Sunday, 1 September 2019

22. Manipulation; a hypothesis (triggered by Trump)


           A manipulator is someone with a lower level of consciousness (1) than his social environment, and therefore focuses on his own needs when he relates with others. A lower level of consciousness means that the attitude to life is more focused on one's own ego needs than on contributions to others or to the social environment. Your own survival may have to do with the material advantages that are central, but also very often with emotional needs that must absolutely be met. The desire to be right and followed is certainly part of that. We are talking about a person with a low maturity (2) . These ego needs can make behavior so dominant that any form of focus on the ‘good of the whole’ is experienced as very threatening to the manipulator. After all, it takes energy away from its own ego-focus; it is competitive. Moreover, it can be very frustrating for the manipulator because it may be connected to a sense of guilt. People realize in one way or another that they fall short, but being confronted with it is unbearable. This will certainly be the case when the manipulator's personality is damaged by strong and early negative relational experiences. Certainly in that case the emotional ego-needs will be dominant. Possible variations here are the need for control (over the content of the work), need for acceptance (recognition and respect), so either task-oriented or people-oriented. There are clear connections here with management styles (which can therefore become very unproductive). This situation leads to manipulation if there is a lack of decency in dealing with people in a correct and honest way; if self-control is lacking at this point. This is probably the result of a failed socialization process. In other words, insufficient values ​​and norms have been included in the education process, or they cannot compete with the emotional storm in the 'backpack' of the person concerned.
           If the people in the social environment of the manipulator do not serve these ego-needs, the manipulator will attempt to bring the behavior of others to his own level (focus), in order to serve his interests or goals. To this end, he explicitly calls on loyalty, trust and manipulates the emotions and especially the guilt of others for not matching the ego objectives of the manipulator. This means that the manipulator is choosing the CHILD (3) mode. Based on a feeling of powerlessness (strongly related to the emotional need for recognition), mainly 'pleasing' and give seemingly positive appreciation, always with the intention of wrapping others around their little finger. They thereby set up a smokescreen where consistency is lost, no integrity or openness is experienced, with no respect for the person. Changing visions, unpredictability and lack of respect for arrangements that were made, are characteristic effects. The obvious consequence is that trust disappears. This situation can drag on quite long, as humans experience and appreciate the pleasing behavior as a positive feeling. They later on get confused when they are confronted with the real motives behind this behavior. The manipulator who chooses the PARENT mode (strongly related to the need for control of the task or content ), is more intimidating. He uses means of power to get his way, and blackmail is often a part of this. Here too, confidence will disappear, although there is more openness about what the manipulator wants. But that is fully compensated, in a negative sense, by even less respect and even more polarity. This situation can drag on for a long time because people fear the dominant manipulator. A manipulator usually uses a mix of both scripts (pleasing n ddominating), which makes reliability disappear faster.
           If the self-image of the manipulator is particularly weak, the CHILD mode will very much determine the manipulating behavior. In this case, the need for recognition and social support may be the driving force. If there is an 'inflated' self-image, we get a reinforcement of the PARENT behavior through a narcissistic bottom layer. Narcissism and manipulation often go together. In this case, it is perhaps the motive of self-overestimation that takes the attention away completely from the relational, and focuses all energy on achieving one's own goals or wishes.
           It is clear that in both cases trust will disappear, certainly when people have more self-respect, awareness and social responsibility. These people, when they are confronted with a manipulator, take their distance and avoid interaction with this person. The lack of trust also means that people start questioning everything that comes from of the manipulator, and try to find out what is behind it, and how they can best survive in this threatening situation. The sense of security disappears, and that naturally weighs on the atmosphere and culture in a team or organization. Even if the manipulator is not the formal manager (just a team member, the lack of security will undermine cooperation. After all, people do not know who can still be trusted and who can not, who possibly joins the manipulator or even tries to gain personal benefits through a collaboration. The polarity increases due to an ever-increasing sense of insecurity.
           In every team (social context) there may be people who have a rather low level of consciousness, and who have no problem with connecting to the view and behavior of the manipulator. These people also focus on their self-interest. The result is that narcissistic manipulative leaders still find fanatic followers in an atmosphere of extreme neglect of people's primary interests. They will have the same focus in their view on life in general and will experience the public interest as a threatening competition. Perhaps this explains the current situation in the US, and it also sheds light on the polarizing effects in society that it causes. It starts to look painfully strong like a negative spiral.
           Whether manipulators can be helped (changed) through coaching is an important question. At first glance it seems very difficult for two reasons. The first has to do with the lower level of consciousness that lies at the basis. The ego needs are a strong driving force, and it will certainly take a lot of time to develop more maturity. Even with growing self-confidence, we run the risk of stimulating the dominance. The second reason is that manipulation has become a very strong self-preservation script that the person concerned has learned to use and develop in a hostile environment. It is a solid solution developed from the skills of the 'reflex brain', and therefore very strongly anchored in behavior. That means that everything a coach says to a manipulator is immediately tackled with these scripts to make it harmless. Consider the principle: "If a hammer is your only tool, every problem looks like a nail." Usually also the pre-frontal power (self-reflection, self-insight, purposeful action, values - driven action, ...) of the brain will be rather weak, slowed down in its development by the experiences that led to the low level of consciousness (or in some cases partly genetically determined?) And it is precisely this ability of the brain that must enable the self-reflection that is needed to gradually step out of this pattern because alternative more productive scripts are being developed. (4)
           Impossible does not exist, but where are the opportunities? If the problem is caused by very emotionally charged circumstances (see 'black pedagogy' - Alice Miller (5) ), emotion will also act as an obstacle in any process that must lead to improvement. It is clear that this will not be solved in a few good conversations. Very gradual development of maturity seems to be the only option here. Building self-confidence, in contrast to the experiences that led to the problem, is difficult but essential. This requires a supportive and tolerant social environment. Due to the nature of the problem and the effects it causes, it will not be easy to find and will probably not last long. Regular change of working context is then a possible way out. If intimidating manipulation with more use of power is more likely to occur, it may mean that self-confidence has grown and the possibilities are different. To put it crudely: 'a bang on the head' is more appropriate. But beware, dosing is important, or you push the person back into the previous phase, the powerlessness of the CHILD mode, with all consequences for permanent victim behavior and again the old relationship-oriented manipulation behavior. Unless of course the person in question feels very threatened and opts for the aggressive response. That could certainly be the case with narcissism or with strong ego injuries .
           Manipulation is a pattern of behavior that egocentric people use to bend their environment (people and /or the facts) to their will, due to a  lack of a respectful alternative. And if that alternative IS known, it is too often 'overruled' by the primary reflexes of elemental self-preservation. In the short run it can be satisfactory, but in the long run it leads to disturbed relationships and triggers a negative spiral in the social context involved. People with a manipulating personality are not suitable leaders, unless to a group of people who live at the same level of consciousness. It turns out, fortunately, that this is less and less common, as it does not produce long term sustainability. But because of their temporary success, these people sometimes cause a lot of damage to organizations.

Hugo Der Kinderen (November 2017)

(1)     The term consciousness level is very accurately described in the work of Richard Barrett, in "The new leadership paradigm ", ( http://valuescentre.com )
(2)     Maturity development refers to my own insights in this regard, described elsewhere
(3)     The terms PARENT and CHILD used here refer to the Transactional Analysis model (E. Berne) that explains human behavior and interaction. My personal interpretation of Berne's work is also described elsewhere.
(4)     An excellent analysis can be found about the development of self control in: Walter Mischel, The Marshmallow test, Little Brown & Co, New York, 2014
(5)     See the excellent explanation by Jean Van der Biest about this subject on ( https://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwikre2Kv7fXAhWSGuwKHaVdAL8QFghBMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waaromtoch.be%2F&usg=AOvVaw2rqt_vs29RDVR4L5dJnFgm)



No comments:

Post a Comment