…behaviour strategies at work, or at play…
Good morning Frank!
Hey, Francois.
How are you on this fine day?
I am good thanks, and you?
Well, I don’t want to make a topic of the weather, but let me just say this – I love the wind! I love how it just cleans the air and how incredibly blue the sky is today.
Mmmm… August on the Highveld.
Lovely… So, what are we chatting about today? Ah, you promised last time we would have a look at behaviour strategies.
Yes, and it is an intriguing subject…
OK, so what works best?
Hey, not so fast! That will depend on many things. What did you learn about communication strategies last time – what are the main ones?
Well, if I recall correctly there were assertion/domination, submission, collaboration and neutrality.
Sure, that is more or less right, although we did not talk about domination as such. Also, neutrality can mean ‘no response’ or ‘no interaction’, or ‘non-positive’ or ‘non-negative response’… The basic ingredients at a very high chunk of all human interactions are pretty easy to identify. And since we cannot not communicate, let’s just say that all behaviour is also communication… It’s the patterns over time that is fascinating and can become quite complex.
Oh! That’s interesting…. So I’m thinking that you mean that any one of these behavioural modes can be either useful or not so useful in a given context… and that a behavioural strategy – or as you put it, a pattern over time – can also be more or less effective. Is that it?
On a very high, philosophical level, yes.
OK, let’s break it down into experience.
Sure, but first I want to share two models with you.
Alright – I’m all eyes and ears.
The first one is the Drama Triangle. You know this one already. Human interaction dynamics are often described as interplay between a ‘perpetrator’, ‘victim’ and ‘rescuer’. That is the dark side of the coin. On the other hand we gave the archetypes metaphorical titles that did not necessarily denote their role as clearly: Warrior, Lover and Healer…
I think I can spot some similarities between the positive and negative sides, though…
Yes, absolutely. Give it a try.
If we place the Warrior and perpetrator (let’s call him War Lord) next to each other we see interesting things in their behaviour. Both are leaders and both mobilise people and set events into motion, both are dominant and both are perceived to be powerful. At least, they are both forceful – compelling others to follow their lead and adhere to their vision.
Yes…
Francois Alright, so far so good. The Lover and Victim are both perceived to be timid, peace-loving, followers, submissive.
Yes.
And the Rescuer/Healer is the neutral one in the triangle.
Nope, look again.
Ah, I think I see… The rescuer is a victim that thinks they can control the perpetrator with a special brand of submission and they think they can control other victims with a special brand of assertion… The healer on the other hand is the neutral one that does not seek to control either the warrior or the lover. Interesting.
Yes, quite fascinating. If you take it that we have all six archetypes within us in any case, the side of the coin would depend on whether we live in fear and scarcity or in love and abundance.
The love and abundance side seems to have more options than the other side…
True. There is no neutrality on the fear-side. Even choosing to do nothing is not a neutral act – it is withdrawal, passivity.
Phew! I guess if you watch people for a while you would get a feel for which side they live on – whether their lives are heaven or hell…
What do you mean by that Francois?
I mean we create our own lives with our attitudes and behavioural patterns and if we continuously act in perpetrator/rescuer/victim mode, we would be getting responses from the same side of the coin – and that must be hell. If, on the other hand we are continuously acting in the Warrior/Lover/Healer mode – positively or neutrally, we would be getting mostly such responses – heaven!
If life had only been as simple as that… Let’s talk about the next model. Perhaps it will help you to see things differently.
OK.
We can use the metaphorical names for all of our behaviours as Parent, Adult and Child –
- and the Parent can be either nurturing or critical. The Child can be rebellious, adaptive or free. Yes, sure – TA – although I prefer to use the model as a behavioural one and not of personality. I mean it is useful to look at behaviour patterns and ‘games’ people play, but not to analise and classify personality types or traits.
OK, that makes sense. Let me see if I remember correctly: If someone’s behaviour is in Critical Parent, for example, it will trigger an Adaptive or Rebellious Child… If someone goes to Nurturing Parent the Rebellious or Adaptive Child may go to Adult… Meeting Parent and Child behaviours with Adult responses will neutralize the interaction to Adult-Adult level.
That’s more or less it, yes. But now for the interesting bit. Like in the Drama Triangle, roles can be changed, even several times, over an interaction or over time. Adult, Parent and Child behaviours can also alternate. And there are different patterns – sequences that may be more or less fixed over time.
Mmm – I can imagine that some of our reactions are habitual and that we would transfer the patterns from one situation to another – say for example relationships.
Yes, it is interesting how men and women move from relationship to relationship (or job to job) and the patterns follow them where they go. This is where some people started believing that our purpose in life is to learn lessons – to break those patterns…
Frank, you said that you want me to see things differently. So far I think I agree with what you said.
Yes. Think about this: Not all the behaviours in the pattern are from one side of the coin, and not all ‘positive’ behaviours produce positive responses.
Now I’m baffled.
Look at this exchange:
“Hey, could you help me gather some ideas for the party?”
“Sure, what did you have in mind?”
“I don’t know, perhaps it would be nice to go to a restaurant…”
“Nice idea! We could go to the one on 7th Avenue .”
“Yes, but that one is quite expensive.”
“What about Fandango’s?”
“Nice, but too noisy.”
And so it goes on until…
“You asked me for help, but none of my suggestions seem to hit the mark.”
“What? Are you saying I’m being difficult?”
Phew! I can see that number one may have wanted the pay-off for the other one to actually take over the arrangements… but then number 2 did something neutral, or Adult, and the first one flew off the handle with a wild assumption about number 2’s attitude. So the pay-off actually wanted by number one may be submission from number 2, a compliment or agreement, but of the supplicating kind.
Yep, and ‘number 2’s’ behaviour was Adult all the time, but the response he got was still rebellious.
Frank, I thought that maintaining positive or neutral behaviour will always give me positive or neutral responses! Now I’m really lost.
Yes, most of the time you have the control over the kinds of behaviour coming back to you, but sometimes people react to triggers that you have not noticed –it may be an ingrained behavioural pattern, an internal ‘story’ they told themselves, or a connotation with something about your communication that triggers a meaning in their minds – the wild assumption the first speaker made.
So you are telling me there is no ‘best strategy’?
Hang on, there are good strategies. The point I’m also trying to make is that of context – a good strategy may not always work well – all depends on the context. There are a couple of principles, though…
I’d love to hear them. I’d actually love to try them out… in different contexts.
Sure, see how they work for you and the people you interact with. The first one is to find out what exactly the other party wants and to get them to verbalise it. If you get the intent or pay-off nicely out in the open it is easier not to get hooked into patterns you don’t want to be playing out with them. Number one could have avoided the emotional trap by saying something like: “Sure, let’s put some ideas on the table first. Then, when we are done with the list of options we can check which one would be nicest for most of the people.”
Ok, it sounds like that could work. What do I do if someone asks me why I have or haven’t done something in a very aggressive tone – I mean yelling at me? I just want them off my back and I don’t want to go into victim mode. And if I stay cool calm and collected they may think I am not taking them seriously and become even more agitated.
Yes, good insight there. If you want to make someone defensive, ask “why!?” especially in a loud and aggressive way… And ‘don’t become defensive’ is easier said than done. Not all people would understand reason so if you answer with your reasons in a calm way, you may still get: “What were you thinking?!”
Why? Why, why, why…. Alright, I think it would be best to say: “At that time I thought that was the right thing,” or “…I thought that that was expected of me,” and then I would add: “What should I (rather) aim for?” or “What do you want me to do (now)?”
Well done! So you seem to have submitted and that you are open to suggestions and to change your behaviour and intentions – to learn in short.
Yes, even if I have no intention of give in to their demands, I would act with curiosity as to what motives and consequences my conversation partner reads into my actions and which ones they want to see.
Isnt’ that manipulation?
Technically, no. Someone that is in an aggressive, ‘blaming’ state is not receptive to any other point of view, no matter how logical and valid. To get out of the way is the best strategy, like in aikido. Mind you, getting out of the way does not mean running away…
Sure. It ties in nicely with the next principle: that is it easier to work with a partner than against an adversary… some people are more sensitive to assertions (whether positive or negative). Some people will take a lot of abuse and others become aggressive at the slightest hint of opposition or resistance, even if delivered in a perfectly rational and neutral way. After a while you would know who is where on your ‘sensitivity continuum’. Always treat the laidback people with respect.
If I had a choice I would surround myself only with the laidback ones!
Sure, but in some circumstances you don’t have a choice – the sensitive ones and dragons can’t always be avoided so you have to have a good strategy in place to deal with their unreasonable assertions. If you do get harsh or aggressive responses, what do you do?
To assert myself will just result in a battle and to be defensive will result in the same. To be submissive and apologise and crawl will be terrible for me – humiliating… If I as wrong I will apologise and move on… and not again do whatever it was I did wrong. But we are talking about unreasonable assertions… like saying I did, or intended or am something that I did not. Mmm – I would ask a question to get more clarity. Something in the line of: “What told you that…?” I could either get good feedback or still get emotionally laden, non-specific stuff. With good feedback I can work – I can change. To get more quality feedback out of the vague stuff, I’d ask again: “You know, I’d like to work with you. It would really help me if I know how specifically…”
You’re on the right track. Have a caution though. Sometimes people construct a meaning around your outwardly visible behaviour that they are not willing to give up, no matter what.
Yeah! That really gets to me. What is the best way to deal with that?
We’ll chat about that next time.
Alright. Are there any other principles I can apply?
Yes. The third principle is that there are no winners and losers. Or put in other words, if there is a winner there is a loser. Or seen from a different perspective, if there are losers there are no winners.
I don’t get that last one.
It means that if there are people gaining something at the expense of others, the whole situation becomes a lost one. And if both sides gain from the interaction it means that the situation resulted in a net gain – and I’m not talking the kind of pay-offs a sadist and masochist may have in mind.
Alright, now I get it. If it’s not a win/win it’s a no-win.
Good. You ready to go practice?
Yes. Bring it on world!
Don’t go look for trouble now…
Of course not. I hope we chat again soon
Yes, this was fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment