Category Archives: Boudaries

Trusted lies and the meaning of money

Recent reporting in the US indicates that we have accepted, as a culture, a “new normal” of half-truths and blatant disregard for facts.  Seriously?  Yes, unfortunately, this is no lie.  I wish I were kidding.  Apparently, some will consider this is a virtue, a victory over the rule of law, reason, and unadulterated honest dealings. It isn’t.

Repeated lying, especially the “rinse, wash and reTweet” kind, eventually has its comeuppance.  Drawing back the curtain of truth to reveal a squishy, truthy, ambiguous and slightly “magical” land, a universe where you can tell anyone that facts are for people too weak to imagine being a stronger, more confident leader?  This has gone too far.  The “Emperor’s New Clothes” may fit to a tee, but that’s still the ugliest suit I have ever seen!

But how do you reckon with “charming” liars who tell you what you want to hear, even (especially) if it doesn’t happen to be true? Humans are believed to have a predisposition to “situational” lying. The situation did it to me, make me do it, thus I cannot be held accountable.  Who makes up this stuff?  Apparently, some of us do, on a regular basis.

Being one’s word has to be more than how we feel in the moment.  Sure, we all have occasional lapses, but true strength comes from having the integrity to clean up a misdirection before it turns into a mess.

Speaking of messes, there is tremendous social pressure to “believe” what others tell you, if you wish to be accepted.  The need to belong or “affiliate” sometimes overrides the more rational and ethical part of the brain.  It is a powerful opiate.  This may be explain why there are those who buy into wild conspiracy theories that the rest of us know are not true, or at least such shared beliefs are so implausible (take QAnon for example) that there’s little reason to even check sources. Or how about whether or not Coronavirus was invented in a lab?  I guess you’d have to ask the lab managers.

We say an idea is a conspiracy theory when we want to completely discount it and to discredit its speaker.  People on both sides of the current US political polarization fall prey to a long list of bat-shit-crazy views, mostly a form of “group think” that is reckless, dangerous and often just sad.

Do we need to start a massive re-education program on critical thinking, the rule of law, and how science and other evidence-based practices can help quell the disinformation channel?  Unfortunately, no such luck.  It wouldn’t help because there are unexpected benefits of buying into conspiracy theories that seem to outweigh the risk of reputation loss or to being seen as mentally disturbed.  Those who entertain and ultimately buy into such theories are now part of our culture, too, pushing rights to free speech to a place that has only recently begun self-correcting.

Further, the tone of discourse on this topic tends to be highly combative, no doubt out of righteous anger and frustration with those who follow those pesky little things called facts, or those (some would say) that think for themselves, not as the media wants them to think.  That seems to include both those who lack imagination — and need to assume things are not as they appear — as well as those who apparently have too much of it.

“Coming together is a beginning.
Keeping together is progress.
Working together [skillfully] is success.”
                                               – Henry Ford

For my part, I can no longer gaze upon this world gone mad, where science is just an “alternative” set of facts to the “truth” that others see, and expect it to end well.  Even during times of crisis, observing more than one set of facts with dispassion is like some rubber-necking motorist witnessing a slow-motion train wreck.  The moral detritus is piling up, and the highways and byways of truth are clogged, choking and sputtering on the accumulating BS, even as the economy (once called the “global casino” by Fritjof Capra, now the title of a titular book on human-caused environmental issues), immune to what people think, has begun to find its “true calling” or higher purpose in several opportunities that deserve our full and unequivocal support. Money doesn’t care.  So we have to.

Since this column is about business, I’ll now navigate away from politics to discuss the more important realm of money and meaning, supposedly the reason many of us choose to work in the first place.  The political overlay is about context and how we treat each other.

Money & Meaning — what’s the cost/benefit of making a buck?

The purpose of money is not merely to perpetuate itself to make more of it.  To many of us, making money is, by itself, devoid of meaning, so we must ascribe to it that which we find meaningful.  We make it up.  What has meaning for you?  What matters most?  Second most?  I often suggest that any journey include at least three ways of measuring success.  This will usually (if done right) reflect cherished values and principles.

If our values allow us to pursue wealth and luxury for its own sake, just to have wealth, or to be wealthy, no matter the means, then that outdated view of capitalism explains the unruly game that gets played in many circles.  But what of human relations?  Do we wish to stay inside this circle and only trade with those who will uphold a money-focused “ethics free zone,” or would we prefer to find richness, beauty and fulfillment in a wider circle, one that which includes those that may sharply differ from our own worldviews, but are nonetheless interested in mutual respect, dignity, and wholesomeness?

I guess the question reveals my bias … yes, there is a right answer, but maybe it is not so simple.

Now I’d like to use the current US “political theater” to highlight a few salient points.  The clogging arteries of “truth and justice” do not end well for anybody, so we are starting to see an expose’ on “the game,” from both a linguistic and humanistic perspective.  I’ll add my two cents to the mounting literature, some of it pleading, occasionally moralizing (if there is a choice of taking the “higher road” to a flourishing life, wouldn’t you take it?), because in my view, we simply cannot continue like this, socially distant, for now, but worlds apart.  Enough is enough.

Is changing one’s mind a sign of strength or weakness?  Yes.  I mean, No.

A huge insult in politics is to call someone a “flip-flopper” and yet changing positions (based more on new information, or dawning awareness, not just political convenience) has become part and parcel of rewriting history, an attempt to “reframe” reality, to bend it, as some sort of a revisionist’s dream, stating and restating the world as we wished it were.  As if the current position is the only one that matters and nothing that has come before matters?  Admittedly, the American public has a short memory span, made even shorter by Twitter and other top-of-the-trees reports and voices that would like to matter.  But to neglect recent history in favor of the one preferred by a determined group is just another deception that must be rejected.

Remember the saying, “If we knew better, we’d do better?”  Guess what?  We know better.

I once had a mediation gig in Kuwait.  It was a very entrenched dispute that had gone completely off the rails.  Every day, for nearly 3 weeks, the parties agreed to put their differences aside and declared a new day.  This was inefficient, at best (although at that point it was the all they could do to show a willingness to restart talks without losing face).  Later we did manage to talk about the past and learn from it, and go on to finish the project, but even with strained relations, business leaders must reject the tendency to cast aside all prior results and plans in favor of a “new day.”  The enterprise’s history and team’s core values must inform decisions starting today.  What’s the hype versus what’s the hope for a shared future?  That’s a conversation worth having!

Lying certainly can have an upside (some claim that such manipulation is good for your career), buffer our relationships, provide excuses for someone to temporarily feel safe with their own truth. We often lie to ourselves, and who hasn’t tried to get away with a so-called white lie here and there? That doesn’t necessarily make you a liar or a bad person. Not knowing how people lie and twist the truth could set you up for being blinded when someone else does it, but that isn’t an endorsement of crime as a way to catch criminals either.  Learn how to handle your own fluctuating emotions and need for ego gratification without taking others prisoner. This is what responsible adults do.

Energy Conservation Starts at Home

The corporate mindset of the media made a big deal about Bill Clinton’s affair(s) because they could.  We see this ‘smear job’ (tongue in cheek) of attack-and-defend tying up a huge amount of energy in the political sandbox — nothing more than drama born of win-lose thinking — energy that could instead be used for getting on with the real work of improving the sandbox.

What is presently just a distraction begging for you to take the bait (yet again), the monkey chatter in the leaves of the tree (Twitter still has a lot of it, as does all social media, even if they’re recently growing something akin to a backbone) versus the more important question, “what about the trunk?” What do we wish to grow?  How will we grow?

The Wizard of Oz invited us to not be distracted by the man behind the curtain.  Why do such illusions often seem so real, and why do we keep falling into the trap of getting hooked by the drama of opposition or of adversarial alliances?  It is one of the oldest distraction techniques on earth.  Sun Tzu‘s “Art of War” was published before any of us were even born, and yet it continues to play on our humanity, our vulnerability, our darker tendencies?  Its called shadow.  We all have one.

How to rise out of that conundrum and into the light?  Be sure not to get caught up in fear.  The antidote to fear, a similar experience in the body, is excitement and audacious assertiveness (“a willingness to take surprisingly bold risks”), but doing so skillfully and respectfully. Why?  Because we can’t easily minimize or eliminate fear, thus better to maximize our audacity … with integrity, honesty, and skillful presentation to the right people, asking until … [we reach our goals], acting as if we have nothing to lose (because we don’t, in that context), building confidence in our better offer, building character, and honing our core selves.

Even if democracy takes a serious body slam among the way, at least we’ll be better humans, worn smoother around the edges by the friction caused by our respectful audaciousness.

I’m writing all this in hopes of ensuring that this situation, longer-term, doesn’t drift into an unrecoverable lose-lose dynamic for all us stakeholders.  Short of believing in miracles, we seem to be heading down the road of fewer options than normal.  A 2-party system is becoming a no-party system. Narrowing our choices because we’re uninterested in booting and using the part of the brain that involves reason, reflection, or funny little things called facts must not become our de facto plan.  That’s worse than having no plan.

3M’s — Manipulation, Misleading, and Masquerading

A recent transaction with someone in West Africa supported the value of American politics admitting that they liked the “all action, no talk” approach.  That is hardly what we want to teach others, and behavior role models are what we Americans (and others in the developed world) offer, by silent default, unless refuted, or cast out.  I cannot condone such mindless and corrupt reasoning, so let’s talk about these three M’s and then define the higher road.

M1:  Manipulation:  “I know you are but what am I?” is the childish ploy of turning the table on the schoolyard, employed regularly by master manipulators.  Point-by-point comebacks that set the record straight are rare but necessary.  This is the art of war and getting one’s message across.  “Crooked Hillary” and Lying Ted Cruz are examples of manipulation in the last election that became memes (spread on their own) cannot displace facts to the contrary.

M2: Misleading information about elections being hacked or corrupt just don’t line up with the facts.  Spreading an effective lie (so that it travels well enough to “infect” millions of others, as thought-viruses often do) is still lying.  Our ability to survive and thrive as a nation depends on regaining our sense of what is real.  It may take a long time to get over this past “race to the bottom” with so-called fake news, hyper-partisanship, and polarized “enemy stance” … mutually assured destruction, but it must be carried in the minds and hearts of every American, even as the “tribal warfare” unfolds.  Things have gotten far too bad and it is far too late for cynicism.

The US has been in the de facto leader on many fronts (though lagging behind in some areas, such as protecting the environment) for decades.  More recently, we began “exporting” an unfortunate byproduct of our bipartisan politics:  the belief that action is more important than truth.  That if you act strong and appear to be decisive (even if resultant policy decisions are entirely wrong-headed) somehow that is more important than the nuance and care required to live according to one’s principles?

If greed is all that matters, and the end justifies the means, then take everything, leave nothing but a trail of betrayal and scorched earth, and be sure to never apologize, admit one’s mistakes, or learn anything.  That sort of self-reflection is for the weak.  What kind of leadership is this, exactly?

M3:  Masquerading:  Instead of masquerading for effect, or playing the role seemingly required of us by party, church, the boss, spouses, etc., how about if we show up as our authentic selves?  I know this sounds simplistic, even somewhat outrageous to suggest, but as written above, and in a business plan recently, “Audacity has to outpace fear.”

Stand up, Put people in their place, Set boundaries

The race to the bottom has finally arrived.  We made it!  So now what?  Instead of planning another attack on democracy, or on each other, what we can and must do is uphold our respective areas of mutual respect, set the tone, but don’t be “nice” about it, be real.

The meek may yet inherit the earth, but will they want it?  And would they have the nerve to step up to the podium and accept it?

Thanks for listening/reading.  Respectful rebuttals are encouraged.

Daniel

Exploring the Inner Frontier, Part 3

What’s a Healthy Boundary Between You and a Maniac? — part 3 of 3

By Daniel Robin

Hank says to me “It’ll never work,” just two days after his team’s proposal was approved. Shirley says the reason the project is doomed is that nobody ever talks to her. I innocently ask “What can you do about that?” and she snaps “I don’t have time for this!” and walks out of the room.

Whoa! How do you deal with people who are stressed out, adversarial, resistant and argumentative? Tell them to take a vacation? Or those so-called “difficult” people who seem bent on being just plain annoying? I’m not talking about setting garden-variety boundaries like asking a co-worker to give you direct feedback when all you’re getting is covert criticism. Such situations simply require healthy assertion of what you prefer, as described in Part 1 of this series.

After nearly being taken hostage on the SS Maniac, I’d like to offer the following tips for setting a respectful boundary when other people get “emotionally hijacked,” when the stakes are high, or when dealing with a conflict … once set, such boundaries can save you (and your peers) hours of needless suffering.

1. Attempt to mirror what’s going on for the other person.

“Oh, you’ve got a deadline, so it’s important that we talk right this instant?” If I can understand and acknowledge something about that person’s agenda or apparent situation (their issue, problem, concern, or frustration, … whatever it is), they will be better prepared for step #2. If you find yourself getting (or already) a bit frustrated with the intruder, you risk combining this step with the next. Don’t.  When you remember to pause and notice what they want, both of your stress levels drop a bit. Remember, if it helps you to listen, dissociate slightly by saying to yourself “This is not about me.”

2. Handle resistance or negativity as necessary.

Even if I’m the one who is resisting, I’ll move the situation forward if my speaking takes shared responsibility for the dynamic. I might say: “How can we work this out so that you can get what you want, and I can finish my work and still leave by 6:00?”
By itself, this doesn’t resolve anything, of course, but it does set the tone for constructive, collaborative problem solving. Or, if they seem bent on blame or negativity, I might say “I can see you are upset [about something]… let’s stop here and pick it up again when I’m less distracted ….” Or, “This is awful … you’re out of time and … darn-it … I’m booked. What are you going to do?”
Each is an attempt to acknowledge both their situation and yours, while reasserting who is responsible for theirs (they are, not you!).

3. Directly assert what I want.

If the person or issue still looms (hint not taken), it’s probably going to be necessary to directly assert what you want. Of course, what comes before this step is fundamental to setting boundaries every day: (1) Know your limits and be clear about what you want, (2) Tactfully and openly communicate those goals and limits when the other person is able to listen, and (3) Be available to discuss or negotiate any differences. (These steps are described in Part 2 of this article series.) I’m making the assumption that, in this case, however, you are dealing with a personality or situation that defies reason.

So, if you wish to say “no” – your established priorities are more important than the issue they are presenting to you – then a healthy, adult boundary might sound like: “Let me see if I have this straight; you’re supposed to have this done in one hour and you want my help? Sorry, that doesn’t work for me.” Or, if their need is more important to you: “Okay, I’ll help out this time, and when we’re done, let’s talk about how you can make future requests with more reasonable timeframes, … to make sure this never happens again.…”

Sometimes you might need to assert what you want several times in a row. Their ability to listen at such times will be minimal, so stay steady. If someone seems intent on picking a fight or debating a fact that you see differently, you can simply decline to participate: “I’m not available for this conversation,” “I’m not willing to argue about this,” or smile and say in an even tone, “This conversation just ended.” If you repeatedly state “I’m not willing to fight with you about that,” you also send an implied secondary message: “So, what else would you like to talk about?”

Another option is to use humor — and be careful of your facial expression or other non-verbal cues — to interrupt the pattern and creatively diffuse tension: “This is not a good time to discuss what you want … how about if you buy me a drink after work?  Then we can discuss all the facts and even the “alternative facts” to your heart’s content!”

Still looking for help / support / skill-building opportunities with better boundaries? Try our worksheet or contact us for coaching services.

Leadership in Action Series: Part 11

Dealing with Aggressive Leaders — One Dirty Look at a Time

By Daniel Robin

“If you aren’t going to finish the project, just tell me so I can find someone who will!”  The edge in Tony’s voice has a chilling effect on the room.  Paula indicates that the project is coming along just fine – under the circumstances – and gives Tony a look that suggests that a staff meeting is not the place to air such frustrations.

After a brief but thick silence, Tony blurts out:  “Look.  I don’t care what it takes, but I want this project complete within two weeksAm I making myself unmistakably clear?”

Noticing that Tony’s frustration has shut down his reason-ability (he’s not listening), she decides to take this one offline.  “Yes, Tony.  I understand your goal,” Paula responds evenly.  “But, could we please talk about this privately after lunch?”

Tony rolls his eyes, and abruptly slaps shut his Day-Timer.  Paula lets out an audible sigh of relief as Tony hurdles himself toward the exit, sheets of paper flying in his wake.

“Well, wasn’t that refreshing?”  Or was it just dysfunctional?  Probably depends on whether Tony was having a bad “I don’t care” day, or whether it reflects a long-standing pattern.  Let’s explore what Paula did and why.

Standing Up to Workplace Bullies

Patterns of overly aggressive leadership must be handled expediently or employers could face legal liability (due to a “hostile work environment”).  We’ll touch on way of ensuring that patterns of overly aggressive or abrasive leadership in others are met with a combination of compassion, skill and extremely clear boundaries.  Interpersonally, a key is knowing when to stand your ground, push back, buy time, or walk away.

  1. Buy time. It may be appropriate to politely call a “time out” and ask if the so-called meeting (which may feel more like an impending train wreck) could continue at another time.  This “strategic avoidance” protected Paula from escalating into a fight, or from being stepping on needlessly (accommodating).  It also protects both parties from saying something they’d likely regret.  It may help to suggest specific times (“Tuesday at 1 or 4?”) for returning to the conversation.
  2. Stand Your Ground. If you want to establish a professional tone, you might want to acknowledge that you understand the importance of the other person’s view, highlight any areas of agreement, and then point out where you don’t happen to agree.  By politely and diplomatically dealing with “what is,” the other party is less likely to resist, more likely to calm down.  Otherwise, you might just say “I’m not willing to fight with you about that,” and walk away.
  3. Push back. When does it make sense to push back?  When the issue is more important than the relationship.  Or, when the situation just does not sit well with you, even after thinking it over.  If the other person is openly angry or emotional, wait; there will be a time to make your point.  Don’t waste your energy attempting to push back when the other party only wants to escalate.
  4. Accommodate.  One of the most common responses to a leader who is taking a “no holds barred” approach is to simply go with the flow.  A wise choice if you can find the non-defensive, generous strength to do so.  If it’s a pattern, however, keep track, writing down the facts of what happened, including what stopped you from using one of the above approaches.

Overall, success comes from noticing other people’s mood and emotions without becoming identified, confused, or hooked by it.  Just let in their experience (even if you disagree with the implications), acknowledge it as fact for them, and then think about something more important, like breathing.

Leadership in Action Series: Part 9

Speaking Up About Put-Downs

By Daniel Robin

This article series outlines several tools for dealing with patterns of aggressiveness.  Assertive leaders are clear about what they want, listen actively, make requests, set clean boundaries, and handle differences through skillful negotiation.  Of course, depending on the “personality” involved, it might be best to ask for help or get out of their way.

In Healthy Assertiveness: Pushy or Passionate?, we acknowledged the fine line between “strongly assertive” and “mildly aggressive” – indeed, it’s so subjective, people aggressively debate this topic with comments like “I’m not yelling!” or “If you think I’m being rude now, keep pushing me and I’ll show you what rude is!”

To make matters even more challenging, the “sender” and “receiver” often have completely different experiences of the original message.  One person might say “I’m finished explaining this,” and the receiver might assume they’re being punished for asking too many questions, when the sender was actually trying to say “I’m hoping you can take it from here … I’m out of time.”

Hallucinations, distortions and generalizations can lead to escalation of minor problems into emotional outbursts and twisted metal; ironically, such aggressiveness both causes and results in further distortions, when the triggering event could have been easily nipped in the bud.  The pattern creates a predictable loop that is also difficult to interrupt once it gets rolling.  This is a common occurrence because a leader is far more likely to “mislead” when there’s stress, tension, or pressure; which, at most companies, is most of the time.

The Gray Scale

One answer to unscrambling this miscommunication is to assign a number that represents the perceived degree of aggressiveness:  1 = very mildly aggressive (light gray, abrasive, more like assertiveness with attitude), while 11 = extremely aggressive (dark-gray, abusive – perhaps when someone loses it completely and gets physical or makes threats).  The scale is arranged in order of increasing impact.  For example, yelling and shouting typically have a more serious impact than simply being abrupt or dismissive.

The scale we use in workshops goes something like this:

11  Physical threats
10  Angry outbursts or loss of control
9  Yelling and shouting
8  Threats about the job
7  An aggressive, controlling manner
6  Blaming, discrediting or discounting
5  Insults and put-downs
4  Snubbing or ignoring people
3  Brevity or abruptness
2  Glaring eye contact:  “the look”
1  Silence

The purpose here is to decide in advance what’s acceptable in yourself and others.  Discuss it with your peers.  Take a poll.  See if you can find a guidepost to set standards.  For example, “In this department, we will call a ‘time out’ when anyone goes above a 5.”

Note that by itself, this scale does not decrease the impact of aggressiveness, but it does make the impact significantly more discussable.  A bit part of the problem is that aggressiveness can be so unpleasant or scary to others that open dialogue become rare if not impossible.  The use of this scale implies an agreement about what can be openly discussed.  Rational conversations are more likely when a person is relatively calm and treated in a factual, non-judgmental way.

Agree to Focus on Assertiveness

With an agreement to use this scale instead of harsher methods (disciplinary action, lawsuits, involuntary coaching, etc.), you might ask them “Where were you on the gray scale at the end of yesterday’s meeting?,” and you can compare perceptions.

I guarantee that the “hijacked” person will initially rate their behavior differently than those on the receiving end.  With time, and as awareness increases, the person will be able to anticipate that they are about to step over a line.  Not entirely unlike an alcoholic, who must first admit that there’s a problem (even if that “problem” is with other people’s perception of their aggressive behavior), people who frequently fly into a rage must learn not to swim in De Nile.