A Rush to Judgement

 .

I was guilty.  There is no getting around it - I was guilty this week of a rush to judgment, as was most of the nation, the NAACP, the USDA and the White House. 

Early in the week a video snippet was posted by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart.  He intended to highlight racism within the NAACP.  This video supposedly showed a USDA official, Shirley Sherrod (a black woman, addressing a gathering of the NAACP at the time of her remarks) admitting to racism in her decisions and dealings with a white farmer.  The outcry was loud and lightning quick.  The NAACP issued a statement condemning Sherrod.  The USDA accepted her (forced) resignation.  The story was carried on all of the major cable and broadcast news networks, print and radio. President Obama issued a statement condemning the sentiment.  I, along with the many others who expressed shock and outrage, was alarmed that such a statement could be made by anyone, much less a government official, in a public forum that was obviously being videotaped.

No one took the time to actually speak to Shirley Sherrod or ask her for an explanation of her comments – until later.

In subsequent interviews on CNN, Shirley Sherrod expressed frustration and bewilderment because the point she had actually been making in the address was that she had overcome this initial, gut reaction to the white farmer and had helped him save his farm.  She went above and beyond the call of duty in the effort because no one else was there and willing to help. She utilized the story to encourage harmony and working together, regardless of race.

News agencies took the time, at that point, to do some research and listen to Ms. Sherrod’s entire address in context.  As it turns out, this is the message she expressed in the speech she gave to the NAACP that day.  The farmer referred to in the piece made a public statement supporting Sherrod and referring to her as a dear friend.  Suddenly the tables had been turned on everyone.  NAACP President Benjamin Jealous issued an apology to Sherrod, saying his organization had been “snookered” by the group editing the video.  The President apologized and the USDA backpedaled by offering Sherrod a new position within the agency. 

Shirley Sherrod has yet to decide if she will accept the new position offered her.  She seems to be the only one in this situation who takes time to think things through.

There has also been a quick backlash against Breitbart  for the seemingly manipulative edit done on the video in the first place.  Breitbart has expressed this was not about Sherrod.  It was intended to highlight (in his opinion) racism within the NAACP by showing the supportive response Sherrod received to her initial thoughts toward this white farmer.  I think I have learned a very valuable lesson in all of this and will withhold a judgment on Breitbart's motives until I have more information.

It is never wise to rush to any judgment.  As I have mentioned here before – and I express in my book – there are three sides to every story: yours, mine and the truth.  It is very important to look at a situation from all sides before making a determination about it.

High Road Challenge for the Day:  If you were caught up in this whirlwind of controversy, you can see just how easy it is to make snap decisions. Take a few minutes to think back over the past couple of weeks to a time when you made a similar rush to judgment. Was it with a family member? A store clerk? A driver who wasn’t meeting your standards for highway etiquette? Remember the importance of considering their side of the story before drawing a conclusion. And if there’s a situation in which it’s both appropriate and possible to make amends, I gently encourage you to take the high road and do so. 

You're not listening to me...

.
“You’re not listening to me!”  The conflict between two colleagues was beginning to escalate.  I heard the exchange described to me in one of my sessions.  “He always says that. ‘You’re not listening.’  It makes me crazy,” the participant groaned.

Because my approach to communication is a bit different than most, my recommendation to this attendee was not what he expected.  I believe that our goal, as communicators, is three-fold: first, to allow all people to feel comfortable and respected in our presence, while second, standing our own ground and third, getting our message across.  Most communication training comes from the opposite direction and specifies the most important factor in communication to be getting our point across – to be clear.  I believe someone can clearly communicate their message and still leave “dead bodies” behind them as they do business, which is not optimum.  That is why I approach it from the High Road perspective and place our primary objective on allowing all people to feel comfortable and respected in our presence, while we are standing our own ground and getting our message across.

Approaching the situation from this paradigm, my response to the participant was this: “If he is consistently saying that to you, he’s right.  Because what he is really saying is, ‘I believe you are not listening to me,’ which means as a communicator, you have missed the primary objective.”

If someone says to you, “You’re not listening to me.” I recommend you discipline yourself away from the potential knee-jerk response that will most likely come out of your mouth: “Yes I am!”  Instantaneously this puts you on the defensive and in an adversarial position.  Instead, I encourage you to follow a High Road, three-step process to clarification.

1.    Step one: Offer an empathy statement.  It might be something like, “I’m sorry that you might feel that way.”  Acknowledge and empathize with how the other person is feeling.

2.    Step two has two possible directions:

a.    If you were actually listening to them, then paraphrase back what you just heard.  You might say something like, “Let me share with you what I just heard…,” or “My understanding is you meant this…”  The value of reflective paraphrasing is that it allows the other person to grasp that you really did “get” what they said.

b.    We have to acknowledge that sometimes, in certain situations, we really weren’t listening.  If that is the case, I encourage you to admit that and take responsibility for it. “You are right.  I wasn’t listening.  I apologize for that.  Please tell me again and I will listen attentively this time.”

3.    Step three: Whichever fork in the road you take at step two, step three is the same.  Ask the other person, sincerely and humbly, “What was I doing that caused you to believe I wasn’t listening to you?”  Then you can fix it for future growth.  Many people have habits, such as allowing their eyes to wander, doodling or scanning their Blackberry, that cause others to believe they aren’t listening.  This is a terrific opportunity to recognize such habits and adjust them for growth in this area.

Sometimes when someone says, “You’re not listening to me,” what they really mean is “You’re not agreeing with me.”  In such a situation, the first two steps remain the same.  The only adjustment happens in step three.  The direction step three would take at this point would be to clarify the difference between listening and agreeing. “I have heard and understand what you said.  I don’t agree with you.”  This validates the communication without having to validate the sentiment of that communication.

High Road Challenge for the Day: The next time someone says to you, “You’re not listening to me,” put this High Road, three-step process into action.  This will allow the other person to feel comfortable and respected in your presence.  That respect offered to them will then be reciprocated which will allow you to stand your own ground and get your message across.