Remembering the power of "I"

And what to do when I want to use "you" or "we" instead.

When I feel insecure about identifying and expressing my own perspectives and feelings, or overly identify in my ability to summarize other people's viewpoints, I may project my views onto someone else (by saying "you" instead of "I") or use ambiguity (by saying "we" instead of "I") as defensive mechanisms.

Let's explore what "I" and maybe "we" (If this fits for you) can do when the word is used unconsciously.

In the context of the DOT model, using "we" can be seen as sourcing from a scarcity-based conflict archetype – possibly a mix of the 'villain' (using ambiguity as a control tactic), the 'victim' (feeling insecure and thus avoiding clear expression), or the 'bystander' (choosing not to engage fully in the situation). Also the compulsively "fixing" hero may use "you" as a directive or projective identifier. They say up to 80% of how we communicate is not with the words being said but instead all the other information around those words (e.g., What is my body language? Does it match with my words?)

Understanding the subtle cuing of non-verbal dynamics proceeding and following when the word "we" is used is crucial in conflict resiliency, as it allows for deeper insight into the motivations behind such behavior and fosters more effective engagement and communication strategies.

Using "We" in a Way that Hinders

1. Assuming Consensus: This relates to Irving Janis's concept of groupthink, where the desire for harmony in a decision-making group leads to irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcomes. Presuming consensus with "we" can suppress individual opinions, reducing the resilience of the group in handling conflicts.

2. Erasing Individual Perspectives: Tajfel and Turner's social identity theory explains how individuals' self-concepts are based on their membership in social groups. Overusing "we" and neglecting individual identities can lead to a loss of unique perspectives, essential for a resilient approach to conflict.

3. Diffusing Personal Accountability: This concept is related to the diffusion of responsibility, a form of social loafing, where individuals in a group are less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction. This undermines conflict resiliency by avoiding personal growth and learning from conflicts.

4. Insincere Inclusivity: Using "we" to create a false sense of agreement can be a form of psychological manipulation, leading to distrust and reduced conflict resiliency within the group.

5. Indicating Co-Dependency: Co-dependency in relationships, where "we" is used excessively, can indicate an unhealthy reliance on others for approval and identity. This can hinder individual conflict coping mechanisms, essential for resilience.

Using we when someone's not present to disagree

The use of "we" when the referenced individuals are not present adds a complex layer to communication, often intensifying the implications of power and influence in what is being said. This practice can be seen as a form of weaponization or an exertion of power for several reasons:

1. Representation Without Consent: Using "we" in the absence of those referenced implies speaking on behalf of others without their explicit consent. This can be seen as a power move, where the speaker assumes the authority to represent a collective viewpoint, which may or may not accurately reflect the group's opinions or feelings.

2. Creating an Illusion of Unity: When "we" is used in such contexts, it can create a false sense of unity or agreement. This can be a tactic to sway opinions, assert dominance, or influence decisions by presenting a unified front, even when such unity might not exist. It's a way of leveraging the perceived strength of numbers to bolster the speaker's position.

3. Falsely influencing Group Dynamics: This use of "we" can be a strategic move in changing group dynamics, especially in organizational or social settings. It can subtly pressure absent members to conform to what is presented as a group consensus, thereby exercising control over the group's direction and decisions.

4. Undermining Individual Voices: By speaking for a group, the speaker may inadvertently or deliberately silence individual perspectives within the group. This can lead to a suppression of diversity in opinions, stifling healthy debate and the robust exchange of ideas that are crucial for collective growth and understanding.

5. Building In-Group vs. Out-Group Dynamics: When "we" is used in this manner, especially in the context of conflict or disagreement, it can create or reinforce in-group versus out-group dynamics. This can be divisive, promoting an us-versus-them mentality that undermines efforts towards inclusive dialogue and collaboration.

6. Exerting Influence Over Absent Members: This practice can also be a means of indirectly influencing the thoughts and behaviors of those not present. By asserting what "we" think or feel, the speaker may be setting a narrative or expectation that absent group members feel compelled to follow, even if it doesn't align with their individual viewpoints.

7. Ethical Implications: Ethically, speaking for others without their presence or consent raises questions about respect for individual agency and autonomy. It's crucial to consider the ethical implications of such representation, especially in sensitive or high-stakes scenarios.

In summary, using "we" to reference others who are not present adds a significant layer of power dynamics to communication. It's a practice that can be used to assert influence, control group narratives, and manipulate collective decision-making processes, which should be approached with caution and a deep understanding of its potential impact on group dynamics and individual autonomy.

Using "We" as part of Conflict Resiliency

With conflict resiliency, the goal of "we" is to nurture a culture of shared understanding, collective strength, and mutual respect, which are vital for effectively navigating and growing through conflicts. Before speaking "we" again, try gut-checking your "we", by replacing it with an "I" and see if it is still true and you wouldn't mind saying it that way.

Exercise: When in doubt, use "I" and model it for another present who then has a chance to identify if that statement is true for them also. For example, try saying out loud: "I am uncomfortable" versus "we're uncomfortable." Imagine how that would land on anyone around you. How much more of a mega-phone does "we" give you that might hurt those around you if you use it. Another way to test the difference, imagine someone you care about saying "I love you" Now imagine them stand next to a stranger and saying "We love you." Feels really different all the sudden, right? Once you know that you can own a "we" as an "I" and it doesn't feel off, then check your "we" to see if it fits into any of these categories:

1. Promoting Collective Effort: I once was at a family dinner where a conflict broke out that I had accidentally instigated. I was disoriented on what was happening, unclear on my offense. The other person got up to leave the table and drive home. My uncle slammed his fist on the table and set a boundary. "We are not a family that leaves the table like this!" The family member who was in flight mode sat down back at the table in shock. I was struck by the power of his boundary and it helped me commit to bridging with this person even though I was also having some hurt feelings. We were able to make up our differences a short-time later and showed up the next week at family dinner as usual!

Bruce Tuckman's model, which includes forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning stages, highlights the importance of collective effort in team development. "We" can foster a sense of unity and collaboration, crucial in the norming and performing stages for resilient conflict management.

Exercise:Try owning the "we" during the storms as a force that joins everyone, reinforcing that "we're in this together" and then follow-through on that and guard your thoughts when you wish someone was out of the picture to ease tensions.

2. Acknowledging Joint Responsibility: This approach aligns with collaborative leadership theories, where leaders work with their teams to identify challenges and solutions, strengthening the group's ability to resiliently face conflicts.

Exercise: Try owning your part of a problem first, "I noticed that I forgot... " and "I can see how I could have tried or done this other thing." Then through reflective listening, see what the other person (people) can acknowledge as their part. Finally, summarize the crossover on what "we are learning" from this moment and see how it lands on the body language of those receiving it.

3. Reflecting Collective Decision-Making : The effective use of "we" in reflecting collective decisions supports participative decision-making theories, which advocate for inclusive and democratic approaches in groups, enhancing conflict resiliency. Think of "we" as a special word that should only be used at times of majority decision making, but don't forget the "I's" that disagreed. For example, "we've decided to to go this route and I want to acknowledge the importance and voices of those that disagreed. Here are the reasons against...... and I appreciate this input and how we will continue to find better solutions together because of these voices."

4. Strengthening Relationships: In line with attachment theory, which emphasizes the importance of secure relationships for psychological stability, "we" can strengthen bonds and support a resilient approach to relational conflicts. Knowing that "we" feel or think a certain way can be a comfortable and safe place to know we belong. Check on when these mutual feelings are acknowledged, and how you might be tempted to only talk about the confluent perspectives when in private. Initially this is fine, as synchrony is an important phase of relationship development, and check that you have a community around you that can handle "I" and "we" statements with similar receptivity. If your community feels threatened by your "we" spend more time with those who need you to find the "we" with them too.

5. Facilitating Collaborative Problem-Solving: Integrative negotiation theory is where parties collaborate to find 'win-win' solutions, a key aspect of building resilience in conflict situations. Try asking people around you to try on a "we" every once in a while and see what kind of agreement they can find amongst each other. You can even do role play exercises with your team where you try on absurd and silly "we's" (e.g., We love taxes), easy "we's" (e.g., We breathe together.) and harder "we's" (We struggle to find agreement on.....) Normalizing attempts at conscious use of "we" allows for non-verbal and verbal communication when the we is creating the opposite of togetherness.

Conclusion:

Using "we" unconsciously, especially in the absence of those referenced, it can serve as a defensive mechanism, and seen from the frame scarcity-based conflict archetype in the DOT model, like the 'villain' using ambiguity as control, the 'victim' avoiding clear expression, or the 'bystander' not fully engaging. Misusing "we" can suppress individual opinions (groupthink), erase unique perspectives (social identity theory), diffuse personal accountability, create insincere inclusivity, and indicate co-dependency, all of which can undermine conflict resiliency.

Conversely, healthy usage of "we" in conflict resiliency involves promoting collective effort, acknowledging joint responsibility, reflecting collective decision-making, strengthening relationships, and facilitating collaborative problem-solving. It's crucial to gut-check the appropriateness of "we" before using it, ensuring it genuinely represents collective thoughts or feelings and contributes to a culture of shared understanding and mutual respect. This approach helps navigate the subtleties of non-verbal cues and motivations behind such behavior, enhancing effective communication and engagement strategies.

I would love to have more examples when "we" went wrong, and what you might have done to repair cleaning up a muddy "we."