The "Missing Link" in Our Communication
Ninety-nine+ percent of us have the same basic "value-needs": respect, fairness, choice, meaning, play, connection, peace, security, and recognition.
Where we differ is in how much importance we place on each of these value-needs, as well as what strategies we use to get these value-needs met.
What if the key to peace on a personal scale is the same key to peace on a global scale? And what if that key is merely a "missing link" in our communication?
Child: "Mommy I'm scared!"
Mom [default response]: "Don't be afraid..."
OR - Mom [pauses to determine the feeling and the underlying value-need of security]: "Are you are worried about how safe you are after the lights are turned off?"
Wife: "I miss you when you work so much."
Husband [default response]: "Don't be silly. Find a hobby. Make more friends."
OR - Husband [...connection]: "Are you lonely and wishing we could have more time together?"
Democrat: "I worry about the poor."
Republican [default response]: "Let me tell you how your way is wrong."
OR - Republican [...fairness]: "You care about how people at poverty level can survive when resources are scarce and you see so much corruption?"
Republican: "I worry about terrorists."
Democrat [default response]: "Let me tell you how your way is wrong."
OR - Democrat [...security]: "When you hear about all the violence against Americans, do you worry about the safety of yourself and those you care about?"
So yeah, the "missing link" is empathy. Do you believe in the potential for and of incremental change? Examine one day in your life. Let's say that day has fifty human interactions. Let's say you choose to add the "missing link" to just one of those interactions? How often will the addition of empathy improve that interaction? Seventy percent of the time? Eighty? Ninety? Will your chances improve with practice?
What if you knew that if you practice a little each day, you can have more rewarding interactions 89.3% of the time? Would you then want to take the extra time to (a) wonder to yourself, "Hmmm what is the feeling and need this person has?" and (b) ask them?
It Isn't All Roses
"I'm worried that I will sound stupid and that one out of fifty interactions is going to be worse off than if I had just talked to the person in the way they are used to hearing from me and everyone else."
This is a valid concern. We want to be respected and taken seriously when we speak. People, especially those who know us, are going to be curious when they notice inclusion of the "missing link". Some might even be suspicious of our motives. If this happens, it is merely another opportunity to use empathy:
Wife: "Are you noticing me talking in an unfamiliar way and feeling curious?"
Husband: "Yeah! It's weird."
Wife: "Yeah, for me too. Because I care so much about our relationship, I'm trying to listen on a deeper level, rather than give you the programmed type of response that I normally do."
Husband: "Ah..."
Of course, the above conversation can go in many directions. In most cultures, people are taught to hide most of their feelings and needs, so when a person asks, "Are you angry because you want more respect," it can be annoying for some to have light shined on that part of themselves they have been taught to hide. But for most people it can be incredibly liberating.
Finally, for those reading this who place a high value on the need for meaning: IF you are on the fence regarding whether you want to add empathy into your conversations because you are not sure whether the net benefit is worth the effort, there is another benefit; it spreads. When you speak this way to your children, for example, they absorb and mimic. When people at your office or on the street hear you speaking in this way, they are more likely to take the "missing link" with them into their daily interactions.
If this topic is of interest to you, I recommend the book Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg, PhD. You can find a link to the book, as well as to many other articles on this topic, here: http://www.clearsay.net