"Most of the time we don't communicate, we just take turns talking."

– Robert Anthony

I like this quote because it speaks so clearly to how we often find ourselves interacting with others, especially in conflict, or when there is a disagreement. Another way of looking at this is to notice the difference between "communicating" and "informing." For most of us, when interacting with others who may hold opinions that are different from ours, we seem to be much more invested in informing than communicating. In other words, what we are really doing is just "taking turns talking." Communication, on the other hand, is different from mere informing in that it implies an attempt to truly understand what is being said, as well as, an attempt to then speak in a way that the other person understands, as well. In such an interaction, the highest purpose is "understanding" versus informing, or "winning the debate."

In my seminars, I speak of this as the difference between being "active" or "receptive." Peter Senge (in his book, "The Fifth Discipline") speaks of this as the difference between advocacy and inquiry. Whatever we call it, what's important is to recognize the impact or effect this tendency to talk, inform, and/or advocate is creating in our interactions, and decide whether this impact is congruent with our highest purpose.

This, of course, is a different question than is it good, bad, right, wrong, should we, shouldn't we, etc. For example, if we determine that our highest purpose in any interaction is to first establish an accurate understanding of each other's position, we can then more effectively move to what (if anything) is to be done.

In my personal experience, as well as, my observations as a psychologist and organizational consultant, I have found that up to 90% of all problems between people are the result of misunderstandings. This is "understandable" given our tendency to see conflict as a debate. We each seem to not only hold opposing opinions, but somehow we believe that our purpose is to either defend ourselves, or convince the other of the "righteousness" of our position. Sound familiar? How's this working for you? If it isn't, I would encourage you to consider changing your purpose from "defense/offense" to "understanding."

Steven Covey says it nicely in his often-quoted suggestion, "Seek first to understand . . . then be understood." Of course, in being willing to take this "road less traveled," we must recognize that there is a difference between understanding and agreement. Understanding is just the ability to see how another might believe what they believe. It doesn't necessarily mean that we agree with this position, or that these must become our beliefs as well. In fact, I have found that our ability to truly understand another's perspective actually allows us to communicate more effectively with them, because once we really understand their position, we then know what is important to them. This can then become very valuable information in our attempt to form a solution that reflects some of their priorities, as well as, our own.

In other words, if we are willing to move from just "taking turns talking" and make "understanding" our highest purpose, practice true communication versus mere informing, valuing the receptive position, as well as, the active, balancing inquiry and advocacy, we raise the potential that our perspective will be heard and understood as well. Rather than making us more vulnerable, our willingness to "seek first to understand" actually makes us more powerful. Our challenge is to use that power in a way we would teach to our children, and in the service of our highest purpose. If this were your criteria, what would you choose?

Take care and God bless, Dr. Bill