Cognitive Complexity
Recent treks into an old college communications book (Looking out Looking In by Adler and Proctor) reminded me of how I communicate and how it is flawed. I'll give you an example.
The Pillow Method involves 5 positions of communication.
1- I'm right and you're wrong.
2-You're right and I am wrong.
3- Both right. Both wrong.
4-The issue isn't important.
5- There is truth in all perspectives.
Today I returned a phone call at work - a request to re-assess the needs of a client. Initially, I was comfortable with the assessment (Pos 1). Then I adopted the perspective that since a change had occurred with the client, there must be a need to re-assess (Pos 2). After the call I reviewed the most recent assessment and determined that it was satisfactory (Pos 1). Subsequently I left a message stating my position and canceled the appointment I had just made.
I can see the point of view of the client's caregiver - she is providing more care, and therefore it deserves more pay (Pos 2). I recognize that the needs of the client may not warrant an increased rate (Pos 3). And I know that if I re-assess the outcome may or may not result in a higher rate (Pos 5).
Position #4 is where I have trouble and get stuck. This issue is not important and a non-issue. This requires us to agree to disagree without taking an action based on anyone of the perspectives. I have trouble with this (and I also think the provider does also). So I spend a lot of energy and time trying to repair what I see as a potentially damaged relationship. However, agreeing to disagree doesn't mean we both lost or that the relationship is damaged or that even that respect is compromised. It only means we can move onward in spite of the difference and still respect the other's point of view. (Pos 5).
Position #4 is the quagmire of co-dependency.
The Pillow Method involves 5 positions of communication.
1- I'm right and you're wrong.
2-You're right and I am wrong.
3- Both right. Both wrong.
4-The issue isn't important.
5- There is truth in all perspectives.
Today I returned a phone call at work - a request to re-assess the needs of a client. Initially, I was comfortable with the assessment (Pos 1). Then I adopted the perspective that since a change had occurred with the client, there must be a need to re-assess (Pos 2). After the call I reviewed the most recent assessment and determined that it was satisfactory (Pos 1). Subsequently I left a message stating my position and canceled the appointment I had just made.
I can see the point of view of the client's caregiver - she is providing more care, and therefore it deserves more pay (Pos 2). I recognize that the needs of the client may not warrant an increased rate (Pos 3). And I know that if I re-assess the outcome may or may not result in a higher rate (Pos 5).
Position #4 is where I have trouble and get stuck. This issue is not important and a non-issue. This requires us to agree to disagree without taking an action based on anyone of the perspectives. I have trouble with this (and I also think the provider does also). So I spend a lot of energy and time trying to repair what I see as a potentially damaged relationship. However, agreeing to disagree doesn't mean we both lost or that the relationship is damaged or that even that respect is compromised. It only means we can move onward in spite of the difference and still respect the other's point of view. (Pos 5).
Position #4 is the quagmire of co-dependency.
Comments