No matter what system you are a part of – it could be a family business, school, law enforcement agency, board of directors, or even a nation – the landscape is rife with relationship triangles.
The most common triangle entanglement is the Victim-Villain-Hero Triangle.
Here’s how it works:
First, a self-identified Victim, emotionally reacting to a real or perceived threat such as abuse, disrespect, bias, or rejection, determines a perceived Villain or Perpetrator.
Second, the self-identified Victim reports the perceived maltreatment to a third party, seeking emotional relief, confirmation of the maltreatment, and, not uncommonly, intervention from the previously uninvolved party who is now thrust into a Hero role.
Third, the Hero lends an empathetic ear to the Victim and reinforces that person’s victimhood. The result is a two-against-one dynamic wherein both Victim and Hero place unequivocal blame on the Villain.
The intensity of the triangle is jumpstarted by the “anxiety juice” of the self-identified Victim. (Having played all three of these roles, I am not judging here, simply explaining the process that gives the triangle its emotional momentum).
The Victim – unable to regulate their anxious reaction to perceived maltreatment – avoids directly addressing the Villain, instead seeking the receptive ear of the Hero.
The Victim is emotionally unable or unwilling to see their own possible role in contributing to the perceived maltreatment. They are “sure” that they are the victim, and that the Villain is the singular problem.
The Villain is often unaware of the problem. If they are aware, they often avoid approaching the Victim to invite conversation, or rectify perceived injustices or misunderstandings.
The Hero does not ask questions about the Victim’s part in the drama. Instead, the Hero automatically joins the Victim in “vilifying the villain.” In so doing, the Hero buys into the single-cause culpability convincingly put forth by the Victim. The Victim is not trying to snare the Hero in a trap, just trying to enlist their side-taking.
Here’s a typical, real-life example of the Victim-Villain-Hero Relationship Triangle:
A friend of mine, a doctor in an urban Emergency Department, spoke to me in a quiet café outside New York City, over a glass of sparkling water.
“The hospital is such a stressful environment these days. Nurses and doctors are on edge,” he said.
“What do you mean?” I asked.
“Let me tell you a story,” he said.
“I heard a woman crying out from a hallway bed in our emergency department. She was lying in her own urine, and no one was attending to her. That ticked me off, so I approached the charge nurse and asked if she could please take care of the woman. I was clearly upset.”
“The charge nurse told me she didn’t appreciate my tone of voice. She reported me as ‘belligerent’ to the Administrative Review Committee. I’m now involved in what is being called ‘disciplinary review.’”
“I work hard and take my job seriously. I had a legitimate request in an environment where everyone gives lip service to improving patient care, and look what happened to me. You can’t afford to lose your composure anymore, to get frustrated, to have a bad day, or even a bad moment. How am I supposed to deal with the intense sensitivity that pops up everywhere?”
In the scenario above, my friend the doctor is the self-identified Victim. The charge nurse who rebuked the doctor is the identified Villain, and the hospital’s Administrative Review Committee members who ultimately exonerated the charge nurse and punished the doctor played the Hero role.
The Victim-Villain-Hero triangle easily feeds blame and helplessness, two earmarks of lower maturity. The dynamic’s distinguishing feature is the irresponsibility of all parties.
If the system (in this case the hospital) had promoted a healthy culture, and the parties were willing to participate, this scenario could have been managed differently.
For example, the doctor could consider the long history of male doctors occupying a one-up communication pattern with female nurses. Aware of that backstory, the doctor could choose to communicate more calmly and carefully. He could take responsibility for his lack of emotional self-control and tone of voice when approaching the charge nurse. Afterwards, he could sincerely apologize.
The charge nurse, for her part, could respect the legitimate request of the doctor without getting emotionally caught up in his reactive tone. In that moment, she could put the patient first. She might, for example, identify with the doctor’s upset by recalling her own instances of frustration over questionable patient care. Afterwards, she could apologize.
The Administrative Review Committee could function less punitively by taking a more “restorative” approach - helping both parties see their part in the situation. They could view such tensions as learning opportunities for all personnel instead of functioning as trial judges, looking simply to identify who is “right” and who is “wrong.”
Once you understand the Victim-Villain-Hero Triangle, you’ll likely begin seeing it everywhere. For example, could the relationship among a sitting US president, the Supreme Court, and the Congress be viewed as a Victim-Villain-Hero relationship triangle? How about a person who gets fired, her boss, and the HR department? Or consider a mother, a father and a disgruntled daughter?
From headlines to the boardroom to the dinner table, this is a recurring relationship challenge. Noticing the Victim-Villain-Hero Triangle is the first step in a leader’s ability to manage it skillfully and responsibly. Where do you observe this relationship triangle happening around you?
Bình luận