Political AND Personal

I was talking with a client this past week—he's just taken on a new job, and we were looking briefly at how to make his new workplace more, in his words, "humane." The conversation was interesting, as we started in agreement that the premises and priorities of businesses, vs. individuals within the business were decidedly different.

Here's a suggested comparison:

Business:

· Profitability
· Doing what's best for the company
· Retention of staff
· Staff skill development
· Staff personal development

Personal:

· Personal growth and depth exploration
· Relationship development
· Vocational development
· Skill development

Now, of course, I'm just playing here, and not developing a thesis for a new book or anything. What I'm getting at is that we need to learn the skill or the ability to perceive our location and to understand the dynamics of the political and the personal arenas. I'm playing off of one of the dualities suggested by my friends Ben Wong and Jock McKeen, both in The Relationship Garden and in New Manual for Life.

I got to thinking about this language following a long discussion with a good friend. She read Into the Centre two weeks ago and wondered about my usage of the terms political and personal, and how this fit in to power and strength, boundaries and walls. Obviously, she's been to The Haven.

I wrote the following as a brief explanation:

I guess, on the strength vs. power debate, the choice to be strategic without taking the battle personally, (a'la The Art of War - good book) is a move from personal integrity to manifestation. I wouldn't want to live my life without a mix of power and strength. As B & J allude, strength belongs to intimate relationships, and politics can't exist there, or "must be weeded out." I would not choose to necessarily engage in an intimate relationship with, say, my best friend's ex-boss. ( see past article.) I would be willing to engage in a political relationship, and the rules of "war" (see above) apply.

Where I may differ from others is that I clearly choose to engage from a place of outcomes, not from a need to be right. I'm looking to strategize the situation to the benefit of the "company," and am going towards a goal, not an intimate relationship. So, in your business life, and especially with "bosses" there is a need for a common political alliance, or at least an informal peace treaty, not intimacy per se.

One of the issues seems to be, for people on the path of self-actualization, "how do you do what with whom." Often, as we find our way along this path, we desire clear and open, intimate communication all the time, and many people initially want to have "depth" relationships with everyone.  I've been saying for years that this is not possible. In my personal life there have to be limits - in my business life - perhaps another set of parameters altogether.

I figure that if I can do 3 or 4 intimate relationships well, I'm doing just great. I joke that I am not required to be in intimate conversation with the grocery clerk. In other words, what I am feeling or what I am interpreting is not relevant when all I want to do is pay for groceries. I often choose to be engaging, attempt to listen clearly and respond elegantly to or with the clerk. I remind myself not to deal with this person "in their role," but rather as a human being engaged in a role.

The same applies in my work life. As a psychotherapist, I attempt to be in intimate dialogue with clients - and this differs from an intimate relationship. In my conversation, I am attempting to demonstrate how communication works. In Bodywork, I am helping to move blocks while not attempting to manipulate the person into going anywhere. But the relationship is not reciprocal nor "equal" - the client, by virtue of the contract we have, is there to learn. That implies I have something to teach, or in the case of Bodywork, a skill I am asked to employ.

This means that the relationship, at some level, and despite the intimate conversation - I talk about myself and share my feelings and insights quite freely - despite this, the relationship is "authority" based. Within the counselling milieu, I work from a place of "knowing." At best, through transference, the therapist becomes the "good parent."

Same when I do business consulting. I may be teaching good communication, I may be demonstrating ways of dealing with crisis and the attendant emotions, but I doing this from the position of a teacher. In that role, I am working, I trust, benevolently within a power-based relationship.

In these examples, it is my goal to establish a framework for my client's growth - I am teaching my client to empower their ability to make better choices.

Equivalently, I need to be "clean" in my intimate relationships. An intimate relationship requires, as its main elements - presence, the willingness to "stay put," total honesty and intense curiosity. This in turn means that I don't and can't know anything for sure. My goal is to communicate what my present understanding of my own process is. Yet I notice my tendency to "problem solve and advice give" within my intimate relationships. My task is to discipline myself to listen and respond without becoming political.

You will see, then, that my idea that this is a "location" issue makes some sense. No one, in a work situation, necessarily wants to "get to know me." At work, our goal is to systematically and clearly engage in activities that benefit the bottom line. I know for a fact that companies that encourage the use of a communication model that allows for free expression and which limits personal criticism has a better chance at achieving their goals. But when I "go in" to a company, my goal is not to develop intimacy. My goal is to resolve sticking points. I will do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal, without compromising my integrity. I will use The Art of War metaphorically and engage in the battle to achieve a positive outcome. If clients take what they learn into their own intimate circles, terrific!

In my personal, intimate relationships, I will engage fully. If I am scaring myself, I will move forward into the fear. If I am reluctant to be open, either physically or emotionally, I will open further. If I fear the consequences of honesty, I will be honest. If I think I know anything at all about my partner, I will give myself a shake. I will express my needs openly and clearly.

And I will work diligently at not confusing the two. I need to know, at all times, where I am located.

It's not that one or the other - political or personal - is better. It's that one or the other is more appropriate, situationally. I'll close with a quote from Ben & Jock:

"The objectified self serves the Self very well; it is worthy of being honoured rather than reviled. It is only when people wish to create an intimate relationship that they will find themselves wanting… Hopefully, people will be able to choose the appropriate modus operandi in each situation. Again, to repeat, nothing is ever right or wrong; some behaviour is ineffective, or inappropriate to getting what you want or where you wish to go."

The Relationship Garden, page 47