Tag: arguments

Categories
conflict intensity conflict management conflict resolution Dagwood dig for the conflict emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum guilt

CAN A CONFLICT EVER BE TRULY RESOLVED?

“How’d things work out between Blondie and you?” you ask in a concerned voice upon running into your friend, Dagwood.  “Did you manage to resolve your conflict?”

“Yeah, um…well, I’m kinda not sure,” he replies.

Blondie Conflict resolvedWhen it comes to whether or not a conflict has been resolved, sometimes people feel confused, or they end up engaging in needless arguments about this. Today we spend some time clarifying this issue.

The DIG Conflict Model removes much of the uncertainty about this issue by:

  • being precise about the definition of a conflict
  • introducing the concept of conflict intensity
  • being precise about the point at which a conflict is resolved
  • introducing the concept of related conflicts

The Definition of a Conflict

A conflict exists whenever the following three conditions exist:

  1. Party A desires an act will occur.
  2. Party A perceives that another party is likely to act in a manner that interferes with the desire.
  3. Party A perceives that the other party would be guilty of doing something wrong if he or she carries out the interfering act.

When using the DIG Conflict Model, we describe a conflict by using the word “DIG” to remind us to identify the three conflict conditions, the desire, the interference, and the guilt.  Sometimes a given situation has more than one conflict but people end up getting confused because they think that all of the conflicts are one big conflict.  When using the DIG Conflict Model, we clearly describe each of the conflicts separately and systematically.  This process dramatically reduces confusion and simplifies finding resolutions to each of the separate conflicts. Sometimes we have to dig to identify all of the conflicts in a situation but the DIG Conflict Model provides us some tools to make this relatively easy (see posts titled DEALING WITH CRITICISM BY DIGGING DEEPER and RESOLVING RECURRING CONFLICTS).

Conflict Intensity

Toward reaching our goal of reducing confusion about whether or not a conflict has been resolved, we have just clarified what it means to have a conflict.  We now move on toward this goal by learning about the intensity of a conflict.

The three conditions of a conflict (desire, interference and guilt) are not just present whenever a conflict exists.  Each of these three conditions may be present at a very high degree, a medium degree, or a low degree.

DESIRE
DESIRE

As an example, let’s say that in the picture on the right, John desires Mary with all of his might.  Asked to rate how much he desires Mary on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the greatest desire he can possibly have, he rates his desire for her a 10.

We asked John a few months later to rate his desire for Mary. Some of Mary’s mannerisms have begun to annoy him, and there are times when he has begun to think of finding a new girlfriend.  He still has some desire for her but at a lower degree then when he first met her.  This example illustrates how the desire component of a conflict can vary over time.

interference
INTERFERENCE

Now let’s look at an example of how the interference component of a conflict can be present at higher and lower degrees. In the picture on the left, Sue desires to get to a long-eared stuffed animal but Fred is interfering.  Sue knows Fred pretty well and she is convinced that once he decides to not let her get something, he usually sticks to it for quite some time.  Asked to rate how much Fred is likely to interfere with the achieving of her desire on a 1 to 10 scale, she answers 8.

But let’s say a few months later Fred’s behavior begins to change.  He still will interfere with Sue achieving her desire to get something but only for a minute or two.  By then he has grown tired of that game.  When Sue wants to get her long-eared friend down from the shelf and Fred tries to stop her, she knows that by waiting for a short period of time things will work out fine.  Now when asked to rate how much Fred will interfere with her achieving her desire, she answers 2.

GUILT
GUILT

Finally, let’s look at an example of how the guilt component of a conflict can be present at higher or lower degrees.  In this picture on the right, Mike comes home from work and sees his wife and some guy in each other’s arms passionately kissing.  Mike’s first reaction is that his wife and this guy are guilty of doing something terribly wrong.  If he was asked to rate just how guilty they were, he might say 10.  But let’s say that moments after he first sees this kissing scene he notices that there are four other people in the room all holding a script for a play.

His wife quickly withdraws from the embrace of the male stranger and warmly greets her husband.  Then she says, “Honey, I got the part I tried out for.  We’re all here rehearsing.”

Now Mike recalls that his wife did have plans to go this morning to a play audition. He doesn’t like the fact that his wife usually gets sexy, passionate parts, but he had agreed to marry her anyway.

Once Mike understands that his wife was rehearsing her part in a play when he had walked into the house, he still feels uncomfortable about what he had seen, but he now recognizes that his wife and the male stranger are not as guilty as he originally thought.  If asked to rate how guilty they are, he may say 2, or even a zero.

In the DIG Conflict Model, the higher each of the three components are rated, the higher the intensity of the conflict. Sometimes when a conflict’s intensity had been very high, if it is no longer as high, people think the conflict has been resolved, but not according to the DIG Conflict Model.

The Point that a Conflict is Resolved

According to the DIG Conflict Model:

Whenever Party A perceives that a conflict exists, it will be resolved from Party A’s perspective when Party A lowers his or her rating of any of the three conflict conditions to zero.

An example of a resolved conflict will be provided in the next section. But first, let’s take a look at what a related conflict is.  Then we will be familiar with four important aspects of conflicts–its precise definition, its degrees of intensity, the point that it is resolved and that some conflicts are related to other conflicts.  Then we will see how this will help us to avoid many misunderstandings that lead to needless confusion and arguments.

Related Conflicts

The best way to understand what is meant by a related conflict is by considering the following parable:

The Parable of Jack in the Restaurant

spigetti 1A dad takes his wife and five-year old son, Jack, to a restaurant.  Jack’s meal comes first, a nice big plate of spaghetti and meatballs.  After Jack quickly shovels into his mouth a couple of forkfuls of his dinner, the dad says, “That looks pretty good, Jack.  Do you mind if I have a little taste of the tomato sauce?  If I like it, I might want to get something with it next time we come.”

“NO, DAD!  I just have enough for me!”

This is frustrating to the dad and he perceives that he has a conflict with his son because he desires a taste of the sauce and perceives that his son is interfering with his desire.  Additionally, he believes his son is guilty of being selfish. 

spigetti 2As he thinks about what to do about this conflict, his wife and he receive the meals that they ordered. 

About fifteen minutes later, the dad still desires a taste of the sauce, but not quite as intensely as before because his hunger has subsided. He then glances over to Jack and notices that there is about half of his original portion of spaghetti left on his plate and the pace of his eating has slowed up quite a bit. His son’s desire to eat his spaghetti has also become less intense.

“Jack,” the dad says softly, “do you still mind if I have just a little taste of your sauce?”

spigetti 3“Sure, you can have some, Dad.  I’m starting to get full.”  And with that, Jack slides about a third of the remaining spaghetti on his dad’s plate while making sure that there is an ample amount of sauce along with it.

In the fifteen minutes that the dad first desired a taste of the sauce, the situation transformed from a clear conflict situation to a non-conflict situation because the dad has achieved his desire to taste the sauce.  But wait!  A minute later, the dad, still a bit bugged about something, suddenly realizes he still does have a conflict with his son.  He tries to summarize it by using the DIG Conflict Model.  “I desire that Jack not be selfish,” he thinks to himself, “but his actions at dinner suggest that he will continue to interfere with this desire if I don’t do something about it, and he’ll continue to be guilty of being selfish.”

This conflict, although related to the earlier one, is different for it has a different desire.  The original conflict’s desire was about getting a taste of the tomato sauce.  That conflict was resolved when the dad got a taste of the tomato sauce.  If asked to rate how much he wants to taste the sauce right now on a 1 to 10 scale, he would say zero.  This new conflict’s desire is about Jack not being selfish.  Thus it is different enough to be thought of as a new conflict with perhaps a distinctly different set of approaches required to address it. 

Now that the dad has clarified in his mind what the new conflict is all about, he begins to reflect upon possible resolutions. “Perhaps I expect too much from a five-year old boy.  There is still plenty of time to teach Jack to care about others, and as he matures, he may just naturally become more altruistic.  Perhaps it might help if I tell Jack some stories, from time to time, about heroes who act in unselfish ways even when they are hungry or are struggling to meet other needs.  And if I model altruistic behavior for Jack with my own behavior, this too can help.  As I think on this some more it occurs to me that maybe in the future if I would like to have a taste of Jack’s food, it would be wise for me to wait until he is at least half done with it.  This way, if Jack was in a particularly irritable mood because of his hunger, he will have some time to take care of his own hunger desires and to calm down a bit.”

A conflict is related to another conflict when at least one of the three conflict conditions of the original conflict is similar to at least one of the conflict conditions of the other conflict.  In the parable about Jack and his dad, initially the dad had the following conflict with his son— I desire a taste of the sauce and perceive that in attempting to get a taste, Jack will create a loud disturbance in the restaurant.  Additionally, I believe Jack is acting selfish.  A few minutes later, the dad, recognizing he has resolved his first conflict but now has another conflict, says to himself, I want Jack to not be selfish, but his actions at dinner suggest that he will continue to act selfishly if I don’t do something about it.  It’s wrong to be selfish.”  Both the initial conflict and its related conflict are connected because both of their guilt conflict conditions are similar (Jack is guilty of being selfish).

Discussion

We have now become familiar with four aspects of a conflict–its precise definition, its degrees of intensity, the point that it is resolved and that some conflicts are related to other conflicts.  Familiarity of these four aspects of conflicts help to avoid some unnecessary confusion and arguments.

For example, let’s say a young woman named Sally had a very high intensity conflict with her boyfriend.  A week later she now finds that it is much less intense.  She may think, perhaps it has been resolved. How can she decide?

She can begin by describing her conflict when it originally surfaced using the DIG Conflict Model.  Then she can rate what the degree of each of the three components (desire, interference and guilt) had been on a scale of 1 to 10 .  Then she can rate each of these three components as they are currently perceived. If none of the three components are at zero, she would recognize that she still has the same conflict with her boyfriend, but it is just at a lower intensity.

This process clarifies in her mind that she still has some work to do if she really wants to fully resolve the conflict.  It also draws her attention to each of the three specific components of the conflict.

If you practice using this process, in time you will discover that this simplifies what remains to be done and opens avenues that may lead to problem solutions. For an excellent illustration of this, see the post titled THE ABCs OF POWER AND THE GUILT CONDITION.

Now, let’s change our Sally example a bit.  This time she goes through the process of clearly defining her conflict and rating the degree of each of its three conditions. She discovers that she actually did resolve her original conflict, but it has turned into a related conflict.  She now has a clear way to understand what has happened.  Moreover, as with the Jack in the Restaurant parable, the process of defining precisely what the new conflict is can point her to some solutions she might not have otherwise considered.  Recall that Jack’s dad, once he clarified in his mind what his related conflict’s desire is–reducing his son’s selfishness–found it helpful for coming up with ideas about how to teach his son to become more altruistic.

Well, I hope you find in this week’s post some food for thought.  May you all have a week with some peace, some excitement and moments of wonder.

——————————-

Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Categories
anger cold shoulder conflict management conflict resolution criticism emotional intelligence fairness free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts MATURITY psychological maturity respect social intelligence wisdom

GIVING SOMEONE THE COLD SHOULDER: WISE OR FOOLISH?

Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today we begin with a Blondie comic:

Blondie cold shoulder 3

In the above scenario, as Dagwood gets into bed, rather than greet him with warm, open arms, Blondie has turned her back to him.  Because she has become angry with him, all that Dagwood is going to get from Blondie on this night is Blondie’s cold shoulder.

What Does it Mean to Give Someone the Cold Shoulder?

When we are in a relationship, if someone does something that results in arousing our anger, we often seek to punish the person whom we believe to be the source of our anger.  One way to do this is to act in a manner that is typically referred to as “giving him the cold shoulder.”  Of course it is not just women who give guys the cold shoulder; guys do it to their spouse perhaps just as much as women.

man with cold shoulderAlthough when I think of someone giving the cold shoulder to someone, the image that typically comes to my mind is two people in a marriage relationship, but the fact is that a friend can do it to a friend as well.

cold shoulder with 2 womenAccording to Wikipedia, “the phrase “cold shoulder”  has been used as a description of aloofness and disdain,[1] a contemptuous look over one’s shoulder,[4] and even in the context of a woman attempting to decline the advances of an aggressive man.[6] Overall, it remains widely popular as a phrase for describing the act of ignoring someone or something, or giving an unfriendly response.[5] “

Is the “Cold Shoulder” Technique Good or Bad?

I have had discussions with people who use this type of punishment and many of them are just fine with it.  They report that whenever they use this approach, almost always, after awhile, the argument somehow gets worked out and their relationship, overall, has been wonderful.  And they say that they know people who have had a valued relationship lasting a lifetime despite one or both parties in the relationship using the cold shoulder from time to time.

Although I agree that there are certainly worse ways to deal with disagreements than giving the person you are angry with the cold shoulder, nevertheless, I believe there is a much better alternative.

dagwood needs a momentNotice that in the above comic when Dagwood becomes angry with Blondie, instead of giving her the cold shoulder, he lovingly says, “Please, Honey, I need a moment…”

Regular readers of this blog know that I have long advocated that when you see yourself becoming angry, it is wise to provide the other person in your relationship a time out signal that you have worked out when both of you were in a pleasant mood (see ANGER, STRESS AND THE SIGNALING TO BACK OFF TECHNIQUE). This postpones any deep problem solving until you give yourself some time to calm down.

dagwood needs a momentIn the Blondie comic that we just looked at, Dagwood’s signal is “Please, Honey, I need a moment…”  Notice that he includes in his signal a sweet nickname for her.  This can be very helpful. By learning to express your signal in a loving way, it decreases the likelihood that the problem will turn into a more heated problem that will be harder to solve in the future.

Also notice that Dagwood, in this example, says he needs a moment.  Sometimes we need more than a moment.  There is nothing wrong with taking even a week to calm down and to figure out how to best handle the problem you are experiencing.  However, if you do think that it will take you more than 24 hours, I agree with the position that Thich Nhat Hanh takes in his beautiful book, Anger: Wisdom for Cooling the Flames. Before the 24 hours are up, do your best to tell the other person why you think you are angry in a loving manner if it is a family member, or a friendly manner with others.  Hanh writes, “Try your best to say it peacefully.  There may be some sadness in your voice, that’s fine.  Just don’t say something to punish or to blame.”

Blondie cold shoulder 3At the beginning of this post I presented a comic in which Blondie makes it clear to Dagwood that she has no intention of telling him why she is angry.  I think that keeping it a secret about why you are angry is simply not fair.  And when you do something that strikes the other party as unfair, you now have created an extra reason to fuel the anger in the relationship.

If you agree with me that within 24 hours it is only fair to share in a loving or friendly way a little description of what you are experiencing, at the point that you provide your description there is no need to try to solve the problem.  But Hanh and I both agree that you owe it to the person who is in a relationship with you to at least give him or her some explanation for what is going on within you.  If you find that you don’t think you can say the words of this communication using a loving or friendly tone, at least try to write a brief note indicating a little of what you have been experiencing.

To help you to make the best use of the time that you are seeking to calm down and to problem solve, I hope you will read the two of the posts in which I discuss this process–Being a Wise Friend to Your Angry Self, Part 1 and Being a Wise Friend to Your Angry Self, Part 2.

Hanh aptly summarizes this process when he wrote:

When we are angry, we have to go back to ourselves and take good care of our anger.  We cannot say, “Go away anger, you have to go away. I don’t want you.” When you have a stomachache, you don’t say, “I don’t want you, stomach, go away.” No, you take care of it.  In the same way, we have to embrace and take good care of our anger.  We recognize it as it is, embrace it, and smile…

Our practice is based on the insight of non-duality.  Both our negative feelings and positive feelings are organic and belong to the same reality.  So there is no need to fight; we only need to embrace and take care…. You may think that you have to combat evil and chase it out of your heart and mind.  But this is wrong.  The practice is to transform yourself.  If you don’t have garbage, you have nothing to use in order to make compost.  And if you don’t have compost, you have nothing to nourish the flower in you.  You need the suffering, the affliction in you.  Since they are organic, you know that you can transform them and make good use of them.

Well, that’s my post for today.  I hope you find within it some food for thought.  And please feel free to provide comments or ask questions by typing in the Leave a Reply box at the very bottom of this page.

Have a wonderful week!

Jeff

———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Categories
anger challenge conflict management conflict resolution emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum interpersonal conflicts psychological maturity wisdom

OPENNESS TO THE OTHER: BYPASSING ANGER BY REMAINING CONFIDENTLY ENGAGED

This week we have a special treat, a guest blog post by Dr. Robin Lynn Treptow, PhD.  Dr. Treptow describes herself as a peace psychologist who lives in Montana with her family.  She believes that sustainable world-wide peace is achievable via psychological wisdom, and she labors one-on-one in each human interaction towards this goal.

Here’s a little background to Dr. Treptow’s post:

Illustration by Eric Sailer
Illustration by Eric Sailer

A couple of weeks ago, I published a post titled FROM ANGER TO CHALLENGE: A STEP TWO EXAMPLE.  That post provided a parable in which Audrey, a young woman, has just graduated from law school.  When her father begins to urge her to begin her career at his Wall Street firm, Audrey becomes angry, and cries out, “Dad, we discussed this already!  I’m going to get a job in the Department of Justice!”

Dr. Treptow, it just so happens, believes that it would be helpful for my readers to see the character in my parable act in a different way, one in which Audrey displays the principles of “Openness to the other” (The Virtue of Multiculturalism Personal Transformation, Character, and Openness to the Other, by Blaine J. Fowers and Barbara J. Davidovin, September 2006, American Psychologist, Vol. 61, No. 6, 581–594).  I feel my readers could benefit from this point of view, and so I now turn this post over to Dr. Treptow.

Below, I will use blue letters when I am using Dr. Rubin’s words in his original post describing his  parable of Audrey.  Whenever I want to insert a comment into his parable or change his words to illustrate bypassing anger by remaining confidently engaged, I will use red letters.

Illustration by Eric Sailer
Illustration by Eric Sailer

Audrey is at a fine restaurant with her parents celebrating her law school graduation.

[This scenario involving primarily Audrey and her father has been adapted herein using a novel strategy for managing one’s emotions in a proactive manner:  bypassing “anger” or other negative emotions altogether and moving towards a wholehearted focus upon “openness to the other.”  Some aspects of the original script have been omitted as irrelevant and unnecessary to the more effective and streamlined process.]

“Well, your mother and I are so proud of you, Audrey,” says her father.

“Thanks, Dad!”

“Now you know, Audrey, I think it best that you begin your career in my Wall Street firm,” says her father.

audrey7 [Audrey very momentarily takes an inner assessment of her emotional, cognitive, and behavioral resources—she had decided about a month ago to try a novel approach to relationships, an approach that keeps in mind that two people can communicate openly with one another even though they do not have the same backgrounds, heritage, and life experiences.  A major goal with this approach is to clarify that others have ‘legitimate commitments to their own ways of life that are worthy of respect.’]

emotionsHaving heard her father’s comment about beginning her career at his firm, Audrey’s thoughts follow in this line:  “Emotions:  I am pretty upbeat because this is my law school graduation celebration; though sometimes I can be vulnerable to reactivity to others’ comments at times of an ’emotional high,’ I think that in this case it will be ‘okay’ to honor my father by remaining open to whatever he should wish to say.  cognitionCognitions:  Though it will certainly be reasonable to avoid agreeing to any immoral thought or actions, I do not realistically think that my father would put me in that type of position now or at any other time.  I certainly ought to be able to listen openly to my father’s points of view as his daughter and as a competent law school graduate.  behaviorBehaviors:  I am an adult; I am fully capable of listening to my father’s statements about a matter close to his heart:  it will be simply a matter of sitting here, looking at him as he speaks, and expressing agreement with anything about which I can concur.”  Audrey’s mental evaluation—comprising something like 30 seconds—meanders to a close as she hears herself gently intone…

audrey5“Hey, dad, that is a sweet idea!  Why don’t you go over again the primary reasons that you would like me to work there?”

[Audrey is quietly cognizant of her primary goal:  to be in a relationship with her father; she has set aside for this conversation any needs to justify her desire to work at the Justice Department—realizing that she is an adult and is fully capable to make that decision with or without her father’s input.  In fact, it is this very confidence in her own ability to act wisely without her father’s direct counsel which enables Audrey to set aside any perceived need to convince her father that she has made (or will make) the best choice. Audrey remains aware that this approach is based in authenticity; that is, it will backfire if it is used as a “tactic” or “strategy” just to get her way or to convince her father that she is a capable adult:  its purpose is to keep oneself in pleasant and amiable harmony with the other.]

“Dad, we discussed this already.” 

[Here, in Dr. Rubin’s original script, Audrey is beginning to become angry and defensive.  But in this revised approach, Audrey, instead gives her father a warm smile and pats him on his arm.]  

Department of justice“As I mentioned to you before, Dad, I’m going to get a job in the Department of Justice,” says Audrey. “I made some connections there and that’s where my heart is.”

[While Audrey’s words are almost identical to those she had said in Dr. Rubin’s scenario, with her new “openness to the other” approach, she is quietly conscious that her voice tone and facial affect are markedly more congruent to her inner feelings than they would have been if she had started to become angry.  Specifically, Audrey notices that her voice is soft and connected:  there is no harsh tone as she relates the truth of how she feels and the action that she is hopeful to take.]

“We discussed that several months ago, and just briefly,” her father replies. 

Audrey nods quietly with deep affection in her eyes.  Because she has assessed her inner resources and found them to be fully ample for the task of remaining in a caring and a loving relationship with her father, she is free to fully acknowledge his side of the relationship.

“Now that the real decision is right before you,” her father says, “it’s time to get serious.  I want to make sure you really think this out thoroughly to prevent you from doing anything foolish.”

Audrey smiles.  She fully appreciates her father’s reasons for speaking with her about her career choices:  he loves her very much!

pleasureShe is consciously aware of the spontaneous pleasure welling up inside of her for being able to listen to and appreciate why her father might be so motivated to engage her in this discussion.

 “Thank you, Dad,” Audrey says, and she leans over and gives her father a kiss on his cheek.

Audrey nods from time to time with deep respect as her father begins speaking—keeping her heart decidedly open to his.

audrey7Audrey inwardly celebrates her success:  despite so much well-meaning advise from law school colleagues and others in her social circle to be “assertive” and “tell your father that you have made up your mind…” she had tried a novel approach with wonderful results.  Not feeling at all anxious as to how the course of the conversation might turn out—knowing at that very deep place within her heart and soul that the Justice Department job was most likely going to remain solidly in her sights—Audrey prepares her whole person to be fully engaged with whatever her father might have to say.  She makes a mental note that she has researched her job options well; there is absolutely no reason to become defensive in discussing them with her father who obviously is highly invested in her prospects as a lawyer: “Why wouldn’t he be? He is a lawyer himself!”

When her father is done, Audrey carefully summarizes what he had to say. 

summarize3

Audrey notices that her “summary” is more than just repeating back her father’s words as if she did not really care about his feelings:  “It has gone to a deeper level.  I find myself wondering how my father might be feeling:  ‘Does he think, I do hope she still takes the job with me?  I really like her—she is a strong young woman and would be such an asset to my firm…” or ‘Might he wonder if I will grow away from him if I take another job—one that has differing ideas about a lawyer’s hands-on practice…what needs to be done and why…?’ She is pleasantly surprised and pleased to discover that her actions are not a “staged pretending to take my father seriously” but a genuine and honest interest in her father’s viewpoints on the matter.

thinkingShe pauses for a good few minutes, showing her dad she is really thinking over all the information she has gathered. 

Now Audrey decides to openly share with her father some of the thought process that has gone into her career choice—conveying by the congruency of her affect, words, and behaviors that she has indeed given her career a great deal of thought.  She impresses her Dad with her knowledge of what it takes to thoroughly consider her job options, the type of research that supports the procedure she had chosen, and the information that she had gathered on the specific options that she considered.  She then asks her father for his input.

audrey5Again, Audrey is pleased with her new approach: she is genuinely interested in her father’s advice, ideas, and practical approach to the job-search situation.  “This is rather fun,” she thinks.

[Audrey is not at all detached from her father and his needs during this exchange: rather, she is so confident in her own inner resources as to be fully available emotionally to her father during this difficult moment.]

Then she announces her decision that she is going to stick with her initial choice, a job with the Justice Department. 

Her father once again objects, making a few final pleas for her to reconsider. 

With a few moist tears in her eyes, Audrey gently reassures her father of her devotion and love for him as her father. 

[Having adopted at her innermost core a commitment to be “open to the other” throughout their interchange, she now can fully understand the mix of emotions that her father might be experiencing.]

Audrey’s father observes his internal thoughts:  “Wow!  She’s a smart one:  I am so pleased that she knows what she wants to do.  Yes, I am sad that she won’t be working for me—but she will be a dynamo for the Justice Department… I wonder if she might agree to have an informal ‘father-daughter lawyer’s lunch every Thursday when I seldom have pressing matters at hand…”] 

After summarizing what her father had said, using her most loving voice, Audrey says, “Dad, you make some very good points.  Here’s what we’ll do.  After one year of my job at the Department of Justice, you and I will meet again to discuss my career.  I’ll have a lot more information by then about what I like and don’t like about that job.  You’ll have a whole year to think up some new reasons for me to go into your firm.  I’ll only be 26 by then, and so it won’t be too late to change my career path.  And if I do decide to change, I bet at least some of the stuff I’ll be learning at the Justice Department will be helpful for a Wall Street lawyer to know.” 

Audrey’s father looks a little sad as she tells him of her final decision.  Still, he nods, and says that he appreciates that she will remain open about the possibility of changing her decision after a year.  And then he adds,

audrey4“And do you think that the Justice Department’s new stellar appointee will grant her leave every Thursday for a leisurely lunch—“lawyer networking”?  We can pick a place nearby the Justice Department—I have some flexibility to travel across town—and maybe one or more of those times you could invite some Justice Department co-workers to join us.  I would be eager to hear more about how their branch of lawyering differs in both concrete and more theoretical ways from what I have done thus far in my career.”

Audrey9“Sure, Dad,” Audrey replies with a smile, and they conclude their meeting with a sweet hug.

———————

Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on.  This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence.  To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.