Managing a Critical Aggressor: Case Example I
By Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, the “Stress Doc” ™
Let’s try a mind exercise. You’ve just given a presentation
at an important meeting. As the meeting concludes you turn
to a colleague (a casual acquaintance) and ask, “How did
the presentation go?” And in a decidedly judgmental and
unfriendly tone this colleague declares, “Frankly, you
fumbled the data. Obviously, you didn’t prepare very well!”
Imagine being the presenter. How would you feel receiving
such critical feedback? And what would you say or do in
return? (And let’s assume that punching this guy in the
nose is not a good intervention strategy.) Actually, this is
the scenario I pose to attendees of my “Managing Anger
and Difficult People” Program. (Also subtitled, “When Going
Postal Is Not an Option.” And as a former stress and
violence prevention consultant for the US Postal Service I
feel entitled to my attitude.)
Let me begin this analysis by illustrating three common
emotional and behavioral reactions to this “critical
aggressor” exercise:
1. Feeling Rejected or Exposed. If this instance applies,
you likely feel hurt and put down by the antagonist’s harsh
words. Or you are surprised by the stinging critique; you
believed your presentation had been at least satisfactory.
Now you may feel exposed. Feelings of guilt (“I could have
tried harder or done better”) or shame (“this criticism
confirms my inadequacy or worthlessness”) may dominate.
Now the only means available to counter the criticism is with
hastily conceived self-justifying explanations or face-saving
rationalizations.
2. Feeling Attacked and Becoming Aggressive. In this
scenario you quickly feel defensive and reactive. You might
think, “How dare this jerk be so hostile?” Or you might say,
“How the hell do you know how I prepared? And what makes
you such a hot shot expert (you bozo)!” And while
immediately counterattacking and feeling entitled (“an eye
for an eye, an ego for an ego”) your reactivity may well
indicate wounded pride.
3. Feeling Fearful or Humiliated and Withdrawing.
Whether lowering your eyes in defeat or turning pale in a
state of shock, you now feel intimidated and helpless.
Incredulous at the brazen verbal harassment, some
sensitive individuals or folks with underdeveloped assertive
muscles, become immobilized. A target’s suppressed rage
may also add to a sense of impotence. Now you likely sit
passively or withdraw ignominiously from the battlefield. (Of
course, a tactical withdrawal may be a productive and
purposeful step. But more on this shortly.)
Positive Limit-Setting Strategic Interventions
Having delineated three defensive reactions, it’s time to
describe a constructive and strategic approach to setting
limits on a harsh aggressor. Consider these basic
assumptions, attitudes and actions:
1. Understanding the Difference Between Reaction
and Response. The aforementioned feelings, thoughts
and behaviors are defensive reactions. (And “defensive” in
this sense does not mean healthfully self-protective.) A
target quickly feels attacked and psychically wounded; he or
she is being verbally mistreated or abused by the
aggressor. And whether lashing out in anger or feeling
humiliated and quickly retreating, the “victim” is in reactive
mode: “You’ve hurt me” or “You made me upset” or “It’s
your fault” or “You caused me to strike back.”
However, there’s a strategic alternative: you can experience
and process your feelings and thoughts before behaving in
a knee-“jerk” manner. You can acknowledge feelings of
pain, shame and anger, and then get centered. You can
begin to place this person’s behavior in context: is the critic’s
assessment objective (even if his manner of delivery is
woefully subjective) or does he have an agenda? Or, might
she be jealous?
By processing your thoughts and feelings and by assessing
or, at least, questioning the aggressor’s behavior patterns
and situational constraints you are now ready to transform a
reaction into an assertive and effective “response.”
2. Metacommunicate. Here’s my conflict management
axiom in dealing with a critical aggressor: before justifying
or explaining your behavior comment upon or confront –
whether tactfully or directly – the aggressor’s harassing tone
and/or content. Using our mind exercise as an example, you
might say: “I’m open to feedback, but I don’t appreciate
being attacked.” Or, such global and unspecific comments
are not useful and, frankly, I find them hostile. Can you be
more specific and be professional?
Along with staying centered and non-reactive, you are
setting appropriate boundaries. You’ve returned the harsh
critic’s verbal hand grenade (as opposed to freezing up or to
hurling it back in an enraged or vengeful state).
3. Use Assertive “I” Messages. Underlying this tactfully
assertive approach to defusing hostility is the recognition
that assertive “I” messages, unlike blaming “You” messages,
don’t add static to communication channels. “You made me”
or “It’s your fault” transfers all the power to the aggressor.
In reality, one-sided blaming often rationalizes an immature
reaction or counterattack. In contrast, a constructive “I”
message acknowledges your experience as a target: “That
hurts” or “I’m angry right now.” Such a message also states
what you don’t like or what you do prefer: “I don’t appreciate
being attacked and I don’t listen well. I can hear and
consider more specific feedback.” “I” messages help
reaffirm your integrity while establishing healthy boundaries.
So abstain from those reactive “You”s or risk becoming a
“blameaholic.”
4. Take a Time Out. Finally, if the aggressor’s initial
barrage leaves you stunned or speechless, you don’t have
to stay in the ring desperately trying to summon up a
counterpunch. Basically you can state, “I won’t be a party to
this kind of verbal barrage (or “harassment” if encounter is
more hostile than just heated). Or, if feeling centered, you
can declare: “I need a time out before responding.” You
also can say, “I believe we need a time for us to have a
professional discussion.”
Remember, it’s okay if you don’t have a perfect comeback to
an aggressor’s spewing. Take time to think about and sleep
on the problem and a response…Then you’ll nail the jerk
tomorrow! Just kidding. ;-) Seriously, taking a time out is
not a sign of weakness. Basically it is a strategic retreat to
help you cleanse a wound, get centered and to formulate
and “I” response. Hitting the pause button affirms your
integrity while setting limits and boundaries on a charged
exchange.
Disarming Power Struggles: Case Example II
Now for the second exercise. As a supervisor, imagine you
are caught in a power struggle with a problematic individual,
let’s say an employee. For this mind game the specific issue
is not critical. Let’s say the general content involves issues
of control, status or who has (or doesn’t have) the right or
power to make a decision. Let’s call the employee Person A
and the supervisor Person B. In this exercise, the battle
begins with the employee declaring, “You can’t make!” and
the supervisor countering, “Oh yes I can!” My workshop
instructions specifically caution antagonists about getting
out of their chairs. But the players can be as aggressive or
as whiny as they wish. After a couple of verbal volleys, the
participants are encouraged to say what they would really
like to say to their antagonist.
Not surprisingly, at some point during this exchange, for
many folks there is an eruption of laughter. Perhaps it’s the
somewhat artificial and absurd nature of the interaction.
(Also, some people cover up intense emotions, such as raw
aggression, through nervous laughter.) However, for me,
the number of people who get hooked by the battle, who
“want to win” seems significant. Why are people so quick to
get caught up in a power struggle? I’ve come up with “The
Five “C”s of Power Struggles:
1. Control. Who will be in control? I believe this is
connected to authority issues and, ultimately, the parent-
child dynamic.
2. Competition. This also has family roots – sibling rivalry
issues. Who is better? Who is the favorite?
3. Change. During periods of transition, there’s much
uncertainty. Who is in charge? Do the rules and
operational procedure still apply? Some people will try to fill
the void, appropriately or inappropriately. Change often
stirs uncertainty and anxiety and that may push some to
become overly rigid, manipulating or controlling.
4. Cultural Diversity. Surely the variety of sociocultural
and demographic dynamics shape how we give meaning to
experience, including meaning to the motivations, beliefs
and behaviors of self and of others. Personal maturity is
often required if difference and disagreement are not
reflexively equated with disapproval and disloyalty.
5. Communication Skills. Finally, effectively negotiating
the aforementioned “C”s – Control, Competition and Cultural
diversity – especially in the context of an actual or potential
emotionally charged power struggle requires a
communicator who can be both assertive and empathic; a
communicator who can both affirm limits and respect
boundaries.
Key Communication Principles
Now let me provide four communication tips and tools for
preventing a conflict or misunderstanding from turning into a
full-fledged struggle or an ongoing battle:
1. Drop the Rope. How do you not take the bait when
someone is provocatively fishing for an argument or power
struggle? The challenge becomes not instinctively pulling
back when someone offers you a rope and then “yanks your
chain.” You don’t have to prove you can give (or be) as big
a jerk. In fact, you can just “drop the rope.” This is not a
sign of weakness. Your message is, “I don’t want to play this
self-defeating or dysfunctional game. Can we come up with
a more productive way to address the grievance or solve the
problem?”
2. Use the “Four ‘P’ Process of Empathic
Engagement.” One or both parties in a power struggle are
usually angry or anxious about something. Your antagonist
may be upset about your actions (as a supervisor) or about
a common problematic situation. For example, in an
employee’s mind, are you playing favorites in the
department? In order to quickly connect to a belligerent or
injured party (after setting limits on any harassing behavior,
of course) attempt to engage the other person around his
“Pain” and “Passion” or her “Purpose” and sense of “Power”
(or feelings of powerlessness or helplessness). These “P”s
are definitely a pathway to empathy and possibly more
peaceful coexistence.
3. Reduce the Status or Power Differential. As a
manager (or parent of a teenager) unless absolutely
necessary, don’t lead with your authority trump card. As
much as possible, try to level the playing field; strive for
adult-to-adult communication. (Somehow this issue of use
of status and power reminds me of a politically incorrect,
somewhat tongue-in-cheek observation by a bank vice-
president regarding his biggest source of stress: “I can’t
beat my employees and I can’t fire my children.”)
Actually, if used consistently this step will likely free the other
person to be more forthright in their communication. And if
you are fortunate, your antagonist will even provide critical
feedback. Why do I say fortunate? In the long run, I believe
nothing builds trust more than when a person expresses
clean and clear anger and finds the recipient doesn’t fall
apart, run away or abandon them, doesn’t viciously blast
back or seek revenge. You may not agree with the other
person’s argument but you have demonstrated
acknowledgement and respect.
4. Avoid Black or White Thinking. An argument that
must result in one person being ‘right” the other party
“wrong” clearly tightens the tension in the tug or words if not
war. Dividing antagonists into “winners” and “losers” doesn’t
foster lasting conciliation and working partners. Oftentimes,
a sign of real strength is the capacity for some comfort with
uncertainty or even being tentative in the heat of battle: “I’m
not sure about that” or “Right now, I don’t agree. Still, you
make a good point. Let me think more about this.” (We’ve
already discussed the strategic value of taking a time out.”)
Again, allowing for uncertainty or delayed decision-making
creates subjective space for opinions and strategic options.
You are inviting the other to be a genuine problem-solving
participant. Setting aside “black or white” thinking
encourages power sharing over power struggle. Both
managers and employees can generate an array of leading
and colorful ideas.
Disarming Words of Wisdom
With the “Four ‘C’s” (of power struggles) and the above
communication principles in mind, as a manager what might
you say to a provocative employee who declares (or in so
many words avers), “You can’t make me”? Consider this
response: “I don’t know if I can make you or I can’t make
you. That’s not where I’m coming from. [Resisting the
provocative bait. Not quickly playing the authority trump
card; you are tentative without giving up your power
potential.] If we have a problem – if I’m bugging you or our
situation is problematic – I’d like to hear about it. [Can we
assume that if there is a serious power struggle someone is
pained or upset about something? I think so. And inviting
criticism often elicits real feedback and can help build trust.]
I need your contribution to meet our goals. I believe I’m in a
position to support you. For us to succeed we have to be
pulling together not pulling apart. [Affirming the process –
from dropping the rope to forging a partnership in power
and performing.]
Closing Summary
Two mind game exercises have been delineated. The first
exercise, interaction with a critical aggressor, highlighted
defensive reactions to a verbal barrage:
1) feeling rejected, surprised or exposed
2) feeling attacked and becoming aggressive
3) feeling fearful or humiliated and withdrawing.
Positive strategic interventions were also outlined:
1) differentiating reaction and response
2) metacommunication
3) using assertive “I” messages
4) taking a time out.
The disarming power struggle exercise noted the “Four ‘C’s
that spur on self-defeating or ego-driven battles – Control,
Competition, cultural diversity and Communication Skills.
Next, four communicational tips and tools for disarming
dysfunctional power games were detailed:
1) ”drop the rope”
2) use the “Four ‘P’s” for engagement
3) reduce the status or power differential
4) avoid ‘black or white’ thinking.
And finally, a power sharing to power struggle response in
the face of employee provocation is provided. Surely these
are all concepts and tools to disarm aggressors and power
struggles, to forge more productive working relationships,
and to help us all…Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, is a
psychotherapist, a “Motivational Humorist,” an acclaimed
Keynote and Kickoff Speaker (including with Celebrity Cruise
Lines), and an OD/Team Building Consultant. Mark is the
author of Practice Safe Stress: Healing and Laughing in the
Face of Stress, Burnout & Depression and of The Four
Faces of Anger: Transforming Anger, Rage, and Conflict
Into Inspiring Attitude and Behavior. Also, the Doc is AOL’s
“Online Psychohumorist" ™ running his weekly "Shrink Rap
™ and Group Chat." See his award winning, USA Today
Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com (recently cited as a
workplace resource by National Public Radio (NPR). Email
for his monthly newsletter showcased on List-a-Day.com.
For more info on the Doc's speaking and training programs
and products, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-946-
0865.
Let’s try a mind exercise. You’ve just given a presentation
at an important meeting. As the meeting concludes you turn
to a colleague (a casual acquaintance) and ask, “How did
the presentation go?” And in a decidedly judgmental and
unfriendly tone this colleague declares, “Frankly, you
fumbled the data. Obviously, you didn’t prepare very well!”
Imagine being the presenter. How would you feel receiving
such critical feedback? And what would you say or do in
return? (And let’s assume that punching this guy in the
nose is not a good intervention strategy.) Actually, this is
the scenario I pose to attendees of my “Managing Anger
and Difficult People” Program. (Also subtitled, “When Going
Postal Is Not an Option.” And as a former stress and
violence prevention consultant for the US Postal Service I
feel entitled to my attitude.)
Let me begin this analysis by illustrating three common
emotional and behavioral reactions to this “critical
aggressor” exercise:
1. Feeling Rejected or Exposed. If this instance applies,
you likely feel hurt and put down by the antagonist’s harsh
words. Or you are surprised by the stinging critique; you
believed your presentation had been at least satisfactory.
Now you may feel exposed. Feelings of guilt (“I could have
tried harder or done better”) or shame (“this criticism
confirms my inadequacy or worthlessness”) may dominate.
Now the only means available to counter the criticism is with
hastily conceived self-justifying explanations or face-saving
rationalizations.
2. Feeling Attacked and Becoming Aggressive. In this
scenario you quickly feel defensive and reactive. You might
think, “How dare this jerk be so hostile?” Or you might say,
“How the hell do you know how I prepared? And what makes
you such a hot shot expert (you bozo)!” And while
immediately counterattacking and feeling entitled (“an eye
for an eye, an ego for an ego”) your reactivity may well
indicate wounded pride.
3. Feeling Fearful or Humiliated and Withdrawing.
Whether lowering your eyes in defeat or turning pale in a
state of shock, you now feel intimidated and helpless.
Incredulous at the brazen verbal harassment, some
sensitive individuals or folks with underdeveloped assertive
muscles, become immobilized. A target’s suppressed rage
may also add to a sense of impotence. Now you likely sit
passively or withdraw ignominiously from the battlefield. (Of
course, a tactical withdrawal may be a productive and
purposeful step. But more on this shortly.)
Positive Limit-Setting Strategic Interventions
Having delineated three defensive reactions, it’s time to
describe a constructive and strategic approach to setting
limits on a harsh aggressor. Consider these basic
assumptions, attitudes and actions:
1. Understanding the Difference Between Reaction
and Response. The aforementioned feelings, thoughts
and behaviors are defensive reactions. (And “defensive” in
this sense does not mean healthfully self-protective.) A
target quickly feels attacked and psychically wounded; he or
she is being verbally mistreated or abused by the
aggressor. And whether lashing out in anger or feeling
humiliated and quickly retreating, the “victim” is in reactive
mode: “You’ve hurt me” or “You made me upset” or “It’s
your fault” or “You caused me to strike back.”
However, there’s a strategic alternative: you can experience
and process your feelings and thoughts before behaving in
a knee-“jerk” manner. You can acknowledge feelings of
pain, shame and anger, and then get centered. You can
begin to place this person’s behavior in context: is the critic’s
assessment objective (even if his manner of delivery is
woefully subjective) or does he have an agenda? Or, might
she be jealous?
By processing your thoughts and feelings and by assessing
or, at least, questioning the aggressor’s behavior patterns
and situational constraints you are now ready to transform a
reaction into an assertive and effective “response.”
2. Metacommunicate. Here’s my conflict management
axiom in dealing with a critical aggressor: before justifying
or explaining your behavior comment upon or confront –
whether tactfully or directly – the aggressor’s harassing tone
and/or content. Using our mind exercise as an example, you
might say: “I’m open to feedback, but I don’t appreciate
being attacked.” Or, such global and unspecific comments
are not useful and, frankly, I find them hostile. Can you be
more specific and be professional?
Along with staying centered and non-reactive, you are
setting appropriate boundaries. You’ve returned the harsh
critic’s verbal hand grenade (as opposed to freezing up or to
hurling it back in an enraged or vengeful state).
3. Use Assertive “I” Messages. Underlying this tactfully
assertive approach to defusing hostility is the recognition
that assertive “I” messages, unlike blaming “You” messages,
don’t add static to communication channels. “You made me”
or “It’s your fault” transfers all the power to the aggressor.
In reality, one-sided blaming often rationalizes an immature
reaction or counterattack. In contrast, a constructive “I”
message acknowledges your experience as a target: “That
hurts” or “I’m angry right now.” Such a message also states
what you don’t like or what you do prefer: “I don’t appreciate
being attacked and I don’t listen well. I can hear and
consider more specific feedback.” “I” messages help
reaffirm your integrity while establishing healthy boundaries.
So abstain from those reactive “You”s or risk becoming a
“blameaholic.”
4. Take a Time Out. Finally, if the aggressor’s initial
barrage leaves you stunned or speechless, you don’t have
to stay in the ring desperately trying to summon up a
counterpunch. Basically you can state, “I won’t be a party to
this kind of verbal barrage (or “harassment” if encounter is
more hostile than just heated). Or, if feeling centered, you
can declare: “I need a time out before responding.” You
also can say, “I believe we need a time for us to have a
professional discussion.”
Remember, it’s okay if you don’t have a perfect comeback to
an aggressor’s spewing. Take time to think about and sleep
on the problem and a response…Then you’ll nail the jerk
tomorrow! Just kidding. ;-) Seriously, taking a time out is
not a sign of weakness. Basically it is a strategic retreat to
help you cleanse a wound, get centered and to formulate
and “I” response. Hitting the pause button affirms your
integrity while setting limits and boundaries on a charged
exchange.
Disarming Power Struggles: Case Example II
Now for the second exercise. As a supervisor, imagine you
are caught in a power struggle with a problematic individual,
let’s say an employee. For this mind game the specific issue
is not critical. Let’s say the general content involves issues
of control, status or who has (or doesn’t have) the right or
power to make a decision. Let’s call the employee Person A
and the supervisor Person B. In this exercise, the battle
begins with the employee declaring, “You can’t make!” and
the supervisor countering, “Oh yes I can!” My workshop
instructions specifically caution antagonists about getting
out of their chairs. But the players can be as aggressive or
as whiny as they wish. After a couple of verbal volleys, the
participants are encouraged to say what they would really
like to say to their antagonist.
Not surprisingly, at some point during this exchange, for
many folks there is an eruption of laughter. Perhaps it’s the
somewhat artificial and absurd nature of the interaction.
(Also, some people cover up intense emotions, such as raw
aggression, through nervous laughter.) However, for me,
the number of people who get hooked by the battle, who
“want to win” seems significant. Why are people so quick to
get caught up in a power struggle? I’ve come up with “The
Five “C”s of Power Struggles:
1. Control. Who will be in control? I believe this is
connected to authority issues and, ultimately, the parent-
child dynamic.
2. Competition. This also has family roots – sibling rivalry
issues. Who is better? Who is the favorite?
3. Change. During periods of transition, there’s much
uncertainty. Who is in charge? Do the rules and
operational procedure still apply? Some people will try to fill
the void, appropriately or inappropriately. Change often
stirs uncertainty and anxiety and that may push some to
become overly rigid, manipulating or controlling.
4. Cultural Diversity. Surely the variety of sociocultural
and demographic dynamics shape how we give meaning to
experience, including meaning to the motivations, beliefs
and behaviors of self and of others. Personal maturity is
often required if difference and disagreement are not
reflexively equated with disapproval and disloyalty.
5. Communication Skills. Finally, effectively negotiating
the aforementioned “C”s – Control, Competition and Cultural
diversity – especially in the context of an actual or potential
emotionally charged power struggle requires a
communicator who can be both assertive and empathic; a
communicator who can both affirm limits and respect
boundaries.
Key Communication Principles
Now let me provide four communication tips and tools for
preventing a conflict or misunderstanding from turning into a
full-fledged struggle or an ongoing battle:
1. Drop the Rope. How do you not take the bait when
someone is provocatively fishing for an argument or power
struggle? The challenge becomes not instinctively pulling
back when someone offers you a rope and then “yanks your
chain.” You don’t have to prove you can give (or be) as big
a jerk. In fact, you can just “drop the rope.” This is not a
sign of weakness. Your message is, “I don’t want to play this
self-defeating or dysfunctional game. Can we come up with
a more productive way to address the grievance or solve the
problem?”
2. Use the “Four ‘P’ Process of Empathic
Engagement.” One or both parties in a power struggle are
usually angry or anxious about something. Your antagonist
may be upset about your actions (as a supervisor) or about
a common problematic situation. For example, in an
employee’s mind, are you playing favorites in the
department? In order to quickly connect to a belligerent or
injured party (after setting limits on any harassing behavior,
of course) attempt to engage the other person around his
“Pain” and “Passion” or her “Purpose” and sense of “Power”
(or feelings of powerlessness or helplessness). These “P”s
are definitely a pathway to empathy and possibly more
peaceful coexistence.
3. Reduce the Status or Power Differential. As a
manager (or parent of a teenager) unless absolutely
necessary, don’t lead with your authority trump card. As
much as possible, try to level the playing field; strive for
adult-to-adult communication. (Somehow this issue of use
of status and power reminds me of a politically incorrect,
somewhat tongue-in-cheek observation by a bank vice-
president regarding his biggest source of stress: “I can’t
beat my employees and I can’t fire my children.”)
Actually, if used consistently this step will likely free the other
person to be more forthright in their communication. And if
you are fortunate, your antagonist will even provide critical
feedback. Why do I say fortunate? In the long run, I believe
nothing builds trust more than when a person expresses
clean and clear anger and finds the recipient doesn’t fall
apart, run away or abandon them, doesn’t viciously blast
back or seek revenge. You may not agree with the other
person’s argument but you have demonstrated
acknowledgement and respect.
4. Avoid Black or White Thinking. An argument that
must result in one person being ‘right” the other party
“wrong” clearly tightens the tension in the tug or words if not
war. Dividing antagonists into “winners” and “losers” doesn’t
foster lasting conciliation and working partners. Oftentimes,
a sign of real strength is the capacity for some comfort with
uncertainty or even being tentative in the heat of battle: “I’m
not sure about that” or “Right now, I don’t agree. Still, you
make a good point. Let me think more about this.” (We’ve
already discussed the strategic value of taking a time out.”)
Again, allowing for uncertainty or delayed decision-making
creates subjective space for opinions and strategic options.
You are inviting the other to be a genuine problem-solving
participant. Setting aside “black or white” thinking
encourages power sharing over power struggle. Both
managers and employees can generate an array of leading
and colorful ideas.
Disarming Words of Wisdom
With the “Four ‘C’s” (of power struggles) and the above
communication principles in mind, as a manager what might
you say to a provocative employee who declares (or in so
many words avers), “You can’t make me”? Consider this
response: “I don’t know if I can make you or I can’t make
you. That’s not where I’m coming from. [Resisting the
provocative bait. Not quickly playing the authority trump
card; you are tentative without giving up your power
potential.] If we have a problem – if I’m bugging you or our
situation is problematic – I’d like to hear about it. [Can we
assume that if there is a serious power struggle someone is
pained or upset about something? I think so. And inviting
criticism often elicits real feedback and can help build trust.]
I need your contribution to meet our goals. I believe I’m in a
position to support you. For us to succeed we have to be
pulling together not pulling apart. [Affirming the process –
from dropping the rope to forging a partnership in power
and performing.]
Closing Summary
Two mind game exercises have been delineated. The first
exercise, interaction with a critical aggressor, highlighted
defensive reactions to a verbal barrage:
1) feeling rejected, surprised or exposed
2) feeling attacked and becoming aggressive
3) feeling fearful or humiliated and withdrawing.
Positive strategic interventions were also outlined:
1) differentiating reaction and response
2) metacommunication
3) using assertive “I” messages
4) taking a time out.
The disarming power struggle exercise noted the “Four ‘C’s
that spur on self-defeating or ego-driven battles – Control,
Competition, cultural diversity and Communication Skills.
Next, four communicational tips and tools for disarming
dysfunctional power games were detailed:
1) ”drop the rope”
2) use the “Four ‘P’s” for engagement
3) reduce the status or power differential
4) avoid ‘black or white’ thinking.
And finally, a power sharing to power struggle response in
the face of employee provocation is provided. Surely these
are all concepts and tools to disarm aggressors and power
struggles, to forge more productive working relationships,
and to help us all…Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, is a
psychotherapist, a “Motivational Humorist,” an acclaimed
Keynote and Kickoff Speaker (including with Celebrity Cruise
Lines), and an OD/Team Building Consultant. Mark is the
author of Practice Safe Stress: Healing and Laughing in the
Face of Stress, Burnout & Depression and of The Four
Faces of Anger: Transforming Anger, Rage, and Conflict
Into Inspiring Attitude and Behavior. Also, the Doc is AOL’s
“Online Psychohumorist" ™ running his weekly "Shrink Rap
™ and Group Chat." See his award winning, USA Today
Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com (recently cited as a
workplace resource by National Public Radio (NPR). Email
for his monthly newsletter showcased on List-a-Day.com.
For more info on the Doc's speaking and training programs
and products, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-946-
0865.
| Anger Management Groups led by Dr. Lyle Becourtney, licensed psychologist |
| Anger Management Groups led by Dr. Lyle Becourtney, licensed psychologist |
Call for your
appointment:
(917) 968-0965
appointment:
(917) 968-0965
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
