Where Ego Steps In


Meta-level judgments usually come from ego, the part of us that wants us to find more security and to avoid insecurity. These are often the criteria for our judgments . When our ego is not engaged, we tend to stay at the object-level , dealing with facts as they emerge.

When we label someone as having done us harm, our ego is engaged. Accordingly, forgiveness is difficult to access. It involves relaxing the ego response presumably triggered by their behavior and going back to an object-level observation.

I introduced my friend Saul to a client of mine so that Saul could earn some money to tide him over during a period of unemployment. Saul learned my clients business in a couple of months and then quit this temporary job to start up a new company in direct competition with my client.

When I heard this it was as if someone had dropped a bag of bricks on me. I quickly judged Saul to be unethical. My meta-level thoughts pegged him as devious . I had a real problem entertaining the notion of forgiving Saul. As far as I was concerned , I had introduced Saul to my client to help Saul. His decision to take advantage of my gesture and do something that was harmful to my client was ˜˜unforgivable.

I was stuck in my judgment. Over time, I got past my judgment. My client tried to make me understand that, in his view, nature was simply taking its course. My wife helped me realize that my friendship with Saul was important to me. I came to see that the situation did not merit the judgment I was applying. My original meta-view was that friends dont hurt the friends of their friends . But if I had stayed at the object-level I would have seen that Saul was legally free to do what he did. He needed money and felt he had come across a viable opportunity. He went for it. He started a business after learning about an industry in which he thought he could thrive. My client was not tangibly hurt, and he was not angry at me. So was it so bad? I made up with my friend.

When someone has erred, we often apply internal attribution to that person. For example, I initially claimed that it was Saul who committed the offense. It was his devious personality that caused it. However, when we ourselves err, we are more likely to apply external attribution , attributing causes to situational factors rather than blaming ourselves. It was not likely that I would take any blame for the Saul fiasco. But maybe, in fact, I was to blame. After all, I didnt lay out any ground rules for him. I didnt advise my client to protect himself.

So our judgment comes early in the sequence of events that lead to or away from our anxieties. Something happens, and we leap to our inductive conclusions. For example, when there are signs of layoffs in our industry, we extend these object-level notions to the possibility of layoffs affecting us personally . Our buttons get pressed.

There are two main types of negative responses: judgments that lead us to the perceived angst and judgments that attempt to move us away from it. Half of our six problematic types discussed in this book are victims of an angst they consciously perceive. The other three types are caught up in angst avoidance . Perceiving angst leads to worry and victim thinking and the response of the prisoner . Avoiding angst is what the controller, the fake, and the attention-seeker do.




Face It. Recognizing and Conquering The Hidden Fear That Drives All Conflict At Work
Face It. Recognizing and Conquering The Hidden Fear That Drives All Conflict At Work
ISBN: 814408354
EAN: N/A
Year: 2002
Pages: 134

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net