People Skills_How to Assert Yourself, Listen to Others, and Resolve Conflicts

by Robert Bolton PhD

Alfie: (repeating succinct assertion statement) Yes, I’ve said, I feel angry when you call me “Fatty,” so I won’t talk with you when you use words like that.

  Peg: All right, I’m sorry. I’m sorry! How many times do I have to say it?

  Alfie: You’re saying you won’t call me “Fatty” anymore.

  Peg: Yes, but I worry about where your weight will end up if I don’t keep reminding you.

  Alfie: (changing the subject) Well, I’ve got to go to work now. Let’s leave for the Smythes’ at seven-thirty.

  Peg: Okay.

  That last interchange did it. Peg has not spoken abusively to Alfie since. Selective inattention combined with one or two broken-record statements changed a behavior that the couple had fought and argued over for years.

  We told Alfie that psychologists have a word for what he did. They call it extinction, which simply involves not rewarding or reinforcing a behavior. Alfie laughed and said, “I’d call it plain old common sense. No, wait a minute,” he said. “It’s uncommon common sense.”

  WITHDRAWAL

  Sometimes temporary or permanent withdrawal is the most fitting thing that can be done in a relationship.

  Temporary Withdrawal

  When we were first married, there were several occasions in fairly rapid succession when my wife, Dot, and I were both under extreme stress coupled with fatigue. I would come home emotionally drained from a training session and look to Dot for the warmth and support I had learned to count on from her. When I needed her caring the most, she was so emotionally drained herself from her involvements that she had nothing to give. Not only was she unable to pour her energies into caring for me—she was looking desperately for my love and emotional nurturance, which I was unable to give. When we were unable to meet each other’s needs, we became angry and fought with each other. We were so depleted that we didn’t fight constructively, even though we knew how. With great anxiety about our young marriage, we sought out a therapist friend, Dr. Martin Seldman.

  Marty taught us to withdraw from each other when we were emotionally depleted. In time our emotional reservoirs filled again just as he said they would. Our withdrawals from each other took a variety of forms. Often we were physically present to each other, sitting in the same room, but each doing our separate thing. It wasn’t a hostile withdrawal from each other—just a recognition and verbal disclosure that we needed some creative solitude before we could be together in a positive way.

  The art of temporary withdrawal has been a very important part of our lives since. Sometimes, we get “peopled out.” Now we try to anticipate this before it happens and we preventatively schedule strategic withdrawals before we become totally depleted. When I retreat from people and demands before becoming depleted, my alone time is more fulfilling and my times with other people are richer.

  Permanent Withdrawal

  It is sometimes helpful to distinguish between five types of interpersonal relationships:

  Very nourishing relationships—these contribute greatly to my life.

  Mildly nourishing relationships—these make some contribution to my development and/or to my enjoyment of life.

  Noncontributing relationships—these neutral encounters do nothing for me.

  Mildly toxic relationships—these slightly diminish my selfhood and/or my enjoyment of life.

  Very toxic relationships—these excessively demanding, hostile, or nerve-wracking relationships are very depleting to me.

  Sometimes a given relationship will be both nourishing and toxic.

  Each of us experiences many toxic relationships. Toxic relationship may be with a neighbor, an acquaintance, “good friend,” One’s child, one’s parent. It is tragic but not uncommon to see a husband and wife who deplete one another far more than they nurture one another.

  What can be done about relationships that are very toxic and have depleted one or both parties for a long period of time? My approach has been to first determine if the relationship is important to me. If it is unimportant, I withdraw from the association immediately and permanently. There are too many good relationships on which to spend my time and energy. I wouldn’t purposely choose to live in a physically toxic environment if I had a good alternative, so why should I poison myself interpersonally when I have other options?

  If the relationship is an important one, I try to use self-modification methods and assertion skills to improve the interaction between us. With one person in particular, this has been a long and sometimes painful (but primarily growth-filled rather than toxically painful) process. In this particular case, and in some others, the effort was well spent. The relationship is now primarily nurturing and satisfying. In another situation, we struggled for years to improve the relationship which was important to both of us. Despite the fact that we both have considerable ability in communication skills, our efforts proved futile.

  When I don’t succeed in improving an important but toxic relationship, I choose to end it. Decisive withdrawal from relationships that are toxic is probably a wise move in most people’s lives. While some relationships are more draining than others, I think that if I lack the courage to either improve or end the relationships that are toxic to me, all my relationships, and indeed my selfhood, will be diminished.

  THE SPECTRUM RESPONSE

  The spectrum response provides a way of making honesty nondestructive when you do not fully agree with another’s idea, point of view or plan of action. George Prince and his colleagues at Synectics, Inc., noted that in meetings, ideas are typically “shot down” before they are fully developed and understood. When this happens, the proponent of the idea may suffer loss of self-esteem and the trust level and the creativity of the group decreases. Many managers have expressed a need to find a way of criticizing a subordinate without snuffing out initiative and spirit. They wanted to know how to respond to a subordinate’s seemingly impractical ideas without hurting the other person and discouraging him from bringing up other ideas which might be beneficial. Synectics devised a three-step process that is applicable in settings as diverse as homes, schools, businesses, and volunteer organizations.

  The first step is to hear and understand the idea. This requires great discipline. Though most ideas that are put forth are neither all good nor all bad, people typically speak about the faults of the idea and may totally ignore its advantages. “It seems to be universal that the faults in an idea will take precedence in your mind, so don’t fight it; simply do not voice the faults then. Temporarily focus the very best of you—your intellect, your feelings, your intuitions—on that small portion of the idea that is worthwhile…. By holding in abeyance your negative concerns about a new idea, you release a neglected capacity to contribute, to advance, to add to the creative sum of an emerging idea.”

  Sometimes I have thought, “I can’t find anything good in what the other person is saying.” In those cases, the spectrum approach suggests that I encourage the other to talk about his idea some more—and I listen to hear something good. “We believe that the good is there,” says Prince, “but it is difficult to hear because of the interference caused by awareness of the faults. As you become skillful, you will find that there really is good intent in every suggestion. You will be able to hear it, pick it up, and use it. By reacting this way, you promote a speculative discussion that can build rather than an airing of different points of view that invite defensiveness and deadlock.”

  Once you understand the full spectrum—the good as well as the faulty aspects of the idea—you are ready for step 2: share with the other(s) your view of that part of the idea (or intention) that seems worthwhile. Tell what you like about it. Build on what the other has said, adding any data or ideas that might strengthen the advantages you see in the proposal. In addition to any contributions you may make, you also make it clear that you do not intend to put down the other person or his idea.

  Finally, after having disclosed what you like about the notion, express your concerns. Choose your words carefully so
your concern is stated as precisely as possible. Avoid judgmental words and sweeping generalizations. Moreover, says Prince, try “not to prove a negative point but rather seek [to] help in finding a solution. Cure the faults if you are able.”

  When both positive statements and concerns about an idea are raised, the person whose contribution is being discussed often discounts the affirmative elements even when they are sincerely expressed. A friend of mine discovered that this tendency of the contributor is diminished if both the plusses and the concerns are stated at the outset so the other person doesn’t feel “set up.” He often says, “I really like the idea—at least most of it. I do have some concerns, too. I’d like to share all my thoughts with you.”

  The spirit and method of the spectrum response can alter the climate of business meetings, classroom sessions, and family interactions. It can foster more creativity in groups and one-to-one interactions. Though the method is simple to understand, I find that it requires considerable discipline on my part to use it as frequently as is appropriate.

  OPTIONS

  People commonly try to halt the troublesome behaviors of others by saying something like, “Stop that right now!” When no options are stated, the person has no way to “save face,” feels driven into a corner, and is more apt to behave aggressively than when alternatives are offered.

  Rather than directing or ordering the other person’s behavior, the asserter can offer some choices and invite the other to select whichever one he prefers. The asserter may only be able to think of two or three choices, and these may not seem highly desirable to the other person, but by offering even limited choices the asserter demonstrates that he recognizes the other as a person who can make decisions and control his own life. Providing alternatives helps to prevent the unnecessary aggressiveness that occurs when a person feels backed into a corner.

  A small group of students working together on a project became noisy and were disturbing others in the class. The teacher might have said, “Be quiet!” or “Break it up and work separately.” Instead, she stated a norm and gave them an alternative:

  We need to have it quiet in the room so others can work. You can work together and talk quietly, or you can work separately. What’s your preference?

  NATURAL AND LOGICAL

  CONSEQUENCES

  The psychologist Rudolph Dreikurs has promoted a method of helping children develop self-discipline without the use of punishments or rewards or excessive reasoning.

  Dreikurs makes a strong case against punishment (which you recall, is one of the twelve roadblocks). Punishment pummels some people into the half-life of submissiveness. A saying has it that the only people who will respond to punishment are the ones who don’t need it. For those who do not become overly compliant, punishment often feeds a power struggle and a deliberate increase in misbehavior. Nietzsche, the German philosopher, summed it up in one sentence: “Punishment hardens and numbs, it sharpens the consciousness of alienation, it strengthens the power of resistance.”

  According to Dreikurs, rewards are no more effective than punishment. He has two primary complaints about rewards: they tend to harm the recipient’s personality, and in the long run they cease to be effective. Rewards demonstrate a lack of respect for the other person. We reward our inferiors for good deeds and favors. Rewards also signal a lack of trust—else why would we have to bribe a person for good behavior? Rewards undermine one’s sense of responsibility and the satisfaction that comes from participation and contribution freely given. Finally, when the emphasis has been placed on “What’s in it for me?” we soon run out of satisfying rewards. The pathetic truth is that the others’ demands continually escalate, but there is no reward that totally satisfies. Dreikurs concludes, “The system of rewarding children for good behavior is detrimental to their outlook as the system of punishment…. In our mistaken efforts to win cooperation through rewards, we are actually denying our children the basic satisfactions of living.”

  Many times people try to reason with a misbehaving child. Dreikurs points out that logic (another roadblock) is usually futile because it cannot engage the child at the level of his needs and the goals of his misbehavior. You have undoubtedly noticed how quickly children become immune to persistent parental reasoning; they become “mother-deaf.”

  Dreikurs’s observations about the frequent inadequacy of words, rewards, and punishment apply to adult-adult relationships as well as to adult-child encounters. If reasoning does no good in these situations, and if reward and punishment don’t work, what can be done? The use of natural and logical consequences is often a constructive option.

  Natural consequences are based on the normal flow of events and take place without anyone’s interference. They represent the pressure of reality. This method is based on inaction—simply allowing another person to experience the consequences of behavior without trying to cushion the blow.

  Kathy received a ten-speed bike for her birthday. There were many bike thefts in that neighborhood and her parents explained that if the bike were left outside overnight, it might be stolen. If stolen, she would have to save her money for another one, or go without a bike. The parents would not buy another for her.

  Kathy chose to leave her bike outside and soon it was stolen. Kathy pleaded for another bike. She wheedled and cajoled. One day she threw a tantrum. Her parents were tempted to give in and buy her another. But they were also convinced they should not shield her from reality, so no bike was forthcoming until she saved enough money to buy one. This required great self-discipline on the part of those particular parents.

  Some people think the approach of Kathy’s parents was a disguised form of punishment. This was not the case. Kathy knew the consequences ahead of time. Her parents’ tone of voice and body language were matter-of-fact. The parents simply let events take their course. That is one of the best ways to enable a person to develop self-responsibility.

  Parents can avoid the reasoning trap and still share their experience and knowledge with their child. Sometimes children learn this way, though, like most of us, children gain much of their learning from their own experiences.

  In moments of real danger, a person should be protected from natural consequences—as when a child runs into the street in front of a car. When there is no acute danger, it is seldom helpful to shield a person from the natural consequence of his behavior.

  Logical consequences are arranged or applied. They must be experienced as logical in nature and not as arbitrary or capricious actions. If a child spills milk, he must wipe it up. If a person repeatedly arrives late for an appointment, he only is given the remaining amount of time for the interview. If there is no time remaining for the interview, he must reschedule it. When several people do not arrive on time for a meeting, it is still begun at the stated time. In each case, the consequences were logically related to the behavior.

  There is a significant difference between natural and logical consequences. Because natural consequences represent the pressure of reality without any specific action by you, they are always effective. By contrast, logical consequences cannot be applied when there is a power struggle (except in rare situations and then with great caution) because in that circumstance, they typically deteriorate into or are seen as acts of retaliation. Natural consequences are always beneficial, but logical consequences can backfire.

  Here are some guidelines to help you use the consequences method effectively.

  Ask yourself, “What would happen if I didn’t interfere?” Look for natural consequences and allow them to occur. Otherwise, you are protecting the other from developing and exercising his sense of responsibility.

  When relevant, use the formula “When you [description of behavior], then [statement of consequences]. You will have another chance [statement of when this can occur].” In the case of the ten-speed bike, Kathy’s parents could have told her, “When you leave your bike outside all night, it may be stolen. If stolen, you can get another bicycle when you have sa
ved enough money.”

  One of the keys to using this method is to detach yourself emotionally from the issue. If the parents aren’t affected emotionally, the child begins to learn that it really is “his own ball game.” Whether this is verbalized to the other person or not, it is important for the person to remain emotionally uninvolved with that issue. When that is the case, the nonverbals often let the other person know that there is nothing personal in this—it is just the other person’s problem and it won’t do either of us any good if I make it mine. Some people like to verbalize this to the other. The important thing however, is to achieve emotional neutrality in that area of the other’s life.

  The consequences must be put into operation consistently and with all people. Dreikurs says, “Natural and logical consequences must be applied so that the child becomes convinced that they will follow his misdemeanor, just as he is convinced that if he were to put his hand in water it would come out wet.”

  People often expect miracles after they have applied consequences for a few days. It is important to remember that the other’s behavior was probably years in the making. Because it usually takes longer than a couple of days for a person to alter a behavior which he has used for a long time, the person following this approach may be discouraged if there are no quick, drastic changes. The appropriate goal of consequences messages is not an instant miracle, but significant self-directed behavioral change.

  STOP THE ACTION;

  ACCEPT THE FEELINGS

  Sometimes a person feels very angry and expresses that anger through hostile behavior. This frequently happens with children, but anyone who watches pro hockey is aware that it is not limited to children. When faced with an outburst of hostile behavior, the recommended assertion procedure is to act quickly to: