January 15, 2010 by Robin Dickinson | 477 views | Comments (39)
How do you measure the quality of your relationships?
Your leading thoughts…
As a leader who reads this blog, your input to this topic is encouraged. Use any or all of the following questions to stimulate your thinking.
- In your opinion, what makes a high quality relationship?
- How do you measure the quality of your relationships?
- Do you think it’s possible to build a high quantity of high quality relationships? What makes you say that?
39 Responses to this post
January 15, 2010 at 7:03 pm |
Hey Rob, after a relationship break up I was in a way forced to face the fact that I had let many friendships go and really felt the gap. That primary relationship became my only focus and when it was pulled out from under me it exposed a very vulnerable underbelly. Quality relationships need to be honoured and nurtured.
What we would have from others or have them be towards us, we must provide or be ourselves. Before we ask for some ones attention, let us first lend that person our own. Before we look to him for an act of consideration, let us offer one for ourselves.
If we wish kindness, let it begin with our own, otherwise all we give are unconscious demands, followed by judgement and disappointment.
Lots a love Bro..
Andy
January 15, 2010 at 7:09 pm |
Hey bro, one of the delights of my life is the very high quality of relationship I have with you – my brother. This, I measure in precious seconds. The honouring and the nurturing. Walking the talk. Understanding the needs – the real needs, and being there when it counts. No excuses.
I’m proud to be your bro.
Love, Rob
January 15, 2010 at 7:29 pm |
Liking the way you ask questions on your blog Robin. I might visit here often (watch out!)
A major way for me, is not feeling like the conversations a repeated. I have no problem helping someone through something, but if they keep coming back with exactly the same situation you start to ask yourself: are they listening or did I just waste my breath last time.
After that it is leaving a conversation and thinking that there was some insight. Whether you realised something yourself while helping; was helped and therefore gained an insight; saw something new in a person; made you think about yourself differently; felt happier than when you arrived. Any one of those works for me.
As for the quantity/quality question. I have a story about that. Ask me at #nscm when we are next both there.
January 16, 2010 at 12:51 pm |
Hey Kate, you’re very welcome.
I really value your participation. We haven’t really had a chance to sit down and have a ‘quality’ chat yet and I’m really looking forward to doing that with you.
I have experienced those ‘groundhog conversations’ many times. Maybe those people see more in us than what we say. But it does become tiring repeating the same things to the same people.
One of the methods I use in my one-on-one mentoring sessions nowadays is to after the session ask the client to write back a note detailing: a) what they heard me say, and b) what their key next actions are. This tends to minimize the amount of repeating I have to do.
This works well in business, but has obvious limitations in social situations.
What do you say to those people who keep coming back to you for the same information?
Best, Robin
January 15, 2010 at 10:08 pm |
Hi Robin,
1. For me, a quality relationship is honest, open, and deep. I also like what Andy says – a quality relationship has to be continually nurtured.
2. I don’t “measure” the quality of my relationships; I guess I just know intuitively when I’m in one. Relationships change and grow all the time, so measuring them could become a near daily exercise – too much work for me!
3. It may be possible for some people to build many quality relationships, but I doubt that will happen for me. That said, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having relationships that don’t run so deep. They are valuable as well.
Another great post, Robin. You’ve really been blogging up a storm lately.
January 16, 2010 at 1:00 pm |
Hey Brad,
So relationships vary in quality – degree of depth, say. And you intuitively know when you are in a high quality relationship – and not in one.
It’s your ‘intuitive knowing’ – that ‘intuitive depth sonar’ – that I’m so interested in. The scientist in me wants to deconstruct it and see how it works.
If we could measure the quality of relationships as they form, are we better placed to spend our precious time and allocate our resources more wisely?
Thanks for your encouragement and participation, Brad.
Robin
January 15, 2010 at 11:44 pm |
I know measurement is the bane of many a manager’s existence, but it’s time to let it go when it comes to relationships — like Brad says in bullet #2. The timing of these questions is perfect when more folks interact on social media. We can’t know everyone, but we can pick a couple of people and get to know them. Once feel like we know the person, move on to the next set. This sounds impersonal, but it’s a way to do things in small bits leading to better quality relationships.
January 16, 2010 at 1:19 pm |
Thanks, Meryl.
I really appreciate you being here and contributing. Your point about the timing of this message is bang on. What stimulated my thinking was the interactivity of social media.
We are enabled to connect with anyone from anywhere at anytime. This means for the first time in human history that we can form global communities or tribes almost over night. You and I have connected within the past 24 hours. We get to discuss and share ideas. We may never have met except for this connectivity.
Given that we are empowered to make literally 1000′s of such connections, this then begs the questions – where do we best place our limited resources. Who do we invest our time in? How do we determine who to deepen (to use Brad’s quality indicator) our relationships with? Who do we say ‘No’ to and why?
Up until recently, answering these questions was a self-sorting thing that we haven’t really had to think about. Unless you went to networking events regularly for example, you just haven’t had the access to so many like-minds, so quickly.
As this social connectivity continues to explode exponentially, it will be interesting to see how we humans address this question of quality.
In a virtual room, crowded with like-minds and ‘shared-values’ who all want to relate to you, how do you determine who to say ‘No’ to?
Best to you, Robin
January 16, 2010 at 9:11 pm |
I like Robin’s response here
“Given that we are empowered to make literally 1000’s of such connections, this then begs the questions – where do we best place our limited resources. Who do we invest our time in?”
This is the question, the answer to which I believe are in the books and lessons I’ve learnt over the last 10 years about leadership and relationship.
What I do think is an important element is one of growth – are you both growing through the relationship?
January 16, 2010 at 2:04 am |
LMAO
This put a big smile on my face!
1. A high quality relationship means that you both grow from what each other supply. I guess this is also (2) – along with the fact that you communicate regularly with them. Non regular communication means it’s not really a life-giving relationship IMO
3. I’m inclined to agree with Brad – having many of these relationships is hard. The key is understanding your relational matrix has many levels… Core/Commited/Congregation/Crowd/Community to name one model
On a footnote – quality vs quantity is a point I missed out of this morning’s post. Opps! Thanks for covering it here instead!
January 16, 2010 at 8:43 pm |
Hey Scott,
You and I are one of those social media connections that became a high-quality relationship. It’s something I am very thankful for.
Given that it has happened in a relatively short space of time, what do you believe are the key quality ‘markers’ of this relationship? What role does length of time play – if any? I guess my real question is, if we understand the quality markers – and find people who share them, can we accelerate the building of high quality relationships?
Are the markers of quality in our relationship unique to this relationship, or is there a similar pattern in your other social media fed connections > relationships?
Wonderful to get your insights, Scott.
Best, Robin
January 16, 2010 at 9:21 pm |
Quality markers… Just to bang out a few:
1. Scaling up the levels of communication – from tweet to comment to email to skype call to skype face-to-face. The higher up I climb, the more I collaborate and connect with people. Thats why I always want to get someone on the phone ASAP
2. Frequency of communication. Whilst you can have life-changing relationships where you only meet once a year or so, in order to collaborate, there must be frequency in order to communicate and update each other.
3. Openess. This means willing to share your wounds and successes, and willing to receive input. Someone who will tell you their failures and not accept your advice is a mentor but not a partner. Again, if we want to collaborate, there must be openess.
Special point here: there is, in every realtionship, the power levels. In our case, you have far more experience and play the guide to me more than the other way – BUT – when I do have insight, I recognise that they are useful and that you are open to receive them. This for me is v important.
4. Time. I think this runs to frequency (above) and also length of time talking. Again, the people that I collaborate with, I talk a lot with.
5. Direction. So, both moving in the same direction in terms of our tangible goals and objectives. We are both in this for greatness, not gold.
6. Like MInds. I once thought that I could change people’s minds, til I realised that unless they come willing to change, then there will be none. So my commitment here is to not associate with people who are antagonistic and have highly contained thinking.
Just some to get the ball rolling…
January 17, 2010 at 11:54 am |
Scott, this is a valuable list of quality-markers. Really excellent stuff. I haven’t seen anything like it, and would love you to flesh them out, and perhaps propose ‘measures’ or ways of tracking them.
Obviously this will take some thinking and discussion. Maybe we discuss them on skype first.
In your opinion, who are the thought-leaders in this area? Who else can add value to this quality/quantity discussion, especially in terms of Social Media?
Best ever, Robin
January 18, 2010 at 9:24 am |
I think who is very good in this area is John Maxwell. He focusses highly on relational leadership.
As for Social Media – urm – I think with the ability to have lots of “friends” there comes the fact that very few of those become actual friends.
There is massive faux-friendship syndrome, while every pats each other on the back, or is harshly critical, but rarely people working together towards greatness.
Given that the social media movement is this self-serving, high content turnover, focussed on volume sales industry, I think that quality relationships will come through slowing down, through longer, drawn out conversation. It HAS to be a different pace to the rest of the rat race
January 16, 2010 at 6:15 am |
I don’t measure in any meaningful way either–it’s gut instinct and I know a high quality relationship when I feel it: mutual, energizing or inspiring (vs life-draining) and based on some common values. We don’t have to agree on everything (how boring is that?) but must value integrity and be comfortable expressing/listening to ideas.
Can you have both high quality AND quantity? I would have said no, but I’m intrigued by Meryl’s comments. Social media gives us a way to start a conversation on so many levels–can we convert those into deep relationships? Why not indeed….
January 16, 2010 at 8:24 pm |
Hi Rochelle,
Thanks Rochelle. It’s wonderful to receive your contribution.
As a consultant of your calibre well knows, you live and die by your ability to build and navigate high-quality relationships.
I’m curious – in your opinion, do you think your “measures” of quality are very different in your business relationships compared to your personal relationships? If so, how so?
Best to you, Robin
January 16, 2010 at 11:13 am |
Hello Robin,
I admire the relationships you have with your brothers.
These questions are so big!
I think trust and listening are crucial to healthy relationships. How a person thinks is also important.
I will write a lot more about relationships one day. I think you are a catalyst, you spark an idea and leave us to do what we will with it.
Frances
January 16, 2010 at 8:33 pm |
Thank-you, Frances. I really appreciate your feedback.
They are big questions. Big questions for smart people – the readers of this blog – including you, Frances.
You are all strong and have deep insights, broad experience and amazing intellectual muscle – so it’s all the more interesting to get into some chewy topics and tougher issues.
What do you think makes a good catalyst?
Best to you, Robin
January 16, 2010 at 10:36 pm |
OK, OK.
A good catalyst? Someone who asks so many, too many, good questions that you can’t just leave it, you have to answer it- when you have so much else to do! You push people so they are stretched further than they intended to be, then you fearlessly push some more. It’s a bit annoying you know
Do you drive your kids mad? What do they say? Do your questions ever stop? You could have a never-ending story…
Chewy topics alright. I’m looking forward to Rochelle’s and anyone else’s answer to your question above.
One of my favourite words is ‘educe’= ‘to bring out.’ You have educed this from me:
In response to Brad Shorr’s post above, you ask, “It’s your ‘intuitive knowing’ – that ‘intuitive depth sonar’ – that I’m so interested in. The scientist in me wants to deconstruct it and see how it works.”
When I studied psychotherapy, I specialised in couple counselling. I learned everything I could. When I finished there, I am very fortunate to have studied with my lecturer’s supervisor who is a gifted teacher, perhaps the best in Australia, with 40+ years experience.
Gifted somatic psychotherapists are highly aware of, able to sense, pick up on, the energetic presence of others. There is a level of somatic resonance in our own body. In the room with people’s physical bodies, feelings and processes, powerful energy shifts can occur. It’s about shifting energy … an experience I find hard to describe in words. I loved it. I have a dvd of myself as the couple therapist gate-keeping and what I remember is the feeling of elation after connecting with others at a highly respectful deep level.
Connect | resonate | energy | authenticity | truth
A good couple therapist can be a catalyst. As my teacher said, couple counselling “may not change the outcome. I promise it will come a lot quicker.”
This method can be used in any relationship- couples, parent-child, child-child, adult-adult, co-worker-co-worker etc…
Some books I’d recommend about couples are:
John Gottman. 10 Lessons to Transform Your Marriage.
Dr John Gottman has done 35+ years scientific research into couples and knows what makes relationships work. He’s written many books.
Susan Johnson. Creating Connection. The Practice of Emotionally Focused Marital Therapy.
Dr Bruce Fisher & Dr Robert Alberti. Rebuilding When Your Relationship Ends.
In relationships, the initial bond between a baby and their mother/father/carer is crucial. If there is secure attachment in childhood, this creates the foundation for strong relationships in future. If there is insecure attachment with their primary caregiver and trauma, a person can have all sorts of problems within themselves and in relationship with others throughout their lives. A lot comes down to the way we were brought up- cognitively, emotionally and behaviourally. That’s why I’ve decided to work with children and their parents/caregivers/teachers.
Is that enough yet? It’s enough for now.
Frances
January 17, 2010 at 12:12 pm |
Wow, Frances. As I just wrote to Rochelle,
“Frances has ‘reset my gimbles’ in terms of what to expect in an on-line conversation. What an education!
”
As a trained chemist, I’ve always had a fascination with nature’s catalysts – enzymes. You quickly learn that effective enzymatic reactions rely on having the right substrate present.
So for me, a good catalyst must be able to find and connect with great substrate. It must be a relationship of high quality for the output to be productive.
And that’s what is happening here. It’s a wonderful primordial soup of mutual catalysis – where enzyme becomes substrate and visa versa. All contributing. All benefiting.
Thanks for your excellent reference material and thoughtful, generous contribution to this golden thread.
Best, Robin
January 16, 2010 at 11:47 pm |
Robin,
Wow – what great questions. Looking through the responses, I don’t think I have the intellectual qualifications of the other commentators but thought I’d have a shot at them anyway in my own simplistic way:
Q: What makes a high quality relationship?
A: When both parties feel a valuable, inextricable, long-term connection to each other.
Q: How do you measure the quality of your relationships?
A: When both parties find a mutual and tangible benefit from the relationship, mostly long-term.
Q: Do you think it’s possible to build a high quantity of high quality relationships?
A: The most accepted answer to this is Dunbar’s Law. It states that the optimal number of quality relationships an individual can manage is between 150-200 people. It’s the reason why Army platoons are limited to this number and most large corporate divisions max out in this range to be effective units.
So what does all this add up to?
I believe that people can have a high quantity of “high quality” relationships if the response to the second question is accepted. Coming from a corporate background, I know that I will have life-long high quality relationships with “a lot of” people who I’ve done business with where the value of the relationship was mutual and beneficial. The key is connection. I need to work on ensuring that I stay in touch with them regularly – online or offline – to maintain the relationship.
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute.
Cheers, Iggy
January 17, 2010 at 11:30 am |
Iggy, you’re a wonderful man.
What a privilege connecting with you. When we were ‘crowd-surfing’ that Mexican google-wave the other night, I had not laughed so much in ages.
The only qualification you need to contribute on this site is having the time and interest to share your authentic thoughts and ideas. This you do in spades.
People are excited by your feedback. They pay attention to you because you pay attention to them, notice what’s important to them, and then seek out opportunities to add what’s valuable to them.
Thank-you for mentioning Dunbar’s work. It’s fascinating and there’s a wiki entry for those who are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number. It’s a rule of thumb that I’m finding very useful.
Your distillation to “value of the relationship was mutual and beneficial”, to me, sums up a central core of building high quality relationships – building mutual value.
Did you see Scott’s relational matrix – above? i.e. Core/Commited/Congregation/Crowd/Community. He’s a clever man, very active in Social Media, and someone I’d love you to connect with. He would be a wonderful value-add two your Real Tweeple series.
Iggy, Scott! – @ScottGould – http://twitter.com/scottgould
Scott, Iggy! – @IggyPintado – http://twitter.com/iggypintado
There, now you’re connected.
Best to you, Iggy.
Robin
January 17, 2010 at 9:39 am |
Great threads Robin,
Love this discussion–so many interesting and thoughtful perspectives. I’d never heard of somatic psychotherapy before (thanks Frances for that wonderfully evocative description), but I feel like that’s part of my arsenal in assessing high-quality relationships. I’ve always been able to do that instinctively, but now that I have a name for it, I want to know more…..
Is it the same for business and personal? Pretty much for me, although I can’t say that was always true. As I mature and grow, I find that I don’t have the interest in cultivating relationships with people who aren’t a good fit, regardless of which slice of life they fall into.
I’m also with Iggy–150-200 is probably my maximum at any given point in time. I know people who have larger circles. but they have a different definition of high-quality. Being a catalyst sometimes allows one to have more, highly impactful short-term relationships, but they may not last beyond the action that results. Food for thought…..
Rochelle
January 17, 2010 at 11:16 am |
Thanks, Rochelle. These are golden threads! I’m learning so much from you and the above generous contributors.
It was most unexpected. And I guess that’s a dimension of quality of relationships I treasure – spontaneity; pleasant surprise; unexpected delights.
These are what add color and interest. It’s these subtleties that often get quickly laundered out in the ‘one-size-fits-all’ race for mass connections on-line.
Frances has ‘reset my gimbles’ in terms of what to expect in an on-line conversation. What an education!
Iggy is a wonderful man, full of life, ability and generosity. He’s a fan of skype and would be well worth connecting with for a chat.
Your point about differing definitions of high-quality is certainly resonating with me – especially the difference between business ‘high-quality’ and personal ‘high-quality’.
My definitions for both would be very different for business and personal. Would yours?
Your expression ‘highly impactful short-term relationships’ is an excellent distinction, and begs the question – are humans too hung-up on relationships lasting?
What if we just focused on building high quality and how ever long they last is how ever long they last?
I’m really appreciating this growing connection with you, Rochelle.
Best, Robin
January 18, 2010 at 8:37 pm |
Hi Robin,
This thread has sparked up some amazing responses and discussions. What a learning it has been! I would like to add some of my thoughts on this.
Lets say someone goes to see a therapist or a coach and says “I am having some relationship difficulties with my wife”. To probe it further the professional might ask “How (specifically) are you finding it difficult to RELATE to your wife?”
Relationship can be seen as a “process of relating” rather than a thing. It can be static or dynamic depending on whether both parties are actively contributing and growing in the process or not. Whenever we are relating with another being, we are in a relationship. This may be considered too simplistic a view but one worth considering. As per this concept, a high quality relationship could be both short term or long term and it might be possible to build a high quantity of high quality relationships.
With warmth,
Rani
January 19, 2010 at 8:23 am |
I love that – the process of relating.
So, ok – how do we relate this to digital relationships?
January 19, 2010 at 6:35 pm |
Excellent distinction, Rani. Thank-you.
I agree with Scott – the ‘process of relating’ is a pivotal theme. Much of this discussion has focused on relationships as a kind of series of static endpoints. The process of relating implies the dynamic actions of relating – to and fro; give and take; send and receive – and these ‘active contributions’ bring energy and life.
So, relationship quality could be determined by type, degree and quality of said actions e.g. the frequency and degree of sharing; the quality of mutual effort; the sharing of expectations etc.
One of the things I’ve noticed as I re-read these comments is that there’s almost a ‘don’t mess with the magic’ aspect to relationships. That if we get analytical and scientific, we somehow overstep an unwritten boundary and enter into no-go territory. What do you think?
Best to you, Robin
January 19, 2010 at 8:06 am |
Robin,
This has been a top drawer discussion on an important topic. Thanks for starting it
I like Rochelle’s perspective on ‘highly impactful short-term relationships’ which I might call ‘powerful connections’.
I see relationships as more of a long-term thing; there’s a sense of cultivating something and this is wonderful and important – especially in our non-business lives. However, a single conversation between people who connect with power can be enough to change a business or a life (think spark to candle).
The ability to connect is valuable for anyone who seeks to be a catalyst and it’s all too easy to get caught up in the breathlessness about relationships and miss the possibilities that come from lighting a spark. Perhaps it would be easier to accept this if we let go of the desire see results and trust that sometimes we can cause change with one sentence, one touch, one word…
For an example of someone who has a powerful ability to connect, watch a video of President Clinton speaking (example: the recent announcement re Haiti, with Presidents Obama and George W Bush – the contrasting styles are interesting to watch).
The challenge, perhaps, is to be prepared to communicate (speak and listen) as if every single conversation matters. And to believe that what we say and do can make a difference even if we don’t have an ongoing relationship.
Best,
Kate
January 19, 2010 at 9:26 pm |
You’re welcome, Kate. Your comment is charged with value and makes an excellent addition to this conversation.
I know I touched on this earlier in my reply to Rochelle’s comment – but have we as a society made the assumption that a quality relationship is one that lasts?
It seems an obvious thing to conclude, but I wonder how it helps us.
If our eyes are on ‘keeping the relationship lasting’ – the future – could we miss pouring our full participation into the present moment. Perhaps the very thing a relationship needs to last!
What if relationships had a natural lifetime – long or short, but the essential thing was that we related (as Rani so brilliantly put it) with all of our heart and mind.
So, “where’s this relationship heading?” becomes, “what can I add to this relationship right now – what life can I share? (as Scott contributed). How can I better relate?
Kate, I love your expression “the possibilities that come from lighting a spark”. That, I want to hear more about.
Best to you, and thanks for our HUGE conversation last week.
Best, Robin
January 19, 2010 at 11:07 am |
Wow. I’ve bookmarked this to return for further reflection. Good stuff here.
January 19, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
They – you – are an impressive bunch!
I really look forward to your input into this discussion, Trey. You bring seasoned experience and fresh thinking to the table.
Best, Robin
January 20, 2010 at 6:06 am |
Hi Robin,
You’ve got it with your observation about missing opportunities to pour our participation into the present moment.
We deprive ourselves and others of so much when we hold masks to our faces and save our best for tomorrow, rather than making it possible – safe – to share now. Of course the listener must be ready to receive, and that too is about the masks we wear.
None of this is easy. And not always possible, but certainly worth thinking about as we strive to become better leaders.
Perhaps blogs and on-line connections space may help with this by giving us the opportunity to refine our magic and our authentic voice so it’s easier to connect powerfully in the off-line world? Does this make us less afraid to ‘show up’ and when we are fully present and authentic does that help others to be that way too?
This is a great topic and I’ll enjoy exploring more when I see you.
Best,
Kate
January 20, 2010 at 7:20 am |
Ah, now there’s a marker of relationship quality: safe-exchange.
How safe is it to exchange my thoughts and feelings with you?
Do we just skirt around the danger zones or can we dive right in?
Have we been ‘once burned’ and so back off the moment we sense a threat to our precious, inner sanctum?
How one measures this is unclear to me. As a professional facilitator, I have spent years with hundreds of groups, and a key skill is to be able to read and navigate people to reach safe-exchange. Could I deconstruct it to markers and measures? Hmm, I would need to think that through very carefully.
Your point: “Perhaps blogs and on-line connections space may help with this by giving us the opportunity to refine our magic and our authentic voice so it’s easier to connect powerfully in the off-line world?” is something I hadn’t realized until you mentioned it. It’s an excellent thought and probably something I’m currently experiencing.
Thanks for all of your added goodness, Kate.
Shine on, Robin
January 22, 2010 at 2:49 am |
Relationship is a process of relating I had said. Are there perhaps more shades and end points in the spectrum of relating than meets the eye? By just joining in the discussion, sharing, clarifying and moulding together great ideas, we are relating to each other at one level or another. When we decide to end the discussion and move on, do we momentarily stop the flow of relating but then pick it up again when discussing something else? I like the concept of matrix levels of relationships and Kate has beautifully weaved together the magical impact of high quality relationships.
With warmth,
Rani
January 23, 2010 at 7:35 pm |
Enzymatic reactions, substrates and catalysis… I studied chemistry at school and it wasn’t my favourite subject but you make it sound interesting. One thing I love about the internet is that reading and writing are highly valued now compared to the way the school system in Australia scales marks in favour of science and maths.
I think relationships are so important to us, whether in person, online or both and that’s why you’ve had so many thoughtful responses here from people you’ve built relationships with.
I’ve gone to my bookshelf and taken out my books by Dr John Gottman. If I had to give away my books, these would be some of the last to go. He is a true scientist who specialises in relationships, primarily couples, but when I quote him here, it is because I think many of his findings can be applied generally to everyday relationships eg. business or friendship.
He says the relationships which last have one quality, the ability to repair when things go wrong. If people can deal with an issue, hopefully laugh about it and move on, they are the ‘masters’ rather than the ‘disasters.’
Couple counselling hopefully unblocks the energy between people, so that they can speak openly/honestly/directly to each other again 1 on 1, if they ever could in the first place. That is when the counsellor’s job is done. As I said, I think this method of ‘gate-keeping’ is useful between two people anywhere when communication is blocked, it maximises the opportunity for each person to be heard.
In a thick book, The Marriage Clinic, John Gottman writes:
“ The research evidence does suggest that all marriages, happy or unhappy, seem to have to deal with the same “tasks” of being married. For example, it is well-known that the rank order correlation problems by their severity across happy and unhappy couples is very high, in the nineties. Even when we consider the predictors of divorce, we do not find that these never occur in marriages that are stable and happy- they just occur less often. That is why we focus so heavily on repair mechanisms. Every couple in their daily life together messes up communication, and every marriage has a “dark side.” It seems that what may matter most is the ability to repair things when they go wrong.” (1999:7)
Online, the social media version of repair would = damage control.
He talks about “the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.” “Our studies have shown that, left unchecked, these behaviours can send couples into a downward spiral that ends in divorce.” The Four Horsemen are: Criticism, Defensiveness, Contempt and Stonewalling.
Positive behaviours which strengthen relationships include:
“Softened start-up. This is the ability to start talking about a complaint or a problem gently, without criticising or insulting your partner. When one spouse does this, the other is more willing to listen, making compromise possible.
Turning toward your partner- close relationships consist of a series of “emotional bids”- that is, your partner reaches out for emotional connection with a comment, a question, a smile or a hug. You can choose to
1. Turn away, ignoring the bid
2. Turn against, reacting with anger or hostility
3. Turn toward, showing you’re open, listening and engaged.
Our research shows that habitually turning away or turning against your partner’s bids harms your marriage. But consistently turning toward your partner strengthens emotional bonds, friendship, and romance.
Repairing the conversation. This is an effort to de-escalate negative feelings during a difficult encounter. A repair can be an apology, a smile, or a bit of humour that breaks the tension and helps you both feel more relaxed.
Accepting influence. Partners who are open to persuasion from each other generally have stronger, happier marriages. Being stubborn or domineering has just the opposite effect. Our studies show that a husband’s willingness to accept influence from his wife can be particularly helpful to forming a strong, happy marriage.” (2006:5-6)
In response to a few people here talking about online relationships, it’s hard to respond well to everyone who sends us tweets or who responds to our posts, but I think that is key to online relationships. Feeling heard validates our thoughts and feelings and makes us feel good- respected and valued.
“… our research shows that small, positive behaviours, frequently repeated, can make a big difference in the long-term success of a marriage.” (2006:7)
http://www.gottman.com Go to store
In all relationships, focusing on the positive is so important. If we focus on what a child does well, or what anyone does well, we’ll get a positive response. We look for and bring out the best in others. Just ask @Iconic88, Mahei, the most retweeted person on Twitter. He said, “If it’s positive, inspires and helps you be a better person, they retweet it to share with other people.”
I think you get so many responses from your posts- for example this one where you ask big questions, even though they’re not long, because you think a lot and over time you’ve built up relationships online and in person. You respond to others’ posts, DM people on twitter, and know who you’re talking to.
January 24, 2010 at 10:08 pm |
Thank you, Frances.
You provide us with invaluable information and distinctions about quality-enhancements for relationships. I’ve read your comment several times and am very appreciative you putting such effort in to share these thoughts and research with all of us.
This dimension of relationship ‘repairability’ (if there is such a word), is a very useful quality marker. Entirely obvious now that we get to think about it.
Let’s face it, a relationship doesn’t really start until the pressures on, and we tend to spend more time in reactive mode, after the damage has been done.
I’m going to give a lot more thought to this, and look forward to our continuing conversation.
Best to you, Robin
Trackbacks