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

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.

With warmth,

Rani

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

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

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

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

I really look forward to your input into this discussion, Trey. You bring seasoned experience and fresh thinking to the table.

Best, Robin

So, ok – how do we relate this to digital relationships?

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

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

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

“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