I recently posted the below in my status on Facebook and it generated a great conversation which I thought was worth sharing.

STATUS: Today I stand with the teachers, nurses, and all public employees of Wisconsin who are fighting for their rights. If you do too, change this to your status for the rest of the day.

COMMENT: Gerald Rubin – From an IFS perspective, I wonder how one can most effectively deal with the aggressive managers in politicians or corporate leaders. Richard Schwartz talks about Entitled managers that play a big role in such people. In my own dealings …with people, it is easy to see how they close down protectively and no real dialog is possible. For many, the adage of talking thing out just doesn’t work. Entitled managers are easily upset and are defensive and supported by managers who work by denying. Such people rarely get involved in therapy. Is it possible to use IFS approaches during dialogs with such people to bring more agreeable managers to the fore?

COMMENT: Katherine Rosen – Great question Mr. Rubin!

MY REPLY: Jay Earley – Very interesting question. It isn’t the usual use of IFS, which is for people who are coming for help. But I think IFS can help in a situation where you are dialoguing with a person with an Entitled manager. The thing to keep in mind is tha…t you are taling to the manager, so it is a form of “direct access” except that the person doesn’t know that’s what you are doing.

The first thing you must do is get into Self with respect to the person and the Entitled manager. That means you can’t be feeling angry or judgmental or even with a strong agenda of changing them. You must be truly open to understanding where they are coming from, just as we do with our own internal managers. This stance isn’t easy to come by, since it is natural to be angry at such destructive people/parts and want to fix or get rid of them. If you are feeling that way, they will sense it and, of course, they won’t be open to you.

Then from Self, you need to be curious to learn why they believe that what they are doing is good, not only for them but also most likely for other people or the world. Even though you believe that they are doing harmful things (and I would probably agree), they see themselves as doing good, most likely. You need to really hear and understand where the manager is coming from, and let him know that you do. From this you earn his trust and also possibly some information about what he is afraid of and what exile is being protected.

Then you could possibly reassure him in some way that the exile won’t be harmed (indirectly of course), and this might soften him. Then you might be able to present your point of view and there is a chance you might be heard.

In summary, you respond to the person/manager just the way you would to an interal manager of yours, except that none of this is explicit.

What do you think?

COMMENT: Gerald Rubin – Good answer! Trouble is that for most of us, staying in the self is hard to do, especially in dealing with another person perceived as causing great harm. I am a Zen practitioner who has had to break off psychotherapy with two psychologis…ts, one Hakomi and the other IFS. In each of them I inadvertently aroused a very harmful firefighter and was caught totally off-guard by the negativities the came at me. Interestingly, your mentor Richard Schwartz details such problems perfectly in his book older book “IFS Therapy”. I did not accomplish much with the IFS practitioner but was totally impressed with its possibilities. The Zen approach (Ezra Bayda) I might say is much coarser and strenuous than IFS, and much slower. Anger does shift to Compassion very slowly, but you can’t count on being in Self during any particular interaction. Where I am doing better is in writing letters because there is more detachment from the physical situation. I am learning to state a powerful case and still be respectful. With Zen practiced correctly, over time and without even working to forgive, anger will just dissapate on its own and is replaced with a degree of compassion and understanding. I think that IFS is still a much better approach to dealing with anger and other issues than Zen; however the 2 integrated together might be very powerful. I feel that most Zen practitioners have so much negative childhood conditioning that it is very hard to make solid progress, with this IFS would help. But the 2 approaches are entirely different and even sometimes contrary. I would like to see more efforts in connecting the 2 practices. I believe you do a similar effort with the Diamond approach. As far as my political activism or other relationships in which staying in self is difficult, I can only do my best and use my mentor part (mine is very powerful) to help ease any self recrimination that I might undergo. I believe also that the cultivation of a powerful mentor, something that you work with in your phone class, would be a very good suggestion for Zen practitioners. In my mind, mentor is really ego in service of the heart, this is the best possible use of the ego. Some people in Zen still need to learn as IFS has that ego per se is not bad. Clear compassionate thinking will always have its place. The attainment of Buddhist Emptiness may be enticing but, Zen practitioners tend to forget the sacredness of form, at least Ezra Bayda is very savvy to that aspect of Zen.