Communication Bloopers __Part 1

How to listen to disagreements?

When someone says something that contradicts your point of view ; there are two roads you can tread on :

Road 1 : [/b]

[/b]

· You can quickly scan your mind for the tiniest bit of information , use your 3G enabled Smartphone to search the net , and come up with severe arguments to substantiate your claims and show the whole gathering that the person is as wrong as ‘wrong’ can be…..[/b]

[/b]

Road 2 :[/b]

[/b]

· You can sit down and talk it out with him/her patiently. Find out why he/she thinks the way they do. What is their Rationale behind it ?[/b]

[/b]

These two roads go in opposite direction. One will lead you to The Arctic where you can play Hide-and-seek with Polar bears , with nowhere to hide. [/b]

[/b]

The other road will take you to heights you would never have imagined in your wildest dreams. No , I am not talking about Mt. Everest ; leave that to Tensing and Norgay. I am talking about heights in reference to escalation both professionally and personally.[/b]

O, It is Excellent ;[/b]

To have a giant's strength ; but it is tyrannous[/b]

to use it like a Giant.....[/b]

#William Shakespeare

[/b]

Now moving on Let us say that you have sound reasoning and take Road 2 ; what if the person still is stuck on his/her point and refuses to budge ?[/b]

[/b]

Again there are two ways to deal with it…..

The I-am-the-Winner , You-are-the-Loser way :

You can say firmly, “I am right , you are wrong.” and proceed to show him a flow chart , with step-by-step analysis of his apparent stupidity in opposing your view. (my C++ teacher in school used to do this.)

The Let-us-agree-to-disagree Way :

You can keep the conversation going for a few minutes and then cut in , “ I can very well see where you are coming from , you have experience in this particular aspect , I too have been through rough patches from where I come and the arrows in my quiver are different from yours.” –after this state with personal goof-up examples to show why you are opposed to his view.

The first way will have the same effect as road 1. ( Say hello, to Mr. Polar Bear for me , tell Mrs. Polar her raw fish is the best I ever had)[/b]

[/b]

The second way will break down walls between superior and subordinates. It will make them relate to you as a human rather than as a symbol.[/b]

[/b]

Linking sentiments to arguments has worked for women for many millenniums hasn’t it (One drop of tear and the argument is won). [/b]

[/b]

Time for a quick tutorial on the same from your Girlfriend/Mother/Sister ? I bet you won’t regret it…….[/b]

[/b]

[/b]

Like it? If Yes , move on to :

[/b]

Part 2 :[/b]www.managementparadise.com/article.php

Part 3 :[/b]www.managementparadise.com/article.php

[/b]

[/b]

[/b]

[/b]

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

This article offers a compelling and passionate argument for empathetic and collaborative approaches to disagreement, contrasting them sharply with aggressive, ego-driven tactics. Through vivid metaphors and personal anecdotes, it advocates for understanding, respect, and the power of human connection in resolving differences.

The Divergent Paths of Disagreement​

The author immediately presents a clear dichotomy for responding to contradictory viewpoints:

• Road 1: Characterized by immediate defensiveness, a quick search for rebuttals, and an intent to publicly "show the whole gathering that the person is as wrong as ‘wrong’ can be." This path is metaphorically depicted as leading to "The Arctic where you can play Hide-and-seek with Polar bears, with nowhere to hide," powerfully conveying isolation and vulnerability.
• Road 2: Involves patience, genuine curiosity ("Find out why he/she thinks the way they do. What is their Rationale behind it?"). This road, in contrast, leads to "heights you would never have imagined in your wildest dreams," signifying professional and personal "escalation" through improved relationships and understanding.

This stark contrast effectively sets the stage for the article's core message: one path leads to destructive conflict, the other to constructive growth.

The Tyranny of the "Giant's Strength"​

The inclusion of the William Shakespeare quote, "O, It is Excellent; To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a Giant," serves as a profound ethical cornerstone for the argument. It cautions against the abuse of power or knowledge in a disagreement, subtly linking the "Road 1" approach to a tyrannical use of intellectual or positional strength, rather than a collaborative one.

Navigating Impasse: Two More Approaches​

The article then addresses the common challenge of a person remaining "stuck on his/her point" even after initial patient discussion, presenting two further ways to deal with this impasse:

• The I-am-the-Winner, You-are-the-Loser way: This is depicted as an aggressive, condescending approach, involving firm declarations of correctness and a "step-by-step analysis of his apparent stupidity." The author's personal anecdote about a C++ teacher effectively grounds this, making it relatable to anyone who has experienced such demeaning communication. This path is explicitly linked back to "Road 1," reinforcing its negative consequences.
• The Let-us-agree-to-disagree Way: This alternative champions empathy and shared humanity. It suggests acknowledging the other's perspective ("I can very well see where you are coming from, you have experience in this particular aspect"), sharing personal vulnerabilities ("I too have been through rough patches from where I come and the arrows in my quiver are different from yours"), and using "personal goof-up examples." This approach is lauded for its ability to "break down walls between superior and subordinates" and make others "relate to you as a human rather than as a symbol."

The Power of Sentiment and Human Connection​

The article makes a bold, albeit potentially stereotypical, claim that "Linking sentiments to arguments has worked for women for many millenniums hasn't it (One drop of tear and the argument is won)." While this specific framing might be debated, the underlying point is that human emotion and connection can be powerful tools in resolving disagreements, fostering empathy where pure logic might fail. The playful suggestion to learn from "your Girlfriend/Mother/Sister" lightens the tone while reinforcing the idea that these interpersonal skills are often inherent in different communication styles and can be learned for broader application.

In conclusion, this article serves as a powerful and highly persuasive call for a shift in how individuals approach disagreements. By vividly illustrating the detrimental effects of ego-driven confrontation and championing the transformative power of empathy, active listening, and a willingness to relate on a human level, it provides valuable insights for improving communication and fostering healthier relationships in both professional and personal spheres.