Mr. Feeley is not alone. Many rulers are deceived by the myth of miracle rendezvous, believing that disagreements, large and small, will vanish through the magic of understanding.
Emphatically, I say, when there is disagreement, that’s not how things work in real life.
Whenever I am going to present at conferences, I remember this fact. The audience asks, “David, when there is an issue at work, my boss arranges a meeting so that everyone can understand each other better. But, at the end of the meeting, everything goes from bad to worse. What is the reason of this?
Why: In a real disagreement, listening and explaining are not enough to resolve the issue.
In a real conflict, you hold a meeting so that people can better understand each other; You either end up with something you don’t get or you make matters worse.
Usually you’re left with raising the issue.
Why does this happen?
When you listen and explain, it’s easier to fall into the Talking trap. In the process of understanding each other better, your meeting can serve as an arena for people to fight each other. The same was the case at the meeting held for the construction of the detention building. Mr. Feemley organized a meeting and offered people a place to fight. He fell into the speech trap. During a real conflict, getting people to understand each other better can lead to a vicious circle.
I want to emphasize one point: It is absolutely impossible for people to resolve a real conflict by better understanding each other – again, not possible.
Expectations from people, from language, from a real relationship. Far from dimensions. Because of the body concept.
Searching for your thoughts.
Trying to clarify before reaching this goal, what kind of problem are you facing in good standing.
How would you describe the issue?
Often, underlying a misunderstanding is a genuine disagreement, and misunderstanding hides the disagreement.
Therefore, it is unclear what the profession is. Neighborhood residents said, “We want you to listen and understand us.” Therefore, Mr. Feemley thought that was what he had to do.
He organized a meeting to listen to the residents of the neighborhood; so that the residents of the neighborhood would be happy that their words were heeded, and the confusion between the “detainees convicted of serious crimes” and the detainees would be resolved. He thought that listening and explaining would be enough to settle the matter. He was unaware that there was a real dispute in the neighborhood as to whether or not any criminals should be found.
Matters are like an iceberg: on the surface, poor communication appears; below the iceberg, outside our sight, real disagreement lurks.
So how do we distinguish between misunderstanding and genuine disagreement?
It’s a simple quiz. Ask yourself: If people understand each other better, will the issues go away?
In an other saying…
- If you had successfully expressed your own thought, would the other person change his mind?
- If you listened and understood the other person, would they be satisfied and stop opposing you?
- If the person in front of you explained his thinking to you in more detail, would you change your own thinking?
If your answer is yes to any of these questions, you are in for a huge misunderstanding and only getting each other a lot better can help.
If your answer is no, there is a real conflict. You too may fall into the same plight as Mr. Feemley. Or you may be dealing with a misunderstanding, but the key to resolving the issue lies in understanding that in a real conflict, better understanding between people will not resolve the issue. Listening and explaining could have cleared artificial misunderstanding; But the real disagreement did not go away – the dispute over whether the detention building should be built.
