Interpersonal Dynamics

Interpersonal relationships can be filled with chaotic elements as well as instances where relations are overly controlled or dominated by one of the participants. It is an understatement to say that people can be unpredictable. However, just as in the workplace, these chaotic elements within relationships can become the wellspring for creativity and innovation to renew and refresh the relationship. It is also not hard to find instances within relationships where interaction has come to have many gradually developed, routinized and familiar aspects that are not easy to change. They provide stability and predictability while simultaneously restricting what may be thought, felt and done. In this regard the relationship may have gradually lost its adaptiveness. It is also the case that many relationships are dominated by one individual who presumes to call all of the shots. Others must essentially submit to his or her leadership and control. And last, there are those sought for relational outcomes where the participants create a true balance between themselves that serves to create respect, trust and open communication that maintains the relationship in a dynamic and adaptive state. Life with the other person is exciting and fulfilling.

These brief mentions of how the components of dynamic workplace theory fit within the larger context of our private lives need not be further elaborated. The applicability, upon reflection, is self-evident. It is the case that much of what was learned about dynamic workplace theory (the origins of chaos, bureaucracy, charismatic leadership and relational balance) informs our lives outside of work. Exploring all of these potential connections cannot be accomplished here as they would constitute the basis of yet another book. However, a few noteworthy aspects of the crossover of the theory into our lives outside of work should be mentioned.

The elements of the theory provide us a cognitive map that informs our thinking about what we and others are thinking, feeling and doing. In particular, the psychologically and socially defensive nature of the interpersonal world produces many of the harder to understand and appreciate nuances that we all have encountered in our relationships. Others and we continually introduce defensiveness into the anxiety-ridden side of our relationships. Why am I mad all of the time? What in the world was the reason he or she did that to me? Underlying many of these outcomes is defensiveness that is hard to locate and most often even harder to discuss. Controlling anxiety within the relationship just as is the case in the workplace can lead to outcomes not unlike those discussed in dynamic workplace theory. Things can become chaotic and unpredictable where efforts to achieve interpersonal intimacy and some type of dependable relatedness are constantly sabotaged by unanticipated thoughts, feelings and actions. Anxieties about commitment and giving up one’s personal autonomy are at stake here. There may also be many efforts made by one participant to lay out the rules of engagement. You can do this but not that. We will do it this way, not that way. Always take off your shoes after you take out the garbage. Relationships are very often filled with constant tensions as to who may impose the rules to create predictability to allay anxiety. Similarly the anxiety that resides within relationships about who may do what to whom may in part be allayed by one person seizing control of the relationship and the other submitting. Once again anxiety-allaying predictability emerges. It may, therefore, be appreciated that many aspects of dynamic workplace theory can be observed to be present within relationships outside of the workplace.

It may also be understood that the discussion of stability and change described by dynamic workplace theory also applies to our relationships outside of work. There will inevitably develop many tensions when one member in the relationship seeks to change its dynamics. Greater intimacy may be desired that threatens to engulf and limit the autonomy of the other person. Perhaps all of the rules need to be revisited as they have become confining and not realistic. They may in fact be draining the life out of the relationship. It may also be the case that the heretofore submissive partner no longer accepts the continued dominance of one of the partners in the relationship. In each of these cases, as discussed in chapters 4 and 5, there are some aspects of the relationship that serve to promote continuing stability, including avoidance of the distressing experience of change. It is also the case that if change is to be undertaken, the process will be filled with many tensions and difficulties that must be overcome in order to migrate to another type of relationship, perhaps one filled with more exciting and chaotic elements as compared with the routinized condition of the moment. It is, therefore, not the case that yesterday we were that way and today we are this way. There is, as described in dynamic workplace theory, a long and sometimes arduous migration path that must be traveled to achieve the desired change that might create a more balanced and less interpersonally defensive relationship. What is true of our dyadic relationships is also true for our experience in social groupings.