The Common Ground Network for Life and Choice Manual

f) Encouraging people to use "I" messages instead of "you" messages (accusations.) The
idea is that instead of a person saying, “You don’t care about children!” they compose
their statement in terms of describing the other’s behavior, the feelings that behavior
invokes in them, and why. So, using the example, we get something like, "I feel upset
when you only talk about women, because I assume the child means nothing to you.”
An “I statement” can be reasonably responded to, when an accusation often cannot.
While a dialogue is not generally a good place for putting extensive attention on one
person’s communication style, it can be useful to discuss this I-statement idea for
everyone if the group is engaging in mutual accusation. If a single person seems stuck on
accusation, the facilitator can lead him or her to a reframed statement by interjecting a
series of questions like: “What is it that X does [says] that makes you think this? Why do
you draw this conclusion? How does this make you feel?”
g) Asking speakers to stick to describing others' actions without evaluating/judging
them. This often has to do with choice of words. "She's a loudmouth" loses the judgment
and provides more information if it changes to, "She spoke loudly and more than anyone
else there."). The facilitator can interject a question after such a statement like, "Would
you tell us what she did?" explaining that information about behavior instead of just a
judgment is going to make this statement much more understandable to others.
h) Talking directly to participants about how they are communicating and suggesting
another approach. This includes noting any hesitancy to speak that you observe. In some
situations if things really get off track, it can help to ask the group to take a time out and
sit quietly for a minute to let things calm down before resuming the conversation.