The contrast between a person's intention in doing or saying something, and the impact of what is done or said on another person seems to be an almost infinite source of conflict. This simple and elegant image helps understand that, in part, conflict arises because both intent and impact remain inside the people involved, while, at the same time, they try to manage the interaction based on what is visible, that is, what was done or said.
When that happens, we may find the people involved saying to each other things like "I didn't mean to..."(on one side) or "why would you..." or "how could you..." (on the other side), for instance. And these kinds of things may be said repeatedly.
Probably an effective way to start getting out of the maze, which may need just a few seconds to completely wrap the people involved, would be starting by acknowledging the pain associated with the perceived impact, instead of stating repeatedly that hurting was not the "doer"'s intention. Saying or doing something with a different intent does not invalidate the fact that the other person feels hurt. So, let's start there without having to justify or getting defensive. Once the impact has been heard, acknowledged, and empathically understood, it will be much easier to look at the other side, and hear, acknowledge, and empathically understand what the real intent was, and close the gap between one and the other.
Blogs We Love
Association of Women in Business Ethiopia AWiB
Live On Your Terms
Living For Purpose