Rapport, Confrontation, Change

Rapport, Confrontation, and Change
By: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
8/28/2023

1. In my 30 years of counseling, my first intervention was often teaching a communication lesson. A pair of UCLA professors developed this communication model as a general method of communication, conflict resolution, and counseling intervention. This model contains a sequence of three stages: 1) Rapport, 2) Confrontation, and 3) Change.  They developed this model from a meta-analysis of many different counseling methods. They saw these three stages as common to all interpersonal communications. Note: These steps are always present in every communication, but in familiar/trusting relationships, most of the steps are implicit/silent/unseen. The following is a more complete elaboration of the methods within each stage.
2. In this summary document, I have framed the steps as an interaction between an Offended party and an Offender. The Offended party in this scenario is taken to be the mature communicator/skilled helper and leads the offender through a series of steps that illuminate the Offender’s state of mind, motivation, feelings, past experiences, programming/nature/nurture, and habits. Upon completion of the Confrontation process, the Offender acknowledges/owns the need for change and becomes a co-seeker of strategies for alternate behavior. The change step may include processing past hurts, reactivity, and programming so the offender can change.
3. In everyday communication between unskilled communicators, the roles will often reverse. The Originally Offended may be triggered and react inappropriately to the Offender. (The professional helper/skilled communicator should be able to go through the steps and stay neutral throughout the entire process.) When the Originally Offended reacts inappropriately to the Original Offender, the interaction may need to be interrupted and delayed. The Originally Offended may need to process and reprogram his reactivity before continuing as the facilitator/helper. If the Original Offender is a skilled communicator, then it may be possible to agree to switch roles before proceeding. The processing and reprogramming for inappropriate reactivity may involve reliving past experiences, reframing, and changing his emotional-cognitive reaction to a normal/healthy/adult/Godly present-day reaction. The Originally Offended cannot facilitate the Original Offender toward Change when his judgment, perceptions, and reactions are overwhelmed by reactions to normal behaviors or the stories/drama/situations being reported/disclosed/discussed.
4. The first step is Rapport. The Originally Offended (taking on the role of the skilled communicator at this time) must hear/understand/feel the state of the Original Offender. The Offended must fully “get” the Offender before confronting him about his offense. This is especially true if the Offended responds strongly to the offense. This is challenging, but someone in the interaction must put on the role of the skilled communicator; otherwise, professional intervention is necessary.
5. The importance of Rapport cannot be overemphasized. It is foundational that the Offended must know/feel/resonate with what was going on in the mind/heart of the Offender. What were they feeling and thinking, what were their perceptions of reality, and the reasons the offender did the thing that caused/stimulated the feelings of offense? Rapport includes understanding/duplicating the other person’s frame of mind/intent/thoughts (before confrontation about the offense). This duplication is done by a series of iterations/attempts to understand the frame of mind of the person who was the offender. That is the person who felt offended/wronged/hurt must walk in the offender’s shoes.  The offended party should ask all the questions that illuminate the offender’s state of mind, intent, circumstances as perceived, understanding, reason for acting… etc. The offended party confirms each of these understanding segments by repeating back/mirroring/checking for accuracy with statements such as, “It sounds like you felt/thought XYZ. Is that right?” Then, the offender continues on with the story—the Offended paraphrases intermittently to show that there was an understanding of the offender’s state of mind. When the offended party has duplicated the offender’s state of mind internally, as confirmed by the offended party’s accurately mirroring back the story to the offender, the initial Rapport step is complete.
6. The second step of the counseling/offense-resolution process is “Confrontation.” This is the step where the offended party asks the offender if he realizes that there was some behavior that he realized/wanted/believed needed to be changed. (e.g., admission of intent to hurt, violation of space, use of tone/words that were hurtful, behaviors that violated standards of respect, custom, taste, preference, or protocol, etc.)
7. Confrontation must be done gently, tentatively, because we all are defensive against accusations of unjustified acts/speech/thoughts. We all want to see ourselves as blameless, perfect examples of humanity and justified before God in our acts. And if we do violate a protocol of relationship, and we know it is commonly judged as an offense, we want to be understood/seen as having been justified by the circumstances in acting/speaking as we did.  (This is even true of the overt/blatant criminal who acts purposefully. The criminal justifies his acts based upon a scenario/reason that he integrates into his story that gives his act mitigation/justification/understanding.) All that to say, No one ever feels their acts/thoughts/speech are unjustified – at the beginning of the confrontation. When we first begin to confront behavior, we find it offensive/hurtful/unrighteous/unjustified; we constantly face a defended fortress.  Thus, there is a need for Rapport to make the confrontation easier and to lower barriers of ego defense.
8. Thus, when beginning a confrontation of offense, the first step in the confrontation (after rapport is complete) is tentative. E.g., “It seems that you are/did/were thinking/were acting in XYZ way. Does that sound/feel/look right/possible to you?”  This is the “questioning” phase of the confrontation. Confrontation is phrased as a question because questions are tentative by their nature. A question is not declaring truth but only asking for the person’s opinion about a possibility. It removes some of the pointedness/accusatory/convicting nature of the confrontation about a behavior that is commonly considered ignoble/unGodly/uncivil/wrong/bad/unethical…
9. Of course, at this point, even a tentative question may trigger a retaliatory defensive reaction. The offender may consider the question that his offense was actually an offense to be offensive and respond defensively, and may then accuse the originally offended person of being the offender for asking the question. The scales of justice can swing from total exoneration of the offended party to the focus of inquiry/accusation of violation being placed on the Originally offended party. The Originally Offended may then go on the attack against the Original Offender. If the Originally Offended responds with harsh words, defensive tones, and counteraccusations, the Originally Offended becomes the Secondary Offender.
10. The fractals of scenarios that could evolve from this melee are endless. The high entropy outcomes, the number of not-helpful/non-resolving scenarios, are so numerous that the likelihood of accidentally resolving the situation goes toward zero unless someone in the confrontation is skilled and can lead the dyad through a rational Rapport/confrontation/change cycle.
11. Often, situations are resolved when the Original Offender confesses/acknowledges his protocol error, and the Originally Offended accepts the apology, forgives/understands, and gives grace to the Original Offender. This is what should happen – it is the goal and most straightforward path toward resolution.
12. After the error is acknowledged, the offender should be asked by the offender what he could do to change so that this situation does not repeat. The offender may offer suggestions, and if there are none, the offender can ask, “Would you mind if I suggested a solution?” After ideas have been discussed for how change could occur, the offender can be coached with tentative words of support, such as, “Would you like me to support you in adopting this new habit?”
13. As a result of the Offender’s commitment and sincere desire to change and support for change protocols put in place, the Offender and the Offended can restore the relationship. If appropriate, the Offended can choose to forgive the Offender, giving grace, expecting change so as not to be offended again, thereby allowing the Offender to return to being in relationship interactions with the Offended.
14. Having gone through such a vulnerable state where imperfection was seen, the relationship can continue with a deeper connection than before. With more trust having been established, both parties will resolve issues in a way that will minimize the pain felt by the Offender, and that relationship will not be broken if there is an offense. This allows both parties to put more faith that the relationship can be repaired and even better if an offense is committed.
15. The key to resolving the offense lies in the hands of the Offended. If he responds with grace/mercy/understanding and forgiveness and expects the Offender to accept tentative confrontation with grace/interest/self-reflection/non-defensiveness, then that confrontation will eventually result in a commitment to change/adopt a new behavior as a habit.