There is an old saying, “It is good for brothers to get along”. And it is true. But one of the most frequent problems I see in my work is the challenge of brothers “getting along” in business. And the issue plays out in many different ways and settings:

*Brothers who have been working together for years (and now are in their 50’s, 60’s and 70’s) and have built a successful business together, and are now in conflict about business succession issues — especially about how and whether the next generation should be involved in the business.

*Adult sons of the business founder who are working in the business, in different roles and levels of responsibility, and struggling with what is fair in compensation, power, influence and privileges.

*Adult children (for it is not always just brothers, but their sisters, too) — some of whom are in the business, some who are not directly involved in the day-to-day management — who are owners together and have significant conflict over the direction of the business and how resources should be distributed (i.e. dividend distributions, bonuses for the managing owners).

*One or more siblings who are working hard, taking their responsibilities in the business seriously, along with one sibling (usually a brother) who is “coasting” — not working very hard, not putting in the hours, not getting the job done — but who is pulling the same benefits (income, perks) and playing a lot more than his siblings. Result: plenty of resentment to go around.

There are lots of variations.

You may or may not remember that I grew up in a family owned business (a manufacturing company). I am the youngest of four sibs, and although I did not work in the business as an adult, I was an owner and on the Board. My two brothers worked in the business (as did my sister later on) and we had our own challenges — personality differences; some were owners and managers, others (me) were non-managing owners. So I speak from experience — it is good for brothers (and sisters) to get along. And it is a pain when you don’t.

You may have heard that there are two “CEO’s” in family businesses: the Chief Executive Officer, and the Chief Emotional Officer. The latter is often the matriarch in the family system (she may be the wife, mother, mother-in-law, or grandmother depending on the stage of the family). And one of the (self-imposed) roles of the Chief Emotional Officer is try to ensure that everyone in the family gets along. (Good luck!)

In fact, when identifying goals for the family and the business, the most frequent goal cited by the matriarch is either: “I just want everyone to be happy.” or “I would like everyone to get along peacefully.”

So, what is the point, practically? First, it may be helpful to recognize that conflict between brothers in business is a common occurrence. If this is your current (or past) experience, you are not alone.

Secondly, it is an important issue to pay attention to. Many successful businesses have been shipwrecked by unresolved conflicts among siblings in business together. It is to everyone’s benefit to address issues early, before they become unresolvable.

Finally, it is critical to recognize that relational issues — trust, healthy communication, acceptance of differences, resolving conflicts in a healthy way — are just as important for the long-term success of a family-owned business as are good management and execution of the business plan.

If you, or your family’s business, is struggling in this area, I’d love to help you work through the issues in a way that will bring a positive resolution. If I can help, let me know.

A fair amount of my time professionally is listening to individuals, families and organizations who are experiencing some challenges that they are trying to manage successfully. They describe to me a variety of problems and are looking for insight on what to do.

The issues range from individual behavior and feelings — anxiety about life, problems with anger management, patterns of communication which are viewed as condescending by others, uncertainty about one’s future career path — to problems solidly planted in the midst of relationships (marital conflict, a teenager or young adult who is demonstrating behavior problems and the parents don’t know what to do, a lack of trust among family members). And the challenges also can be more systemic or organizational — the lack of qualified managers who can “step up” to fill the gap when the current senior leaders retire, or current key employees who do not have the characteristics needed to be successful in their role.

Believe it or not, one of the most frequent questions I am asked is: “Do you think this is really a ‘problem’ or is it normal?” In essence, I am being asked: “Is this a ‘normal’ problem or is this something we should be concerned about?”

For example, parents aren’t sure if their teenager’s behavior is “normal teenage rebellion” or something greater. Or a manager doesn’t know if his direct report’s tendency to irritate his coworkers and those who work for him is “ok” and he should just let it ride, or if he should confront the issue.

Often, I give my clients some guidelines in order to determine if the problem is within the normal range of behavior (note that “normal” behavior includes challenges, weaknesses, and problem behavior) or if the pattern should be viewed more seriously. Here are a few ways to tell.

First, let’s clear the air on one viewpoint. Some people attempt to minimize problems they are having by saying: “There are lots of people who struggle with (xyz). It is not that big of a deal.” This is the adult version of the teenage justification, “Everyone is doing it!” The point trying to be made is that X behavior can’t really be problematic if it occurs frequently. Wrong. Ask the children of alcoholics or parents who are physically abusive (two high frequency behavior patterns). The level of frequency of a problem in a society has no bearing on its impact on individuals.

Ok, so here are the guidelines.

Frequency of the behavior. If a problem behavior (e.g. losing your temper and yelling at others) occurs once every six months, that is less of a concern than if the behavior occurs daily. Generally speaking, the more frequent a problem is demonstrated, the more concern there should be.

Intensity. Similarly, if the intensity of the behavior is fairly mild, this might be considered within the ‘normal’ range. But when the intensity is high, there is more concern. For example, if an employee is occasionally late to work five to ten minutes, that is not as significant as showing up two hours late (or not at all!) Anger reactions, drinking too much alcohol, anxiety, not fulfilling commitments made, etc. all fall into this realm.

Duration. If a behavior pattern has existed for 30 years (and potentially has grown worse over that time period), that is more problematic than a behavior that has just shown up recently. If a problem pattern has recently emerged, often we look for other stressors in the person’s life that may be temporary.

Generality. If a behavior pattern is pretty limited to one area of a person’s life, or one specific setting, that is less of a concern than if the behavior pattern can be seen in numerous setting. So if a manager relates to numerous people, in multiple settings, in a condescending or sarcastic way (with colleagues, with supervisors, with clients, with vendors, on the phone, in meetings, in email, out in public), then the “level” of the problem is more severe than if this style of communication only occurred with one vendor.

Impact on other areas of life. Some problem behaviors only impact one area of life (work, marriage, relationship with children). Some guys relate well to people at work and in the community, but treat their family members disrespectfully. Some people worry about their children, but the issue doesn’t bleed over into their work life, so that may not be as big of a concern.

Level of concern reported by numerous parties. When an individual raises issues or concerns about another person, whether it is at work or within a family, I view the situation differently than when the same issue is being raised by numerous people. (This is especially true when the individuals don’t seem to have any secondary gains to realize from reporting the problem.)

So, if we take all the issues together, a “normal” problem behavior is probably displayed infrequently, with mild to moderate intensity, maybe has only existed for a short while, and is fairly limited in its scope of where it is displayed.

Conversely, real “problem” behaviors are seen frequently, can be scary in their intensity, have been around a long time, and occur in numerous areas of the person’s life, and usually is creating significant disturbance in his or her life’s functioning.

One final comment. “Problem” problems need to be addressed. They will not go away on their own. And most significant problems are not easy to solve (if they were, they probably would have already been resolved.) “Problem” problems usually require multiple strategies to correct them successfully.

This week I have been gone five days for a series of business meetings. I am writing this as I travel home to be with my family. I have been reading, and have decided to review, a book entitled, The Price of Privilege by Madeline Levine. Dr. Levine is a psychologist who practices in the affluent area of Marin County, just north of San Francisco.

Ironically, I have been gone from my family for business this week and I now have to look in the mirror regarding the concerns she raises about parenting in an achievement-oriented home. Dr. Levine raises numerous valuable issues and points, but I will focus on some of the foundational issues related to parenting in the upper middle-class and affluent subcultures. (Quotes are followed by page numbers in parens.)

“Raising children has come to look more and more like a business endeavor and less and less like an endeavor of the heart.” (14) Dr. Levine cautions that more and more parents focus more on “results”, (and specifically achievement), rather than a relationship with their child.

Research is indicating a growing high at-risk group: preteens and early teens of affluent families. The incidence of depression, substance abuse, anxiety, and unhappiness is increasing at a staggering rate (20% of early teen girls are depressed.) Related to this, a subculture among affluent preteens and teens has developed which values substance abuse, rule breaking and sexual activity.

There are two primary core issues which underlie the dysfunction in this preteen and early teenage subculture:

a) the pressure to achieve, and b) isolation from parents.

Dr. Levine believes parents are “over-involved in the wrong things, and under-involved in the right things, both at the same time.” (28) She views inappropriate involvement in children’s achievement as intrusion, and an unavailability to support our children leads to isolation. “Support is about the needs of the child; intrusion is about the needs of the parent.” (12) “It is when a parent’s love is experienced as conditional on achievement that children are at risk for serious emotional problems.” (30)

“Being free enough from your own preoccupations to be attuned to the needs of your particular child is one of the greatest contributions to their healthy psychological development you can make.” (34)

Ouch. That one hits too close to home for me. I have to honestly say that often I am so preoccupied with my work that I am mentally and emotionally unavailable to both my wife and children. I need to correct that pattern in my life.

Dr. Levine then moves into a section of the book entitled Materialism: The Dark Side of Affluence. I like the way she differentiates between having significant financial resources and ‘materialism’.

“Materialism is not the same as having money. . . Materialism is a value system that emphasizes wealth, status, image, and material consumption.” “Materialism [as opposed to being wealthy].. does predict a lack of happiness and satisfaction.” (45)

Why? “When money becomes overly important, it crowds out other goals, endeavors, and interests; work, friendship, marriage, hobbies, parenting, spiritual development, and intellectual challenges can all fall by the wayside.” (47) “Materialism is about how easy it can be to choose the simple seduction of objects over the complex substance of relationships.” (48) So the focus and enamor with money, possessions, image and pleasure lead us to make choices that eventually depletes us from the more substantive, fulfilling, and lasting aspects of our lives.

The comments and observations Dr. Levine causes me to stop and reflect on my life. ‘What do I need to do differently to demonstrate to my family that I am more interested in them personally than I am about “achievement” (either theirs or my own)? I know this. I am going home and spending the evening with them – talking and listening. Any work that I could do will have to wait.

This is the time of year when families gather together – college students are on break, young adults return home to visit, and the extended family celebrates Christmas and New Year’s together.

So it is also the time when parents who have been successful in business turn their focus to their family. This is both a good thing and it creates difficulties. It is generally good for parents to engage relationally with their family; unfortunately, for some this is an infrequent occurrence due to their focus on work (or hobbies). But when we try to “re-enter” into the family relationally, the style and manner in which we do so can create tension, discomfort, and result in conflict.

Having grown up in a family owned business with a father who was an extremely hard worker, but who also cared about his family, we would experience this pattern. Through the year dad would work long hours, and my mom was the primary conductor of family matters. (This is not to say that he wasn’t involved at all, but until later in his business life, she had the primary responsibility of interacting with the kids regarding our daily affairs.) But around the Christmas holidays, dad would refocus and engage at a higher level in family matters. And, right or wrong, this pattern has largely continued in my own nuclear family.

So, both from observing and experiencing this pattern as a child, and now as a parent, I have seen some ways that “parent re-entry” can go better, or not so well. Let me share some of these observations.

Leading a family is different than leading a business. In business, there is a formal hierarchy with established patterns of communication and decision-making. In family matters, the structure, communication patterns and decision-making procedures are more fluid – largely influenced by which family members are involved and the specific areas of discussion or decision – and obviously, tend to be more relational. As a result, “top down” communication and decision-making that many business owners and executives try to transfer to the family doesn’t go over well (in some families, this is a extreme understatement.) The implication? Don’t try to run family meetings during the holidays like you run business meetings.

Influence is largely a factor of the quality of the relationship in families. Many parents want to utilize the time with their children and grandchildren to communicate important information – their goals and desires for the family, what is important to them, principles they want their children to live by. And this is good. However, the method by which this is done can “backfire”. If the parent does not currently have a positive relationship with the child (or whoever the family member is), the message will, at best, be ignored, and more probably may create a response of anger, resentment or disdain. I would suggest the following:

a) Spend individual time with family members. Talk with them, listen to them, ask them about their lives: what they are excited about, what they are learning, what are some challenges they are facing.

b) Share personal stories about your life. Rather than give a lecture (along with a handout) with your “five core principles for life”, share stories about experiences you have had and possibly the lessons you learned (sometimes the principles are better left unsaid). Think about what makes a good story: build the context, focus on the people involved, share sensory experiences (what it looked, sounded, smelled like), and share your thoughts and feelings throughout the experience.

c) Be aware that you may first need to rebuild relationships with others before they are going to be willing to receive input from you. If you haven’t ever read it, read The Five Love Languages by my friend, Dr. Gary Chapman. Then discuss it with the family member and see in what way love is best communicated to them. Then do it!

When planning activities for the family, give options and choices. Let the family give their input on what they would like to do and how they would like to spend the time together. Although your ideas may be great (and I am sure they are, just like mine are), they may not be what the others in your family want to do. If you want to have positive “family time”, then it makes sense that the family should be able to choose what would be fun for them.

I hope these suggestions will help your time together with your family over the holidays to be fun, positive and lead to significant interactions with those whom you love.

Merry Christmas!

Paul

I’ve been thinking about boundaries lately, and observing how significantly they impact our daily lives.  The lack of boundaries in relationships (or attempts to overstep established boundaries) seem to be a frequent cause of relational tension.

Obviously, there are different levels at which to consider boundaries — at the geopolitical level (e.g. the border between the United States and Mexico), in interpersonal relationships (as wonderfully explained by Cloud and Townsend in their books), and even our physical bodies (our skin provides a boundary between our body and the world around us).

I would like to use the example of our physical body to illustrate a few points about some characteristics of boundaries, and the purposes of boundaries.

First, we need to acknowledge that one purpose of a boundary is to distinguish between A (an object or person)and non-A. This is my body and it is not the same entity as the environment around it. I am me, and I am not you. We are separate beings. Although this seems simple and straightforward, there are many examples and levels at which distinguishing between A and non-A is not that clear cut. When I breathe in, is the air that is in my lungs part of me or is it still separate from me? When I perspire, at what point does the moisture cease to be part of me? The reason this issue needs to be addressed relates directly to the second point about boundaries.

Boundaries serve as a permeable “border” through which we both protect ourselves from the environment and also the mechanism through which we obtain resources and sustenance. Our skin is not a solid piece of fabric which keeps everything out nor keeps everything in. It allows the flow of information and resources between our body and the world around us — it takes in information and things we need (sunlight, moisture) and exhales information (redness of skin when irritated) and unnecessary materials.   This is true in relationships as well, either at the personal level, organizationally and politically.  We do not exist as self-sufficient beings independent from the world around us.  We interact and interchange with those around us — this is the nature of relationship.

In organizations (companies, community groups, churches, etc.) , boundaries (sometimes known as membership) help define who is and who is not part of the group.  Who can participate?  Who can provide input for direction?  Who has the rights of membership?  Who, as leaders, are we to care for and look after?  If membership in a group is unclear, then the processes of the organization become confusing and the resources can be squandered on those who are really not a part of the team.  What is required of members — what resources are they expected to bring to the organization?

Boundaries have a very direct relationship to responsibility (and often in the context of role definitiion).  What (or for whom) am I responsible?  I often see the issue of responsibility become a major source of tension in relationships — within families, family-owned businesses, companies, between businesses and customers, and businesses and vendors.  Individuals and companies who do a good job of clarifying expectations and responsibility in their relationships with others tend to have happier, non-conflictual relationships.

Let me cite some common problems with boundaries that I observe.

    1. Parents continuing to take responsibility for their children’s lives, in inappropriate ways or beyond the normal stage of life for that responsibility.  Most commonly, parents of adult children continue to take responsibility for their children’s financial well-being — rescuing them from a series of poor decisions or “helping them out” so their children will not have to experience some difficulty in their lives.

    2. Children placing responsibility (or blame) on their parents for their (the child’s) life experience.  Sometimes this is financial (”I lost my cell phone but don’t have the money to replace it.  You have money.    Therefore, you should get me a new phone.”)  But it is often at the emotional level — “I’m not happy.  I want x.  If you really cared about me, you would do x for me.  Then I’ll be happy.” 

    3. Family members confusing family and business roles.  One of the core challenges of family owned businesses is clarifying and maintaining appropriate boundaries between the family system and the business systems (ownership and management).  Often I see patriarchs wanting to help their adult children earn a good living (better than they would be able to get on their own in the marketplace) and put them in a position within the business that the individual is not qualified to handle responsibly — to the detriment of the business.  As a business owner, this is their right.  They can do whatever they want with the business they own.  However, in addition to hurting the business, this choice often leads to unintended negative consequences within the family and also often undermines the personal development of their child.

I would encourage you to reflect on the relationships in your life and examine the boundaries you have established (or attempt to).  Is the boundary too permeable?  Do you let in “toxins” from others that you need to keep out?  Or do you create such a firm boundary, keeping others at a distance and not letting them “in”, that you isolate yourself from the resources you need to live a healthy life?  Do you feel others try to place responsibility (or blame) on you that really isn’t yours to carry?  [If so, you may want to review my previous entries on dealing with dysfunctional individuals.] Additionally, in your work, pay attention to the relationships your company or organization has with others.  Are the boundaries well defined?  Is it clear who is responsible for what?  If you have ongoing conflicts with customers, vendors or strategic partners, then I would suggest you need to look closely at your boundaries, or how they are not being clearly communicated to others.

“Networking” is obviously not only about trying to use relational contacts to find a job or find a quality person for a position you are trying to fill.  We use our social networks for a variety of purposes — finding quality professionals or technicians for tasks we need to get done, locating charitable organizations that are good stewards of the monies given them, or learning about areas of life we have limited experience or knowledge.  Since my article / blog on networking, I have had a number of people talk to me about their own networking experiences, and I have had a couple of unique experiences as well.

I also remembered an issue of Forbes magazine, their 90th anniversary issue on May 7, 2007, which they dedicated to “The Power of Networking”.  However, they were discussing networking in the broader context of networking through the Internet (Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and other professional networks.)   One of the articles discussed some of the reasons people are reluctant to network.  I thought they were worth mentioning, along with some of my own observations.

People don’t like to network because:

  1.  It takes repetitive inititative.  Calling people, sending emails, going to social events to interact with others, setting up appointments — all take time and emotional energy.  And for some people (those who are more introverted) it can take a lot of energy.  It wouldn’t be as bad if we knew that the process was time-limited or defined according to a certain number of contacts.  One of the wearing aspects of networking is its open-ended nature and that we must continue reaching out to others repeatedly. 

  2. It can feel “fake”.  Networking can feel artificial and even manipulative when you are trying to connect with others for the sole purpose of getting your need met (finding a job, making a sale).  One antidote to this objection is to always include as part of your interaction to focus on what you can do for the other person.  Seeing how you can help them be more successful, or connecting them with resources you know, can normalize the interaction (and also build positive rapport that may be helpful to you at some later point in your life).

  3. There is a lot of anxiety associated with the whole experience.  Meeting with people outside of your normal social group challenges us in many ways.  We may not fully comprehend what they do, understand the language and acronyms they use, or feel competent in their social milieu.  Additionally, it is often awkward to ask for someone else’s time, knowledge and social connections, especially when we perceive the other person as important, successful or busy. 

  4. It is easier to network with those who are like you.  This is true, but generally speaking, meeting with people who are already in your larger social network will probably not be that productive in generating new and different types of connections that you wouldn’t be able to reach on your own.  If you are networking because you have a need, often your self-confidence is shaky, your emotional energy is low and it is more natural to make “easy” contacts rather than those that will stretch you, but which may yield greater benefits.

I myself, a highly social individual, get tired of meeting, greeting, social chit-chat, making requests, responding to requests, and reaching out to others.

The other night, at an awards banquet for non-profit organizations in our community, my 24 year old son sat at the table with my wife and I, and a number of business friends.  Our friends were asking Daniel about his thoughts on Facebook and MySpace — how they impacted relationships and his general impression of them as a social tool.  After sharing a variety of observations, he reported one of the challenges of the social network opportunities available now through the Internet is that “you can only keep up a certain number of relationships.”  This is a true statement, whether you are taking about Internet connections or face-to-face relationships.  Obviously, some people have more social capacity than others, but this is a limiting factor I think we need to keep in mind for ourselves (to help us have realistic expectations of ourselves) as we continue to connect with people in our daily life interactions.

In my work with people, I often deal with individuals’ reactions to situations as well as communication issues between co-workers and family members. As a result, in the process of working through these issues, people often say to me, “Well, you know, perception is reality.” Sometimes they say this to explain how miscommunication occurred with another person, or why they feel the way they do.

I am not sure of the origin of the phrase, “perception is reality”, (although I would bet it comes from some realm of psychology — and for those who know me, that is not necessarily a positive statement.) And I am unaware if it is being espoused frequently in the media, but I sure seem to being hearing it more and more.

The problem is — it is not true. At least, not always.

There is a verifiable reality that exists. And sometimes our perceptions (or beliefs about the world) do not match reality. In the physical realm, that is the basis for illusionists — they are able to make things appear different than they really are. Also, there are those tricks of nature that our senses can play on us that can lead us to misinterpret what is really happening (having a sense of your body being warm while you are in the beginning stages of hypothermia).

But in day to day life, I see the mismatch between perception and reality more practically. Here are some examples.

Miscommunication.  The classic example is the scenario like this:  “You said ….”  “I did not.  I said ….” “Oh, but I thought you said ….”  “No. What I said (or at least, thought I did) was …”  “But I thought you said …”  If we stick with the perception is reality proposition, this leads to major problems in communication.  This is true for both parties.  For the initial speaker, “what I thought” does not necessarily equal “what I said”.  And “what I said” is not necessarily the same thing as “what I meant”.  Similarly, for the listener, “what I heard you say” may not be the equivalent to “what you said”.  So perception may be perception, but it may not be what actually occurred.

The mismatch between feeling reactions and reality. I often see the disconnect between reality and perception in the area of worrying. Being worried or anxious is essentially a smaller version of being afraid (there is a qualitative difference between being terrified or afraid for one’s safety and being worried or concerned). However, the realm of worry and anxiety have to do with potential events that may happen. They always have to do with the future. The challenge is — not everything people worry about is reality-based. Those who struggle significantly with anxiety can worry daily about their loved ones being killed in a car accident on the way to school or work. Or they can worry about the stock market crashing, losing all of their savings, and winding up being homeless.

[NOTE: One way we can manage our fears and worries is to do a “reality check” — what is the actual likelihood of x event happening today? Has x happened before? How many times? Even if x happens, does that necessarily mean y will happen? And even in the unlikely event that x happens and y also happens, what are all of the circumstances that need to be in place for z then to occur? The chances are incredibly slim. So, how much time and energy do you want to spend worrying about a series of incidents that will probably not happen?]

Misinterpretation of a situation.  Some people make quick judgments.  Sometimes this is to their benefit.  But, in other cases, it can lead to misjudging what is going on in a situation.  In working with kids and teens, I have often seen a scenario where a fairly impulsive student, who also views themselves as the ‘protector’ of others will come into a room and see a couple of guys “scuffling”.  They have each other in headlocks and are throwing one another around the room.  The self-appointed “hero” sees the guys “fighting” and promptly dives in, tackles one of the fighters, taking him to the ground, and yells, “Break it up!” (Frequently someone gets hurt in the process.)  It is then that the hero finds out that the two boys were just “horsing around” and it was a good-natured tussle between two friends.  The two “fighters” wind up being angry at the hero for interfering with their fun and over-reacting to the situation.  Unfortunately, this happens in the adult world as well — where someone misinteprets a situation and reacts inappropriately because of their misperception.  Truly, in these situations, perception is not reality.

Inaccurate beliefs about the way the world is. For instance, in doing career coaching with individuals, many people believe that finding a job that meets their needs and desires should be fairly easy and should happen within a matter of weeks. So they “dive in” looking and applying for jobs.  After several weeks with no job, they begin to become discouraged (our feeling reactions are inter-related with our expectations) and begin to question if they are pursuing the right career direction.  Self-doubt also sets in, wondering if they are capable of finding the type of job they want and whether they are really marketable.  The reality is that finding a job which is a good fit for you takes a lot of time and energy. Usually three to six months, or longer. And this reality is demonstrated time and time again (one of the aspects of “reality” is that it can be verified empirically).

Misattribution of motive. Probably the most damaging form of misperception is the case of attributing a certain motive to someone else’s action, and being quite far off the mark.  This happens in marriages a lot, it seems.  And it can be the result of either an overt action (that is, something you did) or the absence of an action (something you didn’t do but the other person thought you should have).  Let me state something clearly — most of us aren’t fully clear why we do what we do, let alone being able to understand the motives of another.  It is always best to ask (and hopefully, believe) the other person, “Why did you …?”  It can be helpful to start with the phrase, “I’m confused. Can you help me understand why you…?” (It seems to take the accusatory edge off of the interaction.)  There are tons of examples, more than I want to go into (and for fear of incriminating myself).  Let me just suggest: we often get “bent out of shape” with others because we attribute a reason for their action or inaction that is not accurate.

There are other examples of perception not equaling reality, but I think that is enough for now.  Maybe use these ideas to frame your own thoughts when you hear: “Well, you know, perception is reality.”  Maybe.  Maybe not.

Yesterday, I was pleased and honored that the Wichita Eagle chose to publish an article I had written which was based on an earlier blog entry.  The article, entitled Six Principles of Positive Relationships, can be viewed on their website, if you are interested.

Last posting I described dysfunctional people and what behavior patterns characterize them.  That is really the easy part.  The tough part is learning how to deal with dysfunctional people in our lives — whether they are family members, coworkers, employees, or neighbors — and to do so in a way that doesn’t make us go crazy (or so we don’t commit murder!)

The first clue to dealing effectively with dysfunctional individuals is to give up the expectation that they will respond in a healthy way (to whatever action you choose to take).  Usually, no matter what you do, you will feel blamed and they will be angry — it is the classic example of “damned if do, damned if you don’t.”  If you talk to them, they are angry.  If you don’t talk to them, they are offended.  If you have somebody else talk to them, you’ll be in trouble, too. So, really — you have to give it up — typically, you will not be able to fix the situation.  At best, you may be able to do “damage control”.

Accepting that you cannot change the other person (their thoughts, viewpoint, ways of behaving or their choices) is the second step.  No matter what you say, what you offer, or what you do — you will not be able to change how they are approaching the situation (the exception to this is to totally “give in” to them and give them what they want.  But this will just buy you a short period of peace, until they want something else from you.  And “giving in” doesn’t change them, it just reinforces their actions.)  You may be “right” in your position.  You may have the wisdom of Solomon.  Your life may be in a lot better shape than theirs.  It doesn’t matter.  They are not going to listen to you.

Probably the most important step that many people fail to complete is to set boundaries around what you are and what you are not willing to do.  Most of us try to change the other person. When that fails, we either “give in” to their demands (just to calm them down) or we totally distance ourselves from them; in essence, we break off the relationship (quit our job; refuse to talk to them anymore).  However, there is middle ground — although it is difficult to successful “walk in”.  This is telling them (after deliberating on what the options are and their potential consequences) what you are willing to do in the situation (give them x amount of money one last time [don’t loan it to them, because they will never repay it anyway]) and what you are not willing to do (give or loan them 3 times x amount — which is how much they are asking for.)  The problem is — they will hound you and badger you, blame you, accuse you of being insensitive and greedy, trying to get you to change your mind.  Often, it is easier to “give in”.  But if you do, you are just continuing the dysfuctional pattern.

There are a number of interrelated steps that are critical to being able to follow through when setting boundaries with others.

  1) Realize that the current “crisis” is probably not a crisis (you could see it coming a long time ago) and they will be able to live through it.

  2) Remember that if you “help them out” this time, you will be expected to help them out again (because the issue is really their misbeliefs about life and the resulting poor choices they make, and they will continue to do so.)

  3) Do not accept false guilt from the dysfunctional person.  The whole problem is not your fault and it is not your responsibility to fix the problem or rescue them.

  4) Talk with and get support from others whom you believe are functional.  You need affirmation that you are thinking clearly and responding appropriately to the situation.  Otherwise, you will start to second-guess yourself and may “give in”, thinking “just this once won’t hurt.” 

Now all of this can sound rather hopeless — can’t people change?  Yes, they can.  But they have to decide they want to change.  And often, individuals with severely unhealthy patterns have to “hit the wall” of reality — that their beliefs about life and their way of living doesn’t really work because they don’t match the way the world really works.  Continuing to “help them out” only prolongs their dysfuctional patterns because they are not experiencing the true (and usually hard) consequences of their approach to life.  So the best way to help them is to not “help” them.

One thing is probably certain — they will not be happy with you or your choice — possibly for several months or years, unless they finally “get it”.  Then they may come back and thank you for forcing them to take a honest look at themselves and starting to take responsibility for the choices they make.  But don’t hold your breath.

Last entry we briefly discussed how one’s early life experiences shapes a person’s worldview and often continues to impact your values and decisions long into adulthood. I thought it would be good to extend this discussion into the realm of dysfunctional families.

First, it is important (to me, at least) to communicate that I am as tired as anyone by our culture’s propensity to blame someone (or something else) for poor choices individuals make. (For example, I was upset by the media’s immediate reaction to blame the administrators of Virginia Tech for not responding more quickly after the assassin’s first series of murders - or their susequent blaming of mental health professionals for not “locking up” the murderer when they knew he was mentally ill.  Let’s get the blame right - they young man shot and killed people. He is responsible for his actions. The media also needs to understand the laws that are currently in place regarding a professional’s “duty to warn” before they start popping off in ignorance. [The laws may need be revised, but that is a separate discussion.])

I am not looking to attribute primary responsibility to a person’s parents or a “messed up” family for their own pattern of making repeated bad choices. I am clearly not into vicimization (making everyone who has a problem an innocent victim of someone else’s actions). Obvioulsly, there are lots of very healthy people who have come out of terrible family situations. However, other people’s actions can have a significant effect on us, especially those of our parents and family members. So let’s look at this dynamic, to try to gain a bettr understanding of what happens and why.

Let’s start by defining “dysfunctional.” “Dys” always means ‘problem’ - dysexics have problems with words (primarily reading), dysgraphics struggle with writing.  And dysfunctional individuals have problems with functioning well in the real world. It is not a pejorative or judgmental term (to me, at least) but rather is descriptive - these people are having a hard time getting along in their daily lives.

Similarly, a dysfunctional family is one that lives in a way that demonstrates significant problems in life — in relationships, at work, in their finances, managing their feelings, communications, and so on. As I have stated previously, one of my friends likes to say, “All families are dysfunctional, but some are more than others.” This is a true statement. Dysfunctionality (and conversely, functionality) exists on a continuum - from mildly to moderately to severely, and so forth. So, we all fit into the category somewhere and somehow.

Practically speaking, what does a dysfunctional individual look like? Here are some common behaviors I have observed (and, unfortunately, have experienced in some relationships):

  *After spending time with them , you feel “fogged” — like you aren’t thinging clearly.
  *You thought you were thinking correctly about a situation, but after being with them, you now feel your approach to life is being questioned.
  *You feel blamed for the other person’s situation.
  *You consistently find yourself making choices on the basis on how the other person will react (because you don’t want to “make them mad”)
  *You feel responsible to “fix” a situation that is a result of another person’s (repetitive) choices.
  *You feel if you were a “good person” you maybe should help them out.
  *You are concerned about how innocent people (e.g. children) will suffer from the poor choices made by another person.
  *Other people are mad at you because you won’t “help them out” (just this once!).
  *You are being blamed for being unresonable and insensitive to their situation.
  *You have been in this situation before (or one very similar to it) with this person. Probably, previously you “helped them out” and they are in the same again.
  *You have concerned that if you don’t rescue them from their current situation, the consequences are so significant that it may ruin their life in the future.
  *You feel pressured to make an immediate dcision to “help out,” even though the problem has been developing for quite a while.
  *You feel “smothered;” the other person wants to get too close too soon or they cut off the relationship totally, for seemingly little slights.

Individuals who behave in these ways typically (although not always) learned more of these patterns from their families. This is where the issue of early life experiences comes in. Most of us learn about the “world” from our family, because initially our family and home is our primary “world” (but this has changed with the increasing use of babysitters, daycare centers and preschools).

In our early years we learn important lessons - whether the world is safe or not, whether other people (primarily our caretakers) are caring and loving, whether they can be trusted and are predictable, what happens when we make mistakes, whether we will be protected or whether we have to protect ourselves, and so on.

The problem arises when individuals are raised in homes where the “rules” and patterns of behavoir don’t really match the way healthy relationships occur in the world outside of the family. This is most clearly evident in homes with addictions (alcoholism, drugs, gambling, spending) or severe mental illness (depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, bipolar disorders, etc.). Individuals who struggle with these issues usually develop behavior patterns to try to “cope” with life, but their choices often lead to other problems.

Dysfunctional families often exhibit a number of the following relational / communication patterns:

  >Deceit (overt lying, not telling the whole story, or hiding the truth)
  >Indirect Communication (talking “through” others)
  >Inconsistent and unpredictable behavior
  >Volatile and explosive expression of feelings (usually anger)
  >Having a sense of entitlement (”I deserve..because I want it.”)
  >Blaming others, making excuses for one’s poor choices
  >Having to meet your desires now
  >Escaping from reality (through TV, videogames, drugs, alcohol, sleep)
  >Holding on to grudges and seeking revege
  >Making verbal commitments with little or no follow-through
  >Focusing primarily on one’s public image and appearance
  >Disagreement leading to anger, “personal” attacks and hatred
  >Trying to control others through guilt, shame or anger

This is the reason that individuals who grow up in seriously dysfunctional families often have struggles later in life. Their early life history and experiences skew their views of what life and relationships should be like. For example, when a child grows up in a home where the father comes home drunk and is easily angered, the child learns to “stay out of the way.” They also learn to “cover their tracks” so they don’t get in trouble (or beat) when they have made a mistake.  And it is actually “functional” for children in these types of settings to lie - to protect themselves, their siblings or their mother. The problem comes when they are no longer in that relational environment and they transfer these behaviors to the other settings and relationships. That is when they become “dysfunctional” - that is, these behaviors no longer function well in the world they currently live.

I think I’ll stop there for now. Hopefully, this gives some insight into “dysfuntionality” as we encounter it in our lives (always in other people, right?). Next entry I may address ways we can manage situations we find ourselves in daily interactions with others who live in this manner.