Is it just semantics?

In our last blog, we talked about your right to judge yourself and stated that we did not agree with the beginning phrase of that principle. To provide a common understanding of what we're talking about and more context around our words, let’s explore that a bit. Please note that we are not discussing the legal/judicial system - we refer only to social behaviors.

In this context, the meaning of the word judging is conducting critical analysis and forming an opinion. Often, in human behavior, the opinion is formed without the benefit of critical analysis. And it usually doesn't come out on the positive side; from my experience working with people, the judgment conveys a negative tone.

A former client had self-esteem issues and would tell me how she felt, followed by, “You probably think I’m crazy.” I objected to her projecting her judgment onto me and reminded her that she did not have the power to decide what I should think. It felt like she was telling me that she was “crazy,” so her behavior was to be expected. After hearing my objections to her self-judgment for about three months, she stopped saying things like that, although I thought she might have continued to say it to herself. I asserted my right to reject her imagined reality and to make my own evaluation of what I heard.

That is the reason I cringed a little bit when I read “your right to judge” yourself. A word like “evaluate” feels more comfortable to say in this context and implies a more neutral outcome as a result of your own analysis. You have the “right” to do it, but it may not lead to a good experience if you tend toward negativity. Ultimately, nobody else has the right to make those judgments and evaluations, and when you accept other people’s judgments or valuations, it affects your assertive rights.

The second step is: “You have the right to offer no reasons or excuses for justifying your behavior.”

This tenet is very simple and pure. You owe no one an explanation for who you are. An assertive person knows (and owns) their thoughts and deeds, along with the reasons for them. I have the right to keep my own counsel. Someone might say, “Yes, but I want them to know what I’m thinking so they don’t take it the wrong way!” Did you express yourself well, with clarity, or were you ambiguous? It’s OK to offer an explanation, but you don’t have to. In some relationships, we offer reasons for our behavior to be transparent in order to build trust. If you only provide excuses for your behavior, you are attempting to manipulate the other person’s opinion of you. You are trying to control their judgment (as described previously).

In counseling, we see clients who are open about struggling with their growth and feel insecure in their relationships. Others, who have the need to be in control, see this and think, “Great, I can be mean or rude!” Not so fast. The thing you want to avoid is the codependent trap – seeking for the other person to validate your reason. First, nobody has the right to validate (or judge) your reasons. Second, if you provide a reason, would it change their opinion? How do you feel about that – does it cause stress or give you peace? The thing to avoid is a perpetual discussion of “Why?” and a downward spiral in the relationship.

Ultimately, when deciding whether to offer a reason for your behavior, determine if it would avoid creating contention within the relationship. As an example, I (Ben) was in Florida a few weeks ago with friends visiting some theme parks. We walked around a lot. I don't like to walk slow but people tend to wander through these places. During our first outing, I found myself a block or two ahead of the group.

On several occasions, I stopped at a shop to look around while waiting for them to catch up. Intuitively, I thought I should explain why (without them asking) so they would not be upset. “It’s not because I don’t like you!” I said, “I’m not upset, I just walk fast, so I’ll pause every so often while you catch up.” I don't know if they needed that explanation, but I also know some of them are not assertive and might not have asked about it. I value these relationships, so it was important to me to avoid potential conflicts. It turned out well, and when we arrived at a different park the next day, someone joked, “See you later!” It was playful and validated that my relationship goal was met.

Lynn noticed a coworker who seemed “subdued” during a recent team meeting. I wondered what was wrong and some assumptions crept into my thoughts. Since this relationship matters to me, I asked him how he was doing. He said he was okay. I did not think about being assertive, but I felt I had a responsibility to investigate what I was believing about him, rather than just assuming I was correct without giving him the opportunity to talk about it. I'm really glad I did because he shared something, and I was able to support him and help him move from that place. Now, if he would have indicated that he was “OK” a second time, I still would have pursued it by saying, “I’ll honor your decision, but it would help me if you would reconsider, and I understand if you’re just not ready to talk.” They do not owe you an explanation, but I think it builds the relationship to show them that you care enough to press in a little. There's a fine line between believing you are entitled to the answer and caring about another person.

Is Assertiveness a Control Mechanism?

Sometimes, a reason or excuse is meant to control someone else’s perception and influence their behavior or response. Someone who feels like they are losing control (of themselves or someone else) may attempt to manipulate another person. This fear may motivate someone to generate a certain response. When these stress receptors are activated, using reason, rationale, validation, or excuses to counter a real or perceived threat affords a person a level of comfort. Everyone is different, but we are predictably different. Fear-based behavior will show up in a few different ways. One is, “Shut up and go away.” Those are the people who say they are fine when clearly, they are not.

Another control mechanism is to use reasons or justifications to manipulate the situation and protect your ego. Here's an example of how this principle played out for me in my past life. When I left home 20 minutes late to go to work, I’d pray along the way that a traffic problem would develop. Since it was rush hour, invariably traffic would slow down and I’d lose three minutes. When I arrived at work, I’d tell my boss, “Traffic!” In reality, about 17 minutes of my tardiness was caused by me sleeping late, but I abdicated my personal responsibility. I convinced myself it was OK to lie because of my fear of being disciplined at work. I looked for anything that I could over-inflate and use as my excuse. Keep in mind, a lie can be disguised as a half-truth, a twist, a misrepresentation but it is always a product of fear.

The big one, “The Tantrum” is like a hurricane on the open seas. The attack - going on the offense - to cover up the fear or pain. Do you want to elaborate on this?

Personal responsibility is a critical theme that says only you have the right to judge your own actions and to be responsible for them. To be an assertive-minded person requires responsibility because they're interlinked: two different sides of a DNA strand. It's all about understanding power and responsibility. I have ultimate powers despite it and with great power comes great responsibility. I have ultimate power over myself which means I must accept ultimate responsibility because power without responsibility is a corruptive force. If I only want to be in control and in charge and I don't want to own the results of the choices that I am compelled to make, I'm a tyrant. I'm not assertive, I'm aggressive.

If I take all the responsibility but I don't want any power, I'm a doormat. I’m passive: “You're right, that's my fault.” We recognize these people; they take in everything the world blames them for. They want to avoid conflict so much they apologize for every little thing: sorry spouse, sorry kids, sorry friends, sorry person that honked at me when the light turned green, sorry store clerk and the person in line behind me at the grocery store when I had to get change back. They gave up all their power a long time ago and believe it no longer exists.

Yesterday at work, I had an experience with someone who has a habit of interrupting the speaker who said, “I'm sorry for interrupting…” I said, “And you are.” He paused and said, “Oh I guess then I'm not sorry.” I have to teach that because every time he says he's sorry and nothing is interrupting him or challenging him he continues to execute and implement very ineffective communication. He will not be a leader doing that, believe me. Another example: you're at work and somebody knocks on your door, opens it and says, “Sorry for disturbing you.” Then, I shut the door - if you’re sorry, don’t do it.

These constitute the “Passive-Codependent Playbook” setups of which there are many (especially in Minnesota). When you start a sentence with, “No offense, but…” or “Sorry to be a bother, but…” or “For what it’s worth…” you negate what you are going to say next. You are playing defense against what you’re going to say next. You’ve already undercut your opinion and signaled that you cannot be attacked for it. Really, you just threw away your power. Depending on who is talking, you might ignore anything that was said before “but” and assume their intentions are good.

Another common passive conversation goes like this:

“Do you have a scissors?”

“Yeah”

Generally followed by a quizzical look or even a glare. How about this one:

“Can I see your pencil.”

(Holds pencil up so they can look at it.)

The look…followed by, “Okay, can I USE your pencil?”

“Sure!”

The way we respond to others teaches them to be assertive, or not, and how to be clear in their future requests of us. If one of your friends calls and says, “Hey, a bunch of us are going out for dinner tonight.” Since this communication was a statement – even if they implied passively that you were invited – you might respond, “Have fun!” They follow up with, “Well, don’t you want to come along?” They ended their first thought with a cloaked ellipse (…), they expected you to finish the request, although there were many possible intents behind their statement. At least now you know they weren’t planning to ask you to come over and babysit while they were out with your other friends.

How About 4-ish?

When someone says, “Let’s meet at 4-ish.” Do you really think they will be there at 4 o’clock? Chances are, they have no intention of being on time and imply that you cannot be upset if they arrive after 4:00. You can get mad if you want to, but I already absolved myself from penitence. Passive people want to avoid the problem altogether so they will respond, “Would 4:30 be better?” The assertive person says, “Since there is a chance you would be late, and I have a tight schedule, I’d like to set a specific time we can meet.”

We Love Meetings, Don’t You?

Even the oldest and best companies still do not know how to schedule meetings. As an example, a local healthcare company schedules one-hour meetings on the hour, with no passing time in between. When are people supposed to use the restroom, log notes and follow-ups or return calls and emails? This is a system failure. A better way is to set meetings with a 15-minute break in between, to allow for meeting time-creep and other activities without impacting the next one. Schools plan time for students to travel from one class to another during the day. Nobody in this health care company has acted assertively and said, “This doesn't work!” Nobody wants to cause friction, so they just passively send an email saying they might be late. What happens next? The meeting starts predictably, “Let’s wait a few minutes for everyone to join.”

Next time you decide to have a meeting, try asking yourself:

· Could this be a video conference? Before you schedule it, ask yourself

· Could this be a phone call? Before making a phone call, ask yourself

· Could it be an email? Before you type the email, ask yourself

· Could it be a text? Before you send a text, ask yourself

· Could it be left alone? Before you decide if it could be left alone, ask yourself

· Do I have to work here or would I rather be in Tahiti?

OK, that got a little carried away but you get the message. Another pet peeve is when people come to a meeting unprepared. For example, you send a meeting invitation with an attachment, stating that the meeting is intended to discuss the material in the attachment. Invariably, someone shows up and admits he didn’t look at the attachment. You might respond, “Then why are you here? You are irrelevant to the conversation.” His behavior showed that he was inconsiderate, and you have the right to say so.

Balance Creates Assertiveness

As you can see, it’s about balance – the merging of power and responsibility – that creates assertiveness. People who take power are seen as aggressive, but assertive people leave power that is not theirs to take.

A blog is useful to introduce a topic, explain one’s perspective, encourage thoughtfulness and impel others toward further analysis. These principles go way beyond the few words in this post and, honestly even if we wrote 10 times the words on it, we could never fully explain. If you want to hear more, please reach out to us for a chat, a talk, a conversation and a deeper understanding of assertiveness.