Avoiding Chaotic Communication

One of the great obstacles to effective communication is when the parties involved play by different sets of rules. No more was this in evidence than the recent debate involving the executive and legislative branches over raising the national debt ceiling. One side only wanted to raise the debt ceiling if the increase was counterbalanced by cuts in the national deficit. The other side primarily wanted to raise the debt if ways to generate greater revenue were part of the solution. For much of the time, even though both sides shared the same goal, it did not detract from the debate's ugliness, nor did it reduce the length of time over which the verbal head-butting, jousting, posturing, and game-playing that occurred before agreement was reached.

From my perspective, the so-called different rules under which the opposing sides played was very simple: one side preferred reaching agreement through compromise while the other side did not. One side seemed more interested in reaching a consensus while the other seemed more interested in getting their way. Even though an agreement was eventually reached, the fact is it could have been reached much earlier than it was and in a way that was far less acrimonious. The bickering that took place for several months did no one any good, including those involved, our nation, the financial world or even the actual issue itself. One could even argue that the verbal hostility that did occur actually made things worse on a number of levels.

My objective is to not to comment on the merits of the issue and the points that were eventually agreed upon. Instead, it is my intent to use this matter to illustrate the importance of establishing and honoring rules of communication before actual discussions occur. What all of us observed were representatives of both sides bad mouthing each other to the media and at various public forums. This made their face-to-face encounters more difficult. Assuming both sides shared a desire to reach consensus, then the vital step of agreeing on how they were going to communicate with each other throughout their discussions should have been nailed down. Because it wasn't, the so-called communication process that followed was chaotic and hindered the overriding objective all sought to achieve.