Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
The iron rules of responding to power moves
Hi Guys!
I'd like to gather thoughts on the idea that properly addressing power moves must always follow specific "rules".
These are the "rules" (as I interpret them) that Lucio mentioned in another thread:
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on May 24, 2022, 3:52 amThat was the perfect way to power move:
- Brief
- Little investment
- Kind (on the surface), but...
- ... Laying on the table all your leverage
So the rules seem to be:
- Your answer in addressing a power move should always be briefer than the power mover's text (or move).
- Your answer in addressing a power move should always be lower investment than the power mover's text (or move).
- Your answer should be such that, if a third party were to read the exchange (or see the exchange in person), you would come out as the kinder/more reasonable person.
- Your answer should properly address the power move, meaning that it should show (i) you recognize the power move; (ii) you deny the effect of the power move (meaning, you never give the other person what his/her power move was meant to force on you), (iii) if push comes to shove and escalation ensues, you would win; and (iv) optional and subsequent, you show there is a way for win-win.
Confirmation of these rules from PU:
- you never reply verbally to a non-verbal power move: which ties into rules 1 and 2;
- when tasked, even if you accept the tasking for strategic purposes, you must never fully comply with the order and/or always reframe it (as your choice, as de-linked from the order, etc.; which ties into rules 3 and 4).
Meaning of the rules
As far as I understand, the first two "rules" appear to be tied to showing more power than the power mover by using one of the laws of power: whoever uses less power/effort, has more power.
Rule 1 is particularly applicable to text/email exchanges, were writing more than the other subcommunicates having been put off balance by the power move and/or having more interest than the other person in a positive and peaceful outcome of the interaction.
But it seems to apply also in person: if someone tells you one word (e.g. "asshole"), and you go into a lenghty monologue about how ill-mannered he is, you lose.
Rule 2 I understand to mean that your answer should show you are less committed both to the relation/interaction, and to the specific power exchange, than the other person.
For example, if a person aggresses you covertly in public, your tone and demeanor in answering should be "more detached and disinterested" than that of the power mover. If your tone of voice, on the other hand, were to be higher than the power mover, you would lose the exhange by this simple fact.
In writing, it means you must show less warmth and more disinterest than the power-mover in going on in the interaction, or you lose (because again, you subcommunicate you have more interest in a positive and peaceful outcome, and that puts you below the other).
In essence, your answer should seem effortless and natural, not thought about for five days (even if it was).
Rules 3 and 4 instead appear tied to the subcommunication of a possible escalation. They seem to imply that it is a mistake, when addressing a power move, to immediately escalate to the fullest and/or threaten to escalate expressly. Because if you had power, you wouldn't need to escalate or threaten explicitly: you would just limit yourself to subcommunicating the possibility of a successful escalation on your side.
Rule 4 seems to also imply that, if another person power moves to obtain something, you should never give him/her what she tried to get. Even if complying were of no cost to you, or even advantageous to you.
In other words, just because of the fact that the other person power-moved, you should communicate to him: (i) that he must first stop the power moves (because he will lose if this escalates), and, only after, (ii) that there is a possibility for win-win.
Iron rules
My understanding so far is that these 4 rules are "iron rules", meaning: there are no cases whatsoever in which they can be violated.
As soon as you understand the other person was power-moving on you, whether intentionally or not, maliciously or not, you must go into "apply the rules" mode.
Even if the other person was unintentionally power-moving, if you don't apply one rule, you lose the exchange (and the respect of the other person).
Even if the other person is a very close relative, partner or parent, you should first address the power-move, and only after suggest win-win.
In general, if you violate just one of these rules, you are (probably) going to lose the power-move exchange.
Because the power move by the other person was, for all effects, an implied threat of using (more) power (than you). If you don't first properly address the move/threat (by communicating more power), everything you will do from then on is subsumed by the power-mover (and by bystanders or readers) to be done by you because of the threat, and that removes (in their mind) all of your agency.
This explains why power-movers who encounter no awareness of power moves on the other side later invariably get angry and/or incredulous when the other side finally stands up for his/her rights and stops the train.
Feel free to comment if the topic is of interest and you wish to add/suggest changes/dismantle the above.
It's very interesting and I have lot to say about this! I'll answer when I'll have more time in front of me.
Hmmm, I may not be the correct guy to comment on laws and iron rules since my general approach is to first look for anything that disproves it (albeit I must say: I like the idea of finding some possible rules that have little or no exceptions).
So I think these make for very good general principles, but I wouldn't necessarily say they have no exceptions.
The "going meta" technique for example tends to be quite high-investment and, if in written form, long (brief and lower investment are similar, briefer being a subset of lower investment).
But it can be very effective.
Also, there is one thing to keep in mind: do you win in the end?
Because if you "win", however you can define that, then that extra effort may be worth it.
On "coming across as kinder" / more reasonable, that applies to a lot of situations, but not necessarily all.
And it can be OK to be an asshole or dominant, if it serves to dispatch someone who was an asshole first (albeit that might count as "being kinder" than the asshole because you didn't make the first nasty move).
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 14, 2022, 12:31 amThe "going meta" technique for example tends to be quite high-investment and, if in written form, long (brief and lower investment are similar, briefer being a subset of lower investment).
But it can be very effective.
This certainly seems a good exception.
But I would surmise that going meta could also be interpreted to confirm rules 1 and 2.
If I understand correctly, going meta should be reserved for cases where the other person either goes out of his way to dominate you publicly, or repeatedly power moves on you in a continuous way.
So one could also argue that going meta complies with rules 1 and 2, since it tends to react to enormously disempowering manipulation and/or cut out future power moves (by showing everyone their real aggressive nature). The "longer/higher investment" character of "going meta" could be seen as "low investment/briefer" when taken in the context of the aggregate behavior of the other person.
Also, there is one thing to keep in mind: do you win in the end?
Because if you "win", however you can define that, then that extra effort may be worth it.
On this, I would speculate that you can win in lots of ways.
You can win (like I used to) by going high investment and destroying the relationship; or you can win (like you taught me) by going low investment and safeguarding the possibility of a future relationship.
In other words, complying with the "rules" seems to have the benefit of leaving more open the possibility of a future win-win.
How about Gengis Khan.
He surely put in a lot of effort to conquer his enemies and didn't come across as more reasonable or kinder.
If anything, the opposite.
Yet, he climbed to the top of his hierarchy.
And he got what he wanted.
And I'm pretty sure most people around him though of him as high power and extremely efficient.
I think you were more referring to exchanges in "civil society" that exclude recourse to violence though.
But that's exactly the point I wanted to make: I can't think of many iron rules without first defining certain limitations and parameters (ie.: the context).
Civil society tend to reward "reasonable" and 99% of people 99% deal with that context.
But how exceptions in more civil circles, like Trump?
Trump is a great example because his "less than reasonable attitude", coupled with the issues, cost him the second election.
But it was very successful within the context of the primaries and the Republican party, and especially the "unreasonable", more racist, more jingoist fringes in that party.
Agreed; and, to clarify, my first post was intended to try to define some "crutches" for me to learn, more than "rules". So I should probably have titled this "first tentative pointers".
And your examples are on point. By reading them, I understand that what ties into keeping open the possibility for win-win is pointer 3 rather than pointer 2 (which I thought was my main mistake in the past as I wrote in my previous post above). Because your examples are exceptions to point 3 (i.e. going "kinder/more reasonable").
So we could say that point 3 probably has the most exceptions, and that these exceptions probably tend to go toward the direction of making more enemies. But there definitely are cases when going counter to "rule" 3 is exactly what is necessary, especially if there is no other way to win the power-move exchange and avoid being dominated, or if you simply don't care to keep open a future relation (eg if a thief is in your house, you certainly don't need to come across as "kinder").
Hello Bel,
basically my feed-back is the same since I learned it from TPM. In general, I would not look too much at this topic through the "rules" lens. It's too complex. I think social skills and power dynamics is too fluid. Thinking in principles allows for more flexibility. Otherwise, you risk to go into overthinking mode. But also at the beginning it's normal as our brain try to figure this stuff out. However, it's more on a case-by-case basis I believe.
Yeah, I tend to agree with John here.
There might be some benefits in thinking in terms of rules but, to be honest, I'm not even sure it's worth it.
There are likely also some drawbacks -including limiting your out-of-the-box thinking and channeling your answers into a narrow band, rather than allowing you to think things through in all directions-, and I'm not sure if the benefits even outweigh the benefits.
But I'm truly not sure here and open to going either way.
If those rules help you Bel, and if you can improve on them, please do let us know -also, one can always call them "guidelines" or "high-level principles"-.
The former interpretation
- Brief
- Little investment
- Kind (on the surface), but...
- ... Laying on the table all your leverage
So the rules seem to be:
- Your answer in addressing a power move should always be briefer than the power mover's text (or move).
- Your answer in addressing a power move should always be lower investment than the power mover's text (or move).
- Your answer should be such that, if a third party were to read the exchange (or see the exchange in person), you would come out as the kinder/more reasonable person.
- Your answer should properly address the power move, meaning that it should show (i) you recognize the power move; (ii) you deny the effect of the power move (meaning, you never give the other person what his/her power move was meant to force on you), (iii) if push comes to shove and escalation ensues, you would win; and (iv) optional and subsequent, you show there is a way for win-win.
Sharpening no. 3
I think that "kindness" or "reasonableness" were the specific expression of the high-level principle in that case.
I believe that principle no. 3, at a higher level, seems to be related to the "correct choosing and combining of literal communication and subcommunication in the answer", in light of the context and the situation, including both the sender of the original message and potential present and future observers.
Another way of saying the same concept could be: the "correct degree of power-protecting". Because "power-protecting", in this context, seems to derive precisely from choosing to "hide our leverage" behind the subcommunication, while leaving open a possibility for the other to "save face" by himself being able to hide behind a positive interpretation of the "literal communication". And maybe, in some special cases, even viceversa.
And it seems to be the "degree" of this operation on our part that determines the "level" of power-protecting that is granted to the power mover while checking his move.
Examples:
- if I am checking a power move by a friend or client or a person I need, the combination needs to be slanted in favor of more power-protecting (thus allowing him to "save more face");
- if I am writing to a counterpart lawyer I can be less power-protecting; however, since the writing could eventually come in front of a Judge, it makes sense to never go overboard and still be somewhat power-protecting, even if only in the literal communication (and, in the case mentioned in the first post of this thread, all this translated into "formal kindness");
- even in the above two situations, if the power move is simply too disempowering, I must forgo power protecting in favor of stronger reempowering on my side;
- if a power move is unaware/benign, more power protecting is (usually) warranted than if it were intentional/malicious;
- if I am encountering a nasty but physically innocuous asshole on the street and I'm alone, I can be even less power-protecting;
- if I am Gengis Khan and I need to conquer a city, as Lucio pointed out, I can skip power protecting at all.
The new guidelines
So here are the revised "iron rules" (seriously, just the guidelines for my learning!):
The perfect way to check a power move:
- Brief
- Little investment
- With the correct degree of power-protecting based on the situation, but...
- ... Laying on the table all your leverage
