Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 9, 2022, 1:04 pm

Thank you for the note, Bel!

It's always helpful to understand what was most helpful.

Quote from B on October 9, 2022, 9:50 pm

I was reading this very interesting article on humiliation:

https://jaapl.org/content/38/2/195

In a sense, my reading is that much of what PU teaches us is to avoid and turn around public humiliation.

An invaluable life skill, because humiliation power-moves produce a very real effect of causing status (and life-opportunity) losses.

While being able to communicate to everyone that one is able to not only resist these moves, but shame back, produces a net status-gain effect at the expense of the wannabe-humiliator.

BTW: I'm still going through PU. Every single lesson is abso-lutely stellar, but there's no need to even say that. How I wish I had gotten here years ago...

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 9, 2022, 10:28 pm

Looks like a proper well-referenced article, Bel.

Yeah, I agree with you, the only one thing I'd feel to add to it is that, ideally, you want to get to a point where your action is not so much because of the emotional pain of the humiliation, but more because it's the best course of action for you -a subtle difference, but important-.

Of course, that's a stretch-goal one may never completely reach because we're human, and some of that anger-drive is also good, but worth keeping in mind (and just to be sure, not that you ever said otherwise, just adding that point to your excellent observation).

Quote from B on October 10, 2022, 2:24 pm

Again on clients closing emails with "thank you"s when making requests.

Potential solution: higher power reframe to mutual action / purpose.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 7, 2022, 11:19 pm

Quote from Bel on October 7, 2022, 5:14 pm

Neutralizing "thanks" at the end of "request messages" by "thanking back"?

Yeah, it is a bit disempowering.

But not too much if they're paying you and it's a service / service provider relationship.

"Thank you for following up" or adding something probably sounds better than just a standalone thank you which feels a bit like a mirroring power move when there's no real reason to thank someone.

But what I sometimes do, is reply something like this:

Yeah, it was in my to-do to update you this evening

Sub-communication: I don't need to be reminded to do my job.

Even better if you go from text to voice, so it better breaks that "task - executing task" chain.

Getting back to this and further to Lucio's solutions here above, dealing with when the incoming email is on follow-up work.

There are some of my clients who always end all emails with "thanks", even when they ask me to do new work:

Client: Hi Bel,

here is a document ..., do you think ...

Thank you.

How to address it?

Brainstorming solutions

My thinking about the possibilities on my side:

• ignore - not ideal, subcommunicates not getting it
• behave/write higher power without addressing the thanks, for example by lightly tasking back on something else (eg: "Dear client, you can proceed with...") - not ideal, subcommunicates ungratefulness
• thank them for their email in answering, either on opening (eg: "Dear client, thank you for your email. ..." or even "Thank you X, ...") or in closing ("Here is... Thank you. Bel") - not ideal, first one subcommunicates submissiveness, second one subcommunicates combativeness
• taking more time to answer - not ideal, subcommunicates disinterest

What I tended to do in the past was ignore.

But I now feel I need to address this.

Edit: The solution I am coming up with: higher power reframe to mutual action / purpose.

The solution I am coming up with is a combination of:

• answering higher power; and
• reframing to mutual action/purpose.

Example:

Client: Dear Bel,

here is a new document. Do you think ...?

Thank you

My answer:

Me: Dear Client,

we can proceed with the attached new version where I implemented some changes.

Kind regards

My reasoning behind this solution:

the answer should address both the express and the hidden subcommunication behind the "thank you".

The express meaning is "I am grateful"; the hidden subcommunications are "you are at my service" (ie you are below me) and "you need to do what I say" (tasking).

This solution manages to do that by using "teaming" ("we can proceed") to subcommunicate back that:

a) I also care for you and our work relationship (because I consider us a "we", and not a "you and I");

b) we are working together, at the same level; and thus

c) I can also lightly task you back.

So:

• the "open meaning" behind the "thank you" is addressed by putting us together in a team (as in "no need to thank me, we are together in this");
• while the "hidden meanings" behind the "thank you" are addressed by:
  • putting us together on the same level (subcommunicating "I am not below you, but at the same level"); and
  • implicitly and lightly tasking back: I write "we can proceed", but the real meaning is "you can go ahead".

Quote from B on October 10, 2022, 10:13 pm

Two ideas I was reflecting on today:

1. Subcommunication is only one of the layers of communication; explicit communication is a proper layer with proper meaning as well

and

2. In addressing a communication, one should always take into account (together with the context) all levels of communication, to be able to then decide which layers to address (all of them? only explicit? only subcommunication? none?)

Let's start from no. 1.

When I first encountered here the idea of "subcommunication", somehow I wrongly got the idea (opposite to my previous thinking) that subcommunication always supersedes explicit communication.

While formerly I only addressed explicit communication, now I thought that, if subcommunication conveys a message different than explicit communication, it was that message (conveyed by subcommunication) that should be mainly addressed.

I now realize this is a simplification on my part, and a mistake. Because the meaning of communication (almost) always incorporates both explicit communication, and the underlying subcommunication.

Example:

Sorry if I answer your reply with this delay; unfortunately I had missed your email between the many.

Unfortunately I can't talk at the time you propose; so let's do it the day after tomorrow instead.

This message contains a clear subcommunication of

You don't count much relative to me. I can set the time when I wish. In fact I was almost forgetting I had to answer you. So just go on with my will and we'll be over this.

But it also contains an explicit communication of

Sorry if I'm swamped. Let's find another time to talk.

It is clearly a mistake to focus only on the explicit communication. If I answer "of course, all ok", I cement my power submission.

But it is also a mistake to focus only on the subcommunication. Because if I answer with "you are really arrogant in talking to me that way, what makes you think you can disregard my messages and my proposed time?", the other person can then hide behind the explicit communication to make me seem crazy:

I was trying to set a time here. And I already apologized for not answering earlier.

Are you ok? Do you need help with your anger?

Corollary no. 2 follows.

In addressing communication, it is necessary to always take into account not only the underlying subcommunication, but also the explicit communication.

Now there may be situations in which the hidden subcommunication is so visible to all, that addressing just that is enough.

Or there may be opposite situations, in which the explicit communication is so preponderant, that one can ignore the subcommunication altogether (or one may even do so on purpose to shame the other person and fake "not getting the offense").

But, most of the times, the two messages will probably be both present. And, most of the times, the subcommunication will even be unconscious: meaning that the other person will have no conscious knowledge of the hidden message he or she is conveying.

For example:

If a client writes "thank you" in ending an email giving me work, then sure, the subcommunication is very present and it is that I am serving him or her.

But the client is also very really thanking me; and above all, the client may not even consciously "know" that placing a "thank you" at the end of an email is a form of "tasking".

If I answer in a way that blatantly disregards the "thank you" and only addresses the subcommunication, the client then will be surprised and maybe even offended.

In this case the best answer is one that addresses both the explicit communication (ie acknowledges the "thank you") and subcommunicates that I am not below the client, but at the same level.

Now, there may be situations in which I want to avoid addressing the subcommunication. Example: in a negotiation, the counterpart offends me with a backhanded statement, but I know I have a proposal he can't refuse. I avoid responding to the offense, and only deal with the explicit communication.

Or on the contrary, I may decide to not address the explicit communication at all, but focus on the subcommunication. For example by recognizing that my partner doesn't really want flowers, but only some gratitude.

Or I may decide to surface the hidden meaning with the surfacing techniques, when it is particularly obnoxious.

Or I may decide to address both layers at the same time, for example with high-power annoying clients with which I don't want to break rapport (and btw: I now understand that "not breaking rapport" essentially means "not blatantly disregarding the explicit communication").

But the point is that all layers of communication need to be understood and taken into account in context to craft the correct situational response.

Going forward with no. 3:

3. Power is (mostly) communicated and negotiated between people by showing that one knows the correct situational response (mix of explicit communication and subcommunication), in turn deriving from a correct "reading" of the situation and of the layers of communication

I remember a colleague (who had basically put me in a situation of risking to lose a client of mine to him) saying to me, when I explicitly backed off from the deal:

Him: You are making me lose money here.

My answer was:

Me: Are you threatening me?

Now, my answer correctly read a portion of his subcommunication. And addressed that.

But, it was still a mistake.

Because, by answering in a too blatant way that addressed only (a portion of) the hidden meaning, I subcommunicated instantly that I was below him (in my capacity to "read the situation", to "craft a correct response", and thus ultimately in my power).

It is very probable that all the events that had led us to that breaking point came precisely from his "testing" me with his mix of communication and subcommunication, and my failing to show I was able to "read and respond to the power flow".

How different had I answered:

Him: You are making me lose money here.

Me: I am giving you a chance to keep your professional relationship with me.

Quote from underdogexceptional on October 11, 2022, 1:50 am

My answer:

Me: Dear Client,

we can proceed with the attached new version where I implemented some changes.

Kind regards

My reasoning behind this solution:

the answer should address both the express and the hidden subcommunication behind the "thank you".

The express meaning is "I am grateful"; the hidden subcommunications are "you are at my service" (ie you are below me) and "you need to do what I say" (tasking).

This solution manages to do that by using "teaming" ("we can proceed") to subcommunicate back that:

a) I also care for you and our work relationship (because I consider us a "we", and not a "you and I");

b) we are working together, at the same level; and thus

c) I can also lightly task you back.

Hey Bel,

Just from my observation and putting myself in a persons shoes, I think that response that you just made is collaborative and disarming because it frames you a team with mutual interests like you said. The person might want to be more friendly and understanding after that.

If I was being somewhat combative or bringing a frame like that to someone, what you said could ease me down and make me think of us like a team rather than "me vs you".

That's my perspective based on putting myself in a receivers shoes.

Quote from Tam Nguyen on October 11, 2022, 11:00 am

When I first encountered here the idea of "subcommunication", somehow I wrongly got the idea (opposite to my previous thinking) that subcommunication always supersedes explicit communication.

While formerly I only addressed explicit communication, now I thought that, if subcommunication conveys a message different than explicit communication, it was that message (conveyed by subcommunication) that should be mainly addressed.

I now realize this is a simplification on my part, and a mistake. Because the meaning of communication (almost) always incorporates both explicit communication, and the underlying subcommunication.

Example:

Sorry if I answer your reply with this delay; unfortunately I had missed your email between the many.

Unfortunately I can't talk at the time you propose; so let's do it the day after tomorrow instead.

This message contains a clear subcommunication of

You don't count much relative to me. I can set the time when I wish. In fact I was almost forgetting I had to answer you. So just go on with my will and we'll be over this.

But it also contains an explicit communication of

Sorry if I'm swamped. Let's find another time to talk.

It is clearly a mistake to focus only on the explicit communication. If I answer "of course, all ok", I cement my power submission.

But it is also a mistake to focus only on the subcommunication. Because if I answer with "you are really arrogant in talking to me that way, what makes you think you can disregard my messages and my proposed time?", the other person can then hide behind the explicit communication to make me seem crazy:

I was trying to set a time here. And I already apologized for not answering earlier.

Are you ok? Do you need help with your anger?

Hi Bel,

Great insights!
Your post puts into perspective some of the topics I'm learning in frame control. I also struggled with addressing the subtext while abandoning the visible part of the frame. The urge to call them out for their games is sometimes hard to resist.

Because, by answering in a too blatant way that addressed only (a portion of) the hidden meaning, I subcommunicated instantly that I was below him (in my capacity to "read the situation", to "craft a correct response", and thus ultimately in my power).

It is very probable that all the events that had led us to that breaking point came precisely from his "testing" me with his mix of communication and subcommunication, and my failing to show I was able to "read and respond to the power flow".

Wow, this part reminds me of power talk in The Gevaris Principle: how some power-aware folks talk and evaluate others on the fly.

I'm still learning to get to that level and from my POV, I think you're on the right track!

 

Just started reading your journal and I love your dedication to learning. Look forward to your adventures in the future!

 

Quote from B on October 11, 2022, 5:53 pm

Quote from underdogexceptional on October 11, 2022, 1:50 am

My answer:

Me: Dear Client,

we can proceed with the attached new version where I implemented some changes.

Kind regards

My reasoning behind this solution:

the answer should address both the express and the hidden subcommunication behind the "thank you".

The express meaning is "I am grateful"; the hidden subcommunications are "you are at my service" (ie you are below me) and "you need to do what I say" (tasking).

This solution manages to do that by using "teaming" ("we can proceed") to subcommunicate back that:

a) I also care for you and our work relationship (because I consider us a "we", and not a "you and I");

b) we are working together, at the same level; and thus

c) I can also lightly task you back.

Hey Bel,

Just from my observation and putting myself in a persons shoes, I think that response that you just made is collaborative and disarming because it frames you a team with mutual interests like you said. The person might want to be more friendly and understanding after that.

If I was being somewhat combative or bringing a frame like that to someone, what you said could ease me down and make me think of us like a team rather than "me vs you".

That's my perspective based on putting myself in a receivers shoes.

Thank you, underdogexceptional.

Your observation makes much sense and is very helpful for me to better understand these dynamics.

Quote from B on October 11, 2022, 5:55 pm

Quote from Tam Nguyen on October 11, 2022, 11:00 am

When I first encountered here the idea of "subcommunication", somehow I wrongly got the idea (opposite to my previous thinking) that subcommunication always supersedes explicit communication.

While formerly I only addressed explicit communication, now I thought that, if subcommunication conveys a message different than explicit communication, it was that message (conveyed by subcommunication) that should be mainly addressed.

I now realize this is a simplification on my part, and a mistake. Because the meaning of communication (almost) always incorporates both explicit communication, and the underlying subcommunication.

Example:

Sorry if I answer your reply with this delay; unfortunately I had missed your email between the many.

Unfortunately I can't talk at the time you propose; so let's do it the day after tomorrow instead.

This message contains a clear subcommunication of

You don't count much relative to me. I can set the time when I wish. In fact I was almost forgetting I had to answer you. So just go on with my will and we'll be over this.

But it also contains an explicit communication of

Sorry if I'm swamped. Let's find another time to talk.

It is clearly a mistake to focus only on the explicit communication. If I answer "of course, all ok", I cement my power submission.

But it is also a mistake to focus only on the subcommunication. Because if I answer with "you are really arrogant in talking to me that way, what makes you think you can disregard my messages and my proposed time?", the other person can then hide behind the explicit communication to make me seem crazy:

I was trying to set a time here. And I already apologized for not answering earlier.

Are you ok? Do you need help with your anger?

Hi Bel,

Great insights!
Your post puts into perspective some of the topics I'm learning in frame control. I also struggled with addressing the subtext while abandoning the visible part of the frame. The urge to call them out for their games is sometimes hard to resist.

Because, by answering in a too blatant way that addressed only (a portion of) the hidden meaning, I subcommunicated instantly that I was below him (in my capacity to "read the situation", to "craft a correct response", and thus ultimately in my power).

It is very probable that all the events that had led us to that breaking point came precisely from his "testing" me with his mix of communication and subcommunication, and my failing to show I was able to "read and respond to the power flow".

Wow, this part reminds me of power talk in The Gevaris Principle: how some power-aware folks talk and evaluate others on the fly.

I'm still learning to get to that level and from my POV, I think you're on the right track!

 

Just started reading your journal and I love your dedication to learning. Look forward to your adventures in the future!

 

Hi Tam!

Thank you for your kind words.

The parallel with powertalk in the Gervais Principle is absolutely spot on.

Looking forward to interact more.