What's in a Name?

This weekend Ma'ikwe and I are conducting Weekend VI (of eight) of our Integrative Facilitation training in North Carolina and the teaching theme is Challenging Personalities. We work with the ways that people present with difficult styles and are pejoratively labeled by others. We all do it… and it's done to all of us.

Many are rightly uncomfortable with labeling (pigeonholing people based on type), yet it's water that facilitators must swim in, both because you can't stop it from happening and there's important information embedded in the assignments. We're not teaching students to use labels; we're teaching the to understand them.

We're teaching students to look more deeply at what it means that a person acts in certain ways—both in terms of what's going on for the person, and how their behavior tends to be disruptive or bothersome for others. Labels are useful as a shorthand for this package, even as we're aware that a person is not the same as their behavior, that the type is not an exact description of the behavior, and that there are dangers in relying on a pattern to predict future behavior.

In the class we ask students to identify the personality types that are most difficult for them to facilitate, and the ways in which they are perceived by others to be difficult. I believe the most useful way to view this is that all of us have behaviors that are challenging (though everyone is not reacting to the same things), and all personality types have a positive side as well as a darker one. In fact, the surest way into a productive engagement with someone about the ways in which their behavior is disruptive, is to start by acknowledging some advantages to what they've been doing.

For example:
o  The Bully may be terrific at getting things done, though it's problematic that others feel run over as collateral damage.

o  The Unprepared comes to meetings with an open mind and that's a plus, despite the frustration the group experiences in taking the time to catch them up.

o  The Timid does not misuse plenary air time, or speak off topic, though it can be time consuming drawing out their opinions, or creating sufficient safety for them to speak.

o  The Appeaser can be invaluable as a bridge builder between people not hearing each other, though it can be pulling teeth to get them to state their opinion.

o  The Repeater is dedicated to getting their viewpoints considered, even if you didn't need to hear it the third or fourth time. On a more subtle level, repetition may indicate that the facilitators are not doing a good enough job of showing speakers that they've been heard.

o  The Goofball can inject some much-needed leavening into a dense conversation, though at other times their antics may be a distraction that diffuses focused energy.

Our aim in exploring this topic is to get students to understand the power of labels (both good and bad), the ways in which everyone's behavior—including our own—has both beneficial and deleterious consequences, and how to work constructively with patterns of behavior that the group finds irritating.

While it's challenging work, I have the personality to take it on.

Working with Challenging Personalities

I recently got the following email inquiry from a friend who is part of forming community [note that I've lightly edited this correspondence and modified the names to obscure the identity of the group]:

We are at a juncture that is both exciting and extremely challenging. We have identified and made an offer on two adjacent properties that are in the target area we have been looking at and are affordable. Together, there will be eight units available for members, plus a common space, which will suit well our desire for a compact, urban community. But even if these properties fall through, our challenge will not go away.

As you know, our group has a multi-year history with bumps in the road, and we have shrunk to three active members—Dale, Chris, and myself (Lee). We also have two long-term members, Adrian and Evan, who are not currently active in the group yet are seriously considering stepping back in and are willing to invest money in this particular property.

Here's our dilemma. We have lost a lot of money over the years, and now have very little in the bank. While most of us have some additional money we can invest in this project, it won't be possible unless Evan contributes $120k, which can be used as a down payment. While Evan is willing to do this, here's the bomb: For various reasons, Evan does not feel she can live in a community this small with Chris living there as well.

Without Evan we cannot buy this property, and it is unlikely we can buy any property, especially one that Chris can afford to live in—as smaller properties will cost more per unit to rent.

We are at wits end. I know I do not feel I can last much longer in trying to create a successful group. I think we all feel the same, and have begun to discuss the possibility of dissolving the group at year's end if nothing is created before then. We care about Chris, enjoy him, and respect his contributions throughout the years. But it's looking like we can't have a successful community that includes Chris given our financial situation, Evan's discomfort at having Chris as a member of such a small community, and some feedback/concerns we've had from other potential partners in the past.

These are notes from a recent meeting of Dale, Chris and myself:  
"Chris is the designated big personality right now. New people are scared about committing, mentioning concerns about Chris. We're scared we can't recruit anyone new. It's putting the group and Chris into a weird situation. We want neutral, positive ways to shift whatever is putting people off, and to maintain good relationships with each other, without screwing over the group as a whole (if we can't recruit new members, this project will never work financially)."
  
Chris wants me to ask: "When other people talk to Dale I think it doesn't only create problems for all three of us, there's an extra unhelpful dynamic of Dale telling me (Lee) about the problem (when she does). I don't think that's working well, because Dale has her own feelings, and we have some problems in our relationship at this point, so the information about what other people are reporting comes across with a particular twist, which I then have my own reaction to. I'm not sure what to do about that, since I also want to know if somebody has a problem. I think they should be talking to me directly as much as possible, yet that's something to ask Laird about." 

So I am. While I think speaking directly with the person concerned makes sense, Chris' question also showcases some strain in Dale and Chris' relationship.

What to do?  We're in a horrible situation, where money is reigning over a long-term, hard working, committed member, and where without that money, we may have no community at all (where, unfortunately, money isn't the only problem).

Here's my response:
 
This is certainly a tough spot.

o  The three of you (Chris, Dale, and Lee)) are weary of the many years with so little progress toward manifesting a community.

o  You now have found property that you like and can afford, but only if Evan invests.

o  Evan will not invest if Chris is in the community.

o  Chris has been involved for a long time, and has demonstrated a significant dedication to the project, yet a number of others have also found it difficult to work with her.

So the situation presents as a choice between:

Option A: Sticking with Chris and trying to either: a) figure out a way to replace Evan's money; or b) look for a different property that is either more affordable or one that is large enough that Evan would consider living with Chris.

Option B: Proceeding with the current opportunity, and asking Chris to step out.

Let's walk through each option.

Analysis of Option A
I know virtually nothing about what you've attempted to identify potential sources of money that could replace Evan's $120k. While I think it's possible that you could solve this problem, it likely comes with (at least) two price tags: 
—You'd have to spend time and energy locating the money, and it may come with strings that will be more complicated than simply assigning equity to Evan. 
—You'd lose Evan as a member.

Passing on this attractive property and continuing the search is unattractive. Your group is tired and there's a sense of either this is it or it's time to fold your tent and let go. That is, you may not have sufficient reserves (in terms of energy and motivation, as well as money) to keep searching. Further, there is probably the sense that you'll still need to deal with the tensions for which Chris is a lightning rod, so it may as well be now.

Analysis of Option B
What's the analysis of Evan as a potential member? In particular, I'm wondering about Evan's willingness to work through tensions with others. Has Evan made a good faith attempt at understanding Chris and resolving tensions with him? This is relevant in that if you agree to Chris' terms, what will happen the next time Evan is in tension with someone?

Taking this another step, have you seriously labored with Evan about the basis for having drawn a line in the sand about Chris? Do you respect how Evan got to that conclusion?

If you ask Chris to leave the group, Dale & you will need to be able to live with that decision. While everyone is not meant to live together, and there are definite limits to how far groups can stretch to include everyone, you two need to feel that you've made enough of an effort to work through tensions with Chris and are convinced that the effort is too great relative to the benefits to continue. If you're not at peace with that, you'll feel guilty and it will undercut the joy you had meant to get out of starting a community. The community will become a poisoned apple. 

• • •

Whichever way you go, you'll want to feel that you're being realistic and that you're proceeding in a way that strengthens the resolve and capacity of the remaining group to work on tensions as they arise—with or without Chris.

Apropos Chris' question about how critical feedback is handled in the group, you'll want to proceed in such a way that you've done your best to handle any challenges about living with Chris (as a specific example of issues that might come up about living with anyone) as compassionately and authentically as possible—since that's your highest intention for how your community will function. If you don't feel you're handling that well, then I urge you to address that first.

I am not making a recommendation about whether Chris should be part of the group. Rather, I am making a recommendation that you look hard at how you deal with tensions and identify the limits of when you've tried hard enough and it's time to let go. These are not easy questions, but you have to face them.

Savoring a Soft Landing

I lost a student recently.

While there is always sadness and a sense of failure that accompanies such occasions, there was also something to celebrate and I want to share that story.

Not all people are meant to do things together, and there are definite limits to how widely you can dance with the muse of inclusivity before the circle is too wide and the bonds too diluted to sustain you through travail. There is considerable delicacy in knowing where that boundary is and how to examine it with compassionate and authenticity.

The student in question (whom I'll call Robin) is a hard worker and has lived a life clearly dedicated to promoting community. At the same time, Robin identifies with a diagnosis of ADD (attention deficit disorder) and has presented a challenge for every group they've been a part of. Robin doesn't pick up social cues easily and often inserts themselves into conversations with an energy that is not congruent with what they have to contribute--which simultaneously is disruptive to what others are saying and makes it hard to understand their point.

Robin has accomplished much over a lifetime and has a lot to offer, yet they rarely wait for an invitation before offering their perspective. When speaking, Robin will often offer details that are aren't germane to the consideration, thereby elongating a statement that wasn't necessarily welcome or appropriate to begin with. On top of that, when these tendencies are pointed out, Robin typically has no qualms about pushing back, ratcheting up the tension level. In short, Robin is a handful.  

Going the other way, Robin sometimes has valuable insights about problem solving, and has been a good role model for speaking up for what they needed.

Drawn to facilitation training in the hope that they'd have more success being a resource to cooperative groups, it wasn't being an easy fit.

In particular we had two incidents where Robin was an outside facilitator in the context of the training and both times they were unable to resist offering unsolicited advice about how the group should handle the issue being discussed. Both times the group didn't like what Robin did (essentially violating the facilitator's neutrality by wading into content without portfolio) and we made sure that Robin got the feedback.

Chafing under that restriction, Robin reflected on the dynamic and came to the conclusion that facilitation was not their calling. What Robin really wanted was to be a consultant.

In some ways, Robin's confusion about those two roles can be laid at my feet. As a professional consultant it's relatively common that I'll be hired both as a facilitator and as a resource to offer expert advice about the choices group weigh during problem solving. (There is often interest in hearing about what other groups have done when facing similar circumstances and I often have knowledge about that.)

Robin had seen me serve in the capacity on a number of occasions and was having difficulty accepting that I was allowed to do something that they weren't. Even though this was laid out up front and we never pretended it would be another way, Robin nonetheless chafed at the dual standard.

The key part of this story though is not that there was difficulty, and not that Robin resigned from the training; it was that Robin reported how relieved they were that the separation was not acrimonious. Even though it seemed awkward to me (and to other students), we had been trying to make it work. We gave Robin straight feedback when coloring outside the lines. We listened to what they were saying and acknowledged their contributions. When things went well, we made sure to honor that. When Robin asked for special treatment, we took it one request at a time, negotiating as we went.

Life has been rocky for Robin, and it's humbling that the more humane treatment they received in the class—bumpy as it was—stood out in sharp contrast with the way it usually plays out for a demonstrative person struggling to cope with ADD. Even though it's not possible to achieve laminar flow with all configurations, and sometimes the turbulence is unacceptable, this was a good reminder that the effort to give everyone a try is worth the stretch, and what seems bitter to some can be perceived as sweet to others. When you're used to seeing the glass half empty, a mouthful of water can be surprisingly nourishing.

Dark Nights of the Cooperative Soul

Over the course of my 37 years of community living (and 24 years as a process consultant) there have been about half a dozen times where I've been embroiled in difficult dynamics with another person that have persisted for years, where together we have been unable to turn a corner in how we interact. It just never gets better.

As someone devoted to thinking about and assisting others in understanding and navigating challenging dynamics, this is humbling stuff. When everything I try fails, then what? I'm haunted by the spectre of my blind spots laughing at me. What am I missing?

One of the most delicious ironies about this dynamic is that I can often see how I would reach out to the other person in the moment of maximal estrangement, or how I would reach out to the distressed person that is myself, yet I am neatly disqualified from engineering either bridge-building operation. My antagonist typically is in no position to see my attempts to reach out as well intended, and any effort to guide others about how to hold me when I'm feeling isolated just comes across as self-serving. There is a Cassandra-like quality about this, where my demonstrable skill at working conflict is uniquely inaccessible when I'm a player in it.

Still, there is work for me to do. How do I step back far enough from the dynamic to get an accurate glimpse of how I'm feeding the fires of dissent—all the while lamenting how badly I'm being treated? Usually, I need to go through a period of venting. This typically works best alone (perhaps through journaling; perhaps through a long walk where I conduct a stream-of-consciousness monologue that no one else needs be subjected to) or with my long-suffering wife (who at this point understands that there are times when I just need to unload and am not looking for a response), whose sole (soul?) task is to hold me through the night.

These tend to be dark nights of soul, where I sit in misery and despair until I exhaust the fuel of the latest outrage and in the cold pre-dawn must still find my way to a constructive response. How to find courage that is uncontaminated by revenge or the tainted desire to be right?

I try to see my protagonist as simply someone in pain, doing their best to cope. I try to open my heart to a possibility that I dread: that I am actively contributing to the dysfunction; that I can make different choices and perhaps get different results. I need to consult more than my head and my heart; I need to consult with the heads and hearts of others. I need allies to be constructive. How can I ask for support without asking people to take sides?

I need to steer clear of the cesspool of assigning bad motivation and stick with identifying the actions that don't work for me. Along the way—and especially if the journey is long and arduous—I have the option to exit, to walk away. While I yearn for relief from the struggle and the sense of being vilified, where can I be assured that this will not happen? I have learned over long years that it's important to make such decisions only after my anger has cooled and I can exit at peace (or can be at peace with asking the other person to exit—I have done both).

Many years ago (before I got together with Ma'ikwe) I faced an important relationship choice where I was sorely tempted to find out what was possible with a new partner. I sat with the possibility for weeks before making up my mind that it was right for me to go ahead. It meant ending the intimate relationship I was in and the break-up was messy (which was not hard to foretell). As it turned out, the new relationship didn't gel and before long I was partnerless, which was not at all what I had in mind. However, I was nonetheless at peace because I had done enough personal work before breaking up with my existing partner.

The main fruit of my laboring over whether or not to pursue the new relationship was my realizing that I was not exchanging my existing relationship for a new one; I was exchanging my existing relationship for a chance at a new one. While I was sad that the seed didn't sprout, I at least knew going in that all I had been promised was a seed. Thus, whenever I contemplate exiting as a response to persistent challenging dynamics, I've learned that it is important to do so freely, and without placing any burden of expectations on others to justify my "sacrifice."

In short, I need to be truly at peace with moving on, or else it's a sure sign that my work is not yet done. I'm telling you, this personal growth stuff can be an absolute bitch.

The Productive Bully

When I conduct a two-year facilitation training, I devote one of the eight weekends to focusing on Challenging Personalities. I have developed a handout about this that I call the Meeting Menagerie: Personalities from A to Z. Under "B" I describe the Bully.

This is a fairly common type. Bullies tend to be loud and aggressive, hoping to achieve through bluster and volume what they may not succeed with through strength of ideas. They tend to thrive in environments with weak process agreements and unskilled facilitation.

Today I want to focus on a particular subset of this common type: the Productive Bully. This is a highly interesting case, where the loud and pushy person is also highly productive. When the bully is all Sturm und Drang and little action, dealing with them tends to be more straight forward (though not necessarily more pleasant). With the Productive Bully, there may be a real question about whether the group can function well without the Bully's considerable contributions and it muddies the waters about how best to proceed. I am particularly senstive to this type because for some, I am the Productive Bully.

(The irony here is that this personal liability translates into a professional asset. One of the ways in which I'm particularly prized as a process consultant is working with groups who have Productive Bullies among their membership. Based on my own group experience, I find it relatively easy to understand the dynamic and can simultaneously help the Bully find a way to examine their behavior with dignity, and help the group understand their options for engaging on the objectionable bahviors without vilifying the person.)

To be a Bully of any stripe, it means others are intimidated into being silent or acquiescing to what the Bully wants, swallowing (or at least understating) their reservations.This is dfferent than being bamboozled, where people are fooled or confused. With the Bully you know you don't like what's happening, but you don't know what to do about it, or are afraid to try. Typically, if you attempt to object to the Bully's tactics, you're likely to become the target of retributive attack. If it's unpleasant enough (and most attacks are), you'll hesitate to do it again—which only reinforces the Bully's power and encourage them to continue.

[Aside: Keep in mind that this is a highly simplistic overview, and I'm only working it from one end. Part of the dynamic may be that the label of Productive Bully is projected onto a person who exemplifies another Challenging Personality—the Victim. It can get very confusing understanding what's actually happening. However, for purposes of this exploration, I'll conveneiently lay aside that confusing element and assume that the label Productive Bully is being aptly applied.]

With the Productive Bully the calculus changes. There will be a tendency to put up with more guff in exchange for the Bully's substantive contributions. (A clever Bully may try to undercut criticism of their meeting behavior by asking why people are beating up on someone who contributes so much, attempting to deflect attention from their problematic social dynamics by shining the light on their exemplary productivity.) Sometimes the Productive Bully will believe that their output earns them a free pass on their roughshod meeting behavior—and if the group doesn't call them on it, you can understand how they've come to think that way.

There can be a lot of nuance here. Bullies weren't born yesterday; their behaviors have been shaped by years and years of interactions. They've learned that behavior as a way to exercise power. And in the case of the Productive Bully, it's quite possible that the power is being used in service to laudable goals (that is, in the group's best interest rather than in pursuit of personal advantage). Their story, typically, will be that they understand that others operate differently and that some in the group have trouble with their style, yet they nonetheless persist in their ways because of several positives (as seen through their eyes):

o It cuts through the crap and forces the group into action. The group otherwise tends to be wiishy washy and dithers in the presence of non-trivial disagreements about issues. Bullies will take the hit for the team. They will ask the tough questions and not shrink from the tension. They will grab the machete and start hacking through the jungle of confusion. Sure, people's feelings might get hurt, but at least we're through the hard part quickly and who's to say that going slower and discussing as a group which liana to cut, one by one, might not be more painful (it will certainly be more excruciating)?

o When they argue strongly for a position, Productive Bullies are willing to back it up with strong implementation. It's only appropriate that the people doing the lion's share of the work have more influence on the decision. Don't we care about high morale among the group? It's hard to get excited about implementing decisions you don't think are best.

o No shrinking violets, Productive Bullies bring their passion into the room, making for more lively conversations. You don't have to guess how they feel; they'll tell you. They're not asking others to get quiet, and they can't be held responsible for the choice of others to be silent. Over a lifetime, they've learned that the quckest way to dispose of problems is through spirited debate. Asking them to moderate their bhavior is just about tantamount to muzzling them. Where is the commitment to everyone's voice being heard if they're not allowed to use their natural voice?

So what to do? While there are complicating subtleties in untangling the dynamics of the Productive Bully, there are compensating advantages. In general, with the Productive Bully you can count on their caring about the group, and it's relatvely easy to point out qualities about that person that you genuinely appreciate.

Let's take it step by step. If you're going to attempt a conversation with the Productive Bully about what's problematic with their behavior, it will occur in one of two ways: Case A—when the Bully is agitated; or Case B—when they aren't. It is crucial that you start with this assessment.

Let's take the simpler case first: Case B—when the Bully is not agitated. Assuming they've agreed to have a conversation to hear critical feedback about their behavior, I think you're much more likely to have a constructive experience if you can demonstrate to the Bully's satisfaction that you have a solid understanding about how they think about the group's well being and how their actions are based on good intentions. Further, you can make clear that you appreciate their many contributions as an implementor, even while objecting to some of their behaviors. You can appreciate that they bring their full self into the room, while objecting to how they tend to jump the stack, take up more than their share of the air space, and can intimidate others with the intensity of their advocacy.

The keys to keep in mind are explicitly affirming the Bully's good intent, and then making your criticisms concise, specific, and direct. Don't say it three times, don't generalize, and don't sugar coat. Though I'm not guaranteeing this will succeed, I believe it will give you your best chance.

Now let's take the harder situation: Case A—where the Bully is agitated (which includes the possibility of the Bully starting the conversation not agitated and then becoming so mid-stream). This obviously is more volatile. It's not at all unusual for the Bully to get more difficult—and even abusive—when upset. In consequence, it is not unusual for people to be most motivated to object to the Bully's bahvior in that moment.

However, in my experience, there is almost no chance of success if you ask an upset person to reflect on their behavior prior to establishing to their satifaction that you understand what's going on for them in the moment. This means setting aside your reaction to their behavior long enough to show the upset person that you get what they're feeling and what the trigger was. This is not about agreeing with them; it's about validating their experience. It's about seeing them and creating a bridge to their experience. If there is no bridge, the ensuing communciation will be constrictive, not constructive.

Once this bridge has been established, then it's possible to proceed as outlined for Case B.

Depending on how distress manifests, it is not necessarily our instinct to first respond to an upset person with caring and understanding. in the instance of tears or fears, reaching out may be our first choice; with anger however, reaching out may not even occur to us as an option. With the Bully (productive or otherwise), upset commonly shows up in the form of anger and a raised voice. It can take considerable savvy and discipline for a group to respond to anger with empathy, yet it's rare for anything else to work.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you simply swallow your reaction to the Bully's behavior. rather I'm trying to lay out a pathway to a constructive conversation about it that emphasizes everyone's basic humanity, and approaches accountability through connection rather than from outrage. The trick, of course, when all parties are dizzy with upset, is to find someone who is willing to get off the merry-go-round first.

The bad news is that this is hard to do. The good news is that it's nonetheless possible and at least there's some solid thinking available about when and how to do it. While dealing with Bully dynamics is no fun, can we afford not to try? To paraphrase Walt Kelly, "We have met the Bully and they is Us." Believe me, I know.