Forget everything you thought you knew about change

Greg was a college professor who loved mental gymnastics but wasn't very comfortable with emotions. He especially dreaded extended family holidays because his wife Suzanne thought his relatives were cold and arrogant, and invariably a member of his family would say something that upset her during their visit. She would then go into what he called "a dramatic meltdown." Greg's response? He didn't want to talk about it with Suzanne; he wanted to hide. This upset her even more, which increased his desire to withdraw. Greg wanted Suzanne to stop reacting "so emotionally." She wanted him to "quit being so intellectual and support her."

I asked Greg to think of a way to go with the pattern instead of trying to avoid it. He decided he'd suggest to Suzanne that when with his family they'd find a private space every hour and take ten minutes so she could vent. He would take her feelings seriously.

Greg loved the idea of expecting and planning time for Suzanne to blow off steam, because he wouldn't be distracted wondering when or how it might happen. When he told Suzanne, she was pleased that he was acknowledging her right to her feelings about his family.

As it turned out, they didn't need to take ten minutes every hour. Just knowing they could do it was freeing. "That outing," Greg later said, "turned out to be our very best family visit. While we hoped to be able to make it through two days, we actually stayed three days extra."

More in Out of the Box Self-Coaching Workbook

.

Hands Off

Often when we experience relationship problems we conclude it's the other person who's "touchy," "unreliable," "critical," etc. Operating from this premise, you may unwittingly attempt solutions that reinforce or even exaggerate the perceived problem.

Let's say Anne and Bill have a family business and Anne, a perfectionist, thinks Bill gives employees too much autonomy. 

Anne presses Bill to be more hands-on, questioning him frequently and in detail. Bill doesn't keep her posted on the ways he is hands-on because "She'll just nit-pick anyway." This confirms Anne's belief that Bill isn't paying enough attention to details, which leads her to follow up more frequently. Bill responds by retreating even more, leading Anne to check in even more, and so on. 

Instead, they could reframe the situation as an interaction problem:

• Problems that occur between people are situational difficulties -- both are doing something to maintain the problem.
  
• It's normal and appropriate to resist attempts by another to "fix" us; such so-called resistance is more usefully labeled as a source of energy when released for positive purposes.
• It may seem paradoxical, but going with the other person's energy is much more likely to make a difference than lecturing, advising, or scolding.

This approach requires relationship partners to develop the ability to:

1. focus on observable behaviors in the interaction (vs. only the behavior of the other person),
2. do something to alter the interaction (as opposed to trying to change the other person).

A particularly interesting application of this concept relies on the paradox of going with a behavior in order to change it. Following this premise, Anne could release the positive potential of Bill's management style by saying something such as "I respect your value of trusting our employees to do their jobs well. Let's talk about how we can help them be more autonomous." This is a win-win situation:

• If Bill "resists" Anne's suggestion, he becomes more "hands-on," increasing his oversight of employees and eliminating her basis for criticism.
• If they work out standards that ensure employees do their jobs without frequent follow-up, again there is no longer a basis for Anne's complaint.

For more about this approach, read The Tactics of Change, by Fisch, Weakland, and Segal.

Owning Up

As follow-up to exploring how both people in a relationship contribute to interaction patterns ("Hands Off"), the following exercises will be most useful if both complete and discuss them. Nonetheless, it's possible for even one person to significantly change a relationship if you think through and write down your responses to the following:

First, what is characteristic of you in relationships? 

• Think of a recent situation with your partner or a close friend where your characteristic behavior played out. Run through it mentally from the beginning. 
• Now think of another situation. And another.
• What do these three situations have in common? What do you notice about yourself and intimacy with others?

Second, identify ten things that annoy you about your close friend or partner. For each, explore: 

• What is your reaction to their behavior?
• How do you provoke that behavior?

Next, describe five painful situations that have occurred in your relationship:

• What were the consequences for you? 
• What was your responsibility in each situation?
• What keeps the situation alive for you (what is the pay-off in the present)? Examples are illusion of control, getting a charge from the anger, not having to face your own fear of intimacy, etc.

Finally, describe ten positive characteristics of the other person and the effect of each on your relationship. Reflect on how you might integrate more gratitude into this relationship and into your life.

Romancing the Shadow

"Most intimate relationships have some version of this story: one partner (or both) turns the other into a parental figure . . . We call this downward negative spiral the roller-coaster ride because the lovers get on at the same place, seem to spin out of control, but end up getting off at the same place--and nothing has really changed." (p. 158, Romancing the Shadow by Connie Zweig, PhD and Steve Wolf, PhD)

In a blog post at her web site, Connie Zweig explains what "romancing" the shadow means. Because this deeply unconscious aspect of yourself needs help in coming to awareness, it's necessary to seduce it with attention and questions: "Who are you? What are you trying to tell me? How did you form? What do you need?" 

I've often paired coaching with Jungian shadow work to explore relationships in work, in friendships, and in romantic pairings with clients. Here, I offer insight from my own first marriage at age 22. when I was stuck at Enneagram point Nine, before I had in-depth self-knowledge, but illuminated by what I've learned since.

Later I could see I'd married my father, but I thought I'd found his opposite in my husband, Dave. My father was a military officer and stern disciplinarian, probably mostly at Enneagram point Eight. I always felt an emotional distance from him, though he and my mother were responsible parents and he drove me wherever I needed to go as a teenager. Those rides were agonizing for me because neither of us could think of a word to say to the other.

Dad wore his toughness on the outside, however, so when I met Dave, I fell immediately in love with his sweet, quiet demeanor and our in-depth conversations. He was then at Enneagram point Five, I believe (he's long deceased), and his tendency to hoard emotions eventually began to feel very much like interacting with my father.

Unfortunately, I was young and naive, hadn't yet studied Jungian psychology, and was years away from learning the Enneagram, so I saw Dave as "the problem," having no notion that projections of my own shadow were keeping me from seeing our relationship as an opportunity for consciousness.

In their analysis of one couple cited in Romancing the Shadow, Zweig and Wolf suggested "The couple's parental complexes are shadow-boxing with each other . . . they can put on the brakes only by taking responsibility for their own feelings, romancing their projections, and moving out of the past into present time."

As we do our shadow work, waking up to unconscious drives, we can acknowledge that no one person is "the problem;" both contribute to the interaction dynamics that feed a self-fulfilling downward spiral. We look differently at feeling hooked and--instead of reacting as usual--we romance the shadow, describing to ourselves, our mate, partner, or friend what's happening inside, and asking for space or support or conversation to help us move through it in a way that doesn't perpetuate the cycle.

I don't take these suggestions lightly, nor do I expect anyone else to do so. But what relationship have you ever had that was easy, day after day, year after year? You know the pain of compromise, you know the depression of defeat. Romancing your own shadow will help you engage in the disquieting and lifelong task of being truly open and authentic in relationships:

No more blaming, manipulation, false diplomacy, retreating into melancholy, withholding emotions, casting worst-case scenarios, skating away from personal responsibility, shutting people down, or passive-aggressiveness.

"Oh, is that all?" you must be thinking.

What's Good Enough?

Several of my clients worked with me to look more closely at their marriages, for a variety of reasons. One couple -- while their marriage was already more than good enough -- wanted some fine-tuning and gave rave reviews of a workshop I recommended with Doctors John and Julie Gottman in Seattle, "The Art and Science of Love." 

With a client who wanted to refresh her marriage, we began exploring "what's good enough?" I learned about this concept from Carolyn Bartlett, who uses it in The Enneagram Field Guide. Initially coined by psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott, "good enough" describes a nurturing relationship that provides the basic safety, love, mirroring, and containment needed by a developing child. It's also a template for effective therapy. And we can easily extend it to effective partnering in adult relationships.

Interestingly, healthy "containment" is not restrictive. Quite the opposite: the term refers to an emotional, mental, and spiritual space where both partners are available, expansive, and secure; where both feel calm and safe; where each can experience and express perspectives and emotions -- with the expectation of support and comfort, and without fear of judgment or rejection.

Clearly, this definition of "good enough" does not mean compromising or lowering standards. It simply recognizes the fact that no human being and no partnership of any kind is or has to be perfect. And it inspires open communication to make sure each partner's needs are being met.

In "Bad Relationships: Change your Role and the Rules of Engagement," Dr. Tara J. Palmatier quotes Gottman's "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:" criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. Palmatier suggests two scenarios that can have "mutually satisfying, long-term relationship outcomes" (the remaining eight are "either 'get out now' or 'live a life of resignation' outcomes"). In response to your concerns, your partner could:

1. Hear what you say, be accountable, respect your feelings, and actively try to change.
2. Hear what you say, be accountable, respect your feelings, communicate which of your behaviors are contributing to the situation, and you both actively try to change.

From a systemic view, I prefer the second scenario, and suggest that you also (1) look together at how the pattern operates that you've created together, and (2) agree on an interesting and inventive way to interrupt the pattern. Michelle Weiner-Davis addresses this in Divorce Busting, especially Chapter 6: "Breaking the Habit: Interrupting Destructive Patterns."

 

Playing a Bigger Game

Remember Games People Play? The relationship games described by Eric Berne are so familiar from our own interactions, it's relatively easy to notice when someone else plays them. In truth, though, if you're in a game, you're a player, too. When we view relationship interactions as systems, we can see how all players contribute to the pattern.

The popular "Why don't you--yes, but" game is described in 50 Psychology Classics as beginning "when someone states a problem in their life, and another person responds by offering constructive suggestions on how to solve it. The subject says 'Yes, but...' and proceeds to find issue with the solutions. In Adult mode we would examine and probably take on board a solution, but this is not the purpose of the exchange. It allows the subject to gain sympathy from others in their inadequacy to meet the situation (Child mode). The problem solvers, in turn, get the opportunity to play wise Parent."

The Parent, Adult, Child references are from Transactional Analysis, popular since the sixties and still highly relevant.


Now look again at the players in "Why don't you--yes, but." Either party can start the game. The problem solver might be in the role of wise Parent, or might be playing parent, period, whether reacting to the other or initiating advice. How many times have you described a situation to a friend, co-worker, or life partner where you wanted a listener or someone to brainstorm with as you talked it through, only to have the other person jump in and tell you what you should do about it?
 
When you re-read the above example of "yes, but..." notice the assumption that one player (the "Child" in this case) creates the pattern, and the "wise" Parent is the blameless bystander. Looking at our interaction patterns this way promotes blaming and judgment. Yes, we all play games, and yes, sometimes one party is less emotionally healthy than the other, but by definition an interaction takes two people.
 
Instead of judging the interaction games in your relationships as someone else's fault, notice how a pattern is perpetuated, by either or both of you, and look for inventive ways to interrupt the pattern. If asked for your opinion by someone who's typically responded with "yes, but," for example, say "I'm not sure what the best thing would be for you," or "What have you considered?" or "What do you think might work?"
 
And, of course, pay close attention to the games you initiate. They wouldn't be games unless both people wanted to play.

"How," not "Why," is the Question

To more fully understand the couple in the Plus ça change blog entry, it helps to know that people with the husband's personality -- point Nine in the Enneagram personality system -- tend to go along with others' ideas yet feel unspoken resentment when they stifle their own agenda. At the same time, they are peacemakers and want to be reassured that even their unexpressed annoyance has not created a disruption.

Thus, the husband wanted to snuggle up to his wife, who was very aware of his "pouting" and didn't feel so inclined.

Those of the wife's personality -- point Eight in the Enneagram -- typically have plenty of ideas but often succumb temporarily to their enthusiasms and/or forget to include their partners. This couple might have been drawn together initially because of their mutual comfort with the wife providing structure, then both began to feel some pain from that same dynamic.

What's fascinating about this couple is that we did not spend time exploring their personality patterns so they could understand why they were having difficulty. Instead, I asked questions to help them look closely at what each of them did and said, so they could see how they were unwittingly feeding their interaction pattern. This works in the same way as interrupting a personal pattern. You look carefully at how the pattern operates, then find a way to playfully interrupt it, so it loses its "juice."

Head to Head: Two Enneagram Eights

I'd like to know more about how Enneagram Eights respond, react, and live together in a marriage and business partnership.

As many style Eights as I've found running things in the business world, I've never seen a reporting relationship of two Eights. They don't typically hire others of the same Enneagram style to work closely with them, but are more likely to surround themselves with styles Nine and Six, and maybe a few assorted Ones, Twos, or Threes. Nines can accept an Eight's directions and see the teddy bear behind the teeth; they also tend to act as a buffer with others, especially when a one-to-one subtype. Sixes may challenge at first but those who stay are often social subtype Sixes who are willing to follow the system and rules set up by the Eight. 

An Enneagram Eight told me a true story about two puppies from the same litter, put out to play in the back yard. Their owner kept coming home at the end of the day and finding them all muddy and slimy with saliva. As time went by he'd find them full of bite marks and a little blood, especially the male, who was the runt of the litter. The owner finally had to find another home for the little one, because he was afraid the puppies' play would do the runt in. This is an Eight story, so notice he didn't try to stop the fighting until one of the puppies needed protecting.

People with this Enneagram style tend to be territorial, and wouldn't typically share with another Eight in a work setting. Michael Goldberg (The Nine Ways of Working) sees the Eight/Eight pairing as one where "worlds collide." I've coached a style Eight (let's call him Harry) who provided services to an organization where he received his primary support from another Eight, Bill. That worked very well because they recognized each other as kindred spirits; both "what you see is what you get" kind of guys who knew no games were being played as long as they were in interaction. Bill was not the one with whom Harry negotiated his contract, so the two of them could kick back and not get into who was in charge. In contrast, one of Harry's suppliers was a style Eight who didn't meet a deadline and tried to charge more than they'd agreed on: Harry hated his guts. They were both out to win (and Harry did).

In personal relationships, Eights can attract each other. They don't like weak partners, so they're naturally respectful of another strong person, and they have mutual respect for their shared value of fairness. When two Eights clash in a personal relationship it's "the battle of the Titans," though not always in obvious ways. I worked with one Eight/Eight couple who were both introverts and both so reluctant to show weakness they tended to avoid having a true conversation. Instead, they made petty, vindictive remarks to each other.  

If you're in an Eight/Eight relationship you need to negotiate your roles carefully so each of you has a sense of control over your own territory. Then it can be, according to an Eight friend married to an Eight, "the agony and the ecstasy."

One of the best strategies for Enneagram Eights is Ethical Persuasion. The Power of Ethical Persuasion was recommended to me by an Eight (we created a team workshop using these principles as a centerpiece). Rusk writes about the importance of treating each other with "respect, understanding, caring, and fairness." Where there's conflict, both parties agree one will start the discussion and be fully heard. The receiver simply plays back what he or she has heard until the sender can say, "I believe you've really heard what I have to say." Then you switch roles so the receiver is now the sender. Only when both partners have been fully heard do you seek a solution.

This method needs to be coupled with the skill of active listening, which can help Eights build empathy; otherwise, they can find it difficult to put themselves in others' shoes.

*   *   *

The Three Phases of Ethical Persuasion

From The Power of Ethical Persuasion, Tom Rusk, M.D., with D. Patrick Miller

The persuasion of this method means treating each other with respect, understanding, caring, and fairness. It does not mean convincing someone of the "correct" viewpoint. 

PHASE 1: Exploring the other Person's Viewpoint

1. Establish that your immediate goal is mutual understanding, not problem solving.
2. Elicit the other person's thoughts, feelings, and desires about the subject at hand.
3. Ask for their help in understanding them. Try not to defend or disagree.
4. Repeat their position in your own words to show you understand.
5. Ask them to correct your understanding and keep restating their position.
6. Refer back to your position only to keep things going.
7. Repeat steps 1-6 until they unreservedly agree that you understand their position.

PHASE 2: Explaining Your Viewpoint 

1. Ask for a fair hearing in return.
2. Explain how their thoughts and feelings affect you -- avoid blaming and self-defense as much as possible.
3. Carefully explain your thoughts, desires, and feelings as your truth, not the truth.
4. Ask for restatement of your position -- and corrections of any inaccuracies -- as necessary.
5. Review your respective positions.    

PHASE 3: Creating Resolutions (this varies somewhat from Rusk's Phase 3, "Brainstorm Multiple Options")

1. Affirm your mutual understanding and confirm that you're both ready to consider options for resolution.
2. Search for creative (win-win or collaborative) solutions  
3. If a mutually agreeable solution is not yet obvious, try one or more of the following options: 

• Compromise between alternate solutions ("O.K., I'll leave the decision up to you when it only has to do with equipment, otherwise, you need to get my approval").
• Take turns between alternate solutions ("Let's agree on decisions together when we're in staff meetings, but when we meet one-on-one you come to me with a summary of decisions you've made").
• Bargain with alternate solutions ("I'll leave those decisions up to you if you'll give me weekly updates that demonstrate how we'll meet the deadline").
• Take time out to reconsider, consult, exchange proposals, and reconvene.
• Yield (for now) once your position is thoroughly and respectfully considered (works especially well when they clearly want their option more than you want yours).
• Agree to disagree and still respect each other; then, if you can, go your separate ways on the particular issue.
• Agree to neutral arbitration, mediation, or counseling.
• Assert your positional power after thoroughly and respectfully considering their position.