When we respond as a victim, persecutor, or rescuer, we are crossing a boundary by attempting to control what is not ours to control in the form of responsibility and emotions. For example, both the persecutor and the rescuer violate someone else’s right to power and control of his or her own life. The rescuer can also cross a boundary by taking on another’s responsibility. Sometimes, people in the victim role can shift some of the responsibility away from themselves and onto others. We also cross emotional boundaries when we attempt to manipulate or control someone else’s emotional response because it makes us uncomfortable.

Whether responding from the role of persecutor (fight), rescuer (flight), or victim (freeze), we often choose protective devices that perpetuate conflict, trauma, and a stuck world view. These protective devises include coercion, manipulation, and denial. The use of coercion, manipulation, and denial crosses boundaries and damages relationships. When we respond with coercion, we are attempting to exert power over another, thus violating a boundary. This includes threats and punitive reactions.

A punitive response is the deliberate infliction of a pain, be it physical or emotional, in response to a past behavior, although, sometimes negative consequences are the natural result of poor decisions. If the decision is informed and made freely, the negative consequence is not the same as a punishment. Often, punishment is justified as an attempt to control future behavior. This reactionary response fails to recognize the responsibility of the individual to choose his or her own behavior and take responsibility for the natural consequences of that choice.

Manipulation, like coercion, is an attempt to control the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of another. Because of its more passive nature, manipulation can often be more difficult to identify than coercion. It still represents a boundary violation and can be, nonetheless, just as destructive.

Manipulation is often justified as “for the good of another.” This reactionary response fails to recognize the right and responsibility of individuals to experience their own emotions and choose their own response. Even seemingly helpful attempts to reframe a painful experience can be a manipulative attempt to control another’s emotional response.

Another device used to control another is denial. Denial can be a form of manipulation or coercion. This can take the form of denial of information or resources, or it can be the denial of responsibility or emotion.

An example might be a leader denying information to employees to prevent an uncomfortable emotional response. The leader might even justify this action as benevolent because he or she is sparing employees the fear or worry that might come from knowing about an impending threat. This is a common example of rescuer behavior. It is a violation of a boundary to decide for another person what they can and cannot handle. In doing so, we are not only denying someone the right to their own emotional response, but we can also be denying them the opportunity to prepare for a potential reality. More important is the recognition that denial of information is often more of a protective response for the rescuer than those they are attempting to rescue.

In what ways have you responded from one of the triangle roles?

What triangle responses have you noticed in your workplace?

 

 

 

 

In contrast, responses that offer choice and transparency avoid boundary breaches. These responses promote the restoration of autonomy, belonging, and competency. Thus, the response roles in the trauma triangle shift from persecutor to coach, rescuer to ally, and victim to thriver.

Choice and transparency are the difference between an ally response and a manipulative response. For example, instead of an unsolicited reframe “You should be thankful that at least you still have a job,” an ally response might be, “I can understand your disappointment, when you are ready, I would be happy to help you identify some of the good things you still have to look forward to.”

Choice and transparency are also the difference between punishment and accountability. Instead of, “If you don’t get with the program, there will be disciplinary action,” a coaching response might be, “These are the requirements of this job, if you choose to continue working in this program, let’s discuss what that will need to look like and how I can help you be successful.” Notice that the second response is not any less accountable than the first. It just recognizes the boundaries of responsibilities and clarifies the expectations of the manager.

What ways can you change your responses to avoid breaching a boundary?