When people receive something from others, they are naturally inclined to repay the act. This is true in all cultures. This is true even of unsolicited gifts. Giving something increases compliance with future requests. Example: In one research study, a $5 check included with a survey produced more responses than the promise of $50 after responding.
Reciprocal Concessions: Rejection-Then-Retreat
The rule of reciprocity also applies to non-material gifts. So that if you make a large request, are refused, and then make a smaller request as a concession, you are three times more likely to get compliance than if you asked for what you wanted straight away.
Reciprocity can be initiated in a number of ways. The interaction with the agitated person can be framed as "giving time or attention." When de-escalating an aggressive situation concessions can be offered to the angry person in the form of time, or options.
Example:
A staff person approaches an angry client.
"Mr Jones I can see that this is really an upsetting situation... Let me give you this (hands client his card) it has my number on it... hang on to it because, I'm going to do all I can to correct his situation...and I don't what I can do, but I will do all I can, and if you have to follow up with me you'll have my number."
The staff person establishes control over the situation and frames his role as an ally. He gives the angry person his card within an acceptable context. In a brief introduction he establishes reciprocity.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
De-eescalation and Social Influence-- Social Proof
How do we know what to do? We often determine what is correct by finding out what other people think is correct. This is especially true when there is uncertainty. We are particularly prone to follow the lead of people we perceive as similar to us.
Uncertainty is often a component of escalating aggression. The aggressive person is at a loss of what to do next. It is the uncertainty, and accompanying frustration, that leads to greater agitation.
Application
We can "normalize" the emotional response of the agitated person. If we communnicate to the agitated person that his or her emotional response is understandable given the circumstances, that they are expected--in other words, that they are normal--we can begin the defuse the situation. We can also define the normal behavioral response to the circumstance.
"Of course you're upset with all that's going on...this doesn't happen very often, but when it does, of course people get upset...and we're always able to come to a better situation when we take some time to talk about how it is I can help you."
Uncertainty is often a component of escalating aggression. The aggressive person is at a loss of what to do next. It is the uncertainty, and accompanying frustration, that leads to greater agitation.
Application
We can "normalize" the emotional response of the agitated person. If we communnicate to the agitated person that his or her emotional response is understandable given the circumstances, that they are expected--in other words, that they are normal--we can begin the defuse the situation. We can also define the normal behavioral response to the circumstance.
"Of course you're upset with all that's going on...this doesn't happen very often, but when it does, of course people get upset...and we're always able to come to a better situation when we take some time to talk about how it is I can help you."
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Ethic Concerns for De-escalation Training
If an organization requires employees to respond to violent situations, but provides inadequate training to respond safely that is negligence.
All hospitals (that except insurance) are required to have plan for responding to potentially violent situations. The plan must include, among many other things, who is trained, what is the content of the training and the response when a situation of violence or potential violence occurs. The typically there will be an overhead announcement, such as "Code Gray" or "Dr. Strong" summoning people to the scene.
Those responding place themselves in harm's way if they do not have the skills to adequately respond to physical aggression. A staff member can easily be injured because he or she is not prepared to exercise personal safety techniques. The aggressive person is placed in harm's way if staff members do not have the skills to respond appropriately. An aggressive person can easily be injured because improperly trained staff members are more likely to use excessive force.
What is the role of the trainer who recognizes the inadequacy of training that certifies people to respond? The trainer trains staff in the organizations approved curriculum, knowing that the methods taught (or omitted from training) are not enough for the safety of staff or clientele. The organization has defined a certain course as meeting the requirements for safe response. The trainer knows the course is inadequate, and places people in danger. What is the proper ethical response?
Of course the question can be much broader. You know your training is inadequate (constraints of time and $), but it is deemed as sufficient by the larger organization, and that the inadequacy of training places people in harm's way? Is better than nothing okay? What is a little knowledge is more dangerous than none at all?
All hospitals (that except insurance) are required to have plan for responding to potentially violent situations. The plan must include, among many other things, who is trained, what is the content of the training and the response when a situation of violence or potential violence occurs. The typically there will be an overhead announcement, such as "Code Gray" or "Dr. Strong" summoning people to the scene.
Those responding place themselves in harm's way if they do not have the skills to adequately respond to physical aggression. A staff member can easily be injured because he or she is not prepared to exercise personal safety techniques. The aggressive person is placed in harm's way if staff members do not have the skills to respond appropriately. An aggressive person can easily be injured because improperly trained staff members are more likely to use excessive force.
What is the role of the trainer who recognizes the inadequacy of training that certifies people to respond? The trainer trains staff in the organizations approved curriculum, knowing that the methods taught (or omitted from training) are not enough for the safety of staff or clientele. The organization has defined a certain course as meeting the requirements for safe response. The trainer knows the course is inadequate, and places people in danger. What is the proper ethical response?
Of course the question can be much broader. You know your training is inadequate (constraints of time and $), but it is deemed as sufficient by the larger organization, and that the inadequacy of training places people in harm's way? Is better than nothing okay? What is a little knowledge is more dangerous than none at all?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)