Five ways to avoid negative triangulation
Direct communication is the best way to go through life. But many people do not deal with others in that fashion.~Henry Cloud, clinical psychologist and author
One possible triangle: Faculty, staff/administration, and students
I’ve been thinking a lot about triangulation as many of us begin returning to in-person classes this month. There have been reports of people feeling like they have lost social skills as a result of isolation during the pandemic. Given the current fraught climate, I find myself wondering if one of those lost skills is avoiding triangulation. I have certainly experienced triangulation in both my personal and professional life, and you may have, too. One possible triangle could be between faculty, administration and/or staff, and faculty as everyone tries to cope with constantly changing advice around the ongoing pandemic. Given the often negative results of triangulation, I have been thinking about how we can individually work to stop it.
What is triangulation?
The term triangulation came into psychological consciousness with the publication of the 1966 article “The Use of Family Theory in Clinical Practice” by psychiatrist Murray Bowen. This work was the first to look at “family systems” influencing individual behavior. Since the description involved how two members of a family might team up to control the behavior of a third such as a parent and child undermining a second parent’s authority, most of us, including me, have a negative response to the word “triangulation” in terms of relationships.
Constructive versus destructive triangulation
I feel compelled to point out there are two kinds of triangulation: constructive and destructive, that is, stabilizing or destabilizing, in terms of relationships.
Constructive triangulation involves using a third party to verify information or to act as a mediator. A constructive triangle can be stabilizing and avert bad feelings or bad actions between two people in a conflict that otherwise cannot come to a resolution. Most of us engage in triangulation at some point precisely because it is stabilizing for a family, at work, or among our social groups. Shifting conflict by involving a third person is often a coping mechanism for our discomfort dealing with someone when we don’t see eye to eye. Or we want to change behavior and think an indirect approach will avoid hurt feelings. Mediation is a positive example of this type.
Destructive triangulation involves the addition of a third party as a substitute for direct communication. In the example of parents and children, most of us remember a time in our childhood when we went to one parent to get something we knew the other parent would deny like a piece of candy or a longer time to play. Sometimes the third party is used more like a transmitter of communication, to express dissatisfaction with one of the other two parties. An example is when a spouse tells a child how unhappy she is that her husband is drinking, and the child is supposed to convey this in order to alter the drinking behavior. Bowen called this “the pathological triangle.”
How does this apply to higher education?
Now let’s transpose this to the world of higher education where people are often on different levels of hierarchy. Triangulation in organizations may be called gossip, workplace politics, back-channeling, bullying, or venting. Whatever it is called, it causes a lot of bad feelings and can result in loss of trust, or in a worst-case scenario, the creation of a toxic work environment. When two people talk negatively about a third, and never let the third in on the conversation, this is called silent triangulation.
It’s easy to understand why a staff person might complain to an administrator about the behavior of a particular professor given the lower position in the hierarchy. Unfortunately, when the administrator takes a complaint back to the professor, the response may be, “Who told you that?”
If the administrator fails to name the complainant, the professor can easily dismiss the complaint. If the administrator reveals the complainant, the professor may take offense and behave hostilely in the future toward the staff. This might escalate to anger by the staff member, resulting in passive-aggressive behavior, such as pretending to do something the professor requests, then simply not actually doing it. Or the administrator is actually unable to suggest a direct resolution between parties due to legal considerations: campus leaders can’t always volunteer the information they have. It’s a lose-lose situation. The result is a downward spiral away from positive relationships.
What to do about negative triangulation? 5 suggestions
- As always, the first step is to name it. Who is communicating? What is it about? If you are the third party being brought in, before you do anything, ask yourself, “Is there more to the story I need to know?” or “How do I know this is true?”
- If people are at the same level in the hierarchy, a professor complaining about another professor to a third professor, encourage direct communication. Even if the response is “She’ll never listen to me,” or “He won’t change his behavior,” you are setting the tone for direct resolutions. Encouraging direct communication models that you, too, would appreciate direct communication with you when a problem arises.
- Decide if you want to intervene. One department chair told me, “When someone complains to me about someone else in the department just one time, I ignore it. If I hear the same complaint a second time, especially from a different complainant, I start paying attention. And if I hear the same complaint about behavior a third time, I have a conversation with the person causing the complaint about their behavior.” Notice the conversation is about changing behavior, not attacking the person.
- Notice whether the issue is fixable. Unfortunately, not much is likely to happen if a staff member is complaining about the behavior of someone much higher in authority like a dean or assistant vice president, given the power differential and the organization distance between the complainer and the person who could remedy the complaint. However, acknowledging the power differential can help with perspective.
- Seek to keep all parties respectful as they have difficult but honest communication. Asking them to address someone directly to resolve the issue can be scary. Ask if they themselves would prefer to be told directly that their behavior is causing a problem. Most people say, “Yes.” You can also say you, too, would like to be addressed directly if there is a perceived problem. That shows your good intentions around avoiding unhealthy triangulation.
The aim should be agreement on whatever specific behaviors or actions will be taken to avoid negative triangulation in the future.
Being human and wanting to avoid conflict as much as possible means no organization is ever going to be completely free from negative triangulation. Speaking strictly for myself, I have been both the victim and the perpetrator of negative triangulation. I certainly want to get better at speaking more directly when I am unhappy with someone else’s behavior. Hmnn, wonder if that will work with the cat?
If you still find that you are struggling with negative triangulation contact Hillary for help sorting through this.
Tags: academia, academic, attitude, confidence, conversation, happiness at work
