The Stress Doc Letter
Cybernotes from the Online Psychohumorist ™
JAN 2004, SEC. II
Main Essay:
Using a workshop exercise involving harsh performance criticism as a starting
point, the Stress Doc examines common reactions to a hostile attack. Then
techniques and strategies are outlined and illustrated for transforming a
defensive reaction into affirming and effective response.
Disarming a Critical Aggressor:
Part I
Awareness, Assertion and Affirmation Techniques and Strategies
"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. And the most
mature responders work at becoming aware of the interactional context as well as
being conscious of, if not sensitive to, the other's strengths and
vulnerabilities. Still, in some conflict situations, not simply empathy but
"strategic empathy" is the emotionally intelligent response.
To summarize, as a responder 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 of self, other and communicational
context. This processing enables you to channel verbal and nonverbal
communication into a response that is both constructive and reflects your
integrity.
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 feeling that I'm being attacked. Can you
lower the tone (or the volume)?" 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 to help you...Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, LICSW, "The
Stress Doc" ™, a
keynote and international/Celebrity Cruise Lines motivational speaker, training
consultant, psychotherapist, syndicated writer, and author of Practice Safe
Stress: Healing and Laughing in the Face of Stress, Burnout & Depression.
Mark, recently interviewed by BBC Radio, has a multi-award-winning, USA Today
Online "HotSite" --
www.stressdoc.com -- cited as workplace resource in a National Public Radio
feature. As AOL's "Online Psychohumorist," ™ Mark runs his weekly Shrink Rap
and Group Chat. Finally, Mark is an advisor to The Bright Side ™ --
www.the-bright-side.org
-- a multi-award winning mental
health resource. Email for his monthly newsletter recently showcased on List-a-Day.com.For
more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs, email stressdoc@aol.com
or call 202-232-8662.
(c) Mark Gorkin 2004
Shrink Rap ™
Productions