Kind communication

Some time ago, Katja Rieger inspired me to explore the book Crucial Conversations. While I was reading, I stumbled upon several insights that resonated deeply. On pages 5 and 43, the authors explain that for generations, humans have tended to approach crucial conversations with the same instinctive aggression our ancestors used when facing physical threats. When we hear something we strongly disagree with, our bodies react as if we were confronting a tiger - the large muscles in our arms and legs receive more blood while the brain receives less. In this state, we often default to "fight or flight" mode, aiming to survive or win rather than to understand. Later, on page 57, I learned that when people communicate aggressively, it often signals that they feel unsafe. This insight reframed how I perceive tense conversations: Aggression is not just hostility - it can be a sign of fear or vulnerability, and an invitation to restore psychological safety before moving forward.

In 2021, I came across 2 examples, which demonstrate aggressive communication behavior: The first example is a contribution via YouTube by Swiss parliament member Andri Silberschmidt. In it, Mr. Silberschmidt explained that during the COVID-19 health crisis, he experienced members of the Swiss parliament verbally attacking each other. The second example is a contribution by member of the Swiss Federal Council Ignazio Cassis. In an article in the newspaper NZZ Mr. Cassis expressed this: "Instead of listening to each other, people shout out loud. Instead of approaching each other, we seek confrontation." 

I feel a sense of sadness when politicians attack each other. Why is that? I think it is because I view members of parliament as role models. For me, politicians represent not only the people’s interests but also the way we communicate, collaborate, and make decisions together as a society. When I see representatives of the population engaging in personal attacks or failing to truly listen to one another, it feels disheartening. It’s not just the conflict itself that troubles me. It is the absence of kindness and respect in dialogue. I believe that constructive communication, grounded in empathy and curiosity, is essential for decisions that benefit everyone. So when kindness disappears from public discourse, it feels like something fundamental to our shared humanity is being lost.

So what can we do to rise above the extreme focus on ego that Mr. Silberschmidt and Mr. Cassis describe as a poison that destroys communication between people? I’ve reflected on this question and would like to share four approaches that, in my experience, help foster mutual understanding and kindness:

1. The power of thankfulness and wishing each other well
   In the winter of 2020–2021, I had the privilege of working with personal health coach Karin Freitag, from whom I learned a great deal. During a spring walk up Zürich’s Üetliberg, Karin shared a simple yet profound practice. She explained how this exercise had helped her improve a strained relationship with a colleague - by simply taking time each day to thank that person in her thoughts and wish the person well. Over time, she noticed a real shift in their communication. It opened her heart. When we thank others and wish them well, we create spaces of safety, trust, and care - conditions that ego alone can never sustain.

2. The “Yes, and” method
   Through my work and studies on innovation, I have learned about the “yes, and” technique, which encourages people to build on each other’s ideas rather than dismiss them. The principle is simple: Instead of countering someone’s suggestion with a “no, but,” we respond with “yes, and.” For example, one person might propose, “What if we speed up vaccine development by sharing research findings openly online?” Another might respond, “Yes, and we could create platforms where people can easily sign up to receive the vaccine.” This method transforms conversations from debates into collaborations. It builds bridges and helps people move closer rather than apart. 

3. Conflict consulting
   In 2025 I learned a great deal about conflict consulting as I took part in the University of Zürich initiative Miteinander Reden. Through the process I wrote down my learnings about methods for mediating conflicts.

4. Humor
   Years ago, politicians often used humor to connect people and ease tensions. I recall former U.S. President Ronald Reagan joking about a Russian citizen having to wait ten years for a car that they had ordered - a lighthearted way to make a political point without hostility. I also remember the expression If you can't join them, beat them by Uffe Ellemann Jensen, Former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark. And I recall an episode in the Swiss Parliament in 2010 when Federal Councillor Hans-Rudolf Merz burst into laughter while discussing meat imports from the Canton of Grisons. His laughter was so contagious that tears rolled down his face, and the entire room softened. Humor reminds us that behind every opinion and argument, there are human beings with beating hearts. When we laugh together, our hearts communicate in ways that words alone cannot.