless she is aware of such type of conversation is not healthy at all. They know they will irritate each other quickly and the conversation will end suddenly. The worst thing maybe their deep point of view is almost similar. The point is they don’t listen to each other. Even if she knows him really well, she still has strong prejudice about him. She interprets his arguments by basing her judgment on the wrong image she has about him. Both are hiding they true personality. Both are not ready to listen to the other.

During the call, i continued the use the five keys (Listening, Mirroring, Summarizing, Questioning and Catalyzing). Because i had an external point of view, it was easy to show her the situation under another angle and to ask relevant questions. What i like with Nawal is, even if i ask her questions which could be annoying (the one you don't want to answer because you know it touch the right point), she always answers. She has the will to follow the coaching, and she seems honest in her answers. 

After applying the suspending judgment method, Nawal was amazed that “magic” could really work. I was right about one point: She decided to keep the secret goal of her interview for a while, to savor her victory of the debate. 

The most important for Nawal was to realize she could lead to a better debate if she would simply accept that a person could have a different vision than her. Accept yes, be naively influenced no.

The Magic Question

Communication can lead to debate. It leads us to face the situation in two different ways.  “First we can try to get the other person to understand and accept the “right” way to see things (ours). […] Or we can learn to suspend our opinion and the certainty that lies behind it. […] We acknowledge and observe our thoughts and feelings as they arise without being compelled to act on them.” ^*

This assignment was the hardest for me. It was not easy to find the right person. The one with who I usually have strong debate. I’ve finally found a friend, let’s call him Jerry. Jerry is one of my best friends. The point is he’s too negative. His vision of life, work, and world is negative. He is happy but disillusioned. Strongly disillusioned. Once, I was having strong doubt about my professional path. I called him to have his opinion. I wanted him to reassure me, tell me I was following the right path. Instead of, I just got more lost than ever and angry about him. 

Today, I called him to get some news and to speak about the event. When I explained him my feelings about that conversation, we both started to speak louder, faster, cutting each other words. None of us was listening to the other’s word. I was going upset again when I totally change my strategy. I asked him a simple question: Why. Why are you so negative? Why do you always see things in black? Why, why, why.

Why, is magic. The simple word can open huge door. He explained me the reasons why he was thinking this way. I try to not stop him. I was only listening. I tried to no apply my belief, my judgment on his arguments, but see them with clean eyes.  Maybe I understood another side of him. Then I felt the need to explain him what were my feelings when I called him the first time. I think he understand me a little bit more now. He accepted I needed him to reassure me at that time. And I accepted his vision of the world might be different from mine, different from my perception of what is negative and what is positive. 

I think you can use the suspending judgment method in the everyday life. It does require more willing than concentration. Indeed, when someone is upsetting you, the first reaction is to riposte. It is not in human nature to calm down, to listen to your “enemy” and to accept his point of you. Suspending your judgment help you to stay calm, analyze your opponent’s argument and adapt a better strategy. I’m pretty sure it is use in diplomacy!

*Bill Isaacs "Dialogue & the Art of Thinking Together", 1999, p136

Too many filters create too many problems

I just finished my call with my coach. I have to recognize that I’m pretty happy about the interview. 

My coach understood really well the situation and my feelings. Obviously, I did not overreact. 

She said that I was more into the second field of conversation: the debate. I wanted to argue my position. I’m now curious to learn more about it in the next classroom. She said I might have a stronger behavior than other people. She means I do not stop under social pressure. I prefer say things. If things are clear, the communication is better quality.

Usually, people have a wrong interpretation of communication because of their own filters. By explaining to people what I feel, or why I am acting this way, the communication is not distorted. She explains me an exercise she did at her home school. Questions were asked to people. The goal was to figure out if the person was more creative, classical ect... Each profile has a specific way to feel situation or to act. It was then easier for the other team member to understand why that person was acting that way. This exercise contributed to erase filters which leaded to wrong interpretation. 

She also asked me what I could have done to fix the situation. Actually, I was thinking about explain to that person how what he said make me feel. How it is interpreted in my culture. But I did not do it. I wasn’t sure about his reaction. He might be part of people who become suddenly deaf and stubborn when they are in a situation of conflict. Again another filter’s problem.

A good communication could have solved the situation

Here is my story about one experience where communication has been distorted by filters. 

The situation happened at school during a team work, which I will consider as a professional environment. Because of the field of study, I had to speak English with the other team members, even if some of them were natives’ French speakers. I consider my English speaking not too bad. At least, I’m able to follow a conversation, professional or not, and despite several mistakes, I speak fluent English. 

This day, I was a little bit confused. I wanted to express my point of view about one specific topic, and because the other team members didn’t get what I really mean, I had to find another way to explain it. It’s usually harder when you want to express a specific idea, even when using your mother tongue. So in English, I was harder for me. But I did success with the other team member, except one. We had two opposite vision of the answer. That’s probably the reason why it was hard to understand the other person. 

The event happened after. I was supposed to write ours answers on a paper sheet, in order to tape it later on a word spreadsheet. But because I had some difficulties to express my idea earlier, a boy concluded I wasn’t good enough to do it. I really felt he assumed I was stupid. I didn’t appreciate the ton he used to say that. He was kind of rude. Moreover, he was the one with who I didn’t agree with about one answer of the question. I felt kind of tension between us. 

I can analyze the conversation with the following statements:

1) Observable data: He said, because I’m not that comfortable with English, I might not write the paper. He could do it.

2) Selected data: I’m not that comfortable with English

3) Added meanings: He has something personal against me

4) Assumptions made on the added meanings: He thinks my English sucks. I’m too stupid to do it.

5) Conclusions: That boy doesn’t like me, that’s why he was kind of rude when he assumed my English wasn’t good enough.

6) Beliefs: I didn’t agree with him earlier about the answer for the team work. Plus he took an example in sport. I’m not at all a sporty fancy person, and he felt it.

7) Actions based on these beliefs: I don’t fell hurt but my self-esteem do. I will be careful next time I’ll be working with him.

I saw this boy only once since that event. But this awkward is feeling still on. The best solution would be to talk to him at that moment. He was probably not assuming such opinion about me. I should explain him that in my culture, when you speak with people this way, it is interpreted as be really rude.

The one who didn’t want to communicate

Nawal has chosen a situation where the communication is key issue for the conclusion of the event. 

It was a really hard topic in the sense of it affected her directly. It is not easy to speak objectively about such kind of situation. But she did well. She explained only facts, without using any personal opinion. So, facts were even stronger. 

The situation took place during her internship. She had to deal with a really rude, impolite and unfair person. She wasn’t excepting a situation like this. She did not find a way to talk to that person in order to solve the problem. She was frustrated of that non healthy communication.

Actually, it was hard for me to stay objective. I have met the same kind of work environment, and I know how hard I can be to face it. I really think that sometimes communication is useless with that kind of people. Obviously they are not ready to listen, and communication starts by listening. It’s seems to be an endless conflict. 

To conclude the interview, I asked her two questions which gave me an overview about her way to deal with problems. It also gave her, for the first time, the opportunity to analyze the situation from outside. The questions were:

• What would you have done to solve the problem if you had the opportunity to defense yourself?

• What would you have done if you were in a higher hierarchical level than that person?

Be the coachee, first day

Today was my turn to be coach by another student, Astrid. 

I started to explain her what was  coaching for me.I  emphasis on the points which were the most important for me: The coach never gives the answer but shows the tools to find the right answer. The coach must not be from your friend of professional background, otherwise a judgment still exist. A relationship based on confidence is required. Coach is listening as well the body language, which sometimes express the contrary of the voice. 

After, Astrid asked me two interesting questions to learn more about my point of view: What difference do I make between psychology, psychoanalysis and coaching? How are we going to continue the coaching together if having a coach from my friend or my professional background is not appropriate? 

Actually I’m waiting for the next step of this course. I can’t really see how you can coach someone by using that subject. Shall we choose our subject? In that case, are we ready to open ourselves to a stranger?   If the coachee doesn’t feel the need to be coach on a specific subject, how could it work? 

For our first interview we did not speak about our personal life, because we already knew each other. But maybe working on more personal subject would lead to others questions and give us the opportunity to get to know more.

Be a coach, first day.

Today I’ve experienced to be a coach. I was coaching another student, Nawal. We talk about what is a good coach from her point of view. We first planed a meeting on Skype. Actually, use

Skype on a professional way is kind of weird. I usually use it to call my family in France. Because I may have to use it for a professional interview in the future, it was a good exercise. 

Nawal started by explaining me what is coaching, what are the coach’s tasks, what type of relationship is necessary to make it work. She focused on the importance of listening and observing the coachee, and give useful feedback. Also, she emphasis on the fact that a coach gives you/show you your own skills to meet your goal.  

I have tried to use the five key processes (Listening, Mirroring, Summarizing, Questioning, Catalyzing). Listening was ok. It wasn’t that hard. I just needed to keep focus on what Nawal was talking about. Mirroring was a little bit more delicate. She doesn’t come for a real need of coaching. That’s why I couldn’t really help her to understand a situation which didn’t need huge explanations. Summarizing her thought was easy, also because I had myself study the same subject. Then, I have chosen to ask her if she had already tried to follow a coaching, and for which reason she might follow one. This was the most interesting part of the interview. By asking such kind of questions you can guess if the person is ready or not for a coaching, if she feels that need. 

I would have done that coaching about another subject. Something more linked to personal or professional life. So I would be more able to give an external point of view about the situation.