L I TE RATU RE I N RE V I E W
“
always be our starting point. This can be fol-
lowed by other forms of inquiry: Diagnostic,
Confrontational (which only means offering
your own ideas, but is the most perilous),
and, as an adjunct, Process (“Is this helping?).
‘The best test is to ask
ourselves first: are we
really listening? Are
we listening to the one
with whom we want to
communicate?’
In How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way
We Work, Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow
offer an aphorism I have seen succeed in
schools: move “from the language of com-
plaint to the language of commitment.” If
someone is focused on what is wrong, work
to find out what value, need, or belief is be-
ing undermined by the circumstances, ex-
plore and acknowledge that issue. Often,
for example, complaints about colleagues,
administrators, rules, or workload come
from a passion for doing the best job pos-
sible. If that is the case (or if you are willing
to consider it is), you can examine whether
the conditions, the assignment, the com-
plainant’s own standards, or all three are
pressure points to be addressed.
Another key to fruitful discussion of differ-
ences is understanding the emotions driv-
ing the conflict. Many schools have read
Difficult Conversations by Stone, Patton, and
Heen, and will recall their triune division
into the Facts, the Feelings, and the Iden-
tity that are possibly present in a disagree-
ment. They observe that Facts are rarely
dispositive, as they are open to endless re-
framing. Feelings, though often unstated,
are usually clearer: “I’ve done so much for
this school and look how I’m treated,” and
so forth. No response to fact or feeling will
suffice however, until, as Donna Hicks puts
it in Dignity, the intrinsic worth of the per-
son is acknowledged.
”
One way to validate someone’s worth is of-
fered in a schema proposed by psycholo-
gist Richard C. Schwartz in his Introduction
to the Family Systems Model. As the animat-
ed film Inside Out showed, we all have many
selves, some of whom get in our own way as
well as alienating us from others. Schwartz
distinguishes three general selves: those
that have been wounded in the past, those
that irrationally and destructively seek to
protect the wounded self, and the calmer
selves that can soothe the fragile part with-
out fueling the flames. To use it at its sim-
plest, you might say “I can hear that part of
you wants to punch somebody, but is there
another part of you that would rather find a
less aggressive solution?”
But emotions are endlessly complicated,
and few of us can grasp all their variations.
Nor is it usually helpful to begin a sentence
with “Now you’re just being” (fill in the
blank with that—usually dismissive—one-
word analysis).
Continues on page 22
CSEE Connections
Summer 2020 Page 21