My first serious conversation happened back in the early 1980s. It involved my brother, my mother, and ultimately my sister. Mom was getting ready to head down on one of her trips to visit brother #2 in Australia & would be gone for about four or five months. Leaving me with my significantly older brother, who'd been staying with us for months.
Problem was, he never lifted a finger to help around the house, never contributed toward expenses. Mom was delighted having her first-born with us & never asked him to do anything. I, his baby sister, had a problem with it.
Realizing it would be disaster with Mom gone, I met with them, sharing it was critical to me that he be gainfully employed by the time Mom left. It was that or out he went. He was okay with that, she was okay with that. I wanted to get the agreement certified by an notary public, but Mom was clear that she thought that was a bit too much.
For over a month before Mom left, it certainly looked like my brother was heading out to work every day. A few days before her departure, I asked when he expected his first pay check. He looked at me in stunned wonderment.
Oh, he said, newly enlightened, YOU misunderstood. YOU thought that because I was heading out the door every morning before 8:00 a.m. & arrived home every week night around 6:00 p.m. that I was WORKING. Oh, no - YOU completely misunderstood. I never once said I was working.
Nor had he. He thoroughly painted it as my goof.
He then explained that his job started 12/01.
Too bad. Agreement was he needed a pay check in hand by the time Mom left & he didn't. Out he went.
Not so fast.
He was shocked that I would think of turning him out when his job started in just over a week. And he turned to Mom.
To me, he had broken our agreement. To Mom, he was her first born. I looked at him & saw my almost 50 year old brother; she looked at him & saw the little boy, the promising youth.
He stayed.
I bring up this long narrative to point out a HUGE mistake that I made back then that I rarely (wish I could say never) made again - when Mom, my brother & I had our original discussion, the one where we ended with the agreement that he had to have a pay check by the time she bid adieu for Down Under, there was no neutral witness. No one without a vested interest was party to the discussion.
Lesson learned. Ever since that infamous time, I've made a point to have a 3rd party present at any potentially difficult discussion. The person is there to help clarify what was said, to witness agreement of next steps, or even disagreements. He or she lends a disinterested pair of eyes.
The next month, when I had to have a follow-up conversation with my brother, my older sister came out from her place in Philadelphia to bear witness to our discussion - she was only there as a neutral person, vested only in keeping faith with the agreement.
Years later, when I had to have a conversation I'd been delaying with another person who mattered a lot to me, it was Mim & Mom who bore witness.
When I had a fantastic (not in a good way) talk with the same brother, it was Mom who bore witness. And praise be she was there, because she would never have believed my recollection of it otherwise!
Fast forward several years, same brother, this time the witness was a counselor. And when Mom wanted to share with her children her desire - in her late 80s - to get a better sense of who she was, the disinterested witness to the family meeting was her psychologist.
Having a disinterested, as neutral as possible witness helps anyone actively involved in the discussion stay as balanced as possible. It should always be someone everyone respects. That way, if the witness thinks I'm creatively remembering things that weren't said, I can respect that & rethink my recollection. The same with the other person. As I said, in one situation no one would have believed that my oldest brother could possibly have said a particular statement - but Mom was there & knew he did!
So, that's one of the key things I've found works in helping encourage healthy communication that yields positive results - enlist someone to just be there, to hear what's said, to confirm agreements, to be fair to all parties.
That's not to say the discussion will go smoothly or have the satisfactory result you hoped for. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. My siblings did not take at all well to their mother deciding she wanted to get a better idea of who she was & what she wanted rather than looking to others to let her know. Having a disinterested witness didn't make that conversation have the results Mom had hoped for - but it did help her know that she'd given it her best shot (or, as Mom would say, "had shot her bow").
The goal isn't next steps or agreement or even connection. It knowing you've done your best to provide information, clarity & context.
No comments:
Post a Comment