non-controlling behaviors

[FemMecha]

There is a lot of information on controlling behaviors, but I haven't found as much concerning the opposite extreme.

The lack of desire to exert control on others is an issue for me. I operate towards the opposite end of the spectrum of trying to control people. I find it has advantages and some notable disadvantages. It hampered my ability to function as a college professor. We were required to police students for coming in late or eating in class. I tended to overlook that kind of thing and even though it caused some disruption, it simply didn't seem worth addressing. I had trouble being rigid about assignment due dates and such things. In teaching individual music lessons, I find my style to be in stark contrast to other teachers. I just don't exert much structure on the student and never pressure them. I vary the schedule as needed am not bothered by cancellations or when they are late -unless it affects the next one, and then I'm not 'bothered', but just have a problem to resolve. I'm willing to take hobbyist students who don't plan to put much effort into the endeavor. My approach is to enter the student's world and try to make a connection and find that spark that will enable them to inspire themselves. The external structuring just doesn't register in my mind somehow, although I have this faint sense of guilt that I am supposed to be pressuring and policing people, I just blank out and get sleepy when it comes time to do it.

When it comes to relationships I am sometimes at a loss how to "work on the relationship". This is because I don't want to change the person. I don't want to make any demands or impose something on them they would not naturally be inclined towards. That seems artificial. I don't know how you can love a person unless you love their completely natural self and realign your natural self in response. When it comes to just people I meet, there are often those who seem to annoy many people for exhibiting behaviors that are typically rejected. Many times it doesn't register with me because I don't have an expectation of them. I don't wish to change the "annoying" behavior and so don't see a need to address it. If it is something that wears me down, I will spend less time with the person, but still find them a curiosity just as they are. I'm not inclined to describe this as being "nice", but it is something that I am trying to understand better and see if anyone else experiences it.

Even with all that I am probably a J because I enjoy organizing things and making plans. I love contingency plans and to know my every escape route. I enjoy creating systems that simplify complex things through elegant organization. I just loathe to exert external structuring onto people, but enjoy exerting it onto things. I do also control my own behaviors and create systems and contingency plans so that I know I can function in any scenario. Maybe my structuring and control tends to be reactionary by nature? Sometimes I wonder if I'm missing something, and if there is something "wrong" with me because it does stand out irl in comparison to peers.

How do you relate to control vs. non-control of the external world?

 

[Athenian200]

The lack of desire to exert control on others is an issue for me. I operate towards the opposite end of the spectrum of trying to control people. I find it has advantages and some notable disadvantages. It hampered my ability to function as a college professor. We were required to police students for coming in late or eating in class. I tended to overlook that kind of thing and even though it caused some disruption, it simply didn't seem worth addressing. I had trouble being rigid about assignment due dates and such things. In teaching individual music lessons, I find my style to be in stark contrast to other teachers. I just don't exert much structure on the student and never pressure them. I vary the schedule as needed am not bothered by cancellations or when they are late -unless it affects the next one, and then I'm not 'bothered', but just have a problem to resolve. I'm willing to take hobbyist students who don't plan to put much effort into the endeavor. My approach is to enter the student's world and try to make a connection and find that spark that will enable them to inspire themselves. The external structuring just doesn't register in my mind somehow, although I have this faint sense of guilt that I am supposed to be pressuring and policing people, I just blank out and get sleepy when it comes time to do it.

I think I understand that. I think I've resolved it for the moment by not interacting with others much, although I hope that I don't have to do that forever. I'm good at controlling myself and my actions, but I hate imposing on people unless I feel I have a definite right to (as in, if I'm paying them or something.) Actually, I find it hard to resist what other people ask of me unless I think it puts me in danger, in which case I go straight to being unyielding about it. I have always had a problem with giving people my lunch money if they asked for money, and then telling myself I needed to lose weight anyway. Come to think of it, it doesn't always apply to money either... but money, my possessions, my person, and my time/commitment are issues where I'm more likely to exert external control if I do at all. I usually try not to make demands on others for these things, and hope they don't demand these things of me.

On message boards it's different somehow... it's like I feel that we're here to hash out an issue, and they've chosen to come here. Also, I guess there's something about not dealing with a tangible person that makes it easier to say what's on my mind (I don't know why).

When it comes to relationships I am sometimes at a loss how to "work on the relationship". This is because I don't want to change the person. I don't want to make any demands or impose something on them they would not naturally be inclined towards. That seems artificial. I don't know how you can love a person unless you love their completely natural self and realign your natural self in response. When it comes to just people I meet, there are often those who seem to annoy many people for exhibiting behaviors that are typically rejected. Many times it doesn't register with me because I don't have an expectation of them. I don't wish to change the "annoying" behavior and so don't see a need to address it. If it is something that wears me down, I will spend less time with the person, but still find them a curiosity just as they are. I'm not inclined to describe this as being "nice", but it is something that I am trying to understand better and see if anyone else experiences it.

I totally agree. That's almost exactly how I see things.

Even with all that I am probably a J because I enjoy organizing things and making plans. I love contingency plans and to know my every escape route. I enjoy creating systems that simplify complex things through elegant organization. I just loathe to exert external structuring onto people, but enjoy exerting it onto things. I do also control my own behaviors and create systems and contingency plans so that I know I can function in any scenario. Maybe my structuring and control tends to be reactionary by nature? Sometimes I wonder if I'm missing something, and if there is something "wrong" with me because it does stand out irl in comparison to peers.

I've always been similar here, too. You wouldn't believe how many contingencies I imagine for every conceivable situation that could occur, which unfortunately leads me to imagine the worst-case scenario all the time, and prepare for it as if were happening. It's a blessing and a curse, because sometimes preparing for the worst pays, and sometimes it just robs you of time you could have spent appreciating life.

 

[FemMecha]

I just remembered some scenarios that I have exerted opinion onto people. It is when there is a situation that I perceive as having an element of danger and/or crossing someone's inner boundary in a way that puts them at a certain kind of risk. It is rare, but I have jumped in irl and online in a few scenarios. Although I tend to experience the exchange from many vantage points including the person I place resistance against. Online is one way I have tried to build up more assertiveness, but I sometimes become conflicted as to the need to change in that regard.

athenian200, i want to go back and read through your post when I have more time. It looks interesting.

 

[Hirsch63]

There is a lot of information on controlling behaviors, but I haven't found as much concerning the opposite extreme.

When it comes to relationships I am sometimes at a loss how to "work on the relationship". This is because I don't want to change the person. I don't want to make any demands or impose something on them they would not naturally be inclined towards. That seems artificial. I don't know how you can love a person unless you love their completely natural self and realign your natural self in response. When it comes to just people I meet, there are often those who seem to annoy many people for exhibiting behaviors that are typically rejected. Many times it doesn't register with me because I don't have an expectation of them. I don't wish to change the "annoying" behavior and so don't see a need to address it. If it is something that wears me down, I will spend less time with the person, but still find them a curiosity just as they are. I'm not inclined to describe this as being "nice", but it is something that I am trying to understand better and see if anyone else experiences it.

I tend to share this behavior/outlook. The result often being that you are seen as passive when in fact you are making an intentional effort to "hold the other lightly". It can sometimes be percieved as an almost scientific dispassion. I would not want a relationship with someone whose behaviour I felt that I had to change. Over the years I have seen couples enter into an emotional "state of suspended animation" when they commit. The result being that after a decade long relationship (that started say, in their early twenties) they find themselves seperated in their early thirties with essentially little or no emotional/social growth.

I have found that every instance throughout my life when I engaged in "controlling" behaviour, I ended up losing whatever advantage I thought to gain. This is a little different "on the job"...you have to make practical adjustments in many situations, no matter how uncomfortable they may make you and how mis-understood you may be.

Practical experience has bludgeoned one thing at least into my skull: you cannot control what other beings think/do/feel. Just be your best self and give them the same consideration. I think you could call this a "non-invasive" relationship. Which is kind of cheating yourself. You may avoid some nasty lows while at the same time miss some unexpected highs that come from "messy" relationships. Oh well.

When I teach woodworking skills, I find myself in the same situation tailoring my interaction to each students needs/abilities. This amount of accomodation can be quite tiring... But I still enjoy the process.

 

[Jive A Turkey]

...I have this faint sense of guilt that I am supposed to be pressuring and policing people...

I've spent several years in management and my worst decisions were almost always sparked by my surrender to the pressure your mentioning. If it's not your management style don't give in. Shit, at least you'll be a little original.

 

[Kiddo]

How do you relate to control vs. non-control of the external world?

Generally, I don't want control over others. Having power means having extra responsibility. I don't really want to be responsible for anyone but myself. I actually laugh inside when I hear people want to make more money so their life is easier and they have more control. :rolli: If there is anything I have learned about money, it is that the more money you make, the more other people are dependent on you. I want to make just enough money to take care of myself and those I care about. I can then put all my extra time into helping others at my own discretion. Unlike people like Bill Gates, people's jobs and the state of the economy aren't dependent upon my welfare.

I am a control freak in one sense. I try to control how people think and feel about me. I know I can't do it, but I'm paranoid enough that I will try.

 

[FemMecha]

I did have one art professor who had a minimal style of control like I'm describing, and like I observe in myself. Students came and went as they pleased and often ate during class. He was an adult survivor of an alcoholic father. I think he was also an INFP. It seems like personality plays a role, but I'm also wondering about the effects of experience. I did have an episode of abuse from a very controlling person when I was a young child. I was also the youngest child in my family. My mother is quite non-controlling and was my primary influence, so that combination shaped me to only understand certain aspects of how to relate to others. I guess the issue can be rather complex when examined deeply. Sometimes I question my ability in certain contexts because of it, as though I'm not living up to expectations.

 

[cafe]

My mental model of relationships (beyond that between parents and minor children) requires symbiosis.

I don't want to control people per se, but I do feel I have a right for things to be mutually beneficial in some way or to at least not be harmful to me. If the relationship is not mutually beneficial I can either withdraw to some degree or I can ask for a change in behavior. If the other person is not accepting of the new terms of the relationship it is fine for them to negotiate a compromise if possible, or to withdraw from the relationship.

IOW, my desire is to control what happens to me and in my life. Beyond that, meh.

 

[RDF]

I'm not try to play devil's advocate here (or maybe I am ). But taking non-control to the extreme of avoidance can become controlling in a passive-aggressive sense. One can err on the side of omission as well as commission.

For example, if someone is put into a leadership position, then they are expected to lead, not coddle. To the extent that they refuse to provide the expected structure and enforce the rules, they're ripping off the company--they aren't doing what they are paid to do. If it results in damage or harm, it's going to be construed as negligence.

I've had a few instances where I've expected someone to "be there for me" in some capacity at work, and it turned out they weren't doing what I had told them. It was like stepping off the edge of a cliff when I expected to step on firm ground.

So I think correct levels of control/non-control hinge more on expectations. To simply meet expectations is IMO the way to exert the least amount of control (IOW, the best of all possible worlds). To deviate from expectations by under-performing or by absconding and not participating when expected to participate can disconcert others and be a way of exerting "stealth" control in a passive-agressive sense.

Not that I'm accusing any of the previous posters. I'm just saying there are points where non-control becomes so avoidant that it becomes passive-aggressive. Passivity/non-participation/under-performance can quickly fall into that category. Passive-aggressive control can be some of the most frustrating and disconcerting types of control.

A lot depends on context and the expectations of those around you. As a result, negotiating (and subsequently meeting) expectations is probably the best way to maintain an even playing ground all the way around and keep everything honest.

 

[FemMecha]

So I think correct levels of control/non-control hinge more on expectations. To simply meet expectations is IMO the way to exert the least amount of control (IOW, the best of all possible worlds). To deviate from expectations by under-performing or by absconding and not participating when expected to participate can disconcert others and be a way of exerting "stealth" control in a passive-agressive sense.

Can you provide examples of what that means?

The example I gave of the art professor was one in which he was regularly given teaching awards because of his dedication to the school. He gave his whole self to it, but simply did not exert control over others. He worked significantly above the call of duty assisting students, giving his own talents as needed for projects, etc. He was available to those who desired what he offered, but did not force his help on anyone. It is a complex issue because traditional expectations aren't always the only way. I do agree that non-control can cause problems as well.

Edit: It's worth making the distinction between controlling self vs. others. Being a slacker so others pick up the work is not controlling oneself, but it does look like controlling the external world to the benefit of self.

 

[RDF]

Can you provide examples of what that means?

The example I gave of the art professor was one in which he was regularly given teaching awards because of his dedication to the school. He gave his whole self to it, but simply did not exert control over others. He worked significantly above the call of duty assisting students, giving his own talents as needed for projects, etc. He was available to those who desired what he offered, but did not force his help on anyone. It is a complex issue because traditional expectations aren't always the only way. I do agree that non-control can cause problems as well.

Edit: It's worth making the distinction between controlling self vs. others. Being a slacker so others pick up the work is not controlling oneself, but it does look like controlling the external world to the benefit of self.

Sure. I have no problem with your art professor; I'm assuming he knew what he was doing and proved to the management that he was capable of meeting their expectations in his own way.

But look at the example of a grade-school teacher who can't impose order on the kids and lets them run wild (and one child gets injured, in a worst case scenario). Or a young college professor who is so eager to be popular that he allows the students to blow off or divert the classes and rarely gets around to teaching the curiculum. Or in the workplace--a young boss doesn't want to be "the bad guy" and order people around, so the work doesn't get done and/or the workers get out of hand. It's "controlling" in the sense that that management expects leadership from the teacher/professor/young boss, and the latter are taking advantage to the possible ultimate detriment of their charges or the management.

Even in relationships: unexpected "withdrawals" can become forms of emotional abandonment. Again, it's about expectations. If communication is good, then it's understood if one partner needs some alone time. But if communication is bad, then one or both parties can mistake withdrawal as abandonment.

So I'm just making the point that a soft touch, just by itself, is not automatically a good thing. In fact, if it results in not living up to commitments and expectations, then it's a bad thing.

I think negotiating and meeting expectations has to be the higher priority.

 

[Athenian200]

My mental model of relationships (beyond that between parents and minor children) requires symbiosis.

I don't want to control people per se, but I do feel I have a right for things to be mutually beneficial in some way or to at least not be harmful to me. If the relationship is not mutually beneficial I can either withdraw to some degree or I can ask for a change in behavior. If the other person is not accepting of the new terms of the relationship it is fine for them to negotiate a compromise if possible, or to withdraw from the relationship.

IOW, my desire is to control what happens to me and in my life. Beyond that, meh.

Wow. More agreement. You've said that so much better than I could have. I guess MBTI really does show a kind of agreement between similar types at times, huh?

 

[CzeCze]

Toonia, just some quick thoughts.

1) Academia and especially being arts or music faculty gives you a lot more leeway for how 'strict' or structured you can be. At least from this student's perspective. For one things, students themselves generally don't hold themselves accountable to the same standards that a working person would (or if working full-time, hold themselves to higher standards at work I reckon).

And artistic professionals are given a lot of leeway to be less traditional or just plain idiosyncratic. I also had at least one music professor who was like this, basically his teaching theme I think was that he wanted you to love the music for music's sake and be motivated with that. Otherwise, if you don't care, he doesnt' care. Granted, it was an intro theory course and perhaps he was a harsh grader but he created a very open atmosphere in class.

Also, I think in some arts departments people go the other way with having a lot of empasis on deadlines. Why? Because they know their field isn't taken as seriously, including by students. Especially for applied arts -- i.e. anything you want to make a living with, you can't really muck around and expect to be taken seriously. In my film production courses, I know my prof came down on people who were always late or blew off appointments. And with good reason. He said he was holding everyone to 'professional standards'.

It also depends on how young (or not) the students are.


2) I don't think what you state 'not controlling others' is a "problem" in management or teaching styles unless you feel you are unable to direct students or have them follow your directions. Basically, respect your author-itay. To put it crudely. I think for management and teaching styles the proof is in the pudding and how well students learn and are their needs being met. What matters is if you can make it work. From what you described, it doesn't sound like you are letting students run rampant.

 

[RDF]

What matters is if you can make it work. From what you described, it doesn't sound like you are letting students run rampant.

I agree. I'm just trying to make the point: Make sure you have all your bases covered.

A lot of young leaders think they can be in charge of something and still be the nice guy. But then they're caught by surprise when their subordinates or students or whatever take unexpected advantage or someone gets hurt due to unforeseen circumstances.

So it's important to be upfront with whoever is paying your salary and make sure your hands-off style is okay with them too. If they give the okay, then fine.

OTOH, not every position allows you to be the good guy. Sometimes the management doesn't approve of your hands-off style. If you do it anyway and try to hide it from management, you're leaving yourself wide open for trouble when things go awry. And they do tend to go awry in such instances.

So I think it's best to keep everything aboveboard. Be honest with management, negotiate what's expected of you, and then keep your end of the deal. Sometimes that means you can't be "the nice guy" and use your usual hands-off style.

 

[FemMecha]

My mental model of relationships (beyond that between parents and minor children) requires symbiosis.

I don't want to control people per se, but I do feel I have a right for things to be mutually beneficial in some way or to at least not be harmful to me. If the relationship is not mutually beneficial I can either withdraw to some degree or I can ask for a change in behavior. If the other person is not accepting of the new terms of the relationship it is fine for them to negotiate a compromise if possible, or to withdraw from the relationship.

IOW, my desire is to control what happens to me and in my life. Beyond that, meh.

cafe, your sense is always impeccable. I always appreciate your comments. They are so clear and balanced.

 

[cafe]

Wow. More agreement. You've said that so much better than I could have. I guess MBTI really does show a kind of agreement between similar types at times, huh?

cafe, your sense is always impeccable. I always appreciate your comments. They are so clear and balanced.

Thank you, guys. I've had to put a lot of thought into this kind of thing because I have co-dependent tendencies. I have learned that giving and/or giving in too much in a relationship isn't really of benefit to either party even if it's what is easier and more natural for me to do. I always felt like I was stronger than most people and therefore it was my place to give more, but in doing that, I denied other people the opportunity to grow strong, if that makes sense. When things are more balanced, everyone gets more of an opportunity to grow and growth is good (except for ear hair and kudzu).

 

[miss fortune]

I never tell anyone what to do- I feel like that's just flat out bossy and counterproductive (I don't like to do what I'm told so I assume that other people are the same)

I will admit to manipulating situations in order to get my way though- mostly by controlling what information people get and how they look at it it's not because I like to be in control though- it's because I want my way!

 

[CzeCze]

I always felt like I was stronger than most people and therefore it was my place to give more, but in doing that, I denied other people the opportunity to grow strong, if that makes sense. When things are more balanced, everyone gets more of an opportunity to grow and growth is good (except for ear hair and kudzu).

I completely agree! Some people call it 'tough love' but really sometimes if you want someone to get better and improve -- basically you have to 1) let them and 2) demand strength, excellence, success, or basically an honest to god try. Basically you let the person know that you believe they can do something if they just try.

FineLine, didn't you say you were in the Marines (or did I mix you up with someone else) Because, you that totally makes sense your 'can't be the nice guy' school of management.

 

[FemMecha]

I agree. I'm just trying to make the point: Make sure you have all your bases covered.

A lot of young leaders think they can be in charge of something and still be the nice guy. But then they're caught by surprise when their subordinates or students or whatever take unexpected advantage or someone gets hurt due to unforeseen circumstances.

So it's important to be upfront with whoever is paying your salary and make sure your hands-off style is okay with them too. If they give the okay, then fine.

OTOH, not every position allows you to be the good guy. Sometimes the management doesn't approve of your hands-off style. If you do it anyway and try to hide it from management, you're leaving yourself wide open for trouble when things go awry. And they do tend to go awry in such instances.

So I think it's best to keep everything aboveboard. Be honest with management, negotiate what's expected of you, and then keep your end of the deal. Sometimes that means you can't be "the nice guy" and use your usual hands-off style.

Those are really important comments. There are jobs I consciously avoid because of knowing my limitations regarding certain expectations about controlling subordinates. Ha. High school band/choir directing is one such job.

I don't think hands-off or non-controlling necessarily implies being the good guy. I'm just thinking about some of my fellow teachers who have a highly structured and controlled style. They are wonderful and well loved, but their concept is just very external and structured. Being controlling doesn't necessarily imply something bad imo. What you said about balance is important. Some controlling people fascinate me, and I admire them. They can really make things happen.

There seems to be a range of boundary expectations. In authority there are many who assume the leader is there to control the behaviors of the subordinates. They expect to be pressured and structured externally. Then there is another assumption where the subordinate is self-motivated and the leader provides direction. That second model is what I understand best. It can be difficult to switch mindsets when one is deeply ingrained.

 

[Maverick]

I do recognize the respect for other people that Toonia has and the lack of interest she has in controlling people. I think that attitude has many positive sides. I think there's nothing like feeling free from control, respected for who you are and not having someone trying to change you. So I would like to say "kudos" to that point of view.

At the same time, as Fineline points out:

But look at the example of a grade-school teacher who can't impose order on the kids and lets them run wild (and one child gets injured, in a worst case scenario). Or a young college professor who is so eager to be popular that he allows the students to blow off or divert the classes and rarely gets around to teaching the curiculum. Or in the workplace--a young boss doesn't want to be "the bad guy" and order people around, so the work doesn't get done and/or the workers get out of hand. It's "controlling" in the sense that that management expects leadership from the teacher/professor/young boss, and the latter are taking advantage to the possible ultimate detriment of their charges or the management.

It's true that in certain situations you are required to provide structure as part of your job/role and there can be detrimental consequences if you don't. Importantly, you are required to provide a type of control that is overt, by defining objectives and roles of people.

Some people fear appearing openly controlling or rigid. I suppose they feel guilty when they do so. The problem is if they decide, as a substitute, to use manipulation to get people to do what they want instead of asking directly. In this sense, the college professor could be nice with the students that listened and more disagreeable with the students that didn't. Or give time to students that worked hard and ignore those that didn't. Without explaining to them openly. At one point or another people afraid of being openly controlling will be so covertly. You simply cannot interact with other people without accepting some part of control.

There is nothing more important than a clear, defined and communicated structure. When people know what is expected of them and what will happen under what conditions, they feel more secure and perform better. People need structure. Only the most independent of people are able to function without structure. Most would invariably feel lost.