In numerous past entries I have alluded to how communication, if carried out effectively, can help persons or publics with different points of view achieve consensus. By utilizing communication strategies in which those from the opposing camps identify points on which they do agree and then systematically build on those commonalities to reach an overarching agreement, heated conflict can be reduced and, I believe in many cases, resolved. It is a matter of speaking and listening with respect and openness. Simple. Right? Unfortunately, it is not. "Playing nice" does not always guarantee success.
For instance, take two people of good faith and integrity who genuinely disagree on an issue. They practice good listening skills. They take steps to understand the others' perspective. They keep their disagreement from being personal. Still, they disagree. Each believes they are right and the other person is wrong. The not-so-uncommon reality is that no amount of effective communicating will change or alter what each feels is the truth of their perspective. This is tough because even though the arguing parties may be applauded for communicating with each other in an effective and respect manner, the bottom line is they still have not reached a consensus and may be unwilling to do so.
The punch line here is that effective communication does not guarantee success - however that might be defined - any more than it does guarantee the reaching of a consensus. Sometimes people as well as publics might have to agree to disagree. But what effective communication can do is establish an environment by which parties can connect and disagree in a framework of respect and even harmony. Further, it can help the opposing parties remain in a state of constant state of dialog, which is better than either not talking or one side initiating steps to force their will on the other.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment