Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Anger is a power move (Harriet Braiker, "The Disease to Please")
Says Harriet Braiker, one of this website's favorite authors in her book on People Pleasing:
Anger, by definition, is an accusation made in response to a perceived error, mistake, or misbehavior. In order for anger to be activated, someone must be blamed for the perceived misdeed.
Basically, she's saying that when someone gets angry at us, the sub-communication is "you're to blame because you're guilty".
Accepting that anger without pushing back on the message it conveys is the equivalent of admitting guilt:
And, in true people-pleasing form, you give the accuser permission to blame you—exactly what he or she needs.
She talks about "people pleaser", but the same is true for anyone else.
Once you give them permission to blame you, it means you take 100% of the blame. You're the guilty, wrong, or "defective" one, and they're the 100% right, correct, or "good" ones:
Assuming blame is not the same thing as accepting your share of responsibility for a problem
The latter presumes that if a problem occurs between two people, the responsibility will be attributed jointly and fairly. It may not be equally shared, but both parties will acknowledge some degree of responsibility for the problem between them.
Blame, on the other hand, is one-sided. The accuser disavows any responsibility and seeks instead to hold you not just responsible, but answerable and punishable for your actions that are clearly labeled as wrongdoing.
Great wisdom, and I partially agree.
However, I think it's OK to let someone yell and "be angry" as long as you push back on either the sub-communication of guilty, or the content of the message.
For example, if they yell "look what the fuck you did", it's OK to calmly reply "it's not what I did, it's what happened, and we both are part of it".
Such as, the key against angry accusation is to push back on at least one of the several layers of the blame-attack:
- Address the tone first (the anger itself), what we advice men in relationships
- Push back against the content: whatever it is they are saying
- Push back against the sub-communication: such as that the blame is not all on you
Golden! Thank you very much!
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 18, 2022, 2:06 pmSays Harriet Braiker, one of this website's favorite authors in her book on People Pleasing:
Anger, by definition, is an accusation made in response to a perceived error, mistake, or misbehavior. In order for anger to be activated, someone must be blamed for the perceived misdeed.
Basically, she's saying that when someone gets angry at us, the sub-communication is "you're to blame because you're guilty".
Yes, agreed, which reminds me of one of Nick Kolenda's suggestions for negotiations (where I also believe he might've missed the mark).
In his book, Negotiation Tactics, he says:
His reasons for this recommendation are:
- Studies pointing to anger and disappointment leading to bigger concessions when done near the end.
- Receivers of that anger and disappointment feeling more satisfied with the outcome: because they believe they were a "tough negotiator" if their counterpart experienced feelings of anger and disappointment, that leads to them rationalizing that they must have negotiated well.
However, you notice the caveats to this approach:
- Your response must be reasonable.
- Your counterpart might also develop a negative perception of you (which is where Kolenda recommends you consider using this tactic only for short-term relationships).
- You must always direct your anger toward the offer – never at the person.
However, if a negotiator is angry, even if they're directing their anger toward the offer (such as by communicating that their proposal is what they have a problem with), the sub-communication is still one of "how could you propose such an outrageous idea" (i.e. "you're to blame because you're guilty of suggesting this 'wrong' number which must be an error, mistake, or simply misbehavior on your part").
In other words, even if one can effectively communicate that their anger is not at the person, I'm not sure it's possible to completely remove the sub-communication of the dynamics of that negative judge role.
Yeah, great note, Ali.
It's a very interesting technique and I loved it.
In some cases, it's great.
Yet, it's hard to see how it can be effective in the majority of cases.
In some cases, getting angry might even derail a negotiation, rather than give you the last drops of value.
And it's just plain bad strategy in many types of negotiations as it's the case, for example, job interviews when negotiating salary and perks.
