Slack Emotional Resources

To a person in any business, the concept of slack resources or reserves is very familiar. Take airlines, as one example, for which time is a key resource. It determines the scheduling of flight and airport times, of particular interest to the flying traveler. If an airline schedules flights too tightly, even a small delay at one stop could throw off the timing of the remaining arrivals and departures for any particular route. Too loose, and money is lost and customers may complain about delays.

But it’s not just businesses that are concerned with slack resources. We regular folks are as well. If you make $1000 per month and have normal expenditures of $950, all is well so long as the former does not go down much or the latter up much. If your bank account is at $25, and expenditures come in at $1050, you are short. Inadequate slack financial resources.

OK, enough of that stuff. I think you get the point. Slack resources, no matter how used, refers to reserves of some kind, buffers against the unexpected or undesirable. My particular interest is in inadequate slack emotional resources.  

We’ve all known folks who are “wired,” tightly coiled and living in more or less permanent agitation. Or, folks who have their “insult” detectors on overdrive. Often low in self esteem, they are on constant alert for what they see as insults, detecting them constantly, usually where none exists. Or, folks who simply see their views as sacrosanct, and hate being disagreed with. The “offender” has to be set straight. Or, the narcissist who sees everything in terms of himself, and dislikes others having the center stage which he believes is his alone to occupy. Or, the person who has powerful expectations that the world will do exactly as he wants. Since the world is not so accommodating, he experiences emotional turmoil that he “generously” exports to others. Or, the person who sees himself as a victim, finding victimizers everywhere. Or, the perennial, garden-variety counter puncher. He appears to have no control over his need to criticize whatever he does not like, evidencing little interest in reflective thought and conversation. And the list goes on.

These folks have low or no slack emotional reserves, and are emotionally unbalanced, at least in the moment. They need the world to do their bidding. When it does not, they act out. And like it or not, we all are, at least occasionally, members of this less-than-illustrious group. From time to time, all of us may be wired or sensitive or irritated or depressed to some degree, times when we lose emotional balance. Never suffering in silence, our acting out disturbs and often harms others. But it could be worse for us and others---our condition may be chronic.

Having low emotional resources is seldom an either/or thing. They may be adequate in some situations, but not in others. I know a woman who has great slack emotional resources at work, even with considerable pressure on her. But at home she has no patience with her spouse, being constantly prickly, easily offended and just as easily angered.

Social fragmentation and uncertainty are on the rise, increasing stress levels and encouraging incivility. Low emotional reserves show up most in stressful conditions, whether personal or societal. The greater the stress level, the lower anyone’s threshold of negative reactivity.

Low or absent emotional slack resources means trouble for everyone. But people with high levels have greater equanimity, and export that to others. They handle life’s challenges with as little upset as possible, both to themselves and to others. So, how do we improve? As with nearly everything dealing with emotional issues, the key is unflinchingly increasing our self-awareness. Only then can we uncover our sensitivities, emotional triggers, and defensive reactions, our unique conditions of weak emotional reserves. While necessary, self-awareness alone is insufficient to produce the health outcome of increased emotional resources. There must also be a courageous commitment to change, which recognizes that our patterns of mis-behavior have arisen over many years, are solidly entrenched, and not eradicated in any short time.

The need to increase our emotional reserves is greater than ever. Damaging personal, familial, and societal forces and stresses (including our own unhealthy needs) are pushing us into reactive states where we cause ourselves and others to suffer needlessly. If we wish to see greater community and civility, must start with ourselves, or we are hypocrites.

Why We Need More Structure for the Young

Current studies show that many of today’s youth are in trouble. They are more distant from their parents, go out with their friends less frequently, study less, are less happy and more lonely, and are more likely to commit suicide.

Professor Jean Twenge at San Diego State has been studying generational differences for decades. One of her largest concerns about the group known as Gen Z’s (born between 1995 and 2009, which she has christened iGen’s) was expressed recently in an article in The Atlantic, “Has The Smartphone Destroyed A Generation?”

“Psychologically…they are more vulnerable than Millennials were: rates of teen depression and suicide have skyrocketed since 2011. It’s not an exaggeration to describe iGen as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades. Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones.”

Certainly this malaise is not limited to the young. There is a wide-spread disconnect of people from themselves, from others, and from our culture in general, which seems to unraveling at the seams. This breakdown has caused many, but especially the young, to “look for love in all the wrong places.” While often playing a negative role, the phone is not the whole culprit, but a vehicle for trying to find solidity and validation as society’s normal stability mechanisms dissolve.

There are many reasons why our society is troubled, but I think a big part is the near complete lack of structure. As structure dissolves, people start looking for substitutes, such as the phone’s social media offerings. Facebook for one subjects participants to intense highs and lows---no stability at all. Some people have no substitutes and experience disorientation and even despair as they look vainly for healthy stability. They live lives of not-so-quiet desperation, usually causing them, youth and adults, to act out in ways that damage themselves and society.

Societal structure is a complex of relationships, norms, and generally shared values. Both rights and obligations to others are fairly clear. Stability and balance are maintained by various formal and informal rules, limits, responsibilities, and consequences. To the degree that these are beneficial for and generally accepted by people, you have a healthy society. They can be rigid or relaxed, but a society’s health depends on some appropriate balance. Too much of either extreme means societal challenges. We went from considerable rigidity in the 50’s, with its attendant problems, to near total relaxation today. Some of this loosening was clearly needed, but as we have ignored or dismantled many of the good structural elements, we left children and teens in particular with nothing healthy to replace them. The results are the emotional challenges Dr. Twenge has found in her research, and which has been supported by other scholars.

Perhaps our most prominent failure is at home. Among other problems, many parents want to be their child’s best friend, which keeps them from passing on healthy standards of behavior and exercising helpful and supportive discipline. Or, they may think that setting firm, reasonable limits damages the child’s creativity or self esteem, completely unaware of the difference between real and faux self esteem. Or, perhaps the parents want to do the right thing, but lack the emotional energy as both work, or are simply disinclined.

In these homes, limits are few, and erratically enforced. Even getting a child out the door to go to school is often filled with tension and anger. The more the parents flex the “established” limits, the more the child pushes. He realizes that he may well get all he wants, but at least a considerable part of that, and so pushes against everything---what and when to eat, what to watch on TV, when to go to bed, when and how to use his I-Pad, etc. The parents and he are now part of a mal-functioning system in which the child is mostly in control, and is reinforced by the parents for his pushing and creating family upset.

Melt-downs, many children’s tactic for getting what they want, are at epidemic levels, in great part the result of too much flexibility and inconsistency. Caught between a rock and a hard place of their own making, parents cede to the child yet more independence simply to keep peace, independence he is ill-equipped to handle. Further ceding has occurred with social media, where many teens hope to find something they can latch onto. Ephemeral and volatile, that something provides no structure at all. It promotes the opposite---fear, emotional dependence, and instability.

To grow emotionally healthy, a child has to test herself against standards, obligations, norms and rules which are not completely fluid nor inconsistently applied. On occasion she will, and should, experience push back from her parents, actions leading to the formation of healthy boundaries and limits. The child needs to find the limits and borders to her own growing sense of self. She gradually learns that strong inner and inter-personal boundaries are vital. She develops a healthy sense of who she is and what she owes others, a view coming mainly from parents espousing important values, consistently applying limitations, and loosening those as the child learns. (this should be provided at school as well, but is generally not) Love and support are  vital, but by themselves will not necessarily produce a confident and resilient young person.

All children test limits and strictures, and certainly accountability. Even while pushing against these, unknowingly the child seeks the structure they provide. Lacking limits, responsibility, and consequences, the child cannot determine where the boundaries of her world are, leaving her in a sea of uncertainty and a much harder task of developing a healthy self image.

In the healthy household there is greater consistency in application of those elements, and in the consequences arising from the child’s misbehavior, or good behavior. Further, values such as respect and restraint are taught and rewarded, as is the important strength of resilience, from which the child learns she can take a “hit” or serious disappointment and get right back up---one of the important elements in real self esteem. The solidity and structure provided by the family setting are critical. Just as important is the child’s gradual development of a sense of confidence and competence, characteristics providing their own enduring internal structure for the child, something she can count on no matter what. Also, in this process she gradually comes to understand the value of proper personal and interpersonal boundaries, and to not violate those of others, while also not allowing her own to be violated.

A colleague recently told me about how his son, when young, had misbehaved rather badly. He got into trouble at school, got into constant fights, had a drug problem, and even had run-ins with the police. Fortunately, the boy got though this period. Sadly, many years later he angrily told his father: “Where were you, Dad? I wanted limits and you gave me none.”

Honesty

In a recent post I provided David Whyte’s thoughts on honesty, ones strong on psychology. With a lighter, but still important note, a friend wondered what role honesty has when, say, an artist friend asks my opinion about his latest painting, one that I find poorly done. Does honesty compel me to state my opinion exactly and directly? Sure, many might say, he did ask.

When I consciously tell the artist that I think this work is great, that surely is lying. But is that acceptable to spare his feelings? Is lying ever justified by that motive? Personally, I have to say no. But perhaps I have an alternative. What if I don’t lie, but answer indirectly?

Perhaps I say to the artist that I have always enjoyed seeing his new work, or ask him about the inspiration for this particular piece. I am not lying; I have not said anything false or which does not reflect my thinking. I have simply not answered his question, deflecting the conversation slightly. If not lying, am I perhaps being at least somewhat dishonest, at least disingenuous, by withholding what I really think?

There are people who believe you should say exactly what you think and feel when asked, often regardless of the impact on others. Failing to do so would in their minds be lying directly by saying something you do not believe, or lying by omission in avoiding or deflecting the issue. This directness may cause pain, usually unintended, and just as often sincerely regretted. Nonetheless, their main goal in the interaction is to fulfill their own value of honesty. They see honesty as an all-or-nothing affair. You are honest or you are not. While valuable at some level, this view is often inflexible, failing to account for context subtleties.

Context means seeing honesty from the standpoint of compassion, having the well being of the other person in mind at all times. Compassion informs honesty, broadening its scope and depth. Honesty without compassion can be harsh and unkind.

With the importance of the other’s well being as a foundation, context includes a number of elements. The relationship’s established openness and candor level. The expectation of the listener, very different for support than for problem solving. The goal of speaker, such as to be directly honest or to avoid conflict. The urgency or seriousness of the situation. The potential outcome, good or ill, for both parties.

Imagine you ask your small daughter to draw a car, which she does with great delight. What she gives you has little resemblance to a car. Knowing a child’s sensitivity, you do not critique the drawing. Instead, you might ask her about what most interested her in making the drawing, or something similar. That is context. Of course, as the child gets older, a supportive parent may work into constructive critiques, but always sensitive to the situation. No different for adults.

Whyte’s critical observation is that we cannot be straight with another if we cannot be straight with ourselves. The latter condition makes it nearly impossible to address context. For the context factors to be usefully considered, the respondent must have a high level of mental and emotional awareness, and the discipline to implement that understanding.

Imagine you encounter a friend you have not seen in some time, and you notice that he has gained quite a bit of weight. It may be honest in one sense to comment to him that he looks heavier than the last time you met. But that honesty may come at a cost, the possible perception by the friend that you were being unkind. Honesty prevailed over compassion. What was gained by the comment? Was the relationship enhanced?

Or, perhaps your friend asks you directly how you think he looks. You think he may want you to tell him that he looks fine. Do you say what you think, or do you take another tack, as with the artist? As before, what will be gained by telling him your true opinion? Will the relationship be enhanced?

Can we improperly sacrifice honesty to compassion and context? Surely there is that danger if the respondent has little self knowledge, and is unable to make useful judgments about what to say, and how. Such a reaction can result from fear of a potentially troubling outcome, such as an unpleasant conflict scene. Or from an excessive worry about upsetting the other person, even if no overt conflict arises.

And so?

·       Honesty is rarely a matter of either/or.

·       Context is critical in responding.

·       Underlying context is compassion, a sincere concern for the well being of the other person.

·       A healthy contextual assessment is nearly impossible without self-awareness.

Control or Influence---What Shall It Be?

Our lives are often spent trying to make our desires come out exactly as we want. A futile effort, especially since it may involve attempting to control others, an interaction or relationship dead-end. Yet there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to obtain an outcome in a conversation. Like conflict itself, persuasion is normal. Both can be carried out poorly or well.

None of us likes being controlled, and we resist the manipulation. In the post titled “What’s Wrong With ‘No Borders’”? I gave examples of devious methods boundary invaders use to control others, such as anger, guilt trips and a victim posture. Boundary invaders MUST HAVE their outcome, justifying repellant and counter-productive tactics. And adding to the unique interpersonal challenges around control, societal uncertainty pushes us all the more to get what we can from others.

You can easily spot a conversation controller. He asks no questions. If he does, the questions will be attacking and inquisitional, loudly voiced and often accompanied by sarcasm and anger. Having THE answers, what is there to know? Most often, though, the controller avoids questions and deluges his opponent non-stop with anything that will aid him to win, regardless of accuracy or relevance. A controller will concede nothing. There is no point, no matter how valid, that deserves anything other than attack. Counter-punching at its worst! But even without overt hostility, an adversarial, “I-win, you-lose” style means nothing positive will come from the exchange.

Although we might deny it, most of us at least occasionally act out the controller. We continue this in spite of the lousy outcomes until we learn there’s another way.

“Influence” conversations are very different, even though they arise out of the same conditions as adversarial ones---two people disagreeing about something, and each desiring something from the other. But with influence, there is no manipulation in which one party loses while the other gains. At least one of the parties recognizes the interpersonal dangers inherent in a difference of view. She changes how she interacts with the other, who is usually primed for a knock-down, drag-out match. She manages the interaction for the positive benefit of both, ensuring that her desire for a particular outcome does not depend on the other person losing something. Critically, she gives up the needs to win, change or punish the other person, all of which will produce resistance and hostility. In Zen terms, she is not attached to an outcome. She sees that if she wants to influence the other, she cannot pose a threat. Her actions will more likely be indirect than direct, including the removal of all unhelpful non-verbal cues.

A client who owned a number of businesses once told me about a potentially volatile interaction with a staff member who stormed into his office and angrily shouted, “What is this crap about transferring me to another department without even talking to me?” Instead of following the employee’s lead and starting a screaming match, my friend used influence. Anger or fear meant only bad outcomes, so control of his emotions and actions was vital. He remained seated, consciously removing all adverse non-verbal signals and adding only beneficial ones---he relaxed his body, softened his voice, and spoke normally but a little slower than usual. He calmly asked the employee to sit and tell him what was going on. Apparently expecting a battle and not getting one, the employee was a bit taken aback, a questioning look in his eyes. He sat down, but was on the edge of the chair and still visibly upset.

My friend asked again what was going on. The employee said that another employee told him about the intended transfer. After thanking the employee, which further calmed him, my friend told him that no such transfer was in the works. The employee sat back, embarrassed, and stumbled through an apology. A potentially unpleasant interaction was avoided. Once the employee’s issue was resolved, my friend did deal with the employee’s aggressiveness and anger.

My friend recognized immediately that the first thing he needed to do was assist the employee in calming, but he knew that saying something like, “Calm down” would only make things worse. Instead, he used non-verbal cues to signal receptivity and safety. At no point did my friend interrupt or try to counter the employee’s incorrect view. Beyond the calming his goal was to understand. Only then could he properly deal with the issue, in terms of both content and behavior. My friend wisely allowed the employee to get his story out and dealt with before bringing up his issue of how the employee initially addressed him.

Although this example occurred in the workplace, the same influence technique can be used at home with family or friends. Failure to control hidden agendas or strong emotions will be readily apparent to the spouse or life partner, and those will get all the focus. What is said is no longer part of the conversation, even if it looks like it on the surface. The interaction will be all about one person’s emotions overwhelming the other’s, a nasty but common occurrence.

There are critical influence lessons for all of us from this story, even if persuasion is not involved.

·       The first person to bring up an issue has the floor, with no interruptions, denials, or counter-punching.

·       The listener has the job of gaining clarity and understanding (not necessarily agreement), and only that.

·       The listener must maintain control of emotions and behavior, and be acutely aware of  non-verbal signals that can obstruct or enhance the conversation, choosing the helpful ones.

·       Understanding is best accomplished by fully attentive, non-judgmental listening, and by the use of carefully phrased, non-inquisitional, questions.

·       The listener must assist the speaker in reaching some resolution, if only partial or temporary, before bringing up his/her concerns, if any.

·       When it is the listener’s turn to raise a concern or issue, she must maintain the same non-attached, non-emotionally driven posture as when listening.

This post can be coupled with the recent one entitled “Conversations: Restrictive and Expansive,” offering a prescription for healthy conflict interactions.