Is It Ever Okay to Use Power Methods With Children?

  It has become a joke with those of us who teach P.E.T. that in almost every new class some parent will challenge the validity or limits of Method III by one of two questions:

"But what if your kid runs into the street in front of a car? Don't you have to use Method I?"

"But what if your kid gets sever appendicitis? Don't you have to use Method I to make her go to the hospital?"

  Our answer to both these questions is "Yes, of course." These are crisis situations that demand immediate and firm action. Yet prior to the crisis of the child's running in front of a car or needing to be taken to the hospital, non power methods can be used.

  If a child develops a habit of running int the street, a parent might first try to talk to the child about the dangers of cars, walk her around the edge of the yard, and tell her that anything beyond is not safe, show her a picture of a child hit by a car, build a fence around the yard, or watch her when she is playing in the front yard for a couple of days, reminding her each time when she goes beyond the limits. Even if I took the punishment approach, I would never risk my child's life on the assumption that punishment alone would keep her from going into the street. I would want to employ more certain methods in any event.

- excerpted from "Aren't There Times When Method I Has To Be Used" in Dr. Thomas Gordon's Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.) book

image: http://www.littleheartsbooks.com/2012/06/10/youre-not-the-boss-of-me/

How to Get Your Kids to Do Their Chores

(...Without Nagging Them!)

Let us first remind ourselves of the old, straight-forward theory which tells us that generally, people don't like to be "told what to do". This absolutely includes kids. It's no wonder that kids need to constantly be reminded of what they were supposed to do - they don't want to be doing it in the first place! But with some guidance from the Gordon Model and bit of psychological insight, we think we can help.

In most households, here's how chores are usually delegated:

Mom: "I need you to wash the dishes, clean up your room, feed the dog and take him for a walk."
Child: "I don't feel like it."
Mom: "Do it!"
Child: "Fine."

There's one way to get a child to "agree" to do something! His willingness is lacking and his compliance is artificial. The mother will likely need to remind him: "You said you would do the chores I asked! Why aren't they done? Do them now - I won't ask you again." Adding a tinge of threat here might get your child to do what he's told (for the time being, at least*) but will likely entice him to resist even more. Not only are you telling him what to do without any reason or consideration of what he is needing to do, but your reminding/nagging him comes across as condescending; as if he isn't intelligent enough to remember. This holds true for nagging in all shapes and forms.

Now let's consider two important Gordon Model skills to help in this situation:

1. The Preventive I-Message: These types of I-Messages are useful in preventing problems from occurring in the first place. They give the listener (the child, in this case) important information that they will need to know for the future. For example, you are having guests over for dinner and you would like your child to have his toys picked up off the floor before a certain time of day. Remember that the I-Message must have all three parts to increase the probability that it will be effective. Using this example, here is an I-Message that could be used: "I need to have the toys off the floor by 5 pm when the neighbors will be arriving, so that I don't feel embarrassed about inviting guests into a messy home and don't have to take up extra time that I will need to finish preparing dinner."
2. Method III: The No-Lose Method to resolving conflicts is the perfect skill to use when it comes to chore-setting. Many things are in play here. First off, is the principle of participation, which says that a person is more motivated to carry out a decision that he has been a part of making, versus a decision that has been made on his behalf, without his consent. Secondly, Method III considers the needs of everyone involved. It could still, for example, allow the kids to watch their favorite show at the same time every night, while also lessening the burden of all the household duties on just Mom or Dad. Method III must be carried out in all six parts in order to be the most effective. More on Method III - including the numerous positive side effects - can be found in Chapter 11 of the P.E.T. book.

Parents must also remember that none of these are guaranteed quick-fixes for the conflicts in your family. But with time, practice, and a constant consideration for the needs of others, the benefits of using the Gordon Model skills are truly astonishing.

Try it for yourself and let us know how it worked for you. Feel free to always comment below or on our Facebook page.

* See Chapter 10 of the P.E.T. book to read the effects of parental power on Children

Do Kids Really Need to be "Toughened Up" for the Real World?

Some parents believe that their children should be treated with the use of punitive power in order to prepare them for the "real world".

This belief leans toward the idea that in the crass adult world, kids need to be "toughened up" in their childhood in order to survive as grown-ups. Those who belong to this school of thought believe that this tough love should be shown in form of punishment and the use of punitive, parental power. 

Here's why this theory is amiss:

Let's start with the general idea that parents want their children to grow up to become responsible, capable adults. They raise their children to show them the differences between "right and wrong" and the skills needed to fulfill their basic needs. Growing up, children learn a language for communicating with others, how to use numbers, how to drive, etc. Very few of these children take a course that teaches how to communicate effectively with others in order to get their needs met, especially during times of conflict. They learn how to talk with people and how to problem solve by mimicking what their parents do. After all, "modeling" is the most powerful way to teach anyone, anything.

In a world where most of us grow up with the use of punishment and parental superiority, it's no wonder that the "real world" we are planted in is so tough. Imagine millions of crying, whining adults scolding each other, telling each other what to do, striking out in anger and stepping on the heads of others; all of this in attempt to get some need met. The inadequacy of trying to solve problems this way is monumental.

Let's delve deeper into the mind of a child raised this way. What happens to the human psyche when our needs are met with threats, commands, blame, judgement and name-calling (just to name a few)?

These common reactions to children produce a countless number of side-effects. When a child begins to fear a parent, they are also hearing a threat of getting hurt by someone bigger and stronger than they are. While the power might work to modify the child's behavior for the moment, the child will almost ALWAYS fester resentment, which will trigger hostile responses in the future. Alternatively, this may cause a child to become submissive and fearful. 

Parents' use of demanding or ordering their children to do something communicate to the child that the parent does not have faith in the child's own judgement or capability. Patterns like this create reluctance in decision-making and an inability to problem-solve on their own, simply because they haven't been given the chance to practice using their own judgement. The common thought here would be, "I always do it wrong so why try?"

Criticizing and name-calling have some of the worst effects on children. Dr. Thomas Gordon wrote, "A child's self-concept gets shaped by parental judgement and evaluation. As the parent judges the child, so will the child judge himself." Like adults, children will respond with defensiveness even in cases disguised as "constructive criticism." In order to protect their own self image, children can become very hostile in the face of blame, ridicule and disagreement.

Stepping out from behind the microscope, we know how and why punitive parenting causes hostile and apprehensive adults. The failure of many marriages, business partnerships and friendships can be found as a result of "how you were raised" versus "how he/she was raised." It's important to know that the true test of a relationship isn't how many conflicts occur, but rather, how each conflict is handled. Gordon said conflict to be the "true test of a relationship."

When one learns how to deal with their own feelings AND the intense feelings of others, while accomplishing the common goal of each person getting what they need WITHOUT having to compromise, our work here is done.
 By now, you might be wondering: "How can I do that?!" Well, ahem, there are half a dozen books that can explain it all! Check out the work of Dr. Thomas Gordon and Linda Adams here.

And as always, let us know what you think.

written by: Selena George

What Are The Four Kinds of Authority?

Dr. Gordon talks about four basic definitions of authority. The first one is authority based on expertise. This kind of authority is derived from a person's expertise - his or her knowledge, experience, training, skill, wisdom, education. For example, we say, "let's rely on the authority of the dictionary"; or "he is an authority on corporate law"; or "she speaks with authority." This is often referred to as earned authority. We will call this Authority E, the E standing for expertise.

In a family, authority E is in operation frequently. For instance, Dr. Gordon would say that he would gladly accept the authority of his wife or daughter to influence him to change his shirt or pants (or both) if he was told that they don't match. However, he'd influence his wife with directions driving through a strange city using his navigation skills and good orientation that he acquired when serving as an army pilot.

Anja will often accept her 14-year old son's authority on fixing a frozen computer or finding something on the internet quickly. Her son will accept her authority to budget the pocket-money spending.

A second kind of authority is based on position and title or a mutually understood or agreed-upon job description, which defines a person's duties, functions, and responsibilities. A committee chairman is given the authority to open and close its meetings; a policeman has the authority to issue a speeding ticket; a teacher has the authority to tell students to take out their spelling books; the driver of a car has the authority to tell passengers to fasten their seat belts. We will call this Authority J, the J standing for job. It's sometimes also called designated or legitimated authority.

The key concepts here are "mutually understood" and "agreed upon" job description. For this type of authority to work in human relationships, the people involved must genuinely accept - sanction, endorse, support, approve - the right of the person "in authority" to direct certain of their behaviors (but not all, of course.)

In Karin's family there are many interactions in which Authority J plays a major part. There are long-term agreements with regard to who does what job. Her husband, Thomas, is in charge of grocery shopping, so it's fine for him to be told by his daughter that she is tired of the cereal she's been eating for a while and she'd like to try a new one. Hannes, the nine-year old is responsible for taking the trash out, hence it's legitimate for his mother to point out to him that the trash is overflowing. Maria, the 13-year old daughter agreed to set the table for dinner and when Karin is ready to serve the food and the table is not set, it's natural that she'll ask Marie to hurry up.

All of the duties and responsibilities in the above examples were made legitimate by virtue of their having been arrived at by the involvement of each of us in a group decision-making process that ends up with a decision acceptable to everyone. It is from this mutual acceptance of the decision that Authority J derives its amazing potency to influence behavior. This is why it is sometimes called "legitimated authority."

The third kind of authority is based on informal contracts. This kind of authority in human relationships is derived from the many understandings, agreements, and contracts that people make in their day-to-day interactions. For example, it's a common practice in many homes that it's understood if a member of the household said (or left a note to that effect) to be home at a certain hour and then can not make it, that person will call home to inform the family of the change. The purpose of this agreement, obviously, is to avoid causing worry or anxiety. We call this type of authority Authority C, the C standing for commitments or contracts.

There are many examples of Authority C in every family. Some are things like the understanding to knock on someone else's bedroom before entering, others are informal agreements like which chair is used by whom for TV watching, or that whoever returns home first will get the mail and turn the heat on.

Authority C derives its potent influence from the personal commitments it represents. In later editions of this newsletter we'll examine Authority C in greater depth and give examples of using it to influence youngsters both at home and in school.

The fourth and last kind of authority is based on power; the power one person has over another. We will call this Authority P, P standing for power, power to control, dominate, coerce, bend to one's will, make other do what they don't want to do.

This is the type of authority people almost always have in mind when they talk about parents and teachers needing or exercising authority, or when they wish that children would "respect" adult authority, or when they talk about a "breakdown in authority" in families or schools, or when they want children to be "obedient to authority", or when they complain that kids today are "rebelling against authority." Authority P is also the kind of authority we generally mean when we speak of a "hierarchy of authority" in organizations.

Are Your Values and Beliefs the Only True Ones?

While parents are obviously older and more experienced than their children, it is frequently less obvious that their particular experience or knowledge has given them exclusive access to the truth or provided them with sufficient wisdom to judge always what is right and wrong. "Experience is a good teacher," but it does not always teach what is right; knowledge is better than ignorance, but a knowledgeable person is not always wise.

It has impressed me to see how many parents in deep trouble in their relationships with their children are persons with very strong and very rigid concepts of what is right and wrong. It follows that the more certain parents are that their own values and beliefs are right, the more they tend to impose them on their children (and usually on others, too). It also follows that such parents are apt to be unaccepting of behaviors that appear to deviate from their own values and beliefs.

Parents whose system of values and beliefs is more flexible, more permeable, more amenable to change, less black-or-white, are inclined to be far more accepting of behavior that would appear to deviate from their own values and beliefs. Again, it is my observation that such parents are far less likely to impose blueprints or try to mold their children into preconceived patterns. These are the parents who find it easier to accept their son's shaving his head even though they would not value that choice for themselves; who find it easier to accept changing patterns of sexual behavior, different styles of clothing, or rebellion against school authority. These are the parents who somehow seem to accept that change is inevitable, "that life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday," that the beliefs and values of one generation are not necessarily those of the next, that our society does need improvements, that some things should be vigorously protested, and that irrational and repressive authority often deserves to be strongly resisted. Parents with such attitudes find much more of the behavior of youth understandable, justified, and genuinely acceptable.*

*Excerpt from Dr. Thomas Gordon's P.E.T. book

Don't Children Want Authority and Limits?

A belief commonly held by both laypeople and professionals is that children actually want authority--they like parents to restrict their behavior by setting limits. When parents use their authority, so the argument goes, children feel more secure. Without limits, they not only will be wild and undisciplined but also insecure. An extension of this belief is that if parents do not use authority to set limits, their children will feel the parents do not care and will feel unloved.

While I suspect this belief is embraced by many because it gives them a neat justification for using power, I do not want to discredit the belief as a mere rationalization. There is some truth in the belief and so it must be examined rather carefully.

Common sense and experience strongly support the idea that children do want limits in their relationship with parents. They need to know how far they can go before their behavior will be unacceptable. Only then can they choose not to engage in such behaviors. This applies to all human relationships.

For example, I am much more secure when I know which of my behaviors are unacceptable to my wife. One that comes to mind is playing golf or going to my office to work on a day when we entertain guests. By knowing ahead of time that my absence will be unacceptable because my wife needs my help, I can choose not to play golf or go to the office and avoid her displeasure or anger and probably a conflict.

However, it is one thing for a child to want to know the "limits of her parents' acceptance" and an entirely different thing to say that she wants her parent to set those limits on her behavior. To return to the example involving my wife and me: I am helped when I know her feelings about my playing golf or going to the office on days we entertain. But I certainly will bristle and be resentful if she tries to set a limit on my behavior by some such statement as, "I cannot permit you to play golf or go to the office on days we are having guests. That's a limit. You are not to do those things."

I would not appreciate this power approach at all. It is ridiculous to suppose that my wife would even try to control and direct my behavior this way. Children respond no differently to limit setting on the part of the parent. Equally strong is their bristling and resentment when a parent unilaterally tries to set a limit on their behavior. I have never known a child who wants a parent to set a limit on her behavior like this:

"You must be in by midnight--that's my limit."

"I cannot permit you to take the car."

"You cannot play with your truck in the living room."

"We must demand that you not smoke pot."

"We have to restrict you from going with those two boys."

The reader will recognize all these communications as our familiar "sending the solution" (also, all are You-Messages).

A much sounder principle than "children want their parents to use their authority and set limits" is the following:

Children want and need information from their parents that will tell them the parent's feelings about their behavior. so that they themselves can modify behavior that might be unacceptable to the parents. However, children do not want the parent to try to limit or modify their behavior by using or threatening to use their authority. In short, children want to limit their behavior themselves if it becomes apparent to them that their behavior must be limited or modified. Children, like adults, prefer to be their own authority over their behavior.

One further point: children actually would prefer that all their behavior were acceptable to their parents, so that it would be unnecessary to limit or modify any of their behavior. I, too, would prefer that my wife would find all my behavior unconditionally acceptable. That's what I would prefer, but I know it is not only unrealistic, but impossible.

So parents should not expect, nor will their children expect of them, that they will be accepting of all behavior. What children have a right to expect, however, is that they always be told when their parents are not feeling accepting of a certain behavior (I don't like to be tugged and pulled when I'm talking to a friend"). This is quite different from wanting parents to use authority to set limits on their behavior.*

*An excerpt from Dr. Thomas Gordon's P.E.T., Parent Effectiveness Training book

What is the Difference in Self-Discipline and Imposed Discipline?

Self-Discipline versus Imposed Discipline

Almost everyone wants children who are capable of self-discipline--self-regulation, self-control. But where does it come from? Unfortunately, most parents believe that children will eventually develop self-control as a direct result of adults controlling and disciplining them. They think that outer-control will produce self-control and self-discipline.

The evidence is to the contrary. Children who have been extensively controlled and disciplined by parents and other adults often become rebellious and defiant to all adult authority. So disciplining kids does not produce self-disciplined kids.

Unfortunately, discipline by adults does produce some children who are obedient, fearful, shy and submissive, very different from self-disciplined children.

Studies show that self-disciplined children are those who were given a lot of freedom to make many of their own choices and decisions.*

*Excerpt from Family Effectiveness Training (F.E.T.) Adult Resource Book

Submission, Obedience, Compliance

Some children choose to submit to the authority of their parents for reasons that are not usually well understood. They cope through submission, obedience, and compliance. This response to parental authority often occurs when the parents have been very severe in their use of power. Particularly when punishment has been strong, children learn to submit out of a strong fear of the punishment. Children may react to parental power just as dogs become cowed and fearful from severe punishment. When children are quite young, severe punishment is more likely to cause submission because a reaction such as rebelling or resisting may seem to risky. They almost have to respond to parental power by becoming obedient and compliant. As children approach adolescence, this response might change abruptly because they have acquired more strength and courage to try resistance and rebellion.

Some children continue to be submissive and compliant through adolescence and often into adulthood. These children suffer the most from early parental power, for they are the ones who retain a deep fear of people in power positions wherever they encounter them. These are the adults who remain children throughout their lives, passively submitting to authority, denying their own needs, fearing to be themselves, frightened of conflict, too compliant to stand up for their own convictions. These are adults who fill the offices of psychologists and psychiatrists.

Forming Alliances, Organizing Against Parents

Children whose parents control and direct by authority and power learn, as they grow older, yet another way of coping with that power. This is the all-too-familiar pattern of forming alliances with other children, either in the family or out of it. Children discover that "in union there is strength"--they can "organize" much like workers in America have organized to cope with the power of employers and management.

Children frequently form alliances to present a common front to parents by:

• Agreeing among themselves to tell the same story.
• Telling their parents that all the other kids are permitted to do a certain thing, so why can't they?
• Influencing other children to join them in some questionable activity, hoping that then their parents won't single them out for punishment.

Today's crop of adolescents feels the real power that comes from organizing and acting in union against parental or adult authority--witness the growing numbers of kids doing drugs with thier friends, not doing homework, ditching school with friends to go to the mall, and the proliferation of cliques and gangs.

Because authority has continued to be the preferred method of controlling and directing the behavior of children, parents and other adults bring about the very thing they most lament--adolescents forming alliances to pit their power against the power of adults. And so society is polarizing into two warring groups--young people organized against adults, or, if you will, the "have-nots" against the "haves." Instead of children identifying with the family, they are increasingly identifying with their own peer group to combat the combined power of all adults.

Blaming Others, Tattling, Cheating

In families with more than one child, the children are obviously competing to get parental rewards and avoid punishment. They soon learn another coping mechanism: put the others at a disadvantage, discredit the other children, make them look bad, tattle, shift the blame. This formula is simple--"By making the other guy look bad, maybe I will look good." How defeating for parents; they want cooperative behavior from their kids, but by using rewards and punishment they breed competitive behavior--sibling rivalry, fighting, ratting on brother or sister:

"She got more ice cream than I did."

"How come I have to work int he yard when Joe doesn't?"

"He hit me first--he started it all."

"You never punished Ericka when she was my age and did the same things I'm doing now."

"How come you let Eddie get by with everything?"

Much of the competitive bickering and mutual blaming among children can be attributed to the parents' use of rewards and punishment in child-rearing. Since no one has the time, temperament, or wisdom to dispense rewards or punishments fairly and equally at all times, parents are inevitably going to create competition. It is only natural that each child wants to get most of the rewards and see her brothers and sisters get most of the punishment.

Dominating, Bossiness, Bullying

Why does a child try to dominate or bully younger children? One reason is that her parents used their power to dominate her. Therefore, whenever she is in a power position over another child, she too tries to dominate and boss. This can be observed when children play with dolls. They gernerally treat their dolls (their own "children") as their parents treat them, and psychologists have known for some time that they can find out how a parent treats a child by watching that child play with dolls. If the child is dominating, bossy, and punitive to her doll when she plays the role of a mother, she has almost certainly been treated the same way by her own mother.

Parents, therefore, unwittingly run a high risk of rearing a child who will be authoritarian with other children if they use their own authority to direct and control their child.

Lying, Hiding Feelings

Some children learn early in life that if they lie they can avoid a great deal of punishment. On occasion lying can even bring them rewards. Children invariably begin to earn their parents' values--they get to know accurately what their parents will approve or disapprove of. Without exception, every child I have seen in therapy whose parents used a heavy dose of rewards and punishment, revealed how much they lied to their parents. One adolescent girl told me:

"My mother won't let me go out with this one guy, so I have my girlfriend pick me up and tell Mom we're going to the moview or something. Then I go meet my boyfriend."

Another said:

"My mother won't let me wear low-cut shirts, so I wear another shirt over the low-cut one, and when I leave the house, I take it off a few blocks away and then put it back on before I come home."

While children lie a lot because so many parente rely hevaily on rewards and punishment, I firmly believe that the tendency to lie is not natural in youngsters. It is a learned response--a coping mechanism to handle the parents' attempts to control by manipulation of rewards and punishment. Children are not likely to lie in families where they are accepted and their freedom is respected.

Parents who complain that their children do not share their problems or talk about what is going on in their lives are also generally parents who have used a lot of punishment. Children learn how to play the game, and one way is to keep quiet.

Aggression, Retaliation, Striking Back

Because parental domination by authority often frustrates the needs of the child, and frustration so often leads to aggression, parents who rely on authority can expect their children to show aggression in some way. Children retaliate, try to cut the parent down to size, are severely critical, talk back nastily, employ "the silent treatment," or do any one of the hundreds of aggressive things that they feel may get back at the parents or hurt them.

The formula for this way of coping seems to be "You hurt me, so I'll hurt you--then maybe you won't hurt me in the future." Its extreme manifestation are cases, frequently reported in newspapers, of children who kill their parents. No doubt many acts of aggression against school authorities (vandalism), against the police, or against political leaders are motivated by a desire to retaliate or get back at someone.

Effects of Parental Power: Resentment, Anger, Hostility

Children resent those who have power over them. It feels unfair and often unjust. They resent the fact that parents or teachers are bigger and stronger, if such advantage is used to control them or restrict their freedom.

"Pick on someone your own size" is a frequent feeling of children when an adult uses his or her power.

It seems to be a universal response of human beings at any age to feel deeply resentful and angry toward someone on whom they are, to a greater or lesser degree, dependent for providing gratification of their needs. Most people don't respond favorably to those who hold power to dispense or withhold rewards. They resent the fact that someone else controls the means for satisfying their needs. They wish they themselves were in control. Also, most people crave this independence because it is risky to depend on another. There is the risk that the person on whom one is dependent will turn out to be less than dependable--unfair, prejudiced, inconsistent, unreasonable; or the person with the power may demand conformity to her own values and standards as a price of her rewards.

This is why employees of highly paternalistic employers--those who are generous in giving "benefits" and "bonuses" (on condition that the employees will gratefully acced to management's efforts to control by authority) are frequently resentful and hostile "to the hand that feeds them." Historians of industrial relations have pointed out that some of the most violent strikes hit companies where the management had been "benevolently paternalistic." This is also why the policy of a "have" nation giving handouts to a "have-not" nation so frequently results in the dependent nation's hostility toward the stronger one, much to the consternation of the "giver."

The Effects of Parental Power On The Child

Despite all the serious limitations of power, it strangely enough remains the method of choice for most parents, no matter what their education, social class, or economic level.

P.E.T. instructors invariably find that parents in their classes are surprisingly aware of the harmful effects of power. All we have to do is ask parents to draw from their own experience and tell us how they were affected when their parents used power over them. It is a strange paradox that parents remember how power felt to tehm as children but "forget" when they use power with their own children. We ask those in each class to list what they did as children to cope with their parents' use of power. Each class develops a list of coping mechanisms not too dissimilar from the following:

1. Resistance, defiance, rebellion, negativism
2. Resentment, anger, hostility
3. Aggression, retaliation, striking back
4. Lying, hiding feelings
5. Blaming others, tattling, cheating
6. Dominating, bossing, bullying
7. Needing to win, hating to lose
8. Forming alliances, organizing against parents
9. Submission, obedience, compliance
10. Apple-polishing, courting favor
11. Conformity, lack of creativity, fear of trying something new, requiring prior assurance of success
12. Withdrawing, escaping, fantasizing, regression

Watch the blog this week for more in-depth descriptions of what these coping mechanisms look like, and what's going on behind them.

The Best Relationships Lack Compromise

Does this sound familiar?

"I'm not eating those."

"Oh, yes you are!"

How about this?

"I need to talk to you about something."

"Can't you just leave me alone for one second!?"

These types of conflicts occur often. When we have what seem like irreconcilable needs, in order to move forward, it seems that often one party ends up fulfilling their needs at the expense of the other’s. 

"Compromise" is a word often tossed around in these situations. We have all heard the conventional wisdom that every good relationship is based on compromise. All of us have been told at one time or another that we need to compromise. 

When we hear “compromise” though, it usually signals to us that we are going to have to give up something that we want for the greater good of the relationship. The attitude/mindset of both parties is still usually one of Win-Lose; each has concerns about losing and being sure they get most of what they want—their solutions.

Compromise means that one or both parties will forfeit one or more of their needs so that everyone can get along.

A compromise for our quarrels above might look like this:

 Example 1: 

"I don't want to eat my broccoli; it makes me gag!" 

"You need your vegetables. Now just take 5 bites!"

 Example 2:

"Fine, I guess I’ll wait on you; just let me know when you feel like talking."

In the first example, the child does not get his needs met. He may submit and eat his broccoli, which could leave him feeling powerless, frustrated, perhaps resentful, or he may try a fight or flight response. In any of these situations, harm is done to the relationship. The parent has sent the message to her child that her own needs take precedence over his.

In the second example, one person has completely submitted and sacrificed their needs for another. This person has put his or her own needs on the back burner, which will likely be frustrating and again may lead to feelings of anger and resentment. 

P.E.T. offers us an alternative to compromising, called Method III. Instead of putting ourselves through the frustration of not having our needs met through compromise, or feeling like we have to battle our loved ones in a “my needs vs. your needs” battle, we can clearly state our needs and then discuss and reach a solution that meets everyone's needs. In essence, everyone gets what they want.

We will be discussing the six steps of Method III conflict resolution in more detail in an upcoming post. Until then, please feel free to leave comments about your experiences with compromise, how it made you feel, the effect it has had on your relationships, or anything else!

Cheers,

Stephanie