A Student Designed Independent Study
By Paul J. Jacobs
Contents
Abstract and Dedication 2
Definitions 4
Community Building 7
Communication 15
Community and Communication 19
Listening 25
Principles 34
Works Cited 43
Community
A Student Designed Independent Study
By Paul J. Jacobs
Abstract:
This
study brings together the references to communication in works about community
building and references to community in works on communication. The principles
of community building communication derived from this work are compared to
experience in a Community Building Gathering. These principles are also
compared to the process of consensus building in a congregation during a
building program.
Seven principles of community building communication: 1) Speak from the heart, honestly. 2) Listen from the heart, empathetically. 3) Give and encourage feedback. 4) Maintain an open mind. 5) Listen to understand. 6) Stay focused on relevant issues. 7) Be consistent.
Dedication:
“The democratic approach is a brave new experiment. It says “let all voices be heard.” It welcomes diversity and has faith in the essential worth of individual human beings. It asks you to love, respect, and learn from your opponents. It assumes that the human heart and mind is deep and wide enough to contain all these perspectives. It trusts in your open-mindedness. Indeed, it entrusts its entire success on your ability to consider different points of view and, when appropriate, change your mind.” (Ferrini 112)
“Out of diversity of perspectives comes the one perspective that honors everyone. Yet this perspective will not be available until everyone has been heard. Your job, my friends, is to give every person a fair hearing. This is the essence of democracy, which is not only a spiritual ideal, but a living, moving, breathing process. When the process breaks down, the ideal is corrupted. But when the process remains strong – as awkward and ungainly as it often seems – the ideal cannot fail to manifest.” (Ferrini 111)
(Ideal change) begins when one can find a leader
with the courage to define self, who is as invested in the welfare of the
family (or organization) (or community)
as in self, who is neither angry nor dogmatic, whose energy goes to changing
self rather than telling others what they should do, who can know and respect
the multiple opinions of others, who can modify self in response to the
strengths of the group and who is not influenced by the irresponsible opinions
of others.” Murray Bowen (Augsburger) (italics
mine)
Preface: A note on my process.
This
process began some four years ago when I read M. Scott Peck’s book The
Different Drum for the second time and saw the dynamics he described in my
congregation (I’m a Unity Minister). In 2001 I participated in a year long
study of congregations as Family Emotional Systems (Murray Bowen) facilitated
by the
This study is an attempt to distill the principles of communication that most effectively build authentic community from academic and popular sources on the subject. It asks the question: What are the principles of communication that most effectively build authentic community?
Definitions:
Community: “ Community arises from the same Latin root of munia, (as communication) where the reciprocal giving and mutual service that takes place in communication works to make a common people, or communis, a community, which is bound together through gifts of service.” (Shepherd 30)
For
the purposes of the book, Community Building: What Makes it Work the
Scott
Peck takes the meaning of community to another level in The Different Drum
by defining it as: “… a group of individuals who have learned how to communicate
honestly with each other, whose relationships go deeper than their masks of
composure, and who have developed some significant commitment to ‘rejoice
together, mourn together,’ and to ‘delight in each other, make others
conditions our own.’”(Peck 59) We communicate nonviolently when we share our
perception (observation), our feelings, our needs, then request a response, and
to complete the cycle express our appreciation. (
Authentic: “Conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, or belief.” (Softkey) Scott Peck uses “authentic” to distinguish community that is life enhancing.
Communication: “The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior.” (Softkey) “According to the Oxford English Dictionary (1971, p. 700), the word communication first appears in 1382, and is used to reference the imparting of material things – vehicles of information, such as letters. And the term held this sense until Locke’s use of it in 1690 to refer to the exchange of ideas.” (Shepherd 30) “The transmission of information.” (From The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy in Religion & Philosophy) “The process of establishing meaning.” (From A Dictionary of Sociology in Politics & Social Sciences)
Bringing these definitions together we can identify Community Building Communication as: Exchanging information about relevant issues in a way that increases our capacity to work together to set goals, solve problems and “get work done”.
Context:
The term “community building” apparently has been used in a variety of ways over time. In the realm of social services it has referred to the process of providing a suitable environment for disabled or otherwise challenged individuals. In this work it will refer to both the process of building “social capacity” and the process of building life enhancing relationships, community. Many people in both affluent and poor neighborhoods experience alienation and isolation rather than community. Community building is needed in both inner city neighborhoods and the suburbs. Only community can alleviate powerlessness in either situation.
Throughout our history we have circled around a fire to share our fears, aspirations and dreams. In this age (and all ages) of war, rumors of war, terrorism, injustice, poverty, starvation, disease, crime, drugs and divorce our need for effective communication is greater than ever. As individualistic Americans we have believed we could pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. This approach to life leaves us alienated and isolated. Like it or not we are becoming one world. Of all our planetary challenges, the global environmental situation most clearly demands that we learn to work together as a world community. We begin in our neighborhood. We begin by communicating.
In
the book
This study draws a distinction between leaders and organizers. “The leaders of a community building initiative are those people who assume roles managing or directing an entire initiative, components of an initiative, specific tasks, or specific functions. Leaders, in our definition, always live within the community. Organizers: The people who design, implement, and manage the community building process. They may be people from inside, or come from outside, the community.” (Mattessich 11) The outside organizer appears to train the leader to attend to communication between groups and with the surrounding environment.
“In addition to tangible project goals and citizen learning experiences, general project goals should include attention to building a sense of community, opening up local participation, and encouraging a realistically optimistic view of the community’s future among a broad range of citizens.” (Kincaid 4)
The Wilder study demonstrates the importance of communication in community building. In the section on “Good System of Communication” they note:
Successful efforts tend to have well-developed systems of communication. This includes communication within the community itself, as well as between the community and the rest of the world. Communication fosters community residents’ awareness, motivation, participation, innovation, problem solving, and ability to mobilize.
Good communication also ensures that residents know the rationale for an initiative, the plan, and what’s been accomplished over time. It sustains the momentum of a community building process. Participants need to feel a sense of accomplishment and need to see some concrete results, or they will likely lose enthusiasm. Communication increases the participants’ motivation by increasing their sense of efficacy, their self-esteem, and by providing other rewards and incentives to continue doing their part.
… Communication techniques that showed up in the case studies we examined include: festivals, parties, parades, newsletters, news releases, special events, public meetings, establishing neighborhood information brokers, and establishing networks with resource people.” (Mattessich 30)
Though the study does not put forth principles of communication, it does point out the importance of those components of community that are the result of good communication.
It seems to us that the obvious necessity in this decade is for citizens
to use every resource at their local command to create the future. And indeed,
it is clear in many inner city neighborhoods across
Kretzmann sets forth five steps toward community mobilization. Step 1 – Mapping assets, Step 2 – Building relationships, Step 3 – Mobilizing for economic development and information sharing, Step 4 – Convening the community to develop a vision and a plan and Step 5 – Leveraging outside resources to support locally driven development. The author notes the importance of having individuals with “a capacity-oriented view”, “who insist always on focusing first on the fullness, on the gifts and capacities of their families, friends and neighbors,” in leadership roles. (Kretzmann 350) We can see the importance of good communication throughout the asset based approach to community building.
Imagine Chicago is an ongoing community building project in
“Over the past 12 years ‘Imagine Chicago’ has been
attempting to address these questions.” (How can we invigorate community
learning in the face of isolation, segregation, poverty and despair) “It has
done so through collaborative projects that challenge individuals and institutions
to understand, imagine and create the future they value. At the heart of the
work has been the development of learning communities where dialogue is the ongoing ‘medium’ of development.
Structured exchanges of ideas,
resources and experiences bring hope alive and act as a generative resource,
creating new hope-full and learning-full communities. (Browne 395)
Two ideas emerged from the design phase which shaped the
ultimate process design: first, that the pilot should attempt to discover what
gives life to the city (as opposed to focusing on problems), and second, that
it should provide significant leadership opportunities for youth, who most
clearly represent the city’s future. (Browne 396)
The process was designed to use intergenerational teams,
led by a young person in the company of an adult mentor, to interview business,
civic, and cultural leaders, about the future of their communities and of
Ideas from all the interviews were brought together and
presented at an ‘Imagination Celebration’. The (resulting)
conversations brought people together across boundaries of age, race,
experience, and geography to reflect together on their relationship to the city
as a whole. The meetings were grounded in mutual
respect and appreciation and solicited positive visions and stories which
people were eager to share. (Browne 397)
Learning to ask and answer positive questions, and to engage in active listening was a subtle and welcome shift for many
participants. (Browne 398)
Constructive civic conversation, in a diverse group,
created momentum and interest in making commitments to bring the visions to
life. It was suggested that these results were propelled by the contagious
mindset of positive question/ positive image/ positive action imbedded in the
appreciative inquiry process. (Browne 398)
Imagine
Imagine
Thomas
Kingsley author of
Community building’s central theme is to obliterate
feelings of dependency and to replace them with attitudes of self-reliance,
self-confidence, and responsibility. … Success also depends on a substantial
share of the residents being directly involved in that (improvement) process.
Community leaders must consistently reach out for broad involvement and avoid
becoming a remote elite themselves. (Kingsley 3)
Bruce
Adams in “The Evolving Models of Leadership” points to the importance of
changing communication needs. “Ironically, at a time when we are told
the public is apathetic and uninvolved, we have more people involved in political
decision-making than we did 25 years ago.” (
Developing Collaborative Leadership Is Important
In a community, few moves are made in isolation. John Gardner suggests we can better understand the paralysis in our political system by imagining a game of checkers. A bystander puts a thumb on one checker and says, "Go ahead and play, just don't touch this one." Another bystander puts a thumb on a different checker with the same warning. Others continue the cycle of blocking self-detrimental options. The organized interest groups don't want to make the game unwinnable. They just don't want their interests touched. Pretty soon a community has all thumbs and no moves.
Self-interest is not bad. Lappe and Du Bois put it nicely in The Quickening of America when they said, "Self-interests include our passions-all the things we care most about." It needs to be harnessed so it does not thwart the public interest. Unfortunately, our ability to frustrate each other has increased dramatically in recent decades. As Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. has pointed out: our challenge today is to restore the balance between unum and pluribus.
When
one player makes a selfish move for individual or organizational short-term
gain, other players are forced to respond in kind. The downward spiral begins.
(
We can see that being
able to step away from self interest and being able to see our common interest
are important components of negotiation and leadership.
Murray Bowen, pioneer
of Family Systems Theory, saw that communities acted as family systems.
Different communities will manage anxiety differently. Some will overfunction or
underfunction, distance or fuse, project (blame, scapegoat), fight, or
triangulate (gossip). Others will stay
centered. They will be and stay, connected, nonoffensive, nondefensive, and responsive
rather than reactive. All will attempt to maintain a certain degree of
closeness, and a degree of independence, a comfortable place on the spectrum
from individuality to togetherness. (Augsburger)
As we look at the
nature of community, life enhancing relationships, we can see the importance of
communication. Some key phrases from the studies cited are: discuss, reach
consensus and cooperate; effective and connected collaboration; active
listening and mutual respect; broad involvement; looking for common interest;
and being a non-anxious presence. To build community, to increase the depth and
breadth of relationship, we need to be effective communicators. Now let us look
at what it takes to communicate most effectively.
Communication:
In the realm of psychology
Martin Seligman and his compatriots began the exploration of positive
psychology. Others began the human potential movement. In the realm of
community building Scott Peck began exploring the possibilities of authentic
community. Tom Atlee and many others are continuing this adventure.
Tom Atlee subtitles his
book The Tao of Democracy, “Using co-intelligence to create a world that
works for all.” He defines co-intelligence as: “the ability to generate or
evoke creative responses and initiatives that integrate the diverse gifts of
all for the benefit of all.” (Atlee 3) He explores a variety of forms of
community communication beginning with citizen deliberative councils. The seven
features these councils have in common are: “1) It is a real council. (face to
face) 2) It is a fair cross-section. 3) It is very temporary. 4) It is made up
of peer citizens. 5) It is to some extent official. 6) It is deliberative and
balanced. 7) It generates a specific product. (Atlee 170) He lists; wisdom
councils, Dynamic Facilitation, study circles, stakeholder dialogues, Future
Search, Consensus Councils, Deliberative Polling, Café conversations, salons,
and non-violent communication all of which are formats that open conversations
which build community.
Atlee opens the chapter on
consensus by quoting Karl Ohs, Montana Lieutenant Governor. “The consensus
process strips away all the extraneous issues and allows people to speak to
each other. Most of the time, people learn that the other side is not as
‘wrong’ as they initially thought.” (Atlee 234) Atlee goes on to say:
“Two
of the most significant obstacles to implementing citizen deliberative
councils, as well as a culture of dialogue, are people’s misgivings and
misunderstandings regarding consensus. When I first began exploring citizen
deliberative councils, I was quite surprised to find that some people regard
consensus and even deliberation oppressive processes. They feel that any effort
to reach agreement necessarily involves suppressing
differences.” (Atlee 234)
As we
explore co-sensing, we come to understand consensus in ways that are not rooted
in agreement, per se. For me and many others, that alternative conception of
consensus has to do with shared insight or awareness: it is not so much that we
agree on some conclusion, as that we are looking at the same territory
together. This is what I mean by “co-sensing,” or sensing together. What we are
seeing and feeling together may just as likely be filled with acknowledged differences as with discovered
common ground. (Atlee 240)
The processes he points to
as the environment for co-intelligence and the process of the Native American
council that evokes the “wisdom of the circle” are similar. All these processes
involve the same principles of communication, including speaking and listening
from the heart.
In Getting to
Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In Roger Fisher and
William Ury stress the importance of discovering “shared interests” in any
negotiation. They advocate enrolling both parties in the process of meeting
these interests. “What makes the negotiation a joint search is that, however much you may have prepared various objective
criteria, you come to the table with an open mind.” (Fisher 89)
In the 5th chapter of their publication
titled “Organizing Community–wide Dialogue for Action and Change” the
communication involves much more. It’s the many ways you
create awareness of your program and reach out to different groups in your
community. It can involve community relations, advertising, media relations,
other forms of publicity, and even fund raising.” (Study - Organizing 39)
The
A study circle is a group of 8-12 people from different
backgrounds and viewpoints who meet several times to talk about an issue. In a
study circle, everyone has an equal voice, and people try to understand each
other's views. They do not have to agree with each other. The idea is to share
concerns and look for ways to make things better. A facilitator helps the group
focus on different views and makes sure the discussion goes well. (Study)
The participants in the circle
agree on ground rules. The
·
Everyone gets a fair hearing. Share “air time.”
·
Seek first to understand then to
be understood.
·
If you are offended, say so; and
say why. One person speaks at a time.
·
You can disagree, but don’t
personalize it; stick to the issue.
·
No name-calling or stereotyping. Speak for yourself, not for
others.
·
What is said in the group stays
here, unless everyone agrees to change that. (Study – Guide 34)
In Listening, Madelyn Burley-Allen sets forth the following guidelines for talkers:
. Know what you want to say.
. Know as much about the listener as possible.
. Gain favorable attention - be aware of your nonverbal behavior.
. Secure understanding.
. Aid retention.
. Encourage feedback. (Burley-Allen 150)
Looking at community as a family system we can add to our understanding of the emotional aspects of communication. In the chapter titled: The Ideal – Separate, Equal, Open; Roberta M. Gilbert addresses some aspects of communication in a healthy marriage or, by extension, a healthy community. “Separate” points to the ability to choose between emotions and thinking. ”Equal” points to: “Each accepts the other as no more and no less talented, responsible, or free than him – or herself.” A few lines from the section on “Openness:”
When people work on the postures underlying their communication problems, communication improves almost automatically. …It is one thing to be a self. It is another to define that self to the other(s) in a relationship, or a relationship system, a necessary component of being a self. Communication at higher levels of differentiation then becomes a self-defining give and take of ideas. … In optimal communication, then, people are open to talk, and they must talk about relevant matters. …A second characteristic of optimal communication becomes clear: It is nonreactive. … A third essential of communication is directness. The partners must talk to and with each other about each other. … It is clear that a fourth characteristic of communicating well must be mutuality. A measure of mutuality might be that each partner speaks and listens about an equal amount of time, over time. Another measure would be the degree to which people can talk to each other while remaining responsible only for self and the communication of self’s own ideas. … From examining the four relationship postures, then, a description of the elements of optimal communication in an emotionally significant relationship can be derived. It is the direct, verbal, mutual, and nonreactive give and take of relevant ideas. (Gilbert 104-7)
This description of optimal communication applies in building community relationships as well as close relationships. The key components across this variety of approaches to communication are: a direct, personal sharing of self; a mutual give and take, a fair hearing; listening to understand; feedback, a nonreactive environment in which individuals can disagree while seeking to understand; and a discovery of relevant shared interests. The connection between communication and community has been known and studied for at least two thousand years. Our understanding has evolved and it may be that our ability to communicate and to live in community has evolved as well.
Community and Communication
In
their article “Community and Communication: The Conceptual Background” David
Depew and John Durham Peters note that; “Aristotle says that it is speech (logos) that binds this nested hierarchy
of communities together.” (Shepherd 3) Following the evolution through time –
“In any of these typically French views, communication creates community
largely because it ignores, marginalizes, privatizes, or even suppresses
individuality in the normal sense.” … “German political thought about modernity
is preoccupied not with how residual personal identity can be suppressed by
mass communication, but with how socialization and communication can, on the
contrary, create genuine individuals in the first place.”… “What Hegel’s
reflection on Aristotle produced was the claim that communication can lead to
community precisely because communication creates the mutually respecting
individuals whose relationships constitute communities in the first place.”
(Shepherd 10-11) In England George Eliot’s novels reveal her view “that social
connectivity and communicative interaction foster individual maturation.”
(Shepherd 12) In her book Middlemarch
things work out – “But they work out only for those characters, notably
Dorothea, who come to recognize that their safety lies in their personal
growth, and that their personal growth in turn depends on communicative
interaction with (and exposure of oneself to) all the members of the larger
community in which they live.” (Shepherd 8) In
In his article titled “Community as the Interpersonal Accomplishment of Communication” Gregory J. Shepherd asks us to consider some new beliefs as he brings the conversation about community and communication into the postmodern era.
These three ideas of modernity – that the individual is ontologically primary (psychologism), that truth exists and can be procedurally uncovered (scientism), and that communication is a vehicle for the transference of ideas ( a particular manifestation of mechanism) – became entrenched in Western thought, and reigned without challenge for 200 years. … In the modern world, truth set people free from the epistemological authority of others, but communication’s power to convey verifiable truths kept them related as part of a community of knowers. By the tail end of the 19th century, however, this set of relations began to unravel. (Shepherd 27)
How is community to be achieved (in postmodernity) when individuals reign in a world absent of universal truths? What good will the mechanism of communication now do? … An after-modern understanding of communication is what should most interest those of us with concerns about community at the dawn of the 21st century. … we should come to see similarity (and uniqueness) as resulting from communication and community rather than viewing communication and community as products of commonality (and thus reactions against difference). (Shepherd 28-31)
The simultaneous experience of self and other might serve well as a definition of communication after the modern. The new, after-modern community that communication then accomplishes is one more personal than public, more of ontological growth than political structure. The postmodern community implies not the civic groups and fraternal organizations considered by de Tocqueville (1835/1956) to be so essential to American communal life, or even the local schools and neighborhood associations central to Dewey’s (1927) analysis, but rather the postmodern community implies people-in-relation, as in the transcendence of individuality into something more, even as self-sense is maintained; knowing of the other, even as the other’s particularity is overcome. (Shepherd 32)
Carey
Adams of
When the researchers who contributed to Communication and Community began to consider communication and community in the emergency response environment, the feminist community, the workplace, and cooperatives the importance of developing a more realistic model in order to improve the happiness within communities was evident. (Shepherd 159) Rothenbuhler suggests we consider an alternative model which “presumes difference and difficulty” ... and emphasizes “the centrality of individual experience” if we are to “build communities, solve problems, or to deal with unhappiness and badness.” (Shepherd 166-7)
Karen
Lee Ashcraft of the
1. Open communication is ethical. Hidden agendas, mis- or underinformation, and other forms of manipulation preclude egalitarian relationships, arouse subtle and eventually explosive hostilities, and block the possibility of change.
2. Because different perspectives enrich the group process, every member’s views are important. Rather than asserting superiority or encouraging conformity, the goal of communication is to reach a ‘mutually acceptable balance’ between equal voices.
3. Oppression is silencing. Power-seeking squelches the voices of some, discouraging true consensus and decreasing long-term commitment to decisions. Individuals have a right to feel that their voice has been truly heard.
4. Our climate should encourage members to raise opposing views. Members should negotiate their positions openly until they arrive at a “mutually
comfortable place.” Though members may hold singular viewpoints, “it is the group’s responsibility to make sure that no one is alone.”
5. Members should deal with a situation as directly as possible. Each member has an obligation to “get/be/stay clear with each other.” That “clearing” should occur directly with the individual in question, not with uninvolved others.
6. If necessary for feedback, a member may discuss a situation involving a particular person with others, provided those “others” are “clear about their role as facilitators, not validators.” The person who engaged the discussion then assumes the burden to follow through and update the group on the outcome. Others involved agree to keep the discussion “in the group.”
7. Conflict does not always have to be engaged, but it must always be named. Unspoken conflict contributes to negative communication, damaging member capacity to work collectively. In an effort to recognize the “whole person” each member bears the responsibility of “naming what is going on.”
8. Because personal relationships affect the group as a whole, they are not necessarily private. Interpersonal relations impact the total group; they are a source of affiliation, power, and conflict.
9. “The means is the end.” How we communicate determines the product of our interaction and “what, if any, value it will have in our communities.” (Shepherd 91-2)
These principles of “Ethical Communication” incorporate conflict, mis-communication, manipulation and “presumes difference and difficulty” while valuing the individual experience. However, practicing these principles requires a high degree of self knowledge, “copious self-disclosure” and “tends to foster highly personalized conflict.” Ashcraft concludes that “SAFE members proposed that alternative community can merge individualistic beginnings with group authority and accountability to approximate empowerment.” (Shepherd 104-5)
The series of articles in Communication and Community grounds and develops the idea that communication has evolved from suppressing individuality to supporting the development and expression of individuality. The extent of communication has moved from the limitations of personal contact to the unlimited potential of computer networks. As both a result and a cause community has evolved from being an undifferentiated body politic to being an incubator for personal growth. Community becomes an intentional container for differences and is the result of communication which makes social realities of ideals. This evolution requires self-knowledge, honesty, the willingness to be known and take an active responsibility for self and for community. In the words of Rothenbuhler “… community is more a matter of effort and faith than behavior, cause, and effect.” (Shepherd 174) It requires the expression of our individual ideals.
Some key phrases from the articles on communication and community: need differentiated individuals to develop community; need community to foster differentiation; simultaneous experience of self and other; include differences; truthful; individual experience; encourage open, diverse, direct communication; being heard; and naming conflict.
Listening:
Chapter nine of Effective
Communication: Getting the Message Across. by The International
City Management Association provides guidelines for interpersonal
communication. Among the many good points: “The importance of careful listening
cannot be overstated. … Look for main ideas, significant points, and a purpose
for the message. Try to absorb what the sender is saying, process it, and think
about it.” (International 198-99) The authors also point out the importance of
feedback: “Feedback is the crucial link between sender and receiver. It lets
the sender know whether the receiver has heard the message and whether the
intended and perceived meaning are the same (at best), similar (at least), or
totally different (at worst). Both the sender and the receiver are responsible
for making a connection through feedback.” (International 186) Both parties
feel validated when they have evidence that they have been heard.
A Field Study of Listening Needs in Organizations reports on a survey of training directors of Fortune 500 companies. The survey asked about the effectiveness of listening skills in the organization. The third question was:
“3) If the lack of listening is perceived as a problem among organization members, what specific aspects of listening appear most problematic? Previously, we noted that the lack of feedback and lack of training were often identified as potential problems. Additionally, as Table 1 indicates, the one item that training directors determined was absolutely essential to a listening training program was “learning to give feedback. (X = 4.45: S.D. = 1.41)” (Hunt 5)
“Respondents also identified a number of potential training topics in open-ended responses. The highly important listening skill of “paraphrasing” was mentioned by ten of the training directors. Other suggestions included evaluating listening skills (8), reaching out to another’s point of view while listening (7), and expressing emotions while listening (5). The sophistication and frequency of these responses would suggest that the subjects had given considerable thought to the listening issue.” (Hunt 6)
In her review of Listening : A
Practical Approach, Linda Moore of the
James McGinnis, in his article on
peacemaking in schools written in response to the
The exercise in active listening on The Center for Rural Studies website uses a document produced by The New England Regional Leadership Program. (New England )Chances are that those who influence us most are powerful listeners. Whether instinctively or through practice, they have developed the skill of empathy. A University of Maine l. Desire to be other-directed, rather than to project one's own feelings and ideas onto the other.2. Desire to be non-defensive, rather than to protect the self. When the self is being protected, it is difficult to focus on another person.3. Desire to imagine the roles, perspectives, or experiences of the other, rather than assuming they are the same as one's own.4. Desire to listen as a receiver, not as a critic, and desire to understand the other person rather than to achieve either agreement from or change in that person. (Pickering Further, she identifies ten discrete skills for empathetic listening. (New England )
The skills she lists are; attending, acknowledging,
paraphrasing, restating, reflecting, interpreting, summarizing, synthesizing,
probing, giving feedback, supporting, checking perceptions and being quiet. Note
that the fourth characteristic is the equivalent of Bowen system “differentiation.”
The video Tips and Tactics: Effective Urban
Communications stresses the importance of the same skill set. The opening
statement in the video is: “America is really two nations: one for the affluent
and well-educated who are busy pursuing their dreams, and one for those who
lack the education and the skills they need to break the cycle of poverty. The
ability to bridge the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ begins with
communications. But building the bridge is not easy.” (Tips) The video goes on
to emphasize the importance of reaching out into the community, listening,
establishing trust and “expecting the unexpected”. “Expecting the unexpected”
encompasses non-judgment and the willingness to see through cultural barriers
to the individual.
Interpersonal Communications Skills, a training video for police officers, produced by
Performance Dimensions Publishing, makes the statement: “One of the most
important qualities that the Law Enforcement Officer displays is empathy.” (Interpersonal)
This video used role plays to demonstrate good and bad communications. It
emphasized the importance of respect and listening to hear the needs and
understand the feelings of others. According to the video the Officer should
listen 80% of the time and speak only 20% of the time. Empathy is important to
good communication and throughout the video references to “respect” included
the same qualities we see in other descriptions of empathic and active
listening.
Referring to Steven Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People Dr. Mita Das also refers to empathy. “Many people don't listen with the intention of understanding, they listen with the intention of replying. ‘Seeking first to understand, then to be understood’ suggests that we reverse this all too common habit and seek to listen to others with empathy, to truly understand how they see the world from their eyes - not ours.” (Das)
Madelyn Burley-Allen, presenter of seminars for corporate managers, in Listening points out that whereas we spend 40% of our time listening, 35% talking, 16% reading, and 9% writing we receive 12 years of formal training in writing, 6 – 8 years in reading, 1 -2 years in speaking and 0 – ½ year of training in listening. She notes that: “Effective listening involves not only tuning in to others, but tuning in to ourselves. Listening carefully to what we say and how we say it can teach us an immense amount about ourselves.” She goes on to point out that understanding our emotional responses is crucial to level 1 listening. She defines level 3 listening as being intermittent while planning what we will say next. At level 2 we hear the words but do not get the meaning or feeling. Level 1 is empathic listening:
At this level, listeners refrain from judging the talker and place themselves in the other's position, attempting to see things from his or her point of view. Some characteristics of this level include being aware and in the present moment; acknowledging and responding; not letting oneself be distracted; paying attention to the speaker's total communication, including body language; being empathetic to the speaker's feelings and thoughts; and suspending one's own thoughts and feeling to give attention solely to listening. Empathetic listening requires an OK-OK attitude. It also requires that the listener show both verbally and nonverbally that he or she is truly listening. The overall focus is to listen from the heart, which opens the doorway to understanding, caring, and empathy. (Burley-Allen 14)
If we are to listen empathically we need to understand the filters that we have been socialized to hear through. These include our memories, values, interests, strong feelings, past experiences, prejudices, attitudes, beliefs, expectations, assumptions and past and future images. She illustrates the difference between a going nowhere cycle and a going somewhere cycle. Both follow the sequence: a situation is interpreted through our thought process which results in behavior and feeling. Our filters determine our interpretation of the situation and thus the rest of the process.
Carefully examine the words you used to describe what went on. Look for words such as always, never, every, all the time, have to, should, or must.” (Burley-Allen 86) “When we can observe who we are, critically, without undermining our self worth, we can take credit for our accomplishments. A positive and accepting attitude allows us to be aware of those things that we like best about ourselves. That, in turn, will help us reshape those things we like least. It is easier to change behavior when we come from a positive position.” (Burley_Allen 104)
She “identified the following characteristics for ideal listeners:
· They keep an open, curious mind.
· They listen for new ideas everywhere, integrating what they listen to with what they already know.
· They are aware and thus listen to others with their total being.
· They listen from the heart to help stay nonjudgmental.
· Being this aware, they are not willing to blindly follow the crowd.
· They maintain conscious perspective on what is occurring, rather than remaining unconscious and missing important details.
· They look for ideas, organization, and new ways of doing things, and listen to the essence of things.
· Knowing that no two people listen in the same way, they stay mentally alert by outlining, clarifying, approving, and adding illustrations of their own.
· They are introspective and have the capacity and desire to critically examine, understand, and attempt to transform some of their values, attitudes, and relationships within themselves and others.
· They focus their attention on the talker's ideas while listening with feeling and intuition.
Some things you can do to improve your skill as a listener are:
1. Search for Something You Can Use; Find Areas of Common Interest.
2. Take the Initiative. Find out what the talker knows.
3. Work at Listening.
4. Focus Your Attention on Ideas.
5. Make Meaningful Notes.
6. Resist External Distractions.
7. Hold Your Rebuttal; Watch Out for Hot Buttons.
8. Keep an Open Mind: Ask Questions to Clarify for Understanding.
9. Capitalize on Thought Speed; Summarize.
10. Practice Regularly.
11. Analyze What Is Being Said Nonverbaly.
12. Evaluate and Be Critical of
Content, Not the Speaker's Delivery. (Burley-Allen
119-123)
Burley-Allen provides a very helpful chart to make listening work for
you.
Listening
Objective Method Listening Technique
I.
Clarifying Check
1. When you want to State a what, how, or 1. "Is this the problem
clarify, want facts, when question. Then as you see it?"
want to explore fur- restate what you 2. "Will you clarify
ther, or to check thought you heard. what you mean by
assumptive
meaning . ..?"
and understand 3. "What specifically do
you mean by . . . ?"
4. "What I understand
you to say is . . . . Is
that right?"
II.
Accuracy Check
1. To check your listen- Restate the person's 1. "As I understand it,
ing accuracy and basic ideas, emphasiz- the problem is. . .
encourage further ing the facts. (restatement). Am I
discussion. hearing you cor-
2. To let the person rectly?
know you grasp the 2. "What I think you
facts said was. . . ."
III.
Feeling Check
1. To show you are lis- Reflect the person's 1. "You feel that you
tening and under- feelings. didn't get the proper
standing Paraphrase in your own treatment."
2. To reduce anxiety, words what the talker 2. "It was unjust as you
anger, or other neg- said. perceived it."
ative feelings Match the talker's 3. "It's annoying to
3. To let the person depth of meaning, have this happen to
know you under- light or serious. you."
stand how he or she Ensure accurate com- 4. "It seems to me that
feels munication of feelings you got turned off
by matching the when your boss
talker's meaning. talked to you in that
angry manner."
5. "I sense that you like
doing the job but
are not sure how to
go about it."
IV.
Summarizing Check
1. To focus the discussion Restate, reflect, and 1. "These are the key
and to lead to a summarize major ideas elements of the
new level of discussion and feelings. problem."
2. To focus on main 2. "Let's see now,
points and to offer a we've examined
springboard for further these factors."
Consideration 3. "These seem to be
3. To pull important key ideas you
ideas or facts express. "
together 4. "To summarize, the
4. To review progress main points as I
heard them are …”
V. Noncommittal
Acknowledgment
1. To stay neutral and Don't agree or disagree 1. "I see.. ."
show you are interested Use noncommittal 2. "Uh-huh . . ."
words with a positive 3. "Mm-hmm..."
2. To encourage; to tone of voice. 4. "I get the idea. . ."
keep a person Express noncommittal "I understand."
talking acknowledgment. Silence during the
pause.
'
VI. Door Opener
Acknowledge the Show willingness to dis- 1. "Tell me about it."
problem. -cuss the problem. 2. "That does seem to
present a problem."
(Burley-Allen 129 – 130)
This variety of studies of listening contain many of the same components found in the previous section on communication in general. The key components of listening are: active listening / empathy, composed of self awareness and the commitment to take in and experience the speaker; giving feedback, expressing emotions and paraphrasing; attending, focusing on the context as well as the content; and establishing trust.
Principles:
The World Café in “Café Etiquette” encourages participants to: 1) Focus on what matters. 2) Contribute your thinking. 3) Speak your mind and heart. 4) Listen to understand. 5) Link and connect ideas. 6) Listen together for insights and deeper questions. 7) Play, Doodle, Draw – Writing on the tablecloths is encouraged. 8) Have fun. (World Café)
John D. Lawry in his review of The Way of Council lists the “four intentions of council” set forth by the Native American community: 1) “speaking from the heart.” 2) “listening from the heart.” 3) being of “lean expression.” 4) “spontaneity,” (Lawry)
The Foundation for Community Encouragement which was founded by M. Scott Peck, author of The Different Drum uses the following guidelines for community building.
1) Wear nametags
2) Be on time for each session
3) Say your name before you speak
4) Speak personally and specifically, using “I” statements
5) Be inclusive—avoid exclusivity
6) Express displeasure in the group, not outside the circle
7) Commit to “hang in there”
8)
Speak when moved to speak; don’t speak when not
moved to speak
9) Be responsible for your success
10) Participate verbally or non-verbally
11) Be emotionally present with the group
12) Respect confidentiality (Foundation)
Bringing these three lists together with the factors contributing to the success of community building gathered by the Wilder Foundation and the principles evidenced in the other sources explored in this paper creates an impressive list. Prioritizing the principles by necessity, which principles are essential to the others, gives the following order and rationale.
Principles of
1) Speak from the heart, honestly. Unless we are willing to be known, to express our own thoughts, feelings, fears, hopes and dreams there is no possibility of communication or community. Address relevant issues which provide opportunities to contribute and make a difference. By expressing ourselves we create the opportunity for others to empathize with us and agree or disagree with our perceptions and beliefs. Ask questions, encourage feedback, understand the audience and find shared interests. Be honest, say what you feel and what you think compassionately. Speak in the first person, directly, specifically. This takes self knowledge, the willingness to be known and the willingness to wait to be moved, inspired to speak.
2) Listen from the heart, empathetically. Pay attention! listen for feeling, for what is behind the words, for context, as well as for content. Unless we know our bias, set it aside and see the topic from the others point of view we cannot really appreciate and integrate the communication. Unless we can see others as our peers, our equals, doing the best they can, in integrity, sincere, trustworthy, and working together on the problem we will resist their communication.
3) Give and encourage feedback. Communication is a two way exchange and each participant needs to know if the communication is complete and accurate. Feedback is a mutual responsibility. Some of the forms of feedback are; nodding, affirming, questioning, paraphrasing, summarizing (linking and connecting ideas) or disagreeing. It is crucial that we express our reactions in the group rather than with someone else later.
4) Maintain an open mind. This includes openness to inspiration, insight, new ideas, changing our minds, consensus, and the wisdom of the circle. An open mind, appreciation of inquiry, is a prerequisite to the give and take of community and communication. It requires self confidence, self knowledge, and the willingness to be responsible rather than reactive. Be willing to not know, to explore the question, to see both sides of the issue, to hold the paradox (mutually exclusive ideas).
5) Listen to understand. Take notes, research the topic ahead of time, know the speaker or audience, look for other ways to organize the information, integrate, synthesize, look for possibilities, assets, the unexpected.
6) Stay focused on relevant issues. Know what you want to learn, to say, to change, to contribute, to practice. Know your capacity, your responsibility, your talents, abilities, gifts and bring them to the table to change what can be changed. Participants need to feel a sense of accomplishment and need to see some concrete results, or they will likely lose enthusiasm.” (Mattessich 30) Forward the action, keep questions and answers pertinent.
7) Be consistent. Consistency not rigidity inspires trust and confidence. Tackling issues close to the heart, issues you are deeply committed to, issues you understand, issues that can be impacted, and knowing your responsibility and capacity will help consistency. When those around you can rely on your honesty, integrity and commitment to include them, an effective and connected collaboration will prove to be fun as well as having an impact.
This was a four day gathering of thirty two individuals in the Scott Peck tradition. Scott Peck sees community developing through the stages of; pseudo community, chaos, emptiness, and community. Some individuals had participated in this process before and some were new to it. Some knew each other and others knew only one or two others. One spoke primarily Japanese, two spoke German and two French. Interpretation was constant and interpreters frequently asked for clarification. This community building process is unique in that the group does not begin with a task other than to build community. It takes a day or so to get to know each other. Individuals share why they are here, what they want and need and their current issues. They are frequently stimulated by the sharing of others. Many of these shares are highly emotional. The group listens empathically without giving feedback. Several participants commented on the lack of feedback, wondering if others felt heard. They themselves felt their sharing was incomplete without some acknowledgement that others understood what they were expressing.
Frequently some will try to persuade, convert, heal or otherwise fix others. This is the chaos phase. In chaos differences are seen as problems. Questions need answers. Individuals have a very hard time accepting paradox, two mutually exclusive truths. On about the third day chaos usually yields to emptiness. This happens when individuals begin to see the value of diversity and can accept others as they are.
Emptiness is very similar to the Bowen System state of differentiation. Some characteristics of well differentiated individuals are: “The differentiated person is always aware of others and the relationship system around them.” … “Each is responsible for and only for self.” … “The individuals are ‘in contact.’” … “Each takes responsibility for defining, interpreting, and communicating his or her own thoughts and positions to the other.” (Gilbert 98-9) In the process of self-expression they do not need others to change nor do they feel the need to change for others. At this point in the community building process individuals come back to their desire to contribute, to make a difference in the world, with a different perspective. The group may come out of the process with a project that values and utilizes the diversity in the group.
I intended to use this gathering as a laboratory to test the principles of community building communication by paying attention to;
1) Active, empathetic listening. Staying alert to content and feeling.
2) The degree of honest feedback using “I” statements. Requests for feedback.
3) The extent to which questions are open ended.
In actuality the facilitators and participants in the circle did have a strong bias away from any organization. Early in the gathering it was suggested that we put a topic on the table for discussion. One of the facilitators stated “We don’t do it that way here.” and no one objected. Throughout the gathering sharing seldom followed a topic and was broken by long silences. Occasionally someone would disagree with someone else but they never argued. One therapist tended to comfort (stifle the emotions of others) and advise. Chaos did not break out until during the last day it was suggested that the group do a process. Highly emotional objections surfaced immediately. There was a flurry of unfinished business. It was as if individuals were holding back until the threat of not getting to share forced them to participate. After four hours of sharing the group agreed to do the Core Gift process. As a result of pairing up and asking a set of specific questions of each other individuals felt a new depth of connection. By sharing this experience with the group everyone felt closer. In closing many in the group commented on the power of the Core Gift process to reveal gifts, aspirations, and vision. Though the group did not come to a united vision or a project most people felt renewed and supported in their personal quest.
This group excelled at the first two principles, speaking and listening from the heart. The lack of feedback and the lack of relevant issues prevented the group from deepening their conversation and community. Without an issue or task to work around, there was little challenge to understanding or need to be open minded. Without focus, consistency was lacking so trust stayed low.
The
For a year and a half I have been involved in a church with a Sunday attendance of some fifty people, about 75% of their seating capacity. Apparently they have been talking about a new facility for years. There have been several forays into buying property, moving, and remodeling. However each attempt at action bogged down. The Minister and Board employed me to facilitate a board retreat. They wanted to use this four to six hour retreat to clarify their vision and plan for a new building. I asserted that if they came into alignment on their vision they could move forward.
All board members and the minister were present at the retreat. I opened by asking: What is the question? After each person shared their perspective the group agreed that the question was: Should we buy the adjacent lot? They approached the question in terms of the principles of the church, the congregation’s vision, their gifts and the needs of the community. Multiple solutions to the overcrowding problem were explored and the importance of environmental impact and energy consumption became evident. Consensus evolved that:
1) The church should ask the owner to donate the land before making an offer.
2) The maximum that could be paid would be $120,000.
3) Building should be a two stage process consisting of two geodesic domes.
4) Representatives should meet with the city to explore the possibilities.
Sharing seemed open and honest. No one had an entrenched point of view. Everyone participated by speaking from the heart, listening empathetically, giving feedback and keeping an open mind. Listening to understand and staying focused on relevant issues was more difficult. I frequently had to bring the conversation back to the topic at hand. The last item of business at the retreat was to develop a task list. At this point eyes began to glaze over and attention to the information began fading. Even so, individuals were eager to take responsibility for tasks that matched their gifts. We put names next to tasks and posted the flip chart notes from each step of this process on the walls.
The person who volunteered to draft the letter to the owner also volunteered to send me his file on the proposed building. Several weeks later I had not received anything so I sent an inquiry. He did not remember having made the agreement. Another couple weeks went by before the draft letter was emailed in an illegible format. Then another week or two went by before the letter was approved. A month passed between the decision and the action. The person who volunteered to provide digital pictures of both properties provided pictures that did not show the relationship of the properties and buildings. As the board representative and I met with the city we found we had drawn several very different conclusions from the meeting.
Even in this facilitated process there were several communication breakdowns. This is a very heart oriented community in which relationships take priority over accomplishments (Meyers Briggs NFP’s). The community has developed the ability to speak and listen from the heart, to address issues and stay connected. However it appears that their communication begins to break down around the specifics of the project, the fifth principle, listen to understand. Both communication and community suffer further with the lack of focus on capacities, abilities, talents and tasks. The project gets stuck and enthusiasm wanes. As a result individual performance and accomplishment are not consistent and trust and confidence wane as well.
As the project coordinator for this building project my primary tasks will be: To develop the communities understanding and appreciation for individual ideals and talents. This should deepen individual commitment and responsibility. By organizing information, tracking agreements and keeping the focus on relevant issues I can support consistency and build trust and confidence. This should deepen communication and community supporting the accomplishment of the project and the growth of the community.
End notes:
"Conversation is not just about conveying information
or sharing emotions, not just a way
of putting ideas into peoples' heads. Conversation is a meeting of minds with
different
memories and habits. When minds meet, they don't just exchange facts: they
transform them, reshape them, draw different implications from them, engage in
new trains of thought. Conversation doesn't just reshuffle the cards: it
creates new cards."
-- philosopher,
historian and author Theodore Zeldin
|
"The
scarcest resource is not oil, metals, clean "Democracy
is based on the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in
ordinary
|
"Only
recently have we awakened to see not only that 'regular' citizens have the
capacity for |
Works Cited:
Adams, Bruce. “Building Healthy Communities” Manuals
and Guides: Community Civic Practices
Network. Editor: Tonya M. Yoder, Publisher: Suzanne W. Morse June 11, 2005
<http://www.cpn.org/tools/manuals/Community/healthy.html>
Atlee, Tom. The Tao of Democracy: Using
Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All.
Augsburger, D. The Mature Self: Bowen Family Theory.
Browne, Bliss R. “Imagine
Das, Dr Mita and Matthew McDonald. “Mixed
Messages.” The Sunday Telegraph (
Burley-Allen, Madelyn. Listening The Forgotten
Skill. 2nd ed.
Ferrini, Paul. Love Without Conditions. 2nd
ed.
Fisher, Roger,
William Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In. 2nd ed.
Gilbert, Roberta M. M.D. Extraordinary Relationships:
A New Way of Thinking About Human Interactions.
Foundation for Community Encouragement. “Guidelines for
Hunt, Gary T. & Louis P. Cusella, “A Field Study
of Listening Needs in Organizations” Communication Education,
October 1983, Vol. 32, Issue 4, p393, 9p;
Communication and Mass media Complete Metropolitan State. 13 June
2005 http://web9.epnet.com.ezproxy.metrostate.edu
Interpersonal
Communications Skills. Videocassette. Performance Dimensions Publishing,
Kingsley, G. Thomas,
Joseph B. McNeely & James O. Gibson.
Kincaid, James M. Jr., and Edward Knop. Insights and
Implications From The
Kretzmann, John P. and
John L. McKnight. Building Communities From The Inside Out: A path toward finding
and mobilizing a community’s assets.
Lawry, John D. “How Circles can Change Learning.” Rev. of The Way of Council. by Jack Zimmerman and Virginia Coyle.
About Campus March-April 1998
Mattessich, Paul PH.D. and
McGinnis, James. “The School as a Peacemaking
Community:10 Key Ingredients.” Reports – Descriptive. 1998ERIC Educational
Moore, Linda. “Reviews of Teaching / Learning
Resources.” Rev. of Listening a Practical Approach. By J.J. Floyd. Communication
Education EBSCO Publishing 2003
Peck, M Scott. The Different Drum. First
Touchstone Edition.