On truth, lies, and the safety of self-protective gray space.
Confrontation produces defensiveness. We are told to eliminate defensiveness from our interactions. Good luck with that. I feel defensive because I feel attacked. I may not know why I am being confronted - that I have violated your expectations or what those expectations were. Defensiveness is natural and, to some extent, uncontrollable. The questions are how I express my defensiveness and how it impacts our exchange.
So let's walk through the process of confrontation and consider the significance of the "self-protective gray space" in that scenario.
You are my superior at work and you confront me. I am caught off guard. You've been thinking about this conversation and preparing for it. For me it's coming out of the blue. I don't know where you are heading or what you are considering as possible outcomes. So my natural tendency is to "shade" the truth because I feel threatened. I'm not going to agree with your exact description of things because I don't know what that agreement is going to cost me.
As my superior, one option is to forge ahead and force me to admit what I have done. Because I sense danger I start in the "self-protective gray space" where I leave myself as much room to maneuver as possible. I don't agree with what you are saying, but I don't deny it either. I act confused, ask questions, try to change the subject, distract by pointing to the behavior of others, or turn the conversation back on you.
This is where you are in danger of making a tactical error. If you are not careful you
entice me to lie. I choose to lie, but you are enticing me by taking away my self-protective gray space and forcing me toward one end of the continuum of the other - toward the dangerous and threatening truth or toward the possible safety of a lie.
How can this be avoided? By following these five steps:
#1: Always begin by focusing on the truth of behaviors - what actually happened. If you can't get agreement here then the conversation is not going anywhere. The issue of intentions is of no significance if we cannot agree on what happened.
#2: Make the potential outcomes known early in the conversation. Don't leave me dangling over the imagined threat of an undefined abyss.
#3: Allow me, as the person being confronted, to interpret my own behavior. Don't tell me why I did what I did or what I intended by my behavior.
#4: Allow me to begin in the "self-protective gray space." You should anticipate this initial response without immediately challenging it, thereby forcing me to either move to the perceived danger of the truth or the possible safety of a lie. REMEMBER: I now face the potential of not only having violated your expectations (the behavior that led to this confrontation), but of lying and being proven to be someone of poor character. That's why I will persist in a lie far beyond any reasonable point because I am now fighting on two fronts: 1) The original issue and 2) The issue of my character.
#5: If my interpretation of my behavior is not reasonable you may have to build a case for your interpretation of those behaviors over time, allow the cumulative behaviors to make their own case, or involve others in the conversation. In any case, this is not how you should begin.
Next time you are confronted observe your own tendency to begin in the self-protective gray space. Then when you confront, don't be surprised by this behavior in others. Focus on the behaviors in question, allow the other to interpret his/her behaviors, and resist the urge to force the person quickly toward either truth or lie. Allow the self-protective gray space to do its work - to provide cover while the person works through the surge of defensiveness. Then the other can move toward truth as defensiveness fades and it becomes clear that truth is the best place to stand.
