Help and Helping, Self-Absorption and Self-Awareness?

Giving and getting help--at work and elsewhere--has prompted some more deep thinking on the part of some good thinkers.

Author, Consultant, and Blogger Jim Stroup chimes in:

"This is a great topic, with a lot to think about. It seems to me though that if we become too inwardly focused about it, obsessed with what it says about us, it will wind up saying things that are not particularly flattering.

I think the best way to avoid that sort of self-absorption is to focus on the work, and ask what one's request for or offer of help would do to advance it. Perspective is important, too. Peter's story points to this: we sometimes want to be wanted, to be viewed as the heroic helper everyone hopes will arrive just in time to save them. But instead we just overwhelm ourselves and cripple their self-development. That's a lesson that needs to be learned from both sides - when we feel prompted to offer - or to ask for - help.

So, it's a tough one for both the manager and the managed. . ."

It is a tough one in great part because it's about relationships. Jim suggests focusing on the issue and how the issue can be advanced through a specific kind of help. Sounds right to me.

But when a seemingly innocent "helping" conversation starts to get uncomfortable, maybe the issue of self-absorption has crept in. You start to hear a little voice in your head saying: "I know we're talking about 'help' but I don't have any sense of mutuality or equality. Something's just not quite right."

Listen to Language: You'll See What's Going On

Part of my professional practice involves being called in to quietly intervene in conflicts between executives. These aren't serial killers; these are people who have somehow locked horns and have begun to enjoy the war more than the peace. What has been most consistently fascinating in these situations is this:

1. The executives in conflict are almost always committed to the organization's specific goals and what is best for the organization.

2. They've both agreed that they need help and have agreed to get help.

3. They are well aware that once the conversation starts, it will probably hit a point where it gets ugly before it gets pretty.

Derek and Phil (not their real names) were, respectively, Corporate CFO and Business Group President of a global company. Phil believed that a large capital investment for a new facility in Asia would lay the groundwork for a significant increase in profitable business. Derek's numbers--and some first-hand experience--caused him to take a negative stand on the idea. Both were experienced, successful, and strong-willed. Both were doing what they thought was best for the company.

By the time we got into the meeting room together, there was a flurry of accusations and name-calling.

After setting the ground rules, I let them enjoy their verbal jousting and justifications for a while. These included expressions of surprise on each man's part that the other didn't see the "help" being provided.

The breakthrough: While listening to them, it began to dawn on me that every one of Derek's sentences began with "I" ; Phil's were about "Asia."

Derek was self-absorbed, Phil appeared issue-absorbed, neither was self-aware in a healthy way.

So that turned out to be the "intervention." I tracked how many times Derek said "I" in a certain period of time and played it back, along with the implications. While Phil seemed to be focused on the issue--Asia--it was about his view of the issue.

Fast forward: We got to a civil working agreement--it did get ugly --both left feeling as if their positions had been heard--neither could figure out, in the moment, what had actually happened.

The bad news: The company followed Phil's recommendation and lost a ton of money.

The amazing news: Derek and Phil now regularly vacation together with their families.

The crazy human part: In hindsight, Derek simply wanted to be right. He was proven right.
Phil simply wanted to get the Asia start-up started up. He did, and apparently had fun playing with it while it lasted. (Yeah, hold off on the comments about what that meant to the shareholders).

The take away for helpers, consultants, and coaches: Listen for the language and watch for the intensity of engagement regarding one's "issue." It may not be about the issue at all--it may be just as self-absorbed as the "I" posture.

What I learned and continue to use:

1. When the language signals self-absorption, I say just that to the individual(s). Then I introduce the distinction between self-absorption, self-awareness, and ask them what they want to pursue from that moment on. (Most get the answer right:-) 

2. Success, when it comes to "helping" in issues of deep conflict, is measured by mutual, peaceful agreement on a working relationship that is healthy-er.

3. Even after a conflict is minimized and people are able to move on, the organization still may not get the very best decisions from the parties involved. Why? Because those decision processes are separate from the conflict resolution itself. (Note: the ability to ever arrive at the best decision may have been hindered as a result of data-gathering/sharing being inhibited during the time of conflict).

4. Helping with conflict means getting the parties un-stuck and able to function on their own. If you find yourself being drawn back for more than two, maybe three, meetings, you are doing long-term therapy and not effective helping. A consultant/coach's job is to make people independent at a given task. Any consultant or coach who is enjoying being needed at the same thing for the long term may want to do a self-absorption check.

What's your experience with helping, conflict, self-awareness, and self-absorption? What else have you seen or done that's genuinely helpful?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Comments

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve

Thanks for the story. While reading it I thought - hmm, not a job I would be really good at. (But then of course I don't have any experience in 'mediating').

The most recent real tough conflict me and my partner were involved in would have benefited extremely from that type of mediation - two sets up business partners trying to decide which way forward out of the financial problems. Problem was however, one of partners had the majority of vote and thought he was right, knew it all and, well to cut a long story short, 'decided' for all of us on the best way forward.
One year later the whole company, the set-up folded and moneys and investments lost. And the rest, as they say, is history - it was the springboard to create our own company ;-)

Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business)

[Jo]

Well I am first off again - we are up before you.

Steve, I notice that you are an ace on the helping situation, which primarily calls for people to hear what they say.

I often draft a reply, get to the end and ask myself, have I applied my thoughts to this comment? Highlight and delete!

It is very useful though.

My views on conflict were formed growing up in a civil war where conflict after all is deadly. I learned early that people aren't stubborn for no reason. There are whole swathes of turf where we can cooperate, all the time respecting what gets other people very upset.

Having said that, once we wander into the area of who does or does not belong, who gets to be heard and who does not get to be heard, and about what, then we are in a troubled, highly contested place.

My first thought when I read Steve's account was that his clients were lucky to have a mediator and an environment committed to long term relationships.

I would ask how much of the conflict came about because the protagonists were concerned about their long term relationship with the company as a whole? And how much of this is not spoken about because it strikes at the core of our being? Are we accepted? Do we belong?

I would also ask whether the protagonists were able to move ahead because you managed to rebuild an atmosphere of safety?

[Dean Fuhrman]

To me this is key: "focus on the work, and ask what one's request for or offer of help would do to advance it". And if we were able to keep the focus there things would move more smoothly on many fronts. But the difficulty as I see it is that the focus, the asking for help, and the getting help all go through people who have their take on the particular situation at hand. In Steve's and Karen's situations as described there are two sides both polarized on what action to take and both turning out badly. Strong people, smart people in both situations could not see anything outside of their viewpoint, no matter what you call it. Strong, smart people do not need help, do not welcome help. Most of the time when faced similar scenarios the action step that comes to mind is cope with the situation and minimize the problems as best possible. The help comes is doing what one can as called for in the circumstances.

[peter vajda]

Self-absorption and and self-interest, the heart of narcissism, is what augurs against a bi-laterial mindset...the place where two can come together for the good of the relationship at work (and at home and at play). In narcissistic terms, the behavior is known as grandiosity. It's the most characteristic element of the narcissistic personality.

A personality characteristic learned in childhood and carried into adulthood, the narcissist comes off as all-knowing, all powerful. Underneath this narcissism is an often unconscious feeling of lack and deficiency and a defense against feeling vulnerable.

The narcissist has psychologically built a "shell" around their True and Real Self, i.e., who they really, really are, as a way to protect their self from feeling less than, empty inside, deficient or experiencing lack in some way shape or form. When the narcissist "works" on their issue, they begin to see how much/often they come off as "phony" and "fake." Compassion for one's self sets in and leads one to be more self-accepting for who one really is (warts and all)becoming "softer" and less defensive, more "human."

No surprise then that in many relationships it's all about "me", not "you", "us", or "we." Comitment to shared visions and goals is a challenge. Commitment to "we" in thought and action is strained, or largely "one way" at best.

Many narcissists can, indeed, focus on the issue, when needed, but, in many cases, it's "my perspective", and "my perspective only" that counts.

When many narcissists "help", it's often from a place of grandiosity: (1) "Look at me." (2) "I can do everything and anything." (3) Giving to get (4) Acting to cover over a felt-sense of "I can't", "I'm not good (or another descriptor) enough."

When working with narcissists, for me, it's helpful to ask, "What do you need/want?" "What do you really, really really want/need?" in the context of a long-term coaching process. Not as a one-shot, off-the-wall inquiry. Most often the individual will respond with some type of insight that relects the notion of "I want to be seen" or "I want to be heard." or "I want to be somebody"...without all the fakeness, phoniness, etc. "I just want to be myself, authentic and that's a challenge for me." "Who will I be if I'm not (a narcissist)?

Rumi said, "Out beyond right-doing and wrong-doing, there is a field. I'll meet you there." The narcissist has a hard time working/being in that field.

[Karin H.]

"Most of the time when faced similar scenarios the action step that comes to mind is cope with the situation and minimize the problems as best possible. The help comes is doing what one can as called for in the circumstances."

Dean, I agree with you in this. If the situation - not only work related - calls for action this is the way forward. For the moment that is. Doing what one can and perhaps even reluctantly 'working-together might show result can be made, from which new decision or 'attitudes' towards each other can be made/found.

I like the way you described it - helpful ;-)

Karin H.

[Steve Roesler]

Karin,

I believe that business partnerships are one one the most difficult relationships to build and sustain. Sharing decisions about how money is to be spent and power is to be shared is wrought with the same potential pitfalls as marriage, but without the (hoped for) breadth and depth of commitment that allows couples to overcome similar challenges.

That said, sometimes couples decide to go into business together, exponentially compounding the challenges.

None of it is easy and all of it requires a great deal of up-front agreement, in writing, about how things will operate. Advisors such as Richard are critical in these situations.

As for conflict mediation in busines: it can be exhausting and I thoroughly enjoy it.

[Steve Roesler]

Jo,

Your comment reflects your depth of experience with conflict and your questions are good ones.

So, here goes:

1. How much of the conflict came about because the protagonists were concerned about their long term relationship with the company as a whole?

As far as their employment, none. Both had very good employment contracts, were financially secure, and were there positions were not placed in jeopardy by the CEO as a result of the conflict. They were told that it couldn't continue and needed to be sorted out straight away.

On the other hand, both were concerned about the long-term well-being of the company. They had each made significant contributions to its success, albeit it in very different ways.

2. And how much of this is not spoken about because it strikes at the core of our being? Are we accepted? Do we belong?

In this case, the sense of acceptance was linked to the acceptance of each of their viewpoints. As often happens, once someone puts a stake in the ground, one often adopts the posture of defending it in its current form, rather than move it. In this case, each made the mistake of holding fast from the outset rather than to find the common ground and then look at where the differences might actually be legitimate.

3. I would also ask whether the protagonists were able to move ahead because you managed to rebuild an atmosphere of safety?

I had worked with each of these guys in a consulting relationship. We trusted each other. They knew that I would force the relevant issues but would simply not allow any personal attacks, name-calling, or anything demeaning. So yes, the issue of safety was a key issue and always is. In this case, safety also means believing that the "mediator" will allow a complete hearing of the issues from both sides--and not "take" sides.

It's a very satisfying segment of the consulting practice and can have more impact on an organization than many of the larger scale initiatives that are popular and much-publicized.

Dean,

It is sad and disappointing when you have to stand by and watch people who are, by all normal indicator, intelligent and strong, act in ways that lead to sub-optimal performance.

Yet that is all-too-frequently the norm, and is only broken up by a manager or leader who steps in and says, "No more."

Intelligence has little positive impact without character to support it.

[Steve Roesler]

Peter,

Indeed, there is a simplicity in helping to break through the barrier or shell that many of us set up for ourselves. I smiled as I reached the end of your fully-formed comment.

The two questions that I usually start off with--and did in the above situation--were:

1. What do you want?

2. What do you need?

The responses to those questions more often than not are honest and very different than that in the previously hostile interactions between the two people.

What makes these work, I believe, is that the questions acknowledge and validate the "you"; and, by separating wants and needs, the individuals can be helped to see the distinctions and, as a result, begin to see what is really important and what isn't.

Any thoughts?

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve

You're right on many accounts. Me and my partner (working and living together) started out with ideas, joint attitude towards how to do business (treat clients, select products etc) firmly fixed in our heads. The disastrous partnership we were in before taught us that. Not to say we don't argue ;-)

A trusted advisor like Richard (why you suddenly call him Peter in the post before this one is beyond me, 'slip-of-the-keyboard'?) is gold. But that doesn't happen overnight, it takes time, respect - both ways - to receive and give trust to someone 'outside' who can act as 'mediator' from time to time - keeping us on the right track of what we set out to become.

Karin H.

[Steve Roesler]

Karin,

Richard has once again been properly identified:-)

And yes, it does take time to build a trusting relationship with an outside advisor, but as you know with Richard, it can pay big dividends when you find the right match.

[peter vajda]

Hi, Steve,

For me in my work, the question beneath the questions (What do you want?; what do you need?), focuses as much on the "you" as on the "want" and the "need."

Again, in the longer coaching process, we unbundle the (often unconscious)confusion between "You" and "you", that is, between the "I" who is my True, Real and authentic self, and "i", my ego, self-absorbed self, to become clear, aware and conscious of "who" is operating in any given moment, and why.

When this happens, and one is operating from the place of "I", one's True, Real and authenthic self, often the wants and needs expressed, are expressed with a different energy-softer, positive, open and honest, no defensiveness, from a "we are in this together" perspective-, a heightened state of well-being, and a focus on "the good of the order", as opposed to needs and wants that are expressed by the small, little, ego "i", which point to "me, me, me" accompanied by an energy that is defensive, rough, off-putting, often antagonistic, resistant, pushy, or with a fake and phony charam and charisma that folks can readily detect.

So, until and unless one is consciously aware of "who" is operating in any interaction ("I" vs. "i"), getting to a mutual "yes", with mutual respect, openness, sharing and understanding can be quite challenging and more often than not, unproductive.

[Steve Roesler]

Peter, that's an interesting way to look at the differentiations of "You" and "I"; it's also easy to remember in the midst of a situation.

I also like it because it's an easy way to raise awareness and discuss deeper underlying issues in a simple way while avoiding what would be jargon for some.

Thank you.