I have been conducting some field experimentation on the nuances of communication and the resulting contribution toward conflict management. I have an unwitting gadget oriented study participant.
Scenario I:
Casual conversation. Express a vague idea: “I’d like to plant a tree and some shrubs out front.”
Theoretical Outcome I:
Interchange of words. Exploration of the idea. Examples: “What sorts of shrubs/tree ” “I’d love a sweet gum and a burning bush or two, and a heavenly bamboo and perhaps a few other hardy, low-growing evergreens.” “Do you have a time frame in mind ” “It would be nice to do something in the next few weeks, before the weather changes dramatically.” “Is there a particular place you’d like to put the tree and shrubs ” “Why, yes, I have some ideas.” “Do you have an idea of how you’d like the front to look ” “Why yes, I could draw a picture so you could see what I have in mind.”
Actual Outcome I:
“We need some topsoil. You can’t just plant a tree in the ground.” “Why not ” “Do you want to go get the plants or not ” “Well, yes, but… (we don’t have a plan, and we haven’t done any prep work and surely there is some necessary groundwork),” unsaid and unheard. “Let’s go.” Followed by a nearly silent trip to the nursery, a selection of plants, a load of topsoil. “Where do you want the tree ” “I’d like to form a slight mound near the street lamp, and center it there. I’d like to form another mound near the driveway, …” Followed by topsoil shoveled in the general area of the street lamp. And so and and so forth, and so forth and so on, with the final result being a half-ass poorly planned execution of what could have been a decent piece of landscaping. Not to mention a disgruntled and unsatisfied party, frustrated that all parties weren’t interested in developing and executing a plan, and achieving a meeting of the minds and an accord of vision. Also, said party wondering how long to wait before insisting that the job be redone, this time according to plan and design, ignoring the pick your battles phrase that’s flashing relentlessly like a stock exchange ticker symbol across her mind.
Scenario II:
Casual conversation. Express a specific idea: “I’d like to make a concrete bench, and I have the instructions in a book, but I want to slightly modify the design.”
Theoretical Outcome II:
Follow the instructions in the book. Modify the design as specified. Build a bench.
Actual Outcome II:
Modify the design as desired. Follow the instructions in the book.
“Why do we have to do it this way What do they know ” “We do it this way because it’s what the instructions say. They know, because they’re the experts. That’s why they wrote the book.” And so on. Exhausting, but in the end, there is a bench, and the prize-winning remark, “That went well. We hardly argued, and you didn’t mutter anything about divorce.”
The key, therefore, is to have a concrete (ahem), detailed plan in place, prior to initiating a conversation or expressing an idea. There is much weight placed on the old addage, “Think before you speak.”
Scenario I (reprise):
Rather than insisting the job be redone, while heeding the pick your battles self-advice, gather the tools and start re-working the offending area. Alone.
Theoretical Outcome I (reprise):
Unencumbered experimentation to determine a satisfactory solution. Potential second party expression of interest and voluntary assistance.
Actual Outcome I (reprise):
Compromise and settle on a solution that, although not the original vision, is deemed acceptable.
