The myth of punishment: It is not the same as "natural consequences."

Many parents and teachers wrongly assume that the use of punishment is the same thing as experiencing "consequences,"  particularly "natural consequences."  Adults justify the use of punishment [whether gentle or aggressive] by reminding the child that they are ostencibly "making choices" and that bad choices have repercussions or "consequences."  But adults cunningly call those repercussions "natural consequences," as if they are universal and happen to everyone everywhere.  So according to that justification, whatever happens to the child is the result of a choice they've made, not a situation the adult has set up.

While bad choices do have repercussions, I assure you that to a child, punishment is experienced very differently than natural  consequences.  Here's how punishment is distinctly different from natural consequences.

PUNISHMENT:

Punishment uses coercion, threat and pressure: 

"If you don't do what I'm asking, you will go to your room for a time-out." 

"If you don't do well on your report card, you won't be able to go to the dance." 

The "consequence" that an adult sets up for the child is designed to compel the child into one right response - the one the adult would choose.  The child must comply, or experience some kind of pain or loss.  [To be determined by the adult, of course.] Though the adult may in fact be right about what is needed in that situation, the use of punishment generates fear and anxiety rather than a healthy motivation to do the right thing. 

Moreover, the punishment is being set up and arranged for by the adult, rather than something that occurs as a natural outflow of an action, whether or not the adult arranged for it.  For example, if I go skating on a pond before it has frozen completely over, I may fall in and experience hypothermia; yet no one has arranged for that consequence for me.  It's simply a natural and understandable cause-and-effect. No one created the effect [falling in] in order to get me to be less foolish.

Ironically, the same parents who would agree that "perfect love casts out fear" would advocate the use of punishment [and its use of intimidation] to enforce proper behavior.

Punishment removes the possibility of a meaningful choice for the child. 
It is a fallacy to believe that the child is making a true, internally-motivated choice when the only two choices we have given her are either, "Do what I say" or "Experience fear and rejection." 

Punishment will also guarantee that the child's choice to comply with your wishes will not be motivated by love for you.  Nor will they obey because they genuinely respect you.  Rather, their motivation will be to avoid pain.  Using punishment actually disengages a child's genuine desire to do the right thing because fear will override any possibility that the choice will be made out of loving respect for you.

Punishment teaches the misuse of power.
Finally, punishment teaches the child that the way you get someone to do something is by using power against them.  It says to the child, "Authority is something to be feared rather than loved and honored."

NATURAL CONSEQUENCES:

Natural consequences, on the other hand, are not the fruit of threat and coercion, because no one is manipulating the child towards any particular outcome.  No one is using their authority or power to insure that their demands are met. 

In the case of a true natural consequence, the child retains a meaningful choice in the matter. No one is arranging for or demanding any particular outcome.  For example, if a teen chooses to drive recklessly down a neighborhood street, he could hit a toddler who steps out from behind a parked car.  The toddler may be tragically injured or killed as a natural consequence of the teen's actions; yet that natural consequence isn't being set up by an adult in order to constrain good choices behind the wheel.

Bottom line:  Justifying the use of punishment by calling it a "natural consequence" does not make it so.  The fruit of punishment is fear, not love. 

---

Helpful resources:

• Watch the video:  Relating Without Control, Jim Robbins
• Read the book:  Unconditional Parenting, Alfie Kohn

What do you want for your kids? [Redefining "good morals"]

Some time ago, I asked a group of parents to list the qualities they wanted their children to possess as they grew older.  The initial responses were character traits such as:

"respectful"

"kind"

"responsible"

Only after those initial character qualities were suggested did some parents begin to offer other qualities they desired for their children like:

"problem solving"

"empathy"

"purpose"

Typical moral categories aren't enough.
Notice that the first list fell within very typical moral categories that represents what we think of as "good behavior."  Yet the qualities on the second list are also critical for development.  Traits like "empathetic awareness,"  "discernment" [needed for problem-solving] and "sense of purpose" are also needed for relational and emotional health, yet are not often the first things we think of when it comes to character development.

Children are often taught both in school and at home to be "kind" or "respectful" or good "team players"  [all potentially forms of compliance to get them to be more manageable]; while ignoring qualities like "play," "risk-taking," and "redemptive suffering."

Teaching our kids to be disruptive
Though we want our kids to "show respect towards authority," we would never think of teaching our children how to be redemptively-disruptive - standing against injustice when it is warranted - because Jesus' cleansing of the temple doesn't look like "self-control" to us.   Or that addressing injurious authority may sometimes be warranted because there are still "white-washed tombs" and "broods of vipers" using power and entitlement to lord it over those they should serve.

Redefining "morality" for our kids
How have you been taught to view "character" and "morality?"  Strictly in terms of good behavior?  What other traits would you consider listing that you hope to instill in your child?

Wounded By Accusation

 

---

Here are some posts I've written that speak to those who find themselves particularly wounded by accusation:  

"Generalized Accusation Disorder:"  My Story

 
"You're Getting Hit With Accusation - The Warning Signs"

 
"Conviction is Different Than Accusation"

---

Especially for introverts:

"Why Accusation Is So Debilitating for Sensitive Hearts"

 
"Were You a 'High-Reactive/High-Sensitive" Introverted Kid?"

 
"Introverts and the Church:  The Pain of Performance and Perceptions"

Why giving children [or anyone else] "consequences" doesn't work.

Mother to young son: 

"If you don't pick up your toys, you'll lose a privelege.  I warned you that there would be consequences."

Translate: 

"If you don't meet my expectations, pain will follow:  I will either remove something from you, or do something to you." 

Most of us were brought up under a compliance model:  "Just get kids to behave.  Give them 'consequences' if they don't meet your expectations."

Natural consequences:
Yes, there are natural outcomes to our choices:  Relationships don't do well where there isn't mutual respect, including from child to parent.  However, the carrot and stick [reward and punishment] model doesn't work.  [Note:  rewarding a child, in order to get good behavior, has also shown to short-change genuine transformation in the long-run.]  In fact, research indicates that if you insist on punishing [or rewarding] kids for their behavior, you'll end up with a worse kid in the long run.  Remember, true transformation is measured in years, not minutes.

Giving "warnings" and "consequences" didn't even work for God:

"If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins..."  [Leviticus 26:18]

"...as your sins deserve."  [Leviticus 26: 21]

"They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws..."  [Leviticus 26:43]

Did God's warnings that consequences would follow produce heart-change in his people?  No.  They still went ahead and did what he warned them not to. Why?  Pressure to comply - and the threat of consequences that accompany that - will never produce the actual change we really want for our kids.  Being intrinsically [self-motivated] to love well is far superior to being threatened into acting like you care about others.

So what's the alternative?
Connection.  Put the heart first.  Here's another post I wrote that gives you some concrete suggestions:  "Parenting Where the Heart Comes First."

Why compliance and control work against transformation...

There's a world of difference between compliance [getting adults/kids to act like you want them to] vs. transformation:  One happens through control and pressure; the other happens through connection. 

Anyone who has care or charge over someone:  church leaders, authors, teachers, parents will end up using one or the other, or a combination of both.   Spouses end up using one or the other model as well.  However, God uses transformation.

Note that the 'Compliance" approach to relationships leads to regressive, worse behavior over the long-run.  Don't be fooled:  compliance often looks like change; but it's really a yielding out of fear.

.......................................................................................................................

Helpful resources:

• "Drive - The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us," by Daniel Pink
• "Unconditional Parenting," by Alfie Kohn
• "Connecting," by Larry Crabb

Most damage done by leaders centers around the use of power.

Most damage done by leaders centers around the use of power:

• The administrator or manager who makes decisions unilaterally...for you and not with you.


• The pastor who mistakes self-righteousness and arrogance  for confidence and humble authority.


• The executive who, when confronted with difficult issues,  filters decisions through “risk assessment” rather than truth and empathy:  Empathy for others is discarded for the sake of the leader's own self-preservation or those the leader is protecting.


• Leaders who abuse power believe that the image or perception of the institution or corporation is paramount, and will be maintained at the expense of higher values.

• Compliance [outward adherence to expectations] is mistakenly equated with change.

• Because of the leader's tragic misunderstanding of power, your relationship with this leader is instantly expendable, regardless of shared history or alleged common beliefs.  Personal allegiances with him are tentative and illusory at best. 

Too many men are made "kings" too soon, and too many women have mistaken control for love.

Authentic leadership is not the absence of power.  Rather, it is power in service to others, even when it requires sacrificing ego, title or positional authority in order to do the right thing:

"...have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

⁶ Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

⁷ rather... by taking the very nature of a servant,
     
⁸ And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself...

Were you a "high-Reactive" introverted kid? [High-Reactives: Part-two]

Here's part two on "high-reactive" people, and the unique ways in which they suffer as well as can do well in the world.  Excerpts from Quiet:  The Power of Introverts In a World That Can't Stop Talking.

High-reactive kids and adults:
Although much of the research with "high-reactives"  has been done with kids, "the footprint of a high- or low-reactive temperament never disappeared in adulthood" when those same persons were tested in adulthood. 

In other words, you certainly have the free-will to change some parts of your personality, but certain aspects will follow you into old age.  According to the "rubber band theory" of personality, we can stretch our personalities to a degree, but they'll always snap back to a preferred default position.

More characteristics of a "high-reactive" temperament:

• These kids are more at risk when there's "marital tension, a parent's death, or abuse.  They're more likely than their peers to react to these events with depression, anxiety, and shyness." 


• But there's a beneficial side to having high-reactive kids - especially if they're parented well under a stable environment:  These kids will "tend to have fewer emotional problems and more social skills than their lower-reactive peers, studies show."  They can even be more resistant to the common cold when in a nurturing environment.


• These children [and presumably as they grow into adulthood] are often "exceedingly empathic, caring, and cooperative.  They are kind, conscientious, and easily disturbed by cruelty, injustice, and irresponsibility." 

According to Jay Belsky, "'Instead of seeing these kids as vulnerable to adversity, parents should see them as malleable - for worse, but also for better.'"  The ideal parent for a high-reactive child:

• "can read you cues and respect your individuality;"
• "is warm and firm in placing demands on you without being harsh or hostile;"
• "is not harsh, neglectful, or inconsistent."

Creating a new environment for high-reactives [and probably everyone else as well]

As I read this research, it was obvious to me that "high-reactives" in particular need a grace-filled environment  - absent of accusation and shame.   Certainly, though, everyone could benefit from gracious relationships; but particularly "high-reactives." 

Let's:

• Respond without reactivity.
• Refrain from controlling and accusing.
• Confront [when necessary] with information, not condemnation.
• Celebrate the new heart in the other before jumping in.

Related posts:

• "Why Accusation Is So Debilitating For Sensitive-Hearts"


• "Parenting Where the Heart Comes First."


• "How We Talk to Our Kids:  An Alternative to Constant Evaluation and Judgment Calls"

What about you?
What did you experience as a "high-reactive" kid?  How has it carried over into adulthood and what benefit has it brought you?

Why accusation is so debilitating for "sensitive" hearts.

I have a particular empathy for those who are "sensitive" and tender-hearted - particularly because they are more vulnerable to accusation, or even perceived accusation, than most.  It's probably one the reasons I wrote, RECOVER YOUR GOOD HEART. 

I also happen to be one of those "sensitive types."  It's not surprising that I'm a writer and a solo piano artist, callings that require introspection and a willingness to feel deeply.  My mentors are books and my piano is my therapist.

In her extraordinary book, Quiet:  The Power of Introverts In A world That Can't Stop Talking," Susan Cain lays out the research on people called "High Reactives," a trait that often corresponds to introversion but not always.   These children and adults "react" more intensely to changes or perceived threats in their environments than "low-reactives" do.

Here are some characteristics of "high-reactives:"

•  Sensitive nature

• May be “quicker than others to feel sickened by violence and ugliness,  and likely to have a strong  conscience.” 

• Will experience a “more intense mix of guilt and sorrow than a lower-reactive kid.” “High-reactive kids seem to see and feel things more.”

• "...The reactivity of these kids' nervous systems makes them quickly overwhelmed by childhood adversity, but also able to benefit from a nurturing environment more than other children do." 

• “High-reactive types …are more like orchids:  they wilt easily, but under the right conditions can grow strong and magnificent.”

My own opinion, based on reading these findings, is that accusation will do more injury to a "high-reactive" because they're likely to feel a "more intense mix of guilt and sorrow" and more likely to internalize perceived accusation, even when it's not their fault.

Yet, there's a hidden blessing to functioning as a "high-reactive:"  Others will likely benefit from your courageous, yet tender heart.  People need your vulnerability and ability to feel deeply with them.  You'll also benefit from knowing just how tender and kind-hearted Jesus can be.

I'll share more characteristics of "high-reactives" in the next post.

How "classroom management" [control] has stripped your kids of dignity.

If you've read my posts long enough, you know that I have little tolerance for leaders that shame or control people under their care...especially when children are the victims. 

Here's an excerpt from an article touting the right of teachers to get their classrooms under control - and in my opinion, at the expense of the very kids whose care they are charged with.

 

Here's the article excerpt:

Freshly minted teachers have passed every test but one: how to control their classrooms.

Pat Wingert, Newsweek correspondent.  March 5, 2010

Back in the '60s, when I attended the Queen of the Rosary school in suburban Chicago, classroom management was not an issue. We had more than 35 kids in a class, but even first graders knew you sat with your hands folded, eyes on the board, and mouth shut. If you got out of line, you might be sent to the corner. One nun had an amazing pitching arm. She would spin away from the blackboard and bean a slacker with a fully loaded eraser. It didn't hurt. But it was effective.

Now when you talk to new teachers—which I do regularly as an education reporter—their biggest complaint is that no one teaches them how to control a classroom...The solution is probably not to encourage teachers to bean kids with erasers. But something is needed.

...................................................................................................................................

Notice the point of the article was to find a way to get kids under control; not to connect with them, not to understand them or love or respect them; but to manage them.  People, especially kids, were never meant to be managed.  We ought to manage things, or processes, but not people; and especially not kids.

You can have order without control.
While order is often necessary in the classroom, control is not.  In one classroom I observed that thankfully understood the difference, the teacher brought about order by whispering; not by yelling, harsh reprimands or other shaming tactics. 

Would you treat a colleague, or even a pet this way?
Contrast this with one mother's lament I read, stating that her child's teacher used "one-size-fits-all" accusations where the teacher scolds the entire classroom for the poor behavior of a few. As that mom pointed out, class-wide shaming holds the view: "Blame everyone no matter who did it."

I also heard another mom tell the story of her daughter's teacher, who in front of the classroom, threw out her daughter's papers in the trash because they had too many eraser marks on it.  On another occasion, the teacher had put the student in time-out simply because she used the pencil sharpener while the teacher happened to be on the phone.

Control delivers shame, because it gives the person in authority the self-justifying smugness to bring a child under rigid compliance while stripping them of their dignity.  Control says, "I have the right to use power over you in this way because you are lesser than me." 

Some dogs get kinder treatment.
My guess is that under this disparaging view of children, a classroom pet would get better treatment than a kid.  Obedience Training is for dogs, not children.

Kids Are Not Cattle

One of the most helpful questions an adult can ask is: 

"Would I treat another adult the way I'm treating this child?    Would I react to another adult this way, to their face?"

A lot of adults I've observed seem to have quite a bit of ranch hand experience:  They treat kids like cattle to be prodded and herded.

Children and teens ought to find in us a place of refuge:  No matter how bad a day we're having, or whether we've "Told them a hundred times" to pick up their clothes.  What matters is the child's perception of how well we're treating them. 

Can children have faulty perceptions and misunderstand our intentions?  Of course.  But notice how we often rationalize our responses to kids:

• "But I'm correcting them out of love."


• "Even if I react harshly, of course they know I still love them." 

This doesn't mean the child is experiencing love.

What the child is experiencing vs. what you're intending
What they're experiencing from us will often be more telling that what we were intending.  Meaning well is not always the same as loving well.  Adults often get away with addressing kids in a way they'd never address another adult, their own clients, or coworker. 

Our need  for respect can be over-rated.
Worse, when an adult believes, "I am the Adult!" with a capital "A," they've just given themselves permission to shame a child.   That Adult's need for respect often happens at the expense of the child.  It degenerates from a healthy sense of the adult's authority into a narcissistic demand for the child to meet their need for respect.  Shouldn't we be going to God for the affirmation and respect we need, rather than demanding it from kids?

Parenting with grace
We have the power of a new heart to offer our kids a wildly gracious love -  Remembering that is half the battle.  You do love your kids...It just takes a little re-aligning of our responses to them to make a big difference in how they perceive our love.

Parents: We are not Correction Officers

I hate to see children who are rigidly controlled like cattle, poked and prodded; or like lab rats, rewarded or punished based upon an adult's perception of successfully meeting expectations.  Control and compliance, the handmaids of shame,  assault my spirit to the core and this is an issue I am currently researching and writing about. 

I thought I was doing much better at stepping back from over-correcting my kids, refusing to control their every decision ...until I tried this little experiment:

Experiment:  Try not to correct your child for a day, or even one hour.  [Unless, of course, there's a safety issue involved.]  Try not to say, "no" or evaluate their behavior.  Don't pressure them to conform to your expectations.  Just connect with them. 

The experiment was all too revealing for me.  Though I think my parenting has changed for the better in the last few years, and I'm much more conscious of trying not to unnecessarily control my kids, the experiment showed me just how ingrained and reflexive my need to correct them was. 

It's also draining and takes an enormous amount of energy to control others -- energy that could be used to connect with them rather than getting them to comply with our often rigid expectations.

TRY IT: 

• Just one day.  Or even one hour. 
• No corrections, except for safety concerns:  Just connect with their hearts. 

Try it and let me know what you discover.

Related resources:

• "Parenting Where the Heart Comes First,"  Jim Robbins

Video: "Relating Without Control"

Most of our relationships end up being "If ___, then" relationships, based upon control and compliance. We offer love and delight only when our expectations are being met. It's hurting our families and our kids.

How we talk to our kids: An alternative to constant evaluation and judgement calls

In order to be responsible parents who want their kids to grow up into caring and responsible adults, many of us, including myself,  tend to sabotage our best efforts by the way we talk to our kids.  Much of our conversation with our kids is laced with appraisal and evaluation:

"Good job! with that art project. [positive evaluation]

"That was an unkind thing to say to your sister!"  [negative evaluation]

Much of our talk is centered around value-judgements.  As Alfie Kohn, author of Unconditional Parenting asks, Why do we call an art project a "job" in the first place, and why is it necessary for it to be declared "good" or "bad" necessarily?  Is that even helpful for the moral development of a child?

Here's the caution:  Relentlessly attaching a value-judgement to a child's efforts - either in order to offer "encouragement" on the one hand, or to offer criticism - can leave a child with the impression that their efforts are what win your approval. Even positive reinforcement can prove to backfire when attached to specific events or behaviors we want to see more of.  It replaces intrinsic motivation ["I'm doing this because I know it's the right thing"] with extrinsic motivation [I'm only doing this to get more of dad's approval because he seems most happy when I meet his expectations."]  See the difference?

Yet, as Kohn suggests,

The happy news is that it's not necessary to evaluate kids in order to encourage them." 

It's about heart first.  Then the behavior will tend to take care of itself.
If we are demonstrating our delight in our children on a continual basis [rather than when they meet expectations], regardless of their actions [positive or negative], they will be developing a healthy sense of their value and our unconditional acceptance of them.  However, even offering praise as a means of reinforcing a positive behavior can quickly be interpreted by the child as, "Mom seems most happy with me when I'm behaving well and meeting her expectations."  Here, we end up punishing them with praise, because that praise gets attached to specific behaviors, rather than reinforcing our ongoing, unconditional delight in them.

And if our children feel that nearly every conversation we have with them is a judgement call on how well they're doing, or failing to do, what are they likely to conclude?  "I'm not enough for mom or dad."

What's wrong with evaluation?
What's wrong with evaluation, declaring certain things "right" or "wrong?"  Nothing.  We certainly want our kids to develop strong inner compasses and the strength of heart to act lovingly and respectfully towards others.  But the better question is, "How do we get them there?"

Relentlessly evaluating our child's every act and motive may, in fact, backfire.  It could cause them to become overly obsessed with their effort, with their behavior, and conclude that pleasing us is contingent upon meeting our expectations.

Kohn offers two examples as alternatives to evaluation:

{1}  Describe:  Give feedback on what you see.  Rather than, "You're such a great helper!" you can say, "You set the table!  Boy, that makes things a lot easier on me while I'm cooking."

{2}  Ask questions:  Rather than, "Good sharing, Michael" we can ask, "What made you decide to give some of your brownie to Deirdre when you didn't have to?"  Asking questions helps the child self-reflect, which is what we really want.  Conversely, if we simply declare something right or wrong, we shut down that opportunity for the child to reflect on her actions.

Tone follows mindset:
But notice that our tone and intent can distort even our best intentions, whether we choose to describe or ask questions.  The important thing is that our mindset changes from, "How can I get my kids to behave?" to "How can I offer them the safety of my unconditional affection for them?"

"The fact is, you've had five husbands"
Remember Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman, the serial monogamist?  Notice, in this case, that he doesn't evaluate her behavior.  He tells her what he knows, but, strangely, doesn't condemn it:

He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”

 ¹⁷ “I have no husband,” she replied.

   Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. ¹⁸ The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”

Jesus could have said, "You're living an immoral life and your promiscuity is displeasing to God."  But he doesn't approach her that way.  His talk is not laced with evalution.  His goal is to offer her life, not condemnation.

Because Jesus offers his insider knowledge of her lifestyle without judgement, she is able to tell the townsfolk, without shame, "Come and see a man who told me everything I ever did!"   How would she have felt safe enough to publically declare his knowledge of her promiscuity without first experiencing his non-judging presence?

Remember, the goal is to offer life to our kids, co-workers and spouses.  Connection without condemnation.

Update on Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 4:32PM by Jim Robbins

One of the most helpful questions adults can ask is: 

"Would I treat another adult the way I'm treating this child?    Would I react to another adult this way, to their face?"

Children and teens ought to find in us a place of refuge:  No matter how bad a day we're having, or whether we've "Told them a hundred times" to pick up their clothes.  What matters is the child's perception of how well we're treating them. 

Can children have faulty perceptions and misunderstand our intentions?  Of course.  But just because we believe we're "correcting them out of love" or want to assure ourselves that, "Even if I react harshly, of course they know I still love them"  doesn't mean they're experiencing your love for them. 

What they're experiencing from us will often be more telling that what we were intending.  Meaning well is not always the same as loving well.  Adults often get away with addressing kids in a way they'd never address another adult, their own clients, or coworker. 

We have the power of a new heart to offer our kids a wildly gracious love -  Remembering that is half the battle.  You do love your kids...It just takes a little re-aligning of our responses to them to make a big difference in how they perceive our love.

How "If____________, then______________" has sabotaged your relationships

Most Christians, most people in fact, live with what one educator calls, ""Compliance Acquiescent Disorder  (CAD)."  An individual with this disorder, "defers to authority,"  "actively obeys rules,"  "fails to argue back,"  "knuckles under instead of mobilizing others in support,"  "stays restrained when outrage is warranted,"  and so on.  Compliance Acquiescent Disorder goes far beyond a proper sense of authority and mutual respect.

I just spoke with a mother today, who told me that her daughter [a responsible kid] was put into time out by her teacher for sharpening her pencil while the teacher was on the phone.  The mother was incensed.

Norm Diamond, who coined the term, Compliance Acquiescent Disorder, was speaking of an educational environment that prizes compliance over almost everything; but C.A.D is an accurate term for what has happened to most of us.  (1)

Most of our relationships: 

• parent - child,
• boss - employee,
• teacher - student,
• spouse - spouse

operate around an "If __________________, then ___________________" dynamic:

If you behave well, I"ll reward you.  If you misbehave, there will be "consequences."

If you put in over-time at work, you'll receive a bonus.

If you don't complete your homework, you will be penalized."

If you don't meet the expectations I have for marriage, then I'll withdraw as well.

At the expense of our hearts
Because we've gone to schools, worked in jobs, and learned parenting habits where compliance ["Just do what we tell you, whether it's reasonable or not"], always operate around "If ___________, then________," we've gotten used to pleasing others even at the expense of our own hearts.

We've caved,  knuckled under, and refused to challenge the reigning assumption that controlling others and being controlled by others is normal.  It is not.

Our jobs have taught us that workers produce more when there are "carrot and stick" incentives for performance, forgetting that most people want to do good and meaningul work, and don't need to be prodded or "managed" in order to do so. (2)

Our schools have taught our children to comply with every expectation of the teacher -- whether reasonable or not, whether actually good for them or not -- even when it is an assault against our child's will and dignity.

Our inherited parenting habits have taught us to shut down anything messy, anything disruptive, loud or unexpected; oftentimes simply because it's inconvenient for us, or we're just plain stressed. 

"If ___________, then _________________" is everywhere, and it's killing our hearts.  Worst of all, law-based distortions of Christianity have taught us that God only blesses people who comply with his will; and that pleasing him is a matter of getting things right.

(1) From Feel Bad Education, by Alfie Kohn

(2)From "Drive-The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us," by Daniel Pink

It's about connecting, not control.

What if, rather than ask,

"How can I get this person to do what I want them to do," we asked,

"How can I connect with this person?"

Getting people [including our spouse or kids] to comply with our rigid expectations will inevitably lead to controlling them. 

Control always leads to shame. 
Why?

Because the one doing the controlling [expecting compliance] assumes it's their right to do so.  It sets the two parties on unequal footing.  The receiving person's dignity is seen as dispensable.

Are expectations a good thing?  Yes.  To live without them is to live without values and to assume our own dignity is indispensable. 

But demanding compliance at the cost of another person's heart isn't acceptable.  God himself is gracious with latitude:  He allows, even welcomes, self-will - the capacity to make uncoerced choices without the threat of disappointing him.

It's helpful to ask:  "Does the person's heart matter more to me than their behavior?"

The controlling dynamic centers around "IF...THEN..."

"If you do this, I'll be happy with you.  If you don't meet my expectations, I'll be disappointed with you."

"If you comply with my expectations, I will reward you.  If not, you'll suffer the consequences."

THIS IS NOT THE GOSPEL.  Instead, God says, "I will bless you on your worst day."

A better way

Jim Collins, author of "Good to Great" and other leadership books, offers an alternative:

1.  "Lead with questions, not answers."

2.  "Engage in dialogue and debate, not coercion."

3.  "Conduct autopsies, without blame."

I would add a couple others:

• "Give feedback about failed expectations as information, not condemnation."  [remove the emotional sting]


• "Put the heart of the other person first.  Worry about behavior later."

It's about connecting, not compliance.