Let’s Have An Open Discussion? Absolutely No Way!

I am okay to have one, but do you really mean it?

Having an open discussion is a form on social liberalism. Where in the past people tend to focus on getting their work done, clearing their A / B piles from 8am — 5pm and taking directives from their direct superiors — Today is a different story.

We want to articulate ourselves.

Freely.

We want to be able to contribute and use our ideas to propel the company ahead.

I believe that is the reason for an “Open Door” policy.

And while the policy is easy to enact, it is much more difficult to put that philosophy into practice.

That brings us back to the conventional issues of effective communication.

1. What does the communicator mean when he / she says this?
2. How does the receiver interpret the message when they hear it?

These topics are superficial because they merely scratch the surface of understanding effective communication.

The key consideration?

The psychological make-up of both the receiver and communicator is important.

For the purposes of this story, I will focus on the receiver and having the context set at home.

I typically cringe when someone approach me for an “open” discussion.

I have no issues with that request.

I have an issue with the word “open”.

What does “open” really mean and can we really achieve it in a conversation with someone else?

I have my doubts and these doubts are from my daily reflections. I think about things and I arrest my thoughts in the process of working or performing certain tasks. For instance, standing on a weighing scale.

Waiting for the digital weighing scale to produce a number is heart wrenching, especially when the LCD screen shows the starting number of 0.00kg and it starts racing its way up the moment we rest our weight on the first leg that we step on the scale.

And then BOOM!

The magic number appears.

Try standing naked in front of the mirror while standing on the weighing scale.

Let’s say that we know … that we are fat.

Visually (from the mirror), numerically (from the weighing scale) and scientifically (from some formulas devised by nutritionists or health proponents).

Do we suck in a breath of acceptance or …

We deny the obvious?

I don’t wish to put words into your mouth, I know that I will deny it 95% of the time. Since I am considered part of the normal human population on Mother Earth, then via statistical deduction, I think like the 95% of the population.

Denial of what we don’t like to see or hear is common and I have to emphasis that it is normal.

Acting on the obvious and improving ourselves is the exception to the normal.

That is probably why only very few succeed in what they do.

Okay, that is the stage I want to set. We can get back to the topic of “open” communication.

There are high risks bore by the communicator (not the requester) when they take it too literally.

It is risky because: -

• The communicator can cross the line (unknowingly) offending the requestor.
• The requestor might get more than what they prepare themselves for.

The end-result is emotional chaos and upheaval.

It is important to note that the requestor can ask for an “open” discussion without much thinking AND the communicator cannot engage without much thinking.

Even if it is within the same household.

Especially so when the requestor is emotional volatile.

This is my mistake very early on. I am a straightforward individual. When I am asked, I give. It turns out to be a wrong decision as my Dad frowned, my Mum got pissed and my cousins walked away. Only my Aunt said “well said”. I learnt as a kid that it takes a lot for others to accept candid responses. I feel equally indignant when someone in office tells me that “I can do better”.

These days — I take much more care when entertaining such requests.

It is not because I don’t believe in it.

On the contrary, I believe in it so much that I look at the criticism penned for myself in my reflection journals daily, thinking how to improve daily.

We can afford to be harsh to ourselves.

When it comes to others — Pause, take a step back and think.

Can the receiver really accept our “open” feedback?

Will it take a long time to mop up the emotional damage even though we didn’t ask for the “open” communication?

Yes, better think twice before engagement.

My Simple Takeaway.

There could be unforeseeable consequences that we might not want to shoulder.

Or maybe … we can continue to be open in an experimental fashion.

Go 50% open and direct, check their acceptance level via facial expressions.

Then go 60%, 70% and upwards.

The moment they start frowning, pause and ask if they are still okay and willing to listen.

In times like this, unfortunately or fortunately, checking the pulse rate is important to our own mental health and state of peace for the remaining part of the day.

It just is.

Related Stories from the Author.

About the Author:

As a Consultant by training, I believe in making the complex simple.

Because simplicity adds value.

Simplicity helps us gain clarity, and clarity helps us to grow.

And if we are not growing, then what’s the point of anything else?

What do you think about the article? Comment Below!

This is more about me as a Content Contributor on Medium.

Do reach out and say hi on Linkedin!