Chapter 8 Chapter 4 Abandoning Blame: Diagramming the Blame System

You work for an advertising agency.Sent by the company, you travel long distances to New York to meet with the top leadership of an extreme sports company.Extreme Sports is a start-up sports apparel company with great potential, and it is also an important customer of your company.Just when you're about to start your presentation, you realize you've brought the wrong presentation board.Faced with the expectant customer and the wrong drawing board, your mind goes blank.And so, trembling, you complete this poor, pointless presentation.Weeks of hard work and preparation were for naught just because your assistant was negligent in packing your briefcase.

For this, you put all the blame on your assistant, not only because she is your assistant and should be the object of your dissatisfaction and disappointment, but also because you want everyone to know that it is her and not you Screwed up the whole thing so that your reputation could be salvaged.In addition, there is a more important but extremely simple reason, that is: she made a mistake. When you and your assistant finally sit down to discuss what went wrong with the situation, you're faced with two approaches.You can clearly accuse her of her mistakes, saying things like, "I just don't understand how you let this happen."Or, if you don't want to confront her so directly (or you know that blaming others won't help), you can point out her mistakes in a more subtle way, saying something less harsh, such as "Next time try harder. do better".But no matter which way you do it, she gets the same message: she is to blame and she is to blame.

Issues of attribution loom large in many difficult conversations.No matter whether it is superficial or in-depth, the content of the conversation has never left the question of "who should be blamed".Who is that villain?Who made the mistake?Who should apologize?Who can be justifiably angry and angry? Focusing on blame is really not a good idea.Because this is a difficult topic to talk about and expand, not to mention it can damage our relationships with others and cause people pain and anxiety.Such a topic is not only difficult to discuss, but also has many potential negative implications, but even so, we cannot avoid talking about it, just because it is important.

Focusing on blame is also a bad idea because, on the one hand, it suppresses our ability to understand the real cause of a conflict and prevents us from taking remedies; on the other hand, purely blaming is often unjust, And it doesn't help to resolve the conflict at all.There are actually two reasons why we can't wait to blame the other person in a conversation: we have an argument with the other person about something; we are afraid that we will be blamed.In the vast majority of cases, accusation succeeds in playing the role of "the villain"—we often use it to indirectly communicate the fact that our feelings have been hurt.

However, the advice "don't blame others" is not the answer to this problem.You can't stop blaming others until you understand what blaming is, why we blame each other, and how to find elements in difficult conversations that will help you achieve your purpose.And the "element that helps to achieve the purpose of your conversation" is imputation.The difference between blaming and blaming is often hard to spot and distinguish, but it's a key part of improving your ability to handle difficult conversations. Essentially, the difference between the two is that accusation is judgment, while imputation is understanding.

When we raise the question of "who is the one who should be held accountable and who should be blamed", in fact, we are just combining three questions into one.The first question, is this the person who caused the problem?Is it something your assistant did (or didn't do) that caused you to pick up the wrong storyboard?The second question, if the answer to the first question is yes, according to a certain code of conduct, what kind of judgment should you make on her behavior?Does that mean she's incompetent, unreasonable, or lacks a work ethic?The third question, if the result of the judgment is negative, how should she be punished?Should you be mad at her?Or warn her?Or even worse, fire her?

When we say "it's your fault", we actually answer the above three questions in a simple and general way with this sentence, intending to tell the other party: you are the culprit, and you should be responsible for your own mistake. Behavior is punished.Faced with such "rich" and menacing interrogation, there is no doubt that we will immediately launch a comprehensive "justifiable defense" behavior after a little awareness, which is not surprising at all. When accusations start to get their way, all you can expect, other than defensiveness and resistance, are agitated emotions and interrupted conversations about what makes a "good secretary" and how to be a "lovable secretary." good spouse", or what "any reasonable person" should/should not do.When we accuse others, we provide them with only one role of "accused," so naturally they respond as accused accused in a court of law: defend themselves to the best of their ability.If we can understand the inherent danger, we will also understand why people's gestures are so unsightly when they point and reprimand.

Imputation poses a set of related but quite different questions to blame.The first question is, what kind of responsibilities should each of us take when things have developed to such a state? "In other words, what did either of us do or not do to make this mess?" The second question is "Now that we understand the blame system, what can we do to change it? What can we do to make things mess up?" How about a turnaround?" In short, attribution will help us understand what happened and help us improve how we work together.However, when we are committed to understanding and changing, whether it is at work or in personal relationships, blame is our first choice in more and more cases.

To illustrate this better, let’s go back to the original X Sports story and imagine two very different conversations that could have taken place between you and your assistant.The first type of conversation focuses on blame, while the second type focuses on imputation. You: I want to talk to you about my presentation at Extreme Sports.You misplaced your storyboard while organizing your files.The situation was simply terrible, and I was overwhelmed and embarrassed.When dealing with work, we can't be so perfunctory. Assistant: I see.I'm really sorry, but, well, I know, you probably don't want to hear my explanation at all.

You: I just don't understand how you let something like this happen! Assistant: I'm really sorry. You: I know, you definitely didn't do it on purpose.You are also very sad that such a thing happened, but I really don't want to see such a thing happen again.do you understand me? Assistant: No, it will never happen again.I promise you that. The conversation above shows us the three elements of blame: you caused the trouble, I judged you negatively, and it also implies that what I said is exactly what you will be punished for, especially if you do it again . In contrast, a conversation focused on blame might look like this:

In the second conversation, you and your assistant have already developed a sense of responsibility and started to think about their respective responsibilities in this matter. part.You're anxious and having trouble concentrating because of an upcoming presentation, and your attitude toward the assistant is much less favorable.It can't help but make her feel that it's best to keep her distance and not bother you, who is already a little distracted.And at this moment, things go wrong, the intense frustration makes your mood worse, and you even start to worry about preparing for the next work, because you no longer trust the assistant to help you .As a result, you become more emotional and less accessible, and communication between you and the assistant becomes more and more difficult.As a result, errors keep multiplying. In this example, the blame system is actually an interactive system that you and your assistant co-create, and once you understand the responsibilities of both parties, you can easily see what each needs to do to avoid or change a bad outcome.Compared with the first conversation, it is not difficult to find that the second conversation is more likely to have a lasting effect, thus changing the way you and the assistant work.In fact, the first dialogue was actually carried out at the risk of deepening the contradiction.Since you also have a place in this blame system—your emotions get in the way of the assistant’s willingness to communicate with you because she doesn’t want to add fuel to the fire—a blame-focused conversation can only It may exacerbate the communication barrier between you and the assistant, and it will never help to solve the problem completely.If you go your own way and insist on the first way of talking, she will eventually come to a conclusion: you are a person who cannot work with; and your final evaluation of her is: incompetent assistant. Looking at both the boss and the assistant, two-way attribution—seeking understanding rather than judgment—is extremely important.This is not just a good habit, but also a more realistic way to solve problems.Usually, when relationships go wrong, everyone is responsible to some degree; after all, as the saying goes, you can't be clapped together. Of course, the imputation we can experience is usually not the case.One of the most common misconceptions about the meaning of imputation is unilateral inductive responsibility - when things go wrong, either all the blame is placed on me (more commonly) or the other party. Actually, it's only in the movies that things get that easy.In real life, the causes of problems are often more complex.Now, we have the imputation system, and this system induces and sums up the responsibility in two ways.Take the batsman and bowler in cricket.If a batter misses a shot, he might explain that he didn't see the full arc of the ball because of poor vision, or that he missed the shot because he was plagued by a wrist injury .However, in response to this, the bowler will say "I already knew that his legs are not good enough, so I deliberately aimed down to make him miss", or he will say "I knew it, my bottom line The lob will catch him off guard because he won't be able to get back to the baseline in time." Whose statement is correct, the batsman or the bowler?Of course, the answer is naturally that both sides are right, at least, to a certain extent.Whether the batsman misses a strike or hits a ground ball, it is the result of the interaction between him and the bowler.From your point of view, you may only focus on one of them, but have you ever thought that the final result is actually the product of the joint action of both parties. The same is true in difficult conversations.Except for some extreme cases, such as child abuse, almost all situations that lead to difficult conversations can be seen as the result of the function of the blame system, that is, the result of the "cooperation" of both parties.Putting blame on one side only makes the conversation more cloudy; if the conversation is going to be bright, it is wise to place blame on both sides. We need to point out that, in some cases, blame is not only important, but also the core of the incident.Our legal system is designed to assign responsibility, both criminal and civil.In the face of behaviors that clearly violate legal provisions or moral constraints, we publicly assign responsibilities, the purpose of which is to promote justice and tell people what words and deeds are acceptable and acceptable to society. Still, even in those cases where accountability is called for, we pay for mere blame.Once the badness of punishment begins to emerge—legal or otherwise—it becomes increasingly difficult to get to the bottom of it.People are starting to be less kind, less open, less willing to admit and apologize, which is understandable.For example, after a car accident, a sued automaker is likely to reject a request to improve the safety of its products because the manufacturer fears that accepting the request would appear to mean that the company should have acted before the accident occurred , Strengthen the safety performance of the product. Assigning responsibility and acquiring knowledge of the truth are then two commodities that are equivalent and can be traded for each other, and it is because of this trade that the "commission of truth" arises .In the face of the honesty of others, we often return kindness and tolerance, which is the commission of truth.In South Africa, for example, if criminal investigations and trials had been the only way to understand the apartheid system throughout, many known facts might have been lost or lost. Who is to blame when a puppy goes missing?The one who opened the door, or the one who failed to grab the collar?What we need to do now is to argue the responsibility, or hunt for the puppy?When the tub overflows and soaks the ceiling in the living room downstairs, are we to blame the forgetful bather?Or his or her spouse downstairs calling the bathers?Or are we supposed to place the blame on the builder for making the drain too small?If so, isn't the plumber to blame for not alerting us in time?The answer to the question is that they are all responsible.If your real goal is to get the puppy back, fix the ceiling, and prevent the same thing from happening again, then focusing on blaming is a waste of time.Doing so will neither help you go back and understand what the problem was, nor will it help you look forward and solve it. While punishment may seem right, using it instead of thinking and understanding what's wrong and why it's happening is a disaster.A daily necessities company decided to build a new manufacturing plant in order to increase production profits. The general manager of the company agreed with this decision very much.However, after the completion of the new factory, not only failed to increase the company's production profit as expected, but also caused the company's profit to decline due to the expansion of market supply.In fact, when the decision to build a new factory was first proposed, many people had discussed and anticipated this in private, but everyone chose to remain silent in a tacit understanding. In response to this unfavorable situation, the company fired the general manager and brought in a new strategic planner from abroad.When a company replaces a leader who made bad decisions with a "better" decision maker, it is assumed that the company's management problems should have been properly resolved.However, from the point of view of the imputation system, the company's "replacement" only focused on a part and completed part of the work of the system operation, but did not observe and deal with the matter as a whole.Why would those who had foreseen this outcome choose to remain silent?Is there some mechanism in the company that encourages this inaction?What institutions, policies, and procedures enabled these adverse decisions, and do they continue to encourage them?How can we change this situation? Replacing a member of the system, sometimes, can indeed play a role in solving the problem.But if you want to be lazy and try to fix it once and for all, instead of spending energy thinking about the solution to the problem from the perspective of the entire blame system, then you will pay a high price for it. Fundamentally, blaming is like adding fuel to a fire. It only makes difficult conversations more difficult. Understanding the blame system is like a fire brigade. It can help difficult conversations out of the woods and make them more difficult make achievements. Joseph works as a supervisor in an overseas office of a multinational company.At work, he often suffers from the inability to maintain effective or direct communication with the headquarters.It was often long after the head office changed the policy that Joseph learned of the information; or, he often had to find out from customers (on one occasion, even from the newspapers) about the working conditions of the companies in his area.After some thought, Joseph decided to talk to the headquarters about the issue. Before taking action, one of Joseph's managers pointed out the cause of the problem. In fact, Joseph should also bear some responsibility for the poor communication with the headquarters.Joseph installed a computer system that was incompatible with the headquarters system.At the same time, he seldom asks questions that he should probably ask.However, unfortunately, Joseph did not put his own behavior in the imputation system at the suggestion of his colleagues, and considered the matter from a holistic perspective.On the contrary, his thinking has been completely shackled by the "blaming" thinking mode, and he began to think that it was really him who made the mistake, and could it be that there is something wrong with the headquarters?But in the end, Joseph did not mention the matter to the headquarters, and his troubles remained the same. Once people fall into the "blaming" thinking mode, they will bear a burden that is difficult to get rid of.You have to tell yourself with confidence that others are wrong and you are right; at the same time, you have to justify your own point of view with confidence.However, as we have described before, a slap in the face is not enough. Generally speaking, conflicts are often the result of the interaction of both parties. Therefore, under the guidance of the "blame" mode, your conversation may be fruitless and miss the mark gist.This is really a shame because you could have taken this opportunity to understand why your communication was broken and to find ways to improve it, but you chose to blame, so you just missed the opportunity. Just imagine a couple, the wife commits infidelity.Soon, she received many reprimands similar to accusatory questioning.As a victim in the eyes of outsiders, although her husband was in great pain, he finally chose to continue to maintain this marriage. The only condition is that his wife must never commit any infidelity.This is the most obvious solution, but what can each of the example husband and wife learn from this experience? On the surface, it seems that the wife should bear all the responsibilities in this matter, but in fact, it is still the same sentence: this result is the result of the joint action of both parties in the marriage.Unless both parties in the marriage clearly realize their responsibilities in this matter, otherwise, the crux of the incident that led to the infidelity will continue to exist and cause trouble from time to time, and the incorrect way of getting along with the two parties in the marriage will not be properly resolved. correct.So, we need to ask a few questions: Has the husband listened to his wife?Does he often work overtime until late at night?Has his wife ever felt sad, alone, left out?If all this is true, why is it so? To understand this system of imputation, the couple needed to ask more questions.If the husband did not listen to his wife, what did the wife do to further exacerbate the conflict?Did the wife do or say something that prompted the husband to shut her out or avoid her?Does a wife treat her husband by working every weekend, or by avoiding him, when she is depressed?How did their feelings work in this relationship between the two?If they want to identify all the factors that contributed to the infidelity, the couple must take these questions seriously and answer them—they must draw a clear and complete picture of blame. There are three very common misconceptions about attribution.It is because of their existence that people are hindered from understanding the concept of imputation and from fully enjoying the benefits of imputation. Our advice that people should look at the crux of the problem from both perspectives, however, is sometimes misinterpreted as "you should ignore the other person's responsibilities and only focus on your own" which is clearly wrong.Either way, discovering one's own responsibilities doesn't have to come at the expense of ignoring the responsibilities of others.You are the ones who created the chaos, not you, so you have to work together to end the chaos. When we say that you need to recognize that both sides of the conflict are responsible for creating the conflict, it doesn't mean that everyone is equally responsible.You may only be responsible for five percent, and the other party will be responsible for the remaining ninety-five percent—again, shared responsibility.Of course, quantifying responsibility is not an easy task, and in the vast majority of cases, doing so will not have a very positive effect on solving the problem.So our goal is to know, to understand, not to quantify everything. Understanding the blame system as much as possible without focusing on blaming doesn't mean you have to let go of all your strong emotions.In fact, on the contrary, when you and the other party start to think about how you have further intensified the conflict, the basis is to share your emotions and emotions with the other party. Indeed, the impetus for accusations often comes from strong emotions that are not expressed on both sides.When you learn that your wife has committed infidelity, what you want to say is: "You ruined our marriage! How could you do something so stupid and hurt me?!" Here, blame is not only your thinking and the focus of your words, but also the voice of your wounded feelings and, in fact, expressing your strong emotions more directly—"What you've done is nothing short of a disaster to me" or "I'm Can't trust you any more" - does act as a buffer against the impulsive behavior you're trying to accuse.Talking about your emotions can also give you a sense of freedom over time as you move forward, allowing you to take responsibility in a more comfortable environment, which in turn allows you to get more blamed. High output. If you find yourself mired in blame, or the desire to make the other person admit that you were wrong, perhaps you can find some relief by asking yourself: What's missing?Has the other party recognized my emotions? "When you think carefully and answer these questions, you will find that, without knowing it, your thinking mode has already changed from the original accusation to blame. At that time, you will understand that understanding and recognition are the key to success. is what you have been really looking for. What you actually want to hear from the other person is not "It's not my fault" but "I know I hurt you and I'm really sorry". The difference between the two is , the former is a judgment, while the latter is understanding. When someone blames the victim, they are implying that the victim "had it on himself" and that the outcome was entirely his own fault, or even that self-sacrifice was exactly what he wanted.Such a view is deeply unfair to both the victim and the other party, and can be damaging to both parties. From any point of view, the attribution of both parties has nothing to do with the accusation.Let's imagine walking alone in the street late at night and you are attacked.At this time, "accusation" will ask you if you did something wrong?Have you broken the law?Or did something immoral?Should you be punished? "Of course the answer is no. You did nothing wrong, you didn't deserve to be attacked. It wasn't your fault that someone attacked you. If the same situation were replaced by imputation, the question asked would be very different: "What did I do to make this happen?" Responsibility, you can also find traces of responsibility from yourself.As the victim of the attack, you actually have a duty to do so.Why?Because you chose to walk the streets alone at night.If you are in another place, or with a group of people, you are much less likely to be attacked.If we want to see someone held accountable and punished, we can punish the attacker.If we expect to make you feel stronger, then we will encourage you to learn to blame and learn to find your own responsibility in everything.You may not be able to change the responsibility of others, but you can often change your own by means of imputation. In this regard, Nelson Mandela gave an example in his autobiography "Long Walk to Freedom". He described to us how those people who have suffered a lot but never forget to find the root of the problem in themselves learn and use Blame it to help you get out of the predicament.Here’s how he learned this lesson from a white South African: Father André Sjeffer is a pastor of the South African Dutch Reformed Mission... he used to tell some bad jokes and liked to make fun of us. "You all know," he said, "that white people have a harder job in this country than black people. Whenever there is a problem, we (white people) have to find a solution." The solution to the problem. However, in the same situation, you black people only need to find an excuse and everything will be fine. You can simply say 'Ingahilungu' and it will be confessed"...Ingabilungu is a Xhosa (living in Cape Province, South Africa pastoralists) meaning "it's all because of white people". What the priest said is exactly how we often blame white people for things.What he wants to express is simple: we must find reasons from ourselves and be responsible for our actions and opinions. For this, I wholeheartedly agree. Mandela did not believe that blacks should take responsibility for their situation.He believes that if South Africa wants to successfully develop and grow, black people must find the reasons for the country's many problems and take corresponding responsibilities from themselves. When you successfully help yourself out of a difficult situation by identifying your own behavior, you will understand and master the secret of making a difference—how this seemingly small action can affect the entire blame system.At this time, you only need to change some of your behaviors a little, and you can get some force enough to affect the development of the problem. You might say "introducing the concept of imputation is indeed helpful for resolving conflicts".But even so, once the object of use is replaced by yourself, and you are faced with the most disturbing situation, you may frown when you just praised the blame.At this point, you might say, "I really don't see any responsibility in this particular situation."In fact, as long as you practice a little, you will find that "exposing yourself" is actually not that difficult.However, it will be much easier if you can remember the four most common and most neglected responsibilities by heart. One of the most common and often overlooked responsibilities in conflict is avoidance.In the face of problems, you will let nature take its course as the way to deal with the problem. Under your "indulgence", the problem will intensify until it becomes uncontrollable. If you can pay attention to it earlier and face it squarely, such a result will not happen For example, for the past two years, your ex-husband has been late to pick up the kids every time, but you have never mentioned it to him. Or, since you started working for him four years ago, Your boss has always ignored your self-esteem and abused you at will, but you have never mentioned to her the negative impact of her actions on you. One of your store managers has made a huge mistake on the job and should be warned or fired.However, looking through his files, over the years, his work performance has been "always" good.Why is this so?Perhaps, part of the reason is that you want to avoid minor issues and spend energy documenting them, but the main reason is that you and other executives don't want to have a discussion with an eloquent person. Difficulty talking.In other words, it has become the "hidden rules" of your company to tolerate small mistakes of subordinates and avoid such conversations, so managers will reach a consensus on this by coincidence. One of the characteristics of avoidance is to complain to a third party instead of talking directly to the person who upset you.Complaining will relieve your emotions, but it will turn the third party into a sandwich cookie, which will not help solve the problem at all.On the one hand, third parties usually don't come into your camp to defend you, and if they do, the problem is considered too serious to discuss directly with the individual.On the other hand, if they keep silent, all they get is a burden of whether they should join your camp, and an incomplete version of the story. Note that we're not disapproving of people turning to friends for advice on keeping difficult conversations going.However, in this regard, our opinion is that if you choose to turn to a friend for help, then you should also truthfully feed back the changes in your emotions after this difficult conversation to this friend, so as not to let him in a situation. Tangled in an unbalanced story. Sometimes, people will actively choose to avoid; sometimes people do so out of passivity, and the reasons for this situation are mostly related to interpersonal communication.Let me ask, how many people dare to go straight to an aggressive "thorn head"?The reason for this situation may be because you are indifferent, moody, or your hot temper; maybe it is because you are always judging, suppressing, or being too sensitive; Eloquent, not friendly, of course, it doesn't matter if you really are, or if you want to be, what matters is that if you do, people will be less likely to initiate conversations with you, which is how you avoid problems part of the reason. The reason for the intersection difference is very simple. The differences in the life backgrounds, preferences, and communication methods of two people, as well as the differences in their respective positioning of the relationship between the two can cause intersection differences.Toby and Inger Ann had been married for four months, and their quarrel exemplified the difference in intersection.Toby was usually the conversation starter—who should take on more chores, why Inger Ann didn't defend him to her mother, whether she should save her year-end bonus or spend it.When the discussion between the two gradually heated up, Inge Ann would often end their conversation with such a sentence: "Look, I just said that I don't want to talk about it now." Then he turned and left. When Inger Ann ended the conversation, or turned away, leaving Toby alone, Toby would have a sense of abandonment, and he felt that Inger Ann had left him alone to face and deal with them. The two problems, no help.So he complained to his friends that Inger Ann simply didn't know how to deal with feelings, neither her own nor mine.Even if a sesame-sized thing is wrong, she will refute it. "Facing the two people's inability to deal with the problem—or in terms of communication between the two parties—Toby became more and more frustrated and lost. Inger Ann, meanwhile, made her sister a confidant: "Toby smothered me. Everything was urgent, everything had to be discussed right away. .He didn't understand my feelings at all, and he didn't have the slightest idea whether I wanted to talk about it at this time. I had a very important speech to the board of directors the next day, but he just wanted to do it for us the night before. A $3 difference in the account is a big deal and you have to find out the source of the difference! He always magnifies the small disagreement into a big problem that needs to be solved, and makes me spend hours with him to discuss the solution .” In the end, when Toby and Inger Ann talked about it openly, they realized that the past experiences of both parties had caused the intersection of their communication and relationship, which caused all kinds of conflicts.Toby's childhood ended quickly due to his mother's alcoholism.于是，家人们便将早熟的托比当成了惟一的倾诉对象，家里无论发生了什么事，他们都会对他说。一方面，面对父亲与妹妹的不和，夹在中间的托比只能装成一副若无其事的样子；另一方面，对于母亲的各种怪诞的行为，他也只能视而不见。毫无疑问，在这样的环境中长大的他自然会下意识地抱有一丝希望，希望终有一日这一切都能变好。然而，他的希望最终破灭了。也许正是因为这个原因，托比一直深信，他和英格·安要想始终保持一种健康积极的夫妻关系，就必须在发生问题后立刻提出来并解决问题，这对两人的关系具有至关重要的作用。 而英格·安的家庭则大不相同。她的弟弟是个智障儿，因此她们家的生活完全是按照弟弟的时间表，以满足他的需求为中心而展开的。英格·安很爱弟弟，可尽管如此，面对围绕弟弟而产生的种种情感上的困扰和忧虑，以及照看他所带来的情绪上的压力，有时候，她难免会萌生出一种希望，希望能够暂时逃离这一切，从而让心灵得到片刻的安宁。于是，久而久之，她学会了一种“自我麻醉”式的生活方式：面对任何潜在的问题，她不会马上做出反应，思考对策；面对精神时刻保持高度紧张的家人，她会努力让自己与他们保持一定距离。她小心翼翼地保护着自己的这一心灵间距，而托比在面对他们之间的不和时，快速而剧烈的反应恰好威胁到了她一直努力保护的这一心灵间距。 两种不同的世界观相互影响，最终衍生出了交集差系统，而这一系统的作用最终形成了托比和英格·安一进一退的处事方式。如果从指责模式出发，托比最终的结论就是，英格·安应该为两人之间的沟通障碍承担全部责任，因为她总是“反驳”，并且“不懂得该如何处理情绪”。与此同时，英格·安则认为，两人沟通之所以会出现问题，全是因为托比的错误造成的，因为他总是一惊一乍，“小事化大”，并且“就快把我逼得窒息了”。通过转换思维方式，采用归责模式，这对夫妻最终得以了解到导致他们争吵的真实原因，并且开始就此商量对策。从这一刻开始，他们的沟通也有了质的飞跃。 托比和英格·安是幸运的，因为他们及时地明白了两人之间的交集差，并采用了正确的方式来对待它。不然，最后的结果必然会对两人的夫妻关系造成灾难性的打击。事实上，对待交集差方式的正确与否恰恰决定了许多关系最后的终点究竟是死亡，还是维系。 当一段恋情刚刚开始时，澎湃的激情会蒙蔽双方的心灵，使他们看不到对方的任何缺陷。之后，随着两人感情的加深，恋爱双方会从对方的行为方式中察觉到对方的一些令人不悦的小缺点，不过，他们并不会为此而感到焦虑。我们假设，这时候，恋爱中的一方都会一边观察对方，一边学会向对方展示更多的关爱和欣赏，同时更加主动，或者说更多地表现出对于未来一起生活的关注之情。 然而，问题就在于，尽管如此，一切都不会改变，因为两人都在等待对方的改变。于是，久而久之，恋人们便会产生种种疑问：“他对我的感情是不是还没有深到愿意为我而改变的程度呢？他是真的爱我吗？” 只要恋人中的一方始终把这些疑问当成关乎二人关系的是非大事，而不是从交集差的角度来对待它们，二人的感情最后就只能以破裂告终。与此相反的是，成功的人际关系——无论是我们的私人关系，还是我们与同事之间的工作关系——都是建立在同一个认识基础上的：没有人需要为人际关系中的交集差承担责任，更无需因此而受到指责。如同世上没有完全相同的两片树叶一样，也没有哪两个人是完全相同的。差异是客观存在的，如果我们希望能够与某人长时间地和谐共处，有时候，我们就不得不做出让步，在对方与自己的偏好间找到一个折中点，以此作为维系两人关系的平衡点。 最后一种难以察觉的责任与假设有关，通常情况下，你都会对自己在某一局势中所扮演的角色做出一种下意识的假设。当你与他人就这一问题所做出的假设出现差异时，你们之间的交集差便由此而产生，正如上文中的托比和英格·安。不过，即使双方说出了对于自己的角色假设，问题有可能也依然存在。 例如，乔治的家人们都很清楚各自在家庭里所扮演的角色。七岁大的乔治有时候会做出一些令人不悦的事情，譬如说用汤匙将狗食碗敲得砰砰作响。最后，乔治的母亲对她的丈夫说道：“你难道就不能让他停下来？”听闻此言，乔治的父亲立刻冲着乔治大吼了一声：“别敲了！”父亲的吼声把乔治吓得跳了起来，不一会，他便开始哇哇大哭，这时，他的母亲间过头来又对丈夫说：“这么一点小事，值得你对孩子大吼大叫吗？”父亲听了，叹了一口气，什么也没说，继续看报。不一会儿，乔治又发现另一种吸引大人注意的方式，和上次一样，他的行为再次惹怒了大人，于是，刚才的一幕便再度上演。虽然这个家庭里并没有谁特别享受这一往复的相处模式，但是它却的确能够帮助他们建立一种情感上的联系。 显然，这种联系模式——通过争吵来表达爱意——有其局限性。然而，比我们感到惊讶的是，无论是在家中，还是在工作环境当中，这样的模式，以及许多其他并不理想的动态联系模式却是普遍存在的。why?首先，尽管这些模式都或多或少地存在缺陷，但是熟悉的模式总能给人以舒适轻松的感觉，而群组中的每位成员也会努力地在这一模式的基础上扮演好各自的角色。其次，要想改变一套归责体系，所需的不仅仅是发现责任以及意识到该体系的局限性。牵涉其中的人们还必须找到一种方法，以此证明或展示改变旧体系能够让所有人受益。在上文的事例中，乔治和他的父母就需要找到一种更好的相处模式——既能够展示亲情，又能够将家人们紧密地联系在一起。这样的改变很可能需要所有人在各自的情绪和自我认知对话中做出巨大的调整。 同时，上述原因也解释了在一间公司里，即使人们已经发现了常见的角色假设存在局限性——譬如说“领导就应该制订策略，下级则负责实施”——为何要想改变现有的工作模式也仍然会困难重重？要想改变人们的相处模式，就必须让所有人都认同这一可选择性的模式比旧模式更好，而且还必须让所有人都掌握至少能让新模式像旧模式那样运作的技巧和方法。 如果你仍然无法看到自己的责任所在，那么，你可以尝试下面两种方法。 问问你自己：“在他们看来，我的责任究竟在哪儿呢？”假装自己就是对方，然后用第一人称“我”来回答这个问题。转换视角，从他人的眼中来观察自己，这一方法能够帮助你理解自己在归责体系中究竟扮演了怎样的角色。 当你遇事止步不前时，不妨后退一步，从一个客观的旁观者的角度来看待这一问题。试想一下，你是一名顾问，在当事人的邀请下，来帮助他们更好地了解他们的谈话为何会受阻。在这种情况下，从一名中立的旁观者的角度出发，你会如何描述——请注意，是描述，而不是评判——双方的责任呢？ 如果你始终都无法彻底摆脱自己的主观思想，不妨请一位朋友来帮助你扮演旁观者的角色。如果朋友描述的内容让你大吃一惊，请不要立刻就予以反驳或拒绝。这时，你可以尝试着想象他所说的都是真的，然后问自己，事情是如何演变成这样的，而这一局面又意味着什么呢？ 将你的姿态从评估责任转变为探寻责任，这并非一朝一夕便能做到的事。它需要你的付出和努力，同时还需要持之以恒的毅力。在这一过程中，你会发现，不知不觉中，自己和对方很可能会不断地重蹈覆辙——回到最初的指责模式当中，因此，你需要时刻保持警惕，随时纠正误入歧途的自己。 悉尼就是在一次率领一组工程师在巴西执行咨询工作时了解到这一点的。作为项目组的负责人，她不仅是这个项目组当中惟一的一名女性，而且也是组里最年轻的成员，其他的工程师至少都比她大15岁，因此，她的领导能力常常会受到来自项目组其他成员的质疑，其中，有一位名叫米盖尔的工程师表示尤为不服。不过，最终，悉尼还是凭借实力和领导才能赢得了米盖尔的信任和尊重，而她所采用的方法也很简单——安排他和自己一起完成各种工作任务。结果，他们俩人出色地完成了多项工作，于是，在越来越适应彼此的工作方式的同时，悉尼和米盖尔也越来越信服对方的能力。 一天晚上，他们在酒店的旅馆中愉快地一边就餐一边探讨工作，一切都一如往昔。就在这时，米盖尔的某些言行突然打破了他们之间原本的平衡：“你真美！”米盖尔对悉尼说，“而现在我们在一起，都远离家乡。”说话的同时，他的身子也开始向前倾，并伸出手去抚摸她的头发。米盖尔的举动让悉尼感到有些不适，于是，她建议他们“看看这些数据”。她刻意回避他的眼神，并迅速地将话题引回到了工作上。 在接下来的儿天当中，米盖尔并没有就此收敛，反时继续着这种令悉尼感到不悦的行为。他会故意和悉尼站得很近，明显地对她投以更多的关注，并且积极寻找任何可以和她单独相处的机会。尽管他从未明确地从两性的角度向她发出过任何邀请，但是悉尼一直在思考，这是否就是他下一步的打算。 最初，和我们大多数人一样，悉尼陷入了指责模式的泥沼。她认为米盖尔行为不当，并且觉得自己正是这一不当行为的受害者。可是，伴随指责而来的还有诸多疑问。一方面，她很想鼓足勇气告诉米盖尔他的行为是不正确的，可另一方面，悉尼又担心是自己反应过度，或是误解了他的行为内涵。也许，这一切不过是文化差异的产物。 与此同时，悉尼也担心，单纯地指责米盖尔只会将事情弄得更糟。“这一局面虽然让我感到很不舒服，但仍在我能够控制的范围内。”她想道，“如果我对米盖尔说他行为不当，他很可能会勃然大怒，而这有可能会让团队陷入混乱，或是危及项目工作，而作为始作俑者，我就必须承担这一系列的风险。对我而言，项目的顺利完成永远都应该摆在第一位。”悉尼的思维受到了指责框架的束缚，她始终觉得与米盖尔谈及此事存在巨大的风险——这样做会把这件事情上升到一个她无法控制的高度。 转变指责模式的第一步就是重新确定你对当前局势的思考方式。这就像看病一样，第一步你需要弄清楚自己的病症是什么，为此，你可以从分析归责体系开始，具体的做法就是仔细寻找每个人——包括自己——在这件事情上的责任。我们当中的有些人在面对问题时，时而清醒——能够很快地发现他人的责任，时而糊涂——可偏偏就是看不到自己的。他们就像“转换插座”，当事情出现问题时，他们往往会把责任统统转嫁于他人，把自己当成是无辜的受害者。可是，还有一些人却恰恰相反，他们总是过于清醒，常常会把一切消极的结果都归咎于自己的行为。面对困难，在他们的眼中，他人的责任实在是微不足道，自己才是罪魁祸首。他们就像一台“吸尘器”，将所有的责任统统揽上身。 了解了病症，下一步就是对症下药，因此，当你弄清楚自己究竟属于哪一类人之后，要想弄清楚每个人在这件事情上所应担负的责任就变得容易多了。不过，说到理解归责体系，你必须首先理解体系的各个组成部分。 在上文的事例中，米盖尔的责任识别起来相对更容易一些。他想向悉尼表达一种浪漫的感情，但是却没能明确地表明自己的意图，或者说，没有把握好表意的尺度。他选择了一系列表达感情的方式：和悉尼站得更近，在她身上花费更多的时间和精力，刻意与她谈话而忽视小组中的其他成员，以及向她暗示自己十分渴望能够拥有她。与此同时，他也选择了（可能是有意识地，也可能是下意识地）忽视悉尼所传递过来的非语言信号：她转换了话题，改变了小组工作的人员分配。她在他靠近时选择了离开，尽管他执著地跟随。整个过程中，米盖尔做出了很多选择，却惟独没有选择去征询悉尼的意见，了解她对这一切的感受。 米盖尔也许并没有意识到这一切会让悉尼感到不适，或者，也许他也已经意识到了。他的行为是否应当受到指责，而他本人是否应当为此而受到惩罚，这都很难判定。不过，在归责体系中，这些都是一个个独立的问题。在这儿，我们需要弄清楚的，同时也是最重要的一点就是，这些看似很难回答的问题都来自于米盖尔。 一旦我们从指责的框架中跳出来，悉尼的责任便开始浮出水面，逐渐变得清晰起来。她过于关注米盖尔在团队里的利害关系，并且总是为他创造与自己一同工作的机会。米盖尔很可能会把这一切都当成是她对自己感兴趣的信号。悉尼一直在逃避，不愿告诉米盖尔——至少没有直接明确地表示——他的行为让她觉得很不舒服。我们姑且不论悉尼这样做是否真的像她所想的那样是正确而且可以被人所理解的，但事实上，她的这些作为和不作为恰好促成了她与米盖尔之间尴尬局面的产生，因为正是她的这些行为让米盖尔为自己的我行我素找到了理由，或者说，借口。 通常，归责体系中还会有其他重要的责任人。例如，在托比和英格·安的故事中，他们的家人就扮演了重要的角色。在悉尼的事例中，项目组里的其他成员也许曾经无意中鼓励了米盖尔的行为，或是放弃了帮助悉尼的机会。当我们在探寻归责体系的时候，应当认真思考是否有其他责任人的存在，这对于正确归责也是相当重要的。 在谈话中讨论归责远比你想象中的要容易许多，但是，帮助对方从指责模式转变到归责体系却十分困难。对此，最好的方法之一便是暂时放下“谁应该受到指责”这个问题，转而尽早在谈话中承认自己的责任。譬如说，悉尼可以这样对米盖尔说如果在事情变得一发而不可收拾之前，我能够及时地和你谈论此事，也许情况就不会变得这么糟糕，为此，我向你道歉。同样地，在项目启动之初，为了改善我俩之间的工作关系，我做出了安排我俩一同工作的决定，现在，我也已经意识到，虽然这一决定的出发点是为了工作，但事实上它也许已经向你传递出一种错误的信号。What do you think? " 除此之外，悉尼还可以问米盖尔：“我是否还做了其他一些让你觉得暧昧的事情，或是让你认为我另有他意的安排呢？”如此一来，悉尼将了解到许多有关米盖尔所受到的影响的重要信息，并且为与米盖尔讨论他的责任做好了铺垫。 对此，你也许会担心这样做——首先承担起一部分责任——将会使你在接下来的谈话中处于易受攻击的劣势。如果对方仍旧死死抱住指责不放手，看到你首先缴械投降，承认错误，那自然是高兴万分（说道“我也同意都是你的错”），届时，他必然会将自己的责任推卸得一干二净，那你岂不是搬起石头砸自己的脚？ 这样的顾虑不是没有道理的，同样也是很重要的，尤其如果你是一个“吸尘器”式的责任人。你在承认自己的责任的同时的确也需要承担一定的风险。可是，不承认自己的责任也同样有风险。如果悉尼在谈话伊始便指出米盖尔的责任，米盖尔很可能会立刻摆出一副防御性的姿态，同时他还会产生一种感觉，觉得这次的谈话带有明显的偏颇性，是不公平的。这时，在米盖尔看来，与其承认自己的错误让对方来攻击自己，倒不如转而攻击对方，而最简单的进攻方式就是指出悉尼在此事上的不当行为。因此，首先承认自己的责任可以阻止对方将它当做挡箭牌，以此拒绝和你讨论双方的责任所在。 当你觉得自己成为了谈话惟一的焦点时，你可以这样说要想解决问题，仅仅看到我的责任显然是不够的。在我看来，事实也并非如此。我想从双方的角度来看待这一问题，而我也正尝试着这样去做。是不是因为我做了什么，使你很难从自己身上发现问题呢？ " 在运用归责体系的时候，除了承担自己所应担负的责任，你还可以帮助对方在归责体系中找到他们的位置，认清自己的货任。 从而确保你和对方能拥有相同的信息，并且都理解对方对于这些信息的阐释——你们应当清楚地让对方知道他之前做了什么，说了什么，才让你有了后面的反应，说得越详细越好。例如，悉尼也许会说当你抚摸着我的头发，或是问我能不能私下里和你一起去海滩时，我觉得很困惑，因为我不知道你想要的究竟是什么。同时，我也开始担心，如果你想要的是一种浪漫的感情，那我恐怕真的无法满足你。”又或者，托比可以这样对英格·安说：“昨晚，我们谈话谈到一半，你一怒之下夺门而出时，我真的有一种被遗弃的感觉，而且感到很气愤。我想，正是因为如此，今天早上我才会借题发挥，为了橘子汁和你吵了起来。我不想我们俩就这样一言不发，我想和你进行交流，哪怕是你冲我大喊大叫都行。”通过告知对方这些引发你行动的事情，你就可以开始对归责体系中的种种行为和反应做出正确的判断和归纳了。 在解释完你为何会如此反应之后，你应当准备好告诉对方，你希望他们将来做什么，以及如何去做一这也将会帮助你重塑自己的行为。上文中那位试图原谅不贞的妻子，让婚姻重新步入正轨的丈夫可以这样说： “将来，我会更加努力地聆听你的倾诉，再也不会一口拒绝你了。不过，我也希望你能帮助我做到这一点。你可以在与我谈话前先问问我今天过得怎样，现在是否想和你聊天。有时候，我正被工作烦得焦头烂额，你却跑来向我诉说你和老板之间的问题。于是，已经是超负荷运转的我自然就会摆出一副拒你于千里之外的姿态。还有些时候，我会觉得你根本就不关心我，这也让我感到很气愤，因此我才会不想听你说话。所以，如果你在和我谈话前先征询我的意见，我想我一定会努力调整好状态，聆听你的倾诉。你觉得这对你而言有困难吗？” 清楚具体地告知对方该做什么和怎样去做不仅能够帮助他们改变自己在这件事情上的责任，同时也能起到帮助你调整自己行为的作用。因此，这的确是帮助对方明白事实——是自己的行为产生并激化了矛盾——的最有效的方法。而这恰好也正是理解妇责体系的核心目的——问题双方该如何改变自己的行为，并以此影响和改善目前的不利局面。 无论你谈论的话题是什么——与对方截然相反的故事，你的意图，或是你的责任——其目的都不是为了获得对方的认可。你这样做的真正目的是为了更好地了解你们之间究竟发生了什么，只有这样，你才能就下一步的行为开始有建设性的谈话。 不过，除了阐明“发生了什么”对话，我们还必须揭开另外两层对话的密码。在接下来的两章当中，我们将会探讨情绪和自我认知对话。