Speaking Up About Put-Downs
By Daniel Robin
This article series outlines several tools for dealing with patterns of aggressiveness. Assertive leaders are clear about what they want, listen actively, make requests, set clean boundaries, and handle differences through skillful negotiation. Of course, depending on the “personality” involved, it might be best to ask for help or get out of their way.
In Healthy Assertiveness: Pushy or Passionate?, we acknowledged the fine line between “strongly assertive” and “mildly aggressive” – indeed, it’s so subjective, people aggressively debate this topic with comments like “I’m not yelling!” or “If you think I’m being rude now, keep pushing me and I’ll show you what rude is!”
To make matters even more challenging, the “sender” and “receiver” often have completely different experiences of the original message. One person might say “I’m finished explaining this,” and the receiver might assume they’re being punished for asking too many questions, when the sender was actually trying to say “I’m hoping you can take it from here … I’m out of time.”
Hallucinations, distortions and generalizations can lead to escalation of minor problems into emotional outbursts and twisted metal; ironically, such aggressiveness both causes and results in further distortions, when the triggering event could have been easily nipped in the bud. The pattern creates a predictable loop that is also difficult to interrupt once it gets rolling. This is a common occurrence because a leader is far more likely to “mislead” when there’s stress, tension, or pressure; which, at most companies, is most of the time.
The Gray Scale
One answer to unscrambling this miscommunication is to assign a number that represents the perceived degree of aggressiveness: 1 = very mildly aggressive (light gray, abrasive, more like assertiveness with attitude), while 11 = extremely aggressive (dark-gray, abusive – perhaps when someone loses it completely and gets physical or makes threats). The scale is arranged in order of increasing impact. For example, yelling and shouting typically have a more serious impact than simply being abrupt or dismissive.
The scale we use in workshops goes something like this:
11 Physical threats
10 Angry outbursts or loss of control
9 Yelling and shouting
8 Threats about the job
7 An aggressive, controlling manner
6 Blaming, discrediting or discounting
5 Insults and put-downs
4 Snubbing or ignoring people
3 Brevity or abruptness
2 Glaring eye contact: “the look”
1 Silence
The purpose here is to decide in advance what’s acceptable in yourself and others. Discuss it with your peers. Take a poll. See if you can find a guidepost to set standards. For example, “In this department, we will call a ‘time out’ when anyone goes above a 5.”
Note that by itself, this scale does not decrease the impact of aggressiveness, but it does make the impact significantly more discussable. A bit part of the problem is that aggressiveness can be so unpleasant or scary to others that open dialogue become rare if not impossible. The use of this scale implies an agreement about what can be openly discussed. Rational conversations are more likely when a person is relatively calm and treated in a factual, non-judgmental way.
Agree to Focus on Assertiveness
With an agreement to use this scale instead of harsher methods (disciplinary action, lawsuits, involuntary coaching, etc.), you might ask them “Where were you on the gray scale at the end of yesterday’s meeting?,” and you can compare perceptions.
I guarantee that the “hijacked” person will initially rate their behavior differently than those on the receiving end. With time, and as awareness increases, the person will be able to anticipate that they are about to step over a line. Not entirely unlike an alcoholic, who must first admit that there’s a problem (even if that “problem” is with other people’s perception of their aggressive behavior), people who frequently fly into a rage must learn not to swim in De Nile.
