If you phase a difficult problem in business, the best way to approach it is to define the situation in the most basic terms, using appropriate levels of abstracting the problem. In other words, stepping back and analysing.
Rewording techniques are one way of stepping back when in conversations.
It helps you to analyse what had been said by rearticulating the statements - and in my experience, about 90% of the solutions come from crisp, reflective problem definitions.
There are different ways of reflecting someone's statements, accusations or assumptions. As there are no standard definitions for each, the lines are somewhat blurry, and they are highly context-based. While there are many specific approaches, the Mediator's handbook uses these basic categories as well, and I find them to be the easiest and most comprehensive to use.
Imagine someone tells you:
"Why the hell did your department promise the customer 100 units of gadget A in a half year turnaround with no price increase, you irresponsible wacko".
Paraphrase and restate
Paraphrasing as restatement means that you repeat back the essence of what someone says. Still, you leave out their biased and inflammatory words. So it would be: "You're saying that the department contracted a customer for 100 units using the usual price, and with delivery in half a year, is that right?"
Reflect and acknowledge
Reflecting and acknowledging means to paraphrase it and include the non-verbal and emotional content. So, "if I get it right, what is frustrating you is the pressure of the turnaround pressure that your people can't meet and that pricing does not cover for extra work or overtime? Did I miss anything?"
Summarise
When you summarise, you make a coherent, shortlist of the points that were mentioned as a rewording. "It seems like you have raised three concerns: One, calculating turnaround time, two seems to be pricing to cover production extra expense, and the third, how our departments can consult more effectively, is that right?"
Reframe
Describe the situation with an alternative interpretation, or reorganise them into new categories.
"From your report, it sounds like our departments' current practices cause a disconnect between the sales and production line, what the customer needs versus what production can complete. And you are working different pricing formulas, or am I wrong?"
Repeat with highlighting
When you repeat with highlighting, you echo a subset of their words, with a rising intonation to make it a question.
In other words, you use the keyword or keywords the other person says and repeat them back as a question. "The keywords?"
People almost naturally continue to explain afterwards.
I had recently such a situation in a gallery, where we stood in front of a Marc Chagall painting. The other persons burst out: This thing is really horrible. I merely reflected. "Horrible?"
Then I let it sink in, no follow up question or rephrasing with more specific things, no judging or explanation. No adding words like "how do you mean this is horrible?" No interpretation "Don't you like it?"
The other person will start to explain by themselves if they are not entirely on attack mode against you.
"Explain by themselves?"
Yes, as in, they will want to add information to elaborate on what they meant. What it does, it shows that you are actively listening to the other person and want to understand them in the most neutral way.
"A neutral way?"
Yes, it does not ad any personal pronouns, or accusations, it is not a statement, and it does not imply anything that you think the other person did. In other words, it does not add a value judgement or sense of worth to your question.
Works pretty well, just don't overuse it.
In a nutshell, rewording techniques are essential skills that are way underused in our world of misunderstandings.
It works surprisingly well and is super easy to keep in mind. Pair it up with a mix of active questions, and you will reduce the number of misunderstandings significantly.
Cheers
Andreas