Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
"He was referring to me" power move
Hi Guys,
this stemmed from reflecting on this post of Lucio.
Lucio's post makes me finally understand a very common power move, which I used to encounter in the past sometimes when talking generalities (including with the aim to "let know" a power mover that I saw what he was doing, without accusing him overtly in front of everybody):
Power mover: He was referring to me.
At the time I encountered this, I used to think these people were being self-demeaning. After all, why would they accuse themselves?
Now I see that the move, as I encountered it from very manipulative people, worked in their favor, as it has precisely the effects Lucio explained in the post above, ie:
- it shames the recipient for being "sneaky" and not courageous enough to speak clearly
- it also frames the issue as petty and thus the recipient as petty by extension
- also importantly, especially in the contest of a "low-level social conflict", it frames the power mover as the one who speaks "openly and congruently" (which is not at all the case: the power mover only speaks openly when he has to gain, and then goes back to aggressing covertly), thus implying that the recipient is the "covert aggressor".
Proposed answers:
- reject the "shame frame" and put it back on the power mover, while leaving him the option to save face:
Answer: Why do you say that: did you actually [whatever one was talking about]?
Or even going bold and coming out of the cover:
Answer: I'm glad you are acknowledging you did this.
What NOT to do, IMO, is to deny:
Answer: No, I was speaking in general and not referring to you.
It comes across as defending, with all known effects. Now the group will get the idea that the power mover is the "honest and congruent" one.
Hello Bel,
All great points.
And BTW, "petty" was exactly the word I was looking for when writing that original post and couldn't find :).
There is one important caveat I'd like to add because, as for most things, context matters (and of course you know this and your point are totally valid in case someone wasn't hiding or pulling a power move on his own).
So when someone was indeed hiding behind the general argument to refer to a specific individual, it's then fair to address it and surface it.
Or even the best and highest quality thing you can do.
As a matter of fact, the more one advances in terms of personal power, assertiveness and straight-talking behavior, the more you find yourself demanding direct talk -and being disappointed when you don't see it-.
Hello, Bel!
I assume you were speaking from a position of authority over him (if you were not, I agree with Lucio's caveat, perhaps avoiding talking generalities might be better, so as not to sound passive-agressive).
I think your proposed solutions are great. I also agree that denying you were speaking about him is low power.
But I think that staying at the general level without denying is still an option:
No, X, I didn't have you in mind in particular. Yes, I saw you doing it recently. But it's also a recurring mistake I've encountered OR something more than one people might do again in your place and it's irrelevant to individualize.
This way you keep your initial frame (speaking generally because the message is to all). But since he called attention to himself, perhaps it's a good idea to keep the spotlight on him, with a variation of one of your proposed answers (I remove the "I'm glad" just so it keeps congruent with the "I preferred general" frame):
Now, since you acknowledge this, I'd like to hear if you want to clarify your point of view
It puts pressure on him. Then, as you explain why you thought what he did was not correct, you take things back to the general level.
Thank you Lucio, Kavalier!
Very eye-opening. I understand that my addressing these things that way before TPM was low power.
I did not have the social strength to address power moves openly, I suppose a main factor was that I didn’t know what the covert aggression was.
That’s why now I look hard for the meaning of these moves.
And Kavalier’s post is full of gold.
Golden answer indeed as Bel said (off-topic: hope you can make it to that spring meetup if we go ahead, Kavalier):
Quote from Kavalier on October 19, 2023, 4:52 pmBut I think that staying at the general level without denying is still an option:
No, X, I didn't have you in mind in particular. Yes, I saw you doing it recently. But it's also a recurring mistake I've encountered OR something more than one people might do again in your place and it's irrelevant to individualize.
This way you keep your initial frame (speaking generally because the message is to all). But since he called attention to himself, perhaps it's a good idea to keep the spotlight on him, with a variation of one of your proposed answers (I remove the "I'm glad" just so it keeps congruent with the "I preferred general" frame):
Now, since you acknowledge this, I'd like to hear if you want to clarify your point of view
It puts pressure on him. Then, as you explain why you thought what he did was not correct, you take things back to the general level.
Great way to align with the higher power and higher quality "striaght talk" without betraying your previous choice to keep it general and while still addressing both: the individual, and the general principle.
In that feedback thread I applied the same general principle: I explicitly said that some of John's threads may have inspired that reflection while still re-setting the initial frame that I still wanted to keep it at a general-principle level.
Thank you Bel, Lucio! I feel happy for having been useful!
Off topic: Lucio, that meeting is going to be awesome! I'm really looking forward to meeting you guys. The thing is that today going to Berlin is beyond my possibilities, since I chose to invest the bulk of my revenue in studies for a high rewarding career, and the currency exchange rate is very unfavourable to me. Still, one year from now, everything can happen in between!
I feel there are a lot of great thoughts above. I particularly like Kavalier's approach of acknowledging the individual, but also stay within the general.
My gut reaction to this kind of statement is that this person is vengeful and petty. And, I think people would know what he is doing on some level  - thinking about oneself in a situation where most people don't, could come off as insecure, self-centered and even narcissistic. Overall not a good impression to have.
