Jean Dole

>February 2008 "The Gentle Art of Confrontation" >December 07 "Win-Win Negotiation" >January 07 "Lets Just Pretend To Change" >May 08 "Emotional Techniques That Work"

A client who recently started therapy with me said in surprise, "I thought there were only two ways to heal the emotional problems of anger, anxiety, or depression - with a cognitive-behavioral approach or by medicating them. I didn't know there was an emotional approach."

He said this just as he starting working with the emotional techniques which I use with clients who wish to make deep and transforming change. As he started using the emotional techniques, he said, "Wow! It feels as if l'm spring-cleaning the soul!"

And indeed, these emotional techniques do just that: they make people aware of outmoded emotions which need to be cleansed away. This allows them to be open to making change on an emotional level, not just a cognitive level. Many people are reluctant to use these techniques, and I, of course, don't insist when they don't want to use them. However, I nearly always observe that faster, deeper, and more complete change occurs when people are willing to try these emotional techniques.

I always start on a cognitive level, teaching the inter-personal two-way communication skills of I-messages, active listening and win-win conflict resolution. I stress that "win-win" is different from compromise in that you attempt to gain an understanding of the other's different perceptions and feelings, needs and concerns, and then together develop an integrative solution which satisfies both.

It is well accepted now by most therapists, that the relationship between the therapist and the client is part of what heals. The encouragement by the therapist of the expression of the client's needs and feelings and their acceptance by the therapist is part of the healing process, providing a "corrective emotional experience" for the client.

Emotion Therapy takes this one step further. It allows clients to fully and intensely express and experience the emotions which they were not allowed to express or maybe even recognize as children. It gives validation and acceptance to these feelings. It then teaches new, safe, positive and effective ways of expressing and satisfying these feelings in the present day. Traditional, unilaterally controlling parenting methods which teach children to suppress and deny their feelings teach children to pretend they are happy even when they are not. Children learn early that honest, complete expression of their feelings is "not OK." This is why as adults they "can't communicate" and they need to go into therapy to get in touch with their honest feelings. Or they might try assertiveness training to over-come the "submissiveness training" (the obedience training) they were taught as children.

But cognitively learning new communication and problem solving skills is often not sufficient to counteract common childhood programming (though for most people it helps at least some.) But there are people who find themselves unable to use new skills; they find that they still get angry and hurt and punish their children or their mates with their anger, despite their best intentions to do otherwise. Or they find themselves anxious and scared about asserting them-selves. When this occurs, emotional techniques can be extremely helpful.

To cite an example which the client involved gave me permission to use: Previous to coming to me for therapy this client had five years of standard talk therapy which had not helped much. She then went through 5 more years of 4-day-a-week psychoanalysis. This helped her a great deal person-ally, but she still was a very poor mother. She angrily screamed at her kids and was completely unable to listen to their feelings and needs with any patience.

She had taken the Parent Effectiveness Training course from me and I had talked to her often about how to apply the skills. Though she intellectually agreed with the appr-oach, she was unable to do it. Years before, this woman's mother had committed suicide after making regular suicide attempts for eight years.

As a teenager, my client had come home frequently, just in time to pull her mother's head from the gas oven. Obviously she had talked about this horrible experience often in her psychotherapy and in her psycho-analysis, but talking about it hadn't helped enough.

In my emotion therapy, she screamed at her mother in fantasy, first with words, and then with wordless screams. She screamed out her pain and anger at what her mother had put her through. Then she started to sob very deeply about never having had a mother who could listen to and consider her needs.

Then, things began to change with her children. She was no longer scapegoating (displacing her anger at her mother onto her children. I, as therapist, was listening to and validating her intense feelings which she had never dared to express to her mother.

The relief she felt at the total expression of her feelings, some of which she had not even let herself be aware of before, and my acceptance of these feelings, freed her from her pain and anger and allowed her to listen to her children as she herself had never been listened to as a child.

Her two children were at a special school for learning disabled children. The school called to tell her that her children had improved greatly, both socially and academically. Both of their I.Q. 's had incre-ased about 20 points!

Through the years I have seen many clients make similarly profound changes - changes which they had not been able to make with talk therapy alone. Deep emotional expression facilitates a cleansing away of pain; and the gaining of deeper insight, and gives a sense of empower-ment for change. Clients greatly reduce their anger depression, and fearfulness. Clients who work deeply with this process almost invariably improve their relationship with their own parents, as well as with their children, and others.

Watching clients use this process has convinced me of the necessity for parents to learn how to interact in a win-win manner with their children, if they wish to raise happy, competent children who are not angry, depressed, or scared. If they want to raise children who know how to get along with the world, it is essential to encourage their children to express their honest feelings and to learn how to work out mutually acceptable solutions to conflicts with their parents and with others.


In loving memory to our great friend, Jean Dole, who spent her life helping others to create harmony and happiness in their lives, homes, work, and in their relationships.

When you have a difficult message to convey to someone, how do you get them to listen to you non-defensively? This article explores methods of delivering so-called "bad news" with maximum effectiveness and minimum offensiveness.

Consider the following situation at the office: a co-worker consistently deflects, resists, or lashes back each time you initiate an open an honest discussion of an issue. You’ve become frustrated or upset with this person’s attitude and inability to hear your message. You’d like to express how it is for you, get to an understanding or agreement, and move on.

Have you thought about why they would be resisting? Just to be difficult? Fear? Self-preservation? Perhaps you just haven’t found a way to fly in "under their radar."

If the other person’s behavior is bothering you then you own the decision about how to handle it. Your options are: avoid, accommodate, defer to someone else, or confront. Don’t expect the other person to notice you are bothered. If you tend to avoid confrontations, an important question to ask yourself is "Will the situation change if I do nothing?" If you confront, you might arrive at a win-win (negotiated) solution, a compromise, or no deal.

Given a typical situation in your work or everyday life, what would you normally do? The best move depends on two factors: (1) your ultimate goal or agenda with this person, and (2) their natural communication style.

Let’s assume you have to work together, or perhaps you're in a relationship you value for some other reason. If you are holding a negative opinion about the other person, you could just go directly for what you want: for them to hear you, see it your way, and perhaps to change their behavior. Directly confronting the issue by telling them what you think will clear it for you, but might not get your true message across. Why? Because there are two components; there's the content of your message ("You missed another deadline") and your feelings about that message ("... and I'm sick and tired of it."). What's your true intention in making the other person aware of your view? Being overly assertive can get you "resolution" at the expense of the relationship.

Assuming you want to preserve or strengthen your relationship with this person and simultaneously get your point across, you need leverage. Have you noticed that people always — yes, always — operate out of their needs, wants, and desires? If you knew their interests (to get a raise, to get you off their back) or their intentions (to get along better with people), you’d have a way to reach your goal without manipulating, controlling, badgering, or otherwise upsetting them.

So how do you find out?

What’s more likely to get you on track toward your goal: asking or telling? Telling it like it is may be satisfying for you in the moment, but will it get you the response you want? Asking direct, powerful questions — rather than making a strong assertion — will reveal lots about their agenda. Asking questions and listening creates "psychological air" for them to hear you. In short, avoid explaining your viewpoint or making requests until after you’ve discovered theirs.

You’ll get more leverage if you acknowledge and match their natural communication style. Style reflects values, which points to their likely outcome, providing a good platform for negotiation and agreement. For example, if they are a particularly task-oriented person, they might forget to include the team in key decisions. By knowing they care more about getting the job done than about chit-chat, you’ll be better able to couch things.

Consumer protection warning: unless you have permission to dig and do process problem-solving, avoid asking "Why" questions. It puts people on the defensive and tends to talk about the past. Instead, use questions that start with "What" or "How." When you ask questions, to avoid sounding like an interrogator, carry the intent to learn, be genuinely curious and interested. It’s far less threatening. Being in a state of childlike curiosity is quite "disarming."

So, if your goal is to influence the other person’s behavior, the next step is to get them to hear and value how the situation personally affects you. When you have rapport, the classic "I" message is probably your best "tell" alternative. An "I" message uses the template "I feel [name the feeling] when you [describe the behavior] because [state the consequences or reasons for your feelings]" and is clear and direct.

There are two ways that even carefully constructed "I" messages can backfire: (1) They often provoke defensive-ness or resistance, perching the listener at the edge of what we call the "blame frame." (2) The person might not be inspired to care about your feelings nor about their role in producing your feelings. In business, some "I" messages will get you a chilly "That’s your problem, isn’t it?"

If you can assert your view with no attachment to being heard (in other words, the message sent is for you, not for them), then an "I" message will help you be responsible, be candid in the moment, to clear your feelings. After delivering your "I" message, double-check to see if the person is still available to hear the message part of your "I" message.

Another "tell" approach is called the "sandwich technique" and will often buy you the joy of being heard: first acknowledge their positive intentions or behavior, drop the bomb-shell (try "In the future, I suggest...", or "You might consider..."), then conclude with more positive reinforcement.

This velvet glove approach must be brief and sincere, or you’ll get interrupted with "Get to the point!" or "Okay, what’s the bad news?" This technique not only softens the blow when you have difficult news to deliver, but it also keeps you from blurting out your feelings.

Lastly, and probably the most effective, is to make a request. Rather than saying "I’m sick and tired of you always arriving late for our meetings!" try "I request that you to recommit to our agreement about being on time. Does that work for you?" Or "Will you pay me $10 every time you are more than 10 minutes late to a meeting?" Even if your request is not accepted, at least you’ll make your point without verbal abuse.


In loving memory to our great friend, Jean Dole, who spent her life helping others to create harmony and happiness in their lives, homes, work, and in their relationships.

Finding a fair compromise

Do you feel that someone is continually taking advantage of you? Do you seem to have to fight your corner aggressively, or ally with others, to win the resources you need? Or do you struggle to get what you want from people whose help you need, but over whom you have little direct authority? If so, you may need to brush up your win-win negotiation skills.

Effective negotiation helps you to resolve situations where what you want conflicts with what someone else wants. The aim of win-win negotiation is to find a solution that is acceptable to both parties, and leaves both parties feeling that they've won, in some way, after the event.

There are different styles of negotiation, depending on circumstances.

Where you do not expect to deal with people ever again and you do not need their goodwill, then it may be appropriate to "play hardball", seeking to win a negotiation while the other person loses out. Many people go through this when they buy or sell a house – this is why house-buying can be such a confrontational and unpleasant experience.

Similarly, where there is a great deal at stake in a negotiation, then it may be appropriate to prepare in detail and legitimate "gamesmanship" to gain advantage. Anyone who has been involved with large sales negotiations will be familiar with this.

Neither of these approaches is usually much good for resolving disputes with people with whom you have an ongoing relationship: If one person plays hardball, then this disadvantages the other person – this may, quite fairly, lead to reprisal later. Similarly, using tricks and manipulation during a negotiation can undermine trust and damage teamwork. While a manipulative person may not get caught out if negotiation is infrequent, this is not the case when people work together routinely. Here, honesty and openness are almost always the best policies.

Preparing for a successful negotiation…

Depending on the scale of the disagreement, some preparation may be appropriate for conducting a successful negotiation.

For small disagreements, excessive preparation can be counter-productive because it takes time that is better used elsewhere. It can also be seen as manipulative because, just as it strengthens your position, it can weaken the other person’s.

However, if you need to resolve a major disagreement, then make sure you prepare thoroughly. Using our free worksheet, think through the following points before you start negotiating:

Goals: what do you want to get out of the negotiation? What do you think the other person wants?

Trades: What do you and the other person have that you can trade? What do you each have that the other wants? What are you each comfortable giving away?

Alternatives: if you don’t reach agreement with the other person, what alternatives do you have? Are these good or bad? How much does it matter if you do not reach agreement? Does failure to reach an agreement cut you out of future opportunities? And what alternatives might the other person have?

Relationships: what is the history of the relationship? Could or should this history impact the negotiation? Will there be any hidden issues that may influence the negotiation? How will you handle these?

Expected outcomes: what outcome will people be expecting from this negotiation? What has the outcome been in the past, and what precedents have been set?

The consequences: what are the consequences for you of winning or losing this negotiation? What are the consequences for the other person?

Power: who has what power in the relationship? Who controls resources? Who stands to lose the most if agreement isn’t reached? What power does the other person have to deliver what you hope for?

Possible solutions: based on all of the considerations, what possible compromises might there be?

Style is critical…

For a negotiation to be 'win-win', both parties should feel positive about the negotiation once it's over. This helps people keep good working relationships afterwards. This governs the style of the negotiation – histrionics and displays of emotion are clearly inappropriate because they undermine the rational basis of the negotiation and because they bring a manipulative aspect to them.

Despite this, emotion can be an important subject of discussion because people's emotional needs must fairly be met. If emotion is not discussed where it needs to be, then the agreement reached can be unsatisfactory and temporary. Be as detached as possible when discussing your own emotions – perhaps discuss them as if they belong to someone else.

Negotiating successfully…

The negotiation itself is a careful exploration of your position and the other person’s position, with the goal of finding a mutually acceptable compromise that gives you both as much of what you want as possible. People's positions are rarely as fundamentally opposed as they may initially appear - the other person may have very different goals from the ones you expect!

In an ideal situation, you will find that the other person wants what you are prepared to trade, and that you are prepared to give what the other person wants.

If this is not the case and one person must give way, then it is fair for this person to try to negotiate some form of compensation for doing so – the scale of this compensation will often depend on the many of the factors we discussed above. Ultimately, both sides should feel comfortable with the final solution if the agreement is to be considered win-win.

Only consider win-lose negotiation if you don't need to have an ongoing relationship with the other party as, having lost, they are unlikely to want to work with you again. Equally, you should expect that if they need to fulfill some part of a deal in which you have "won," they may be uncooperative and legalistic about the way they do this.

This is a little understood fact of life! Most people believe that the way to get children to change is to require them to obey. Yes, most people believe this, including a large percentage of psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health workers, and teachers. But is this commonly accepted idea correct? Let’s think about the logic of this approach. What happens when what the child wants is different from the parent; what happens when the child doesn’t want to obey? What happens to the child’s really honest feelings? Do they just disappear and cease to exist?

To feel safe, the child must pretend that they agree, so that they don’t get punished or shamed for being “bad”. They are completely dependent on these big adults who take care of them. They wouldn’t dare to express their honest disagreement! And how could they know whether they are “good” or “ bad”; maybe these big adults do know something they don’t know!.

As a psychotherapist, working with clients through the years, I see the incredible pain this approach to child rearing causes in people. The life long feelings of inferiority they struggle with!:The feeling of not having the right to express their emotions, but instead to feel they must pretend they are in agreement so they won’t be called “bad” and be punished if they express themselves honestly.

What did not get expressed directly when they were children, still was expressed, however. The anger and hostility had a way of coming out. The children did do as they were told - for that moment- but behind their parent’s back, they would rebel. Or they fought with their brothers and sisters. Or they developed an “attitude” at school and got detentions and suspensions and didn’t produce up to their potential Most people suffer from a degree of these problems. Some suffer quite severely.

These habits and ways of thinking about problems can plague people life long. They will feel unentitled to express themselves honestly so they do it indirectly. They don’t want to be called :”bad” and punished for that, so they call the other “bad” instead . They shut their ears to the other’s point of view because they feel someone has to be the “bad” one and it better not be them. This thinking starts the adversarial feelings which cause us to feel we must fight, rather than resolve a disagreement.

But if we settle problems with our children in a win-win problem-solving manner: (this they can learn to do as early as they can talk), then children come to see a conflict as an opportunity to resolve a problem, rather than a cause for fighting. This approach could result in much less pain and destructiveness in the world!

We can start with ourselves Developing a win - win approach to conflicts, can be the number one most important way we can contribute to our own happiness and success in the world, and to the happiness and success of those who are near and dear to us.

The U.S. Department of Education reports that when children learn conflict resolution in their schools, these children will grow up to get along better with their mates, their families, and their jobs for the rest ot their lives ( Conflict Resolution Quarterly Fall, Winter Quarter 2004)).

What are the skills for conflict resolution? The most commonly known skill is the I-statement which expresses feelings, not judgments for example if someone steps on your toes, if you say “Ouch you are stepping on my toes!” the other responds, “Oh, I’m sorry” But if you respond by saying “Get off my foot you clumsy oaf!!” the other says. “I’m not a clumsy oaf and what was your foot doing out there where I could step on it, anyhow?”

Conflict management courses all teach the I-statement as a non-aggressive way to express disagreement.. However, the goal is not simply conflict management, but ratherc conflict resolution. There are has two more skills which are essential to resolving conflict: 1) Active Listening to understand the other person’s needs, showing deep acceptance of their hard to express feelings, and 2) the “magic” which makes conflict resolution work - asking the other to help you find a win-win solution, a solution which satisfies everyone.