Understanding the emotional hijacker!
January 2020 | Martin Fuller
Words are very important to the way we communicate. We know the dictionary definition and how to use a word in the correct context (most of the time!).
Yet we all too often forget that we have an ‘emotional’ definition that we apply to each and every word. That ‘emotional definition’ is often very personal and very rarely communicated, and if it is communicated, it is often done so inadequately.
Recently I was walking into a two hour meeting which was going to have its challenges. When a senior colleague said to me “I have just had a ‘really difficult’ conversation on the telephone, I will tell you about it after the meeting”. That message set alarm bells ringing and my body started to react! I want to explore what happened here and how I almost let my emotions become hijacked. This is relevant because in negotiations this issue crops up time and time again.
I was now distracted from focusing on the meeting because I was wondering what this ‘really difficult’ telephone call was about, and who it was with. Firstly, I was hearing the word ‘difficult’ in the correct context, but my emotional definition of the word ‘difficult’ in this context was telling me something was seriously wrong, especially when communicated by an experienced member of staff.
So my body is reacting as it always does when I am in this situation, where something is seriously wrong. Firstly, I have to calm my need to fix the problem. That means not only telling myself but making my myself believe it can wait. This exercise is not as easy as it sounds. To manage this process I need to remind myself that the ‘difficult’ telephone conversation was interpreted and perceived by one person, and more importantly not me. I also had to remind myself that I had no idea who the other person was on the telephone, or their relationship with me, or my colleague who was passing on their interpretation of the call. If the conversation was ‘difficult’ between those two people it does not follow that it will be ‘difficult’ for me, or that it has anything to do with me. But it probably does.
Who was making the conversation ‘difficult’? Was it the person reporting to me or the other party? And finally and probably most importantly, I had no idea about the subject matter. So just by hearing the word ‘difficult’ reported by a senior colleague I experienced anxiety because of a word reported to me by a specific person. Another person telling me they had a ‘difficult’ telephone conversation may not register on my emotional radar. And in conclusion, the situation was not even categorised by me as ‘difficult’. Nevertheless I had to deal with the categorisation provided. The easy part was breaking it down intellectually, but I still had the emotions to manage, even though logic told me it was nothing to worry about. Every time my emotions started to take control I repeated the process. As it turns out, the telephone conversation subject matter was actually good news and I had no need to be concerned after all.
The reason I mention this is to try and illustrate how easily we can have our ‘emotions hijacked’ by someone else’s use of words, because we rely on our own emotional interpretation of the words used by a particular person. This is particularly important in negotiating a division of assets and arrangements for any children on the breakdown of a relationship.
If I may generalise, most relationships start to break down at an early stage, and usually it is because one or both start to become critical of each other. If this criticism is not kept in check at an early stage, it grows and develops until the relationship breaks down. It is at the break down of the relationship when emotions are running high that the criticism is likely to escalate, even if both agree to separate amicably, and most couples start off wanting and agreeing to work together to achieve an amicable separation.
The separating couple begin to chat about how to resolve the issues arising out of their separation and suddenly a word or two ‘trigger’ an emotional response, which is usually unintended. So, remember this is ‘triggered’ in your non-conscious brain, so you are probably both unaware. At this point the party who is offended by the ‘triggering event’ having applied their own emotional interpretation to the situation, in accordance with their experience, responds accordingly and usually in kind! As a couple you have grown used to each other, and your responses have become automatic, and impossible to control under these circumstances. You are both arguing as a matter of habit, and the ‘triggers’ are retained in your non-conscious. So my advice is… beware that which you are unaware!
We try to help avoid these situations arising and offer advice on conflict management and negotiation. We can help you look at what happens when these non-conscious triggers occur and help you to put steps in place to manage them. No one wants an acrimonious divorce so let us help you avoid some of the common and preventable situations that cause animosity between separating couples.
If you would like to find out more about our services please contact reception on 01234 343134 or email us at enquiries@fullersfamilylaw.com
