With this cautionary (and perhaps disturbing) note, we return to the matter of proactive and reactive. The similarities between the dynamics of inclusion and control soon disappear when it comes to the way in which proactive and reactive behavior is exhibited in a social system – and the emotions that often accompany struggle for control in this system. First, proactive seeking of control usually shows up in a manner that everyone can see. While the person seeking control might not be explicit about their need, the proactive quest usually is manifest in a high level of verbal activity (even dominating the airtime in their system and a high level (and ratio) of offering opinions (rather than just sharing information). I am reminded of the fellow I observed at the neighboring table. The proactive control seeker generally displayed a high level of energy and activity in the group or organization while members of this system are trying to sort out control and authority issues. There might be considerable maneuvering behind the scenes in the choice of a leader, but the move toward identified leadership at some point is explicit. It often moves rapidly if there has been significant work done “in the back room” (engaging the oligarchy I have mentioned.)
The dynamics of proactive control doesn’t stop here. Even when the formal assignment of leadership has been completed, there are often continuing struggles regarding who is “really” in charge and how authority is really being distributed in the group. Is this the “real” leader, or is someone else or some other cluster of people actually “pulling the strings”? And what about the “loyal opposition” – those people who do not feel that their perspectives or interests are being represented by those in authority? How are the divergent perspectives and interests being addressed in the group? Those members with a strong proactive need for control are likely to be quite sensitive to these issues, whether they are “in charge” or not. Finally, there is the matter of alignment with those who are in control. If I have a strong need for control, but I am not in control, then I need to consider ways in which to work with those in charge. Perhaps I can follow the lead of a collaborative colleague If I am successful in this alignment, then I have what is often called “referent power.” I have the leader’s ear” and can represent other members of the group in voicing their concerns and requests.
We can turn to the conversation being led by the loud and opinionated fellow at the neighboring table. How do those sitting at the table relate to him. Is the nod of agreement (or at least listening) enough? Is this a case of what the noted anthropologist, Gregory Bateson (1972), has called “schismogenesis”—the tendency of participants in a system to increase the contrast in their behavior as their interaction continues. Our fellow at the neighboring table talks more. Other folks at his table talk less. He talks even more. They talk even less. Is he talking more because he is becoming increasingly anxious regarding the maldistribution of airtime. It is indeed ironic that some people who become anxious about talking too much end up talking even more frequently to reduce their level of anxiety. Others at the table might have grown resentful of his conversational dominance. As a result, they decide to shut up and wait for the “loudmouth” to somehow and sometime stop talking.
When it comes to reactive need for control, there typically is much less obviously manifestation of this need. As the name implies, those with this orientation want other people to step in and take control or at least exert considerable influence. Those engaged in an interpersonal relationship are likely to be the quiet one in the relationship. They wait for the other person to start the conversation, are more likely to respond to a text message than initiate one and will wait for a dinner invitation (and then pay for the meal). Group or organizational members with a strong reactive need for control usually just sit back and watch the battle for control take place. Typically, they line up with the “Winner” of the control issue and are relieved when the issue of control is finally resolved.
Download Article 1K Club
