The Social Discipline Model
The four strategies are represented as different combinations of high or low control and high or low support, (see fig 1.) Practitioners often swap in the words “Expectations of Behaviour” or “Accountability” for control. Personally, I don’t have a difficulty with any of these and also like “boundaries” – but the general rule of thumb is that the vertical axis of the model is about the frame within which you are working, the allowed and not allowed, the purpose, the direction, the boundaries and expectations. The horizontal axis is about what you put into that frame (or don’t put into it) through physical, emotional and social resources.
fig 1: The Social Discipline Model: P McCold & T watchel
The restorative quadrant combines high expectations of behaviour with levels of resources or support and is characterized by doing things with people, rather than to them or for them. The restorative approach allows us to address the problematic behaviour, while also practicing empathy and maintaining a strong relationship.
Take, for example, a child who is repeatedly disruptive, speaking over you, giving back chat, making jokes and distracting or irritating others.
The Neglectful approach is to not do anything, to ignore it and hope that the child will just eventually stop. If you want to learn more about why you are on a hiding to nothing with this approach and you are just storing up trouble for later, then you definitely want to click into our Online Course below and learn about behaviour, communication and displacement.
The Punitive approach is punishment, doing something to the child who is misbehaving. You might give a detention, ground the child, remove privileges like pocket money or school trips. This strategy is all about telling the child “you’d better …(desired behaviour) and if you don’t…(threat).” It drives fear, resentment and disconnection. It also doesn’t work as the child will make decisions to engage in the desired behaviour or not based on their assessment of risk and reward rather than on engagement in curiosity and learning. It also completely fails to address the reasons for the disruptive behaviour in the first place and so this behaviour will keen popping up when you least want it to. Trust me on this.
The Permissive approach is when we do things for someone. We accept their excuses or make excuses for them. We might tell ourselves that it is “because of their disability,” or they are “having a hard time at home / school.” Let’s think about this. We are basically saying “we don’t believe you can do this.” How soul crushingly rubbish a message for a child to hear, no matter how well intentioned. I had a teacher who used to step in frustratedly and say to me “not like that, like this” and then do it for me. It never felt like my work product after – and it affected how much I believed I was capable. This also can impact other children who begin to believe that if behaviour is not expected of one, it should not be expected of another.
The Restorative approach is when we work with the child to resolve the issue. Talking to the child using the restorative language formula of
When you… (behaviour)
I feel … (impact)
Because I need … (needs arising)
Would you be willing to … (connection),
To help me out? (relationship)
To learn more about the difference between shaming language and restorative language – have a quick read at my blog post on “The Shitty First Draft – I’ve put the link for you below – because I’m nice like that.”
Of course, you still need to meet the needs underlying the child’s behaviour. So, at a quiet or appropriately private moment (you will know when it comes) speak to the child to understand what is happening. Keep the questions curious and open ended. Again using the “Can’t Do” lens rather than the “Won’t Do” lens will help you to stay in the curious zone and get a solid understanding of what is happening so you can work out ways to reduce the stressors, meet their needs and teach the skills they need to be a connected child in your family or school.
The restorative strategy for addressing behaviour requires humility on the part of the authority figure approaching the problem in front of them as a curiosity and seeking to understand. It views the people involved in the conflict as each having something interesting and valuable to contribute to the understanding of the problem. So rather than thinking that we know best and approaching the problem with an already formed answer (as is the case in both the punitive and the permissive strategies), the restorative strategy approaches the issue by asking questions, with a humble and compassionate desire to better understand. It is the only strategy that allows us to actually get to the core of the issue.
Here are a few things you can do within your own life to address conflict and issues more restoratively.
First Up: Ask Questions. Lots of them. Keep them open ended, lots of and what else? Tell me more. Help me understand. That’s interesting – can you say more about that?
Next: Follow the three pillars of the restorative framework and don’t skip out the middle pillar of it will come tumbling down. These are:
Spend some time working out which approach is your default response. Take a week and pay attention to what you say and do when someone is causing you difficulty. Do you punish, threaten, warn? Do you ignore, avoid, detach? Do you excuse, protect? Or do you have a conversation about your expectation and what they are struggling with to plan a strategy to support?
I'd love to hear what your natural position is, so if you tell me yours, I'll tell you mine. Let me know how it goes in the comments below.
LJ Sayers is a restorative practices trainer, mum, mediocre saxophonist and chief quality controller of all chocolate in her household.
There was a knock on my door. “Have you a minute?” Lisa said as she edged open my door. She looked angry. Very angry actually. “Of course” I said as I put down my pen, swung around towards the empty chair in the corner and gestured for her to take a seat. I took a deep breath and braced myself for the SFD.
The “Stormy First Draft” as Brene Brown (a shame and empathy researcher from Texas USA) calls it. Brene, if you don’t know her, is my favourite story-teller and knows just a little bit about shame, blame, and leadership. Her teaching tells us so much about how to be restorative when working with teams, complaints, and breakdown in effective communications.
The Stormy First Draft. We all have it. We all do it. We all need it. It isn’t a judgement on you as a person if you have lots of them. I have a library of them – all unpublished. If you ever see me driving the M2 in Northern Ireland you’ll see me orating them in the car. Every. Single. Day. My husband to be, JP, is a seasoned audience of my SFD’s. Patient, kind, generous of spirit, and one of the best reflectors I know, he is my editor of SFD’s.
The Stormy First Draft is your first and most emotional response to an event which threatens some sense of your security. They are usually gift wrapped in past pain, insecurities, fear, and tied with a colourful bow which reads “I’m not good enough.” And before you think this is a gift just for the girls. It isn’t. Guys have Stormy First Drafts too. They just don’t talk about them as much as girls do, which is a great sadness to me considering the suicide rate in men and the raft of research which suggests that women’s propensity to tell their SFD to, well just about anyone who will listen (including a random granny at the bus stop who just asked how your day was going), is a protective factor in mental health. We all need an editor for our SFD’s, and good leaders accept this (often unacknowledged) responsibility with the wisdom that it will build stronger and more resilient employees. It is the “support” function of your leadership role.
Lisa sat down. She took a deep breath and said:
“I hate working here. I am so fed up with this. Do you know what they did?”
“To You?” I asked, checking myself against the fourth rule of braving leadership – Vaulting.
“Yes to me!” she replied
“Ok, good,” I thought, we were within the boundary of talking about things that belonged to Lisa to talk about. In practicing restoratively, "Vaulting" is keeping confidential things that are spoken to you, but which do not belong to you, and equally important, not listening to things that are spoken to you which do not belong to you or the person talking about them. It goes to the core of integrity – of being trust-worthy. Bottom line is if you or the person talking to you, isn’t involved in the trouble you are sharing, if they don’t impact you or them in some way – then mind your own business and frankly, stop being a gossip.
And so out it came, the SFD, words tumbling over each other. How, ever since she had spoken out against the expectation that everyone should work overtime, and she had chosen to not work overtime, because she had children to care for, “they” had ignored her. Whispers fell to silence when she walked in the room, covert looks were passed over shoulders and although nothing was said, she could feel the judging stare as she packed up her bag at 6pm every evening and left the office.
“They’re bullies – they don’t understand what it is like to juggle children and work. I’m going to put in a grievance.”
Now the Stormy First Draft is a double-edged sword. They are dangerous if they become your truth. And they become your truth through unchecked repetition either to yourself or to others. And so this effective and crucial leadership skill of processing the SFD is not just for managers and HR. Everyone should be trained in it. Because often we choose to tell SFD’s to selective people whom we know will agree with us, we keep them secret from people who will actually process them. And yet, in organisations that have great leadership, the task of processing the SFD is a cornerstone in building a compassionate culture, where creativity, solutions, harmony and collaborative productivity resides, and avoiding the shaming, blaming culture where those things come to die.
The unarguable pre-requisite for the SFD is permission to tell the SFD in the first place, safely, and without fear of judgement that you are “hysterical,” “weak,” “a complainer,” “can’t cut it”, or you “need to grow a set.” Don’t even get me started on what the “set” to be grown is… Balls? Breasts? Both? Neither? Who knows? But the message is clear, “you are less than when you express feelings.” The list of judgements which can come on the back of the SFD when your team are not explicitly trained in the value of it, in the right place with the right people, is long and often the experience is harsh, punitive and destructive.
Now, I’ve covered permission giving and receiving as part of trustful container building before, so I won’t labour it again here. You can read it on our blog here, and learn a quick exercises on how to build it in the resources section of our website here. But let’s talk about what you should do when someone brings you their SFD.
Listen to the SFD
Unfettered. A little like a tummy bug that needs to be expelled from the body, just let them get it out. Don’t try and work out what is in it just yet. Just let them say it out loud. I use lots of these:
Tell me more
Can you say more about that?
This takes a wee bit of time, so remember your boundaries. If you don’t have the time right there and then, schedule a time and acknowledge the importance of respecting their story enough to give it time.
Acknowledge and Empathise with their feelings
Acknowledge and empathise with the feelings they are expressing. Naming them is important in building emotional literacy so that they are able to verbalise the emotion rather than demonstrate it. Did you know that only 20% of adults can name more than 3 basic emotions to describe their feelings? That means 80% of us can only name, 1, 2 or 3. And when we can’t verbalise a feeling, we tend to act it out in the manner of a 3 year old stamping their foot.
Find the emotion. Name it. Check it. Without stepping over the boundary, into their feelings (sympathy). So lots of these types of acknowledgements:
"This sounds really difficult for you – you feel treated unfairly, I understand how angry you are."
"I hear you saying how rejected you feel."
"You sound hurt and isolated."
But never this:
“I know exactly what you mean, I felt totally furious when that happened to me. It’s horrible isn’t it?”
This is sympathy. Not helpful. Because now you are both wallowing in the SFD and sinking fast.
Reflect and reframe the basis of their feeling as a consequence of their unmet needs
Learning how to reframe SFD’s as having an impact on your needs as is a key skill in restorative practice. We have a very snappy title for it – “Restorative Language.” Good eh?
Different to blaming language, where the feeling is connected to the other person’s behaviour, in restorative language we connect the feeling to our needs. Identifying your needs which are impacted by someone else’s behaviour, allows you to express much more clearly what is and isn’t a boundary for you in a concrete, professional and assertive way. The difference can be seen in Fig 1 & 2 below.
Restorative Language follows a very simple formula.
For example you might say in response to Lisa’s SFD:
“So when Julie and Aoife stopped talking as soon as you came into the room you felt hurt and suspicious because you need to feel like you belong in this workplace too and if there is a problem you need to be able to address it transparently?”
“So when you pack up your bag in the evenings, you feel judged because you need to be valued for the work you do when you are here and not for the choice to put a boundary around your home life?”
The above way of reframing feelings as connected to our needs rather than someone else’s behaviour helps us to feel more in control of ourselves, express our needs more clearly and take the personal out of what often feels (and sometimes is) very personal to us. Often we go straight to blaming language which connects our feelings to their behaviour and sounds more like this:
“Every time I walk into a room and they stop talking they make me feel like crap.”
This contributes to a sense of not having control over our own feelings because we have given power (in our heads) to someone else to “make us” feel something. And of course this just isn’t true. So having someone help us to make sense of that SFD and start to identify which needs of ours have been offended or infringed upon helps us to identify what we then can do about it.
Bridge the Gap With Them
This is where you help the person to identify what request they must make to best secure their needs being met. It’s the “would you be willing to…” request made clearly and directly after an assertive assessment of how what is currently happening is impacting on their needs.
So the above restorative statement above extends to become:
"When you stop talking as soon as I come into the room
I feel hurt and suspicious
because I need to feel like I belong in this workplace too.
If you are upset with me, would you be willing to talk about it privately with me? "
Of course, when you do this you are making yourself vulnerable to a refusal, a further rejection. This is the bit that takes the courage. There are some things you can do to maximise the chances of the person agreeing to your request.
In my experience, when you use this very clear way of communicating, taking radical responsibility for your own needs in expressing what the problem is for you, instead of pushing your feelings back onto them, I have found people generally work in harmony with you. Of course not always. So let's look at 3 possible outcomes:
When this last example happens it is disappointing but surprisingly it won't bother you anywhere near as much as you think it will. It has less power to impact you, because you now know this is about them and their issues and not you or yours. Because for you, your SFD is no longer tied up with the bow that reads “you are not enough as you are,” and that shaming message, at the end of the day, is most often the real crux of the problem.
LJ Sayers is a restorative practitioner and trainer, a mum, a partner, a mediocre saxophonist, and the chief quality controller of all chocolate in her household.