Teachable Moment or Missed Opportunity: It's Your Choice

Image from The TOF Spot

The way we respond to an issue determines whether we are engaging in positive solution-focused initiation or in negative problem-perpetuation. Regardless of the issue, no matter how morally justified we may be, our reaction determines outcome potentials. What is the desired outcome of your interactions, debates or spontaneous conflicts? How are your words and behaviors affecting your desired outcomes? Are you engaging the other person in positive exploration or are you further ingratiating them into their own viewpoint? I am not merely referring to posts on Facebook or discussions during a board meeting. We encounter these moments during backyard barbecues and dinner with friends. Things are going smoothly, good conversations are flowing, and suddenly someone makes a racially offensive statement. How do you respond and what is the desired outcome?

I firmly believe that offensive statements should be addressed. Complacency is the same as agreement. If, for example, a racial epithet is allowed to go unheeded, unspoken agreement is inferred. Those moments present a Teachable Moment or a Missed Opportunity - and the choice rests solidly in your response.

Your initial reaction may be to respond with anger, perhaps even violence. You may feel completely justified and you might be correct. But what is your desired outcome? Does an angry, violent response create the outcome you ultimately want? What are your options? What are other ways that you can react to the offensive behavior and what ways best serve your ultimate goals? Think about how others have responded to you when you've said something you shouldn't have said. Think about how you would want others to respond to you. Think about how others have changed your viewpoint on an issue.

I used to engage in racial, political, religious and other debates with a perceived goal of changing minds and creating positive change in the world. I felt invigorated as I countered every statement with a mixture of fact-based arguments and a bit of condescension. As the other person responded with defensiveness and anger, I would match that word for word. I imagined others reading the thread or hearing the interaction and siding with me because I was right. But what was the outcome of these "debates"? Was I changing any minds? Was I creating the positive changes in the world that I claimed I was working toward? I missed a lot of opportunities back then. I was responding not to open their minds but to win. The ultimate outcome was not my desired outcome. Instead, I pushed the other to become even more entrenched in their own framework as they defensively returned my aggressive condescension.

In my defense, I was not aware of my self-defeating tactics until my husband made me aware. He didn't berate or belittle me, embarrass me, smack my face, or engage in any negative behavior. Instead, he used subtle, effective, simple and positive tools. He asked me questions that made me feel he was truly interested in what interests me. He asked me about the purpose of these debates and what I had accomplished by the methods I employed. And he asked me how I felt and how I imagined they were feeling. But even before that, he showed me by example. He is often described by others as being "easy-going", "always smiling", "friendly" and "just good people". This is not to say that he's a push-over or never speaks his mind. He simply does so in a positive manner that isn't counterproductive.

In contrast, we all know those who are morally outraged, who react with either anger (the get-in-your-face type) or a sense of superiority (the know-it-all type). How do you feel about their methods? Oftentimes, they tend to make even those who agree with their stance to feel uncomfortable. If your method involves embarrassing another person, dehumanizing them, or any physical contact, you are not only producing the opposite of your desired outcome, but also alienating those who otherwise agree with your viewpoint.

Let's look at an example:

You believe in marriage equality and view the opposition as close-minded religious bigots. You believe that religion should have no place in governmental laws and that governmental laws should protect citizens from oppressive, regressive and discriminatory practices regardless of where they originate (religious morality included). John Doe believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. He believes that a government without religious morality (of course, his religion) as its foundation is inherently flawed and morally corrupt. You're at a neighborhood gathering and the same-sex couple down the street joins the party. John Doe, assuming that you're just like him, says, "Those people are just sick. I don't want to see that and I don't want my kids to see that. It's bad enough they've moved into the neighborhood, but now I guess we'll be seeing them kissing in public and they'll raise their rainbow flag instead of the American flag. We need a constitutional amendment that protects our Christian values from that immoral lifestyle. Next thing you know, people will want to marry their dog or horse."

You have choices about how to respond. What is your desired outcome? Do you want to make him just as angry as he just made you? Do you want to retaliate and make him feel like an ignorant idiot? Or do you want to open his mind just a little bit and perhaps create an opportunity for learning? This is a Teachable Moment or a Missed Opportunity. The choice is yours. How do you respond? Give your thoughts and ideas in the comments. Let's think before we speak, take a moment before we react. Let's retrain ourselves to be agents of change for positivity.

*All comments are moderated to prevent spamming*