As my last blog entry for this topic, I want to add my final thought around compassionate communication. Ultimately, I think the key to truly compassionate communication is seeking to completely hear and understand someone before seeking to be understood ourselves. Once someone feels heard fully, they are much more likely to be in a place to help you be heard as well.
All of the work we are doing this year is about being able to be in such a place that we have space between our thoughts and our actions so we can be at choice around what we do and say. We can pause long enough to hear someone else. We can pause long enough to then choose words that won’t hurt the other individual.
Who do you need to hear today?
Monday, November 20, 2006
Friday, November 10, 2006
Communication: Responding to a Negative Message
How do you respond to a negative message from someone? Where do you go with your thoughts and words when someone labels you with a negative adjective (i.e., self-centered, pessimistic, irritating) disagrees with your opinion, or honks at you while you are driving your car.
In Dr. Rosenberg’s book, Nonviolent Communication, he discusses the four ways we can respond to a negative statement from another. We can blame ourselves (“Yes, you are probably right.” or “Oh my, what could I have done wrong!”). We can blame the other person. (“How dare you say that!”). We can sense our own needs and feelings (“I feel hurt when you say that to me.”). Or we can sense the other person’s needs and feelings. (“Wow, you sound irritated!”)
I brought this idea up on one of the teleclasses and asked everyone where they fell in the range of responses. All of us agreed that we were currently or had been in the past, in the first two choices, blaming ourselves or blaming the other person. A few participants also realized that they had shifted from there and we discussed how they did it.
One person told of how she had gained perspective in situations. She had risen in the building of consciousness through the work of this year and other awareness work she is doing so she is now able to understand situations from a higher level. She is now aware that both parties have responsibility and both parties have needs and feelings that are probably going unvoiced. She is rising above the details of the moment, the actual words, and getting to the foundation. Although she did admit she is still miles from being able to help the other person get the root of their feelings and is still working on getting through her own.
Another person commented that she was now beginning to understand that she has needs that she doesn’t express openly and that is her responsibility in any conversation if she wants those needs to be met. With that understanding came the realization that others have unspoken needs as well; needs that they are not voicing as well that are behind their words. That idea has allowed her to gain a higher perspective too.
Finally, one participant found that now that she is finally comfortable with taking responsibility for herself and her actions, she wants to give others space to do the same for themselves.
Where do you fall in the range of responses?
In Dr. Rosenberg’s book, Nonviolent Communication, he discusses the four ways we can respond to a negative statement from another. We can blame ourselves (“Yes, you are probably right.” or “Oh my, what could I have done wrong!”). We can blame the other person. (“How dare you say that!”). We can sense our own needs and feelings (“I feel hurt when you say that to me.”). Or we can sense the other person’s needs and feelings. (“Wow, you sound irritated!”)
I brought this idea up on one of the teleclasses and asked everyone where they fell in the range of responses. All of us agreed that we were currently or had been in the past, in the first two choices, blaming ourselves or blaming the other person. A few participants also realized that they had shifted from there and we discussed how they did it.
One person told of how she had gained perspective in situations. She had risen in the building of consciousness through the work of this year and other awareness work she is doing so she is now able to understand situations from a higher level. She is now aware that both parties have responsibility and both parties have needs and feelings that are probably going unvoiced. She is rising above the details of the moment, the actual words, and getting to the foundation. Although she did admit she is still miles from being able to help the other person get the root of their feelings and is still working on getting through her own.
Another person commented that she was now beginning to understand that she has needs that she doesn’t express openly and that is her responsibility in any conversation if she wants those needs to be met. With that understanding came the realization that others have unspoken needs as well; needs that they are not voicing as well that are behind their words. That idea has allowed her to gain a higher perspective too.
Finally, one participant found that now that she is finally comfortable with taking responsibility for herself and her actions, she wants to give others space to do the same for themselves.
Where do you fall in the range of responses?
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Communication: Separate vs. Connected
On our teleclass, I asked everyone if they recognized in the moment whether they were communicating with someone in a connected way vs. a separate way. In other words, when they are actually hearing the other person and know the other person is hearing them vs. not.
When I asked the question, there was an audible “oh yeah” from everyone. We all seemed to agree that telling the difference was incredibly obvious and easy. The connected conversation was calm, peaceful, and effortless. The separate conversation was frustrating and led us to become easily irritated.
I found it interesting that we all agreed that connected conversations were effortless. Then, why do we not have them all the time? It is so easy to say, “because the other person isn’t in a compassionate state” but recall the last two blog entries – it is only about us, not them. No, the effort involved in being compassionate is not in the conversation itself, it is in all the preparation we do to first find our compassion and then remain compassionate when we are in conversation. If our compassion elicits peace from the other person, all the more wonderful. At least our anger doesn’t begin the ripple effect of negativity.
All this preparation and initial effort is worthwhile when you think of the outcome – effortless communication with those we love. The effort it takes to handle the residual of a separate conversation is much more challenging.
When I asked the question, there was an audible “oh yeah” from everyone. We all seemed to agree that telling the difference was incredibly obvious and easy. The connected conversation was calm, peaceful, and effortless. The separate conversation was frustrating and led us to become easily irritated.
I found it interesting that we all agreed that connected conversations were effortless. Then, why do we not have them all the time? It is so easy to say, “because the other person isn’t in a compassionate state” but recall the last two blog entries – it is only about us, not them. No, the effort involved in being compassionate is not in the conversation itself, it is in all the preparation we do to first find our compassion and then remain compassionate when we are in conversation. If our compassion elicits peace from the other person, all the more wonderful. At least our anger doesn’t begin the ripple effect of negativity.
All this preparation and initial effort is worthwhile when you think of the outcome – effortless communication with those we love. The effort it takes to handle the residual of a separate conversation is much more challenging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
