The good and bad about people -- they are predictable. We all know those telltale signs when we’ve crossed the line with a spouse or boss. We know from experience that you can talk people into sharing information they would otherwise like to keep private. We know that if you help a friend, they feel obligated to return the favor. We know this about people.
Life in a System
What we fail to recognize though is that people operate within what sociologists call a “system” that defines the boundaries of behaviors and maps out relationships. This system is the summation of the rules that humans employ to get things done, communicate, and otherwise exist in society. These rules change from time-to-time, but the characteristics of the system remain intact.
We also know that systems overlap. We can operate in a system that defines our workplace during the day and a system around our family in the evening. As the central player in both worlds, we bring the two systems together. Systems are just another way to look at behaviors and relationships.
The Independent You
Unfortunately, social science tells us that people, as highly independent participants, don’t like to admit they are part of or influenced by a predictable system. As a result, most system participants see themselves as acting alone without interference from a larger influence. As a result, people act in a predictable manner even when they are trying to operate on their own accord. People are predictable in systems.
We are creatures of habit, operating in a system that gives us clues as to how relationships work and how things get done. Even though we resist the idea of being part of a system, if we study our relationships, we can uncover valuable information about ourselves and those we encounter.
The starting point in understanding where we fit within our system is found in realizing we hold a position in that system. The challenge becomes recognizing our system position for what it is rather than what we think the position means. For example, we may believe we are in charge at home, but if our spouse has let us come to that conclusion when actually we are not – we have misinterpreted our system position. Misinterpretation of a position is dangerous because the system will eventually prove we are wrong.
The Predictability of Positions
If people hold positions in a system and their relationships form patterns, then the system takes on the attributes and characteristics of those patterns to form a system personality. As that personality forms and we come to recognize that form, we create a “short-hand” whereby we assume that a person that fills that position acts in a particular way. If they are the boss, then bosses in general act a certain way according to how we interpret the system. Friends act in a certain way and we assume they will usually act that way. In general, we come to understand that most people want to avoid conflict and they seek to maximize the benefit they gain from the system. We anticipate they will act in that manner. In doing so, they are trying to find that “steady-state” where life is good – no conflict, high reward. They simply want to lead a normal life with very few surprises – they want to be in control.
There are problems with living within a system. If we fail to see system dynamics at work, we lose opportunities to strengthen relationship, we misinterpret what people say, we become prejudiced in our impressions, we take comments as a personal affront – we become dysfunctional in our dealings with people. We create our own meaning and personal narratives as to why people treat us that way or why we don’t get our way. We believe we absolutely know the intentions of others and we become defensive at first, and then offensive later. In doing so, we decrease our collaboration and peaceful existence in our system. We blame others for consequences that we likely caused.
Self-Centered by Default
People tend to blame others because we are generally self-centered. If our desired normal life consists of very few surprises under our control, it is easy to see how we must, by default, be self-centered.
Within a system, each self-centered participant attempts to control that which is under their control, and a bit beyond. In doing so, to ensure life centers around our needs, we conclude we must control the behavior of others. We attempt to engage others in the system on our behalf, and they attempt to engage us on their behalf. As a result, system relationships take on fragmented bursts of cooperation that have an inherent short-term gain of self-interest. System participants may benefit in the short-term, but the system suffers over time.
When we are unable to engage other system participants for our benefit, we blame them for the negative consequences of our situation. Relationships are harmed and individual system participants become cautious and even more self-centered. The cycle of self-centeredness continues in a predictable fashion unless the loop can be broken.
A keen sense of self-awareness can break the loop of self-centeredness. By carefully observing system dynamics (what Senge in The Fifth Discipline would call “system thinking”) a self-aware person can predict and manage system relationship such that the situation improves for more than just one person. Improvements to the situation shared by participants in the system occurs when personal preferences are set aside (self-awareness) to improve the big picture for those connected to the situation.
However, self-awareness is an unusual trait. In the absence of a keen sense of the interrelated nature of others, people view their world through the lens of self – they create a narrative or story about why others treat them the way they do.
The Story in our Head
As our world takes on a misguided interpretation through the lens of self, we prefer to be alone and isolate ourselves from others in the system. We avoid agitation and confrontation by withdrawing from our relationships. When withdrawal occurs, teams are less effective, growth drops off, friends separate – we lose the connectivity of our past relationships.
Research indicates that we disconnect from our relationships without fully realizing what we are doing. Our judgment of others and our perception of ourselves form deep within our self-centered mind to create a world according to us. In this world, we quickly jump to conclusions, we defend what we believe to rightfully ours, we take comments personally, and we focus on insignificant issues. We become a dysfunctional system participant.
According to social scientist Barry Oshry, we believe that our interactions are “person to person” but in fact, they are “context to context.” This narrative or story we create in our head contains the context in which we observe and interact with other system participants. Given our ability to ignore system influences, Oshry concludes that we see every conversation as a single point in time without grasping the big picture. Everything has a context behind the intention. We say things because of this context. We treat people according to the context we view them within.
The crucial components become what we think and then what we say. Communication is indifferent to our intentions. Words simply convey the meaning given to them based on our context of the situation – our narrative. Words can build up or they can tear down. It is critical that we use communication in the appropriate manner to navigate successfully through our system. Without appropriate and healthy lines of communication we tend to fill in the blanks in this narrative we create. If we don’t know something for sure about a person, we are perfectly willing to make something up. We must be self-aware to keep a healthy perspective regarding ourselves and the system relationships we hold.
That communication and those narratives we create are crucial to recognizing that we are not a collection of individuals in our system, but rather, according to Oshry, “patterns of relationships.” If we don’t see people in light of the value they bring to a relationship we begin to see them as a person to be used for our benefit. When we use others, we are deep in the midst of a self-centered world that operates within a storyline that we create. We are at the center of that story with pressures on all sides. That leads us to the Manic Middle.
Manic Middle
Middle management has become the dumping ground of corporate America. Every boss has a seemingly brilliant idea just waiting to be heaved onto the shoulders of middle managers. The boss creates a half-baked idea, expecting the manager to figure out how in the world the company can achieve, pay for, or even communicate this new initiative.
Middle managers end up in a manic and frantic, state of the fast and furious trying to convince the boss they can handle every initiative by coaxing their employees into doing this dance of exhaustion just one more time. Being in the middle always means you get squeezed.
When you are in the Manic Middle, and by the way, we all occupy the middle position in one of our systems, you almost constantly feel torn between the expectations of top leaders and the needs of your employees. As a result, you feel isolated from your colleagues, because they have their own problems and don’t have time to hear yours.
The top leaders want you to make your employees more productive and your employees want you to meet their need for stability and fairness. You need the top leaders to support you in providing stability and you need the employees to support you in being more productive. As a Manic Middle manager you are caught between the two extremes as a broker in a system of fractured relationships.
As the Manic Middle begins to create those internal narratives, they convince themselves that they are alone (they refuse to recognize this is simply system driven behavior) and they feel under appreciated (creating misinterpretations of the actions of others). This story they create further steeps them in middle thinking and they begin to force the actions and words of those they encounter within the narrative they create.
If there is a middle position, there must also be two ends. On one extreme, we have what I call the “Controlling” Extreme. Controlling is in quotation marks because they think they are in control but they are not. This extreme is typically the leader of an organization or department, a parent, an older sibling – anyone who tries to exert influence or control from the top down to the Middle.
Since people are predictable, the Controlling Extreme is as well. Given the position they hold in the system, and their desire to hold on to that position, you will find that the Controlling Extreme are territorial people. They are usually responsible for some portion of the system and they protect it as if it is their own. They have accountability to their Controlling Extreme (they are the Manic Middle in that situation) to make something happen. They believe that it is “lonely at the top” and feel like they are the only person going through what they are experiencing. They are generally oblivious to the trials of the Manic Middle and just keep cranking out stuff for someone else to do.
On the other extreme side of the Manic Middle we find, what I call, the “Compliant” Extreme. Compliant too is in quotation marks because Controlling Extremes and to some extent Manic Middles believe Compliant Extremes should be – well, compliant. But, as you might guess, they are not compliant. In fact, the Compliant Extreme feels like they are oppressed and misunderstood. As they all share a similar state of being “dumped on” in the system, the Compliant Extreme do a pretty good job of uniting to protect each other. Who do they unite against? The Manic Middle and the Controlling Extreme. They become an effective team within the system to hold back the advances and requests of those who, they believe, attempt to diminish their value to the system. They organize to protect their own interest and ignore or tolerate demands from above.
The interesting thing about systems is that all systems have these three positions. Each position sticks pretty much with their script, and in the end, all systems work in a less than optimal manner unless the three positions breakout of their role and look at life from the other’s perspective. It is all very predictable. Controlling Extremes are territorial, Manic Middles are torn between the two extremes, and Compliant Extremes band together to survive by pushing back on demands made of them.
Yet, on that rare occasion when Extremes and Middles step out of their role and see system forces at work, a new system is formed in which a shared perspective is held by system participants. How does a system achieve that place? Here are a few things that system players can do to recognize the affect of systems:
Recognize that relationships guide the system. Spend time getting to know the needs of others. The driving question should be: “How do we (participants of my system) strengthen our relationships to improve our situation? Voice perceptions so they can be tested against reality. Understand how misunderstandings can and do happen. Take steps to protect the truth by participating in open and honest dialogue. Encourage questions from each other. Get good at predicting where a relationship is headed and correcting the course if necessary. Learn to trust and depend on the support of colleagues.
Be more aware of what you do not presently see. Recognize that everyone has a tendency to discount the presence of a system. Place the immediate issues in the context of past history and future needs. Be careful to not misdiagnose the problem for something that is self-centered. Realize that self-centered behavior is a waste of emotional energy. Don’t underestimate what it will take to fix a problem. There are always complicating factors that most would rather not discuss. Bring them into the light of honest dialogue. Place them in the context of the situation. When not in the proper context, we tend to make situations personal. In other words, we don’t see someone’s action toward us as coming from a position that fits in the context of the system, but rather we make it personal – she said that to me. Systems are best understood within the context that they exist. Why is there a family? What does this organization want to accomplish? Why do I associate with this group of friends? All are system questions that require a context to answer.
Become good at spotting the position you hold at the moment. Everyone is an Extreme and Middle at some point in a system. Recognize the common ways of thinking (territorial, torn, united) that each role uses to discount system forces. Correct that thinking and deal with the real facts as they are known.
Organize toward a solution. Join with a colleague that shares your position in the system and talk about shared responsibilities, creative approaches, and joint solutions. Ask other colleagues to join your conversations to build relationships. Use the shared vision and influence of your newly aligned group to leverage change.
Manic Middles will continue to be pressed by the expectations of the Controlling Extreme and the needs of the Compliant Extreme. It is crucial that Middles learn to navigate that often “fatal” road to professionally and personally survive. Despite the typical belief, Middles and Extremes are not acting independently but rather share a commonality called system. It is within that system that we all survive and thrive through our ability to see and navigate relationships.