Finally Letting Go of Relationship Codependency: Assertive “I”-Message Beliefs vs. Blaming “You”-Message Expectations -- Part II
In Part I of “Letting Go of Relationship Codependency” (https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/finally-letting-go-relationship-codependency-belief-from-mark-gorkin/) the Stress Doc engaged in ongoing "hard-earned wisdom" reflection around a "letting go" process of a ten-year relationship. During the last virtual go-round, the Doc had an epiphany: in a sensitive communication exchange, potentially ripe with overreaction and misunderstanding, grasping the difference between “belief” and “expectation” may keep an exchange on a constructive course. After setting some of his relationship conflict stage, the Doc defined and briefly distinguished "belief" from "expectation," highlighting both the "reasonable' and the "irrational." This self-exploration process reveals the potential for replacing healthy, self-affirming "beliefs" from blaming and big muddy codependent "expectations."
Goal of Part II
The goal of Part II is to flesh out with illustrative dialogue how: a) “You”-messaging facilitates a dysfunctional “superior-subordinate” relationship chasm, and b), how “I”-message communication can facilitate one’s own productive and assertive expression of belief. “I”-messaging communication also helps set realistic and necessary boundaries, for example, accepting responsibility for a particular behavior, not global or exaggerated impact. (E.g., challenging a blaming “You”-message with, “It’s not all because of me…”) Mature “I”-messaging acknowledges both personal behavior variables (including biochemical and unconscious influences) and environmental variables as motivating factors, without one covering up for the other. In contrast, “You”-message shoulds and expectations have a texture and tone of “always or never” and “bad or good,” setting up blaming and victimization.
For example, an individual once accused me of talking five minutes longer than the group norm, which according to this individual, “prevented” him from having a turn speaking. In fact, having noticed the clock, I spoke two or three minutes longer. I agreed with the one-time deviation but not the accusation of my depriving him of time to speak. When used appropriately, “I”-messaging affirms self-responsibility while more objectively portioning out “rightness or wrongness” for one’s own and for another’s behavior or subsequent consequences. Deviation does not make you a deviant!
SELF- or Self-Centered: The Power of “I” vs. “You” Messaging
“I”-Message Overview
Learning to communicate from a “self”-centered point of view is not easy. Self-centered… the word alone reeks of selfishness or egotism. My “SELF” should be the focus of everyone’s attention and approval. Hmm… we seem to be bordering on narcissism. However, if “centered” provides more of the definitional context, then “self-centered” takes on another perspective: an arena for increasing self-awareness by getting to one’s central core (the heart of the matter, perhaps) along with emotional integration through honest self-reflection. The attention sought comes from within, perhaps trying to make sense of confusing, painful, or conflicted thoughts and feelings. Such an honest self-inventory may be humbling, but it also leads to psychological balance and authenticity. And, perhaps most important, a greater sense of self-agency – the demonstrated competence, realistic control, and strategic planning capacity for successfully negotiating one’s bio-psycho-social environment. In addition, agency is founded on taking personal responsibility and holding oneself accountable, especially in the face of trial and error.
And when talking about competence and control, accountability and responsibility, our words speak volumes. While the old saw claims “action speaks louder than words,” quite often, in the heat of interpersonal conflict, our words (and nonverbal or body language communication – assuming the absence of literal “sticks and stones”) are our actions! And despite the old saw… words can hurt! With this in mind, I’d like to introduce a communication tool to help you project vital self-agency by choosing constructive-assertive over dysfunctional-blaming messaging. As we’ll see, ultimately, it’s a tool and technique that helps distinguish integrity-defining “beliefs” from codependency-oriented “expectations.”
“I”-Message Examples (and some “You”-Message Blows)
The reflective, self-centered (as opposed to self-centered) individual acknowledges and expresses her emotions, her pain and hurts, her errors, as well as her strengths and joys using direct “I” messages. Some examples:
“I am angry about what I see as a one-sided decision.” (As opposed to, “You’re selfish. All you do is think about what’s best for you!”) As we’ll see, “You”-messaging tends to be global and “all or none”: “You’re either with me or against me!” In addition, “You”-messaging lumps past-present-future with it’s “You always” (or “You never”) or “You must or you should” declarations. “You”-messaging does not focus on one’s own beliefs, but hangs on critical judgments and holds judgmental expectations of the perceived antagonist.
Even, “I’m really not sure how I feel at this moment” or “I’m scared.” The “I”-messenger is often assertive, but just as often is not afraid to be vulnerable – the real marker of strength and integrity. “I”-messaging invites adult-to-adult interaction. Of course, you don’t always get what you explicitly or implicitly ask for. While an “I”-messenger may take time to consider or feel past memories and future considerations in the present moment, his or her expression stays personal- and present-focused. You messaging not only immediately targets the other, but also places negative expectations on the other: “What you will do to me (or what you should do for me) in the future.” When it comes to interpersonal interaction, expectations and shoulds often become a dysfunctional dyad!
“I”-Message Beliefs and “You”-Message Expectations
“I”-messaging tends to affirm initially one’s beliefs about the nature of one’s own feelings. Next comes one’s perception of the situation along with one’s behavior in it. An “I”-messenger will typically acknowledge appropriate responsibility but does not accept full blame, unless truly warranted. This assertive individual focuses less on the other as a causative factor, e.g., avoiding, “You made me,” and more on setting clear boundaries. “I believe this is my share of the problem… But this problem took two. Can we talk about it?”
Now, the sign of real mature communication emerges when the assertive individual demonstrates enough self-regulation not to pressure the other into admitting his part of the problem. He is “letting go” of expecting the other person to also be an assertive, equally honest or insightful “I”-messenger. But one does not have to silently endure disrespectful or dysfunctional “You”-communication. An appropriate self-affirming counter might be: “I won’t accept this one-sided continuing blame. I’m ending this confrontation. If we can have a discussion about mutual responsibility at a later time, let me know.”
And, of course, if continually interacting with a person who employs power in an abusive manner, e.g., “I don't care about your opinion, if you know what's good for you, you'll do what I say,” probably best to be upgrading the old resume. Or, at least, seriously questioning the long-term viability of the relationship (and of your future health and well-being).
“You”-Message Overview
In contrast, “You”-communication is often the staple of both victor and victim. Here are some classic examples of a controlling, judgmental, “superior” and “subordinate” or “blaming” (“You made me upset”) mindset and messaging:
“You have to do this now!” Or, a tad more subtle, “I know better than you” injunction: “You should do this now.” (As opposed to “I really need this now; here’s why it is time sensitive.” This can be seen as an order or a last-minute attempt to manipulate by projecting a state of anxiety. (In particular, autocratic or over-controlling bosses are famous for “the sky is falling down” eruptions.) But instead of acknowledging and explaining one’s anxiety, the “You”-messenger focuses on the other’s issues. And, of course, how the other’s behavior or issues will or may negatively impact one’s own interests. It seems safer and more face-saving to hold out expectations regarding the other than to take time for honest self-reflection and accountability. Alas, especially when holding other’s responsible for your peace of mind or sense of fairness in the world, expectations are often the seed of resentment or depression.
“What makes you think that?,” said with a haughty look and tone. The not so subtle unstated: “What’s wrong with you?” or “how could you ever believe that?” (Of course, nonverbals influence all messaging but, I believe, especially the critical or hostile “You”-variety. An “I”-message is not to be confused with an “evil-eye” message, that intimidating stare or disapproving raised eyebrow. And don’t get me started on that haughty, sneering lip. Of course, the manipulative intent is not just momentary but projects expectations and tries to control the “impaired” other’s future thinking.)
“It’s your fault!” The demeaning words (including, “You didn’t do x y z”) of an attorney directed at his paralegal after a mistake made to a document that contributed to a late filing. The paralegal, feeling he was being unjustly singled out, pushes back: “No, you don’t know how to give instructions!” Fighting “You” fire with “You” fire. Everyone gets burned. Though the attorney likely has a bigger blame-thrower. (What about if the paralegal responded with,
“I’m sorry there was an error.”
Or “Yes, I made an error. However, …”
Or, “Wait a minute. I’m not sure why I’m getting blasted!” This “I”-counter is like spitting out the attorney’s toxic venom. One suggestion; with the venom, aim for the shoe not the face. Also, this counter gives the paralegal time to craft an “I”-message response. Such as…
“However, having heard the feedback, I’m not sure we were on the same page with the instructions. This was my understanding of the instructions. I’m sorry that there was a late filing. Let’s figure how we are not going to let this happen again.” (“I” messaging affirms one’s belief and accepts some responsibility; it also affirms one’s integrity, by not accepting total blame. And, if “expectations” are stated or implied, they are not only for the other. Future problem-solving requires mutual discussion and negotiation.)
“You really disappointed me.” (Instead, how about, “I’m angry. Based on yesterday’s discussion, I was expecting ABC not XYZ… from you.” Aha, there’s that tricky “expectation” raising its potentially “You”-ugly head. What about, “My understanding was…” In other words, the communicator is employing a clarifying and affirming “I” message, with a touch of civility if not humility.
So. “I’m angry” or “I’m frustrated” is fine. But the communicator needs to be aware which path they are taking after the declaration of feeling: “I was expecting” vs. “My understanding.” Now, of course, having expectations of others can be reasonable and often positively motivating. However, a trap many of fall into: your expectation does not mean full commitment by the other. It’s when the communicator becomes disappointed or upset because “the other person did not meet their expectations,” and takes this personally that this interaction spins into: “You really disappointed me,” or “You don’t care about me or the family,” or “You hurt my feelings.”
“You shouldn’t feel that way” or “You’ll be fine.” The problem with these… Let me count the ways. First, most people think they are being comforting when, in fact, they are actually downplaying the other person’s emotional concerns. This communicator believes he knows what’s going on with the communicator… and what appropriate future behavior (those “expectations”) should look like. Also, the “You”-communicator’s greater knowledge, experience, or status should be enough to have a calming effect. In reality, the target of your “You”-message is not being heard.
IMHO, what would be helpful is if the “You”-messenger could be a bit more humble: “I guess I don’t get your worry. Please help me understand.” (Actually, a “You” message coming from a place of humility can have a positive, bridge-building effect: “Is there anything you need?” Or, “How may I help you?” This approach can also reduce a sense of status difference between the communicants. For example, I often begin a therapy session with a new client (who is often feeling upset; unsure about the therapy process, and/or may be feeling subordinate to the authority figure) by saying, “How may I be of help?” Much better than, “So what’s your problem?” ??
The former, unassuming approach begins to lay down a mutual, give-and-take “expectation”: “Your information and perspective is vital for my working with you.” And hopefully, by the end of the initial session, “Our success really will depend on our working together.”
Or, a personal favorite: “You drive me crazy!” Again there are often temporal, “You always” or “You never” implications. And, naturally, my mostly “I”-message retort: “I wonder… I think you give me way too much credit!” (Of course, I’m employing a bit of faux humility, for ironically skewering the global blaming attack. And yes, in a conflict situation, humor, especially, can have a hurtful edge. Or be perceived as hostile. Use with caution!
On a more serious note, what if an “I”-messenger said, “My intention is not to drive you (or anyone) crazy. Help me understand what is not working between us.” The unstated intention: so we can fix the present and make positive adaptations for the future. Of course, each party will have their own perspective on “the truth.” You may acknowledge someone’s take on reality without totally or partly agreeing with it. However, it’s always constructive, though often difficult letting the other party know they have been heard in the heat of battle. This may be achieved by summarizing the other’s argument before countering their position or itemizing your differences.
In addition, what if the “You drive me crazy” messenger was better able to handle his anger and made an “I”-message and a pronoun shift: “I’m feeling crazy by how we are communicating”? Another way of sharing the problematic, not placing it at the mouth of one person, is substituting “you” for “we.”
The Two-Word Differential Challenge. And finally, a two word “messaging” test that always has a dramatic impact during my workshops: I have an audience member engage in a discussion with me about a movie we’ve both seen. At some point, I imagine out loud that we are having a difference of opinion about a scene. I then suddenly confront the member along two different tracks: “You’re wrong” or “I disagree.” Also, ‘I see it differently’ or “My data says otherwise.” I then ask the participant if they could feel the difference in how the message was received. “You’re wrong” (accompanied by a sweeping arm gesture) is more jarring, if not painful, because it is demeaning and dismissive – not just of the argument but, really, of the person as a whole.
By contrast, the “I”-message rejoinder actually acknowledges the other person’s perspective, even if not in agreement. And it certainly does not dismiss the other party out of hand.
Closing Summary
Part II, “Finally Letting Go of Relationship Codependency: Distinguishing Assertive “I”-Message Beliefs from Blaming “You”-Message Expectations,” explains the difference between the self-responsibility and boundary-setting of “I”-messaging in contrast the judgmental and blaming nature of “You”-messaging. A number of classic examples along with productive or dysfunctional counters illustrate the borderline between functional and dysfunctional. And Part III will examine how the author attempted to use "I"-message beliefs and "let go" of "You"-messaging expectations to help him reach "good enough" closure with his ex. Until then... Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ?, a nationally acclaimed speaker, popular webinar educator, writer, and "Motivational Psychohumorist" ?. Mark is a founding partner and Stress Resilience and Trauma Debriefing Consultant for the Nepali Diaspora Behavioral Health & Wellness Initiative and is a Cross-Cultural Diversity Training Speaker & Consultant for numerous Federal Agencies. The Doc is also a Leadership and Life Coach as well as a Clinical Therapist for Inner City Family Services, Washington, DC. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, he has led numerous Pre-Deployment Stress Resilience-Humor-Team Building Retreats for the US Army. Presently, Mark does Cross Cultural Facilitation and Presentations for organizational/corporate clients of HR Consulting Firm PRM. The Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress, The Four Faces of Anger, and Preserving Human Touch in a High-Tech World. Mark’s award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" – www.stressdoc.com – was called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info, email: [email protected].