Conflict, Bullies, and Introverts

A friend of mine recently posted these comments in response to my blog of Nov 16, 2015, What It Takes for Groups to Be Less Conflicted about Conflict:

Assuming the accuracy of data reporting the relative predominance in cohousing of people who view themselves as introverts, the use of boundary “management” or strengthening/closing in response to bullying (or even just to conflict in general) may be seen more frequently when an introvert feels bullied.  

My thinking is that the initial response called for—engaging or confronting—would require a decision or choice to engage, which the introvert might need to go inside to reflect upon first. Once there, they might determine that inside is safer and less demanding, and not come out again.
Staying in the fire is not easy for anyone, and perhaps even less so when the preferred examination process takes place internally. The decision to return to the fray and engage may be asking introverts to demonstrate a greater degree of courage than they possess, especially when it is not supported by the community.

Let's unpack this, starting with definitions and premises.

o  Almost all groups will contain a mix of extroverts and introverts. For the purpose of this essay I'm defining extroverts as people who are energized by engagement with others; introverts tend to be drained by engagement. Extroverts recharge their batteries by being with others; introverts recover alone. It's not a good or bad thing; it's just different.

o  Plenaries (meetings of the whole) tend to favor extroverts because it's an energizing environment for them. For introverts meetings can be a strain—they often have to pump themselves up to stay focused and engaged, and they're frequently operating outside their comfort zone. 

o  If you add conflict to the mix (emotional distress) the stakes tend to get even higher. While extroverts often raise their energy in the presence of conflict (some even thrive on it), this can be excruciating and feel unsafe for introverts. This tends to make it even harder for introverts to get their oar in the water and keep pulling.

o  Bullying is about acting in a way that's intimidating, making it harder for others to voice their  concerns or interests, or to hang in there when disagreeing with the bully. It is not about the bully's viewpoint; it's about how they express themselves and the ways in which they apply pressure on others to back down or otherwise yield. Bullying succeeds when others believe that exiting the unpleasant dynamic is more important than getting their needs expressed or met.

o  Bullying can show up in a wide range of ways:
sarcasm
raising one's voice
talking fast
interrupting
getting upset 
denigrating other's viewpoints (if you think this is rare, reflect on the dominant style of current political discourse)
woe-is-me manipulation (let me have my way because I'm a victim and your opposition prolongs or exacerbates my suffering)
threatening unpleasant consequences

o  Bullying may be a conscious, tactical choice, or it may be an unconscious style, so ingrained in a person's personality that they engage in it by default. 

o  Bullies may care how their behavior impacts others or they may not. That said, there is an advantage in cooperative culture in that there is a baseline assumption that the group will do its best work only when all relevant viewpoints are expressed and taken into account. Thus, in a cooperative setting there is a greater chance that a bully will be willing to be willing to work with feedback about how their behavior is making it harder for others to speak. The bully may deny that that they intend to intimidate others, but they may be willing to work on changing their behavior once they know it's having that effect.

• • •

So what can be done about bullying in cooperative groups, taking into account how hard this dynamic can be for introverts? Here are half a dozen suggestions:

1. Talk about it ahead of time
I think it's essential that group's discuss the phenomenon of bullying behavior and how they want to handle it. (Hint #1: It is an an absolute nightmare to postpone this consideration until you're in the moment. You need to do this pre-need. Hint #2: Note how I phrased this—bullying behavior. Object to the behavior; not the person.)

2. Commit to interrupting bullying wherever it's encountered
This will almost certainly mean authorizing facilitators to step in when they believe bullying is occurring—whether the intimidation was intended or not isn't the point. If bullying is allowed to happen unchecked, things will not magically get better.

Note how nuanced this can be. Suppose someone in the group is intimidated by loud voices and feels bullied by a member of the group who is frequently passionate in their statements. How much does the group want to protect the person who feels intimidated and how much does it want to support each member having access to their natural style? Where is the balance point?

3. Have agreements about how you'll work with emotional reactivity and develop the skills to deliver the support you commit to providing
You have to anticipate that when bullying surfaces that some of the time reactivity will be part of the mix. It will be paralyzing if there is no confidence in the group's ability to compassionately and accurately work the moment—be it the bully's distress, other's distress, or both.

4. Introverts and extroverts are going to have to make peace with one another
You cannot expect everyone else to adapt to you. For extroverts this translates into being sensitive to how your style can make life challenging for others. For introverts it means there has to be room at the table for the passionate and the boisterous, just as much as for the quiet and contemplative. You don't have to pretend to be something you're not, yet group culture is a mixed salad, not a homogeneous stew.

5. Offer a mix of formats, making it easier for introverts to contribute or to express distress
Take time to canvass your membership to get a sense of what will help people feel safe and that their contributions are welcome. Don't guess what people want; ask. 

What am I talking about? Small group breakouts, individual writing, talking sticks, and guided visualizations are techniques that offer a more deliberate pace and a less chaotic on-ramp. Intermix them with the up-tempo raucousness of brainstorms and open discussions.

6. Make sure that the right to be heard is joined at the hip to the responsibility to hear and work constructively with the views of others
When bullies are driving an agenda they are all too often insisting on their right, while sidestepping their responsibility. Make sure that that doesn't happen. First help them be heard, then slow things down to make sure that there's air time for other perspectives. After all, introverts are not stupider; they're just quieter.

The Beleaguered Bully

I was recently working with a community that has been around for a while, and they were struggling (as many groups do) with how to work constructively with distress when it erupts in meetings. That's a familiar request for me, and I was happy to be available in case conflict popped it's pointy little head into the room. While things proceeded more or less without drama during most of my visit, the wheels fell off the wagon in the last 30 minutes of the final plenary. Not only wasn't there time to deal with everything that spilled out, we also didn't make the progress we were hoping on the topic that was suspended when the conflict erupted. Ufda.

While this makes a poignant story in its own right, what inspired me to write about it was what happened in the debrief after the meeting, when I was sequestered with seven members of the group who were interested in looking more closely at how the community has been functioning and what could be done to effect improvements.

First let me give some additional back story. The group has existed as a stable community for many decades, and has a considerable number of long-term members. That's a strength. A handful of these long-term members are also characters, with all the idiosyncrasies and range of personalities that you might imagine. In some cases, there are long-term hurts between long-term members that have never been resolved. That's a weakness.

Worse, in addition to the direct distortion that occurs whenever a person hears a statement from someone with whom they have unresolved conflict, there are the stories the rest of the group members tell about those who have not yet been able to find a way to forgive and move on. Thus, if Adrian and Robin are both still carrying upset about an interaction they had years ago that didn't end well, it is likely both that Adrian will be hyper-vigilant about what Robin says, and that others will also be reactive to Robin as well—not because they are taking Adrian's side, but because they have come to expect provocation from Robin.

Mind you, this mix of backdrop dynamics exists (in some form) in most long-term groups, so nothing I've said so far makes this group stand out.

Now let's return to the plenary. Continuing with the pseudonyms I employed above, we were working on the issue of whether the community wanted to grow. Early in the conversation one member, Jesse, stated that even limited growth would have impact on wildlife and the carrying capacity of the land. Shortly after that, Robin stated that though s/he was pro-growth s/he wanted to make certain that whatever was agreed to was something that Jesse was at peace with. Then all hell broke loose.

A number of people (we didn't have time to find out exactly how many) were triggered by what Robin had said. The first one to speak was Sandy, who characterized Robin's statement as "emotional blackmail." Essentially, the objectors inferred from Robin's statement that a) Jesse's views on growth mattered more than the views of others; and/or b) that Robin didn't trust the rest of the community to take Jesse's views into account (even though the group operates by consensus).

Listening to all this as an outside neutral party who didn't have a dog in the fight, it wasn't hard for me to hear what Robin had actually said in a neutral way. That is, there is nothing wrong with the desire to hold Jesse in mind when reaching a decision about growth. The reactive folks were projecting onto Robin a desire to hold Jesse above others. The fact that it may turn out to be true is not the point. From a process standpoint, I believe it's better for the group to be current in reactions, and not project trouble based on what's happened in the past.

There is an important difference between being vigilant about good process, and looking for a fight. I am not suggesting that people be naive about Robin's tendency to be provocative. Rather, I am suggesting that they keep working to see the potential good in what s/he said. In this case, it would have cost the group nothing to have spun Robin's statement as support for the laudable goal that everyone—including Jesse—be at peace with any group decision about growth. What's not to like about that? If, later on, Robin strayed from that innocent interpretation and was observed starting to play favorites, then would have been the time to blow the whistle.

Now let's return to the debriefing. The seven community members were eager to discuss the choices I made when working with Robin and Sandy in the plenary. In part, they were amazed that I could so readily access a non-nefarious interpretation of Robin's impassioned speech in support of Jesse. As we continued to unpack both what happened and how it was seen by the other seven—none of whom included Adrian, Robin, Jesse, or Sandy—it became clear that all seven found it difficult to imagine that Robin's statement might have been innocent.

And that's what I want to focus on today: how a group can fall into the trap of developing stories about people with challenging personalities and styles, whereby those people are seen as caricatures more than as living breathing humans who don't always do things the same way and are capable of change. This phenomenon of pigeonholing difficult people is not helping. And it's all the more sobering when it's being indulged in unconsciously by the folks most motivated to look at how the community is functioning. Yikes!

In the community I'm writing about, both Adrian & Robin are seen by many (at times, not always) as exhibiting bullying behavior. That is, they're both perfectly willing to push for their views about what's best for the group and have thick enough skins to withstand group disapprobation for their tactics. In their view, being able to take the heat is part of what makes them effective.

While I think that their view on this is seriously flawed (both are intelligent and valuable members of the community and I think they'd both be much more effective if they bullied less and worked more to acknowledge and work creatively with the views of others), I don't advocate that either become wimps. It's an advantage for the group that they're both willing to say what they think. The hard part is that they're perceived to be making it harder for others to say what they think, and that's a problem.

Overall, it's my view that if the community is going to turn this around, they'll need a systems approach, where everyone sees the role they're playing in continuing the dynamic. Pretty much, everyone will fall into one of three categories:

Category A) Those who habitually display challenging behavior and don't appear to be motivated to acknowledge it (much less work on ameliorating it).

Category B) Those who label the people in Category A as problem children, and then get protective for the group whenever those Type A personalities wade into the conversation.

Category C) Those who are passive in the face of dysfunction. This includes both those who skip meetings, and those who attend but disappear when the sledding gets tough.

What this community needs is more bridge builders and fewer people assigning labels.

• • •

As messy as all this sounds, the end of the plenary was actually more complicated than I've told you. I hadn't yet revealed that Robin lashed back at Sandy right when it was time to start wrapping up (and there's was literally no time to work the dynamic); or how Adrian was furious with the group for allowing Sandy & Robin's exchange to "derail" the growth conversation (thereby cleverly using strong feelings in an attempt to pressure the group into not focusing on strong feelings in plenaries). I'm telling you, working as a process consultant is rarely dull.

Taking the Bully by the Horns

I define “bullying” as behavior that intimidates another person into either being quiet or otherwise acquiescing to the bully’s wishes even though that person has reservations about the wisdom or appropriateness of what the bully is asking for.

While bullying behavior may occur as a one-time incident, the more interesting case is when it’s perceived as a patterned tendency. Where that happens and it goes unaddressed, it can further develop into the people being quiet or tentative about stating their concerns for fear that expressing their views will trigger bullying behavior—rather than because it is actively occurring. Then, when it comes out later that people are upset because they felt intimidated, the bully is understandably frustrated because they are being blamed for something they might have done, rather than for something they actually did. It can get ugly.

It is important to note that bullying does not have to include physical intimidation (threat of physical violence). It can be entirely accomplished through verbal and/or written statements, and even through body language and facial expressions that involve neither touch nor words.

It’s important to understand that the roots of this dynamic can go back very deeply on both sides of the equation. For the bully, they may have learned that speaking more forcefully and passionately (perhaps loudly, or embellished with fist pounding or arm swinging) has the effect of enhancing their chances of getting their way. Building on that success, they’ve learned over the years to do it more. While they may be aware that they have this power (to control through intimidation), their rationale may be that they’re not asking that others refrain from doing the same thing. They believe their contributions are valuable and everyone is free to express their views as persuasively as they can. Let the best ideas survive!

Going the other way, the bullied may have grown up in a household with an angry or abusive parent. They may have learned to be timid and inconspicuous as a survival mechanism. While that’s not the (current) bully’s fault or responsibility, you can see how no-holds-barred meetings are not experienced as a level playing field. Instead, they may be a mine field.

One of the important nuances around this is being able to distinguish the boundary between an acceptable range of expression (for example, demonstrative and energetic) and unacceptable intimidation That is, at what point are dynamics being controlled by the raucous and passionate; at what point are they being dominated by the soft-spoken who never raise their voices? This is not a simple question and there is no agreement on the right place to draw the line.

Note: people can dominate events through being a bully, and they can also steer events through being a victim. Groups need to be aware of both dynamics. In a recent group I was working with, some people expressed extreme frustration with what they perceived as the group’s tendency to support the bully more than the victim. Sometimes it’s the other way around. The ideal though is to develop a culture when everyone in distress feels supported, and no feels either run over or muzzled.

I believe the line you want to draw is doing everything you can to permit a wide range of authentic (as opposed to postured) expression while at the same time checking to see if anyone’s boat is being swamped by someone else’s strong bow wave, or their boat is being sucked down into another’s whirlpool of misery and fear. When you’re group encounters heavy seas, you’re trying to bring the entire fleet safely into the harbor of agreement.

What you want is to be able to hear everyone’s input in their own words and with their own affect. That is, you want to know (both in your brain and in your bones) what they have to say and why it matters, yet you also need to be sensitive to how one person’s full expression can feel unsafe or destabilizing to another. These can be tricky waters to navigate.

I recall years ago facilitating a neighborhood association meeting where I had no prior experience with any of the participants. Among the attendees were an older black man and an older white man, both of whom had a fair amount to say and very different styles. It became quickly clear to me that the black man liked things up-tempo and animated. So when I was working with him, I picked up the pace and responded with higher energy. In contrast, the white man liked things slowed down and deliberate. So when I was working with him, I lowered my voice, and made sure the pace didn’t leave him behind. Each got a style of facilitation from me that matched what they needed to feel heard, yet neither’s preferred style dominated the meeting. Each got half a loaf, and both were able to feel fully included in the sandwich conversation.

In a lot of cases where someone in a group is perceived as a bully, there is the sense that the bully’s right to be heard is grossly out of balance with the paired responsibility of the bully to hear others. That is, it may appear that the bully is insistent upon their voice being heard (in the manner they prefer) while it’s not clear how they are also working respectfully with the input of others (or even supporting an environment where the viewpoints of others can be expressed). It can go a long way to deescalating a tense dynamic if the person who is labeled a bully can demonstrate how they are in fact supporting the viewpoints of others being fully voiced and considered.

While no one wants to be seen as a bully, people feel intimidated and triggered all the time. It’s important that groups have a way to discuss both what’s happening and what to do about it, yet you need to be careful about how the topic is introduced. Because the term “bully” is a pejorative, you may potentially already be in hot water if you begin with a direct statement such as, “I want to talk about bullying,” because this will invariably lead to someone’s behavior being tarred with that brush. It may get you off to a less charged start if you offer something like, “I want to discuss how we can better balance the right to freely express our views with the right to feel safe.”

The key here is that if you can’t talk about it, you can’t fix it. And if you can’t fix it, decisions will be made by those with the thickest skin and the loudest voices, rather than by those with the best insights into how to balance factors and viewpoints.

If your group is handling this well, bully for you!

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.