Last week we talked about having the courage to ask the hard questions, questions that may make us vulnerable, but which may open up new possibilities and opportunities. This week, we are the person being asked. This week, we need the courage to listen.

The first and most important thing to do is to...Read on.

This photo illustrates everything I want to share about having sway in relationships: the four dear friends deeply connected, their arms wrapped tight, embracing, girding, protecting, and yet separate, each individual freely expresses their own, joy, mischief, exuberance. In this series we have been playing with techniques to cultivate sway in our bodies, our content, and our work. A deep grounding, like tree roots, allows for strong branches to dance with the elements. How does this principal apply to relationships? How do we create relationships that sway, adapt, change, relationships that are deeply grounded, yet responsive to the dynamic elements of life? Read on…

Many of my clients are afraid of emotions. They worry that their talk, presentation, or challenging interaction, will be hijacked by emotion. They fear that they will be derailed, humiliated, and that their reputation may never recover. This is especially true of women, who may have internalized the message that they need to be “more like men,” i.e. less emotional. The fear is that emotional vulnerability is a sign of weakness.

What actors know is that:

*Emotions are simply the by-products of actions (intentions).

*Emotions only have the power to derail us when we try…Read on

This week we focus on the 4th of Gottman’s horsemen: Stonewalling. Dr. Jim Coan worked with Gottman and said that when coding couples in the “Love Lab,” they would note one partner literally turn away from the other. Stonewalling is when one partner removes themselves from the conflict rather than going towards it. We can see that sometimes this might be the best thing to do—when we are being baited or lured into a rabbit hole. But if stonewalling is a recurring habit, the relationship suffers. Knowing how to recognize and walk away from a rabbit hole or an unhealthy dynamic is vital; stonewalling is only harmful when it becomes our default.

Gottman says that we stonewall when we are physiologically flooded—often as a result of too much of the first three horsemen!

What’s the antidote? Read on…

According to John Gottman:

“Contempt is the single greatest predictor of divorce. It must be eliminated.”

In Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, contempt is by far the most toxic to relationships. Contempt is characterized by being brutally mean in a way intended to make the other person feel “despised and worthless.” Behaviors such as mocking, ridiculing, name calling, mimicking, eye-rolling, sneering, scoffing, all code as contempt. Notice the facial expression in the accompanying photo of Dr. Jim Coan modeling contempt: one side of the mouth is raised in a sneer. There is a sense of superiority and distaste, almost disgust.

Gottman and Coan looked at couples. But we all know that contempt sneaks into the work place, certainly into politics, and more and more into what used to be simple disagreements. If contempt is the most toxic behavior in intimate relationships, it is certainly toxic elsewhere.

What does Gottman prescribe as the antidote? Read on…

We’ve been digging into John Gottman’s work, specifically what he calls The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, or the four behaviors most correlated with toxic relationships.

Last week we looked at Defensiveness.

This week we look at Criticism. Criticism is a global attack, often using words like, “never,” “always,” and often invites defensiveness. Gottman makes the distinction between criticism and complaint: “A complaint focuses on a specific behavior, but criticism attacks a person’s very character.”

I’d like to add another distinction between “complaint” (a specific request) and “complaining” (whining). Whining did not make it into the Four Horsemen, but it sure is a connection killer, if you ask me.

See if you can distinguish between criticism (global personal attack) and complaint (direct request), below. Read on…

In exploring John Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, I begin with Defensiveness mostly because it is the one I find most common in my own relationships and interactions. Yes, indeed. Why? Because I want everyone to love me and I’m always right. A perfect recipe for defensiveness.

Gottman notes that defensiveness is usually a response to criticism (we’ll get to that!).

Importantly, Gottman reminds us that “being defensive never helps to solve the problem at hand.” Defensiveness does not work! It does not solve the problem! It only serves to dig deeper into the conflict.

What does Gottman advise as an antidote to defensiveness?  “The antidote is to …read on.

Though John Gottman’s research focuses on romantic partnerships, I find his work very useful when thinking about all sorts of interactive communications: tense conversations, co-parenting, parenting, facilitation, interviews, community meetings. Gottman’s Four Horses of the Apocalypse are particularly useful; these are the behaviors Gottman has found to most negatively impact relationships. Of course, we all fall into these behaviors sometimes! They key is to notice when they dominate interactions and practice their antidotes when possible. In heightened, high-stakes interactions where we need to influence others, gain momentum, create coalitions, change systems, ignite ideas, or overcome obstacles, avoiding these behaviors is an essential skill.

Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are: defensiveness, criticism, stonewalling, and read on…

In this photo we have the ‘seen’ and the ‘hidden’ ,the sunlit tracks and the mysterious tunnel. In communication we see this dichotomy in the words we use, or the text, the ‘seen,’ and the true meaning, or the subtext, the ‘hidden.’ In a recent post, I talked about how Intention animates language and even changes its meaning; HOW we say something carries more weight than the words themselves. In fact, HOW we say something is sometimes in opposition to the WHAT we are saying. Sometimes it sounds like people are “speaking in code,” saying one thing but meaning another.

What would happen if we answered and addressed the hidden, the subtext, rather than the spoken words? This is fun to play with. Read on…

John Gottman talks about the importance of, not only offering, but accepting the olive branch early and often during a conflict. He refers to these gestures, the offer of the olive branch, as “repair attempts.” They can be silly, playful, earnest, heartfelt. It doesn’t matter. They signal a desire to connect. Importantly, the way for these gestures to have a positive impact is for the receiver to accept the offer: to build on the joke, to accept the apology, to soften.

This week, notice when you might offer a repair attempt and do it. Notice when someone …read on.

This week we play with consciously avoiding Complaint, Criticism, and Cutting-off—in all interactions from team meetings to dinner conversations.

If the goal is to converse, communicate, and connect, these three Communication Catastrophes serve only to negate others, create anger and resentment, and to splinter groups.

The first thing is to become aware of our own patterns. With awareness comes change. Notice when we complain, criticize, or cut-in when someone else is speaking. Even those of us with eye-rolling teenagers can give this a go!

This week: consciously avoid complaining, criticizing, and cutting others off when they are speaking. Then, notice how our relationships shift.

Next week: we go further and substitute Communication Catastrophes with Communication Charmers!