Mindfulness and Effective Communication Paper

A few months ago, my father requested we have lunch since he would be in town for a
business meeting. I did not think much about it we did that often. Although I thought it would
just be a normal lunch date, I could not stop thinking about the fact that I had recently
crashed my car and lied about the circumstances. My friends and I had decided to get away
from town for some adventure. Everyone was excited about joining college, and my new car
was the center of almost every adventurous plan. We had been happily cruising when I
rammed into a tree at the side of the road. I knew being truthful about the true circumstances
could have my father withhold the car, so I lied that my friend had been driving. On that
fateful day, I decided to show up early and wait for him. When he arrived, I knew instantly
something was wrong because he was awfully quiet. A few minutes into our conversation, he
asked whether I had told him the truth about the car accident. I retained my false story,
thinking there was no way he could possibly know the truth. He called me out on the lie and
told me how he had found out everything from my younger brother. I attempted to defend
myself but I could not. He seemed upset that I had lied about such an incident that could have
been potentially fatal. My gut reaction has always been to shut down, so I kept quiet and let
my father talk. I thought about telling him how he was difficult to approach but decided
against it. The conversation ended with him demanding that I would not get the car for two
months.
Part B
Based on the four levels of the conversation meter, I was listening at the pretense level
while my father was arguing at the accuracy level. I was avoiding difficulty by not offering
my view, hence the bioreactive response to freeze and appease. I was certainly withholding
information because I thought it would only make my father more infuriated. However, my
father was arguing with facts and calling me out on my lies, essentially comparing
explanations for value. Although he could be biased about the reason I chose to lie, he asked
fact-based questions to aid his understanding of the situation. I was not being helpful so the
conversation was not as productive or effective as he expected.
Part C
I could have listened differently by collaborating with the facts that I was confronted
with. Considering the nature of my reaction during the conversation, I made it difficult to
achieve value since I could not cooperate with my father’s suggestion that I tell the truth. To
make matters worse, I was feeling judgmental and attacked more than I was remorseful. I
would have created value in the conversation by being empathetic, listening, and trying to
understand my father’s point of view. While it is normal for people to find arguments
paralyzing, I could have had a more valuable conversation if I had expressed myself. This
would have created an environment whereby the goal is to find a solution for the problem,
instead of attacking the person. It would have been easier to achieve accuracy and
authenticity if I had focused on revealing facts, not basing my thinking entirely on the
perception that my father is unapproachable. Both of us could have focused on clarifying the
essential purpose and found mutual grounds for action.