The responsibility of One

... the beginnning of freedom is when you realise exactly what you are responsible for...

Good morning Francois.

Hi Frank!  Nice of you to drop in, or pop up, or whatever it is what you do…

Yeah, don’t you just love the way things can shift in your mind from moment to moment?  One moment something is not there and the next moment it appears.

Amazing!  Now what do you have in store for us today?

Ah, that is a very good question.  How many of you are there?

Frank, can’t you count?  There is only one of me.  Or are you trying to tell me something?  I’m schizophrenic… I have multiple personality disorder!?

Relax and listen up.  There are as many of you as there are people that know you, plus 2.

What!?  Hoe does that work?

Alright, I am sure you would agree that there is a real you – as you are – and a you that is as you believe you are.

Sure.

Those can be two very different things.  You have worked towards actualisation or mastery… the first thing we talked about in this regard is awareness, and accepting yourself as you are.  The second step, if you can call it a step, was practice – doing, believing and being in different ways – ways of respect, congruence and so on. 

Yes, I can recall the conversation and I can tell you all about the things I did to practice…

Good.  The point is that your real self and what you believe about yourself should be very close to each other, but still there are differences.

Sure.  And what about the rest? You said that I am as many as the people that know me, plus two.  I take it the two are the me as I am and the me as I believe I am.

Yes, that’s right. Think about this:  How does your brother know your mother and how is that different from how you know her?

Ah, I get it.  He has his own set of experiences and beliefs about her and that is how he knows her.  So do I, and so do everyone else.

Yep.  So how many people are in a relationship?

Six!

Right.  How complicated can that be?  Now, remember we also talked about you being responsible for everything you do, say, think and feel?

Sure.  That is easy enough and I have been practicing.

So is it fair to say that in any relationship there is your half of the relationship and someone else’s half, whatever kind of relationship it is – friendship, business, romantic…

Yeah, that sounds right.

You are responsible for what you do and say, and the other party is responsible for how they understand it and how they react.

No, wait.  The meaning of my communication is the response I get… Does that not imply I am responsible for the interpretation of my communication too?

No.  Repeat after me: I am responsible for what I say; you are responsible for what you understand.

Okay, I am responsible for what I say; you are responsible for what you understand.

You are responsible for your half of the equation – your own interpretations, your own actions, your own beliefs and your own garbage.  You are not responsible for anyone else’s.

Fair enough.  You say I am not responsible of what people believe of me, their opinions, what they say, even how they act towards me. I need to process that for a bit…

Sure.  One more thing.  Are you a thing or are you a process?

Well, if those are my only two options I’d go for process – there are things happening in me all the time and I am different from what I were last year. 

Good.  So if you could see your whole life as a line stretching from your birth to now, what does the flow of that process that is you look like?

Oh wow!  There are some stuck times, but I see mostly flow.

Nice.  Remember that there are two kinds of flow – there is the in-the-moment genius type of flow that is well known to many people, but there is also the flow of the process that is you over a long time.  You flow, whether you believe it or not.

Like glass that is actually a liquid.

You can use that as an analogy, but your shape and substance are so much richer than glass…

Amazing…

Now let me leave you and your amazement to ponder the flow of your life and how you have travelled the landscape of life as a river… and to learn from the times and places you experienced abundance effortlessly.

Thanks, Frank.  We chat again soon.

The Origins of Belief

Hi Francois

Hi Frank! Where have you been?

Well, I’ve been camping near the Rivers of Belief?

Where is that?

I’m teasing you, but you are old enough to know the music…

Ah, yes – Enigma.  Does that bring back a flood of memories!

I’m sure.  I have a question for you.

Why am I not surprised?

No, that’s not the question.  What I wanted to ask was: what makes us different from animals?

We walk on two legs, we are intelligent and we use tools.

OK, and how did all that start?

Our ancestors’ ancestors learnt how to do it and passed it on to their children, who did it better and better until we are what we are like now.  Perhaps our intelligence is a result of walking upright and using tools…

And what did the first humans do just before they learnt that they could use a tool, or walk upright?

They probably thought they should or could do it and then tried it.

So what resource or capacity did they need to take this first, very extraordinary step, while everyone else were still going on all fours and using their fists to crack nuts?

Aaah… I think I get it.  They needed belief.

Yep, spot on.  They needed the special kind of belief that says: I am able to do something new and I can foresee some benefits to that.

Hm.  Some evolutionary biologists may say you have it the wrong way around – that the capacity to think and project consequences developed slowly, and as a result of humans being able to manipulate tools and walk upright.

Sure.  Let’s colour this picture with a story…  Our character is called Hmmggh this time.  She was a very wise little girl and learnt many things from her mother and the other people in the troob.

Troob?

Well, it is not a tribe and not a troop, and it is both.

*Both laugh*

OK, then.  Troob.

Hmmggh learnt how to avoid dangerous animals and snakes, where to look for water, how to build a nest platform high in the trees, and how to behave in the troob.  Mostly she learnt by observing and emulating her mother and the others, but she also had a special way of learning.

Was she the only one with this gift?

No, all the children learnt like this and they still do today.  When Hmmggh was still a baby she was very curious and wanted to play with everything she could lay her hands on, including some very prickly thorns lying about under the trees.  Her mother watched her and saw her reaching out her hand to the ball of needle sharp spines, but she left her.  Hmmggh got the surprise of her life.  Pain!  She cried heartily.  Her mother came over and showed her the ball of thorns, saying shw! Then she pointed to another one and again said: Shw!  Hmmggh said: Shw!! Then her mother picked her up and gave her a bit of tender loving care.  From that day onward Hmmggh avoided thorns, and in the same way she learnt what was good for her and what not.

Ah, sweet.

Thanks.  The story is not done– she is not walking on her hind legs yet…  What would you say happened in this learning process? 

She learnt – so she is consistently doing things differently after the experience. She had to have some capacity to generalize: if this ball of thorns caused me pain then all similar things would.

Right.  Also note that she started ‘predicting’.

Yes, I see that.  Neat.

So let’s continue with our story, shall we?  Hmmggh learnt that most things in the veldt come in patterns and that there are predictable cycles in the seasons, weather, in the plants and animals, in days and nights.   She also knew that rain would make the grass grow, which will bring the grazers back and then they would have to be careful of lions.

So she learnt about cause and effect…

Right.  One day she found herself in a clearing in the savanna.  There were no trees for some distance around her and she knew that is was the right time of the year for the lions to be around.  As a matter of fact, she could smell them, but she did not know where they were and she was scared she would run into them if she just took off towards the closest trees.  And what was more was that the grass was longer than ever before.  She had to do something new, something different.

Or die.

Yes.  She remembered that she could see lions from afar when she was in a tree, so she knew she had to get her head higher.  There were no trees around.  She remembered that she could see better what is going on around her from the moment she lifted her body to climb into a tree.  So first she craned her neck, but still she could not see over the tall grass.  Then she lifted her hands off the ground as if she was going to climb a tree that was not there, and raised her torso.  Aha!  She could see over the grass.  But she slumped back to the ground.  She tried again and this time she used her arms in a different way, to balance her while she stretched with all her might to lift her head above the grass.  Oh, the effort!  But she managed it well enough to turn her head from side to side to scan the heads of the grass for movement.  She not only saw movement, she also saw the tail of a lion clearly sticking up in the air.  She knew she had not been spotted yet, so she ran in the other direction, keeping very low.

On two legs?

Nope, still on all fours.  But what do you think was the learning here?

Ah.  That if you tried new things that you have not done before, there will be benefits – life saving benefits at that.

Sure.  Can you see how this ‘insight’ could lend itself to trying out new things, doing things differently?

Yep.  First standing upright and turning around while doing so… then moving a couple of steps… and so on.  Yes, I can see how this capacity would lead to other things.  And I can also see how others would learn the new behaviour from her example.

So what would you say was the first belief?

I can see a thing that caused me pain and avoid it from happening again.

OK, good.  And the second belief? 

This leads to that leads to that…  So if I see this I know that that is coming.

No, that is still the first belief – cause and effect, with a known cause.

Alright.  To have the same outcome I can do something different.

Sure.  Same outcome, different cause.  Seeing the lions, not from a tree, but by standing up.

Hm.  I can.  I can generate my own cause for the effect I am looking for.  There is just a small gap between climbing into the tree and actually being in control of the cause of seeing danger from afar, and standing upright to have the same effect.  The realization is that “I” am in control of both causes in this example.  The tree becomes a tool… Hey!

Nice. Let’s move on.  Lions also learn, did you know?

I’m sure they do.

So after many generations of the troob being able to avoid lions successfully and even learning new ways of catching food and cracking nuts with stones, the lions learnt that they could ambush a person by chasing them in a certain direction and hiding a lioness in the fleeing person’s path.

That must have been disastrous for the troob!

Yes, and why do you think so?

Well, suddenly the thing they do cause them to flee right into a trap, so the effect down the line is different: death and not survival.  You can imagine the conversation up in the trees: “No I tell you, it works.  It has always worked.”  “No, no, no!  It’s not working any more.  We have to do something different again.”

Yep.  Some don’t see the danger in doing things the same way and some do see the danger…  The ones that don’t see the danger has generalized so strongly that they delete all other possibilities of both the cause of the people getting caught and the effectiveness of their ‘savanna tactics’.

Ah, I see.  Belief had become so strong that it is getting in the way of survival. For some at least.

Sure.  The troob presupposes that doing what they always did is effective, but here and there is someone that says, Aikona!  (No).  So let’s fast forward a couple of million years.

Moving along swiftly, then!

We are in Tibet where two Buddhist monks are standing in front of the monastery, discussing a flag billowing in the wind.  The one says: It’s the flag that is moving.  The other says: No, it’s the wind that is moving.  The visiting teacher, whose sermon the flag was announcing, walked past and heard the argument.  He said: Guys, guys, guys.  Look again.  It is mind that is moving.

Balanced authenticity (part 2)

... authenticity can be abusive... How easily does the question: "Can I offer you some feedback?" not result in the receiver of the feedback pulling back, into themselves and being less than who they are? 

Hi Frank!

 

Good morning, Francois.  How are you doing today?

 

I’m fine thanks, and you?

 

I’m great.  What have you done with the last conversation we had?

 

Oh, it’s processed, filed and will soon become part of my non-conscious competences.

 

Nice way of putting it… Before you let your non-conscious run with it in the effortless and benign way it deals with these things, I think let’s summarise and contextualize what you have learnt so far.

 

You mean let’s get the bigger picture?

 

Yes. Let’s build a model from what you have learnt so far.  I’ll start with a story and we will work from there, OK?

 

Excellent.  You know I love stories.

 

Good.  So this story is about Charles and Vicky.  Vicky has had much experience in and knowledge about emotional intelligence: she is an executive and life coach, she has attended many personal change workshops and eagerly applies what she learns.  Charles and Vicky met a couple of months ago and the relationship is blossoming.  They are very much in love and love spending time in each other’s company.  They both are open and honest and tell each other about their past experiences, mistakes, lessons.  Let’s just say Charles past is not a perfect picture, but he has made the changes he wanted to make and trusts Vicky to be adult about it.

 

What do you mean being adult about it?

 

Well, the “5 As” come to mind… Accepting, Allowing, Affection, Attention and Appreciation (How to be an Adult in Relationships).  So he expected her to accept him and his past, allow him to be what he had chosen to be now, and so on.

 

OK, I get it, thanks.  Looks reasonable…

 

Vicky, having a certain set of values, mental models and meta-programs, inferred some conclusions about Charles.  “A leopard does not change his spots – this will happen again.  And then I’ll not be able to live with it.  Ugh!  He’s done all that and we’ve been intimate!”  So she decides being authentic and telling him how she feels, using I language.  In the beginning Charles validates what she says and her feelings, but Vicky is not satisfied – she is now more than ever convinced that Charles is bad for her and she sees many red flags for the relationship.

 

Why did she stick around? I mean, if the bad effects of what we do start outweighing the good effects, we know we should stop doing it!

 

Sure, if you’re not addicted, or there is some other secondary gain…  And perhaps a part of her genuinely liked and admired a part of Charles.

 

Not sustainable, that’s all I say.

 

Yep.  So Vicky confronted Charles again, and this time he pointed out to her that her inferences are irrational and unnecessary.  Vicky, being authentic, says that she feels very unsafe.  Charles, knowing that everyone is responsible for their own thoughts and feelings, asks her what she is going to do about her feeling unsafe.  Vicky realize that she has been confrontational and backs off.  But the next morning, something Charles does or says triggers another outburst.  Charles, realizing that he is not trusted or accepted, ends the relationship there and then.  He says that he cannot fight against the monster version of him Vicky produced in her head.  She says she can’t understand it, can’t understand why he so suddenly throws away everything they had.  And that is the end of it.

 

Phew, Frank!  A soapie of note…

 

Come on Francois, your mouth was hanging open at one point.  I’m pretty sure you really got into it. J  You looked like a spectator next to the wrestling arena.

 

*both laugh*

 

OK, I admit it, I could empathise with Charles – put myself in the situation.  I may have reacted like him in some respects, but not all.

 

Alright, let’s build the model.  Where do you think we should start?

 

On the inside.

 

Inside?

 

Yes, with their mental models, meta-programs, values and beliefs.  Both had a set of non-conscious criteria for what to expect of a relationship, of a partner of the opposite sex, of how that person would act, what their background should be like, of their past… and there is another, peripheral set – about all the things related to the partner – for example the prejudices and stereotypes about something in Charles’ past.

 

OK – good place to start.  We can call it, in short, the way of seeing others, ourselves and the world.  What then?

 

Well, the way we see things shape our expectations of those things and it gives us a specific attitude towards those things.  When we act in their context our behaviour reflects our attitudes.  Vicky had an attitude towards something in Charles’ past and she acted in line with her expectations.  Everything Charles said or did that was in tune with her criteria (values, expectations, beliefs) would easily pass through her perceptual filter, anything foreign, but not patently against her criteria, may not even be noticed as they pass through, but anything that goes in against her criteria or is completely alien will not be allowed to pass and would cause an emotional response.

 

Stop there for a moment.  Let’s go with when experiences just pass through the perceptual filter, what happens then?

 

Alright.  The stuff that goes through the filter (comparison to criteria was positive) tells us that our criteria are right and our view of the world, our self and other people are justified.

 

And the stuff that is foreign and does not get caught in the filter?

 

The comparison to criteria was neutral, so it causes no secondary information – emotions.

 

And the stuff that compares negative to our criteria?

 

This is the interesting bit… instead of weakening our criteria it actually can strengthen it.  We would rather defend our criteria as they are than change them.  So the difficulties Vicky was experiencing was evidence to her of some value or belief that you did not mention in your story and that she probably was not conscious of, perhaps some limiting belief.

 

Please explain?

 

I think she perhaps believed she was not capable of being in a relationship. Knowing her past experience with relationships would help to see if this could be so.  Or she may have non-consciously believed that she is not deserving of a relationship.  Or she may have non-consciously believed something like:  “All men are so and so.”  Also it seems she had the I’m OK, you’re not OK mental model in this context. So these things set her to filter for danger signs.  Believing is seeing.  What Jamie Smart says in his 10 Tips for Unconditional Happiness is what the believer believes the prover proves… She finds the danger signs and the evidence that Charles is not to be trusted and that the relationship is bad (for her).  She authentically confronts him about her problem. That’s insane!

 

A bit of a vicious circle, isn’t it?

 

So it would look something like this?

  

Yes.

 

Yep.  We’ve not looked at Charles’ process in this model, but I’m sure we’d find very similar unresourceful criteria in his.  Important to note that the cause of our distress is not the other person, but our mental model.  I think he may also have heard her authentic statements different from what they have been said.  It is easy to make the jump from “I’m feeling unsafe” to I’m feeling threatened, to and inferring that he is experienced as the threat.  How does this clash with his expectations of being accepted and allowed to just be himself – to be authentic?

 

Ah Francois, this brings me to a specific point.  If anyone’s being authentic will result in anyone else being less authentic, it has become harmful.  Someone that is truly emotionally intelligent will think about the consequences of the feedback they want to give about their own state even before they give it. 

 

So being yourself fully and truthfully… congruence/authenticity at all costs… can be dangerous?

 

Yes, if it is not tempered with an ecology check. 

 

But I don’t what to be walking on eggs the whole time around other people’s sensitivities!  And I’m pretty sure they won’t appreciate my wanting them to toughen up.

 

Sure.  The good news is that most people are not that sensitive and that they have a self-regulating feedback loop.  The other good news is that this is a skill that can be learnt even though the process happens in the non-conscious.  You want to add it to the model?  Come on, let’s start where someone becomes aware that there are things not passing through their perceptual filter.

 

OK.  This is where we experience negative emotions.  The more intense the emotion, the less rational we will be and the more ‘programmed’ our response – we act nearly instinctively.  Here it is important to remember that emotions are like a live electrical current.  If we take hold of the open wire it is going to grab us and shake us until our teeth clatter and our hair are frizzed and smoking.  If we lightly touch the wire and feel: “Ah – here be strong feelings,” we don’t get caught.  We can either leave it be totally or look at it later to work out where they come from.

 

That working out where the emotions come from is what I call the feedback loop.  What would you say is the best way of doing that?

 

I’d be doing two things here: something like appreciative inquiry… as logically and rationally as I can come up with answers to a set of questions; and then testing the answers once again with my gut feel and intuition.  Only if I am feeling good about the answers I will make the changes.

 

Can you give me some examples, Francois?

 

Sure.  I ask myself questions like:

• "Am I seeing right? Does what I am experiencing really mean what I think it means? Can it mean something else?”
• “How am I a part of the problem? What did I say or do that could cause the reactions I got? What does that tell me about my values and beliefs?”
• “What am I telling myself? What is the story in my internal dialogue?”
• "Which of my beliefs are in the way or are limiting me?”

Then, when you feel good about the answers you make the changes?

 

No, there is one more question I ask myself.  “Is this context important enough that I should change the way I look at life, the world, other people and myself?”

 

Wow!  That means you are conscious how your outlook may be hampering you and because the context is not important, you choose not to change it.  OK, on an intellectual level I can appreciate it, but give me an example of a context that you would feel is unimportant and perhaps one that is important to you.

 

Well, for me the work context is important, and so are my relationship and my family.  An unimportant context would be, for me, doing grocery shopping or driving on the freeway.  I don’t need to make profound changes to my belief system to be able to operate resourcefully in those contexts.

 

OK, so now the ‘model’ will look like this:

 

Sure, that is a good enough map of the territory.

 

When did you learn all this?

 

The past couple of conversations we had… and from past experience. You know, I fell into many holes in the road because I assumed that other people consciously operate from the same model with the same feedback loop.  I’ve learnt that some people’s feedback loop is non-existent and they typically would not check whether they are being responsibly authentic.  Others have an overactive second loop and they are never really themselves. 

 

Yes, that is a very good insight.  Well, I think we’ve spent enough time on this for now…  How much of this are you applying?

 

Practice what you preach, ne?  Mostly I’m doing fine.  Sometimes I still get derailed, so now I want to learn how to stay on track.

 

Great, that is something we can chat about at another time.

 

Sure.

 

Let the learnings sink into your benign unconscious… and every time you find yourself becoming aware of the parts of the model you wonder about at that moment, with wonderment, I am sure that you can congruently balance being authentic and taking a view of how much wisdom the people around you need.

 

Thanks, Frank.  I don’t know what that means but it sure feels good.

 

Then it’s fine.  We’ll chat again soon.

Balanced authenticity (part 1)

Congruence and authenticity… being true and true to yourself.  Where do you draw the line?  How much learning and change can you lead people to and where do your learning and change begin?

Hi Frank!

Hey, Francois.  How have you been the past couple of days?

I’ve had much to think about and much to process.  And just when I thought I mastered being the change, I experienced someone being exceptionally mean-spirited.  Other than that, I find myself in a very good mood most of the time!

Great to hear the last part.  You seem to be getting what you were asking for because your attitude is positive, there is some energy behind it and it is moving in a direction that is good for you and the people around you. 

I would like to believe that yes.  No, let me scrap that and rephrase: I believe that, yes.  I would love this to be the case at all times, and I do wish that I could handle this person better.

Perhaps this is just a mean and nasty person and you should accept that.

No Frank, I don’t know of many people that see themselves as being mean – not even this guy. 

So is he mean or are you experiencing him as mean?

Does that matter?  The meaning of our behaviour is the response we get (and may I add, how other people feel about it even when they don’t respond), so my reaction is valid, isn’t it?

Sure.  So if you continue experiencing this person as nasty, why don’t you just leave?  You have the choice to surround yourself with the kind of people you experience positively, don’t you?

Oh I would like to, but I have this hunch that there is something I need to learn here.  In the short term, that will be my approach.  I can’t change this guy, and I have changed my attitude.  The cutting behaviour seems to be so deeply ingrained and he does not even notice (or care, I think) what effect his behaviour has on other people.  Oh, I don’t let it get me under – I’m no victim.  But I am in no position to confront this person. You know, he not only tells us what to do, but also how to do it and when we don’t do it exactly like that, he goes mad.  When we ask questions to find out exactly how he wants things done to avoid his outbursts, he has another outburst because he does not want to do our thinking work for us. Or he forgets what he told us to do and what not then flies into a rage if we did not meet his ever changing expectations.

What makes this guy the ‘top dog’?

Positional authority.  If his rules are not obeyed he cites it at bad performance and a bad attitude.  We all know ways to do things in better and faster ways, but that is too much of a threat to his sense of ‘rightness’.  So, because he is the judge of how well we are performing and decides on our increases and so on, we have to abide by his rules.  Make no mistake, he is highly experienced and an expert in his field, so there is much to learn from him. So he also has authority based on his knowledge.

Are you applying the SCARF model?

Yes, and it works, most of the time. 

Do you feel like you are being authentically you at this point in time?

No, definitely not.  I have to walk on eggs all the time.  Apart from that, everything I do and say is shot down as being of inferior grade: my paradigm is narrow, my work is on the detail level and not conceptual, I’m not thinking or thinking ahead.  If it had not been for our chats I would have been feeling very miserable right now – pretty worthless, as a matter of fact.  So to answer your question, no, I am not being fully me and achieving according to my value and experience. And I’m not the real me.

What does being inauthentic mean to you?

To be something I’m not, acting in ways that are not natural to me.  This could either be trying to be smart, or trying to hide my true self behind an accommodating façade.  In this case I’m hiding behind a mask that is obedient, non-threatening, and insipid.  I feel emasculated when I wear this mask – and yes, I know I chose to do so to keep the peace.

What is your true self like then?

I’m energetic!  I’m fiery, challenging, provocative, inspiring, fierce!  I’m creative.  I’m unstructured, unruly.  I’m wooly and scary!  *laughs*

Is that what you believe what you are, what you want to be like or what other people think of you?

Hey Frank, lighten up.  It is all of the above and none of the above.

Alright, alright.  Can you remember the definition for congruence?

Yes, it is when what I say and do and think and feel are aligned – when I am in rapport with myself.

So it sounds to me that when you wear a mask like that, your being and your behaviour is out of synch.

Absolutely.

Do you think that so-and-so is wearing a mask of any kind?

No.  A-ha!  So here I am being incongruent while I’m dancing to his tune and he is perfectly congruent.

What is your definition of empathy, Francois?

It is to be able to put myself in someone else’s shoes, to look at what they experience from their eyes, their frames, with their feelings and beliefs.  I don’t have to agree with what they do and how they do it, or with what they feel, or take on their state.  I don’t even have to understand it.

Yes, good summary.  It is also a kind of as-if frame, or perceptual position, if you want.  Would you say that so-and-so lacks empathy?

Perhaps.  I can’t say whether he just drives people very hard and acts as a hard task-master or if he genuinely does not have empathy and is blissfully unaware and uncaring of the impact his behaviour has on others.  That would be pathological, won’t it?

Sure.  Would you say that Hitler was congruent?

Wow, what a question!  Well, I think he believed so firmly that he was right that he just may have been very congruent… Yes, I think he was!  But something prevented him from seeing the other side.  I mean he must have known the probable consequences of his actions, policies and doctrines on the peoples he conquered – surely he considered those.  Something must have stopped him from connecting to the suffering as experienced by them and the impact it would have on the times to follow – he probably had no connection to that, had not been able or willing to empathise.  I guess that he really believed in his nation being superior and the suffering of any inferior people as inconsequential.

Perhaps.  Yes, he was absolutely congruent, but that does not make him right.  What would you say about the people that accommodated his views and actions – who were flexible around it?

The ones that went along with him knowing that it could not be right, or ignoring it?

Yes, those.

Well, most of them suffered the consequences themselves.  Many lost their lives during those years… and after.

Yes, and how congruent do you think they were?

Ah, Frank!  I think the ones that knew in their heart of hearts, who were able to empathise, or at least to put themselves in the other side’s position, were very incongruent. 

Some of Hitler’s officers tried to convince him otherwise, and when he did not budge they arranged for him to be assassinated.  He survived the attempt.

Frank, they wanted to be rescuers.  Besides, that kind of extreme measure is unnecessary and in Hitler’s case only strengthened his resolve. 

Sure.  One way of getting someone to strengthen their beliefs about something is to attack that belief – they will defend it fiercely and so the belief is strengthened… Also, some people see resistance to their progress and ideas as evidence that they are on the right track…  So what do you want to happen in this case Francois, bearing in mind congruence?

I don’t want to ‘go along with it’ just to keep the peace, Frank.  I want to be fully congruent.  I would like so-and-so to change or at least to change the way he behaves at times, but I’ve decided to accept him and his actions, to allow for it.  As I said earlier, there is something for me to learn here.

Why don’t you want him to change?

If anyone wants him to change, forget it.  If you want him to change his beliefs, that is hard work and you need to be persistent.  If you want him to change his behaviour… remember, behaviour change permanently when beliefs and values change…  What do you think must happen before he starts changing his behaviour towards all of you?  He must want to change it.  No-one will change anything if they don’t want to.  And how will he know that he wants to change something?

Yep.  His behaviour must not give him what he wants.  He must experience some difference between the effect his behaviour has and what he expected it to have.  He must experience incongruence!  It must be more than cognitive dissonance and it must be set up in such a way that resolving the cognitive dissonance would result in the Benjamin Franklin effect and not in rationalizing.

Frank, I don’t want to point out what he must change.  It may just strengthen his resolve to do more of that.

Yes.  And people going along with him and being nice with him…would cause him to believe he has a fan club.  What other options are there?

Now it’s just a question of finding my equilibrium – the balance between being myself and adjusting my behaviour to so and so – and being authentic at the same time.

Well, to leave the country… although that would cause me to be labeled as ‘self-confessed enemy of the state’.  Or to do something so outrageously unexpected that it completely breaks the old patterns.

Nice!  Remember that whatever you do should not threaten his SCARF.  Now why is it so important to you to change this one person’s behaviour towards you?  Certainly there are many others that either like you or leave you be.  You don’t need everyone to like you – that is irrational.

Yes Frank, I agree.  You know, a long time ago a very wise mentor of mine told me that 3 out of 10 people would be easy to get along with, 4 would be neutral and 3 would be difficult. I don’t think I need this person to like me, really.  What I see is that he treats everyone the same way, so what I would like is for him to lighten up a little, to acknowledge people’s maturity, excellence and talents and not treat them like children, like dirt or second-class beings. 

OK, let’s walk through your challenge… you are in a situation where someone is in a position of power and treating people really badly, but not noticing the effect he and his behaviour is having on them.  He is probably getting things done, avoiding risks and disasters and producing results that are acknowledged or appreciated by others – so he has no reason to change and may see the price of change as too high.

That sums up the other side more or less.

And you… feel incongruent if you go along with this bad behaviour, you’ve learnt not to oppose it, and you don’t want to leave the team, but you feel that you have to get insight across somehow to get him to change his behaviour.

Between the devil and the deep blue sea…

Yes, unless you change the way you think.

Think… what do you mean?

I’m sure you would love to know how to balance being authentic, being just your self and being congruent with adjusting your behaviour or your outlook – being flexible.

Oh, yes!  Especially when dealing with someone who is authentic, but not mindful of the impact it has on others.

Here is a model that summarises what we had been talking about...

Ah, thanks!

Alright, next time we talk I’ll have my thoughts ready for you on that.  In the mean time, put everything we talked about away from your consciousness and let it start to grow wisdom.

Huh?

Never mind… and not too much mind. J  Just trust that the answers you need about this will be there when you need them. 

OK, that I can do.  Until later, Frank.

Good night, Francois.