The E.R.I. technique (Listen, Reformulate, Question) is strongly inspired by active listening, a concept developed from the work of the American psychologist Carl Rogers (1902-1987). It aims to :
- Encourage constructive exchanges
o by opening up a space for dialogue and co-construction, where you can more easily put forward your ideas
o by facilitating your expression - and your assertiveness - in meetings (including outside your area of expertise), in a way that will advance the discussion.
- Calming open or latent conflicts
o When faced with someone aggressive and/or repeating their problem.
o In a meeting, by checking whether there is a real latent problem before reframing the exchange ("This is not on the agenda, we'll talk about it at the end", etc.)
In an interview or meeting, you are either the sender or the receiver. However, it is not enough to speak to be understood, because the loss and distortion of the message transmitted are high...
Furthermore, as "two monologues do not make a dialogue" (Jeff Daly), how can we avoid exchanges being juxtapositions of monologues? How can we avoid the frustration of some people who have not been heard? How can we avoid decisions taken in a meeting being poorly implemented, due to poor initial listening/understanding?