Behavior is a Trickster

(click for podcast) (7:07 min.)

An ongoing issue obstructing our ability to connect with one another comes from trying to ascertain “why” by observing “what” people do.?

Granted, observing behavior can be done with minimal interaction or commitment. You don’t need to actually be involved to observe. There's a sense of safety and self-protection by not getting into the mix with someone. Not only do you get to avoid uncertainties and potential emotional aspects, but you don’t have to expose yourself either. Of course when you think about it, this means that the image you want to portray is interacting with the image that they want to portray, and neither of you is really present. It’s a semi-blind puppet show, mask to mask, which isn’t the most effective way to communicate.

When it works, it’s pretty much by accident (even a broken clock is correct twice a day – once if it’s digital.) Remarkably, we continue to do this, as the potential discomfort of being exposed or having to deal with another person’s issues seems worse than looking at the abysmal results we’re actually getting.

Aside from the lack of important, pertinent information, there's also a potential clash being written into the interaction. This is what puts us in that position of trying to “sell” our side, while the other person tries to “sell” us theirs. I’m not talking about the healthy debate of differing ideas; indeed one of the more healthy aspects of communication we have. I’m talking about a battle of perspectives masquerading as empirical truths.

Observable Behavior Steers Us Wrong: Perspectives are directly linked to our motivations and focus of attention. Our motivations and focus of attention are what steer our behavior, not the other way around. We could do the same things for different reasons as easily as we could do different things given the same motivation. This is so key, I’m going to say it again. We could do the same things for different reasons as easily as we could do different things given the same motivation.

Obviously motivation, perspective, and focus of attention are what define who you are. If all I use is observing what you do, I can't possibly understand you, because I don’t know “why?” If I can't understand you, how can I expect to be able to interact or work with you easily and effectively?

Strategic Implications: This makes it real and logical to downgrade observable behavior’s importance in formulating our understanding of others. I’m not saying to ignore or dismiss it, but to put it into perspective.

People’s behavior primarily tells you about their survival strategies. This by definition is their most defended position. And again, these are often learned strategies that have little to do with who the person really is. Trying to work with that defended behavior is what writes conflict into the interaction. We're storming the walls, trying to break through defenses, rather than easily and effectively communicating.

It's unfortunately our most common approach. I can’t tell you how many clients over the years have come to me looking for better ways to storm the walls, get more effective weapons, and better armor for themselves, etc.

“How can I make them do what I want?” is a great common denominator in management and parenting (they’re so related.) The short answer of course is that you can’t. At least you can’t do it in any kind of sustainable way. Being whipped, cajoled, or manipulated into action usually results in their energy being expended toward asserting autonomy, escaping, and little else.

You can, however, work with people to a common goal. By understanding their motivation, you can join with them on their side of the wall without conflict. You can present the goal to them in a way that appeals to their motivations, rather than your own. Of course truly understanding your own is necessary, to enable you to recognize it and remove its associated projections and assumptions. (The Empty Cup approach.)

Choosing Understanding Over Frustration: Trying to predict behavior based on observing prior behavior is at best a game of odds. If you’re the big winner, you might guess correctly – this time. You’re still not in a position of understanding what makes that person tick, which can leave you in a position of judgment, frustration, and confusion.

Bottom line: you can't understand motivation through observed behavior. You can however understand behavior when you know the motivation. It's just a one-way street. Understanding the behavior beats observing it without understanding any day. That understanding gives you something real with which to work. That understanding puts you on the same team with the other person, rather than at odds with them. Hopefully it’s pretty obvious which is more effective.