In this day and age of electronic communication, it is evident that we miss so much without being able to hear tone of voice and observe body language. I recently had the experience of needing to truly understand an individual’s intention who had posted to an on-line forum. The ramifications of the post had significant impact as to how a large, international group of people viewed both a referenced individual and the poster (both highly respected, preeminent educators).

I found that writing a private letter requesting clarification of intention to a person I know fairly well exceedingly difficult. Theory of Mind came into play – I think this is what I could think in this context so they might be feeling the same way. While it may seem silly, it is an honest problem. Several questions came to mind as I started my letter. Was the topic under discussion offensive in some way? Did the poster have a negative view of the referenced person? Was the tone or content of the original post offensive in some way? What tone should be used in writing the letter? How does one go about asking difficult questions regarding intention without being offensive or potentially making matters worse? All of these unanswered questions made the letter exceedingly difficult to write.

It would have been very easy to pop off an email with the question “do you realize what you just said?” This is an accusatory and aggressive statement that does not allow for much discussion. In the end, I did my best to channel my inner Henry Kissinger, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and one of the most highly respected diplomats the US has ever known (I do realize that this does date me). Dr. Kissinger’s ability to use diplomacy and tact to achieve phenomenal communications between disinterested parties has been renowned and respected for years. While I am certain I did not even come close to doing him justice (probably more of an insult), the letter was effective in reaching the person who made the post. I use the classic format of: starting with positives, using only phrases referencing my own perception and understanding in regards to any negatives, asking open ended questions to encouraging answers other than yes and no, and closing with more positives. By doing so, I able to avoid putting the person in a defensive position or create an atmosphere of conflict and allowed the person an easy way to explain what had occurred if I had misinterpreted their intention.

One may ask what this has to do with effective dog training. Well, the answer appears pretty straight forward to me. As dog trainers, should we not go into each and every consultation (group or private) by trying to understand how our clients must be feeling and how we can empathize with them on a personal level?

While they are difficult questions, I believe that we all need to ask the following of ourselves. Do we behave in a judgmental manner (i.e. do we state that our clients are the reason their dog behaves the way they do)? Do we tell them that they need to convince their dog that they are more “important” than distractions around them instead of discussing motivation? Do we explain, but not truly teach our audience because we did not really listen and identify the “real” problem? Do we make sure we remember that describing pet behavior does not come easily to most pet owners? Do we misinterpret the perceived problem because the problem we see is not the problem they see? So often, for many of us, the answers to the above questions are yes.

Achieving negative answers to the above questions often require great tact, diplomacy, and restraint on the part of the trainer (i.e. The Kissinger Effect). As trainers, I believe we need to remember that we ARE viewed as the experts being hired to help someone who has overcome their fears and, often, embarrassment to pick up the phone and request help. So many times, our clients are already feeling frustrated and helpless in regards to their animal’s behavior – otherwise they would not seek us out. They do not need to feel more guilt or frustration because of our words or actions. We should be acting as their advocate and trusted advisor through a difficult period. I have come to the conclusion that discussing how somebody managed to get into the difficulty they are experiencing is often counterproductive to actually solving the problem. We need to recognize that “why” things have gotten where they are may truly not matter.

Should we not instead focus on shaping the desired behaviors in our clients and their animals and provide them with the tools they need to succeed? Can the discussion ultimately include the whys and hows of the source of the problem(s) so that they are not repeated? Of course it can, but only after the unwanted behaviors are on the mend and a comfortable relationship based on trust and understanding has been established.

It was pointed out to me recently that so many positive reinforcement-based trainers have a significant scientific background when it comes to understanding why we do what we do. Those with a scientific bent often focus on the science of the problem and not the human emotional needs that come into play and affect behavior. A large portion of of tact and diplomacy is empathy – trying to relate on a personal level and trying to understand what the other person is feeling. Without that portion of the equation, relationships between teacher and student often become strained and may ultimately fail. I believe that meeting the needs of our clients can only come when we use empathy, tact, diplomacy, and restraint in our teaching – The Kissinger Effect.

 
Add Comment
 
© 2010 Pawsitive K9 Training LLC