When dealing with conflict, it is important to understand the reasons why relationships get stuck into ‘playing games’ from a Neurlogical and Psychological perspective. It is in my view all to do with our Fight, Flight and Freeze (survival) responses, as in essence we are primitive beings living in a sophisticated society. In our pre-historic environments, threats came in the form of lions and wolves etc. which triggered our survival responses. Today it is often these neurologically-driven responses that makes us, as human beings, distrust others’ actions and take them to heart.
As we all are driven by our neurological survival responses, it has a major impact on how we communicate and form relationships. Stephen Karpman suggested that, due to the way our brain functions, every person plays a number of roles. Linking my perspective with that of Stephen Karpman, it appears that the fight response in us brings out a ‘persecutor’. In the Culture Continuum model this is presented on the left-hand side as the ‘under-protective parent’/judgemental role. The flight response appears to bring out, what Karpman refers to as the ‘rescuer’. On the Culture Continuum this is represented as the ‘over-protective parent’/putting others first role. The freeze response brings out a ‘victim’, represented as the ‘dependent’/learned helplessness role in the Culture Continuum.
In relationships with others, these roles ‘feed’ each other into a vicious circle of distrust and paranoia, always leading to LOSE-LOSE situations. Example – a teenager lacks confidence to do something (victim), a parent may step in and do it for them (rescuer). The parent may feel overwhelmed and resentful (LOSE) and the teenager never learns and gains confidence (LOSE).
Some more details on Karpman’s Drama Triangle and examples of interactions:
http://coachingsupervisionacademy.com/thought-leadership/the-karpman-drama-triangle/
How to move to WIN-WIN communication and relationships by being more aware of our brain neurological responses:
- The key – make time to REFLECT on your own neurological survival responses. In any given situation, are you in Fight (judgement), Flight (overprotective) or Freeze (dependent) mode?
- Treat others as adults and trust them to make their own decisions and cope with the challenges they face, including mistakes
- When you feel your FIGHT responses kicking in (e.g. being defensive, judging the actions/behaviours of others, feeling frustrated, anger etc), step back, reflect and when ready acknowledge how the other person is feeling and responding (according to their survival response), separate the behaviour from the person and constructively challenge without judgement. Be a constructive, but critical friend and offer some 'tough love' where needed.
- When you feel your FLIGHT responses kicking in (e.g. feeling sorry/pity for others, indulging others in their poor judgements, wanting to step in to take over from others etc), step back, reflect and when ready acknowledge how the other person is feeling and responding (according to their survival response), ask coaching-style questions that help you understand them better and empower the other person to find their own solutions.
- When you feel your FREEZE responses kicking in (e.g. not knowing where to turn, requesting others to step in, pushing others away and help/problem-solve etc), step back, reflect and when ready take control and create a plan of action. PLEASE NOTE - This does not mean you have to be eternally independent. Instead focuss on inter-dependency. It is ok to ask others for their views as long as there is no expectation for being ‘rescued’ and you recognise you are equal in presenting your views. This sets the basis for mutual respect and collaboration with others.
It is important to acknowledge that we are driven by our neurological pathways and that in stressful situations it takes extra effort to challenge yourself into making time to reflect on how you communicate with and respond to others. The reassuring bit is that we are all wired in the same way and all fall into these ‘survival’ patterns.
I personally find it helpful to use Karpman’s Drama Triangle and reflect on the role I play in any interaction to ensure my actions and communications don’t ‘feed the game’.
Anxiety and uncertainty are common realities in the current climate. This is not helped by the often complex nature of decision-making, the range of uncertainties and the extensive scrutiny. This cannot be eliminated through procedures or training, so the question is: how do organisations, not just individuals, address anxiety and uncertainty?
Anxiety causes two reaction patterns in people. The first – our neurological reaction – is the ‘Fight/Flight/Freeze’ response, which in our pre-historic environments has allowed us to survive many threatening and changing situations. In today’s world however this can cause people to feel very stressed, trying to avoid situations (‘head-in-the-sand’ response) or wanting to face up to the perceived threat/change with anger and blame.
The other reaction pattern is much less intuitive and takes a real conscious effort to build up. It is the acknowledgement that anxiety and its neurological responses are a given in threatening or changing situations and allows a person to think/reflect on what unmet need the anxiety is trying to communicate, impacting on a person’s resilience levels and ability to problem-solve and learn.
From an individual perspective, it is vital, in order to survive major change in your personal life and at work, to be understanding and be respectful of these reaction patterns in both yourself and in others, particularly the first which is based on our deep-founded and undeniable ancestral inheritance.
At an organisational level, anxiety is translated into risk management practices. The first reaction pattern translates into two extremes. The Fight response is caused by concerns around litigation and often leads to overprotection, risk averse practices and a Compliance/Dependency Culture, as people feel over-protected or even totally controlled. The Flight/Freeze response is on the other hand translated into a total lack of risk management practices, Risk Denial or even total neglect, which in reality are more likely to attract blame and litigation as people feel undervalued, underprotected or even neglected.
To improve an organisations’ learning culture following major change, it is important to understand that the above two risk management practices lie at either end of the risk management continuum (see below and attached). The focus of any Risk Management policy and procedure (and any other policies, procedures and strategies), which takes into account the benefits of taking risks, needs to focus on the centre section of this continuum, encouraging problem-solving, learning (from mistakes) and creative activities, the basis of a Learning Culture.
Total Neglect/Risk Denial <——–/———————/——–> Risk Averse/Total Control
The link to our biological inheritance too explains why a Learning Culture is so difficult to achieve, as our natural responses (Fight/Flight/ Freeze) are a given and often kick in first. The biological, neurological and psychological elements that make an individual's responses have therefore a major impact on the culture within organisations. Perceiving organisations as machines rather than living, breathing structures will only put processes (including risk processes) before the people that can change the organisation's culture.
