Hi,
Well, here's the latest mindblast. It's a concept that I think has real relevance for many organizations, including the military. The title: "Bringing Productive Griefbusting to the Workplace: Transforming the Cost of Grief Carriers and Grief Ghosts on Your Mission, Morale, and Bottom Line." It's a bit wide-ranging and maybe rambling. Still, I think it has some valuable concepts and, I think, some of my best writing. Would love your ideas, especially the practicality of instituting such a program in the workplace.
Thanks,
Mark
stressdoc@aol.com
--------
P.S. Here's a brief note from the consulting firm for whom I did the grief intervention:
Hi Mark,
"Things have stabilized at the County. I am still waiting to hear back regarding the proposed Grief/Loss training series. As soon as I hear back, I will be sure to keep you posted regarding any training opportunities for this group. I know that if they decide to schedule the series, they would prefer you to return."
SK
-------------------------------
Once again I’m reminded of how lingering grief sits heavy on many people’s minds and bodies, hearts and souls; and yet this hulking ghost is often barely recognized in a “TNT” – “Time, Numbers, & Technology” – driven and distracted world. Actually, this psychic specter has the potential to both trigger volatility and be emotionally draining; its energy-consuming presence not only flies under our psychological radar but, not surprisingly, often escapes rational understanding. Limited awareness has definite consequences for our physical and emotional well-being, as well as for the health and harmony of our essential social groups and systems – for example, a capacity to form and sustain effective “hi task-hi touch-hi tolerance” relationships, especially vital in today’s diverse workplace. Preoccupying ghost-like grief, especially if outside conscious awareness, invariably contaminates the ability to manage conflict constructively with authority figures and colleagues as well as customers. Also, people who are “ghost carriers” often become “stress carriers” and “time wasters,” distracting themselves by getting into other people’s business. Persistent grief will eventually compromise productive performance and team cooperation-coordination. (And as a former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant with the USPS, my gut and experience tells me that a good percentage of workers who “go postal” are likely grappling with inner demons and ghosts.) How can organizations and companies address this disruptive phantom? Can you do early detection through preventive orientation? Maybe it’s time for a Griefbuster to walk your office halls, work floors, and warehouses or, at least, to supplement an EAP or Employee Wellness Program.
Let me provide some background on a recent tragedy which evoked an immediate sense of loss for all personnel in the workplace. However, ironically, for untold numbers, I suspect, the most powerful disturbance involved mostly muffled emotional echoes from both the recent and distant past. One morning I received a call from an Employee Assistance Program/Organizational Consulting firm. Could I respond to a same day Critical Incident/Stress Debriefing at a county agency? An employee driving to work had been instantly killed in a head-on collision with a large truck that crossed the roadway dividing line. Tom (all names are fictional) was a very popular employee whose line of work brought him in direct contact with many fellow employees. Most tragically, Tom was in his mid-30s; he and his wife had two young boys with whom Tom was exceptionally close. Employees invariably cited the close-knit nature of the family and, especially, Tom’s love of coaching his boys in various sporting activities. Tom’s brother (Joe) presently works for the same county agency. (Not surprisingly, during my abbreviated “tour of duty” Joe was with his extended family.)
Stress Doc as Grief Counselor
My two-day role as “Grief Counselor” was multi-pronged: a) initially, briefly addressing the entire staff, affirming the naturalness of being in shock or feeling numb, angry, confused, helpless, or sad; there is no one way to grieve and no way of predicting when and how feelings might come out – whether as a trickle or a rushing stream, b) sitting with stunned groups of people, encouraging sharing or silent reflection, whatever the preference, including informally sitting down with Tom’s work crew, (at least with those not opting for management’s offer of administrative leave), c) meeting with the Director and Senior Management to help them process their emotions and discuss ways to best approach and support their personnel; also the Director solicited my ideas for his imminent call to Tom’s grieving widow, d) formally meeting with Tom’s brother’s work crew, to help these self-described “macho” big-equipment drivers and operators not only acknowledge their grief emotions but to solicit their questions and ideas how best to relate to Joe when he returns to work, and e) to meet privately with individual employees who wanted one-on-one counseling.
With my opening paragraph regarding the unacknowledged yet palpable presence for many of “unfinished grief,” a section of this essay will focus on grief role e), that is, how my individual meetings brought to light various employees’ “ghosts of grief.” Parenthetically, I must add that when it comes to significant loss, grief is never finished or resolved, nor, from my perspective, should it be. I will elaborate on this shortly. However, right now, I want to spotlight two grief points that emerged from my discussions with: a) the Director in anticipation of calling Tom’s wife and b) the crew regarding how to be around and engage the deceased’s brother, Joe. Actually, these points begin to illuminate “the connection between grief and ghosts.”
1. “What if I say the wrong thing?" In times of grief, especially involving unusual, shocking, and horrific circumstances, people, themselves feeling bewildered and bereft, often don’t know what to say to the bereaved. At the same time, most folks are uncomfortable feeling at a loss for words or overwhelmed by emotion, and want to express their shock or sorrow (both to console others as well as for their own subliminal need for stress relief). Not saying anything doesn’t seem right. Yet, in the face of this confusion and contradiction, not surprisingly, there is a near universal fear of “saying the wrong thing.” What is a concerned yet conflicted individual to do?
Three steps for appropriately sharing your grief:
a. Trust Your Gut. It’s perfectly okay to articulate what you are actually experiencing, e.g., “I’m shocked; I just don’t know what to say.” Being real is most important. It’s fine to simply be present with eyes beginning to water. In addition, nonverbal communication can be vital here: look the person in the eye, unless their behavior, for example, lowering their eyes, says otherwise. While different cultural or religious mores may establish behavioral-spatial limits, it’s usually permissible to gently touch a mourner on the arm to show your caring, connection, and support. Unless you have a close relation with the bereaved, let the latter dictate any other physical support, for example, giving a hug.
b. Be Humble. One mistake some people make when talking with an active mourner is exclaiming, “I understand what you are going through.” First of all, unless you almost literally have had a kindred, “Ground Hog Day” experience, you have not truly or painstakingly walked in the other’s shoes. And second, there’s no way to fully comprehend or intuit the array of emotions (or degree of numbing or both) of the bereaved. Some of my insight comes from having a girlfriend who lost a nineteen year old daughter in a car accident about fifteen years ago. The only person from whom she would accept the “I understand” phrase was a parent who had also lost a child. Much better to humbly and more honestly say: “I can’t imagine what you are going through.”
c. Be Available. Finally, let the mourner know that you are available with an ear, shoulder, or a hug when and if they want one: “Just give me the word.” You can also ask such questions as, “Is there anything I can do?”, “Can I run an errand or cook something for you and the family?”, or “May I call or stop by in a week or so?” These offerings affirm your on-call presence while respecting the bereaved individual’s need for time and space.
2. Don’t turn the dead into a ghost. As we’ve seen, being able to acknowledge empathically a powerful loss takes sensitivity and humility. Depending on the emotional state of the bereaved, timing is also a critical factor. Take your cue from the bereaved; especially the individual’s nonverbal communication will help you assess whether she is ready to talk about herself or the deceased. However, over time, it’s important to bring up the memory of the deceased – whether you are a direct family member, a close or even casual friend, or a member of common community. For example, according to the County Agency Director, the wife of the deceased employee was having an open house. She wanted Tom’s colleagues to come by and tell stories or share memories of her husband. In yin-yang fashion, this woman seems to intuitively grasp the need for both animated tears of sadness as well as ones touched with knowing laughter for propelling us through a grief journey. As my girlfriend has mentioned numerous times, her biggest fear is that people will forget Cecily…that her daughter becomes a fading ghost instead of a living memory or vital image and a surrounding mind-body-soulful spirit. So talk about the deceased when the person in mourning is ready; it’s not a burden, it’s a blessing!
The 3 "M"s: Memory, Mourning, and Memorial
However, it’s not simply the obviously grieving individual who benefits from the sharing of memories. As a therapist who has done grief counseling over many years, for me, having the courage to periodically remember and openly mourn, if not memorialize, the loss of loved ones, both from the near and distant past, helps keep their internalized emotional presence and spiritual essence alive within a psyche and soma. And personally, this involves significant loved ones with whom I invariably have both positive and painful emotional memories. And it shouldn’t take a terrible tragedy for us to be reminded of this worldly and other-worldly wisdom.
Actually, we can learn from the military – Memorial Day and Veterans Day are institutionalized days of recall and remembrance with the potential for personal-spiritual, family, and even community renewal. (For numbers of folks, especially minorities, I suspect Martin Luther King Day serves a similar function.) And some religions and cultures are more attuned than others at reviving if not revering the spirit of one’s ancestors. Why not integrate an analogous ceremony in such normative settings as schools, religious institutions, or in workplaces, and not simply on a once-per-year basis? (Of course, I’m thinking on a deeper psychological level than inspirational posters or even a stirring speaker at a town hall-like meeting.)
Presently, though, I must confess my celebratory musings reflect a touch of the absurd, for example, what about a ritual that integrates two cultural-media icons – the Charlie Brown character and the Seinfeld sitcom? How about a “Good Grief Festivus” for the rest of us? Or what about this new vocation for the Stress Doc: as Bill Murray and Dan Ackroyd decades earlier snapped up the Ghostbuster title, how about the Stress Doc as Workplace Griefbuster? (Informally, I’ve already, donned the mantle of Stressbuster.) But seriously, my recent work, again, reminds me of the widespread need to help folks engage in major psycho-spiritual reflection and transition, one that can potentially turn the haunting into the healing – transforming lingering, loitering, and long-lasting ghosts into living, learning, and liberating grief. In other words, how can we help a self-defeating ghost carrier find the courage to become a productive grief warrior?
Waking Up to Grief and Ghosts
While it has been a background awareness for many decades, it took my father’s recent death and my writing about his tortured and triumphant life and our emotionally distant, then stormy yet open and loving then, once again, distant and critical and, finally, with death hovering, some return of a mutually understanding and forgiving relationship, to more knowledgeably grasp how “grief ghosts” walk and stalk the chambers of so many minds, hearts, and souls. (Email stressdoc@aol.com for my essay of remembrance, “A Requiem for a “Last Angry Man” or click on http://www-stressdoc-com.blogspot.com/2011/07/requiem-for-last-angry-man-sons-eulogy.html). An awareness of the extent of lingering grief was sparked by the emails received in response to my requiem. After offering much appreciated condolences, almost universally, each reader mentioned a personal loss – whether recent or distant – that was still being harbored in an uneasy, if not somewhat stormy, port of recall. And several readers envied (quite warmly, actually) my ability to track and capture that father-son rollercoaster relationship. When ready, they too wanted to embark on such an exploratory quest, to dig deep with their own evolving, hard-earned voice to unearth and embrace the ethereal mix of ghostly shadow and substance
Grief often involves the loss of a loved one (including a pet); it can also be triggered by the unexpected loss of a key position or opportunity. In response to a RIF (Reduction in Force), I recall a manager-in-training exclaiming: “I once had a career path…then this boulder fell from the sky and crushed it.” Grief may be conjured by memories of a time and place or of a socio-cultural ambiance that touched one deeply and can never quite be replicated or replaced. For example, having savored the multi-layered tastes and colors, the sights, sounds, and smells, the “oddball and outcast” spirits of the Big Easy in the ‘70s and ‘80s, having come out of the creative closet during my “American in Cajun Paris” years…I genuflect at the mantra: Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans! And at least as poignant, fantasies about “childhood innocence” (or “good enough” parenting, shelter, friendships, or stability) lost through death, separation, and abandonment, or through frequent or painful uprooting from a family home, or a childhood contaminated by chronic illness, family trauma and abuse (e.g., living in a substance abusing family system)…all potentially are fertile ground for the raising and restless roaming of psychic or post-traumatic ghosts.
Lingering, Loitering and Long-lasting Grief Ghosts: Image and Impact
Before illustrating some grief counseling ghost scenarios, let me shed light on the term “grief ghost.” Basically, as a replacement for the questionable notion of “unfinished or unresolved grief” (for a significant loss, as mentioned earlier, grief should never be truly finished), a person with ghosts means the presence of three grief states:
a) a “lingering grief ghost” signals some emotional hurt or dirt in the psychic wound needs to be washed clean with tears or wind swept with reflective sighs, to be disinfected by the light of day; defensive reactivity or passivity may be a warning smoke signal,
b) a “loitering grief ghost” means that one has seemingly closed one’s head and heart, has been avoiding or numbing painful memories and emotions for a prolonged time period, and the moldy moody wound is seriously festering and distressing your functionality and health; look for signs of insecurity, apathy, or depression, and
c) a “long-lasting grief ghost” means that the memories and pain are basically locked away, never to be openly engaged. The festering wounds are sealed in by an impenetrable callous. While a person may for a time appear crusty and hard-edged, what likely will prevail is a ghostly gangrenous pallor.
The moral, however, is clear: even when seemingly a distant memory, if the loss was once significant, grief must be meaningfully embraced with palpable emotion, recollection, and mourning. (And meaningful mourning, whether alone or with others, may range from a time and space for quiet reflection or dream interpretation to an outpouring of eerily primal, animal-like wailing or engaging the pain through creative-expressive immersion, e.g., dance, painting or poetry.) Disengaged or alienated grief turns a once living and breathing, inspiring, and/or infuriating important person or emotional period in one’s life into that lingering, loitering, or long-lasting ghost. And as previously noted, the longer the lingering ghost walks alone, isolated, unrecognized, denied, dismissed, or shunned, the heavier the emotional toll and loitering fine. (Insert Hamlet’s Ghost here.)
Ghostly Voices: Haunting Ourselves, Hurting Others
And once the image and memory of a loved one fades into ghostly status, any positive life giving or affirming characteristics in that once meaningful now disconnected relationship starts drying up. That former significant other loses his or her power as a role model or psychic transfusion-motivation-inspiration source. (Alas, the negative energy and critical voices from the past are often interred in our bones and brain when not released through grieving.) Over an extended time, the loitering ghost’s critical emotional voice, while often still operating at a subterranean decibel level, gets louder and louder, gets more emotionally shrill and accusatory, especially as we encounter new work-life-family transitions, performance-role challenges, and potentially intimate relationships. The more I hear a person declare, “The last person I’ll ever be like is my old man,” the surer I am of a haunted psyche.
Remember, restless, rejected ghosts make us susceptible to dysfunctional conflict as we displace onto others old hurts and humiliations along with compensatory hubris. Ignoring the reality of being quietly consumed by past grief-personal ghosts contaminates an ability to engage and fight objectively, constructively, and, certainly, with compassion those supposedly difficult people in our present. This increasingly weighty, wearing, and wary shadowy phantom subtly yet chronically drains us of vital energy for work, play, and love. And alas, in todays “always on” and “do more with less” 3-D technology “driven-distracted-draining” world, it’s harder and harder to carve out and protect such essential grief space-time. Still, external obstacles are surely not the whole story; many are simply leery of entering the dark and deep labyrinth of grief, afraid of discovering a shadowy monster within.
Bringing Ghosts to Life: Workplace Examples
But, let us make a foray as I illustrate some recently encountered grief ghosts in my Grief Counselor role. As sketched earlier, while the employee’s tragic death was the immediate catalyst, many of the folks encountered were on what I call the emo-existential edge because of their own long-lasting, lumbering ghosts. A common yet psychologically complex and multifaceted shadow now brought to light was the ghost of stormy marital or intimate relationship past, even one of seemingly ancient history – especially when tensions and tearing down had been chronic. (And invariably, people were always surprised, and often apologetic, for their emotional eruption, complete with hot streaming tears.) Not only were many searing memories connected to the loss-divorce of a spouse or mate who invariably defied simply being loved or detested, but grief involved both the loss of one’s role and identity as a partner. And even family of origin voices – often of an all too familiar manipulative game-playing, blaming, or shaming variety – reverberated in this volatile land- and mindscape “echo-system.” Not surprisingly, this relationship rupture was frequently a shock to a person’s core self-image. When lingering and especially long-standing, festering subterranean grief collides with crisis tremors, there’s a spectral effect. Like a band of vultures, multiple ghosts circle ominously on a now haunted horizon.
Seriously debilitating health issues or the death of a parent, child, or of a grandparent, or any close relative, not periodically remembered and engaged through grief, naturally, has ghostly potential. The premature death or incapacitation of a sibling is also an emotionally charged loss. During a recent grief session, one County Supervisor spoke of a sister killed in the 9/11 World Center attack. (I would imagine the violent death of her colleague heightened the connection to her sister’s horrific demise.) She also recalled the stormy interaction and termination of a troubled marriage, its impact on the kids, as well as her decision to retrain professionally, eventually uprooting from New Jersey to take her current job in Maryland. Actually, this woman was really on the edge because just a few days before, a close friend in his late 50s died of a heart attack. And when I asked if she had anyone to talk to at work or on the outside regarding her litany of losses, she shook her head. The advice she got from most people was, “It’s time you got over it.” Clearly, her support system was on the verge of extinction; all work and little play seemed to be sowing low grade depression. I made three suggestions: a) keep grappling with the ghosts, there’s no time line for “getting over it,” b) “fight for what you need” (a mantra that she insisted would shine forth from her screensaver), and c) consider some brief EAP counseling to help with a) and b).
Cultural Clutter Undermines the Griefbuster
“It’s time…” or “Turn the page; just look forward” or “You have to move on”…common exhortations of a society and culture that doesn’t understand that the past is never really over. (And for folks with a “strong silent type” or “don’t air dirty laundry” upbringing or later socialization, who equate almost any emotional display with weakness or foolishness, you know who you are, you Rambos and Rambettes swearing by that psychic stain remover – “Grief Be Gone!”)
Actually, your life is like a book; you can build upon and use early chapters as an essential and fundamental map for life-long travels and/or see those early models and mandates as outmoded if not outrageous attempts at mind-body-spirit control. And perhaps with (occasionally without) the help of a friend, tutor, or mentor, a counselor or coach, one may recover repressed pain, rebel against the once formidable teachings and preachings (or selectively sift through the mind-field), hopefully discover your passion and develop self-discipline, and start reworking those pages into a “coming of age” novel or “one’s own genuine voice” and pathway of self-redesign. While those formative chapters are not set in stone, they still are, for better and worse, a structural – bio-psycho-social-cultural – foundation. And especially if you wish to launch or liberate yourself from the primal visions, voices, and vices, then understanding and applying the process of Griefbusting, that is, transforming ghosts into rejuvenated energy and spirit through active and creative mourning, is a necessary and critical step.
The Carly Simon Syndrome: “I Haven’t Got Time for the Pain”
And alas, naturally, for many there is another cultural barrier and psychological obstacle that must be surmounted for lingering-loitering ghosts to be transformed through living grief: the everyday refrain, I just don’t have the time. Consider this recent example. An African-American woman, in her 50s, who exudes compassion as a Human Relations professional, after some encouragement, agreed to an individual grief session. Once again, the discussion quickly moved from the death of her colleague to a series of personal losses of a distant and recent nature. The death of her dad was most prominent; he died just six months earlier. Not only family, her dad was also her pastor and mentor. And now with his unexpected death, pressure is mounting to fulfill his mission and oversee the congregation. (She too is trained in the ministry.)
It also didn’t take much for tears to well when I asked about her mother, a best friend who died eight years earlier. And as she more actively tends to the physical-emotional-spiritual needs of her congregants, she realizes some serious caretaker burnout is starting to set in. All the stress has her seriously thinking of early retirement. (She already walks with a cane.) When I asked if she has a shoulder and ear in her life, not surprisingly the answer was “Not really. People look to me as the strong one.” And when I suggested that she might want some Employee Assistance Program (EAP)-sponsored emotional counseling-career coaching before making a final decision about retirement, she seemed wary. Yet eventually she recognized the irony: “I’m always encouraging others to seek some kind of counseling, but I don’t have the time myself.” She also was nervous about making time for reliving her grief pain. However, I finally got through with an altruistic appeal: “The hard-earned knowledge you’ll gain by exploring and better understanding your loneliness and losses, this wisdom you will share more personally and deeply with others.”
Closing Summary
Grief sits heavy on many people’s minds and bodies, hearts and souls; and yet this hulking ghost is barely recognized in a “TNT” – “Time, Numbers, & Technology” – driven and distracted world. However, when ignored, in a workplace, persistent grief will eventually compromise productive performance, adversely affect employee morale, along with disrupting team cooperation-coordination. How can organizations and companies address this ominous phantom? The context of Grief Counselor during a recent workplace tragedy brought to light both grief “do’s and don’ts”: steps for overcoming the fear of “saying the wrong thing” and not turning “the dead into a ghost.” Examples of current and possible ways of engaging in “Memory, Mourning, and Memorial” ceremonies were cited. Also, defined and illustrated were three types of “Lingering, Loitering, and Long-lasting" Grief Ghosts. Finally, two workplace scenarios highlighted a pair of socio-cultural messages-obstacles to effectively engaging grief: “It’s time to move on” and “I don’t have time for the pain.” Look for future writing on ways to shrink burdensome ghosts down to size through living, learning, and liberating grief. Until then…Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Inspiring Power and Partnership: An Interactive and Interdependent Perspective
I had an epiphany the other day…and it wasn’t related to Tim Tebow! The “aha” moment involved the concept of power and the unexpected way it might play out in a meaningful relationship. This new concept, the reciprocal if not paradoxical nature of power and vulnerability, is based on recent formal and informal coaching work with various clients and colleagues. And some investigative work in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary helped transform my intuition into insight. Consider this listing of “Seven Definitions and Synonyms of Power”:
1. Force. First, is the popular conception and usage – an “ability to compel obedience” or to “wield coercive force.”
2. Strength. A kindred concept, “The power residing in a thing as a result of qualities or properties (as health or soundness in bodily condition, or numbers or great equipment in a military organization) that enable it to exert force or manifest great strength as in resistance, attack, endurance (or resilience).
3. Control. Involving “direction or restraint,” a need for “control” often underlies the first two meanings, especially “force.”
4. Authority. Used as a synonym, “authority usually implies the granting of power for a specific purpose and within a carefully delineated framework, (including) to act as a leader and to guide others.”
5. Ability. The “capability of acting or producing an effect,” which relates to “a mental or physical ability or aptitude: faculty or talent.”
6. Influence. The “capacity to hold political or social sway”; power is connected to “influence and prestige.”
7. Empower. Finally, power as a verb is instructive: “to give strength to: to make powerful.” I especially like a second definition: “to supply with or propel by means of motive power” and “to give impetus to.” (Regarding the word impetus, in addition to common synonyms such as push and drive, I would also add the more subtle connotations, to touch and to move – both emotionally and to spur to movement or action, i.e., the motion in emotion.)
Clearly there is a qualitative difference in the first three power definitions – force, strength, and control – and the last three definitions – ability, influence, and empower. And authority seems to bridge the two camps, especially when envisioning “permissive authority” in contrast to one that “compels obedience.” I envision an authority based on the differential yet mutual recognition of strengths and resources in all parties; there is the potential for reciprocal learning, and the foundation of this authoritative power comes from the power to persuade through objective and heartfelt information, ideas and stories. This positive authority also grants permission or responsibly delegates discretionary power to others. (Of course, in times of crisis or imminent danger, for good and bad, people often need to/tend to follow the lead of those in positions of “authority.”)
Turning Negative Power into Positive Empowerment
The first three power terms seem a triumvirate or a troika – in my mind force, strength, and control are often associated with superior-subordinate, one up-one down, power-pawn relationships. However, another perspective can be discovered even within our word sets. Imagine force, strength and control used to promote self-growth rather than exploit others. Now the essence of these terms and the power dynamic has changed. (Of course, the converse also applies; the leader of a clique or gang often has great influence, yet too often with negative consequences.) Positive self-empowerment:
a. Harnesses Energy and Discipline – harnesses an individual’s own ability to both focus and flexibly flow with energy, passion and discipline through trial and error and repeated practice,
b. Pursues Purpose, Meaning and Mission – pursues developing one’s sense of purpose (including “purposeful play”) and the search for meaning and mission,
c. Cultivates and Integrates Knowledge and Talents – cultivates and weaves together one’s experience and knowledge, cultural heritage, skills and talents, and
d. Manages and Demonstrates Performance Process – manages performance anxiety and demonstrates a capacity for successful exploratory and goal-directed performance.
For example, learning to channel and focus aggression is a vital component of peak performance in such diverse pursuits as sports, the arts and public speaking. Hey, I bring aggressive energy to my role as a writer. And, not surprisingly, such an enlightened individual often becomes a role model, one who helps empower others. (Hmm…maybe we are “Tebowing” a bit, after all.)
Which leads us to the final three – ability, influence, and empower – terms that comprise a trio or threesome, more a person-situation contingent, interactive, and mutually engaging or “give and take” and “ebb and flow” exchange of emotions and ideas yielding renewed energy, knowledge, and skill-building. Now let’s see if we can apply the abstract to the world of real interaction or at least with a simulation.
A Power Jolting Exercise
In a recent “give and take” session, a colleague shared the powerful emotional impact of my communication and control workshop exercise. She was surprised that the mini-role play had touched her so personally. (In light of her dysfunctional and draining work environment, perhaps it was not so surprising that a “Drop the Rope” exercise struck such a strong chord.) Basically, the exercise involves presenting an imaginary rope to a workshop participant and provocatively inviting the individual to engage with me in a “tug of war.” That is, I tell the person to “sit up straight, feet on the ground, grab the rope with two hands, and get ready to pull at the count of three…” Now most people will slip into role, though some will refuse the “rope.” I suspect some folks fear being embarrassed; others don’t know exactly what’s going on and perhaps are less adventuresome or just want to retain control.
With invisible rope in hand, and the other individual beginning to tense, in anticipation of our face-off, at the count of “two” and beginning to mouth “three,” with both our muscles straining, I suddenly let go of the rope. And then ask, “What just happened?” With a sheepish look, the other person usually feigns falling backwards. While I minimize any embarrassment by saying, “I better start running; I can tell, this guy (or gal) is probably coming after me.” There’s a Keystone Cops quality to the interaction, and frequently we have a laugh.
“Drop the Rope”: Fast Food for Thought
However, this rapid-fire role play may well provide some powerful insight. (Actually, the interplay also sets up a discussion on the “Six ‘C’ Dynamics of Power Struggles” and a power struggle exercise involving the entire audience. Email stressdoc@aol.com for details.) How do you not take the bait when someone is provocatively fishing for an argument or power struggle? The challenge becomes not instinctively pulling back when someone offers you a rope and then “yanks your chain.” You don’t have to prove you can give (or be) as big a jerk. In fact, you can just “drop the rope.” This is not a sign of weakness. Not wanting to play this self-defeating or dysfunctional game, you can say with energy and conviction, “This tugging back and forth isn’t working for me, I don’t know about for you? Can we come up with a more productive way to address your grievance or solve our problem?” Power comes from voicing your integrity and not being afraid to set limits and boundaries, e.g., exercising self-control.
Through the “pulling the rope” exercise, my colleague came to realize that in her own dysfunctional circumstance while the power struggle rope didn’t really exist she was accepting and struggling with the entrapping bait. She was not only disempowering herself but giving her boss more power than he actually had. Learning to “Drop the Rope,” to let go of “being right” and getting past the palpable “unfairness” (in an environment that was not interested in engagement, justice, reform…or fairness) was critical to extricating herself and achieving “R & R”: not simply “Rest and Relaxation” but actually “R & R & R” – knowing when to “Retreat and Retool” before deciding when, where, and how to “Return” to her organization.) This realization was part of her evolving empowerment and eventual liberation process. (Also knowing that the power is too one-sided, sometimes you need to call in an objective third party. And if this option is not available…alas, you may need to be updating the old resume.)
Real Relief and Belief through Grief
Frequently, this kind of letting go, seeing past the blinding outrage, only comes with some grieving. When feeling unfairly judged, maligned or the subject of subterfuge or basically being “forced out” by a dysfunctional person and/or situation, it’s hard not to experience being out of control, or seen as injured or invaded. It often takes courageous tears of “feeling your sorrow” (as opposed to “feeling sorry for yourself”) to cleanse wounds of hurt and humiliation, if not revenge. As I once penned:
For the Phoenix to rise from the ashes
One must know the pain
To transform the fire to burning desire.
And once you are mostly past the teeth-clenching unfairness and/or the ego- or dependency-fueled rage, grief compels a quiet time and soulful space for “how did I get myself into this mess” reflection and for “where do I go from here” support, planning and action. As widely-admired 20th c. Algerian-French author and philosopher, Albert Camus, observed: Once we have accepted the fact of loss, we understand that the loved one [or loved position; or detested person, as it were] has obstructed a whole corner of the possible, pure now as a sky washed by rain.
A Pawn or Partner in the Power Game
As I said, the spark from a colleague in the context of recent counseling experiences conjured an image of power that was both very interactive and turned the forceful, superior-subordinate dynamic on its head. But my perspective was not simply shaped by recent encounters. Over the years, personal and professional roles and relations have confirmed an “ability” and “empowering influence” as a careful and understanding listener. If patient, attentive and authoritative listening is foundational, then the first floor is a capacity to engage through “good questions.” More than ever, in a hyper-speed and distracted world, it is vital to connect to and elicit other peoples’ beliefs and ideas and emotions. And a communicator who models laughing at one’s flaws and foibles while enabling folks to believe they have been genuinely seen and heard wields a gentle yet subtle power. This semantic “power” threesome – careful listening, sensitive questioning, and mutual laughing – fosters a sharing that allows one party to feel it is safe to be temporarily dependent and vulnerable, to trust the other’s ability and authority within the context of an honest and open, a non-manipulative and mutual partnership. Individuals and groups often feel energized and more “empowered” to act.
Contemplating “Inspiring Power and Partnership,” two perspectives on power relations emerge:
1. Partner Power. I’m calling the use of domineering force or intimidating notions of strength and control, where exploiting, manipulating, bullying, pulling rank, or “using” the other is the typical mode of interaction, “Pawn-oriented Power.” Conversely, “Partner-oriented Power,” an open, increasingly secure and solid relationship climate based on a non-coercive, “give and take” sharing of power, tends to evolve over time when both parties recognize the value of and possibility for:
a. the gradual belief that it is safe to share one’s vulnerability or self-doubt, while still having one’s emotional strengths and resources affirmed,
b. a relationship capable of both interdependency and appropriate dependency; naturally, the person feeling most vulnerable (or capable) is subject to change with shifting sands of time, circumstance, health, motivation, ability, skills, and resources,
c. careful and compassionate, analytic and empathic, head and heart listening,
d. often followed by selective, emotionally sensitive and thoughtful, responsible and responsive “good questions” and the meaningful exploration and engagement with the other’s perspective and point of view,
e. the appropriate use of “self-effacing” humor (reflecting a sense of humility, humanity and openness); remember, as the Stress Doc penned: People are more open to a serious message that is gift-wrapped with humor,
f. the option, after careful listening and exploration, of making tentative suggestions along with recommendations grounded in firm conviction and tangible action steps while still being receptive to counter-feedback and diverging perspective,
g. engaging in mutual discussion as well as respectful, real and candid disagreement (candor can be assertive and genuine, yet still enable a person to save face when strategically tactful or sensitive to the other’s self-esteem and identity; such candor is preferred to honesty used as a weapon to demean and demoralize),
h. recognizing and respecting basic experiential, personality, and cultural differences, and, finally,
i. the understanding that following the above psychological and communicational map of engagement often paves the way for the evolution of trust.
Actually, these steps provide another power pathway – “Partner Power.” The ongoing evolution of trust may be the most vital and dynamic interpersonal process for building or strengthening a relationship. It is certainly foundational for forging an ongoing supportive, strategic and, especially, a synergistic alliance – whereby not only is “the whole greater than the sum of the parts” but the free flowing communication, camaraderie, and creative interplay between or among the parts means these “parts can evolve and transform into partners.”
2. The Interdependence of Partner Power. While trust may be a consequence of “Partner Power,” a willingness to risk and trust may also provide an infusion of power into a partner. Though there may be a decidedly more vulnerable party, nonetheless, from a “give and take” perspective both individuals are part of the shared and evolving power equation. Let me explain. First, I knew a person’s vulnerability is often crisis-driven and thus time-limited. While a person’s strengths may be partially eclipsed by momentary depletion and self-doubt, they are usually still clear to my way of perceiving, thinking, and listening. Momentary feelings of self-doubt or helplessness don’t necessarily foreshadow long term hopelessness or dependency, especially if the vulnerable party can reach out for support in a timely fashion. During the “crisis window” the individual is feeling disoriented and defenses are lowered. However, this state of vulnerability often opens a person to new problem-solving approaches along with expanded support systems and resources in order to regain control and psychic equilibrium. While crisis is a time of danger, it is also an opportunity for significant or surprising, if not creative and synergistic, problem-solving and growth.
But the new insight, or perhaps it’s more a reframe, is that the vulnerable person still carries considerable power, especially within an ever evolving and reciprocal relationship where one person may be “better or worse” at a moment in (or for periods of) time. A healthy partnership recognizes the fluid, seesaw-like nature of a relationship, and creates a climate where vital issues, including personal vulnerability as well as differences in strengths and competencies may, and sometimes must, be explored and even tested. This “being periodically put to the test” is likely necessary for meaningful trust, real reciprocity, and interdependence to evolve, not erode, over time.
As mentioned, feeling entrapped in a web of change, conflict, and crisis may heighten one’s perceived vulnerability, including a need for more personal sharing along with a caring ear and shoulder; such uncertainty or confusion may motivate a search for guidance and resources. (Alas, a rigid, “fight or flight” Rambo or Rambette coping pattern may preclude reaching out. It’s why I say strong silent types often get more ulcers than Oscars!) Still, for a healthy, functional partnership, when one party is under duress, is the other party viewed as a caring and competent resource capable of responding effectively? For example, in my coaching work, does the other party trust that I am trustworthy? Is the other person comfortable with the common and dissimilar ways we share and engage? Is he willing to allow me incremental access to some of the recesses of his mind, heart, and even his soul? If I’m able to accept and patiently listen to my own painful and vulnerable memories, emotions, and life experience, without being too quick to assess, diagnose, or judge, intimate sharing is more likely to proceed. Especially, if I can ask questions that say to the other, “I truly want to know your ideas and experience,” that is, “I want to understand your pain and passion, purpose and power (and/or lack thereof).”
And being stimulated by such important and intense sharing invariably heightens and hones my concentration and insight, my intuition and empathy. The vulnerable party-partner (despite a doubting self-image) is a courageous and an integral player in an interactive process that infuses me with energy, humility, and emotion as well as moving me to both analytic and compassionate engagement. The intimate-vulnerable other has helped unleash my power, has given me license to share my authority, ability and influence (mostly as a skilled listener and occasional problem-solver), to support and empower. Clearly, unlike “Pawn Power” which often exploits dependency, role and resource discrepancy, or lesser status, “Partner Power” creates a two-way, ebb and flow transfusion that ultimately empowers both parties.
Closing Summary
This essay has provided a hierarchical listing of various meanings of the word “power” – from power based on coercion to power bases on persuasion. At the same time, even a negative conception of power can take on a positive and empowering tone when self-directed. Moving beyond the abstract, power is examined through the lens of real world interaction or at least role-paying simulation. Learning to “drop the rope” and “letting go” through grief sets the stage for paradoxically transforming feelings of loss into new possibilities and pathways of power. Finally, contemplating “Inspiring Power and Partnership,” two perspectives on power relations emerge: 1) “Partner Power” (in contrast to Pawn-oriented Power), including the psychological and interactive steps essential for its development, and 2) “The Interdependence of Partner Power” – whereby times of crisis vulnerability often motivate one party to risk and open up emotionally and also infuse power into the other party along with eliciting a readiness to provide support. This crisis interdependency provides uncommon if not synergistic problem-solving opportunity for both parties…parts may be able to transform into partners!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
1. Force. First, is the popular conception and usage – an “ability to compel obedience” or to “wield coercive force.”
2. Strength. A kindred concept, “The power residing in a thing as a result of qualities or properties (as health or soundness in bodily condition, or numbers or great equipment in a military organization) that enable it to exert force or manifest great strength as in resistance, attack, endurance (or resilience).
3. Control. Involving “direction or restraint,” a need for “control” often underlies the first two meanings, especially “force.”
4. Authority. Used as a synonym, “authority usually implies the granting of power for a specific purpose and within a carefully delineated framework, (including) to act as a leader and to guide others.”
5. Ability. The “capability of acting or producing an effect,” which relates to “a mental or physical ability or aptitude: faculty or talent.”
6. Influence. The “capacity to hold political or social sway”; power is connected to “influence and prestige.”
7. Empower. Finally, power as a verb is instructive: “to give strength to: to make powerful.” I especially like a second definition: “to supply with or propel by means of motive power” and “to give impetus to.” (Regarding the word impetus, in addition to common synonyms such as push and drive, I would also add the more subtle connotations, to touch and to move – both emotionally and to spur to movement or action, i.e., the motion in emotion.)
Clearly there is a qualitative difference in the first three power definitions – force, strength, and control – and the last three definitions – ability, influence, and empower. And authority seems to bridge the two camps, especially when envisioning “permissive authority” in contrast to one that “compels obedience.” I envision an authority based on the differential yet mutual recognition of strengths and resources in all parties; there is the potential for reciprocal learning, and the foundation of this authoritative power comes from the power to persuade through objective and heartfelt information, ideas and stories. This positive authority also grants permission or responsibly delegates discretionary power to others. (Of course, in times of crisis or imminent danger, for good and bad, people often need to/tend to follow the lead of those in positions of “authority.”)
Turning Negative Power into Positive Empowerment
The first three power terms seem a triumvirate or a troika – in my mind force, strength, and control are often associated with superior-subordinate, one up-one down, power-pawn relationships. However, another perspective can be discovered even within our word sets. Imagine force, strength and control used to promote self-growth rather than exploit others. Now the essence of these terms and the power dynamic has changed. (Of course, the converse also applies; the leader of a clique or gang often has great influence, yet too often with negative consequences.) Positive self-empowerment:
a. Harnesses Energy and Discipline – harnesses an individual’s own ability to both focus and flexibly flow with energy, passion and discipline through trial and error and repeated practice,
b. Pursues Purpose, Meaning and Mission – pursues developing one’s sense of purpose (including “purposeful play”) and the search for meaning and mission,
c. Cultivates and Integrates Knowledge and Talents – cultivates and weaves together one’s experience and knowledge, cultural heritage, skills and talents, and
d. Manages and Demonstrates Performance Process – manages performance anxiety and demonstrates a capacity for successful exploratory and goal-directed performance.
For example, learning to channel and focus aggression is a vital component of peak performance in such diverse pursuits as sports, the arts and public speaking. Hey, I bring aggressive energy to my role as a writer. And, not surprisingly, such an enlightened individual often becomes a role model, one who helps empower others. (Hmm…maybe we are “Tebowing” a bit, after all.)
Which leads us to the final three – ability, influence, and empower – terms that comprise a trio or threesome, more a person-situation contingent, interactive, and mutually engaging or “give and take” and “ebb and flow” exchange of emotions and ideas yielding renewed energy, knowledge, and skill-building. Now let’s see if we can apply the abstract to the world of real interaction or at least with a simulation.
A Power Jolting Exercise
In a recent “give and take” session, a colleague shared the powerful emotional impact of my communication and control workshop exercise. She was surprised that the mini-role play had touched her so personally. (In light of her dysfunctional and draining work environment, perhaps it was not so surprising that a “Drop the Rope” exercise struck such a strong chord.) Basically, the exercise involves presenting an imaginary rope to a workshop participant and provocatively inviting the individual to engage with me in a “tug of war.” That is, I tell the person to “sit up straight, feet on the ground, grab the rope with two hands, and get ready to pull at the count of three…” Now most people will slip into role, though some will refuse the “rope.” I suspect some folks fear being embarrassed; others don’t know exactly what’s going on and perhaps are less adventuresome or just want to retain control.
With invisible rope in hand, and the other individual beginning to tense, in anticipation of our face-off, at the count of “two” and beginning to mouth “three,” with both our muscles straining, I suddenly let go of the rope. And then ask, “What just happened?” With a sheepish look, the other person usually feigns falling backwards. While I minimize any embarrassment by saying, “I better start running; I can tell, this guy (or gal) is probably coming after me.” There’s a Keystone Cops quality to the interaction, and frequently we have a laugh.
“Drop the Rope”: Fast Food for Thought
However, this rapid-fire role play may well provide some powerful insight. (Actually, the interplay also sets up a discussion on the “Six ‘C’ Dynamics of Power Struggles” and a power struggle exercise involving the entire audience. Email stressdoc@aol.com for details.) How do you not take the bait when someone is provocatively fishing for an argument or power struggle? The challenge becomes not instinctively pulling back when someone offers you a rope and then “yanks your chain.” You don’t have to prove you can give (or be) as big a jerk. In fact, you can just “drop the rope.” This is not a sign of weakness. Not wanting to play this self-defeating or dysfunctional game, you can say with energy and conviction, “This tugging back and forth isn’t working for me, I don’t know about for you? Can we come up with a more productive way to address your grievance or solve our problem?” Power comes from voicing your integrity and not being afraid to set limits and boundaries, e.g., exercising self-control.
Through the “pulling the rope” exercise, my colleague came to realize that in her own dysfunctional circumstance while the power struggle rope didn’t really exist she was accepting and struggling with the entrapping bait. She was not only disempowering herself but giving her boss more power than he actually had. Learning to “Drop the Rope,” to let go of “being right” and getting past the palpable “unfairness” (in an environment that was not interested in engagement, justice, reform…or fairness) was critical to extricating herself and achieving “R & R”: not simply “Rest and Relaxation” but actually “R & R & R” – knowing when to “Retreat and Retool” before deciding when, where, and how to “Return” to her organization.) This realization was part of her evolving empowerment and eventual liberation process. (Also knowing that the power is too one-sided, sometimes you need to call in an objective third party. And if this option is not available…alas, you may need to be updating the old resume.)
Real Relief and Belief through Grief
Frequently, this kind of letting go, seeing past the blinding outrage, only comes with some grieving. When feeling unfairly judged, maligned or the subject of subterfuge or basically being “forced out” by a dysfunctional person and/or situation, it’s hard not to experience being out of control, or seen as injured or invaded. It often takes courageous tears of “feeling your sorrow” (as opposed to “feeling sorry for yourself”) to cleanse wounds of hurt and humiliation, if not revenge. As I once penned:
For the Phoenix to rise from the ashes
One must know the pain
To transform the fire to burning desire.
And once you are mostly past the teeth-clenching unfairness and/or the ego- or dependency-fueled rage, grief compels a quiet time and soulful space for “how did I get myself into this mess” reflection and for “where do I go from here” support, planning and action. As widely-admired 20th c. Algerian-French author and philosopher, Albert Camus, observed: Once we have accepted the fact of loss, we understand that the loved one [or loved position; or detested person, as it were] has obstructed a whole corner of the possible, pure now as a sky washed by rain.
A Pawn or Partner in the Power Game
As I said, the spark from a colleague in the context of recent counseling experiences conjured an image of power that was both very interactive and turned the forceful, superior-subordinate dynamic on its head. But my perspective was not simply shaped by recent encounters. Over the years, personal and professional roles and relations have confirmed an “ability” and “empowering influence” as a careful and understanding listener. If patient, attentive and authoritative listening is foundational, then the first floor is a capacity to engage through “good questions.” More than ever, in a hyper-speed and distracted world, it is vital to connect to and elicit other peoples’ beliefs and ideas and emotions. And a communicator who models laughing at one’s flaws and foibles while enabling folks to believe they have been genuinely seen and heard wields a gentle yet subtle power. This semantic “power” threesome – careful listening, sensitive questioning, and mutual laughing – fosters a sharing that allows one party to feel it is safe to be temporarily dependent and vulnerable, to trust the other’s ability and authority within the context of an honest and open, a non-manipulative and mutual partnership. Individuals and groups often feel energized and more “empowered” to act.
Contemplating “Inspiring Power and Partnership,” two perspectives on power relations emerge:
1. Partner Power. I’m calling the use of domineering force or intimidating notions of strength and control, where exploiting, manipulating, bullying, pulling rank, or “using” the other is the typical mode of interaction, “Pawn-oriented Power.” Conversely, “Partner-oriented Power,” an open, increasingly secure and solid relationship climate based on a non-coercive, “give and take” sharing of power, tends to evolve over time when both parties recognize the value of and possibility for:
a. the gradual belief that it is safe to share one’s vulnerability or self-doubt, while still having one’s emotional strengths and resources affirmed,
b. a relationship capable of both interdependency and appropriate dependency; naturally, the person feeling most vulnerable (or capable) is subject to change with shifting sands of time, circumstance, health, motivation, ability, skills, and resources,
c. careful and compassionate, analytic and empathic, head and heart listening,
d. often followed by selective, emotionally sensitive and thoughtful, responsible and responsive “good questions” and the meaningful exploration and engagement with the other’s perspective and point of view,
e. the appropriate use of “self-effacing” humor (reflecting a sense of humility, humanity and openness); remember, as the Stress Doc penned: People are more open to a serious message that is gift-wrapped with humor,
f. the option, after careful listening and exploration, of making tentative suggestions along with recommendations grounded in firm conviction and tangible action steps while still being receptive to counter-feedback and diverging perspective,
g. engaging in mutual discussion as well as respectful, real and candid disagreement (candor can be assertive and genuine, yet still enable a person to save face when strategically tactful or sensitive to the other’s self-esteem and identity; such candor is preferred to honesty used as a weapon to demean and demoralize),
h. recognizing and respecting basic experiential, personality, and cultural differences, and, finally,
i. the understanding that following the above psychological and communicational map of engagement often paves the way for the evolution of trust.
Actually, these steps provide another power pathway – “Partner Power.” The ongoing evolution of trust may be the most vital and dynamic interpersonal process for building or strengthening a relationship. It is certainly foundational for forging an ongoing supportive, strategic and, especially, a synergistic alliance – whereby not only is “the whole greater than the sum of the parts” but the free flowing communication, camaraderie, and creative interplay between or among the parts means these “parts can evolve and transform into partners.”
2. The Interdependence of Partner Power. While trust may be a consequence of “Partner Power,” a willingness to risk and trust may also provide an infusion of power into a partner. Though there may be a decidedly more vulnerable party, nonetheless, from a “give and take” perspective both individuals are part of the shared and evolving power equation. Let me explain. First, I knew a person’s vulnerability is often crisis-driven and thus time-limited. While a person’s strengths may be partially eclipsed by momentary depletion and self-doubt, they are usually still clear to my way of perceiving, thinking, and listening. Momentary feelings of self-doubt or helplessness don’t necessarily foreshadow long term hopelessness or dependency, especially if the vulnerable party can reach out for support in a timely fashion. During the “crisis window” the individual is feeling disoriented and defenses are lowered. However, this state of vulnerability often opens a person to new problem-solving approaches along with expanded support systems and resources in order to regain control and psychic equilibrium. While crisis is a time of danger, it is also an opportunity for significant or surprising, if not creative and synergistic, problem-solving and growth.
But the new insight, or perhaps it’s more a reframe, is that the vulnerable person still carries considerable power, especially within an ever evolving and reciprocal relationship where one person may be “better or worse” at a moment in (or for periods of) time. A healthy partnership recognizes the fluid, seesaw-like nature of a relationship, and creates a climate where vital issues, including personal vulnerability as well as differences in strengths and competencies may, and sometimes must, be explored and even tested. This “being periodically put to the test” is likely necessary for meaningful trust, real reciprocity, and interdependence to evolve, not erode, over time.
As mentioned, feeling entrapped in a web of change, conflict, and crisis may heighten one’s perceived vulnerability, including a need for more personal sharing along with a caring ear and shoulder; such uncertainty or confusion may motivate a search for guidance and resources. (Alas, a rigid, “fight or flight” Rambo or Rambette coping pattern may preclude reaching out. It’s why I say strong silent types often get more ulcers than Oscars!) Still, for a healthy, functional partnership, when one party is under duress, is the other party viewed as a caring and competent resource capable of responding effectively? For example, in my coaching work, does the other party trust that I am trustworthy? Is the other person comfortable with the common and dissimilar ways we share and engage? Is he willing to allow me incremental access to some of the recesses of his mind, heart, and even his soul? If I’m able to accept and patiently listen to my own painful and vulnerable memories, emotions, and life experience, without being too quick to assess, diagnose, or judge, intimate sharing is more likely to proceed. Especially, if I can ask questions that say to the other, “I truly want to know your ideas and experience,” that is, “I want to understand your pain and passion, purpose and power (and/or lack thereof).”
And being stimulated by such important and intense sharing invariably heightens and hones my concentration and insight, my intuition and empathy. The vulnerable party-partner (despite a doubting self-image) is a courageous and an integral player in an interactive process that infuses me with energy, humility, and emotion as well as moving me to both analytic and compassionate engagement. The intimate-vulnerable other has helped unleash my power, has given me license to share my authority, ability and influence (mostly as a skilled listener and occasional problem-solver), to support and empower. Clearly, unlike “Pawn Power” which often exploits dependency, role and resource discrepancy, or lesser status, “Partner Power” creates a two-way, ebb and flow transfusion that ultimately empowers both parties.
Closing Summary
This essay has provided a hierarchical listing of various meanings of the word “power” – from power based on coercion to power bases on persuasion. At the same time, even a negative conception of power can take on a positive and empowering tone when self-directed. Moving beyond the abstract, power is examined through the lens of real world interaction or at least role-paying simulation. Learning to “drop the rope” and “letting go” through grief sets the stage for paradoxically transforming feelings of loss into new possibilities and pathways of power. Finally, contemplating “Inspiring Power and Partnership,” two perspectives on power relations emerge: 1) “Partner Power” (in contrast to Pawn-oriented Power), including the psychological and interactive steps essential for its development, and 2) “The Interdependence of Partner Power” – whereby times of crisis vulnerability often motivate one party to risk and open up emotionally and also infuse power into the other party along with eliciting a readiness to provide support. This crisis interdependency provides uncommon if not synergistic problem-solving opportunity for both parties…parts may be able to transform into partners!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Productively Focusing Job Interview-Performance Anxiety: Transforming “Perfection” into Purpose, Patience and Possibility
[This article was written with the permission and in consultation with the below-mentioned phone-coaching client.]
Once again, through the wonder of the Internet, I've had a chance to connect with a bright, insightful and articulate individual. Our email interaction began when Barbara, (a fictional name), discovered one of my writings, and we now periodically exchange ideas. Married and in her 40s, Barbara is a government employee, an HR professional for a mid-sized, Mid-Atlantic city. She’s been an in-house consultant to the police department for a number of years. Recently, Barbara has applied for a management position in the department. However, her application is hardly a slam-dunk. Assigned to the police department, as an HR employee she’s seen as an outsider, and also viewed as a “worker bee,” not necessarily management material. (As a government employee, Barbara has not been a full-time manager, though in her consulting position she has been involved in management activities such as recruiting and performance review.)
In light of the job application uncertainty, Barbara inquired about a phone coaching session with the “Stress Doc.” Having had a number of successful coaching experiences, I was delighted to get started. The voice-to-voice encounter only confirmed and further elucidated my impression gleaned from the written word. Clearly, this was a very competent and “likes to get things done” woman who nonetheless had some issues with performance anxiety. (Barbara believes she has a good relationship with the Police Chief. She herself did not mention gender bias as a cause for job interview concern, though, in light of the specific department and the ultimate group interview gauntlet, one cannot entirely dismiss the possibility.)
Another factor noted in her self-questioning was a double-edged relationship with a father who had a somewhat perfectionist personality. While Barbara’s father was a model for high-achievement striving, perhaps another consequence was the oft-hovering voice, “Prove yourself!” And sometimes, such a voice (or, at least, our internalized version) is never fully satisfied, resulting in a seemingly Greek God-like mythological drama. With strained (mental) muscles and perspiring brow, you quietly curse the huge, precarious boulder, pushing and exhorting it up the mountain…alas, never quite reaching the summit. Unable to defy the forces of gravity (nor the angry gods), the boulder invariably reverses course, and rumbles down to the base. Still, not one to give up easily, once again you screw up the courage for the daunting – if not Sisyphean – task ahead.
Actually, Barbara successfully jumped a number of preliminary hoops in the interview process, which crawled on for several months. Finally, notification arrived that she had earned a ticket to the group interview arena. And again Barbara emailed for another coaching session.
Birds of a Feather – Freeze, Fly High and Finally Learn to Focus
Barbara quickly revealed a mature and rational side: “No matter what happens with the interview, I’m glad I went through the process.” She learned much from the experience, including strengths and vulnerabilities of key decision-makers in the department, and articulated heretofore insufficiently recognized facets and talents. She felt more visible. Still, the odds were not necessarily in her favor; Barbara believed there typically is a preference for an “outside” candidate. This reminded me of the old saw about a “consultant”: “Someone who’s an expert from somewhere else.”
At the same time, angst was apparent with the plan for her husband to videotape an interview rehearsal. Something in my gut and memory bank said this was overkill. I agreed with the idea of practice trials and feedback from her husband. My concern about the videotape was having Barbara become so self-conscious about her appearance, gestures and other nonverbals, so caught up in a memorized script, that her quite evident knowledge and experience, her personal-professional stories, would not naturally flow.
To make sure I wasn’t simply projecting, I shared with Barbara my “stage fright” experience taping my first health segment for Cox Cable, New Orleans in the ‘80s. Totally self-preoccupied, I spoke in thirty second bursts and then my brain would freeze. This scenario was repeated several times before I mercifully completed the segment. Just as I was ready to flee the scene, one of the cameramen suggested we review the tape. He cut off my face-saving protest with, “Don’t worry, we’ll be able to use this for our blooper special.”
“Thanks, pal.” Actually, through the magic of TV editing the final product was only half bad. (As we left the production truck, I’ll never forget the producer’s closing words: “I don’t expect perfection…just improvement each week.” Along with a silent sigh of relief, she also got my attention.) And my health segment continued for two seasons. Still, I didn’t want Barbara to unnecessarily put herself in such a self-conscious space.
Becoming a Wise, Not Just a Wily Coyote
Another performance stress association came to mind: this time, helping a trial attorney harness his anxiety when presenting before a jury. While still winning many of his court cases, he was becoming increasingly self-conscious and self-doubting. (He too had a perfectionist father, though his could be rather critical.) I recalled how this attorney (let’s call him John), would try to hide his angst with a bold opening argument. This approach proved a dysfunctional ploy; within a minute, being an “impostor” was the overriding self-perception. The image I shared was of the cartoon characters Roadrunner and Wily Coyote. The Coyote is chasing Roadrunner to the edge of a cliff. The roadrunner leaps off and the “Not So Wily One” does the same. And for a few seconds, Old Wily is pumping furiously with bravado, still expecting to capture his nemesis when, suddenly, he looks down. Now, big trouble panic races across the Coyote’s face…as he crashes down to earth.
I had to help this attorney learn to start with more moderate and realistic expectations, to be more genuine, that is, to help him understand that some performance anxiety is actually necessary for productive focus and heightened performance. Revealing some start-up anxiety is not unnatural, unmanly or self-defeating. Even Olympic ice skaters don’t lead with a triple axel. One warms-up with easier moves and then “slowly but surely” builds momentum.
I recalled how John said to me, with too much intensity in his voice, “Mark if I can just do what we’ve discussed, I know I’ll do well.” I immediately confronted John’s rigid and perfectionist tone, and reaffirmed that I just wanted him to gradually, to more gently apply some of the tools and techniques. He didn’t have to hammer out mastery all at once. And, in fact, John eventually reported doing much better in the courtroom. His exact words: “If I don’t get anything else out of this therapy, it will have been worth it!”
Laughing at the “Birds of Worry”
In a follow-up email, Barbara indicated that the Roadrunner story and an old Chinese aphorism, also shared on the phone, had been particularly helpful. The aphorism goes as follows: “That the birds of worry fly above your head, this you cannot help. That they build nests in your hair, this you can do something about!” (I recall the pithy saying evoking hearty laughter. Perhaps Barbara was already anticipating the sage observation of psychiatrist, Ernst Kris: What was once feared and is now mastered is laughed at. And as the Stress Doc inverted: What was once feared and is now laughed at is no longer a master!)
Apparently, Barbara’s (nest-free) interview performance reflected her talents and experience, along with the meaningful practice and emotional integration. Perhaps she was also feedback-fortified with a quick boost of focus and confidence. While waiting for the final verdict, she had already received some informal positive feedback from members of the interview committee. (I’ll keep you posted on her job search journey.)
Hopefully, this article will help you get a better handle on anxiety and on applying tools for enhancing self-perception and presentation no matter the performance arena. Feel free to email or call if you’d like more info on a voice-to-voice/coaching perspective. Best wishes and good adventures for the New Year. And, of course…Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
Once again, through the wonder of the Internet, I've had a chance to connect with a bright, insightful and articulate individual. Our email interaction began when Barbara, (a fictional name), discovered one of my writings, and we now periodically exchange ideas. Married and in her 40s, Barbara is a government employee, an HR professional for a mid-sized, Mid-Atlantic city. She’s been an in-house consultant to the police department for a number of years. Recently, Barbara has applied for a management position in the department. However, her application is hardly a slam-dunk. Assigned to the police department, as an HR employee she’s seen as an outsider, and also viewed as a “worker bee,” not necessarily management material. (As a government employee, Barbara has not been a full-time manager, though in her consulting position she has been involved in management activities such as recruiting and performance review.)
In light of the job application uncertainty, Barbara inquired about a phone coaching session with the “Stress Doc.” Having had a number of successful coaching experiences, I was delighted to get started. The voice-to-voice encounter only confirmed and further elucidated my impression gleaned from the written word. Clearly, this was a very competent and “likes to get things done” woman who nonetheless had some issues with performance anxiety. (Barbara believes she has a good relationship with the Police Chief. She herself did not mention gender bias as a cause for job interview concern, though, in light of the specific department and the ultimate group interview gauntlet, one cannot entirely dismiss the possibility.)
Another factor noted in her self-questioning was a double-edged relationship with a father who had a somewhat perfectionist personality. While Barbara’s father was a model for high-achievement striving, perhaps another consequence was the oft-hovering voice, “Prove yourself!” And sometimes, such a voice (or, at least, our internalized version) is never fully satisfied, resulting in a seemingly Greek God-like mythological drama. With strained (mental) muscles and perspiring brow, you quietly curse the huge, precarious boulder, pushing and exhorting it up the mountain…alas, never quite reaching the summit. Unable to defy the forces of gravity (nor the angry gods), the boulder invariably reverses course, and rumbles down to the base. Still, not one to give up easily, once again you screw up the courage for the daunting – if not Sisyphean – task ahead.
Actually, Barbara successfully jumped a number of preliminary hoops in the interview process, which crawled on for several months. Finally, notification arrived that she had earned a ticket to the group interview arena. And again Barbara emailed for another coaching session.
Birds of a Feather – Freeze, Fly High and Finally Learn to Focus
Barbara quickly revealed a mature and rational side: “No matter what happens with the interview, I’m glad I went through the process.” She learned much from the experience, including strengths and vulnerabilities of key decision-makers in the department, and articulated heretofore insufficiently recognized facets and talents. She felt more visible. Still, the odds were not necessarily in her favor; Barbara believed there typically is a preference for an “outside” candidate. This reminded me of the old saw about a “consultant”: “Someone who’s an expert from somewhere else.”
At the same time, angst was apparent with the plan for her husband to videotape an interview rehearsal. Something in my gut and memory bank said this was overkill. I agreed with the idea of practice trials and feedback from her husband. My concern about the videotape was having Barbara become so self-conscious about her appearance, gestures and other nonverbals, so caught up in a memorized script, that her quite evident knowledge and experience, her personal-professional stories, would not naturally flow.
To make sure I wasn’t simply projecting, I shared with Barbara my “stage fright” experience taping my first health segment for Cox Cable, New Orleans in the ‘80s. Totally self-preoccupied, I spoke in thirty second bursts and then my brain would freeze. This scenario was repeated several times before I mercifully completed the segment. Just as I was ready to flee the scene, one of the cameramen suggested we review the tape. He cut off my face-saving protest with, “Don’t worry, we’ll be able to use this for our blooper special.”
“Thanks, pal.” Actually, through the magic of TV editing the final product was only half bad. (As we left the production truck, I’ll never forget the producer’s closing words: “I don’t expect perfection…just improvement each week.” Along with a silent sigh of relief, she also got my attention.) And my health segment continued for two seasons. Still, I didn’t want Barbara to unnecessarily put herself in such a self-conscious space.
Becoming a Wise, Not Just a Wily Coyote
Another performance stress association came to mind: this time, helping a trial attorney harness his anxiety when presenting before a jury. While still winning many of his court cases, he was becoming increasingly self-conscious and self-doubting. (He too had a perfectionist father, though his could be rather critical.) I recalled how this attorney (let’s call him John), would try to hide his angst with a bold opening argument. This approach proved a dysfunctional ploy; within a minute, being an “impostor” was the overriding self-perception. The image I shared was of the cartoon characters Roadrunner and Wily Coyote. The Coyote is chasing Roadrunner to the edge of a cliff. The roadrunner leaps off and the “Not So Wily One” does the same. And for a few seconds, Old Wily is pumping furiously with bravado, still expecting to capture his nemesis when, suddenly, he looks down. Now, big trouble panic races across the Coyote’s face…as he crashes down to earth.
I had to help this attorney learn to start with more moderate and realistic expectations, to be more genuine, that is, to help him understand that some performance anxiety is actually necessary for productive focus and heightened performance. Revealing some start-up anxiety is not unnatural, unmanly or self-defeating. Even Olympic ice skaters don’t lead with a triple axel. One warms-up with easier moves and then “slowly but surely” builds momentum.
I recalled how John said to me, with too much intensity in his voice, “Mark if I can just do what we’ve discussed, I know I’ll do well.” I immediately confronted John’s rigid and perfectionist tone, and reaffirmed that I just wanted him to gradually, to more gently apply some of the tools and techniques. He didn’t have to hammer out mastery all at once. And, in fact, John eventually reported doing much better in the courtroom. His exact words: “If I don’t get anything else out of this therapy, it will have been worth it!”
Laughing at the “Birds of Worry”
In a follow-up email, Barbara indicated that the Roadrunner story and an old Chinese aphorism, also shared on the phone, had been particularly helpful. The aphorism goes as follows: “That the birds of worry fly above your head, this you cannot help. That they build nests in your hair, this you can do something about!” (I recall the pithy saying evoking hearty laughter. Perhaps Barbara was already anticipating the sage observation of psychiatrist, Ernst Kris: What was once feared and is now mastered is laughed at. And as the Stress Doc inverted: What was once feared and is now laughed at is no longer a master!)
Apparently, Barbara’s (nest-free) interview performance reflected her talents and experience, along with the meaningful practice and emotional integration. Perhaps she was also feedback-fortified with a quick boost of focus and confidence. While waiting for the final verdict, she had already received some informal positive feedback from members of the interview committee. (I’ll keep you posted on her job search journey.)
Hopefully, this article will help you get a better handle on anxiety and on applying tools for enhancing self-perception and presentation no matter the performance arena. Feel free to email or call if you’d like more info on a voice-to-voice/coaching perspective. Best wishes and good adventures for the New Year. And, of course…Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Taking Kaleidoscopic AIM: Designing a Matrix for “Cognitive-Communication” Consciousness
Summary
In our “Hyper-Speed Digital” (HSD) world, the medium is not just shaping the message but also the messenger, along with the mentality of over messaged-stimulated masses. Attention span appears to be shrinking across the age spectrum; many people seem to talk faster and louder, often blurting out the first thing that comes up. This is called “shooting from the lip,” a hasty if not hostile mode of messaging only outdone in dysfuntionality by shooting from the finger tips, that is, sending an angry text or email. Whatever the medium, too often the messaging process reflects the convoluted internal command: Ready…Fire…Aim!
After noting the aforementioned communicational barriers, “Ten Tips for Professional-Productive Communication and Consensus,” are outlined. These tips are the ingredients of “head and heart” communication that:
a) information that is effective and efficient as well as emotionally engaging, b) overcomes interactive barriers to understanding and c) helps build consensual bridges. The “Top Ten” introduces “Four ‘C’s of Civilized Communication” (clarity, concision, calm and conviction). The “Four Civilizing C”s provides a platform for the “Seven ‘C’s of Conscious ‘Cognitive-Communication’” (or clarity, concision, calm, and conviction as foundation for higher level cognition-communication – comedy, complexity and contextual processing).
These concepts are aligned with a tool for people who want to be more inspiring – purposeful, passionate and powerful – communicators, educators, managers and leaders, whether formally titled or not. More specifically, a sketch of a model has been presented for taking “Kaleidoscopic AIM” through “An ‘Action-Intention-Meaning’ (AIM) Matrix for Dynamic-Integrated Leadership: A Conceptual Tool for Expanding Cognitive-Communication Consciousness.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In our “Hyper-Speed Digital” (HSD) world, the medium is not just shaping the message but also the messenger, along with the mentality of over messaged-stimulated masses. One obvious example: attention span appears to be shrinking across the age spectrum. However, I’m also noticing overdrive speech patterns, especially for the generations who have grown up with the Internet and Social Media (that is, Internet Natives in contrast to us older Generational Slugs, actually, Internet Immigrants, according to Nick Bolton technology blogger for the New York Times and author of I Live in the Future & Here’s How It Works, 2010). People just seem to talk faster, (also louder), as if they are racing to get their words in (or heard) before the other party’s ever restless radar is distracted elsewhere or simply tunes out. (Or perhaps it’s just my hearing that’s slowing as, in my sixth decade, I more consciously ebb and flow between moving smartly and purposefully as per my foundational New York/East Coast mode and mentally meandering “out of the creative closet” and into my “American in Cajun Paris,” “N’Awlins/Big Easy” mode.)
In addition to the speech rate, I’m also aware of multi-generational hyper-tendencies – individuals frequently blurting out the first thing that comes up. I was going to say “comes to mind,” but I think certain cerebral circuits are being bypassed: people are simply “shooting from the lip.” More and more, especially when engaged in intense discussion or disagreement, my sense is that people are reflexively following their own silent and internal convoluted command: Ready…Fire…Aim! There’s too much electronic, scattershot, “shoot first, ask questions later” messaging. Once feeling provoked or disrespected, you’re gunning for or putting down perceived antagonists or competitors; inflating one’s self-importance at another’s expense may or not be premeditated. For example, while you expect some testiness (and testosterone) in a Presidential Primary Debate, Mitt Romney’s “$10,000 bet/challenge” in reaction to Rick Perry’s repeated criticism, instantly becomes a “shoot from the lip” classic.
Four “C”-ing Communication
In general, communication short on forethought, flexibility and focus is communication not concerned with the other person’s (or ironically sometimes your own) content and context; it is an exchange not attuned to fears and frustrations, as well as needs, hopes and dreams. In the heat of civilized interpersonal battle, being “ready” and having a thoughtful “aim” before firing – speaking clearly, concisely, calmly when possible, and with conviction is vital. Let’s call this being a “Four ‘C’-ing Civilized Communicator.” And for extra credit, I’ll add a fifth “C” – an ability to employ a wise over a smart “comic” touch, that is, a capacity for emotionally aware and empathic “healing humor.”
And while it’s not always possible to be calm when confronted or challenged, one can be psychologically or passionately responsive instead of reactive. For example, imagine you are in an argument, perhaps over politics or whether a movie was worth seeing, and the other party suddenly tires of the logical back and forth. Consider the impact of each of these two-word declarations. Can you hear and feel the difference between “You’re wrong” (said with a judgmental tone) as compared to “I disagree” (declared with energy and conviction; or perhaps with a tad more tact, “I see it differently”)? “I disagree” meets our “Four ‘C’” criteria: clear, concise, mostly calm and said with conviction. “You’re wrong” shifts the focus from addressing the issue to attacking the individual in a manner that is aggressive, condescending and dismissive. See my article, “Two Communicational Tools Providing Perspective, Patience and Presence: Message and Mantra for Transforming Reaction into Response.”) A pattern of impulsive, random or overkill “firing” tends to elicit defensive reactivity, “getting even,” or just plain shutdown. Especially when the purpose and goal of your message exchange involve motivation-, trust- and relation-building, you don’t want to dumb down or numb out, to silence, intimidate or inflame.
From Lips to Tips
Unless, of course, the communication strategy for avoiding “shooting from the lips” is shooting from the tips, that is, the finger tips, by sending a text or email. Clearly, this is a dangerous option as anger – self-righteous or otherwise – can so easily insinuate itself into and contaminate your message. (Okay, I concede the point; you can more safely give an antagonist the finger.) Remember, an electronic message is devoid of face-to-face nonverbal cues; a reader can’t see your body language or readily detect a “just kidding” tone. And emoticons don’t count as contextual information in a heated, sensitive or ego-driven exchange. Whatever the medium, the use or equivalent of “just kidding” after jabbing the other party can easily confound if not contaminate the communication process. Your words may now be a “mixed message” with dubious results, unless patterns of humor and trust have been clearly established.
Actually, you can outsmart yourself with excessive verbal flourishes or fireworks, if you will, whether on page or stage. There is so much smoke and mirrors wordplay (especially if you are enchanted by your own colorful ideas and imagery) that key points or the core message may be lost in too elaborate or self-indulgent word artistry or argument. (The Stress Doc pleads guilty as charged, and intends to mend some of his ways. More pithy patter, anyone?)
And finally, the other problem when a person chronically deals with conflict electronically is that you’re being a wimp. Rather than walking ten feet to speak directly to a colleague, I’ve heard stories of employees shooting e-missiles, I mean emails, at one another through their adjacent office walls. It’s why I say the “e” in email stands for escape! (Hey, this punch-line not only elicits predictable laughter but often generates out loud cheering from an audience.) Here’s my “Wimp to Warrior Conflict Engagement Scale”: Text-Email-Phone-(depending on the image of that Skype call, I’m not sure this is a major evolutionary step for problem-solving-kind) and, finally, Face-to-Face.
Ten Tips for Professional-Productive Communication and Consensus
Summarizing the above, in today’s HSD times, for “head and heart” communication, a) to be truly informational as well as emotionally effective and efficient, and for the communication, b) to overcome interactive barriers to understanding and c) to help build consensual bridges, the messaging process must be:
1. clear and concise,
2. respectful and real,
3. responsible and responsive; (email stressdoc@aol.com for the article, “The Four “R”s of PRO Relating”),
4. open and timely, that is, candid and courageous communication needs to occur in close proximity of the conflict triggering event, and
5. at some point, especially when dealing with emotional conflict, the exchange needs to be at least voice-to-voice, though face to face is preferable. (And sometimes you will need a third party or mediator when egos are too injured or inflated and battle-lines are intractable.)
The exchange also needs to:
6. slow down enough to move less at the speed of light and more at the pace and “ebb and flow” rhythm of sound,
7. reverberate through mutual venting, curious and patient questioning-listening and responsive problem-solving feedback; such collaborative back and forth, a) loosens rigid or fixed positions, b) helps adversaries negotiate some ”starting point” or “common ground understanding” that c) acknowledges if not begins to engage the essential needs, frustrations, hopes and goals of all parties and, finally, d) helps individuals to be meaningfully seen and heard (i.e., to feel like “origins” who impact their environment, not simply being “pawns” pushed around by their environment), enabling participants to e) accept some personal loss of expectation and/or control for the greater good, goal or gain,
8. encourage “cultural diversity,” that is, the understanding and valuing of diversity in the realms of race, ethnicity, disability, gender, age, etc., even bringing together the division’s or organization’s silo-impaired; strangers, competitors or antagonists over time better appreciate varying viewpoints and the potential for interconnectivity (or at least affirm that “difference and disagreement do not necessarily equate with disapproval and disloyalty”),
9. stimulate “hands on” engagement resulting in tangible “getting on the same page” goals and action plans thereby yielding genuine “buy-in,” while
10. accepting the reality that issues often remain unresolved, perhaps needing to be addressed at another critical communicational juncture.
Taking Kaleidoscopic AIM: Designing a Matrix for “Cognitive-Communication” Consciousness
Surely there’s need for conceptual tools that will strengthen a capacity for thinking-listening-questioning-responding-motivating. I envision a model to help people become more Four ‘C’-ing thinkers and communicators – as was cited earlier, possessing clarity, concision, calm and conviction. And as a bonus, this model will highlight the importance of:
a) employing the comedic tactically, tactfully and empathically; remember, “People are more open to a serious message gift-wrapped with humor”,
b) developing and drawing on your own inner complexity to better understand – make more tangible and comprehensible – the complexity of the outer world, and
c) motivating if not inspiring the people with whom you are engaged by speaking both to people’s real and ideal self-image as well as transforming a sense of threat, loss, and crisis into time-conscious challenge and opportunity; also helping others laugh at their flaws and foibles while touching people’s desire for imaginatively and effectively designing a balanced-integrated-animated “work-love-play” life path; and, finally, enabling others to impact or simplify (without dumbing down) their world's outer complexity.
Naturally, a critical component of inner and outer complexity involves viewing people and situations, experiences and events in context, that is, not as isolated phenomenon but in historical-psychological-relational-social-cultural perspective. (So we might have to speak of the “Seven ‘C’s of “Conscious Cognition-Communication”: clarity, concision, calm, and conviction as foundation for higher level cognition-communication – comedy, complexity and contextual processing.
I especially envision a model-tool for people who want to be more inspiring – purposeful, passionate and powerful – communicators, educators, managers and leaders, whether formally titled or not.
Actually, I have been designing a matrix model based on the interaction of “Individual – Physical, Mental-Emotional – Sources of Cognitive-Communication,” for example, Muscle-Mind-Mood, and a Yin-Yang, “Human Being-Human Doing,” or Flexible-Focused Energy-Consciousness. This interplay between sources and energy-essences is depicted as follows:
Muscle (Body) + Flexible or Focused
Mind (Psyche) + Flexible or Focused
Mood (Heart) + Flexible or Focused
And “Muscle, Mind and Mood” are linked to one of three fundamental components of “Cognitive-Communication Consciousness”: Muscle is linked to “Action,” Mind to “Intention,” and Mood to “Meaning.”
The interaction yields six possible matrix pieces or outcomes:
Muscle Focused and Muscle Flexible = two primary “Action” states
Mind Focused and Mind Flexible = two primary “Intention” states
Mood Focused and Mood Flexible = two primary “Meaning” states
The model components, Action, Intention and Meaning (AIM), are the interchangeable building blocks of “Cognitive-Communication Consciousness,” reflecting the interaction of “Mind-Mood-Muscle” and “Focused and Flexible.” Arranging the letters “A-I-M” in different sequences (akin to a very mini DNA code) provides six combinatory states or styles that result from the interaction of “Cognitive-Communication Sources” (“Muscle-Mind-Mood”) and “Yang-Yin Energy-Consciousness” (“Focused and Flexible”). For example, “Action” followed by “Intention” and then “Meaning” yields “Provocative,” while the outcome for “Action” followed by “Meaning” and “Intention” converts to “Playful.” The “Six Cognitive-Communication Consciousness States” are:
AIM = (Action-Intention-Meaning) or “Provocative
AMI = (Action-Meaning-Intention) or “Playful”
IAM = (Intention-Action-Meaning) or “Purposeful”
IMA = (Intention-Meaning-Action) or “Prospective”
MAI = (Meaning-Action-Intention) or “Passionate”
MIA = (Meaning-Intention-Action) or “Philosophical”
I’m calling the conceptual model:
“An ‘Action-Intention-Meaning’ (AIM) Matrix for Dynamic-Integrated Leadership: A Conceptual Tool for Expanding Cognitive-Communication Consciousness”
[Email stressdoc@aol.com for the AIM Matrix.]
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace esource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
In our “Hyper-Speed Digital” (HSD) world, the medium is not just shaping the message but also the messenger, along with the mentality of over messaged-stimulated masses. Attention span appears to be shrinking across the age spectrum; many people seem to talk faster and louder, often blurting out the first thing that comes up. This is called “shooting from the lip,” a hasty if not hostile mode of messaging only outdone in dysfuntionality by shooting from the finger tips, that is, sending an angry text or email. Whatever the medium, too often the messaging process reflects the convoluted internal command: Ready…Fire…Aim!
After noting the aforementioned communicational barriers, “Ten Tips for Professional-Productive Communication and Consensus,” are outlined. These tips are the ingredients of “head and heart” communication that:
a) information that is effective and efficient as well as emotionally engaging, b) overcomes interactive barriers to understanding and c) helps build consensual bridges. The “Top Ten” introduces “Four ‘C’s of Civilized Communication” (clarity, concision, calm and conviction). The “Four Civilizing C”s provides a platform for the “Seven ‘C’s of Conscious ‘Cognitive-Communication’” (or clarity, concision, calm, and conviction as foundation for higher level cognition-communication – comedy, complexity and contextual processing).
These concepts are aligned with a tool for people who want to be more inspiring – purposeful, passionate and powerful – communicators, educators, managers and leaders, whether formally titled or not. More specifically, a sketch of a model has been presented for taking “Kaleidoscopic AIM” through “An ‘Action-Intention-Meaning’ (AIM) Matrix for Dynamic-Integrated Leadership: A Conceptual Tool for Expanding Cognitive-Communication Consciousness.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In our “Hyper-Speed Digital” (HSD) world, the medium is not just shaping the message but also the messenger, along with the mentality of over messaged-stimulated masses. One obvious example: attention span appears to be shrinking across the age spectrum. However, I’m also noticing overdrive speech patterns, especially for the generations who have grown up with the Internet and Social Media (that is, Internet Natives in contrast to us older Generational Slugs, actually, Internet Immigrants, according to Nick Bolton technology blogger for the New York Times and author of I Live in the Future & Here’s How It Works, 2010). People just seem to talk faster, (also louder), as if they are racing to get their words in (or heard) before the other party’s ever restless radar is distracted elsewhere or simply tunes out. (Or perhaps it’s just my hearing that’s slowing as, in my sixth decade, I more consciously ebb and flow between moving smartly and purposefully as per my foundational New York/East Coast mode and mentally meandering “out of the creative closet” and into my “American in Cajun Paris,” “N’Awlins/Big Easy” mode.)
In addition to the speech rate, I’m also aware of multi-generational hyper-tendencies – individuals frequently blurting out the first thing that comes up. I was going to say “comes to mind,” but I think certain cerebral circuits are being bypassed: people are simply “shooting from the lip.” More and more, especially when engaged in intense discussion or disagreement, my sense is that people are reflexively following their own silent and internal convoluted command: Ready…Fire…Aim! There’s too much electronic, scattershot, “shoot first, ask questions later” messaging. Once feeling provoked or disrespected, you’re gunning for or putting down perceived antagonists or competitors; inflating one’s self-importance at another’s expense may or not be premeditated. For example, while you expect some testiness (and testosterone) in a Presidential Primary Debate, Mitt Romney’s “$10,000 bet/challenge” in reaction to Rick Perry’s repeated criticism, instantly becomes a “shoot from the lip” classic.
Four “C”-ing Communication
In general, communication short on forethought, flexibility and focus is communication not concerned with the other person’s (or ironically sometimes your own) content and context; it is an exchange not attuned to fears and frustrations, as well as needs, hopes and dreams. In the heat of civilized interpersonal battle, being “ready” and having a thoughtful “aim” before firing – speaking clearly, concisely, calmly when possible, and with conviction is vital. Let’s call this being a “Four ‘C’-ing Civilized Communicator.” And for extra credit, I’ll add a fifth “C” – an ability to employ a wise over a smart “comic” touch, that is, a capacity for emotionally aware and empathic “healing humor.”
And while it’s not always possible to be calm when confronted or challenged, one can be psychologically or passionately responsive instead of reactive. For example, imagine you are in an argument, perhaps over politics or whether a movie was worth seeing, and the other party suddenly tires of the logical back and forth. Consider the impact of each of these two-word declarations. Can you hear and feel the difference between “You’re wrong” (said with a judgmental tone) as compared to “I disagree” (declared with energy and conviction; or perhaps with a tad more tact, “I see it differently”)? “I disagree” meets our “Four ‘C’” criteria: clear, concise, mostly calm and said with conviction. “You’re wrong” shifts the focus from addressing the issue to attacking the individual in a manner that is aggressive, condescending and dismissive. See my article, “Two Communicational Tools Providing Perspective, Patience and Presence: Message and Mantra for Transforming Reaction into Response.”) A pattern of impulsive, random or overkill “firing” tends to elicit defensive reactivity, “getting even,” or just plain shutdown. Especially when the purpose and goal of your message exchange involve motivation-, trust- and relation-building, you don’t want to dumb down or numb out, to silence, intimidate or inflame.
From Lips to Tips
Unless, of course, the communication strategy for avoiding “shooting from the lips” is shooting from the tips, that is, the finger tips, by sending a text or email. Clearly, this is a dangerous option as anger – self-righteous or otherwise – can so easily insinuate itself into and contaminate your message. (Okay, I concede the point; you can more safely give an antagonist the finger.) Remember, an electronic message is devoid of face-to-face nonverbal cues; a reader can’t see your body language or readily detect a “just kidding” tone. And emoticons don’t count as contextual information in a heated, sensitive or ego-driven exchange. Whatever the medium, the use or equivalent of “just kidding” after jabbing the other party can easily confound if not contaminate the communication process. Your words may now be a “mixed message” with dubious results, unless patterns of humor and trust have been clearly established.
Actually, you can outsmart yourself with excessive verbal flourishes or fireworks, if you will, whether on page or stage. There is so much smoke and mirrors wordplay (especially if you are enchanted by your own colorful ideas and imagery) that key points or the core message may be lost in too elaborate or self-indulgent word artistry or argument. (The Stress Doc pleads guilty as charged, and intends to mend some of his ways. More pithy patter, anyone?)
And finally, the other problem when a person chronically deals with conflict electronically is that you’re being a wimp. Rather than walking ten feet to speak directly to a colleague, I’ve heard stories of employees shooting e-missiles, I mean emails, at one another through their adjacent office walls. It’s why I say the “e” in email stands for escape! (Hey, this punch-line not only elicits predictable laughter but often generates out loud cheering from an audience.) Here’s my “Wimp to Warrior Conflict Engagement Scale”: Text-Email-Phone-(depending on the image of that Skype call, I’m not sure this is a major evolutionary step for problem-solving-kind) and, finally, Face-to-Face.
Ten Tips for Professional-Productive Communication and Consensus
Summarizing the above, in today’s HSD times, for “head and heart” communication, a) to be truly informational as well as emotionally effective and efficient, and for the communication, b) to overcome interactive barriers to understanding and c) to help build consensual bridges, the messaging process must be:
1. clear and concise,
2. respectful and real,
3. responsible and responsive; (email stressdoc@aol.com for the article, “The Four “R”s of PRO Relating”),
4. open and timely, that is, candid and courageous communication needs to occur in close proximity of the conflict triggering event, and
5. at some point, especially when dealing with emotional conflict, the exchange needs to be at least voice-to-voice, though face to face is preferable. (And sometimes you will need a third party or mediator when egos are too injured or inflated and battle-lines are intractable.)
The exchange also needs to:
6. slow down enough to move less at the speed of light and more at the pace and “ebb and flow” rhythm of sound,
7. reverberate through mutual venting, curious and patient questioning-listening and responsive problem-solving feedback; such collaborative back and forth, a) loosens rigid or fixed positions, b) helps adversaries negotiate some ”starting point” or “common ground understanding” that c) acknowledges if not begins to engage the essential needs, frustrations, hopes and goals of all parties and, finally, d) helps individuals to be meaningfully seen and heard (i.e., to feel like “origins” who impact their environment, not simply being “pawns” pushed around by their environment), enabling participants to e) accept some personal loss of expectation and/or control for the greater good, goal or gain,
8. encourage “cultural diversity,” that is, the understanding and valuing of diversity in the realms of race, ethnicity, disability, gender, age, etc., even bringing together the division’s or organization’s silo-impaired; strangers, competitors or antagonists over time better appreciate varying viewpoints and the potential for interconnectivity (or at least affirm that “difference and disagreement do not necessarily equate with disapproval and disloyalty”),
9. stimulate “hands on” engagement resulting in tangible “getting on the same page” goals and action plans thereby yielding genuine “buy-in,” while
10. accepting the reality that issues often remain unresolved, perhaps needing to be addressed at another critical communicational juncture.
Taking Kaleidoscopic AIM: Designing a Matrix for “Cognitive-Communication” Consciousness
Surely there’s need for conceptual tools that will strengthen a capacity for thinking-listening-questioning-responding-motivating. I envision a model to help people become more Four ‘C’-ing thinkers and communicators – as was cited earlier, possessing clarity, concision, calm and conviction. And as a bonus, this model will highlight the importance of:
a) employing the comedic tactically, tactfully and empathically; remember, “People are more open to a serious message gift-wrapped with humor”,
b) developing and drawing on your own inner complexity to better understand – make more tangible and comprehensible – the complexity of the outer world, and
c) motivating if not inspiring the people with whom you are engaged by speaking both to people’s real and ideal self-image as well as transforming a sense of threat, loss, and crisis into time-conscious challenge and opportunity; also helping others laugh at their flaws and foibles while touching people’s desire for imaginatively and effectively designing a balanced-integrated-animated “work-love-play” life path; and, finally, enabling others to impact or simplify (without dumbing down) their world's outer complexity.
Naturally, a critical component of inner and outer complexity involves viewing people and situations, experiences and events in context, that is, not as isolated phenomenon but in historical-psychological-relational-social-cultural perspective. (So we might have to speak of the “Seven ‘C’s of “Conscious Cognition-Communication”: clarity, concision, calm, and conviction as foundation for higher level cognition-communication – comedy, complexity and contextual processing.
I especially envision a model-tool for people who want to be more inspiring – purposeful, passionate and powerful – communicators, educators, managers and leaders, whether formally titled or not.
Actually, I have been designing a matrix model based on the interaction of “Individual – Physical, Mental-Emotional – Sources of Cognitive-Communication,” for example, Muscle-Mind-Mood, and a Yin-Yang, “Human Being-Human Doing,” or Flexible-Focused Energy-Consciousness. This interplay between sources and energy-essences is depicted as follows:
Muscle (Body) + Flexible or Focused
Mind (Psyche) + Flexible or Focused
Mood (Heart) + Flexible or Focused
And “Muscle, Mind and Mood” are linked to one of three fundamental components of “Cognitive-Communication Consciousness”: Muscle is linked to “Action,” Mind to “Intention,” and Mood to “Meaning.”
The interaction yields six possible matrix pieces or outcomes:
Muscle Focused and Muscle Flexible = two primary “Action” states
Mind Focused and Mind Flexible = two primary “Intention” states
Mood Focused and Mood Flexible = two primary “Meaning” states
The model components, Action, Intention and Meaning (AIM), are the interchangeable building blocks of “Cognitive-Communication Consciousness,” reflecting the interaction of “Mind-Mood-Muscle” and “Focused and Flexible.” Arranging the letters “A-I-M” in different sequences (akin to a very mini DNA code) provides six combinatory states or styles that result from the interaction of “Cognitive-Communication Sources” (“Muscle-Mind-Mood”) and “Yang-Yin Energy-Consciousness” (“Focused and Flexible”). For example, “Action” followed by “Intention” and then “Meaning” yields “Provocative,” while the outcome for “Action” followed by “Meaning” and “Intention” converts to “Playful.” The “Six Cognitive-Communication Consciousness States” are:
AIM = (Action-Intention-Meaning) or “Provocative
AMI = (Action-Meaning-Intention) or “Playful”
IAM = (Intention-Action-Meaning) or “Purposeful”
IMA = (Intention-Meaning-Action) or “Prospective”
MAI = (Meaning-Action-Intention) or “Passionate”
MIA = (Meaning-Intention-Action) or “Philosophical”
I’m calling the conceptual model:
“An ‘Action-Intention-Meaning’ (AIM) Matrix for Dynamic-Integrated Leadership: A Conceptual Tool for Expanding Cognitive-Communication Consciousness”
[Email stressdoc@aol.com for the AIM Matrix.]
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace esource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Communication Tools for Perspective, Patience and Presence: Transforming Reaction into Response through Message and Mantra
Increasingly, research is showing a direct correlation between employee productivity, business profitability, and the degree to which employees feel their employers are concerned about their personal and professional welfare. (See The 2010 AMA Handbook of Leadership.) For example, in the groundbreaking work, First Break All the Rules: What the Greatest Managers Do Differently (Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman) five of the twelve core elements (listed in their order of importance) “needed to attract, focus and keep the most talented employees” involve feedback, recognition and relationship building:
4. In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?
5. Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
6. Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
7. At work, do my opinions seem to count?
11. In the last six months, has someone at work talked to me about my progress?
Clearly, for bridging the motivational-relationship divide critical factors include the awareness, clarity, empathy, mutuality and timeliness of the interpersonal communication. And honest, open and emotional connection, not just simply passing along information, is especially critical when parties are grappling with psychologically charged issues related to loss, change and uncertainty and/or conflict-laden cultural climates, e.g., employees who have gone through major reorg or RIF (Reduction in Force) and are wondering about if not waiting for the next “frightsizing” axe to fall.
With this in mind, as a writer and speaker, increasingly I provide an audience with concise psychological and communication concepts and tools – from aphorisms and acronyms to pithy poetic pearls – with a verbal (and sometimes visual-theatrical) design that, hopefully, makes them easy to use and hard to forget. In an increasingly “do more with less,” hyperactive-distracted-overextended and over-cluttered mind-field, the ability to create “sententious” messages, messages “full of significance (and style) and expressed tersely” becomes a vital art form.
Two Communicational Tools Providing Perspective, Patience and Presence
For example, try these two communicational techniques to trump a knee-jerk “reaction” with a firm yet flexibly focused “response”:
1. Differentiate Blaming “You” vs. Responsible “I” Messages. “You’re always late,” “What’s your problem?” or “You made us look bad.” “You” messages not only assign blame or are judgmental and often global (e.g., “You never”), but they deny any responsibility on the part of the person making those “acc-you-sations.” (And naturally, a “chronic acc-you-ser” risks becoming a blameaholic!) Actually, even worse, these accusing “You”s often facilitate a transfusion of power: the “acc-you-ser” is increasingly becoming a puppet and is enabling the so-called antagonist to pull all the strings.
So, instead of “You’re making me mad” or “It’s your fault,” how about, “I don’t like what’s going on between us. Here’s what I don’t appreciate (or) this is what has me frustrated, concerned, uncomfortable, etc.” Then specifically, clearly and concisely state your “I”-message concern, e.g., “I prefer being asked or questioned about my reasons for doing XYZ rather than being confronted by assumptions. I need for us to talk about what’s going on!”
The shift from blaming or judging involves: a) asserting one’s own beliefs and perspective and, when necessary, firmly yet respectfully setting limits on the use of “You”-message fault-finding, b) setting boundaries on a party not respecting one’s physical or psychological space, c) evolving a perspective that is less focused on the other person’s “faults” (that is, an intrapersonal position) and more concerned with developing an interpersonal, “How are we together generating this situation and what can we do about it?” problem-solving approach, and d) acknowledging and taking responsibility for one’s actions and feelings by using “I”-messages, including stating likes and dislikes, and concerns and irritations.
Such an emotional-communicational shift means being authentically “self”-centered in contrast to being narcissistically ego-driven. Remember, a healthy “I”-communicator strives for real and respectful, responsible and responsive give and take between the parties. (Email for my article “The Four “R”s of PRO Relating.”) The narcissist invariably sees life through a “black or white” or a “right or wrong” lens, though these may even have rose-colored tinting. This personality inevitably needs to be in a “one-up” or “in control” position. And when the surprisingly sensitive narcissist feels his or her hurt is triggered by an alleged provocateur, then launching the old blamethrower is excusable, if not perfectly justified.
Quickly Bringing the Impact of “You” vs “I” to Life
Of course, a “blameholic” can consciously or not try to disguise weakness or immaturity with a Mr. Bluster mask and manner. Still, the difference between affirming “I” responses and offensively defensive “You” reactions is transparent. For example, imagine you are in an argument, perhaps over politics or whether a movie was worth seeing, and the other party suddenly tires of the logical back and forth. Consider the impact of each of these two-word declarations. Can you hear and feel the difference between “You’re wrong” (said with a judgmental tone) as compared to “I disagree” (declared with energy and conviction; or perhaps with a tad more tact, “I see it differently”)?
The consistent group facial expressions (and occasional gasps) when an audience member helps me act out this contrasting two-word scenario reveals the verbal and emotional impact. And quick analysis is illuminating: “You’re wrong” no longer is dealing with the specific issue but is actually dismissive of the other individual. In contrast, “I disagree” is predicated on the other’s position or points of argument, that is, the “I”-response is respectfully problem-focused while a “You”-reaction is often judgmental and personality-driven.
Finally, I believe a reactive “You” message tends to be one-sided, driven by “right or wrong” presumptions: “all head” (e.g., a coldly intellectual remark or a rejoinder dripping with scarcasm, e.g., “I’m just sure you could not have done anything else?”) or “all heart” (e.g., a wounded or weepy, “feel sorry for me,” outburst or lament). In contrast, a “responsive” “I”-message combines both “head and heart.” An “I” perspective typically attempts to perceive, understand and integrate multiple perspectives, that is, tries to construct a meaningful assessment of one’s own along with the other’s deeds, needs and intentions. And next is another memorable technique for achieving this integration.
2. Consider a “Reflective and Responsive” Mantra. The standard advice when you’ve “had it up to here” with someone and want to verbally explode or simply lash out is, of course, “Count to ten.” And while I see some merit, for me the cautionary counsel falls a bit short. In the heat of battle, if thrown off guard, I can just imagine myself methodically counting, “1-2-3-4,” then suddenly shifting gears, flying through 5 through 9, and at “10” blurting out, “You bozo!” (Even the Stress Doc is susceptible to that “You”-ruption every once in awhile; though the words of French novelist Andre Gide from his book, The Immoralist, often helps me silently, if not serenely, place people and positions in perspective: One must allow others to be right; it consoles them for not being anything else!)
Actually, to be less reactive, all you need is some of those well-developed multi-tasking skills to transform the old saw into a new aphorism. (As an aside, while the younger generation is particularly adept at multi-tasking, I suspect folks of any age who primarily hyper-speed through life may have some initial difficulty being personally reflective and psychosocially attentive.) Anyway…my poetic mantra: Count to ten and check within. That is, while you are counting (and centering yourself or trying to calm) down, ask one or more of these questions, which may also slow the countdown: “What am I feeling right now?” Am I attributing all my hurt or anger to “the other”; am I about to vent with a blaming “You”? Is it possible that some of my outrage reveals that my own “hot button” or emotional baggage issues have been pushed, triggered or stirred? Am I confronting my” Intimate FOE: Fear of Exposure?”
Here’s an example of a self-inventory process, though, admittedly, one several years in the making. A heated exchange followed by quiet discussion enabled my partner to finally realize that my behavior was not equivalent to the immature actions of her ex; my actions were not really firing up her emotional cauldron. It was her own low boiling point, worn down by an erosive and divisive marriage, helping to trigger her impatience and anger with her present partner. (Though, of course, I certainly bring some of my own stuff to our intimate interaction.) The real “hot button” was her self-regret, shame and rage for not being strong enough to leave sooner a mostly dysfunctional “thirty year” relationship. And when this “separation/being on my own” fear constricted her options, there were some irreparable consequences for the children, the adults, and the family as a whole. However, having the courage to face your sadness and remorse softens the anger and rage that otherwise turns inward and/or gets acted out onto others. And this deeper awareness should help our interaction be less defensive and reactive.
After completing this rapid internal audit, if still confused or frustrated while in the heat of battle, then build upon the mantra: Count to ten and check within…when in doubt, check without! Alas, my poetic addition may be a tad ambiguous. So let’s clarify some possible interpretations of check without:
a) check outside yourself; ask the other to clarify his or her message, e.g., “I’m not clear about what I’m hearing”;
b) check or set limits on a hostile communicator, e.g., “I don’t mind feedback, even critical feedback, but hostility and condescension are not acceptable! Let’s try again,”
c) check in with an open mind, that is, without bias, making every effort to consciously suspend your assumptions and prejudgments; e.g., “I must admit I’m not neutral in this matter, but I will attempt to listen with an open and objective mind.”
If issues remain troubling upon “checking within and without,” remember, you may momentarily retreat yet still be palpably real and paradoxically present. You may check out to check in: “I’m way angry right now, and don’t want to put my foot in my mouth (or your butt). I’m not running out; I’m taking a time out. I want to think about this, and I will get back to you first thing in the morning. From my perspective, we are not finished.” Clearly, strategic-reflective retreating is not giving up but stepping back in order to cool down, lick wounds, reevaluate, perhaps talk with a “stress buddy,” integrate head and heart, gain new perspective and strategy, and then responsibly reengage. (Of course, there are times, especially in the instance of child abuse, when an aggressor-predator-enabler has clearly earned “You”-focused confrontation, condemnation and, if warranted, incarceration. For example, see Penn State’s and Syracuse University’s potential criminal scandals and cover-ups.)
Hopefully, you now have two new, quick application tools for bridging the communication divide and for helping all parties…Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
4. In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?
5. Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
6. Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
7. At work, do my opinions seem to count?
11. In the last six months, has someone at work talked to me about my progress?
Clearly, for bridging the motivational-relationship divide critical factors include the awareness, clarity, empathy, mutuality and timeliness of the interpersonal communication. And honest, open and emotional connection, not just simply passing along information, is especially critical when parties are grappling with psychologically charged issues related to loss, change and uncertainty and/or conflict-laden cultural climates, e.g., employees who have gone through major reorg or RIF (Reduction in Force) and are wondering about if not waiting for the next “frightsizing” axe to fall.
With this in mind, as a writer and speaker, increasingly I provide an audience with concise psychological and communication concepts and tools – from aphorisms and acronyms to pithy poetic pearls – with a verbal (and sometimes visual-theatrical) design that, hopefully, makes them easy to use and hard to forget. In an increasingly “do more with less,” hyperactive-distracted-overextended and over-cluttered mind-field, the ability to create “sententious” messages, messages “full of significance (and style) and expressed tersely” becomes a vital art form.
Two Communicational Tools Providing Perspective, Patience and Presence
For example, try these two communicational techniques to trump a knee-jerk “reaction” with a firm yet flexibly focused “response”:
1. Differentiate Blaming “You” vs. Responsible “I” Messages. “You’re always late,” “What’s your problem?” or “You made us look bad.” “You” messages not only assign blame or are judgmental and often global (e.g., “You never”), but they deny any responsibility on the part of the person making those “acc-you-sations.” (And naturally, a “chronic acc-you-ser” risks becoming a blameaholic!) Actually, even worse, these accusing “You”s often facilitate a transfusion of power: the “acc-you-ser” is increasingly becoming a puppet and is enabling the so-called antagonist to pull all the strings.
So, instead of “You’re making me mad” or “It’s your fault,” how about, “I don’t like what’s going on between us. Here’s what I don’t appreciate (or) this is what has me frustrated, concerned, uncomfortable, etc.” Then specifically, clearly and concisely state your “I”-message concern, e.g., “I prefer being asked or questioned about my reasons for doing XYZ rather than being confronted by assumptions. I need for us to talk about what’s going on!”
The shift from blaming or judging involves: a) asserting one’s own beliefs and perspective and, when necessary, firmly yet respectfully setting limits on the use of “You”-message fault-finding, b) setting boundaries on a party not respecting one’s physical or psychological space, c) evolving a perspective that is less focused on the other person’s “faults” (that is, an intrapersonal position) and more concerned with developing an interpersonal, “How are we together generating this situation and what can we do about it?” problem-solving approach, and d) acknowledging and taking responsibility for one’s actions and feelings by using “I”-messages, including stating likes and dislikes, and concerns and irritations.
Such an emotional-communicational shift means being authentically “self”-centered in contrast to being narcissistically ego-driven. Remember, a healthy “I”-communicator strives for real and respectful, responsible and responsive give and take between the parties. (Email for my article “The Four “R”s of PRO Relating.”) The narcissist invariably sees life through a “black or white” or a “right or wrong” lens, though these may even have rose-colored tinting. This personality inevitably needs to be in a “one-up” or “in control” position. And when the surprisingly sensitive narcissist feels his or her hurt is triggered by an alleged provocateur, then launching the old blamethrower is excusable, if not perfectly justified.
Quickly Bringing the Impact of “You” vs “I” to Life
Of course, a “blameholic” can consciously or not try to disguise weakness or immaturity with a Mr. Bluster mask and manner. Still, the difference between affirming “I” responses and offensively defensive “You” reactions is transparent. For example, imagine you are in an argument, perhaps over politics or whether a movie was worth seeing, and the other party suddenly tires of the logical back and forth. Consider the impact of each of these two-word declarations. Can you hear and feel the difference between “You’re wrong” (said with a judgmental tone) as compared to “I disagree” (declared with energy and conviction; or perhaps with a tad more tact, “I see it differently”)?
The consistent group facial expressions (and occasional gasps) when an audience member helps me act out this contrasting two-word scenario reveals the verbal and emotional impact. And quick analysis is illuminating: “You’re wrong” no longer is dealing with the specific issue but is actually dismissive of the other individual. In contrast, “I disagree” is predicated on the other’s position or points of argument, that is, the “I”-response is respectfully problem-focused while a “You”-reaction is often judgmental and personality-driven.
Finally, I believe a reactive “You” message tends to be one-sided, driven by “right or wrong” presumptions: “all head” (e.g., a coldly intellectual remark or a rejoinder dripping with scarcasm, e.g., “I’m just sure you could not have done anything else?”) or “all heart” (e.g., a wounded or weepy, “feel sorry for me,” outburst or lament). In contrast, a “responsive” “I”-message combines both “head and heart.” An “I” perspective typically attempts to perceive, understand and integrate multiple perspectives, that is, tries to construct a meaningful assessment of one’s own along with the other’s deeds, needs and intentions. And next is another memorable technique for achieving this integration.
2. Consider a “Reflective and Responsive” Mantra. The standard advice when you’ve “had it up to here” with someone and want to verbally explode or simply lash out is, of course, “Count to ten.” And while I see some merit, for me the cautionary counsel falls a bit short. In the heat of battle, if thrown off guard, I can just imagine myself methodically counting, “1-2-3-4,” then suddenly shifting gears, flying through 5 through 9, and at “10” blurting out, “You bozo!” (Even the Stress Doc is susceptible to that “You”-ruption every once in awhile; though the words of French novelist Andre Gide from his book, The Immoralist, often helps me silently, if not serenely, place people and positions in perspective: One must allow others to be right; it consoles them for not being anything else!)
Actually, to be less reactive, all you need is some of those well-developed multi-tasking skills to transform the old saw into a new aphorism. (As an aside, while the younger generation is particularly adept at multi-tasking, I suspect folks of any age who primarily hyper-speed through life may have some initial difficulty being personally reflective and psychosocially attentive.) Anyway…my poetic mantra: Count to ten and check within. That is, while you are counting (and centering yourself or trying to calm) down, ask one or more of these questions, which may also slow the countdown: “What am I feeling right now?” Am I attributing all my hurt or anger to “the other”; am I about to vent with a blaming “You”? Is it possible that some of my outrage reveals that my own “hot button” or emotional baggage issues have been pushed, triggered or stirred? Am I confronting my” Intimate FOE: Fear of Exposure?”
Here’s an example of a self-inventory process, though, admittedly, one several years in the making. A heated exchange followed by quiet discussion enabled my partner to finally realize that my behavior was not equivalent to the immature actions of her ex; my actions were not really firing up her emotional cauldron. It was her own low boiling point, worn down by an erosive and divisive marriage, helping to trigger her impatience and anger with her present partner. (Though, of course, I certainly bring some of my own stuff to our intimate interaction.) The real “hot button” was her self-regret, shame and rage for not being strong enough to leave sooner a mostly dysfunctional “thirty year” relationship. And when this “separation/being on my own” fear constricted her options, there were some irreparable consequences for the children, the adults, and the family as a whole. However, having the courage to face your sadness and remorse softens the anger and rage that otherwise turns inward and/or gets acted out onto others. And this deeper awareness should help our interaction be less defensive and reactive.
After completing this rapid internal audit, if still confused or frustrated while in the heat of battle, then build upon the mantra: Count to ten and check within…when in doubt, check without! Alas, my poetic addition may be a tad ambiguous. So let’s clarify some possible interpretations of check without:
a) check outside yourself; ask the other to clarify his or her message, e.g., “I’m not clear about what I’m hearing”;
b) check or set limits on a hostile communicator, e.g., “I don’t mind feedback, even critical feedback, but hostility and condescension are not acceptable! Let’s try again,”
c) check in with an open mind, that is, without bias, making every effort to consciously suspend your assumptions and prejudgments; e.g., “I must admit I’m not neutral in this matter, but I will attempt to listen with an open and objective mind.”
If issues remain troubling upon “checking within and without,” remember, you may momentarily retreat yet still be palpably real and paradoxically present. You may check out to check in: “I’m way angry right now, and don’t want to put my foot in my mouth (or your butt). I’m not running out; I’m taking a time out. I want to think about this, and I will get back to you first thing in the morning. From my perspective, we are not finished.” Clearly, strategic-reflective retreating is not giving up but stepping back in order to cool down, lick wounds, reevaluate, perhaps talk with a “stress buddy,” integrate head and heart, gain new perspective and strategy, and then responsibly reengage. (Of course, there are times, especially in the instance of child abuse, when an aggressor-predator-enabler has clearly earned “You”-focused confrontation, condemnation and, if warranted, incarceration. For example, see Penn State’s and Syracuse University’s potential criminal scandals and cover-ups.)
Hopefully, you now have two new, quick application tools for bridging the communication divide and for helping all parties…Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
Monday, November 14, 2011
North (Dakota) toward Home: Designing Diversity -- an Integrative Incubator for “Individual Creativity” and “Interactive Community”
Confession time: I owe North Dakota an apology. About six months ago, in light of the economic pressures on government employees, budget cuts and downsizings, further calls for their jobs or at least slashing their pensions, I wrote a satirical “Shrink Rap” ditty called “The Reorg Rag.”
It started:
It can’t happen here, I have too much to do…
Who took my desk and chair, my computer, too?
They can’t replace me; the Branch Techno-file
What do you mean I’m still in denial?
Reorg Rag, Reorg Rag,
Why does it feel I’ve been fragged?
Reorg Rag, Reorg Rag,
Maybe I’m just on a jag.
Reorg Rag, Reorg Rag,
I’m still on the Reorg Rag!
Rejoice, you’re employed…so they’ve frozen your pay
And put on your backs the recovery.
Two free weeks furlough to re-“leave” your stress
What a friend you have in the 112th Congress!
Work’s now a casino, a high tech RIF** RAFFle
When will we know? Why does management waffle?
Buddha Computah… who’s pink slipping away?
Here’s your ticket to ride; shopping’s good in Bombay.
Reorg Rag, Reorg Rag
Why do I just want to gag?
Reorg Rag, Reorg Rag,
Whatever happened to my swag?
Reorg Rag, Reorg Rag
I’m still on the Reorg Rag!
The lyrics and predicaments progressed till finally…
Now you’ve had enough, playing Raggedy Ann
Start calling their bluff; draw a line in the sand.
You are a survivor; just never forget
To bring out your “Inner Rambo or Rambette!”
So “Do know your limits; don’t limit your ‘No’s”
There’s life beyond widgets; you’ve taken their blows.
Break away from the mob, you’ve surpassed your quota
And have won your job…but now in North Dakota!
(Email stressdoc@aol.com for the entire lyric.)
In fact, my new mantra is “Go North young wo/man.” If economic opportunities are drying up “down south” (that is, in the “Lower 48”) my advice: head for Alaska…or for Alaska-lite, i.e., North Dakota! The past two months I’ve done speaking programs in both states and while the differences are obvious, the similarities are also palpable. First the differences: Alaska has a vast coast line, and an extensive rugged, forested mountainous wilderness, including the highest point in North America, Mt. Denali, formerly Mt. McKinley, at 21,000 feet; and while permafrost underground means Alaska is not the bread basket for the world, the salmon and halibut, in particular, are yummy. In contrast, flying into Fargo appears to validate my presupposition that ND is mostly farmland flat. Your eyes are captivated by large checkerboard squares of light and dark rich agricultural soil; the state does help feed the world. Actually, the eastern half of North Dakota consists of Drift Prairie, with elevations of 1300-1600 feet above sea level, and the western half of the state has the highest point, White Butte, at 3500 feet.
Now the similarities: The states share plenty of cold weather, (in both states I saw electrical power plugs attached to the front of cars), the two have small populations relative to their land mass, and now with the boom times happening in western North Dakota, both states are reaping the benefits of oil production. (Of course, there may be some specific economic boom town winners and losers. Word is that qualified truck drivers can easily earn a $100,000 a year and popular pole dancers may draw $2,000/night; apparently not many other ways to spend money way out on the oil range. And today I just read that seniors are being forced out of their life-long apartments as landlords, in pursuit of oil money, are raising rents astronomically. Hey, it’s the American Way; capitalism at its finest. Turning natives into immigrants in their homeland; we've seen this movie before!)
But I digress…in addition, at least in Anchorage (pop. 270,000) and Fargo (pop. 200,000), cities bounded by waterways, each, paradoxically, has a small town-cosmopolitan feel; both are fueled by a diverse, friendly and articulate citizenry as well as the visible presence of a vibrant and clean downtown, humming with artistic activity and Native American culture – visual arts, theatre, dance, etc. And the “symbiotic cities” of Fargo, ND-Moorhead, MN area, striding the opposite banks of the Red River, boast numerous colleges and universities.
Harnessing and Harvesting a Multicultural Mindset
And with the economic revival both are attracting people from around the globe. And while in Alaska oil may be a primary magnet (the state’s motto: North to the Future) in small towns throughout Minnesota and the Dakotas there’s another “future”-oriented engine driving the influx. The US Government has been settling immigrants in upper-Midwest towns, towns that until recently (late 20th century) were precipitously losing population, especially their young people. The towns were also struggling with a withering tax base; survival was definitely a communal conundrum. Hence the idea of resettlement. And it’s been working. At least in the last few years the immigrant population is doubling; the long-established (mostly Caucasian and Native American) citizenry has had some small growth. And while there has been tangible economic progress, such demographic social change rarely comes without a measure of cultural conflict. (Not to mention the personal and family stress generated by major relocation, loosening ties to geographic-family-cultural-national roots, engaging with a new language, and, at least initially, often feeling like “a stranger in a strange land.” I certainly experienced some of this disorientation when I moved from NYC to New Orleans in my mid-20s. I will say more shortly.)
The challenge of integrating these diverse populaces led to the formation in the mid-1990s of a non-profit group, Cultural Diversity Resources, led by an Asian female fireball of energy and enterprise, Yoke Sim Gunaratne. As stated in the conference brochure: "In 1993, Fargo-Moorhead area leaders held several community forums to identify community issues needing urgent attention…The community needed to embrace its increasing ethnic diversity and assist diverse populations in overcoming barriers to community participation. Leaders wanted to ameliorate intolerance of all kinds, increase understanding of the value of diversity, and develop a permanent system wide framework aimed at celebrating the ever-increasing cultures of the community. Action to develop a proactive regional diversity project to cover four cities and two counties began."
In fact, at the start of my luncheon keynote, I shared an associative image of being in a Star Trek movie; our multicultural-intergalactic crew was piloting the Starship Enterprise, exploring the depths of outer and inner space. I thought this an apt segue to my talk on “Creative Risk Taking: Grieving, Letting Go and Inspiring Flow.”
I couldn’t resist establishing my cultural diversity credentials by letting the audience know that in addition to being a Type A New Yawka (born in Brooklyn, mostly grew up in Queens, and attended high school in Manhattan) I have a second gear: sixteen years in N’Awlins (from 1974-1990; eight years as a doctoral student at Tulane University), my “American in Cajun Paris” years. Lots of great stories including burning out as a grad student and, opportunistically, becoming a radio and TV Stress Doc ™. Eventually, however, “there were no more mountains to climb in the bayou and I had this urge to move to DC. I didn’t understand it till I got there, but then I realized if NYC and New Orleans had a baby it would look like Washington, DC.” That got a laugh, and so did my follow-up: “I still haven’t decided if this offspring is a love child!”
Critical Quotes on Change and Conflict, Team Synergy and Society
Finally, I set the stage for my interactive presentation (even during a keynote the audience engages in arousing and fun exercises), by sharing two quotes, pertinent to communities with survival on their minds, needing to be both diverse and interdependent. The first was from Adam Gopnik’s book, Angels and Ages: A Short Book about Darwin, Lincoln and Modern Life. Gopnik extrapolates a key point of Darwinian Theory: Repetition is the law of nature but variation is the rule of life. We see repetition in nature through the cycle of the seasons; in many species migration and spawning patterns are also cyclical.
However, oftentimes, what enables a species to achieve survival fitness is responding productively and imaginatively to major change or crisis – whether brought on by alterations in its ecological environment or by a small deviation in its genetic makeup that spreads through the species, culminating in hereditary and adaptation advantages, that is, “natural selection.” I believe the influx of immigrants is providing an evolutionary challenge and a boost for these towns and townspeople. Both groups are experiencing a mind-and heart-provoking trial and error and maturational learning curve. While maintaining their roots, through interaction with the “natives,” the newcomers are learning about the customs, mores and morals, the strengths and vulnerabilities of the American Ways. And over time the establishment grows increasingly open-minded, slowly but steadily turning productive conflict into newfound commonality if not camaraderie along with creative variation on convention.
Together I’m seeing the basis for cultural synergy: not only does each group gain fresh ways of perceiving and acting upon new possibilities, but now these once disparate parts gradually transform into partners.
Of course, mutation and variation test the tried and perhaps once true. As was previously noted, conflict and change are often contemporaneous. But ultimately, if the conflict is harnessed through honest, hard-hitting yet also appropriately humble dialogue – focusing more on problems than personalities – then the words of John Dewey, 19th c. pragmatic philosopher and “Father of American Public Education,” may still ring out: Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity. It instigates to invention and sets us at noting and contriving. Conflict is the sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.
I’m reminded of my readapting the familiar acronym TEAM – “Together Each Achieves More.” My TEAM mantra: Trial and Error Amplifies Mutation! And I did share my variation on the motivational standard or cliché, depending on your perspective, “There’s no “I” in team”: There may be no “I” in team…but there are two “I”s in winning – “Individuality” and “Interactivity.” And these “I”s definitely “C”: A winning team blends “Individual Creativity” and “Interactive Community”!
And the pioneering sociologist, George Herbert Mead, would agree. His mantra: Society is unity in diversity.
So in the Fargo, ND-Moorhead, MN area an immigration-integration incubator is transforming the lives of individuals, families and institutions and inspiring – breathing life into and revitalizing the spirit of – long-standing communities. Perhaps it's not so surprising; the North Dakota state motto: Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, One and Inseparable. Paradoxical and passionate words to help a complex, diverse world…Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote and kickoff speaker as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also had a rotation as Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
It started:
It can’t happen here, I have too much to do…
Who took my desk and chair, my computer, too?
They can’t replace me; the Branch Techno-file
What do you mean I’m still in denial?
Reorg Rag, Reorg Rag,
Why does it feel I’ve been fragged?
Reorg Rag, Reorg Rag,
Maybe I’m just on a jag.
Reorg Rag, Reorg Rag,
I’m still on the Reorg Rag!
Rejoice, you’re employed…so they’ve frozen your pay
And put on your backs the recovery.
Two free weeks furlough to re-“leave” your stress
What a friend you have in the 112th Congress!
Work’s now a casino, a high tech RIF** RAFFle
When will we know? Why does management waffle?
Buddha Computah… who’s pink slipping away?
Here’s your ticket to ride; shopping’s good in Bombay.
Reorg Rag, Reorg Rag
Why do I just want to gag?
Reorg Rag, Reorg Rag,
Whatever happened to my swag?
Reorg Rag, Reorg Rag
I’m still on the Reorg Rag!
The lyrics and predicaments progressed till finally…
Now you’ve had enough, playing Raggedy Ann
Start calling their bluff; draw a line in the sand.
You are a survivor; just never forget
To bring out your “Inner Rambo or Rambette!”
So “Do know your limits; don’t limit your ‘No’s”
There’s life beyond widgets; you’ve taken their blows.
Break away from the mob, you’ve surpassed your quota
And have won your job…but now in North Dakota!
(Email stressdoc@aol.com for the entire lyric.)
In fact, my new mantra is “Go North young wo/man.” If economic opportunities are drying up “down south” (that is, in the “Lower 48”) my advice: head for Alaska…or for Alaska-lite, i.e., North Dakota! The past two months I’ve done speaking programs in both states and while the differences are obvious, the similarities are also palpable. First the differences: Alaska has a vast coast line, and an extensive rugged, forested mountainous wilderness, including the highest point in North America, Mt. Denali, formerly Mt. McKinley, at 21,000 feet; and while permafrost underground means Alaska is not the bread basket for the world, the salmon and halibut, in particular, are yummy. In contrast, flying into Fargo appears to validate my presupposition that ND is mostly farmland flat. Your eyes are captivated by large checkerboard squares of light and dark rich agricultural soil; the state does help feed the world. Actually, the eastern half of North Dakota consists of Drift Prairie, with elevations of 1300-1600 feet above sea level, and the western half of the state has the highest point, White Butte, at 3500 feet.
Now the similarities: The states share plenty of cold weather, (in both states I saw electrical power plugs attached to the front of cars), the two have small populations relative to their land mass, and now with the boom times happening in western North Dakota, both states are reaping the benefits of oil production. (Of course, there may be some specific economic boom town winners and losers. Word is that qualified truck drivers can easily earn a $100,000 a year and popular pole dancers may draw $2,000/night; apparently not many other ways to spend money way out on the oil range. And today I just read that seniors are being forced out of their life-long apartments as landlords, in pursuit of oil money, are raising rents astronomically. Hey, it’s the American Way; capitalism at its finest. Turning natives into immigrants in their homeland; we've seen this movie before!)
But I digress…in addition, at least in Anchorage (pop. 270,000) and Fargo (pop. 200,000), cities bounded by waterways, each, paradoxically, has a small town-cosmopolitan feel; both are fueled by a diverse, friendly and articulate citizenry as well as the visible presence of a vibrant and clean downtown, humming with artistic activity and Native American culture – visual arts, theatre, dance, etc. And the “symbiotic cities” of Fargo, ND-Moorhead, MN area, striding the opposite banks of the Red River, boast numerous colleges and universities.
Harnessing and Harvesting a Multicultural Mindset
And with the economic revival both are attracting people from around the globe. And while in Alaska oil may be a primary magnet (the state’s motto: North to the Future) in small towns throughout Minnesota and the Dakotas there’s another “future”-oriented engine driving the influx. The US Government has been settling immigrants in upper-Midwest towns, towns that until recently (late 20th century) were precipitously losing population, especially their young people. The towns were also struggling with a withering tax base; survival was definitely a communal conundrum. Hence the idea of resettlement. And it’s been working. At least in the last few years the immigrant population is doubling; the long-established (mostly Caucasian and Native American) citizenry has had some small growth. And while there has been tangible economic progress, such demographic social change rarely comes without a measure of cultural conflict. (Not to mention the personal and family stress generated by major relocation, loosening ties to geographic-family-cultural-national roots, engaging with a new language, and, at least initially, often feeling like “a stranger in a strange land.” I certainly experienced some of this disorientation when I moved from NYC to New Orleans in my mid-20s. I will say more shortly.)
The challenge of integrating these diverse populaces led to the formation in the mid-1990s of a non-profit group, Cultural Diversity Resources, led by an Asian female fireball of energy and enterprise, Yoke Sim Gunaratne. As stated in the conference brochure: "In 1993, Fargo-Moorhead area leaders held several community forums to identify community issues needing urgent attention…The community needed to embrace its increasing ethnic diversity and assist diverse populations in overcoming barriers to community participation. Leaders wanted to ameliorate intolerance of all kinds, increase understanding of the value of diversity, and develop a permanent system wide framework aimed at celebrating the ever-increasing cultures of the community. Action to develop a proactive regional diversity project to cover four cities and two counties began."
In fact, at the start of my luncheon keynote, I shared an associative image of being in a Star Trek movie; our multicultural-intergalactic crew was piloting the Starship Enterprise, exploring the depths of outer and inner space. I thought this an apt segue to my talk on “Creative Risk Taking: Grieving, Letting Go and Inspiring Flow.”
I couldn’t resist establishing my cultural diversity credentials by letting the audience know that in addition to being a Type A New Yawka (born in Brooklyn, mostly grew up in Queens, and attended high school in Manhattan) I have a second gear: sixteen years in N’Awlins (from 1974-1990; eight years as a doctoral student at Tulane University), my “American in Cajun Paris” years. Lots of great stories including burning out as a grad student and, opportunistically, becoming a radio and TV Stress Doc ™. Eventually, however, “there were no more mountains to climb in the bayou and I had this urge to move to DC. I didn’t understand it till I got there, but then I realized if NYC and New Orleans had a baby it would look like Washington, DC.” That got a laugh, and so did my follow-up: “I still haven’t decided if this offspring is a love child!”
Critical Quotes on Change and Conflict, Team Synergy and Society
Finally, I set the stage for my interactive presentation (even during a keynote the audience engages in arousing and fun exercises), by sharing two quotes, pertinent to communities with survival on their minds, needing to be both diverse and interdependent. The first was from Adam Gopnik’s book, Angels and Ages: A Short Book about Darwin, Lincoln and Modern Life. Gopnik extrapolates a key point of Darwinian Theory: Repetition is the law of nature but variation is the rule of life. We see repetition in nature through the cycle of the seasons; in many species migration and spawning patterns are also cyclical.
However, oftentimes, what enables a species to achieve survival fitness is responding productively and imaginatively to major change or crisis – whether brought on by alterations in its ecological environment or by a small deviation in its genetic makeup that spreads through the species, culminating in hereditary and adaptation advantages, that is, “natural selection.” I believe the influx of immigrants is providing an evolutionary challenge and a boost for these towns and townspeople. Both groups are experiencing a mind-and heart-provoking trial and error and maturational learning curve. While maintaining their roots, through interaction with the “natives,” the newcomers are learning about the customs, mores and morals, the strengths and vulnerabilities of the American Ways. And over time the establishment grows increasingly open-minded, slowly but steadily turning productive conflict into newfound commonality if not camaraderie along with creative variation on convention.
Together I’m seeing the basis for cultural synergy: not only does each group gain fresh ways of perceiving and acting upon new possibilities, but now these once disparate parts gradually transform into partners.
Of course, mutation and variation test the tried and perhaps once true. As was previously noted, conflict and change are often contemporaneous. But ultimately, if the conflict is harnessed through honest, hard-hitting yet also appropriately humble dialogue – focusing more on problems than personalities – then the words of John Dewey, 19th c. pragmatic philosopher and “Father of American Public Education,” may still ring out: Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity. It instigates to invention and sets us at noting and contriving. Conflict is the sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.
I’m reminded of my readapting the familiar acronym TEAM – “Together Each Achieves More.” My TEAM mantra: Trial and Error Amplifies Mutation! And I did share my variation on the motivational standard or cliché, depending on your perspective, “There’s no “I” in team”: There may be no “I” in team…but there are two “I”s in winning – “Individuality” and “Interactivity.” And these “I”s definitely “C”: A winning team blends “Individual Creativity” and “Interactive Community”!
And the pioneering sociologist, George Herbert Mead, would agree. His mantra: Society is unity in diversity.
So in the Fargo, ND-Moorhead, MN area an immigration-integration incubator is transforming the lives of individuals, families and institutions and inspiring – breathing life into and revitalizing the spirit of – long-standing communities. Perhaps it's not so surprising; the North Dakota state motto: Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, One and Inseparable. Paradoxical and passionate words to help a complex, diverse world…Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote and kickoff speaker as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also had a rotation as Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
Monday, October 24, 2011
The Value of a “Helmet’s Office” Atmosphere: Building Team and Organizational Trust, Collaborative Conflict, Partnership & Synergy
My work with the military has been very instructive. As a team building catalyst I appreciate the concept of creating a “Helmet’s Off” meeting atmosphere whereby there is “no rank in the room.” Ideally, the Corporal is not afraid to speak up honestly, even critically, with and to the Colonel. Of course, the unspoken challenge is whether there’s sufficient trust to transcend traditional “superior-subordinate” roles-relations-rules-restrictions. More broadly, what is the overall trust and safety level in the room? Will something I say quickly come back to bite me or eventually wind up as career-killer in a personnel file?
Naturally, when there’s an external threat, a “harm’s way” crisis or a critical need to follow “one voice” then helmets need to be firmly in place. However, when there is opportunity for frank and open dialogue, progressive military leaders are realizing that, especially with voluntary personnel and with today’s younger generation, two-way communication fosters greater respect, trust, commitment and a real cycle of what I call the interactive team building triad-synthesis -– “leadership <– > followship –> partnership.” That is, depending on the situational context or challenge, all levels in the organizational hierarchy need to set sail on the first two “ships” to sufficiently understand each one’s perspectives and roles, responsibilities and demands. Also, leadership doesn’t only come packaged with the title of “Captain,” “CEO” or “Coach.” Informal or untapped leaders often work behind the scenes. Good leaders, however, coax these “informals” out of the closet or provide a platform for their budding talents and harness or align with their influence.
Finally, some hands on experience “in both the trenches and think tanks” facilitate the evolution of a productive “leadership-followship” alliance. (For example, the mind- and heart-opening premise of the TV series, “Undercover Boss,” reflects a desire to have the chief surreptitiously wade into the trenches and swim with the catfish. I’m still waiting for the “Surreality” show that allows a team of employees into the shark tank…I mean boardroom.)
A friend, a retired Army Colonel once shared: “It’s easy ordering people around. Creating genuine buy-in is the real challenge.” To the military’s credit, they seem to realize that at times they have difficulty walking their helmetless talk, hence a desire to work with the Stress Doc ™. And barriers to candid communication may even arise with Senior Officers and Senior Sergeants, the battalion or brigade leadership team. In fact, most of my military “Stress, Change & Team Building” experience is with these senior groups. Consider this testimonial:
15th Sustainment Brigade, 1st Cavalry, Ft. Hood, TX
[Stress, Change and Team-Building Predeployment to Iraq Program for 40 Senior Officers, Senior Sergeants and Spouses]
Mark:
What a great program you engineered at our Command Offsite! It could not have been better if we had orchestrated it! Your session on managing change and stress was the perfect lead-in to the work we had to accomplish throughout the conference. It set the conditions for the free, uninhibited work (regardless of rank) that we needed. Our “drawing” exercise was absolutely enlightening. I cannot tell you how valuable it was to me as the “CEO” to see these products and see how the differing sections and commands worked together. The spouses loved the briefing and the interaction just as much as the uniformed members did.
Here’s the BLUF: Your session was the critical building block on which we built the rest of the conference.
My sincere thanks. Job well done.
COL Phelps
COL Larry Phelps
Commander, 15th SB
----------------------------------
Value of “Helmets Off”: Top Ten
However, my purpose with this essay is to reach a broad target audience. Why might the “Helmet’s Off” credo not just be a good fit for the military but also help build non-military team and organizational trust, coordination and productivity? When you have the time, consider these “Top Ten” opportune factors:
1. Opportunity for candid and clarifying communication and critical feedback. In a “Helmets Off Atmosphere” (HOA), not only is it easier for “message sent = message received” but a candid environment helps flesh out hidden agendas and stimulates a broader segment of member participation. And if leaders understand the difference between “Acknowledgement and Agreement” one can engage another’s perspective without endorsing it. If you don’t have to immediately establish “who’s right or wrong” (especially when it’s not a “black or white” data-driven issue), then options emerge: for example, before answering or arguing, allow the larger group to weigh in on the issue. (Hopefully, there’s not a groupthink milieu. And the quickest way of combating groupthink: ask people to question or challenge your perspective.) Remember, people don’t just contend or compete over facts; more often it’s the status of the head-banging relationship: people want to know it’s safe to say, “I believe you’re wrong and I’m right.”
Also, in the heat of a verbal battle, people frequently have an “attitude.” Sometimes it’s the person’s personality, other times it’s a momentary face-saving device, that is, the difference between “trait” and “state.” Either way, with my own slow movement toward maturity (let’s call it “fate,”) I’ve learned to accept a little angry attitude (what I call “smoke”) when sparring; however I do not accept a personal attack or abuse (that is, learn to distinguish the “smoke” from the “fire”). When an authority figure allows a “subordinate” to disagree openly (but not abusively) in a public forum without quickly cutting him down at the intellectual knees, most feel a sigh of relief and a deposit is added to the group trust account. And ironically, the former contrarian often more quickly joins the other side of the argument once having defended his position or when allowed to save face. Sometimes exercising a psychological freedom trumps competing over logical “facts.”
2. Opportunity for asking good questions as well as active-reflective listening and for generating creative conflict. When I ask a group what constitutes a “good question” in the context of interpersonal conflict, I get answers such as: a) one that solicits an open-ended response, b) one that can’t be answered by “yes” or “no,” and c) is not simply a “gotcha” tactic, whereby the questioner already knows the answer. (Although sometimes a “gotcha” question may be needed to establish the facts of a situation in the face of significant denial or a cover-up.) For me, there are two pillars of a good question: 1) the humility pillar, which acknowledges “not having all the answers” and 2) the openness pillar, which says, “I really would like to hear your point of view. I have more to learn than I realized.” (Clearly there’s a link between openness and humility.)
In an HOA setting this kind of exchange lays the basis for “collaboration” –- helping people speak from both the head and heart, teasing out hidden agendas, allowing for constructive conflict, even asking antagonists for more of their thinking, thereby helping to affirm their experience or expertise. And such openness simultaneously challenges our truisms. As 19th c. pragmatic philosopher and the “Father of American Education,” John Dewey, observed: Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity. It instigates to invention and sets us at noting and contriving. Conflict is the sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.
Now people and parties risk venturing from their territorial silos; the process encourages illogical and improbable ideas, allowing diversity to stimulate creativity, e.g., brainstorming methods for imaginatively yet fairly sharing resources and devising complementary approaches. (A number of studies reveal that teams comprised of diverse members almost invariably do more creative problem solving than more homogeneous task groups.) So maximize group brainpower by 1) asking good questions, 2) engaging in active and reflective listening, while 3) harnessing the colorful-compelling sparks of diversity and creative conflict.
3. Opportunity for reliable and quick feedback from and to folks in the trenches. To be “efficient” (do the thing right) and “effective” (do the right thing), an HOA mindset realizes that certain data can only be obtained by first hand, real time reports from the trenches. (For example, see the “Undercover Boss” reference above.) However, even if the data was initially wired in, the opportunity for sharing the circumstances and dynamics with the entire group affirms the value of the front line report/reporters while generating exploratory and collaborative possibilities. As Randy Pausch in his acclaimed book, The Last Lecture, written in anticipation of his dying from pancreatic cancer, recommends, “Phrase alternatives as questions. Instead of “I think we should do A, not B,” try “What if we did A, instead of B?” [The unspoken message: “what might be the implications or consequences?” And, again, most important, “I want to hear your perspective.”] This allows people to offer comments rather than defend (or debate) one choice.”
And remember, often it’s best to back up an important e-blast with a face-to-group announcement. It’s too easy for messages and texts to get lost in the electronic and textual cacophony. You’ll save time and enhance trust when all hear the message simultaneously and have the opportunity to raise questions or concerns.
4. Opportunity to remove cultural and generational diversity barriers and foster team synergy. Let me provide an HOA moment inspired by Al Davis, the recently deceased maverick, “Renaissance Football Man,” and long-time rabble-rousing owner of the Oakland Raiders. Davis hired the first Afro-American football coach in the modern era. In a sport that was increasingly being played by black athletes, do you think this helped create a “helmets off” atmosphere in the locker room? (Davis also later hired John Madden who, at the time, I believe was the youngest man to ever coach in the NFL. Again, this was another potential bridge-builder though, I would imagine, not without its skeptical men and moments. I can just picture some of the older Assistant Coaches or even players questioning the experience of their fledgling head coach. In addition to being elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, Madden, of course, went on to become an American icon through his work as a TV commentator and his pioneering efforts in electronic gaming.)
An interesting question arises: how do these idiosyncratic personalities fit into football, a sport that’s been called “the ultimate team game.” You’ve likely heard or perhaps seen the following mantra posted on an office wall: “There’s no ‘I’ in team.” While there’s some validity on its face, the slogan has always left me needing more…or wanting to conceptualize further. Might not individual difference, including variation in personality, mindset and talent, along with cultural or generational perspective, challenge the team to reach another level of evolutionary function? As Adam Gopnik, in Angels and Ages: A Brief Book about Darwin, Lincoln and Modern Life, observed: Repetition is the law of nature but variation is the rule of life!
Consider this semantic twist: While there’s no “I” in team, there are two “I”s in winning! From a poetic perspective a number of interpretations of the latter phrase are possible:
a) keeping your eyes on the prize,
b) reflecting on the past to help envision a new future, or my favorite
c) mixing the literal and the “letteral,” one comes up with two “I”s that definitely “C” –- the “I”s stand for “Individuality” and “Interactivity” and their related “C”s are “Creativity” and “Community.” And voila: the formula for a winning team is a synergistic blend of “Individual Creativity” and “Interactive Community.”
Some Conceptual Tools for Rethinking Team Synergy
In a general way the popular TEAM acronym speaks the language of synergy: Together Each Achieves More. The slogan indicates that the individual benefits from collective understanding, will and action and that harmony is its own reward. But what about the inverse: does individual variation in history or talent (not necessarily playing a formal leadership role) impact the capacity of the group to meet its goals around performance and and productivity, morale and camaraderie? How about these TEAM acronyms:
a) Talent Energizes Ambitious Motivation
b) Trial & Error Amplifies Mastery (or, perhaps even better, Mutation)
The creative explorer typically challenges the community to reexamine its conventional values, positions and actions. A community that’s not cut off by “one right way” tradition or rigid “funda-mental-ist armor” debates, sometimes tolerates, and may eventually find room to encourage the idiosyncratic individual to speak the language of, relate to, educate and even stir up, if not inspire, the larger collective. And when these two “‘I’s that ‘C’” intermingle, another notion of synergy materializes: behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately. This is called emergent behavior (Wikipedia) and brings us back to the power of variation for spawning successful adaptation, that is, individual mutation spreads, ultimately influencing the hardiness of the larger community often resulting in “the survival of the fittest.”
Finally, this emergent conception helps us return to the conventional if not predictable notion of synergy: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Whether the outcome is “unpredictable” or “greater than,” just what do these statements actually mean? They’ve become such embedded clichés; I suspect most folks don’t stop to think about the overt or covert dynamics. For me, when you’re cookin’ with synergy there is some combination of free flowing, genuine, uninhibited, intimate, out-rage-ous, intuitive, playful and verbal-nonverbal communication-new ways of relating amongst the parts (akin to a jazz riff), that in due time those individual parts magically morph into partners (at least for the potent moment) no matter the rank or role in the room.
5. Opportunity to delegate-distribute roles, responsibilities and power and to generate matrix teams. HO can also stand for “Hand Off” in addition to “Helmets Off.” After a meaningful discussion of an issue or problem there usually is a pregnant pause: who will take responsibility for putting strategic ideas into action and/or monitoring the problem-solving steps and any additional problem solvers? Assuming that we’re not resorting to the traditional military manner of “enlisting volunteers,” a smart leader will allow the silence its pregnant possibility. My experience suggests that a group member will pop up, or will do so with a gentle nudge. The person taking responsibility often has some personal if not passionate connection to the issue on the floor.
For the formal “Helmets Off” leader the challenge is not just giving up some control over the problematic issue but also working to find that balance between being detached without being distant, that is, achieving “detached involvement.” When you “hand off,” let the person run with the ball; even an occasional fumble can help him or her get a better grip on issues moving forward. You are enabling others to exercise and develop their knowledge and skills, passion and talents, as well as strengthening a sense of responsibility. And, of course, let the employee know you are available as a coach and consultant or, if persistent difficulties arise, as a manager. (But remember, the “responsible” individual is an “agent,” that is, a person of influence or impact and one who is worthy of trust.)
Finally, a diverse community gathering makes it easier to generate matrix teams. You can encourage and empower representatives of different organizational departments, seniority levels, knowledge bases, cultural populations, etc., to take on issues that that transcend the segmental or territorial and impact the foundational and systemic. The payoff for your organization is an expanding synergy whereby “distinct parts transform into dynamic partners.” Words to help one and all…Practice Safe Stress!
Stay tuned for Part II, the final five ways an HOA impacts team and organizational trust, coordination and productivity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
(c) Mark Gorkin 2011
Shrink Rap™ Productions
Naturally, when there’s an external threat, a “harm’s way” crisis or a critical need to follow “one voice” then helmets need to be firmly in place. However, when there is opportunity for frank and open dialogue, progressive military leaders are realizing that, especially with voluntary personnel and with today’s younger generation, two-way communication fosters greater respect, trust, commitment and a real cycle of what I call the interactive team building triad-synthesis -– “leadership <– > followship –> partnership.” That is, depending on the situational context or challenge, all levels in the organizational hierarchy need to set sail on the first two “ships” to sufficiently understand each one’s perspectives and roles, responsibilities and demands. Also, leadership doesn’t only come packaged with the title of “Captain,” “CEO” or “Coach.” Informal or untapped leaders often work behind the scenes. Good leaders, however, coax these “informals” out of the closet or provide a platform for their budding talents and harness or align with their influence.
Finally, some hands on experience “in both the trenches and think tanks” facilitate the evolution of a productive “leadership-followship” alliance. (For example, the mind- and heart-opening premise of the TV series, “Undercover Boss,” reflects a desire to have the chief surreptitiously wade into the trenches and swim with the catfish. I’m still waiting for the “Surreality” show that allows a team of employees into the shark tank…I mean boardroom.)
A friend, a retired Army Colonel once shared: “It’s easy ordering people around. Creating genuine buy-in is the real challenge.” To the military’s credit, they seem to realize that at times they have difficulty walking their helmetless talk, hence a desire to work with the Stress Doc ™. And barriers to candid communication may even arise with Senior Officers and Senior Sergeants, the battalion or brigade leadership team. In fact, most of my military “Stress, Change & Team Building” experience is with these senior groups. Consider this testimonial:
15th Sustainment Brigade, 1st Cavalry, Ft. Hood, TX
[Stress, Change and Team-Building Predeployment to Iraq Program for 40 Senior Officers, Senior Sergeants and Spouses]
Mark:
What a great program you engineered at our Command Offsite! It could not have been better if we had orchestrated it! Your session on managing change and stress was the perfect lead-in to the work we had to accomplish throughout the conference. It set the conditions for the free, uninhibited work (regardless of rank) that we needed. Our “drawing” exercise was absolutely enlightening. I cannot tell you how valuable it was to me as the “CEO” to see these products and see how the differing sections and commands worked together. The spouses loved the briefing and the interaction just as much as the uniformed members did.
Here’s the BLUF: Your session was the critical building block on which we built the rest of the conference.
My sincere thanks. Job well done.
COL Phelps
COL Larry Phelps
Commander, 15th SB
----------------------------------
Value of “Helmets Off”: Top Ten
However, my purpose with this essay is to reach a broad target audience. Why might the “Helmet’s Off” credo not just be a good fit for the military but also help build non-military team and organizational trust, coordination and productivity? When you have the time, consider these “Top Ten” opportune factors:
1. Opportunity for candid and clarifying communication and critical feedback. In a “Helmets Off Atmosphere” (HOA), not only is it easier for “message sent = message received” but a candid environment helps flesh out hidden agendas and stimulates a broader segment of member participation. And if leaders understand the difference between “Acknowledgement and Agreement” one can engage another’s perspective without endorsing it. If you don’t have to immediately establish “who’s right or wrong” (especially when it’s not a “black or white” data-driven issue), then options emerge: for example, before answering or arguing, allow the larger group to weigh in on the issue. (Hopefully, there’s not a groupthink milieu. And the quickest way of combating groupthink: ask people to question or challenge your perspective.) Remember, people don’t just contend or compete over facts; more often it’s the status of the head-banging relationship: people want to know it’s safe to say, “I believe you’re wrong and I’m right.”
Also, in the heat of a verbal battle, people frequently have an “attitude.” Sometimes it’s the person’s personality, other times it’s a momentary face-saving device, that is, the difference between “trait” and “state.” Either way, with my own slow movement toward maturity (let’s call it “fate,”) I’ve learned to accept a little angry attitude (what I call “smoke”) when sparring; however I do not accept a personal attack or abuse (that is, learn to distinguish the “smoke” from the “fire”). When an authority figure allows a “subordinate” to disagree openly (but not abusively) in a public forum without quickly cutting him down at the intellectual knees, most feel a sigh of relief and a deposit is added to the group trust account. And ironically, the former contrarian often more quickly joins the other side of the argument once having defended his position or when allowed to save face. Sometimes exercising a psychological freedom trumps competing over logical “facts.”
2. Opportunity for asking good questions as well as active-reflective listening and for generating creative conflict. When I ask a group what constitutes a “good question” in the context of interpersonal conflict, I get answers such as: a) one that solicits an open-ended response, b) one that can’t be answered by “yes” or “no,” and c) is not simply a “gotcha” tactic, whereby the questioner already knows the answer. (Although sometimes a “gotcha” question may be needed to establish the facts of a situation in the face of significant denial or a cover-up.) For me, there are two pillars of a good question: 1) the humility pillar, which acknowledges “not having all the answers” and 2) the openness pillar, which says, “I really would like to hear your point of view. I have more to learn than I realized.” (Clearly there’s a link between openness and humility.)
In an HOA setting this kind of exchange lays the basis for “collaboration” –- helping people speak from both the head and heart, teasing out hidden agendas, allowing for constructive conflict, even asking antagonists for more of their thinking, thereby helping to affirm their experience or expertise. And such openness simultaneously challenges our truisms. As 19th c. pragmatic philosopher and the “Father of American Education,” John Dewey, observed: Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity. It instigates to invention and sets us at noting and contriving. Conflict is the sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.
Now people and parties risk venturing from their territorial silos; the process encourages illogical and improbable ideas, allowing diversity to stimulate creativity, e.g., brainstorming methods for imaginatively yet fairly sharing resources and devising complementary approaches. (A number of studies reveal that teams comprised of diverse members almost invariably do more creative problem solving than more homogeneous task groups.) So maximize group brainpower by 1) asking good questions, 2) engaging in active and reflective listening, while 3) harnessing the colorful-compelling sparks of diversity and creative conflict.
3. Opportunity for reliable and quick feedback from and to folks in the trenches. To be “efficient” (do the thing right) and “effective” (do the right thing), an HOA mindset realizes that certain data can only be obtained by first hand, real time reports from the trenches. (For example, see the “Undercover Boss” reference above.) However, even if the data was initially wired in, the opportunity for sharing the circumstances and dynamics with the entire group affirms the value of the front line report/reporters while generating exploratory and collaborative possibilities. As Randy Pausch in his acclaimed book, The Last Lecture, written in anticipation of his dying from pancreatic cancer, recommends, “Phrase alternatives as questions. Instead of “I think we should do A, not B,” try “What if we did A, instead of B?” [The unspoken message: “what might be the implications or consequences?” And, again, most important, “I want to hear your perspective.”] This allows people to offer comments rather than defend (or debate) one choice.”
And remember, often it’s best to back up an important e-blast with a face-to-group announcement. It’s too easy for messages and texts to get lost in the electronic and textual cacophony. You’ll save time and enhance trust when all hear the message simultaneously and have the opportunity to raise questions or concerns.
4. Opportunity to remove cultural and generational diversity barriers and foster team synergy. Let me provide an HOA moment inspired by Al Davis, the recently deceased maverick, “Renaissance Football Man,” and long-time rabble-rousing owner of the Oakland Raiders. Davis hired the first Afro-American football coach in the modern era. In a sport that was increasingly being played by black athletes, do you think this helped create a “helmets off” atmosphere in the locker room? (Davis also later hired John Madden who, at the time, I believe was the youngest man to ever coach in the NFL. Again, this was another potential bridge-builder though, I would imagine, not without its skeptical men and moments. I can just picture some of the older Assistant Coaches or even players questioning the experience of their fledgling head coach. In addition to being elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, Madden, of course, went on to become an American icon through his work as a TV commentator and his pioneering efforts in electronic gaming.)
An interesting question arises: how do these idiosyncratic personalities fit into football, a sport that’s been called “the ultimate team game.” You’ve likely heard or perhaps seen the following mantra posted on an office wall: “There’s no ‘I’ in team.” While there’s some validity on its face, the slogan has always left me needing more…or wanting to conceptualize further. Might not individual difference, including variation in personality, mindset and talent, along with cultural or generational perspective, challenge the team to reach another level of evolutionary function? As Adam Gopnik, in Angels and Ages: A Brief Book about Darwin, Lincoln and Modern Life, observed: Repetition is the law of nature but variation is the rule of life!
Consider this semantic twist: While there’s no “I” in team, there are two “I”s in winning! From a poetic perspective a number of interpretations of the latter phrase are possible:
a) keeping your eyes on the prize,
b) reflecting on the past to help envision a new future, or my favorite
c) mixing the literal and the “letteral,” one comes up with two “I”s that definitely “C” –- the “I”s stand for “Individuality” and “Interactivity” and their related “C”s are “Creativity” and “Community.” And voila: the formula for a winning team is a synergistic blend of “Individual Creativity” and “Interactive Community.”
Some Conceptual Tools for Rethinking Team Synergy
In a general way the popular TEAM acronym speaks the language of synergy: Together Each Achieves More. The slogan indicates that the individual benefits from collective understanding, will and action and that harmony is its own reward. But what about the inverse: does individual variation in history or talent (not necessarily playing a formal leadership role) impact the capacity of the group to meet its goals around performance and and productivity, morale and camaraderie? How about these TEAM acronyms:
a) Talent Energizes Ambitious Motivation
b) Trial & Error Amplifies Mastery (or, perhaps even better, Mutation)
The creative explorer typically challenges the community to reexamine its conventional values, positions and actions. A community that’s not cut off by “one right way” tradition or rigid “funda-mental-ist armor” debates, sometimes tolerates, and may eventually find room to encourage the idiosyncratic individual to speak the language of, relate to, educate and even stir up, if not inspire, the larger collective. And when these two “‘I’s that ‘C’” intermingle, another notion of synergy materializes: behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately. This is called emergent behavior (Wikipedia) and brings us back to the power of variation for spawning successful adaptation, that is, individual mutation spreads, ultimately influencing the hardiness of the larger community often resulting in “the survival of the fittest.”
Finally, this emergent conception helps us return to the conventional if not predictable notion of synergy: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Whether the outcome is “unpredictable” or “greater than,” just what do these statements actually mean? They’ve become such embedded clichés; I suspect most folks don’t stop to think about the overt or covert dynamics. For me, when you’re cookin’ with synergy there is some combination of free flowing, genuine, uninhibited, intimate, out-rage-ous, intuitive, playful and verbal-nonverbal communication-new ways of relating amongst the parts (akin to a jazz riff), that in due time those individual parts magically morph into partners (at least for the potent moment) no matter the rank or role in the room.
5. Opportunity to delegate-distribute roles, responsibilities and power and to generate matrix teams. HO can also stand for “Hand Off” in addition to “Helmets Off.” After a meaningful discussion of an issue or problem there usually is a pregnant pause: who will take responsibility for putting strategic ideas into action and/or monitoring the problem-solving steps and any additional problem solvers? Assuming that we’re not resorting to the traditional military manner of “enlisting volunteers,” a smart leader will allow the silence its pregnant possibility. My experience suggests that a group member will pop up, or will do so with a gentle nudge. The person taking responsibility often has some personal if not passionate connection to the issue on the floor.
For the formal “Helmets Off” leader the challenge is not just giving up some control over the problematic issue but also working to find that balance between being detached without being distant, that is, achieving “detached involvement.” When you “hand off,” let the person run with the ball; even an occasional fumble can help him or her get a better grip on issues moving forward. You are enabling others to exercise and develop their knowledge and skills, passion and talents, as well as strengthening a sense of responsibility. And, of course, let the employee know you are available as a coach and consultant or, if persistent difficulties arise, as a manager. (But remember, the “responsible” individual is an “agent,” that is, a person of influence or impact and one who is worthy of trust.)
Finally, a diverse community gathering makes it easier to generate matrix teams. You can encourage and empower representatives of different organizational departments, seniority levels, knowledge bases, cultural populations, etc., to take on issues that that transcend the segmental or territorial and impact the foundational and systemic. The payoff for your organization is an expanding synergy whereby “distinct parts transform into dynamic partners.” Words to help one and all…Practice Safe Stress!
Stay tuned for Part II, the final five ways an HOA impacts team and organizational trust, coordination and productivity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote & kickoff speaker, webinar presenter, as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and organizational development consultant. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for the 1st Cavalry Division and 13th Expeditionary Support Command, Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. Mark has also rotated as a Military & Family Life Consultant (MFLC) at Ft. Campbell, KY. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
(c) Mark Gorkin 2011
Shrink Rap™ Productions
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)