surrealism is not my style

[Zues126]

Zues, Not to hijaack the thread, but I would like to get clarification on your opinion of validation. When the spouse starts talking about their re-invented history and starts spewing about "all the years of hell you put me through" and "I was a marty just faking it for years to try and save my marriage until I realized I just have to move on", "what about all YOU did that caused me to have an affair", "you haven't changed, you still can't see how this is all about you and has nothing do to with my affair. The relationship was over long before I found someone else"

So, there are two schools of thought there. One is you don't stand for nonsense and tell them something along the lines of, "I don't accept your altered version of history and won't listen to what you are trying to use to justify your unethical choices". And the other is validation of some kind.

The question is, which way is correct and how is that verbalized? If validation is your answer, what are examples of a few things you think you should say?

Great question.

Personally I think you need to do both. Validate and boundary set/truth dart. They don't have to conflict.

The thing is, validation is all about acknowledging the other person's point of view. That is it. The challenge for LBS's is we really don't. But we expect them to understand and agree with ours. Seek not to be understood, but to understand. Someone has to step up and lead the way. And what I've learned is that when people feel understood and acknowledged, they feel so grateful and appreciative of that they want to reciprocate.

Take an exchange I had last week between me and my manager. Now, he is a great manager, and I am a great employee.


The background needed: I am a star employee that hit my goals in 2015 in year 1 on the team
The topic: Me being given a verbal warning for missing January goals

My manager and I had a scheduled 1:1. He spent most of the time working with me on my game plan, helping where he could, probing me and challenging my plans in certain areas, getting involved in a few spots to assist, and giving me feedback on what my plan was. This was all done in a respectful way. Then at the end he brought up the verbal warning.

He did it almost apologetically. He started by telling me he understood how things had played out. He acknowledged that I had gone through a lot in Nov/Dec with custody battles and divorce, and that he knew that impacted me. He also understood that the entire market was challenged during seasonality, and that being in a longer sales cycle that operates on pipeline, these factors created a storm in which poor results were hard to avoid.

Before he could even get to the part where he held me accountable for my actions, I objected. I told him that we all have personal lives, but that I was a professional, and I make no excuses for my management of my assignment. I told him that while business slowed down, I didn't do my part to anticipate the decrease in business and take enough proactive measures to offset the dip. I said I appreciated his consideration, but that I have a responsibility to my customers, my team, my company, and our shareholders, and I hold myself fully responsible for an unacceptable performance.

Funny, when you have a healthy debate both people end up saying what they think the other person should have said.

Suppose my boss had led by telling me that I had a responsibility to my team and company, that I should've been more proactive, that I am fully responsible for my performance...how do you think that would've flown? Most employees would've responded defensively (even though he's right) and even though I would've agreed, I would've left thinking he was a dick. Instead I am more appreciative of his leadership than ever and don't want to let him down.

So, flight...there's an example of how to validate and set boundaries. My boss has to deliver the verbal warning, he can't keep me on the team indefinitely if I don't perform, he can't allow me to spew excuses and keep missing targets...but the best way to get that is to validate all of the things that contributed to me being in that spot.

Same way, when a WAS is talking about why they left, or why they cheated...while that isn't appropriate behavior, if we go right to attacking and condemning the behavior and trying to show them why they're wrong and we're right, nothing good comes out of it. Their defenses flare up, and we only help them dig in their heels. But if we can validate all of the reasons WHY they felt they had to leave, while still maintaining our boundaries and beliefs...THAT is the balance we should look for.

As to when to do which, when to truth dart, when to validate, etc...that is more complicated. But I'll tell you this- truth darting should be done sparingly...and I don't think it should be done at all until there has been a foundation of serious validating. You have to establish in their minds that you know their mind, you know their feelings, and you care...then maybe they'll give some respect to what you say, even if they don't like it initially.

So truth darting has to follow validation. And in order to validate you have to see past your side of the debate. That's very, very hard for us LBS's when we're in so much pain. But it is critical and why I harp so hard on this topic.