35. The difference between dominance and directness

In relationships between people it is important to get a sort of alignment that allows living and working together. In the discussion of Transactional Analysis, we have already shown that a demanding attitude (Parent behavior) can considerably cloud the relationship, and make the collaboration unproductive. The reason is that the other party receives the signal that the "parent" wants to take over, and wants to put the person out of the game. Survival behavior is often the result? In some cases there is a counter-reaction that leads to a conflict. It is therefore important to consider the reasons why people perceive that behavior to be demanding or coercive. There appear to be two sources: the emotion or the content .

The first possibility is the mechanism of dominance. People want to dominate because their own needs are not met or respected. That feeling leads to a kind of personal threat, the gradation of which can of course be very different, and therefore also the intensity of pressure that arises from it. Dominance is driven by emotion, and therefore it is perceived by others as very threatening or even aggressive, with a danger of low self-control. It makes those others choose very quickly for survival or for the counterattack. The stronger the radiated emotion, the stronger the effect. And that degree of emotionality is of course determined by the problem that the person experiences in the "parent mode". People who are in great need of personal appreciation can become fierce if they do not experience this enough. People with a great need to control or create order in their environment run the same risk. In both cases it is an emotion that is determined by the personality. Neurotic traits among managers are a recognizable way in which this emotion leads to dominant behavior. But they are not the only emotions; almost any emotion can drive the dominance. The mechanism is clear: the greater the need that is not met, the fiercer the dominance. The only way to evolve into self-control here is a strong maturity (self-knowledge, self-confidence, self-relativity). Without that maturity, dominance cannot be combined with modesty.

The second possibility (besides dominance) is in the mechanism of direct communication on the content. It is created by naming things clearly and without sugar coating them. The facts prevail in communication and little care is taken to introduce them into the relationship. Direct communication also has effects on people, even though no emotion can be felt on the side of the messenger. The emotion arises in the mind of the recipient, because in their mind a feeling of 'poor coping' arises. What do I have to do with this? What does that mean for me? The message can conflict with one's own needs, usually relational connection or confirmation, so that the same effect occurs as with emotionally driven dominance. This was aimed much more directly at the listener (wanting to push away, ' overrule', ...) and therefore a stronger, more personal reason for a fight or flight response. With directness, the power of the reaction lies in the emotional world of the recipient. If he/she has a hard time accepting a truth, he /she will as well  go into 'alarm' mode. The perception of the listener can be that the messenger is dominant, because no distinction is made between one's own emotion or the emotion of the other as the cause of the problem. And yet directness can be combined with modesty on the part of the messenger. Hypersensitivity to emotional satisfaction makes this distinction fade and even disappear; every disagreement on the content is perceived then as dominance.

Very self-centered people with poor maturity (2) make that distinction the least; emotion is emotion, and threat is threat. The more one knows and accepts one's own emotional world and has an open view of reality, the better one can make the distinction between dominance and directness. It then becomes easier for a messenger to bring objective facts to discussion without letting the audience fall into an emotional response. That is why it will be important when giving confrontational feedback to do so without negative emotion. The concept of ‘appreciative inquiry ' (3) tries to make us aware of this. That approach, showing personal appreciation, especially non-verbal, will be all the more important if the listener has a more emotional personality and a weaker maturity. Even for dog whispers it is clear: if you try to redirect a dog, do not use emotion. Being calm and communicating ‘in balance’ is the first condition for good communication

Conclusion: giving feedback is a difficult job. Above all, the trick is to properly assess the emotionality of the listener and to incorporate the appropriate degree of personal safety into the conversation so as not to see the focus on the content being overshadowed by a sense of personal threat. Emotions on both sides again seem to be the biggest saboteurs of good constructive cooperation. This comes down to a strong dominance of the reflex brain, at the expense of the pre-frontal capacity of our brain where self-knowledge, self-control and maturity (possibly) can be found (if the exist). (4)

Hugo Der Kinderen

1/13/2018

(1) Transactional Analysis was developed by Eric Berne (Games People Play, Grove Pres New York, 1964) and was summarized by myself in a specific interpretation that is especially useful for leaders. A short introduction can be found at hugoderkinderen.blogspot.be.

(2) I have written a short summary about maturity development on hugoderkinderen.blogspot.be.

(3) See eg in Barret FJ and Fry RE, Appreciative Inquiry. A positive approach to building corporate capacity , Taos Institute, Chagrin Falls, 2005

(4) Daniel Kahneman , Thinking fast and slow, Penguin Books, 2012