I’m a terrible, absolutely awful pool player. Â But I’ve noticed something intriguing: Â In this game, there is only ONE possible action. Â Hit the white ball. Â Your only “move,” your only way to affect the results, is to hit the white ball. Â Yet different results occur each time.
And is it enough to just whack the ball? Â Despite my paucity of pool prowess, usually I am not so pathetic as to simply want to hear the “crack” of the cue. Â I actually want to get a ball into a pocket! Â (Preferably one of my own, but honestly, sometimes I’m happy to get any colored ball sunk.)
So probably, it’s worth pausing to think: What is the result I want?
I would suggest this is true in all of our interactions. Â I’m talking to a potential client about a project. Â I’m listening to my wife talk about a problem with homework. Â I’m starting a meeting with my team… in all cases, there are actions I can take… there are ways of doing those actions… and there are results. Â If I haven’t considered the desired result, I’m unlikely to choose an effective action and approach.
Making this evaluation, we’re applying a skill of pausing to predict. Â In the Six Seconds Model of Emotional Intelligence, the competency of “Apply Consequential Thinking,” or ACT. Â When we ACT, it’s not just about the physics of balls on the table, but the emotional physics of relationship. Â How do we want this person to feel? Â How do we want to feel? Â What are the likely emotional outcomes — and how to those jibe with the tactical realities? Â What do I want to happen next?
- Coaching Through the Emotional Recession: Three Practical Tips for Trauma-Informed Coaching - May 1, 2024
- Knowing Isn’t Coaching: Three Emotional Intelligence Tools for Professional Coaches - April 3, 2024
- Coaching Down the Escalator: 3 Emotional Intelligence Tips forCoaches to Reduce Volatility & De-escalate Conflict in a Polarized World - March 6, 2024
Josh, I am suggesting that it’s disempowering to use re-victimizing emotions. Absolutely we affect each other emotionally because we are social beings. I like to distinguish between “controlling” (giving up power) and “affecting” (accepting the responsibility of inter-dependence) emotions. In the situation you describe I’d coach the person to identify a deeper emotion that they can own, e.g. angry, embarrassed or defensive. Then, the person can focus on what what they can control to help move toward a more satisfying emotional goal, e.g. content or confident. Along with the work of Dr. Taibi Kahler, we’ve identified six core emotional motives that seem to be at the root of most conflict. Understanding these motives and developing constructive coping strategies is very empowering and a key for authenticity. Here’s a link. http://next-element.com/revealing-the-six-drivers-of-authenticity/ I’d love your perspective.
We’ve also developed a strategy to help a person explore beneath cover up and re-victimizing emotions to get to the heart of the matter. It’s called “Because, because, because” The person identifies the most salient feeling, then completes the sentence “I feel ______ because _____.” They are not allowed to mention any other person, or any other person’s behaviors. No blaming, only identifying what it is about ME that led to these feelings in this situation. This is repeated three times. A vast majority of the time the person discovers their core emotional motive. There’s a section on this in my new book, Conflict without Casualties.
Thanks Nate – that’s intriguing and sounds useful. Will check out the link!
Thank you, Josh, for bringing focus to the concept of emotional outcomes. So often people take the important step of identifying what they want and owning their potency, but the content is about what another person’s action, i.e. “I really want you to stop berating me in public.” This is different from the emotional outcome of “I want to feel worthwhile.” So often when we focus on a behavioral outcome we limit the options for ourselves and others to help us creatively achieve the goal.
I’d also like to note that there are emotional words we use that actually re-victimize ourselves. Saying, “I feel disrespected” implies that the other person has power over my respectfulness. Saying, “I feel hurt” implies others can hurt me. Instead, identifying the core emotional issue and desired outcome can empower emotional intelligence to a much higher level. e.g. “I feel afraid and I want to feel safe.” This statement is one of emotional responsibility and paves the way for collaborative problem-solving around how to achieve the goal.
This is quite intriguing Nathan. Could you explain more? EG If I’m having an interaction w my spouse, and she says X, and I feel hurt… are you saying it’s disempowering for me to say, “I feel hurt” because it acknowledges the power she has to affect my feelings? I agree that others don’t control our feelings… but as social animals, we’re wired to affect one another’s emotions!
Hi Josh,
Thank you for your feedback. I saw the article as I subscribe to your wonderful newsletter.
I am in agreement with your comments and would like to add that by using the same strategy in a rapidly evolving situation is akin to a definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over again while wanting and expecting different results. I have found that the motivation to change the actions and consequences of my choices begin in my emotional dimension then applying the choice in the relational dimension. I imagine that there are different ways to solve this dilemma with proactive measures.
Thanks Jim – yes, the “insanity problem” comes up a lot. We need to decide on the results, and then adapt the actions to get there!
🙂
Josh – I hear you are an Expert Whack a Mole player!
I have been really diving into the “Fusion” of TFA. The more I work with the young leaders of my company the more I see the importance of Cognitive Development thru Behavioral Development. The activities I have built around Consequential Thinking really hit home the “How” do I move from my original reaction to a more desired response. The TFA Cards have been a super tool.
Perhaps one day you can become that Trick-shot – Finessed – Billards player of your dreams.. or perhaps not.
~J
Hey James – I definitely am better at Whack a Mole! 🙂
You raise an important point – in the TFA cards we use the triangle of Thoughts, Feelings, Actions. We often say “TFA” but in this model, it could be AFT, FTA, etc etc. The three are inexorably linked. For some people, it’s easier to start w thoughts. I can easily imagine one of your young leaders, very active, very hands on, very “doing” oriented… and s/he would be best served by looking at the A first. It’s intriguing for me in the TFA activities to say to people, “Pick one stack of the cards to start with” and to see where they go.
Here’s to more EQ billiards!
The question – “what is the result I want?” seems such an innocent yet powerful question!. It propels you to towards action, and an action of YOUR choice! Very compelling indeed! Thanks 🙂
Thanks Anjali – it’s one of those deceptively simple ones!
Thanks for the neat inquiry! I have found that when implementing positive change one needs to know where they are, where they’ve been, where they want to go, and how to get there!
Without a strategic plan of action (“postive change map”), accompanied by practice – practice – practice, the path to the goal may be lost and the dream has little chance of becoming a reality! Without ACTION the change/result is highly improbable.
it doesn’t that matter where one has been or is now, as long as they are pretty determined about where them want to be – that, is the power that sets the direction.
Hi Jim – did you happen to see this http://staging.6seconds.org/2012/08/29/strategy-simplified/ ? If we continue the billiards analogy, we need to look at:
1. What’s on the table (point A)
2. How we want the game to end (point B)
3. What’s gonna mess us up (my skills… the obstacles)
4. What are reasonable next steps.
Now we have a strategy, next WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. As you said, change doesn’t happen from a plan. I’d also suggest two key considerations:
:: in the 4 questions above, there is a tactical or practical dimension. There is also an emotional or relational dimension that will strongly effect, maybe even drive, the outcomes.
:: in a few minutes, we need to do this again because the reality will have changed. If we keep playing out the strategy despite a rapidly evolving situation, we’re going to fail. This is a huge mistake most companies make.
Interesting analogy! I am always looking at different ways to work with underachieving college students and often use sports analogies. Thanks for sharing this perspective.