Talking about the problem does not solve the problem

A couple encounters a difficulty.

The partners talk for two hours, sometimes cry, and end with the feeling of having accomplished something important. They understand each other better. The tension drops.

Then life resumes exactly as before.

The same lateness happens again. Money is still managed the same way. The phone finds its place again between the two bodies. A few weeks later, the couple starts the same conversation again.

They have talked about the problem. They have not yet solved it.

Dialogue can shed light, clarify and bring people closer. It can reveal that we were fighting the wrong target.

But a word is not yet a decision. A decision is not yet a behavior. An isolated behavior is not yet a change.

The power of dialogue is revealed in what it makes different afterward.

Being available requires more than a free hour

We think about the right moment: not starting when the other person is leaving for work, driving or taking care of the children.

There is also an inner unavailability.

We can be seated and silent with a defense already built. We want to be listened to, but no words will be able to change our interpretation.

Being available means accepting a few possibilities: we may not have understood everything; our intention may have produced another effect; we are missing some information; part of the change may concern us.

This availability does not impose agreement. We can understand a pain and refuse an accusation.

But if nothing can enter our reasoning, we have not come to dialogue. We have come to have a conclusion confirmed.

It is sometimes more honest to say:

"I am not able to listen to you right now. This subject matters. Let's take it up again tomorrow at ten o'clock."

Postponing becomes responsible when it contains a real return.

Listening all the way through does not mean accepting everything

We sometimes invite the other person to discuss when we only want them to attend to our speech.

They can speak as long as they confirm our demonstration. As soon as some information disturbs us, we interrupt to correct their version.

Listening all the way through means discovering the whole thought before responding to it. That gives no permission for threats or humiliation.

We can ask for a rephrasing, a pause or a boundary. But most of our interruptions mainly protect the response we had already chosen.

A discussion becomes a court when it seeks a verdict on the whole person. Every past fault returns as a witness, even when it had been acknowledged and repaired.

The past can shed light on a repetition. It must not remain available to win any trial.

Understanding the cause does not excuse the behavior

We talk about the lack of intimacy, but not about the humiliations that destroyed safety. We talk about the money spent, but not about the need for freedom that the purchase is trying to satisfy.

Understanding the mechanism indicates where to act.

That justifies nothing.

A person can shout because they feel powerless. This cause does not authorize their shouting. It shows that the solution will have to give them another way of moving through that feeling.

A useful discussion looks for the facts, the triggers, the rewards of the behavior and the consequences for each person.

It also consults the problems already gone through. What had we done differently? Had an organization, a habit or a way of speaking really changed?

The couple sometimes possesses within its own history part of the method it is looking for.

Acknowledging one's part without absorbing the other's

We can begin like this:

"I acknowledge that I too said disrespectful words. I ask your forgiveness for that part. I now want to talk about the words I receive and can no longer accept."

This opening shows that we apply to ourselves the requirement addressed to the other.

But it is fair only if that part really exists.

We do not have to invent a fault to make the other capable of hearing their own. Humility does not require artificially sharing responsibility for violence, infidelity or a decision made alone.

We can be imperfect in the relationship without having committed the precise act we are talking about.

Kindness carries the emotional weight with the other. Truth returns the behavior to its author.

Progress in conversation and progress in life are distinct

We can end a discussion feeling better understood, without the organization having changed yet. That result matters: it can make a next step possible. It must not be presented as the whole repair.

Let's imagine that an agreement about taking turns had been explained more calmly. The next day, the taking turns does not happen. The quality of the dialogue may have progressed; the need for rest remains unanswered. We must now look at the means, the commitment and the reliability, rather than again only recommending better talking.

A workable next step specifies who does what, under what conditions and how an obstacle will be reported. It also provides for a moment of follow-up without turning the couple into a control room. We are looking for the real effect, not the perfect execution of a program.

Relief, agreement, action and lasting change are four different results. Distinguishing them makes it possible to recognize what is moving forward and to work on what is missing, without proclaiming success too early or erasing the first steps.

"We" can create an alliance without falsifying the facts

"We" reminds us that two people live in the same relationship and will have to look for a way out.

Saying "we are losing our way of talking to each other" does not mean that both said the same words.

"We" becomes unfair when it invents a shared fault.

"We have a problem with the insults you keep repeating" is different from "we insult each other" if only one person does it.

The first sentence unites the couple in the need to deal with the problem and names its current source. The second falsifies the facts.

A real positive quality can also protect the person against a global verdict:

"You have already learned to change a difficult habit. That is why I believe you can look at this one."

This reference does not sugarcoat the reproach. It reminds us that the person is not reduced to their behavior.

A solution must fit into an ordinary Tuesday

"You have to change" is not a solution.

Change what? In what situation? Through what behavior? How will we know that the effort produces an effect?

A solution becomes real when it can fit into an ordinary day, in the middle of work, fatigue and children.

If the problem concerns decisions made alone, the couple can define an area where nothing will be committed before a conversation.

If it concerns interruptions, each person has a speaking time, then rephrases what they understood before responding.

If it concerns a hurtful word, we need to identify the sign of escalation, the way to stop and the act of repair expected.

The first solution may fail. That failure then brings information. The couple adjusts the method instead of only repeating its intention.

Solving has a movement: understand, decide, experiment, observe, adjust.

The conversation must produce proof

After ten promises without change, the partner does not necessarily refuse dialogue because they are closed off.

They may have learned that discussions relieve the moment without transforming the next day.

A useful conversation therefore ends with a first action, a responsibility and a moment of verification.

The act is not meant to monitor every effort. It makes it possible to distinguish a good intention, an ineffective method and an absent will.

Dialogue does not lose its value by producing a decision. It fulfills its function.

We must no longer only ask: "Did we manage to understand each other?"

Let's also ask: "What are we going to try, when, and what will we look at afterward?"

The word opens.

The decision orients.

Repetition proves.

What did our last conversation produce?

What did our last conversation change starting the next day?

Did I listen to information capable of changing my reading?

What cause still sustains the behavior named?

What action can we try this week?

When will we verify together what it produced?