 | | | | | | | |||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
|  | | |||
Copyright 2002 Team Building in the Wilderness
Confrontation It is important to be able to give constructive feedback – so important, in fact, that SOLO's Outdoor Wilderness Leadership School considers confrontation one of the four factors that holds a team together. It is important to be clear about what is meant by a confrontation. A speaker may simply wish to vent anger and frustration, or to solve a practical issue, or to communicate with the listener about an interpersonal problem or conflict they are having. Only the last is a confrontation. As SOLO puts it, there are all kinds of mail – junk mail, hate mail, personal mail. It is up to the speaker to address the mail so the recipient knows who it is for and what kind of letter it is. Constructive confrontation requires both a speaker and a listener, and both have responsibilities in the transaction. As a general rule, the speaker has the responsibility of making it clear that the interaction is in fact a confrontation; having just one item on the agenda; using appropriate language; allowing the listener time to respond; and offering ideas for a resolution. The listener, once alerted to the fact that the interaction is a confrontation, similarly has responsibilities – not to interrupt, to repeat back the message to make sure it has been understood correctly, to clarify with questions if necessary, and only then to respond. The language of the confrontation can be crucial. To say to a fellow group member, "You know, you really are a disgusting pig, leaving your toilet paper around like that where animals can dig it up," is undoubtedly feedback, but it is not constructive. In fact, formulas for constructive feedback have become something of a cliché. One of the most widely used of these constructive feedback formulas is what Bolton (1979, pp. 140-157) calls the three-part assertion message, consisting of statements of behavior, feelings, and effects. Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel (2000) set out the formula as follows: "When you do this behavior, I feel this emotion, because I think/believe/perceive this consequence" – for example, "When you are late for meetings, I get angry, because I think it is wasting the time of the other team members and we are never able to get through our agenda items" (p. 6-27). Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel then recommend a pause to allow the other person to respond, and then: "I would like this action, because it will help in this way. What do you think?" A variation on this strategy is called nonviolent communication (Rosenberg, 1999). The slight changes are, I believe, significant: ”When I see/hear/remember/observe this behavior, I feel this emotion, because I need/value/desire/expect this human need, and I would like you to do this action" – for example, "I feel angry when I see you just barge into my room, because I want some respect for my privacy, and I would like you to knock before you come in." There are two advantages to this formulation over the more traditional one. First, the speaker takes responsibility for the perception of what is happening. The description is not, ”When you do this behavior . . ." but rather "When I observe this behavior . . .” Second, the speaker communicates in terms of universal human needs – for autonomy, acceptance, consideration, understanding, reassurance, respect, trust – rather than personal preferences. When expressed in this way, the listener may more easily understand the effect of the perceived behavior on the speaker. However elaborated, the basic principles are fairly easy to communicate – use I statements rather than you statements, talk about how you feel, describe behavior in concrete terms (for general rules, see Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel, 2000, pp. 6-26 to 6-30). Then be prepared to explain, especially to teenagers, that saying "I think you're an idiot" is not really an I statement. Knowing when to confront is just as important as knowing how to confront. Confrontation is unlikely to be effective and constructive when the speaker does not know much about the circumstances of the behavior, or the behavior is not something the listener has power to change. Emotions should not be running high, and the speaker's intent must be improvement of the situation, not putting the listener on the spot or demonstrating moral superiority. The time, place, and circumstances must be right; confrontation in front of outsiders is unlikely to be successful (Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel, 2000, pp. 6-25 to 6-26). References Bolton, R. (1979). People skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rosenberg, M. (1999). Nonviolent communication: A language of compassion. Encinitas, CA: PuddleDancer. Scholtes, P., Joiner, B., & Streibel, B. (2000). The team handbook (2nd ed.). Madison, WI: Oriel. | |||||
Back to the top
      
| |||||
