A concept under the microscope
" Develop your assertiveness! announce leadership training programs or title management manuals. As the word is not necessarily familiar, he often calls for subtitling: " asserting oneself without imposing oneself", " saying no without aggressiveness", " resolving conflicts without violence", " being oneself in relationships", " neither hedgehog nor doormat" ...
With all this, we feel that we are in the right place, at least in the order of a balanced and responsible path for lasting relationships with others. But it is also tempting to suspect a euphemism, between modest understatement and perhaps the beginning of a scam... Especially when the notion of assertiveness has taken a prominent place in the managerial discourse with the rise of women and the debates on the expression of their leadership. Are we telling them " you can't be aggressive (implying " not bossy"), so be assertive (it hurts less and it's more flattering) " or are we proposing a more qualitative relational mode for everyone?
So, assertiveness, a false name for an attenuated authority or a real perspective for a balanced and shared leadership? To get a more precise idea, the EVE blog takes a closer look at the concept.
A legacy of behaviourism
" Assertiveness " is an idea that appeared in the 1940s in the United States. It is credited to psychiatrist Andrew Salter, although the term does not appear in his writings. But undeniably, his innovative approach to relational behaviors lays the foundations for a modern perception of self-expression. A critic of psychoanalysis, as it is thought of and as it has been done since Freud, Salter is particularly interested in the reasons and effects of " conditioned reflexes", these quasi-automatic habits resulting from learning, as opposed to reactions attributable to innateness.
Salter is what is called a " behaviorist", some consider him to be the founder of this approach, which was actually formulated in the 1910s by another shrink, John Broadus Watson. " Behaviorism " (in French, behaviorism) calls into question the " mentalist " theories according to which all actions proceed, voluntarily or not, from the " mind " of the individual. It is also necessary, say behaviorists, to question the role of the environment and interactions in the " reason " of individuals, even when it is unreasonable, to act.
The perspective is dynamic: it suggests that we cannot deal with the functioning/dysfunctions of the person without taking into account the contexts (social, historical, economic, cultural, relational) in which he or she evolves.
Men/women, contexts and dynamics
This means that when a person does not act rationally (or positively, or intelligently, or elegantly, etc.), it is not that he is intrinsically irrational (or negative, or stupid, or rude), but that in a specific situation, he shows an element of irrationality (negativity, etc.). Without wanting to, without being particularly proud of it, without even necessarily recognizing and understanding oneself in this way of being.
Are behaviorist theories disempowering? If we stick to this first pattern, we would indeed be tempted to cry out " too fastoche, it's not me, not even my unconscious, it's the fault of the ambient mess!" .
But the question is not " whose fault is it? in this approach that is more practical than introspective. The question is rather " how do I apprehend the world and my place within it in order to show (and above all do) what I want to reveal about myself and do with others?" .
In this case, in the particularly delicate case of a conflict situation, how can I escape reactions that are beyond me? Should you body-build your superego to the point of armor to hold back at all costs possible unwanted and/or disproportionate reactions? Isn't this temptation to hold back also the temptation to flee? And does it not expose the interior " dams " to the risk of violent bursting when the cup is full?
Psychological myotatics
It was another behavioral therapist, Joseph Wolpe, who investigated this question in detail in the early 1960s. Borrowing many images from the physiological discipline, he highlights the " tensor " role of anxiety in relational activity. The metaphor is telling: when it is stretched, a muscle has a response that is as strong as it is involuntary, it contracts. This is a necessary reflex for tone, but in case of too sudden extension, beware of straining!
But if we stand up without permanently injuring ourselves, it is also thanks to the mechanisms of " reciprocal inhibition" that allow the relaxation of one muscle when another that is " antagonistic " to it is contracted. This reflex agility, physiology teaches us, is precisely a learning process, that of coordination. If it is therefore possible to physically train in the organized contracting/relaxation of muscles, can we do the same with our " psychological tissues" ?
Wolpe is convinced of this, who identifies the antagonistic feelings of anxiety on which to work in order to provoke a response of " reciprocal inhibition": listening to and taking into account various points of view, knowledge (of oneself, of others and of contexts), confidence (in oneself and in others), the development of the personality in its multiple dimensions in order to be able to adapt and modulate the forms of its expression, but also physical well-being... Here is the principle of assertiveness established: by practicing giving " anti-anxiety " responses in anxiety-provoking situations, we can limit the risk of relationship accidents and their severity.
It should be noted in passing that a " coaching " vision of personal development is already taking hold, which is inspired by the principles of physical preparation to think about psychological maturation.
What assertiveness is and is not.
So, concretely, what does it look like in a situation, a person who has an assertive approach? To answer this, let's start by flushing out everything that could look like assertiveness without being assertive.
Starting with " passive-aggressiveness " whose common signs are a preference for fleeing into conflict situations, an apparent delicacy disguising hypocrisy, an alleged communicative flexibility conducive to double-talk, among other behavioral ambiguities instilling in others all kinds of feelings of guilt. Assertiveness, on the other hand, is based on frankness and direct relationships: courageous presence in a delicate situation is required, the firm affirmation of one's convictions is permitted and recommended, the request is possible as is refusal without it meaning " rejection".
Courage, firmness, direct expression, " no" ... These are all markers of authority, which is often confused with arbitrariness and/or aggressiveness. However, it is indeed authority that we are talking about, a well-placed authority, the one that is embodied in responsible and enlightened forms of leadership. A leadership that assumes decision-making while allowing and encouraging negotiation, that establishes and maintains trust so that one's own expression and that of others is as clear as possible, that incessantly conceives relationships in dynamics where refusals are not rejections nor disappointments failures but on the contrary stages of progress for the person and the relationship.
All assertive!
If assertiveness is even more than a skill, a state of mind of leadership, it is not reserved for those who have " leader " written on their business card.
Because it is above all about authority over one's own life. The way in which everyone can go about asserting their authenticity and having it respected. The art of building and maintaining lasting relationships with their environment, without drawing on each person's resources (including their own), without demolishing what has been built with effort at each necessary development, without emitting too many anxiety-provoking particles into the atmosphere...
It is a matter of being fully aware of one's presence and that of others in the world, accepting oneself in engaging with others, non-violent communication with those around one, participating honestly in constructive conflict... These are all approaches that equip more assertive individuals, regardless of their gender, age, culture, status and position in the company, their ambitions and objectives.
