zenda

Hi Soma

I'm glad there's been a drop-off last weekend. To what extent is that a result of his game or your game? Had you said something to him last week - you might have 'discouraged' him in ways neither you nor he yet know?


Back to your developing game plan: OK 'not giving reasons' could be one realistic leverage point. Yaaay .
Let's put that in our back pocket, ready for use, and look at the next layer of the onion - we think through this and we'll get to the place where there are no more layers.


Could you tell me how "Accepting and cool" works? Is it a group cultture which has been going on for some time? Is it a more recent perception of yours regarding their responses to him? He does not seem to fit the description of 'accepting and cool'.

Does he do 'demanding and psycho when challenged' ONLY in private and with you?
Does he do it 'in' the group and shock them into submission? You can train a group into submission by playing the good daddy/bad daddy on them = "I'm nice, we're ALL nice. I nicely assert my will and YOU ARE A NASTY SNIT WHO'S SPOKING IT unless we all do this reasonable thing". Just train the individuals one at a time, then, when you are with the group, fire off the 'slightly sharp voice' or the 'flashing eyes' anchor, and each of the other members of the group will not only 'jumop' to 'submission', but will also see the other members as 'complying', and mistakenly think that 'this is the group culture', whereas it is an aligned reaction to a single source - the de facto group leader.

That's one scenario. notice how it is both similar and different to the next one:

There is a group of buddies, they ARE accepting and cool. In fact, that is a consciously held 'group principle'. I was member of a band who pushed the culture 'we are very accepting and cool'. Different members came and went. MYGOD we WERE accepting and cool. Mostly it worked for us, but sometimes against. Our music impressed me in the sheer quantity of ideas which mingled with quality in our playing - we WANTED each other's ideas to 'work with the whole', no matter how unusual=ORIGINAL. As a social group, our culture was actively disparate. Without formally arranging it to be this way, different members would host/decide different social events, so weekends could equally see us BBQing, Seeing oriental acrobats, going on country walk, classical drama etc.

Our acceptingness and coolness was the Prime Directive which we did NOT realise at the time was the strength which made us a Good Group. To begin with, we did not have social structures in place to deal with 'bad apples', or just 'ignorant apples' if they arrived and joined, or, indeed with each other if One suddenly went through a particularly one-sided or needy time. "We're accepting and cool" 'meant' "Anybody can do anything". It took us a while to determine thresholds, lines and boundaries.


Again, I'll note you said:
Oh yes! Don't talk bad. I'm totally with you. And I reckon you can talk about him with your friends, and not only not talk bad, but begin to generate 'strikes FOR you', by talking GOOD about general principles like 'respect', 'mutuallity', 'importance of listening to each other and being sensitive'. NOT 'Iron john' bonding - you don't have to get nekkid and sweaty with water over hot rocks.

If they are open and accepting, then they are just the guys to enjoy chewing the fat about how 'good it is' to be buddies'. Feed in some of those concepts. If you want to get more 'tailor made' in this approach, put aside those qualities I 'guessed', and have your own notion of qualities on the back burner; but ask, in admiring tones, at the same time as encouraging everybody to raise their glasses, "What makes us get along soo well .. I mean we're Cool and Accepting .. yes! .. and What Else? ... Another Toast! .... And? .... ANOTHER toast!"

Heck, Soma, I am overdoing the drama in my writing.

My bottom line points here are: the more conscious a group is of its values which work well and how they work well, the more the individuals are likely to 'self police/moderate' in that 'work well' direction. The more people's difficulties in doing so will come to light, and be subject to 'steering' and 'corrective' responses form others, and not just from you.

You are no longer 'talking bad' about him, rather are you talking 'good' about everyone else, and, at its most specific, will be a case of comparative 'talk-goods' in which his behaviours are no more under jolly scrutiny than those of others.


Looks like the other group members are already writing to THEIR eauivalent of this forum, and that there is a 'group evolution' waitin' to happen. THAT's what I reckon you should push for. Talking bad about one member need not happen, if they are ready to 'wake up' all around him.

IF your perceptions about the group are correct, then your friends are 'putting up with', rather than being 'accepting and coo' with him. My group from time to time did go into that 'mode' ... we wanted to be nice guys, but that made us easy prey until we 'got'=groked=understood-in-our-hears what was going on, and 'decided' over a period of weeks, to defend our right to be cool and accepting ONLY of that which was, in fact, cool and acceptable, and to begin to consciously 'train' our culture to new members, rather than leaving them to 'guess' unspoken rules.


Soma - from what you'd written in your last post, I had enough to 'jump' to indirect angles of management. I've already gone beyond 'brief response', and there are other indirect angles which could be generated and explored, but those become more relevantly buildable after, or within, your feedback as you consider this. Please be particular to pick apart where these ideas might NOT work, because those are the leverage points which remove the next layer of the onion.

Best wishes.

__________________
ZENDA