Best Practice #1– Diminish Defensiveness and Foster a Supportive Climate
Communication research on
healthy climates in small groups discovers six sets of supportive and defensive
behaviors[1]:
- Description and evaluation
- Problem-orientation and control
- Spontaneity and strategy
- Empathy and neutrality
- Equality and superiority
- Provisionalism and certainty
It helps to use descriptive,
I-messages, rather than evaluative, you-ought-to messages.
Lead with the indicative rather than the imperative.
Problem-orientation collaborates and mutually explores while control relies
on hidden agendas and predetermined solutions.
Spontaneity allows the conversation to flow and considers
other points of view rather than strategically manipulating
the conversation to win our own point.
Empathy, as novelist Mohsin Hamid puts it, "is about
finding echoes of another person in yourself." It includes
a commitment to dialogue and active listening whereas neutrality discounts
or ignores what they have to say.
Equality respects another’s importance rather than making
judgments based on ethnicity, race, class, or gender. Claims of superiority lead
to hostility, hurt, and division.
Provisionalism keeps ideas tentative and open to change whereas certainty makes
them absolute or close-minded. We’re able to influence one another.
In short, defensiveness
leads to feeling judged, controlled, manipulated, ignored, excluded,
and cut off while supportiveness means we speak for ourselves,
collaborate, have free-flowing conversation, are attentive, inclusive, and
open-minded.
So, how are you doing in
diminishing defensiveness and fostering a supportive climate in your communication
and relationships? Which behaviors most affect the health of your relationships?
For example, think of an experience where close-minded, judgmental attitudes
adversely affect the communication climate. How can your use of I-messages or
other effective communication behaviors and skills result in better relational outcomes?
[260 Words]
[1] Jack
R. Gibb, “Defensive Communication,” Journal of Communication 11,
no. 3 (September 1961), 141–48.
