I have recently been dipping into my Relate's guide to better relationships. Although no longer in print it is full of useful little exercises to discover what's going on in your close relationships.
Here's one to try.
Recognising Patterns
Divide a piece of A4 paper in two. On the top half draw circles to represent yourself, members of your family and friends who are important to you. Make the circles any size you want. Put the initials or name of each person in the circles and place them as near or as far away from you as you feel they are. Consider their relation to each other. Put up to five pluses and minuses in each circle to show how supportive each person is to you (someone who is physically far away can still be very supportive).
Use the diagram to focus on the way you life is presently and how rewarding your current relationships are. Do you like this pattern? Is there anything you would like to change? Use the bottom half of the page to draw these relationships as you would like them to be.
Looking at your desired pattern, consider the following:
- what needs to happen for these changes to be possible?
- what would be the impact on your life if these changes occurred?
- how would this other person rate you in their pattern, with their own pluses and minuses?
- what is realistically possible from your side in making the change?
To Change Or Not To Change..
Making changes is a matter of choice and unless these are being forced upon you, it can be very hard to do. Breaking out of old, entrenched habits takes time and can be a painful experience if handled badly. There is also often the fear of breaking up anyway, if issues are looked at too closely. In reality, communicating properly and making adjustments keeps you on course, much as it would if driving a car, flying a plane or sailing a boat.
How this is handled is the key and professional counselling is a valuable resource. It need only be short-term and gives the added insight, tools and support to make the changes possible. Unfortunately, most couples wait 6 years (on average) to seek out support and many more fall apart without ever seeking this support. The Gottman Institute is set up to provide research and understanding to couples experiencing problems and making changes and a good reading resource also. Check them out at:
http://www.gottman.com/marriage/self_help/
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Thursday, 16 July 2009
I Want!!
This week I am talking about how to ask for what you want, at the time when it matters most, and in a way that increases your chances of getting it. If you follow these guidelines, you will feel much happier about how you behaved as well as more resolved if it still does not deliver what you want. Often what holds us back in moving on is feeling unresolved, or downright guilty about how have we behaved. This is as relevant at work as at home and requires a certain amount of trial and error learning to perfect. They are pretty guaranteed methods for increasing your chances of getting what you want, although not necessarily delivering it!
There are many ways of being assertive but this week I am looking at 2 key areas of assertiveness:
1. Making a simple request assertive
2. Expressing your "I want"!
Making a simple request assertive
There are 4 components to making a simple, brief request:
1. A brief explanation (optional). Explain what your problem is in one sentence. "I'm very hot in here ... I am very thirsty ... I have had a tiring day". Not every situation needs an explanation, but when you think it will help, give one, but keep it brief!
2. Make a softening statement. This is important as it establishes you as a reasonable person who's mature and balanced. Some softening statements sound like:
- "would you mind if..?"
- "It would be helpful if .."
- "I'd appreciate it if .."
- "Could I have .." (said with a smile)
- "Hi, I was wondering if .."
These openers are disarming and so less likely to activate resistance and resentment than a hard-nosed request. They are as important with loved ones (big and small!) as they are with strangers or colleauges.
3. Ask direct, specific questions. Say what you would like to happen clearly and be exact. Leave out emotion or heat from your request. Ask for what you want in as flat and matter-of-fact a tone as possible and present it as normal and reasonable. This makes the assumption that of course anyone who is reasonable themself would be happy to accomodate it. Keep your question to one sentence. The more you elaborate and explain, the more opportunity for resistance you provide.
4. Make an appreciation statement. This reinforces the other party saying "yes" or going along with your request:
- "This would be really helpful"
- "Thank you for making the effort"
- "This will make a big difference"
- "I'd like to know if you have a problem with this"
Recently at my home here in France, I saw a gang of children, of 10 years and less, shooting air rifles at anything that moved next to my house (guns are a national past-time in France). I explained to them that as I have domestic pets I would prefer them to shoot somewhere farther away from the houses, deeper into the vineyard. I was assertive, and the children ran off giggling, only to return within minutes and begin shooting at some birds in my tree. Fuming, I marched in to the vineyard to talk to them face-to-face whereupon they scarpered once more. Weighed down by their commando gear and rifles (about the same height as they were), they could barely outwalk me. I kept following (hoping I would not receive a pellet or two in the process) but determined to discuss this with either them or some responsible adult. Eventually, I discovered that they lived not very far away from my house in an area assigned to "social housing" - the French equivalent to our council houses, but far nicer I must say. Seeing a couple of cheeky faces streaked with green-brown warpaint poking out of the gardens, I knocked on the front door to chat to the parents about my concerns (I am fairly ignorant of the laws relating to children bearing arms). If the kids have guns might the parents too? I was greeted by 2 women and 1 man and many children inside, with lots of shouting and lots of aggression. The children paraded in the background with their guns and I suddenly realised what a stupid thing I'd done. In the face of such aggression, I kept all emotion out of my face apart from the occasional friendly smile as I spoke, making as much eye contact with the woman who seemed most sympathetic, who was standing apart from the other 2. I made my request about the children, brief and specific i.e. being farther away from the house and not shooting at domestic pets. I also provided consequences that if I saw them near houses again with guns I would report it to to the authorities. At this stage a barage of yelling from one of the women ensued. I waited until she had run out of steam and then asked her if she thought I was being unreasonable. She then paused, asked me if I had children or pets that I was concerned about and I replied that I did. She calmed down a little more and then pointed out that she has little ones too that she is not concerned about at all. I pointed out that although an airgun is not likely to cause a fatality, eyes can be lost and damage can be done. I asked her what was making her the most angry (a direct, specific question) and she said it was my threat of going to the police (I later learned that these people are likely what the French refer to as "les gitanes" - gypsies - and they hate the police with a passion). I explained that I did not want to do that but that I was very concerned about having children with guns next to my house. I remained friendly, appreciative and interested about their position but very specific about what I wanted. My question "why can they not shoot farther from the houses, into the vineyard?" was both very specific but also appreciative about their reasons for not wanting this. We did not part as the best of friends, however this happened a long time ago and I have only seen this gang once since, and minus the rifles. I certainly feel happier knowing that I have at least talked to the parents, that the children know I have talked to their parents and also that I know where they live!
There are many ways of being assertive but this week I am looking at 2 key areas of assertiveness:
1. Making a simple request assertive
2. Expressing your "I want"!
Making a simple request assertive
There are 4 components to making a simple, brief request:
1. A brief explanation (optional). Explain what your problem is in one sentence. "I'm very hot in here ... I am very thirsty ... I have had a tiring day". Not every situation needs an explanation, but when you think it will help, give one, but keep it brief!
2. Make a softening statement. This is important as it establishes you as a reasonable person who's mature and balanced. Some softening statements sound like:
- "would you mind if..?"
- "It would be helpful if .."
- "I'd appreciate it if .."
- "Could I have .." (said with a smile)
- "Hi, I was wondering if .."
These openers are disarming and so less likely to activate resistance and resentment than a hard-nosed request. They are as important with loved ones (big and small!) as they are with strangers or colleauges.
3. Ask direct, specific questions. Say what you would like to happen clearly and be exact. Leave out emotion or heat from your request. Ask for what you want in as flat and matter-of-fact a tone as possible and present it as normal and reasonable. This makes the assumption that of course anyone who is reasonable themself would be happy to accomodate it. Keep your question to one sentence. The more you elaborate and explain, the more opportunity for resistance you provide.
4. Make an appreciation statement. This reinforces the other party saying "yes" or going along with your request:
- "This would be really helpful"
- "Thank you for making the effort"
- "This will make a big difference"
- "I'd like to know if you have a problem with this"
Recently at my home here in France, I saw a gang of children, of 10 years and less, shooting air rifles at anything that moved next to my house (guns are a national past-time in France). I explained to them that as I have domestic pets I would prefer them to shoot somewhere farther away from the houses, deeper into the vineyard. I was assertive, and the children ran off giggling, only to return within minutes and begin shooting at some birds in my tree. Fuming, I marched in to the vineyard to talk to them face-to-face whereupon they scarpered once more. Weighed down by their commando gear and rifles (about the same height as they were), they could barely outwalk me. I kept following (hoping I would not receive a pellet or two in the process) but determined to discuss this with either them or some responsible adult. Eventually, I discovered that they lived not very far away from my house in an area assigned to "social housing" - the French equivalent to our council houses, but far nicer I must say. Seeing a couple of cheeky faces streaked with green-brown warpaint poking out of the gardens, I knocked on the front door to chat to the parents about my concerns (I am fairly ignorant of the laws relating to children bearing arms). If the kids have guns might the parents too? I was greeted by 2 women and 1 man and many children inside, with lots of shouting and lots of aggression. The children paraded in the background with their guns and I suddenly realised what a stupid thing I'd done. In the face of such aggression, I kept all emotion out of my face apart from the occasional friendly smile as I spoke, making as much eye contact with the woman who seemed most sympathetic, who was standing apart from the other 2. I made my request about the children, brief and specific i.e. being farther away from the house and not shooting at domestic pets. I also provided consequences that if I saw them near houses again with guns I would report it to to the authorities. At this stage a barage of yelling from one of the women ensued. I waited until she had run out of steam and then asked her if she thought I was being unreasonable. She then paused, asked me if I had children or pets that I was concerned about and I replied that I did. She calmed down a little more and then pointed out that she has little ones too that she is not concerned about at all. I pointed out that although an airgun is not likely to cause a fatality, eyes can be lost and damage can be done. I asked her what was making her the most angry (a direct, specific question) and she said it was my threat of going to the police (I later learned that these people are likely what the French refer to as "les gitanes" - gypsies - and they hate the police with a passion). I explained that I did not want to do that but that I was very concerned about having children with guns next to my house. I remained friendly, appreciative and interested about their position but very specific about what I wanted. My question "why can they not shoot farther from the houses, into the vineyard?" was both very specific but also appreciative about their reasons for not wanting this. We did not part as the best of friends, however this happened a long time ago and I have only seen this gang once since, and minus the rifles. I certainly feel happier knowing that I have at least talked to the parents, that the children know I have talked to their parents and also that I know where they live!
"I Want"!
This is the whole point of assertiveness but it needs to be thought through very carefully. The following are some guidelines to follow (paraphrased from The Dialectical Behaviour Therapy Skills Workbook, McKay, Wood & Brantley):
Ask for behavioural, not attitudinal change. Telling someone they have a "bad attitude" is not helpful nor likely to change very much. It is also unreasonable to expect someone to change what they believe or feel simply because you don't like it. You can ask for them to change what they are doing / how they are acting however.
Ask for one change at a time. Do not give a shopping list of things to be changed. This is overwhelming and pressuring. Pick the thing that needs to improve the most, that will make the biggest change and stick to that.
Ask for the thing that can be changed now. "in a year and a half we can make a commitment to each other .." is a very poor response to "I would like us to have a more committed relationship" because nothing changes here-and-now, and by the time this rolls around, it will likely have been pushed under the carpet and be difficult to instigate. Address here-and-now making the change, making the commitment, starting the family, etc. If it cannot begin to be prioritised now, it is very unlikely that it will magically happen later on. What's stopping it now? Is not doing it now truly a valid reason? What might other reasons be? How well are your needs and wants being considered / incorporated now? Do not be fobbed off by the promise to address this at some point in the future.
Be specific and firm. Vague requests such as "be more loving" is not particularly useful as we all have a different impression of how this looks and feels. If you feel more loved when your partner holds your hand in public, watching t.v., at the movies, etc. then say that. You need to know first of all what it is you want / need too! Asking your partner to prioritise having a family, for example, is a huge want / need and also one of the hardest to articulate specifically, firmly as well as appreciatively. I emphasise this need the most as it is one of the riskiest between couples. When agreeing to wait, there is a risk that this time reduces the overall chances of it happening in the future. This can be devastating, not just to the couple, but to the party who is then left feeling bitterly unresolved about not having more clearly asserted their need earlier.
Sunday, 12 July 2009
Be Happy!
Your Basic Human Rights
I recently ran a Maximising Happiness evening in the South of France for some expat friends (it began as workshops about having happier relationships but that quickly changed to all things happiness). We began with some exploration of the impact of assertiveness on happiness, and in particular knowing what our basic rights are. I ran through a list of basic human rights and we identified the ones that we have most difficulty in accepting, either in ourselves or in others. It proved to be an interesting exercise and led to quite a few of us talking further about the difficulties for some in saying no, for some in accepting unfounded opinions and for others to permit their loved ones to say no too!
Here's the list. See if there are any that you have difficulty with:
1. ___ to be treated as an equal, regardless of gender, race, age, sexual orientation or disability
2. ___ to be treated with respect as a capable human being
3. ___ to decide how to spend my time
4. ___ to ask for what I want
5. ___ to ask for feedback on things such as my performance, behaviour and image
6. ___ to be listened to and taken seriously
7. ___ to hold political beliefs
8. ___ to cry
9. ___ to make mistakes
10. ___ to say ‘No’ without feeling guilty
11. ___ to state my needs
12. ___ to set my own priorities
13. ___ to express my feelings
14. ___ to say ‘Yes’ for myself without feeling selfish
15. ___ to change my mind
16. ___ to fail occasionally
17. ___ to have an opinion
18. ___ to say “I don’t understand”
19. ___ to make statements with no logical basis and which I do not have to justify
20. ___ to ask for information
21. ___ to be successful
22. ___ to adhere to my own set of values
23. ___ to take time to make decisions
24. ___ to express my beliefs
25. ___ to take responsibility for my own decisions
26. ___ to have privacy
27. ___ to admit “I don’t know”
28. ___ to change / develop as a human being
29. ___ to choose whether or not to get involved in other people’s problems
30. ___ to decline to be responsible for someone else’s problems
31. ___ to look after my own needs
32. ___ to have space and time to be alone
33. ___ to be an individual
34. ___ to ask for information from professionals
35. ___ not to be dependent on others’ approval
36. ___ to be the judge of my own worth
37. ___ to choose how to behave / respond in a given situation
38. ___ to be independent
39. ___ to be me; not the person others want me to be
40. ___ not to assert myself
(adapted from the list provided in Assertiveness Training – A Sourcebook of Activities, by Sue Bishop (1995) Kogan Page)
Try to identify areas where you are not asserting your rights; or where you are being held back; or maybe even manipulated by others. This will be more difficult than you think and maybe you assert your rights with some but not with others. Equally if you find yourself pushing others to give up some of their basic rights then it might be time to take a step back and figure out other ways of coming to agreement. It is an important aide memoire for establishing where you need to concentrate on developing new and improved happiness skills!
I recently ran a Maximising Happiness evening in the South of France for some expat friends (it began as workshops about having happier relationships but that quickly changed to all things happiness). We began with some exploration of the impact of assertiveness on happiness, and in particular knowing what our basic rights are. I ran through a list of basic human rights and we identified the ones that we have most difficulty in accepting, either in ourselves or in others. It proved to be an interesting exercise and led to quite a few of us talking further about the difficulties for some in saying no, for some in accepting unfounded opinions and for others to permit their loved ones to say no too!
Here's the list. See if there are any that you have difficulty with:
1. ___ to be treated as an equal, regardless of gender, race, age, sexual orientation or disability
2. ___ to be treated with respect as a capable human being
3. ___ to decide how to spend my time
4. ___ to ask for what I want
5. ___ to ask for feedback on things such as my performance, behaviour and image
6. ___ to be listened to and taken seriously
7. ___ to hold political beliefs
8. ___ to cry
9. ___ to make mistakes
10. ___ to say ‘No’ without feeling guilty
11. ___ to state my needs
12. ___ to set my own priorities
13. ___ to express my feelings
14. ___ to say ‘Yes’ for myself without feeling selfish
15. ___ to change my mind
16. ___ to fail occasionally
17. ___ to have an opinion
18. ___ to say “I don’t understand”
19. ___ to make statements with no logical basis and which I do not have to justify
20. ___ to ask for information
21. ___ to be successful
22. ___ to adhere to my own set of values
23. ___ to take time to make decisions
24. ___ to express my beliefs
25. ___ to take responsibility for my own decisions
26. ___ to have privacy
27. ___ to admit “I don’t know”
28. ___ to change / develop as a human being
29. ___ to choose whether or not to get involved in other people’s problems
30. ___ to decline to be responsible for someone else’s problems
31. ___ to look after my own needs
32. ___ to have space and time to be alone
33. ___ to be an individual
34. ___ to ask for information from professionals
35. ___ not to be dependent on others’ approval
36. ___ to be the judge of my own worth
37. ___ to choose how to behave / respond in a given situation
38. ___ to be independent
39. ___ to be me; not the person others want me to be
40. ___ not to assert myself
(adapted from the list provided in Assertiveness Training – A Sourcebook of Activities, by Sue Bishop (1995) Kogan Page)
Try to identify areas where you are not asserting your rights; or where you are being held back; or maybe even manipulated by others. This will be more difficult than you think and maybe you assert your rights with some but not with others. Equally if you find yourself pushing others to give up some of their basic rights then it might be time to take a step back and figure out other ways of coming to agreement. It is an important aide memoire for establishing where you need to concentrate on developing new and improved happiness skills!
Monday, 29 June 2009
Being Patient
Last week I was lucky enough to share a flight with a practicing Buddhist on her way to a Buddhist retreat in London. After talking throughout our flight she sent me a book produced by her Buddhism Centre, called the 16 Guidelines for Life. Last week I wrote about how the worst of times can lead to the best of times, if we manage to ride the wave of immediate crisis. This blog carries forward the idea of dealing with crises with patience and less fear, taking the lead from her chapter on Patience.
"Patience starts with each one of us. Imagine never getting irritated or angry again. Of not feeling your buttons pushed and your mind going dark and closed. Never again feeling your body tense up, your fists clench and your face contort. Or not obsessing in the middle of the night about what someone did or didn't say...
..Often we learn the most from uncomfortable situations, providing we are willing to stay the course. It takes a special kind of patience to allow events to come to maturity and to be fulfilled. To be open to the unexpected outcome, rather than the one we might originally have pushed for...
.. The real work of patience happens in the quiet moments when we have removed ourselves from the person or the situation that upsets us; when it's possible to take a deep breath and let go of tangled feelings; when we can find the space and honesty to admit that we may have acted unskilfully ourselves.
An eighth century Indian teacher called Shantideva commented that since there will always be things that irritate and annoy us, it's better to cover our own feet with leather rather than attempt to make the whole world smooth and comfortable for ourselves...
.. To expect life to go smoothly is to miss the point."
"Do you have patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action arises by itself?" - Lao Tzu, China
Thanks to Marian who so kindly sent me this book (extracted from 16 Guidelines for Life: The Basics, Alison Murdoch & Deyki-Lee Oldershaw).
"Patience starts with each one of us. Imagine never getting irritated or angry again. Of not feeling your buttons pushed and your mind going dark and closed. Never again feeling your body tense up, your fists clench and your face contort. Or not obsessing in the middle of the night about what someone did or didn't say...
..Often we learn the most from uncomfortable situations, providing we are willing to stay the course. It takes a special kind of patience to allow events to come to maturity and to be fulfilled. To be open to the unexpected outcome, rather than the one we might originally have pushed for...
.. The real work of patience happens in the quiet moments when we have removed ourselves from the person or the situation that upsets us; when it's possible to take a deep breath and let go of tangled feelings; when we can find the space and honesty to admit that we may have acted unskilfully ourselves.
An eighth century Indian teacher called Shantideva commented that since there will always be things that irritate and annoy us, it's better to cover our own feet with leather rather than attempt to make the whole world smooth and comfortable for ourselves...
.. To expect life to go smoothly is to miss the point."
"Do you have patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action arises by itself?" - Lao Tzu, China
Thanks to Marian who so kindly sent me this book (extracted from 16 Guidelines for Life: The Basics, Alison Murdoch & Deyki-Lee Oldershaw).
Saturday, 30 May 2009
Seeking cohesion at all costs
In my last posting I wrote about the pitfalls of group cohesion, including the risks of groupthink. This post is looking at what happens in our intimate or personal relationships when we attempt to keep agreement there, at all costs.
The key point I would like to make is about the merits of arguments and disagreements. I can think of plenty of occasions where I have heard the words "we get on so well, we never argue!", usually in fairly new relationships. Of course, when I hear this I begin to wonder whether there will be a gradual erosion of one of the party's identity if that continues or even whether there is an underlying aversion to conflict. For relationships to thrive as well as survive, conflict must be permissible, coupled with the skills to then sort out an acceptable solution of course. The healthiest relationships are those who think "we get on so well, it's ok to disagree".
A reluctance to permit disagreement can stem from a number of problems, some of the ones which perpetuate conflict-avoidance being:
1. One or both parties holding an aversion to arguing, perhaps being guided by the underlying unhelpful belief "it's better to keep quiet and keep the peace". Perhaps this was learned from parents who themselves reacted to every little problem with difficulty, either by avoidance or aggression. Mirroring parents' own problematic behaviour or over-compensating by doing the converse are opposite sides of the same coin.
2. Where disagreement occurs it is coupled with anxiety, anger, shouting, stress, tears, and so on, making it virtually impossible to find acceptable solutions.
3. If disagreement is incurred, one party feels threatened, must be right at all costs, incurring learned helplessness in the other or "tit-for-tat" battling.
4. A lack of self-confidence that one has the skills to find mutually acceptable solutions. I have frequently heard one party say things like "it's no use, he/she talks rings around me and afterwards I just feel worse".
5. A fear of abandonment, typical thoughts being "if I assert my wishes, then he/she will leave me; stop loving me; think less of me; our relationship will be over; we will no longer be soulmates; etc."
6. Disengagement and apathy. The thinking here might be along the lines of "it doesn't matter what I want, nothing ever changes; I don't know what I want anymore; what I want doesn't matter; it is more important that everyone else is happy". The most usual emotional reaction here is depression.
Of course the reality is in fact, if you cannot permit disagreement then your relationship cannot grow and be a mutually fulfilling and happy one. More destructive, "secondary" problems usually emerge.
At the opposite end of the spectrum there are of course major problems where relationships are based upon constant disagreements, usually due to unequal power sharing or continual power-struggles. In these relationships there is often one party who has "final say", creating an unhealthy and extremely volatile equilibrium point. The power might be attributed to whomever is earning the most money, or to the one who shouts the loudest, cries the hardest, etc. One of my guilty pleasures on television has been watching the Katie Price (a.k.a glamour model Jordan) and Peter Andre reality show (from time to time). It makes interesting viewing from a relationship therapist's perspective, because if ever there was a couple who have an impoverished ability to consider the impact of their words and actions on each other's feelings, it appears to be them. The power-sharing battles seemed to peak just prior to their announced split, evidenced by the words calmly uttered by Katie Price, along the lines of "I earn most of the money, why can't I have it how I want it?". At this point, Peter Andre lost control of his composure, resorted to name calling his wife and being hustled away from her by all the people they surround themselves with. The intimacy between them is grossly threatened already with cameras and staff ever-present, the extremely blurred lines between what is surely for entertainment and what is real, and now the seeming very real power-struggle regarding whomever earns the most money gets to have final say. Extremely poor intimacy-building, emotional control and problem-solving skills coupled with sacrificing emotional privacy have all eroded the love that must have been there between them at one time. What is being demonstrated very clearly is negative tit-for-tat interactions, pushing them into a pretty irreversible, downward spiral of negative exchanges. Without the skills to take a deep breath and calm down, to find solutions and press pause upon one's own overwhelming need to take charge, relationships like these do not recover. It helps if one party is able to guide the other, however in this (extreme) example, neither party have particularly good skills nor, it seems, the realisation that there is a different way to behave.
I currently run relationship-building group work, both in France and London (Harley St and Chiswick). Together, as part of a supportive and confidential group, and guided by me, individuals have the opportunity to learn these powerful life skills as well as uncover some of the unconscious patterns that threaten healthy, happy relationships. More intensive weekend workshops in France will continue later on in the year.
The key point I would like to make is about the merits of arguments and disagreements. I can think of plenty of occasions where I have heard the words "we get on so well, we never argue!", usually in fairly new relationships. Of course, when I hear this I begin to wonder whether there will be a gradual erosion of one of the party's identity if that continues or even whether there is an underlying aversion to conflict. For relationships to thrive as well as survive, conflict must be permissible, coupled with the skills to then sort out an acceptable solution of course. The healthiest relationships are those who think "we get on so well, it's ok to disagree".
A reluctance to permit disagreement can stem from a number of problems, some of the ones which perpetuate conflict-avoidance being:
1. One or both parties holding an aversion to arguing, perhaps being guided by the underlying unhelpful belief "it's better to keep quiet and keep the peace". Perhaps this was learned from parents who themselves reacted to every little problem with difficulty, either by avoidance or aggression. Mirroring parents' own problematic behaviour or over-compensating by doing the converse are opposite sides of the same coin.
2. Where disagreement occurs it is coupled with anxiety, anger, shouting, stress, tears, and so on, making it virtually impossible to find acceptable solutions.
3. If disagreement is incurred, one party feels threatened, must be right at all costs, incurring learned helplessness in the other or "tit-for-tat" battling.
4. A lack of self-confidence that one has the skills to find mutually acceptable solutions. I have frequently heard one party say things like "it's no use, he/she talks rings around me and afterwards I just feel worse".
5. A fear of abandonment, typical thoughts being "if I assert my wishes, then he/she will leave me; stop loving me; think less of me; our relationship will be over; we will no longer be soulmates; etc."
6. Disengagement and apathy. The thinking here might be along the lines of "it doesn't matter what I want, nothing ever changes; I don't know what I want anymore; what I want doesn't matter; it is more important that everyone else is happy". The most usual emotional reaction here is depression.
Of course the reality is in fact, if you cannot permit disagreement then your relationship cannot grow and be a mutually fulfilling and happy one. More destructive, "secondary" problems usually emerge.
At the opposite end of the spectrum there are of course major problems where relationships are based upon constant disagreements, usually due to unequal power sharing or continual power-struggles. In these relationships there is often one party who has "final say", creating an unhealthy and extremely volatile equilibrium point. The power might be attributed to whomever is earning the most money, or to the one who shouts the loudest, cries the hardest, etc. One of my guilty pleasures on television has been watching the Katie Price (a.k.a glamour model Jordan) and Peter Andre reality show (from time to time). It makes interesting viewing from a relationship therapist's perspective, because if ever there was a couple who have an impoverished ability to consider the impact of their words and actions on each other's feelings, it appears to be them. The power-sharing battles seemed to peak just prior to their announced split, evidenced by the words calmly uttered by Katie Price, along the lines of "I earn most of the money, why can't I have it how I want it?". At this point, Peter Andre lost control of his composure, resorted to name calling his wife and being hustled away from her by all the people they surround themselves with. The intimacy between them is grossly threatened already with cameras and staff ever-present, the extremely blurred lines between what is surely for entertainment and what is real, and now the seeming very real power-struggle regarding whomever earns the most money gets to have final say. Extremely poor intimacy-building, emotional control and problem-solving skills coupled with sacrificing emotional privacy have all eroded the love that must have been there between them at one time. What is being demonstrated very clearly is negative tit-for-tat interactions, pushing them into a pretty irreversible, downward spiral of negative exchanges. Without the skills to take a deep breath and calm down, to find solutions and press pause upon one's own overwhelming need to take charge, relationships like these do not recover. It helps if one party is able to guide the other, however in this (extreme) example, neither party have particularly good skills nor, it seems, the realisation that there is a different way to behave.
I currently run relationship-building group work, both in France and London (Harley St and Chiswick). Together, as part of a supportive and confidential group, and guided by me, individuals have the opportunity to learn these powerful life skills as well as uncover some of the unconscious patterns that threaten healthy, happy relationships. More intensive weekend workshops in France will continue later on in the year.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Accepting Differences
Being different is all part of being human and makes life the rich tapestry that it is rather than a pretty dull monochromatic print. In our relationships, be they at work or at home, it is fundamentally important that we learn how to accept differences, as just that. Different is how it is, not good, not bad, just different. From here we can find better solutions, rather than shoe-horning each other or events into any one agenda. This week's blog is looking more at the organisational effects of not accepting differences however.So what if you work with someone who finds it hard to accept differences or even in an organisation where conformity is a strongly held value? This is a fairly typical symptom of teams which are stuck and in organisations not performing particularly well. One important dimension of a healthy team and organisation is its ability to invite and incorporate differences of opinion, different perspectives and disagreement even, in order to achieve balanced decision-making. Not any one person can possibly anticipate all eventualities, however where challenge or objection is not permitted, then the decision-making becomes stunted and the group extremely vulnerable to being left behind in the marketplace, to losing good staff members or even to catastrophic events. There are many good examples of how this lack of open challenge has contributed to some unfortunate events, including disasters. The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, for example, occurred on January 28, 1986, when the US Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, leading to the deaths of its seven crew members, including the civilian female teacher, Christa McAuliffe. The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the shuttle program and the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed by US President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident. The Rogers Commission found that NASA's organisational culture and decision-making processes had been a key contributing factor to the accident.
To cut a long story short, NASA managers had known since 1977 that engineering contractor Morton Thiokol's design of the SRBs contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings, but failed to address it adequately. They also disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching on such a cold day and had failed to adequately report these technical concerns to their superiors. This could be explained as a certain arrogance attached to holding more influential positions in the hierarchy and eliminating voices from down below (and external to NASA) or it could even be attributed to flawed decision-making processes. The report mentioned here made a much more general observation, that it was the culture of the organisation to make these "top-down" and closed decisions, irrespective of plenty of evidence being supplied to the contrary.
An entire area of psychology has been devoted to studying this phenomena of "filtering out" by the group the inconvenient truths or differences of opinion and has been called "Groupthink". Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimise conflict and reach consensus by shutting down or simply not inviting critical testing, analysing, and evaluating of all ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. Irving Janis, the researcher who coined the term, provides seven pointers on how organisations can overcome the natural but potentially limiting or fatal tendencies for groups to seek agreement:
1. Leaders should assign each member the role of “critical evaluator”. This allows each member to freely air objections and doubts.
2. Higher-ups should not express an opinion when assigning a task to a group.
3. The organisation should set up several independent groups, working on the same problem.
4. All effective alternatives should be examined.
5. Each member should discuss the group's ideas with trusted people outside of the group.
6. The group should invite outside experts into meetings. Group members should be allowed to discuss with and question the outside experts.
7. At least one group member should be assigned the role of Devil's advocate. This should be a different person for each meeting.
By following these guidelines, the risk of groupthink can be minimised. After the Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco, John F. Kennedy sought to avoid groupthink during the Cuban Missile Crisis. During meetings, he invited outside experts to share their viewpoints, and allowed group members to question them carefully. He also encouraged group members to discuss possible solutions with trusted members within their separate departments, and he even divided the group up into various sub-groups, to partially break the group cohesion. JFK was deliberately absent from the meetings, so as to avoid pressing his own opinion. Ultimately, the Cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully, thanks in part to these measures. (this example has been extracted from Wikipedia).
Clearly in organisational settings, we are all vulnerable to groupthink, a point that continues to be demonstrated to this day in groups and organisations across the world, including some of those I have worked with.
I haven't discussed how seeking cohesion at all costs affects intimate relationships but clearly there is a downside here, where cohesion is more important than solving real problems. I will try to write more about this in next week's blog.
Here are a few references on the effects of groupthink on organisational decision-making, including what sorts of environments make groups particularly vulnerable:
McCauley, Clark. "The Nature of Social Influence in Groupthink: Compliance and Internalization." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 57-2 (1989). 250-260.
Schafer, M. and Crichlow, S. (1996). Antecedents of groupthink: a quantitative study. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Sep., 1996), pp. 415-435.
Vaughan, Diane. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago. University of and Chicago Press, 1996.
Monday, 11 May 2009
Living the Good Life
I am reading the Martin Seligman (PhD) book, "Authentic Happiness" and as I am struggling to find time for blogging right now, I'll pick up on his point for this week's blog, on how we can all live the good life, where we know what that means to us.
Seligman observes that living the "good life" is not necessarily drinking Champagne and driving a Porsche .. (although I might like to discover that for myself!). However, living the good life, according to Seligman, involves finding out what your strengths are in the key areas of your life, those areas that matter most, such as raising children, holding on to love and enjoying work for example, and living a life that draws much more upon these strengths in those areas. He says "the good life is using your signature strengths every day to produce authentic happiness and abundant gratification. This is something you can learn to do in each of the main realms of your life.." (p.13)
Seligman points out that his strength is in teaching and so he gets immense satisfaction from teaching a complex subject to his students or even his eight year old on the rules of playing Bridge. He notices how he feels invigorated when doing this. He also notices how he feels when doing things that are not particular strengths of his, when organising people for example. This is something that he has been mentored in and now considers himself to be adequate at however afterwards he will usually feel drained, not invigorated. I must agree that when I write something well or design and deliver a training workshop that I feel energised, happy, and I literally glow when I see or hear of others enjoying it or benefitting from it. This act of creativity is one of my signature strengths and is important both in how I spend my leisure time as well as in my working life. However, if I were asked to design spreadsheets, work with numbers and not with people, simply disseminating information and reports for example, then I know that I would feel drained and disenchanted extremely quickly! I am much more of a people person and I like interacting with others much more than when dealing with numbers or simple facts and so it's interesting to notice how differently I feel when working in either domain. It's also useful knowledge if I wish to create more opportunities for me to live my own "good life".
Here is a practical exercise to uncover what some of your "signature strengths" are:
- think of a time at both work and at home where you felt particularly energised or just didn't want to stop what you were doing until you'd finished it to your satisfaction. If it makes it simpler write them down as two separate examples, one for work and one for home. Now write down under this how you felt at the time - fulfilled, energised, excited, happy, satisfied, etc. In doing this for both examples, what do you notice are similar to both examples? The feelings? The level of interaction, or lack thereof, with others? The impact this had on you or others? Achieving a goal or getting recognition? For Seligman, it is his love of lifelong learning and sharing this with others. For me too it is in sharing this learning, especially in passing on positive feelings and experiences to others (spreading a good virus if you like!).
Knowing how you feel can help you channel your efforts into more activities that are likely to give you more of these desirable feelings and this becomes a positively self-reinforcing activity. As a secondary exercise, you can also consider times when you felt exhausted, drained, unhappy, bitter or cynical and consider what it was that contributed to that. There will be common themes there too, useful in noticing what they are in order to direct you from aiming for jobs and environments that do not play to your strengths. This helps you to recognise and so avoid where you are creating negatively self-reinforcing activities. For those who find themselves repeating undesirable patterns, try to think about what is the "secondary gain" to you within these undesirable experiences. What is the positively reinforcing element within the negative cycle e.g. people pleasing at your own expense, an unwillingness to say no, a need to be needed, a reluctance to break out of old perceptions about what it is to be a man or woman, etc.?
As Seligman rightly puts it "Authentic happiness derives from raising the bar for yourself, not rating yourself against others". As any professional athlete or sportsman knows, measuring performance for raising the bar of one's own performance is only useful where one's own personal best is used as the measure or bar. If your son is an amateur-level football player, it is far more useful to measure his progress against his own personal best rather than David Beckham's!
If you wish to see how you rate against others in relation to happniness however you can take the Fordyce Emotion's Questionnaire, at Seligman's site:
http://www.authentichappiness.org/
Seligman observes that living the "good life" is not necessarily drinking Champagne and driving a Porsche .. (although I might like to discover that for myself!). However, living the good life, according to Seligman, involves finding out what your strengths are in the key areas of your life, those areas that matter most, such as raising children, holding on to love and enjoying work for example, and living a life that draws much more upon these strengths in those areas. He says "the good life is using your signature strengths every day to produce authentic happiness and abundant gratification. This is something you can learn to do in each of the main realms of your life.." (p.13)
Seligman points out that his strength is in teaching and so he gets immense satisfaction from teaching a complex subject to his students or even his eight year old on the rules of playing Bridge. He notices how he feels invigorated when doing this. He also notices how he feels when doing things that are not particular strengths of his, when organising people for example. This is something that he has been mentored in and now considers himself to be adequate at however afterwards he will usually feel drained, not invigorated. I must agree that when I write something well or design and deliver a training workshop that I feel energised, happy, and I literally glow when I see or hear of others enjoying it or benefitting from it. This act of creativity is one of my signature strengths and is important both in how I spend my leisure time as well as in my working life. However, if I were asked to design spreadsheets, work with numbers and not with people, simply disseminating information and reports for example, then I know that I would feel drained and disenchanted extremely quickly! I am much more of a people person and I like interacting with others much more than when dealing with numbers or simple facts and so it's interesting to notice how differently I feel when working in either domain. It's also useful knowledge if I wish to create more opportunities for me to live my own "good life".
Here is a practical exercise to uncover what some of your "signature strengths" are:
- think of a time at both work and at home where you felt particularly energised or just didn't want to stop what you were doing until you'd finished it to your satisfaction. If it makes it simpler write them down as two separate examples, one for work and one for home. Now write down under this how you felt at the time - fulfilled, energised, excited, happy, satisfied, etc. In doing this for both examples, what do you notice are similar to both examples? The feelings? The level of interaction, or lack thereof, with others? The impact this had on you or others? Achieving a goal or getting recognition? For Seligman, it is his love of lifelong learning and sharing this with others. For me too it is in sharing this learning, especially in passing on positive feelings and experiences to others (spreading a good virus if you like!).
Knowing how you feel can help you channel your efforts into more activities that are likely to give you more of these desirable feelings and this becomes a positively self-reinforcing activity. As a secondary exercise, you can also consider times when you felt exhausted, drained, unhappy, bitter or cynical and consider what it was that contributed to that. There will be common themes there too, useful in noticing what they are in order to direct you from aiming for jobs and environments that do not play to your strengths. This helps you to recognise and so avoid where you are creating negatively self-reinforcing activities. For those who find themselves repeating undesirable patterns, try to think about what is the "secondary gain" to you within these undesirable experiences. What is the positively reinforcing element within the negative cycle e.g. people pleasing at your own expense, an unwillingness to say no, a need to be needed, a reluctance to break out of old perceptions about what it is to be a man or woman, etc.?
As Seligman rightly puts it "Authentic happiness derives from raising the bar for yourself, not rating yourself against others". As any professional athlete or sportsman knows, measuring performance for raising the bar of one's own performance is only useful where one's own personal best is used as the measure or bar. If your son is an amateur-level football player, it is far more useful to measure his progress against his own personal best rather than David Beckham's!
If you wish to see how you rate against others in relation to happniness however you can take the Fordyce Emotion's Questionnaire, at Seligman's site:
http://www.authentichappiness.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)