Recently, I found myself in a situation where I become the
unwitting focus of a poison email copied to eight other people. I was stunned. My immediate reaction was a knee-jerk response,
wanting to send a smarting reply that would put him down, and show how I was
the unwitting victim of his surprise attack. Instead, I chose a different
route, and decided to slow down.
My Radical Collaboration training has taught me that taking
a breath and stepping back from something when I notice a physical or emotional
reaction, gives me the ability to try to understand my own “need” behind my
reaction. In this situation, my need was
to be seen as competent and in control by others. As a result, I had to own that it was MY
interpretation of his email which fed MY own feelings of incompetence, and I
had to manage that, not him. He did not
intend my reaction. By understanding that about myself, it allowed me to
divorce my reality from an attempt to interpret his intention. But it was also clear if the situation was to
be resolved peaceably, that he had an emotion of his own that he needed to take
responsibility for.
I also decided to do something else before I responded. I
called a friend to seek her insight, and used her as a sounding board for
working through the issues he had raised to see what it was that may have
triggered his emotional email. My
question was “what was I missing or did not know that may have been going on
for this person?”
As a coach and mediator, this simple question is a crucial
element in conflict resolution. It is
about holding open a space to consider the mental (or logical) and emotional
considerations of the other party. To be truly curious about their experience
and priorities, not judgmental. To hold
the potential for empathy and compassion.
To do this well however, takes training.
It means quietening your own inner voice to truly listen and be open to
another’s experience. Contrary to what you may think, this does not mean giving
up on your values or needs, but instead, in the spirit of true curiosity, to be
open to new discoveries, new vantage points from which different choices and
solutions can arise, and which can still include your needs. In my experience,
this listening often redefines the problem, giving greater clarity, and this
shift in perspective provides simpler solutions.
The ‘rub’, however, is that in a heated moment, without
giving space to a response, and approaching with curiosity, the voice of pride,
the egotistical perception of the need for retaliation, or the survivalist
instinct to protect a political fiefdom, can get in the way of solving a
problem. The lure of the amygdala’s fight or flight response, is hard to
control.
In this instance, as before, being curious gave me new
information. It provided me with an
understanding of the place from which this person was coming from, the stress
he was under, and the clear need he was expressing (albeit in an unproductive
way) to remain significant. My understanding did not make his action right, but
it did help me to write a more compassionate response in which I was able to
recognize his needs, yet also state my own, and to provide him the opportunity
to recognize the impact of his behaviors on me.
Since I had no contact information for this individual, other than his
email, I also encouraged him to call me so that we could speak to resolve any
issues, and not involve others in our communication.
This is something I insist on with my clients. Email is not the medium to hold debates,
problem solve, question each other’s priorities, or even in some instances to
provide feedback. It lacks the
expression, subtleties and nuances of voice to voice, and (my favorite) face to
face communication. People are more
likely to respond and treat each other in a civil and conciliatory manner if
they are immediately responsible for the intended and unintended impact of
their communication. Tone, facial and
body movements are a dead give-away. So
my response was not an attempt to attack or reject, but rather an invitation to
resolve and encourage positive interaction.
Within an hour, I received a heartfelt written apology and a
call. The result was an immediate sense
of relief and appreciation on my behalf for this individual. I felt like a balloon that had been pierced,
and all the hot air and emotion I felt, dispersed. What made his apology effective, was that it
showed true self-reflection, awareness and responsibility for the intended and
unforeseen impact of his email. It in no
way attempted to justify his actions.
This point about justification is very important. If he had attempted to justify his thinking,
I would have perceived it as a defense of his behavior. A contradiction of his
apology, and it would not have moved me.
What I realized was that he had done what I had done, he had been
curious, and had taken the time to examine and take responsibility for his own
motivation, and the space to wonder at mine.
Comments
Post a Comment