The Stress Doc Letter
Cybernotes from the Online Psychohumorist ™
Fight when you can
Take flight when you must
Flow like a dream
In the Phoenix we trust!
Main
Essay:
[This is a three-part series. Due to its length, the entire series is an
attachment. Part II is "A Multi-“P” Pathway for Inner and Outer Peace and
Performance Power: Engaging and Transforming Pressure,
Practice-Patience, Possibility and Puzzlement" and Part III is "A Multi-'P'
Pathway for Personal Peace and Performance Power: Defining and Developing Team
Partners, Partnerships and Paradoxical Leadership."]
Expanding the Stress Response through an Organic/Poetic Mindset: Part I
“Fight and Flight” and “Freeze and Flow”
According to the leaders of a two day conference on “alternative health,”
language is foundational for framing the essence of health and illness. For
example, the workshop leaders were uncomfortable with the use of the word
“stress” regarding the human condition. Stress, of course, was first defined as
a property of metals, specifically an ability to withstand tension. For the
instructors, stress terminology turns the body into a machine, something that
can then be operated upon and repaired. With a mechanical mindset, however, the
essence of the individual as a living organism is easily lost. The human
capacity for natural growth and innate healing when mind-body-spirit and the
relationship with nature are in harmony can too easily be bypassed or
undervalued. Before the mid-20th century takeover by “stress” terminology, the
much more human notion of “grief” captured the tensions, trials and tribulations
and “sadder yet wiser” triumphs or, at least, “growing pains” of everyday life.
Of course “stress” and “grief” do not have to be mutually exclusive. Despite a
moniker of “Stress Doc” ™, as a person who has known the highs and lows of mania
and melancholia, the language of grief has spoken to me for many decades. I
have worked diligently to cultivate a voice that conveys the depths (and
darkness) of soul as well as a light and enlightened sensibility. And I’ve even
reached for that elusive soaring spirit. Consider these haiku-like lines penned
years ago for an article on burnout:
For the Phoenix to rise from the ashes
One must know the pain…
To transform the fire to burning desire!
In contrast to the myriad metaphors and possibilities of poetry, the language of
labeling, especially with diagnostic intention -- he’s manic-depressive, she’s
ADD -- often places a person in a categorical box, limiting the range of human
perception and human potential, i.e., restricting the breadth and depth of how
others see the person as well as how the individual sees him- or herself.
Again, the notion that something fundamental gets lost in translation when
replacing an organic perspective with one too mechanical, categorical or
abstract was captured in a quote shared by one of the instructors. (I don’t
recall the actual source.):
Where is the life we have lost in living?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Conversely, there is the liberating quality of language when it allows us, to
paraphrase the 20th century Nobel Prize winning chemist and physicist, Albert
Szent-Gyorgyi, to see what everyone else has seen and to think what no one
else has thought.
Using Natural and Liberating Language to Expand the Stress Response Framework
My goal is to craft a language that expands adaptation possibilities, especially
in our 24/7, “do more with less” seemingly spinning scarily out of control
world. For example, can expanding our conception of the stress concept help
transform a hazardous landscape into a more purposeful, productive and peaceful
mindscape? Actually, a key concept from the original “stress response” lexicon
helps us evolve a richer connection between mind, body and nature. Most are
familiar with the Darwinian-like survival notion of “fight or flight.” Now
consider the addition of another seemingly oppositional pairing – “freeze and
flow.” Let me define these terms in such a way that the enlarged stress
response framework allows you to go from survival coping to more creative
adaptation, encouraging your individual mind-body-spirit to develop and express
its natural gifts and talents.
“Fight or Flight” and “Freeze or Flow” Framework
1. Fight or Flight. This survival pairing begins with a disposition to
evaluate a stimulus/situation in terms of the level of perceived threat or
demand. (Part of the evaluated gestalt includes internal stimuli such as
physiological arousal and muscle tension.) When creatures (human or otherwise)
believe they have the resources to manage or cope with the challenge then there
is a tendency to engage these external stressors. Of course, sometimes one must
stand and fight, even when outnumbered, as retreat – objectively or not (and the
not/knot is often a wounded ego) – is dismissed as an option. Also, a strong
sense of loyalty or outrage at an injustice or threats to vital freedoms may
trigger a “one life to give for my country” mentality. Or despite the option
for retreat, one decides to give (or potentially give up) one’s life for the
greater good of the group or larger society, or to sacrifice for some
ideological ideal. The range of examples includes an individual soldier
shielding a wounded comrade with his body to, alas, a fanatical suicide bomber.
Then again, facing no imminent or meaningful threat that must be immediately
addressed, an individual may decide to walk away saving his or her energy for a
more important battle.
Conversely, when a challenge seems overwhelming, confusing or beyond one’s
resource capacity for active engagement a desire or instinct for survival
compels movement away from the external hazard, sometimes immediately, other
times after some wear and tear. (And overstaying a “no-win” situation may well
be a formula for burnout.) At times a sense of relief is immediate. Of course,
retreat may be associated with a sense of failure and shame. In either scenario
the individual lives to potentially rehabilitate, rejuvenate and/or strategize
anew and possibly fight another day.
So flight may well lay the ground for future fight. Remember, taking “flight”
does not only mean “running away.” It also may connote blasting off or soaring,
for example with an idea. Of course, when not tempered with some down to earth
pragmatism, many a high flyer has crashed and burned. This brings us to our
second double-edged pairing.
2. Freeze or Flow. In terms of survival, one association to “freeze” is a
“deer in the headlights” sense of panic and paralysis. Clearly, this can be a
maladaptive coping reaction. However, I want to focus on another conception.
Freeze can involve being set in space-time which, from a problem solving
standpoint, may mean being deeply immersed or absorbed in a difficult or thorny
situation. A cool down period encourages pausing and pondering, perhaps akin to
repeating and replaying an action in slow motion. Also, one freezes an item to
sustain its longevity or viability for future use. Bringing these two
perspectives together reveals a notion of “freeze” that transcends existence or
endurance. A capacity for the freeze response, for pausing in place, staying
engrossed, immune to (or hibernating from) outside distraction, while
cultivating silent yet active gestation, may allow for the incubation of an
intuitive and uncommonly deep understanding of and imaginative response to a
critical challenge. A vital analogy comes from the rhythms of nature: the
thawing of barren, dark, seemingly interminable hidden winter sows the ground
for life’s dynamic flow and flowering into fertile spring.
So let’s creatively flow. Clearly, flow goes beyond the survival response and
into the realm of thriving and an accompanying sense of joy. In a flow state
the individual typically engages a situation that is optimally stimulating and
challenging. The threat or demand is usually somewhat beyond the person’s
problem solving repertoire; the challenge does not feel overwhelming. However,
because of previous practice and experience one carries a basic sense of
confidence and competence; uncertainty is more intriguing or exhilirating than
anxiety producing. Or, because the person in the situation has an overall sense
of control, paradoxically, he or she is comfortable “letting go” or being “out
of control.” And similar to the positive “freeze” state, being lost in the
moment may erase a sense of time and place, sometimes even yielding an
ineffable, out of body sensation or a sense of holistic connection with the
cosmos. (Consider this yin-yang “oppositional” possibility: freeze, as in a
deep immersion experience, suddenly triggers an “Aha!” which then naturally
leads to problem-solving or performance flow.) Whether experiencing “good
stress,” an “adrenaline rush,” a “peak experience” or Zen-like serenity,
depending on the situational challenge-context your mind-body-spirit translation
often becomes, “Being psyched,” “Bring it on,” “In the zone,” “Mystical moment”
or “Go with the flow.”
Bringing It All Together
Personally, my imaginative and innovative best rarely emerges from just “fight
or flight” or “freeze or flow.” Creativity usually involves both pairs of
seemingly yin-yang-like stress adaptation responses: I experience a
simultaneous interaction or, perhaps more accurately, a purposeful and
passionate and even playful and graceful grappling with the seemingly
contradictory states of “fight and flight” along with “freeze and flow.”
And there’s precedent for such a multi-faceted conjunction. For example, the
19th century father of American Public Education, the pragmatic philosopher,
John Dewey, captured the potential of such a contradictory and contentious
spirit, with his complex valuing of “conflict”:
Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stimulates 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.
So this nexus of seemingly oppositional stress response energy I call the
“fertility” point.
Ergo, my formula for being more productive, fruitful and abundant:
Fertility = “Fight and Flight” & “Freeze and Flow”
Productive Procrastination: Can There Really be Life after Deadlines?
Let me close with a personal example whereby grappling with the tension brought
on by the paradoxical pairs of “F”s opened up the creative floodgates. The
post-traumatic memory involves writing two-minute "Stress Brake" health features
for local and syndicated radio. Time was running out on my week's quota. The
studio taping was less than 24 hours away. I'd been stuck for a couple of
days. No idea seemed fresh; no passion was flowing. The anxiety was mounting.
When finally, it hit me. The pass in the impasse. I would write a
personal piece on writer's block. Now the creative juices flowed: "Don't Clock
the Writer's Block or Premature Impatience Will Sow Creative Impotence." (In
those olden days I was into big titles. I remember one piece on burnout called,
"Breaking Out of a Hell of a Shell or Don't Feel Too Sorry for Humpty Dumpty...He
Needed to Hit Bottom.")
Okay, I'm pumped; only feeling slightly claustrophobic. The adrenalin is
surging. Will I do it in one take? Take a breath. Stay focused. I'm looking
at the engineer. His head is nodding ever so slightly. Suddenly, he gives me
the finger...
When trying to write, do you ever stare at a blank page or blank screen that
seems the perfect mirror of your blank mind? Your teeth start gnashing and
you're into heavy breathing. But it's only a false labor...There's no birth of
new ideas.
Why can't writing be a race, ideas blasting from inner space with bursts of
brilliance and subtle grace? Ha! For me, that starting block is a mental block
building to a wall of frustration. It's the test of time. Will banging my head
against the wall sooner produce a breakdown than a breakthrough?
Fortunately, I'm hardheaded. Eventually, the wall and my brain will have a
meeting of the mind. Concrete ideas and bits of information and imagery will
become fertile chips off the old writer's block. Can I avoid ambitious
false starts and just dabble with my mental fragments? Can I play my chips into
an outline, a puzzle or a kaleidoscopic pattern and explore sequences,
combinations and designs?
What happens if I freely associate with my mind and body? Might I discover a
heart that sings and a mind that dances? Will this unlock my writer's block?
Aha!
A penny for your thoughts
but a dime for a rhyme
that allows me to climb
from the base to the sublime.
Suddenly, an old voice questions: "Do you know where you're going?" "Probably
not. But I do know how to get there"...with feedback! Will I now submit this
verse and prose to friends and foes? They may bite my hand, but I usually get
back more than I feed them.
I think it's time to sleep on all this. Maybe a script will come to me
tomorrow.
Closing Summary
Language clearly makes a difference in our conception of health and specifically
whether our perspective on stress has a balance between the mechanical and the
organic. First, by increasing the stress response from “fight and flight” to
also include “freeze and flow” you expand adaptation possibilities. Second, by
capturing the natural properties of these terms and by allowing them to interact
in space-time, productive and imaginative tension is generated and the final
stress response “f”-word comes into play: “fertility.” And there even may be
“life after deadlines!” Here’s a framework both for semantic and creative
resourcefulness and a formula to help one and all…Practice Safe Stress!
A Multi-“P” Pathway for Inner and Outer Peace and Performance Power: Part II
Engaging and Transforming Pressure, Practice-Patience, Possibility and Puzzlement
Part I, “Expanding the Stress Response through an Organic/Poetic Mindset,” presented my expansion of the traditional “fight or flight” stress response to include the possibility for “freeze or flow.” The additional options, especially when the exclusive “or” is replaced with the inclusive “and” – yielding “fight and flight” and “freeze and flow” – transform survival coping into creative problem solving and uncommon adaptation. My formula: Fertility = “Fight and Flight” & “Freeze and Flow”.
Armed with a paradoxical pair of stress responses and the “Fertility Formula”,” here are some specific definitions, concepts and skills for turning an expanded stress response framework into fiery and focused, flexible and fertile problem solving and presentation. Consider the “Multi-‘P’ Pathway for Inner and Outer Peace and Performance Power”:
1. Pressure. Similar to the notion of crisis as a decisive period of “danger and opportunity,” pressure is double-edged. According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, there is an encumbering or constricting aspect of pressure: “the burden of physical or mental distress: the oppression of adversity, grief…” along with “the constraint of circumstance: the weight of social or economic imposition.” However, there is also a focusing and motivating component of pressure: “the operation of a factor urging toward commitment or decision” as well as “the stress or urgency of matters deserving attention: exigency (and) obligation.”
The challenge then becomes learning to transform that half empty pressure glass into one that is at least half full. One way of achieving this operational reframe is to channel one source of pressure – “fear” – into the aforementioned “focus” and to recognize the often reciprocal relationship between fear and “fantasy.”
a. Fear into Focus. The key step is learning to “freeze” with the fear; that is, not to panic, but to sit, albeit uncomfortably, with the emotion long enough to sort out the rational (what is a reasonable expectation) from the irrational (that is, when any threatening prospect, however unlikely, induces paralysis, rigidity, perseveration or hyper-reaction). Sometimes the sorting process occurs through solitary contemplation; often times, conversation or consultation is required for the needed head- and heart-opening TLC: “Tender Loving Criticism” and “Tough Loving Care.”
b. Fear and Fantasy (Mediated by Fruitful Failure). Many seem to overlook the reality that what we fear is also what we often secretly (or not so secretly) desire. When you recognize this connection there’s greater opportunity for pursuing your dreams…If: (1) If you can embrace your “Intimate FOE: Fear of Exposure,” perhaps by differentiating natural embarrassment (which is universal) from neurotic humiliation (which tends to be more personal; for a relevant essay, “Confronting Your Intimate FOE: Transforming Fear of Exposure into the Fun of Embarrassment,” email stressdoc@aol.com) and (2) If failure is not used as an noun but as an active verb, that is, failing makes you less of a “loser” and is more a hard-earned experience builder, that is, rich understanding often results when fantasy and imagination are blended, honed or tempered with more “down to earth” or “growing pains” knowledge and practice. (For example, see the 1960s cultural icon, The Phantom Tollbooth). And with increased awareness, failure potentially is a transitional bridge between your current position and your future aspiration. As I once penned:
Errors of judgment or design rarely consign one to a level of
incompetence; they more
likely reveal inexperience or immaturity, perhaps even boldness.
Our so-called failures
may be channeled as guiding streams (okay, sometimes raging rivers)
of opportunity
and experience that often enrich – widen and deepen – the
risk-taking passage. If we
can just immerse ourselves in these invariably roiling yet
ultimately rejuvenating waters.
2. Practice-Patience. The “alternative health” instructors mentioned in Part I provided and stimulated some useful reframes for both saving face and for tapping into the growth potential of “failure.” Try letting go of “all or none” and “now or never” thinking and language when evaluating performance, whether it’s your own or another’s. For example, upon falling short on a significant test or a task, consider these three strategic steps:
a) Examining Expectations. You do not have to be a Buddhist to know that rigid expectations and egoals (when you are driven more by oversized yet insecure ego needs rather than the ostensible goal) usually underlie unnecessary stress and suffering. Of course, marinate (if not meditate) for awhile in your stew of disappointment. Truly appreciate that learning from failure as much as success seasons both substance and style, creatively spicing future problem solving and performance recipes,
b) Avoiding Judgments. Try stepping outside the “good-bad” or “winner-loser” mindset. For example, it’s not that you are not good at public speaking or (in my case) at hitting a consistent backhand. It’s that we are not properly tutored and/or not sufficiently or strategically practiced, and
c) Valuing Time and Deliberate Dalliance. Clearly, some complex learning curves will require revised expectations, including a suspension of impatient, negative judgments (or at least lowering the disapproving voice volume. Growing pains learning will be difficult enough without unnecessary self-flagellation). In addition, time frames often need to be elongated for achieving uncommonly productive or imaginative outcomes. Complex problem solving often requires breaking up the puzzle and deliberately familiarizing yourself with each of the pieces or skills necessary for novel performance, for putting it all together or for doing your best. And even the word “best” is increasingly subjective and subject to change. Personally, I’m gradually realizing that targeted and repeated skill development along with no wine before its time” patience is usually required for a full flowering in both the realms of work and love. Hmmm…maybe the phrase “slow learner” should not be weighted down with so many negative assumptions.
Work and Love Revelations
For example, five years ago, I would have called myself an overall excellent presenter. Yet, despite having more than twenty years in the field (though, until the last few years on a part-time basis), I had no idea how much I still needed to grow professionally as a speaker and workshop leader. As a public figure, my greatest need was learning to be less self-centered, to not overly obsess about getting in all the “essential” information (that is, essential from my biased, “in love with my pearls” perspective). Learning to leave stuff out instead of stuffing more in transformed the response to my performance. By steadily shifting the focus balance onto the audience’s needs and desires I became a more conscious and consistent “orchestra leader,” helping others work and play together to bring out their best music. Not surprisingly, increased practice, that is, more time and opportunity for turning trial and error into trial and teamwork (including the audience and me as a team or partnership), was the difference maker.
There was also a parallel need for change in the personal relationship realm: to get outside my bachelor self and evolve as a more attentive, less judgmental and responsive and, yes, say the “d”-word – “domesticated” – partner. With my father’s aggressive salesman Type A genes, learning to be more patient, in certain areas, will be an ongoing challenge. In addition, this senior’s better late than never, school of hard knocks appreciation for a “good enough” blend of hormonal fantasy and humbling reality – who knew I had so many interpersonal flaws and foibles? – has had a lot to do with finding and working at genuine intimacy and, so far, (knocking on my oak desk) lasting romantic friendship. (P.S. for Erich Segal: While love may mean, “Never having to say you’re sorry,” au contraire for sustaining a loving partnership.)
So there’s often adaptation advantage in needing to evolve; perfection usually terminates lifelong listening, learning and loving. And hopefully, these practice and patience reframes will foster the growing process by quieting those critical – inner or significant other – voices still polluting the personal mindscape. And less inner static means more sensitive and accurate outer reception as well as empathically informed transmission. How about “Retreat-Reflect-Rebuild-Return” as a worthy learning complement to the academically popular “Four ‘R’s?”
3. Possibility. Another judgmental pairing that frequently oversimplifies an understanding of the mix of factors and forces underlying conflict and complex problem solving is a hard and fast determination of “right or wrong.” Certainly, there are exceptions to this premise; in the course of history, for example, there have been too many examples of unmitigated malevolence. Closer to home, it can be quite difficult to make sense of child abuse without demonizing the perpetrator. (The prefix “perp” itself makes it difficult not to transmute a basic synonym of “perpetrator” – “doer” – into “evil doer.”) However, when engaging human issues and social system dynamics, accounting for shadings of gray and situational context often proves more illuminating than premature, one-sided or absolute certainty. Not surprisingly, “black or white” thinking often polarizes points of view. Though religious maxims, for me, tend to be a bit superficial (and often moralistically “right or wrong”) regarding the complexity of human motivation, “Hate the sin, love the sinner,” does manage to extol simultaneously being judgmental and forgiving. (My concern is that absolute terms like “hate” and “love” may preclude truly trying to understand deeply and hold accountable appropriately, for example, both the individual and family players in this abuse drama.)
So how can you break out of this “right or wrong” box? One approach gleaned from the “alternative health” workshop involves embracing the idea of “possibility.” Consider these “Three Possibility Perspectives”:
a) Field of Dialogue (and Maybe Dreams). Possibility suggests moving out beyond “the ideas of right doing and wrong doing.” Can you meet the other person in that field where curiosity and suspension of belief nurture dialogue and even the sharing of dreams? And even if the goals are not so lofty, in a potentially heated disagreement, a tempered response of, “That’s possible; you might be seeing something that I’m missing,” will likely cool rising blood pressure and help an antagonist save face.
b) Wider Circles of Understanding. A “what’s possible” mindset encourages “here-and-now” exploration and experimentation while also stimulating individual imagination and envisioning unimaginable futures. (Might we not dub President-elect Barack Obama our “Mr. Possibility” poster guy?) Such a mind sees opportunity during conflict, for example, when an initial thesis is being contested by its opposite or antithesis. Creative tension challenges the fluid individual to rub and relate anew the seemingly contradictory positions to generate a spark of insight, potentially shedding light on a novel or overlooked vantage point or illuminating a higher order synthesis. To illustrate, years back a federal court division was beginning to automate its information processing systems. Management had mandated changes without seeking input from those professionals impacted most directly. Not surprisingly, the employees were implementing the system in fits and starts. Management was crying “employee resistance” and considering punitive measures. However, these leaders were downplaying the aversive impact when employees are kept out of the decision-making loop – a loss of control, perceived loss of professional respect (not being asked for input despite operating daily in the trenches), uncertainty about new expectations and procedures, potential loss of face, etc. Reframing employee behavior less as resistance and more as a grief experience, thus widening our circle of psychosocial understanding, laid the ground for an outrageous possibility: “Let’s have a forms funeral!” Allowing all parties to express hurt, anger and/or remorse about one-dimensional decision-making enabled a division to outline bipartisan steps and instill a synergistic esprit de corps for: a) effectively implementing operational change and b) encouraging future collaborative processing.
c) Creative Breakdown. The above vignette illustrates that sometimes procedure, practice and/or policy must breakdown or reach a crisis point before one can let go of conventional assumptions or dysfunctional operations and find or design “the pass in the impasse.” In closing, consider the words of the acclaimed 20th century French-Algerian author-philosopher, Albert Camus: “Once we have accepted the fact of loss, we understand that the loved one [including a cherished belief] obstructed a whole corner of the possible pure now as a sky washed by rain.”
4. Puzzlement. The popular ‘60s author and mystic, Carlos Castenada, believed the true warrior saw life less in terms of personal victory or defeat and more in terms of challenges to be engaged. In a similar spirit of ego detachment, though using less aggressive and more reflective imagery, there may be advantages in viewing change and conflict not as a critical problem to be immediately fixed or controlled but as a puzzle to be pondered and played with. (Perhaps Casteneda’s frame provides the “Yang” or active mode of problem-solving while I’m posing a “Yin” or receptive mode. As an advocate of holism, both are needed.) A puzzle often tests or encourages ingenuity, patience and mental effort. And a perspective, if not a philosophy, of puzzlement not only stimulates resourcefulness or inventiveness but it may cultivate uncommon accomplishment.
Increasingly experts in the field of high performance learning view long term engagement, study of specific performance related issues and obstacles, experiment, repeated trial and error, continuous doodling and noodling, etc. as the foundation of genuine mastery and a prerequisite for realizing talent or genius. Malcolm Gladwell, the author of the recent best-seller, The Turning Point, cites in his new work, The Outliers, the proverbial “10,000 hours” of purposeful practice required for becoming a true expert or master in a complex field. He notes that while Mozart was composing symphonies as a child, they were not very good. It wasn’t till his early twenties that the masterworks began to flow. What all masters possess is a passion and persistence to turn fields of keen interest into seemingly never ending, interlocking and ever-expanding puzzles and stages for strategic practice and performance. And even when a challenge or barrier feels more problematic and daunting than perplexing, (and deliberate practice itself is often painful) there still is a feeling of “constructive discontent.” Such individuals transform life’s pressures and problems into both short-term and long-term arenas for pondering and playing along with practicing and pursuing fanciful and pragmatic possibilities. Enriching one’s perspectives and paradigms is the essence of a “Philosophy of Puzzlement.” And such an evolutionary process and such an evolved person do not occur in absolute seclusion.
Closing Summary
Building on the paradoxical pair of stress responses – “fight and flight” and “freeze and flow” -- and the resultant “Fertility Formula,” Part II provides specific definitions, illustrations and skills related to Pressure, Practice-Patience, Possibility and Puzzlement. These “P”s are concepts and tools for turning an expanded stress response framework into fiery and focused, flexible and fertile adaptation. Finally, Part III will illuminate the final piece of the “Multi-‘P’ Pathway for Inner and Outer Peace and Performance Power” puzzle – “Partnership.”
The concept of a team of partners, emphasizing "mutual cooperation and
responsibility while working toward shared and specific goal(s)" is illustrated
along with key characteristics of the Triple "A" of professional responsibility,
empowerment and vital partnership. Finally, a managers meeting vignette
highlights the paradoxical potential for vital leadership when a team partner
shares his vulnerability.
A
Multi-'P' Pathway for Personal Peace and Performance Power -- Part III
Defining and Developing Team Partners, Partnerships and Paradoxical Leadership
Part II focused on a variety of concepts and skills that help transform the
traditional stress-related coping response into creative adaptation. My
"Fertility" Formula: "Fight and Flight" + "Freeze and Flow." Learning to
harness Pressure, Practice-Patience, Possibility and Puzzlement are keys for
discovering and designing the "Multi-'P' Pathway for Personal Peace and
Performance Power" puzzle. Now for the final piece: "Partnership."
Let's begin by defining our terms. What does it mean to be a partner and what
constitutes a meaningful partnership? In the broadest sense, a "partner is a
person who shares or is associated with another in some action or endeavor;
there is a sphere of common interest." And a "partnership is a relationship
between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and
responsibility for the achievement of a specified goal" (American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition).
Actually, I'd like to examine the relationship of individuals in a group,
specifically the interactive realm of team relationships. And I want to change
the common nomenclature. Typically, being part of a team makes you a team
member or a team player. The former phrasing (especially focusing on the
italicized word) conveys a sense of being an "affiliate" or an abstract
"component" while the word "player," even in a team context, highlights
individual "performance" or the ambiguous notion of a "participant." Such word
usage misses a critical component of effective teams. The above definition of
"partnership" emphasizes mutual cooperation and responsibility while working
toward shared and specific goal(s). To my mind, this perspective invites
employing an enriched and dynamic team concept: team partner! (Of course, many
law firms have used the terminology of senior and junior partners to reinforce
in-house status and financial divisions if not divisiveness; and this collection
of differentiated partners certainly has not prevented -- actually, has
frequently encouraged -- legal sectional warfare. Alas, law firms too often
regress from a "team of rivals" into an adversarial pack of enemies, doing as
much damage in the boardroom as the courtroom. Still, such questions about the
degree of actual and functional firm partnership do not mean the terms "partner"
and "partnership" have been irreparably contaminated across the organizational
board.)
Naturally, just because we have a mostly shiny new concept doesn't mean
traditional obstacles are not strewn along the team partnering/team building
path. In fact, I wish to highlight one challenging aspect of the partnership
definition - the word "responsibility." Years back I conceived of the "Triple
'A' of Individual and Organizational Responsibility": Authority, Autonomy and
Accountability. In the simplest terms and within an institutional context, the
"Triple A" suggests that top management needs to allow and encourage all levels
of employees to exercise their professional authority and autonomy to the best
of the individual's abilities and experience. And hopefully, these initiators
will only be constrained (and also guided) organizationally by legitimate and
necessary practices, priorities and policies. (Alas, I can see some of you
derisively shaking your heads.) At the same time, the application of legitimate
"authority and autonomy" requires the assessment of performance and partnership
behaviors and actions of individuals and organizational systems -- teams,
branches, divisions, companies, etc. -- by meaningful accountability
guidelines. Finally, the "Triple A" influences recognition and rewards as well
as corrective consequences. Building on the above, let's review Five Keys of
Triple "A" - "Authority, Autonomy and Accountability Responsibility" - or
"Professional Empowerment":
a) Employ Strengths -- individuals need to apply their knowledge and
skillset, while being given the time and meaningful if not inspiring coaching
and training to experiment and to learn from mistakes; team partnerships should
maximize opportunities for using a partner's strengths, providing chances for
project leadership (even as a non-senior partner), etc.,
b) Support Vulnerabilities -- through formal or informal coaching or
mentoring, vital partnerships try to help a partner acknowledge and work on
vulnerabilities or strengthen skillset gaps; also a team partner's strengths in
a particular role or realm often will compensate or cover for (though not cover
up) another's vulnerabilities,
c) Take Initiative/Make Decisions -- exercising authority and autonomy
also means taking appropriate initiative and making decisions (sometimes
independently, sometimes in partnership) in various "high task and high touch"
roles,
d) Be Accountable -- all organizational members - both individuals and
teams - should be accountable for decisions made and actions taken through
genuine and real give and take discussion; people need to be guided by clear
goals and objectives (unless in exploratory mode) and motivated by high yet
reasonable performance benchmarks along with being answerable to a higher
authority. Regarding the latter,
e) Answer to Ethical People/Policies -- professionals need to be
accountable to a knowledgeable and ethical manager/management team and to an
ethical and legitimate standard of policy and procedures, rules and
regulations. (Obviously, recent economic events show how elusive it can be to
create a viable Triple "A" mix. Alas, this article will not get into the
spiritual notion of "higher authority," which may be unfortunate, as many on
Wall Street and Main Street believe that the only option left is to pray. Of
course, an increasing number of the economic "elite," enabled by the powers that
be, continue to script their own self-love story: financial parasites never
have to say they are sorry when protected by a "Bailout for Bozos!" Don't you
occasionally wish these Masters of the Universe would take some 1930s
responsibility and go airborne: come on you invincible high tech high flyers;
the least you can do is prove to us mere mortals that leaping from a window is
not a dying art form.)
Some Small Steps for Triple "A" Partnership Building: Case Example
Enough of my ranting. Let's highlight some key psychological and interpersonal
dynamics that impact "Triple 'A' Empowerment" and that must be engaged to build
an authentic and effective collection of team partners - the polar issues of:
a) initiator-follower, b) self-responsibility-blame, c) openness-vulnerability
and d) authority status-group interdependence. Let me illustrate by sharing
some powerful group process during a team building session with the managers and
the director of a federal agency division. Some background: many of the
managers believed the division head, Joe, was not sufficiently clear or direct
in stating his expectations. Joe, in turn, didn't want to micromanage and
expected his leaders to take more initiative. In truth, some of Joe's management
style reflected discomfort in handling conflict. And frequently, difference and
disagreement triggered angry accusations from many of the group members. Three
key goals of the team building sessions were to:
a) reduce any unnecessary authority division between Joe and his managers that
might impede open and honest sharing,
b) allow for real yet respectful conflict; help folks realize that "Difference
and Disagreement does not equal Disapproval and Disloyalty" and that
constructively handling conflict helps build trust, and
c) generate a sense of peer participation and responsibility (i.e., a team of
productive partners) for management team success.
Also, unexpectedly, a last minute partner possibility and leadership challenge
emerged: how acknowledging vulnerability and the need for team support may
ironically be a powerful leadership and partnership building tool.
With this overview, let's examine a small yet meaningful slice of interaction.
A task group of managers were charged with consolidating a broad list of ideas
regarding the primary purposes of their routine management meetings. The
unwieldy list had been generated the previous week by the entire group. The
task group's verbal report back involved a level of specificity that was proving
frustrating to a number in the audience. (This process corresponded to an
obstacle to effective meetings raised the prior week: getting bogged down in
unnecessary detail and not making decisions.) However, no one was raising an
objection. I finally called on Dave, who had been silent, which for him was not
uncommon. But for me he was noticeably quiet. Dave was clearly ambivalent;
body language and facial expressions fairly shouted he had something to say, but
he was reluctant to do so. (Ironically, I later discovered in talking with Dave
that his tendency to hold back is both due to some shyness and to a fear that if
he does risk giving feedback, he will come across in an overly aggressive
manner. Parenthetically, Dave is a volunteer coach in a women's teen basketball
league.)
With my encouragement, Dave appropriately spoke of his frustration with the
report detail and how here-and-now meeting time was being "wasted." (I later
rephrased his somewhat harsh judgment as, "time not being spent wisely.")
Dave's sharing freed others to voice their concern. There was some intense
discussion between the different camps. Eventually consensus and a decision
were reached. Perhaps most noteworthy, one of the task members observed that,
"This was the first time as a group that we were able to engage in real conflict
without it degenerating into a negative, blaming experience."
However, I wish to close this analysis by examining an exchange with Dave right
after the close of the final team building session. I was reaffirming how his
leadership influence emerged upon sharing his real thoughts and feelings. I
also encouraged further risk-taking at future management meetings. He again
expressed his preference to sit and observe. And then, looking at the Division
Head, Ken, Dave quietly stated, "He wouldn't have pushed me to talk the way you
did."
A surprise quiz: what's your response to Dave? From the perspective of
partnering, what's problematic about Dave's expectation? How would you help him
break out of his self-defeating blame box?
A Dynamic Analysis and an Openly Outrageous Suggestion
Let's use the Dave-Ken scenario and my provocative conflict problem-solving
recommendation for analyzing Dave's preference for avoidance and blame along
with shedding light on a provocative procedure for building an authentic and
responsible Triple "A" collection of team partners. More specifically,
sketching the psychological and interpersonal dynamics (of both managers and of
me and Dave) I will examine the polar "professional and team empowerment" issues
of a) initiator-follower, b) self-responsibility-blame, c)
openness-vulnerability and d) vulnerable authority-vital interdependence:
a. Initiator-Follower. Basically, Dave seems to be viewing Ken less as a
partner and more as a parent! Dave wants Ken to take responsibility for helping
him deal with his (Dave's) own communicational difficulties. (It wouldn't be
far-fetched to speculate that subconsciously Dave is trying to get some
emotional response or connection from Ken that he did not get from his father or
mother or, considering the ten year age difference between the colleagues,
perhaps from an older sibling.) And yet, on some level, Dave is on the right
track by acknowledging the need for help in grappling with his lack of
confidence and insufficiently developed skillset in giving constructive
feedback.
b. Self-Responsibility-Blame. However, Dave is avoiding the arena in
which he does have some control: directly asking for the help he needs instead
of passively waiting to be encouraged and then becoming angry when it doesn't
happen. Blaming Ken avoids taking responsibility for some of his own shame,
that is, dealing with the negative voices that likely get stirred when he risks
being critical, especially in light of his difficulty modulating aggression.
And displacing frustration also distracts Dave from having to risk a novel,
intimate and highly productive coping response.
c. Openness-Vulnerability. So what was my recommendation? Anticipating
an aversive reaction, I told Dave he might not like my suggestion, but continued
anyway: "How about at the beginning of the next managers meeting saying to the
group, 'I realize I have a tendency to not speak up when I actually have
something to say. If I go through a meeting not saying anything would someone
check in with me and ask/encourage me to express myself?'" Not surprisingly,
Dave looked incredulous and then grimaced upon hearing my strategic suggestion.
I agreed that there was an element of risk. It takes courage both to
acknowledge an area of vulnerability and also to ask for help. (Saying Dave
was "not practiced" in this realm, rather than imputing an
emotional-communicational "weakness" or "shortcoming," was a face-saving
reframe.)
d. Vulnerable Authority-Vital Interdependence. Finally, I asked Dave to
consider the larger team process and leadership picture. Asking for support
from the group in this manner would get to the heart of a critical group dynamic
- all team partners have some responsibility for (and, in an ideal partnership,
have the ability and desire to) provide "good enough" emotional and
performance-related support to one another. While idyllic on its face, it still
is a goal worth striving for.
Also, because he is viewed by his peers as a credible source, that is, a person
who cautiously and thoughtfully chooses his battles, by this request Dave would
be a role model for risk-taking and reaching out. The reality is that the most
effective leaders (both formal and informal) often have a capacity for being
both vital and vulnerable (or open), seeking divergent ideas and appropriate
support as needed. And insightful leaders understand that almost all teammates
desire to have a sense of purpose and make a contribution. Two of the strongest
sources of self-esteem and human motivation are being seen as credible or
trustworthy and personally feeling valuable for a mission or for service beyond
one's self.
A respected formal or informal leader asking for help from the team rarely
undermines his or her authority status. Actually, such a leader often becomes a
role model; many admire a courageous "walk the talk" willingness to be open,
vulnerable and humble. And such open humility reduces the status differential
between leaders and members thereby advancing our original concept -- affirming
the individual along with facilitating an interdependent "team of partners."
Oh, one last piece of process. The respected and well-liked Deputy Director of
the Division was within earshot of my exchange with Dave. As I finished, the
Deputy, noticing Dave's skepticism (though the latter was no longer grimacing),
warmly said to Dave, "You can do it."
I don't know how this saga ends or, more to the point, how it will continue. I
do know my words definitely riveted Dave's attention (startled him, actually)
and gave him some mind and heart-stretching as well as professional risk-taking
ideas with which I suspect he will wrestle. Finally, more subconscious than
pre-meditated, I had employed a subtle motivation/confusion technique
(popularized by the late 20th century master communicator and medical hypnotist,
Milton Erickson) that may have Dave independently speaking up at the next
managers meeting. The technique involves pressuring a person to make a choice
between two perceived evils, with the likelihood that the person opts for the
lesser of the two. Having to ask the group for support in verbalizing if he
remains silent is an option that may well be considered more aversive than
saying what's on his mind during the meeting. Hence, with a little spur, Dave
just may decide to break out of his self-suppression box.
Closing Summary
Building on the Part II concepts -- Pressure, Practice-Patience, Possibility and
Puzzlement -- Part III analyzes and illustrates the final "Partnership" piece of
the "Multi-'P' Pathway for Personal Peace and Performance Power" puzzle.
Foundational terms "partner" and "partnership" are defined and the concept of
"team partner" is presented. Recognizing the "responsibility" challenge in
effective partnerships becomes the gateway to the "Triple 'A' of Individual and
Organizational Responsibility" -- Authority, Autonomy and Accountability.
And when the Triple "A" is in play there is potential for "professional
empowerment," including encouraging strengths, supporting vulnerabilities,
taking initiative and having all accountable to an ethical and operational
standard. The article closes with a case vignette that illuminates some
psychological and interpersonal dynamics, challenges and motivational tools for
building an authentic and responsible or Triple "A" collection of team
partners. Finally, the analysis clarifies how, paradoxically, a respected
partner: a) by modifying his expectations of the formal leader and b) by
acknowledging vulnerability as well as a need for support, may c) play a
powerful leadership role while strengthening the idea of a mutually responsible
team partnership.
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™,
a
Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote and kickoff speaker and
"Motivational Humorist" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN
speaking and workshop programs. In addition, the "Doc" is a team building and
organizational development consultant for a variety of govt. agencies,
corporations and non-profits and is AOL's "Online Psychohumorist" ™. Mark is an
Adjunct Professor, No. VA (NOVA) Community College and currently he is leading
"Stress, Team Building and Humor" programs for the 1st Cavalry and 4th Infantry
Divisions, Ft. Hood, Texas. A former Stress and Conflict 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 301-946-0865. And to view web video highlights of a Stress Doc
Keynote, go to
http://www.stressdoc.com/media_downloads.htm
.
(c) Mark Gorkin 2008
Shrink Rap™ Productions