|
 |
Disarming
a Critical Aggressor:
Part I Awareness, Assertion and
Affirmation Techniques and Strategies
by Mark Gorkin,
LICSW |
"Wow, did you fumble the data. Didn't
you prepare?" And the blunt critic reeks of tonal attitude
and know-it-all arrogance. It's part of the punchline for
a mind game exercise used in my "Managing Anger"
and "Dealing with Difficult People" workshops.
The exercise dramatically illustrates how not to give criticism.
It also provides insight into an individual's gut reaction
when taking a hostile psychic hit. (In addition, large group
discussion allows for a comparison of the various "mind
play" reactions and responses among the participants.
More on this shortly.)
Setting the Scene
Let's go beyond generalities; here's a step-by-step sketch
of my "Fumbled the Data" exercise:
1. Participants pair off,
2. Each person in the dyad imagines himself
or herself having just given an important presentation
at a division meeting,
3. Each person will be asking his partner,
a colleague from another department (not a close friend,
more a professional acquaintance) for feedback on this
presentation: "How did it go?"
4. I now ask participants to look directly
at each other, to "lock and load" eyeballs,
5. I go over again the rules of the game:
each person has given a presentation and each is looking
at a colleague about to give him or her feedback (through
my voice); therefore each person both gives and gets feedback
in this dyadic mind game,
6. With anticipatory tension hovering
and building in the room, I aggressively and condescendingly
blurt out, "Wow, did you fumble the data. Didn't
you prepare?"
7. Then I immediately ask the participants,
"What are you feeling or thinking right now? Let
your feedback partner know your gut reaction and then
say what you'd like to say to this critical colleague."
Post-"Mind Game" Reaction
Analysis
Needless to say, the room initially erupts, if
only to break the tension. But clearly, the noise and energy
levels indicate more is involved. So let's examine participants'
reactions and then abstract key principles, strategies and
techniques for constructively handling harshly critical
if not hostile feedback.
Reactions to this provocative encounter
usually fall into four categories:
1. Aggressive-Defensive. As one participant
spontaneously announced to her partner-antagonist: "Oh
just bite it!" Another common rejoinder is "Screw
you!" or, "If you're so smart, why didn't you
do it?" In each case the individual feels attacked
(and often surprised as well), has been hurt and deals with
this perceived insult or injury by lashing back -- "an
eyeball for an eyeball" if you will.
2. Diminished-Defensive.
Another common reaction is to feel exposed; the presenter
didn't do as well as he or she thought or had hoped to do.
Feelings of failure, even some sense of shame, can get stirred,
especially for sensitive individuals or for those with low
thresholds for the release of self-critical inner voices.
This state of self-consciousness often has the person focusing
on his own deficiencies rather than the intentions, actions
and immaturities of this "bad news bearer."
3. Measured Response.
Based on my workshop experience, only a minority of participants
can honestly and effectively process their emotions - the
pain, the self-consciousness, the anger, the surprise if
not shock at such insensitivity, etc. - before constructively
speaking up or speaking out rather than lashing out or backing
down. In our follow-up, sometimes I hear, "Can you
be more specific as to what went wrong?" Now this reply
may well reflect a high level of professionalism. But with
many analytical responders I have my suspicions. Has the
recipient of this provocative feedback mostly suppressed
or denied any pain, anger or shame? I'll concede this conscious
or unconscious "logical" strategy might work with
an isolated aggressive confrontation. However, this "never
get angry, always try to work things out" approach
may well have codependent and self-defeating potential -
including an erosion of self-worth and/or learned helplessness
- when confronted by a series of provocatively hostile encounters.
Of course, some professionals have survived the customer
service wars and understand that a customer's crude anger
and irate displacement often has little to do with the immediate
object of their attack, i.e., the service representative.
These pros have built up a shield that seems to deflect
a barrage without becoming callous or combative. And with
their professional poise, the emotional has been quickly
transformed into the analytical or empathic: "What
seems to be the problem?" or "How can I be of
help?" My contention is that these experienced individuals
are able to process quickly and to focus the charged emotions
ignited by an attack into a response that is both empathic
and assertive. And when this poised response occurs even
in the face of an unexpected hostile encounter, then I tip
my hat to such a skillfully evolved and mature communicator.
4. Anxious Laughter.
A percentage of people are not able to get into the interaction.
For them the mind game is "unrealistic" or "silly."
And while the exercise may be seen as artificial, difficulty
with engagement may involve more than an inability to play
an "unreal" role. I believe the key resistance
factor is the discomfort handling - expressing and receiving
- the raw aggression at the heart of the exercise. Which
compels the asking of a question, no less critical for being
obvious.
Dynamics of Degenerate, Disloyal
or Dangerous Anger
Why are so many folks uncomfortable releasing and being
on the receiving end of another person's anger? Consider
these two broad differential factors:
a) coming from a highly controlling family
where a show of anger was seen as irrational, disrespectful,
uncivilized or a confirmation of emotional weakness, for
example, you allowed others to get to you (and your anger
is labeled as "mad, bad or sad," i.e., pathetic);
the parent viewed him- or herself as being self-sacrificing;
children who could not appreciate all that was done for
him or her (at the parent's expense, of course) were branded
disloyal and ridden with guilt; to survive in this system
children often had to swallow their anger and hide (and
stifle if not often lose their real self) in the anxious
family shadows and
b) coming from an out of control family
that typically deals with stress, frustration and pain
through yelling, hostile name calling or physical threats
and actual violence. Some individuals emerge from this
environment ashamed of their anger viewing themselves
as irrational or defective; they may fear almost any expression
of intense or highly charged emotions. Others worry that
if they release even a little anger there will be an irresistible
swelling of combustible emotion; they will become dangerously
explosive.
Finally, it's important to note that cultural
differences often come into play: some cultures extol obedience
and stoicism; emotional non-expressiveness is a sign of
superiority, expected subservience and being in control.
Other cultures seem to "let it all hang out."
In my job retraining workshops, in contrast to most of the
other Asian females participants, I recall how Chinese women
were more comfortable expressing themselves in public, including
venting their anger. Ironically, these women said China's
otherwise terribly destructive "Cultural Revolution"
influenced this process of gender liberation. Mao apparently
encouraged more equality between the sexes. (Perhaps not
unlike revered Coach Lombardi's notion of equality. As one
Green Bay packer noted, "He treated us all like dogs!")
Conversely, women from Moslem and some South American countries
noted the role status and expressive privileges denied them
but granted to men. Of course, a number of American women,
especially those with Southern roots, could also empathize
with these latter sisters.
So let's connect this digression on anger
with our "Boy did you fumble the data" mind game.
Obviously, in the face of harsh confrontation recognizing,
validating and managing your own charged emotions and then
expressing yourself constructively and convincingly are
critical. Channeling both anxiety and aggression often proves
key in disarming an interpersonal attack. Clearly, if throughout
childhood you are strongly discouraged from exercising your
assertive and expressive rights and are also prevented from
flexing and testing your emotional muscles and voices, you
will likely have difficulty knowing who you are and knowing
how to stand up for yourself.
The Critical Engagement
Here are key communication and conflict management Skills
and Strategies for Disarming a Dysfunctionally Critical
Combatant:
1. Distinguish Reaction and Response.
a. A reaction to an interpersonal attack
occurs when you feel hurt or vulnerable and you don't
take any time or meditation to process your emotions and
pain. You simply lash out with a counterattack, justified
of course. Or you may be stunned or wither or wriggle
away under such a startling barrage. This pattern reflects
a "fight or flight" survival instinct; your
mind-body engages in rapid threat vs. no threat data processing.
b. In contrast, a response involves a
slower, more comprehensive and discriminating processing
of interactive stimuli, that is, there is some assessment
of the aversive context, of one's own level of physiological
arousal and of one's memories or cognitive associations
stirred. Being responsive is also contingent on the belief
in having action-oriented, problem-solving options and
resources. A response includes some recognition of your
emotional needs along with some preliminary understanding
or sorting of the same. In other words, you are not just
operating from "threat or no threat." You are
taking some responsibility for your emotional reaction
by tempering reflex action with some cognition, and thereby
channeling verbal and nonverbal communication into a constructive
response.
In light of our exercise, consider
these different mind game replies:
Reaction: "You're
an a-hole!" Or, after being attacked, at times your
counter takes the form of a thinly disguised question, e.g.,
"What the hell is wrong with you!" or "Why
are you acting like such a jerk?" While there may be
some attempt not to be totally reflexive, these are mostly
"knee jerk" reactions.
Response: "Hey, I
don't like being attacked. Tone down" (or "Back
off"). Or this contrasting approach: "Let's try
this again, and this time be more specific and professional!"
Or if you are in fine form, perhaps this quip: "Let's
see if you can convince me that 'constructive criticism'
is not an oxymoron."
A Case Example and a Key Differential
Of course, some folks have difficulty with
this distinction. After a workshop at a family resort, a
participant (who was a trial judge) mentioned having to
deal daily with aggressive attorneys. He shared having liked
how I defused a potential power struggle with a "Type
A" antagonist. (Is there truth to the rumor that the
"A" in Type A stands for attorney?) The workshop
story: A number of years back, a woman who owned her own
word processing business had processed some of my documents.
An error in formatting had occurred and, in a decidedly
critical manner, she accused me of not knowing how to give
instructions. Likely there was a mutual misunderstanding.
In the face of this hostile fire, I was able to center myself
and firmly reply: "I'm not so sure," (thereby
allowing both sides some face-saving). However, I also raised
my right hand slightly, palm open, and thereby gave an obvious
message: "Enough of this all knowing hostility."
Clearly, I had taken some responsibility
for our misunderstanding but would not accept total blame,
nor would I accept being attacked. This tactical communication
allowed and encouraged my antagonist to lower her blaming
stance. She also acknowledged some responsibility, albeit
with a lingering attitude: "Well if there's a problem
in communication it takes two." My immediate reply:
"This I can live with." I wasn't trying to win,
to prove I was right and she was wrong. Also, another conscious
goal was to maintain a working relationship. Still, there
is a bottom-line moral: Attitude I can live with, hostile
attack or abuse is not acceptable. (Hey, if I had to stop
talking to all the egos in DC with attitude, I might as
well join a monastery.)
Alas, for some folks and certain encounters,
foregoing a reaction and going with a response is a real
trial! Getting back to our judicial authority, while being
impressed with my reply in the heat of battle, the judge
decided it needed some modification. His envisioned courtroom
counter: "I'm not so sure...you a-hole!" (We'll
soon clarify blaming "you" messages [reaction]
vs. affirming "I" messages [response].)
Another important differential between
"reaction" and "response" is that the
latter reveals a communicator who is not afraid or ashamed
to acknowledge experiencing some pain or vulnerability.
A responder doesn't have to cover a psychic insult or injury
with aggressive or passive-aggressive wounded pride. (A
classic example of a passive-aggressive and ego-protective
mannerism is the provocative reaction of "whatever,"
with rolling eyes or arched eyebrows.")
And finally, responding also involves the
capacity for discrimination and connection in the areas
of self-awareness and responsibility. (Look for an illustrative
encounter in Section 4.)
2. Distinguish Evoke and Provoke.
When you are hit by a toxic message, not surprisingly, you
often feel pain. In this upset state, both your logical
and psychological processing may falter. One sign of vulnerability
and excess subjectivity is the following reaction, whether
overt or just a gnawing rumination: "You made me upset"
or "You hurt me." And now you are in a victim
mode, often giving Mr. or Ms. Aggressor too much power and
too much responsibility.
In addition, you are missing an important
distinction between "evoke" and "provoke."
When confronted by a verbal attack painful feelings may
well be stirred or evoked. However, unless the aggressor
has hit you on the head with a bat (ouch!) this antagonist
alone hasn't made you feel terrible or humiliated. If verbal
criticism has you that upset, then other factors are likely
influencing the degree of experienced pain. (While names
may hurt, they can't break your psychic bones unless they
are already fairly brittle.)
A powerful factor, of course, is past emotional,
verbal and/or physical abuse. Certainly, as a child others
could readily make you upset -- "mad, scared or bad":
a rejecting or abandoning parent or significant relative,
an intimidating teacher or a taunting peer group. And many
folks have unresolved trauma from the prolonged tension
with a hostile partner in the context of a dysfunctional
relationship. With lurking emotions in the shadows, when
faced with a harsh encounter, many adults will regress to
state of child-like reactivity. Some will feel victimized,
while others will justify an impulsive and aggressive counterattack
with the self-righteous belief or declaration that they
have been provoked.
Parallel Distinctions and Connections
Let's further clarify the notion of being
attacked and feeling hurt in this "evoke-provoke"
arena. In contrast to blaming another's harsh criticism
for making you feel terrible (a definite reaction), with
awareness and self-integrity you can respond with, "I'm
upset right now" or "I'm angry" or "I
feel liked I'm being dumped on. I don't like it and won't
accept it!" Notice how it's hard to come off sounding
(or, perhaps, even feeling) like a victim when you counter
with a self-affirming (even when self-revealing) message.
Are you sensing the parallel connections
among our "r & r" components?
a) reaction - provoke - "You"
message b) response - evoke - "I" message
When you react impulsively, an external
force or factor has pushed you or made you strike out. A
lack of cognitive-emotive muscle is rarely seen as the problem.
Not surprisingly, a blaming "you" message is rarely
far behind, such as "You made me" or "It's
your fault." Conversely, when you sort out feelings
and/or sources of stress or pain and you take responsibility
for the nature of your response (with a self-affirming "I"
message) an aggressor often appears less threatening or
intimidating. He or she is being taken off the symbolic
"authority" pedestal.
Of course you can also internalize pain
and implode in neurotic fashion. Consider my lyrics from
"The Self-Righteous Rap":
Now are you a martyr in self-imposed
prison?
Denying your needs becomes heaven's vision.
When you've been hurt you just quietly pray
But wish you could scream go ahead make my day. (Pow.
Pow!)
Onward with our examination of the domain
of differential messaging and developing a skillset for
feeling more powerful in the face of conflict and for seeming
less like a pawn or like a furious man or woman scorned.
3. Replace Blaming "You"
Messages with Affirming "I"s. As you've
seen, blaming "You" messages turn over the cause
of and responsibility for psychic pain to the aggressor.
This exaggerates your perception of an attacker's power
and his or her "victor" status, while often evoking
a sense of "victim" humiliation. Or if the attack
is ongoing and not effectively countered, eventually helplessness
and/or a sense of incompetence may set in.
Of course, there are times when a so-called
righteous victim, feeling "dissed," lashes out
with hostile sarcasm, an entitled rant or with explosive
rage. These displays of fireworks are not simply righteous
retribution; they often are attempts to disguise narcissistic
injury or to, ironically, provide diversionary cover for
feelings of being out of control. Conversely, a common reaction
to attack is a wounded retreat accompanied by feelings or
defeat, exposure and/or inadequacy.
However, an honest and strategic use of
affirming "I" messages can short-circuit this
psychological and interpersonal downward - erosive or explosive
- spiral. One option is to firmly and clearly state your
thoughts and feelings, to declare what you are experiencing
without directly assigning blame:
a) "I feel attacked and I'm
starting to get angry"
b) "I don't like being addressed
in this manner"
Asserting your psychic and/or physical
boundary is also vital:
c) "I won't accept feedback
given in a hostile manner"
Or there are those four powerful words
that often have relevance for a multitude of sins, especially
when delivered with unflinching conviction:
d) "That is not okay! (Of course,
resisting the "you" message tagline, "you
bozo!")
A Stress Doc Encounter
Which brings me to an interpersonal conflict
vignette that posits a genuine and risky "I" message
counter strategy: can one be self-affirming and assertive
by honestly admitting pain, that is, by acknowledging that
the other has some power? For many, wounded pride and a
"damned if I'll let you win" (which means I'm
a loser) shame-driven, rigidly competitive mindset would
make such a response unthinkable. However, let's see how
I paradoxically used openness ultimately to set limits and
to affirm my boundary. Here's the condensed version.
During a workshop, a female accounting
supervisor at a social service agency had been singled out
for some criticism by a male casework supervisor. (Sufficient
discussion and closure had not been achieved.) At the follow-up
meeting I attempted to reengage the parties to see if there
were any hurt feelings or unresolved issues. The male supervisor
acknowledged his prior, overly blaming stance. The female
supervisor seemed to brush off curtly my attempt at further
processing. She mostly wanted to express her frustration
at the perceived lack of cooperation from other supervisors.
After awhile, we took a break. The accounting
supervisor was at the water fountain. I approached aware
that some folks don't like to bring up sensitive issues
in a group setting. I tactfully asked if she had any thoughts
or feelings from the aforementioned encounter (and subsequent
brief discussion) that she might want to share. She gave
me a glaring look and then practically spit out: "Boy,
you sure know how to talk things to death!"
Without warning, I had taken a blaming
"You" message punch in the psychic gut, if not
below the belt. After recoiling and catching my breath,
I managed to say: "In addition to wanting to check
in with you, I'm aware of your concerns about cooperation
with peers. And how important communication can be..."
Before I could finish she tried cutting
me off with a provocative, passive aggressive parting shot:
"Whatever."
The Critical Moment
Hey, you can hit me once, and I may still
try for some rational engagement; but you hit me twice and
I'm ready to fight. No longer shocked by her hostile style,
I could feel my aggressive juices starting to flow, if not
to boil. I mean, in this situation what would you really
like to say? For me the "b'-word comes to mind: "You
witch!" (I was always better at rhyming than spelling.)
Somehow my higher power descended and I
forcefully declared: "That hurts. I feel like I've
been stabbed in the back."
This woman, who was pretty introvertish
(an accountant remember), and not very assertive (or empathic),
didn't connect her dart-throwing tendencies when feeling
threatened with her difficulties with peers. Ironically,
she saw herself as more passive and put upon, if not a "victim."
She was in denial about her seemingly quiet yet intimidating
presence.
While I confronted her with the real possibility
that her cutting messages left people on edge, before completing
the confrontation, I managed somehow to give her a stroke:
"I don't think you realize how powerful you can be
as a communicator." This was a wise move. By both confronting
her "back stabbing" while providing some salve
with this "positive" ego stroke, I allowed her
to save some face. I finally got her attention. She was
ready to hear my strong hunch that there was a real connection
between her communication style and her colleagues' lack
of cooperation. And in fact, she was a much more involved
and constructive participant for the remainder of the session.
Final message and moral: In a forceful
or dramatic fashion ("I feel like I've been stabbed
in the back") you can admit the pain of an attack ("That
hurts") without projecting a so-called weakness, whether
in the antagonist's mind or in your own. You have not compromised
your self; you have not diminished an ability to confront
and potentially resolve conflict. In fact, as you've just
seen, "I" message acknowledgement lays the groundwork
for a more specific and strategic response that provides
both affirming protection and the disarming of an aggressor's
style and tactics.
Closing Summary
This first of a two-part series has examined the impact
of a "mind game" involving the delivery of a harshly
critical and judgmental message. Various defensive reactions
and a mature response were noted. Using quotes and case
vignettes, three vital and oppositional concepts were related:
"reaction vs. response," "evoke vs. provoke"
and "I vs. you messages." And finally, skills
and strategies were illustrated for transforming reactive,
righteous and responsibility-shifting messages with aware,
affirming and assertive responses.
Part II will continue with this list of
concepts, skills and strategic responses. The final four:
a) Learn to Metacommunicate
b) Does the Critic Have an Agenda?
c) Take a Time Out and
d) Verbal and Nonverbal Mix of Communication Strategies
Clearly, these are concepts and approaches
for setting effective limits, acknowledging one's integrity
and affirming one's boundaries. These are also tools and
techniques for...Practicing Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, LICSW, "The Stress Doc"
-, is an internationally recognized speaker and syndicated
writer on stress, anger management, reorganizational change,
team building and HUMOR! The Doc was recently featured on
CBS TV's Newspath segment -- Workplace Violence -- and in
Biography Magazine. He is America Online's "Online Psychohumorist"
- leading a weekly chat group for AOL/Digital City -- http://www.digitalcity.com/washington/stressdr.
(Keyword: Stress Doc.) Check out his USA Today Online "HotSite"
- www.stressdoc.com.
For more info, email stressdoc@aol.com
or call 202-232-8662. |
