Posts Tagged ‘human interaction’

The two faces of “It’s all about me!”

Coping and Communicating, Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 22 2009

When you hear me say “It’s all about me!” (), do you think “How horribly selfish and self-centered!” or “How aware and evolved.”?

There are certainly more than just two faces to the concept, and yet these are the two extremes, in my mind.

Ego-Driven, Self-Centered “It’s all about me!” (IAAM-)

As I write about facilitation antipatterns, it’s clear that I’m focusing on the self-centered, ego-need-driven side of “It’s all about me!” Look at Professor Moriarty or the Orator or the Dominator. For each of them, they want – perhaps need – the focus and attention of the group.

IAAM- (the negative IAAM) clearly is driven by the needs and desires of the speaker/actor, rather than a focus on improving communications or teamwork or anything else. While the person exhibiting IAAM- may convince themselves that they’re doing it “for your good” or “for the good of the group”, I believe that their reality is quite different – that they’re doing it because they need it to feel better about themselves. They may start from a position of low self-esteem or insecurity, as surprising as that sounds.

There are many common behaviors, for those who don’t feel good about themselves. Two that come to mind here are “pay attention to me” and “make you feel bad so you’ll recognize my power”.  Both of these are instances of IAAM-.

I did it a lot, in the earlier days of my marriage. Having to be right, as opposed to having a dialogue with my wife. Explaining how she didn’t understand, instead of finding common ground. Taking the center stage, rather than participating and allowing others to participate. These are examples of IAAM-.

Taking , Connection-Focused “It’s all about me.” (IAAM+)

In my writing (and talking and talking and… ;) ) about communication, I tend to focus on a movement away from IAAM- and toward IAAM+ as an understanding of human and interactions.

In IAAM+, it’s two-sided: understanding that my behavior expresses who I am, what I believe, how I feel; and understanding that your behavior expresses the same things about you. As I embrace and internalize that understanding, my behavior changes, because my focus changes. And sometimes, by changing my behavior towards what I would like it to be, I my and understanding.

and and Participation

It all comes together in many places and times. Including in . When I find myself thinking “he always…” or “she’s doing that because…” and I assign motivations and assume what’s going on inside someone else’s head, I push myself back from IAAM- toward IAAM+.  At least, I try.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
3 Comments »

Letting go

Coping and Communicating, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 15 2009

Watching the movie “Taken”, I was struck by the tenaciousness of Liam Neeson’s character. I was also struck by the character’s attitude, which was both pesonal (“you/they took my DAUGHTER”) and impersonal.

It got me to thinking about carrying grudges, and the way we label and categorize each other.  Okay – I don’t know for sure that you do it too, I just know that I’ve done it and that your leads me to think you do it too.

You always…

Do you find yourself saying that to someone you know? Do you find yourself behaving in a way that is based on what you expect them to do, rather than what they’re doing?

Perhaps you’ve labeled them. They’re afraid, insecure, rude, lax, mean, silly, absurd, too friendly, not friendly enough, too outgoing, too inhibited, careless, thoughtless, inattentive, self-absorbed,…

How will you know when they ?

If you hold onto the image you hold firmly in mind, you won’t.  Not only that, you will inhibit their ability to change.

If you won’t give me a chance, then who will?

I’ve certainly heard words like that – from my wife, and from my children. Even recently, as I’m on my endless journey towards evolution and perfection.

If I keep an image, an identity, a label in my mind as though that’s who you are, then I may be unable to recognize that you are no longer that person.

Forgiving is not forgetting

I’ve heard too many people say “I can’t forgive that.” I disagree.  You can, you just don’t choose to. You’re holding onto the pain, the anger, the hurt for some reason that seems to make sense. Why? What’s the value in hanging onto it.

Sure – I can learn from sticking my hand in a fire, and yet realize that the fire doesn’t care about me at all. Which is not to say that someone who does something that leads to you feeling hurt doesn’t care about you.  But if you believe, as I do, that their behavior is about them, then it’s possible to forgive, to let go, without letting go of the lesson. You can learn how someone has behaved and base a certain – hmm – caution on that.

But it’s not necessarily who they are.

Let go, let…

In the twelve step programs for families and friends (Al-Anon, Co-Anon, Nar-Anon), they teach “Let go, let God”.

Since I don’t know whether there is or is not a sublime, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity, here’s what it means to me:

It’s done. It’s not within the scope of my control. Perhaps I’ll be happier, or at least have more peace, if I just let it go and worry about me.

I’m responsible for me, for my behavior. Beyond that, I do the best I can for my family. Outside of that?

You’re up to you.

Let it go.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Facilitation Antipattern: Dominator

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 15 2009
dominatorMotto: It’s all about me!
: I have a lot to say, it’s important, and so I’m justified in taking the time and attention to say it.
: Turns the discussion to whatever is important to him.  Talks loudly, forcing his way into any discussion, and then turning it again.
Characteristics: Loud, forceful, relentless, determined, sincere, focused.

The Dominator dominates. Obvious, eh?

What’s not so obvious is that Dominators are not always egocentric or glory loving or outgoing. Frequently, Dominators have learned that the only way that they can get people to hear what they have to say, and to make their points, is by steamrolling everyone else. Outside of /discussions, they may be timid or quiet. but get them into a meeting, and they will just take over.

Okay – there are also Dominators who do it because they do love to be the center of everyone’s attention. For these Dominators – the ones you probably thought of first – it’s not so much which point they make as that they make a point by overwhelming everyone else’s defenses. Their joy comes from the act and experience of being dominant.

Dominators have found that if they speak more loudly than everyone else, everyone else will be quiet and listen to them.

Dominators have found that by the force of their presence (similar to the Gladiator) they can achieve their goals.  But distinct from the Gladiator, the Dominator doesn’t want us to fight back. The Dominator achieves victory by shutting everyone else down.

The Dominator is happy when we say “Okay – whatever you say” as a sign of capitulation.  They’re happiest when we say “Oh, you’re SO right!” as a sign of recognition of their rightness, along with capitulation.

To deal with a Dominator, you have to break their pattern. This is hard, because they’re relentless.

Techniques that either involve the group without discussion (Starfish, Timeline) or that enforce a structure that gives everyone equal time and attention (Circle of Questions, The Margolis Wheel).

Note that Robert Chambers, in Participatory Workshops: A Sourcebook of 21 Sets of Ideas and Activities, has an exercise he calls Dominator (pages 168-9), which he describes thus: “A lively activity to heighten awareness of verbal and non-verbal dominant and submissive behaviour and of the effects of physical position on .”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

You don’t know me…

Coping and Communicating, Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 14 2009

Okay – the song lyrics won’t get out of my head. I love that Michael Buble is singing all these “oldies”.

You give your hand to me
Then you say hello
I can hardly speak
My heart is beating so
And anyone can tell
You think you know me well
But you don’t know me

? Ah – well – I’ve mentioned that we all live in our own heads. Our understanding of the world, including the people in it, is all internal. So when I say “I know…” what I really mean is “I believe…”

There is no knowing, especially when it comes to others. The only things we can “know” are others’ , because it’s the only thing we can see/experience directly. Even so, our experience/vision is colored and filtered by our own brains and our past experience, our current emotions, and so forth. There are times when my “reality” is entirely generated within my own head.

What does that mean? It means, first of all, that I must question all my about other people. Especially when I say things like “you were angry” or ” I know what you meant”. After all, I can’t really know these things, now can I?

Rather I can say “I think you were angry” or “I wonder if you were angry” or “Did you mean…?”

I’m back, once again, to the work of Patterson et al in Crucial Conversations. Because what I think I know is really my story – what I tell myself as a result of experiencing your behavior.

Lest you think I’m only talking about personal , let me assure you once again that this applies to all relationships. It applies when I’m in with people I hardly know (“What a jerk!”), when I’m having a conversation with a co-worker (“Why is she always…?”), or having coffee with a close friend (“He must be angry with me.”). All we know of each other is behavior – the observable stuff.

And what we think we know is really our of what happened.

I know that there have been many times when my wife and I have been in the same place at the same time, and remembered things differently. Everything from our first meeting (I say her outfit was mustard colored, she says it was greenish) to a conversation we had yesterday.

In police work, it’s ironic that so much weight is placed on eye witnesses, given the evidence that eye witnesses are incredibly unreliable. Consider the implications: all of us are unreliable when it comes to what we believe we saw or heard, and yet we generally remain convinced that we are right – that what we remember is reality, truth.

I’m with Descartes – the only thing I know for sure is that there is some entity doing the thinking (cogito ergo sum – I think, therefore I am). Everything else is subject to reasonable, rational doubt.

The next time you find yourself saying “Oh, I know her, and what she meant was…”, stop, think, and perhaps phrase it as a question or as a guess.

“I wonder if…”

“Do you think…”

“If it were me, I would mean…”

And then, ASK.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 12 2009
hoarderMotto: The more I have, the more important I am.
: Controlling information gives me power and makes me important.
: Doles out information in little bits, controlling the flow. Waits to be asked before sharing.
Characteristics: Quiet, selfish, frightened, insecure, terse

The Hoarder is all about control of information. She believes that it’s all that gives her an edge, makes her important, in a world that seems hostile and highly competitive. She rarely shares without being directly asked, because it’s only her control of information that maintains her sense of position and power.

This is not to say that Hoarders are actually powerful. Their power – such as it is – is illusory and mostly perceived only by the Hoarder. Others frequently see the Hoarder as obstructionist, frustrating, and self-serving.

Since Hoarders are naturally insecure and suffering from self-image issues, dealing with them requires putting aside your emotional reactions and biases toward this kind of behavior, and encouraging them through recognition and appreciation.

As with most of the antipatterns, the people who exhibit Hoarder tendencies can be either moderate or pathological.  That is, some do it out of habit, rather than a psychological need to be in control. These folks will probably respond readily when either encouraged or when having it privately explained to them. Note that I said “explained to them” not “confronted”. Confrontation implies attack and hostility, at least to some degree, and those are rarely useful.

The pathological, however, as with most of the antipatterns, are outside the scope of your ability or as a or coworker or friend to deal with. Please be careful in these circumstances. It’s not your job to deal with pathologies – issues that are deep and tightly held.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Feeling – no – being vulnerable

Coping and Communicating, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 11 2009

Vulnerability is a funny thing. I think that the more vulnerable I allow myself to be, the stronger I become.

The challenge for most of us is that when we feel vulnerable, we also feel the need to protect ourselves – to be defensive.

Defensiveness can take on a number of different aspects: classic defensiveness (explaining, justifying), counterattacking, withdrawal, redirecting. Sadly, none of these is effective when it comes to having an effective discussion and maintaining a healthy relationship.

There are two sides to dealing with vulnerability: our own, and others’.

In dealing with my own vulnerability, I have to decide whether I think it is good to expose and accept my vulnerability or not.  After all, we are all truly vulnerable. Whether it’s in work (someone else has control over my fate), romantic (if I reveal my , what if the other person doesn’t reciprocate), family relationships, or elsewhere, we’re always vulnerable.

I suspect that you know some of the same kinds of people I do, those who choose to try never to reveal vulnerability. These are the people who are depriving themselves of the richness and joy (along with some of the pain and sorrow) of fully explored relationships. You know them. You might say “he always seems to have a shell, a barrier” or “no one ever seems to really get to know her”.

I’m mostly at the other end of the spectrum. My barriers are – at best – permeable, where they exist at all.  I’d rather be vulnerable – and honest – than worry about hiding things and protecting myself. I believe that by being willing to share who I really am, I gain a tremendous amount from the community in which I move.

Being vulnerable is frightening. Really. Revealing your inner self, your real feelings, your flaws and foibles – this puts you at risk of having someone use that knowledge to their advantage and to your detriment, right?

So what.

If they try to use what they know about me to their advantage, that’s about them, not me.

If they try to use what they know to my disadvantage, that’s also about them, not me.

Yes, others can cause me trouble by knowing about me. I accept that, because what I’m talking about is what’s really me.

I believe that it’s easier to move about as the real you than as some image you create for your use.  Yeah, I’m talking about me and about you.

Let me not forget about addressing others’ vulnerabilities. It’s simple – if I treat others with respect and honor, if I behave with , if I do NOT use what I know about others to my advantage or to their disadvantage, then vulnerability… isn’t.

In the public speaking community, one of the bits of wisdom is that the most successful speakers are real and vulnerable. They share their own stories, including their own failings and missteps. This is true of public figures in general – we tend to like and trust people whom we think of as real.

How about you? Are you willing to be vulnerable and real?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 09 2009
ZealotMotto: The force of my convictions makes me right!
: If you understand what I’m saying, then you must agree with me. My conviction is my strength.
: Speaks with passion and fervor, acting in the sincere belief that she is right and that if she pursues the topic long enough, others must see the rightness of her argument and agree with her.
Characteristics: Passionate, articulate, determined, argumentative, zealous

The Zealot (sometimes known as The Missionary) believes strongly, even passionately, in whatever they believe in. No half-measures for them.

They are willing to argue, fight, persuade, convince, and argue some more to win you over to their point of view. This means that they have the tendency to dominate a discussion, in their passion for what they know to be true/right.

This has the effect of taking over a meeting so that it is entirely focused on the Zealot’s issue. Which suits the Zealot just fine, but does not contribute to the group’s overall success.

It is important to realize that the Zealot is thoroughly well-intentioned, believing that they are serving you/the group by convincing anyone and everyone of the rightness of their view. They have nothing but good intentions, in fact. You might find yourself having the opportunity to ask “the question” (see I feel sad) from Crucial Conversations.

Dealing with this requires the strength to choose when to cut off a conversation (The Facilitation Four-Step), offer to either park it or consider it done, and keep the group moving forward. Challenging, but relatively straightforward.  This also requires the support of the other participants, which is usually forthcoming.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Lying to myself

Coping and Communicating, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 06 2009

Getting back to the idea of taking for my own , I got to thinking about why we push onto others. After all, the feelings are coming from inside us, right?

Let’s say we’re having a conversation, and you say something about my mother, and I get angry.

Why do I get angry?

I’m not a psychotherapist, in spite of my education in psychology and a family full of psychotherapists*. I am a student of human nature, so I’ll take my best guess.

I’d say there are some good possibilities: I feel disrespected; I feel that I – through what you said about my mother – am being judged; I love my mother, and feel that you’ve disrespected her.

All of these are valid. Yet why angry? Why would any of these lead to me feeling angry?

I believe that it comes down to my sense of self-worth – that somehow, by disrespecting and/or judging me and/or my mother, you have also called into question my value on this planet.

Okay – I get that, too. Having someone question your value could be annoying.

But why? Why does someone else’s opinion, , or random thought matter?

Because I don’t want to – or can’t – acknowledge or deal with my own fear of being less valuable. And you’ve just put it out there in words!

So I you.  Internally, I believe it’s your . Externally, I take action on that belief.

I’m lying. I’m lying to myself and telling myself that I’m angry because you have disrespected me. I’m lying to you in the same way.

Perhaps the real problem is my self-image and sense of self-worth. Perhaps if I felt more comfortable with who I am and what I do and all the rest of it, instead of feeling angry, I’d feel some pity and/or sympathy.

In retrospect, this is part of what happened with my friend the other day in our email exchange that I mentioned in Learning to type. It would have been very easy to react to his hostility and his hurtful words. It was tempting now and then.

Fortunately for me, I’ve been working on not lying to myself, not lying to others, not taking responsibility for others’ feelings and behaviors, and not assigning responsibility for my feelings and behaviors.

He didn’t make me angry, nor did I feel angry, because I recognized what was going on. It was like a rain storm – nothing I can do about it, it’s got nothing to do with me, and I just have to wait and it’ll end.

Being honest with myself is hard. Being honest with you is harder. And both are worth doing.

* Here’s the story: My father’s father was a psychologist. My father and his sister were psychologists. My older brother is a psychologist. My two younger sisters are psychotherapists. I’ve had a couple of stepmothers who are psychotherapists. My mother worked in business and then in foundations until she was 60, went back to school to get a graduate degree and became a psychotherapist. In spite of my undergraduate and graduate education in clinical psychology, I’ve never been a practicing psychotherapist.

I refer to myself as the white sheep of the family. ;)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

The Facilitation Four-Step(tm)

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 04 2009

As I was preparing to deliver the workshops this week, I realized that I do have a simple system for dealing with many of the behaviors. For the sake of discussion, I’m calling it the Facilitation Four-Step(tm).

What I realized was that I have done the same things over and over, without ever consciously identifying what I was doing.

Here it is:

  1. Interrupt
  2. Ask
  3. Redirect
  4. Commit

Interrupt

When I recognize that a destructive or non-collaborative is occurring, the first step is to interrupt it. Always act with respect – that is, it doesn’t matter how I might feel about the person or the , I should always treat people with respect.

Interruption is as simple as “excuse me”.

Professor Moriarty whispering to the woman next to her? “Excuse me.” Gently, respectfully, but clearly. Just enough to get their attention.

Gladiator engaging in combat? “Excuse me.”

Superhero comforting someone? “Excuse me.”

Ask

The next step is to ask if it’s okay to do something else. Like “Do you mind holding onto that thought for a minute?” or “Is it okay if we come back to that in a little bit?”

It’s important that the Ask make it clear that we aren’t ignoring or diminishing what they’re saying. Rather we want to communicate that it is important, but that something else must take priority at the moment.

Implicit in the Ask can be both the redirect and the commitment. So, for instance, the ask might be…

Redirect

“Would you mind holding that thought? I’d like to allow Jane to finish her thought.”

“Is it okay if we come back to that after Mark has a chance to say something?”

The redirect is turning attention away from the “offender” and onto someone else. The someone else is frequently one of two types of participants: someone who is shy and withdrawn or just quiet; or the “victim” of the “offender’s” behavior. It breaks the pattern, shifts the group’s energy, and still shows respect for the offender.

Commit

If you’ve been reading carefully, you’ll have noticed that in each case, the question also included the Commit.

“Is it okay if we come back to that after Mark has a chance to say something?” is one example.

If the Commit is not explicly included in the Ask and Redirect, then I add it.

“Would you mind holding that thought? I’d like to allow Jane to finish her thought. Then we’ll come back to you. Is that okay?”

This technique has worked quite successfully for me for many years.

Simple, clear, respectful, and paying attention to what’s important to and for the group.


Tags: , , , , , ,
4 Comments »

Facilitation Antipattern: The Qualifier

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 04 2009
qualifierMotto: Better safe than sorry.
: If I don’t assert it, you can’t challenge me for it. And if you do, I can always backpedal.
: Qualifies statements with words/phrases like “sort of”, “kind of”, “about”, “just”, “basically”, “actually”
Characteristics: Tentative, somewhat defensive, somewhat insecure

While this is an , it’s a subtle one. After all, how damaging or destructive can it be to say “I kind of think that…”

This applies both in group participation and in presentation. The qualifiers – kind of, sort of, about, just, basically, actually – take away from the value of what is being said.

And, as I said, it’s subtle. The subtlety is that when I say “I sort of think you should do X”, it comes across as uncertain. First, that puts everything else I say into doubt, since I sound like I’m not really sure. Second, my listeners are subconsciously taking what I’ve said from an assertion – I think you should – to a question – Do you think you should – which also shifts the .

Of course, what the qualifiers also do is leave me an out. If challenged, I can say “Well, I didn’t say you should, I said I kind of think you should.”

Why leave an out? Why not commit?

In a group dialogue, it is important to recognize that the value of each contribution is affected by the words we use and the way we say things.

Don’t qualify unless there’s a very good reason to qualify.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »