You get what you accept

I confess I have found myself quoting this at work a number of times over the past few months. But it was only recently that I stopped to think about what I really meant. Well not so much stopped as mildly ranted at a friendly colleague when discussing the latest work frustrations.

So here is my first "compare and contrast"

You get what you accept.... with a horse

In the horse world, this is normally about a rider/handler and the horse they are working with. There will be rare situations where a handler is working with multiple horses - driving a pair or four for example. But for most of us it is a one to one situation.

In the interaction with a horse we have to decide what our boundaries are, what is "ok" and what is "not ok". Anything we accept becomes, by accepting it, "Ok".

What is the difference between accepting and not accepting ? It's interesting how we humans tend to think of these things in terms of a BIG reaction. A BIG reward for getting it right, an equally BIG reaction of some form for getting it wrong. The reaction for the "wrong" result depends very much on your personal philosophy.

But for a horse it can be something much smaller than that. A release can be a reward, and can be as small as an exhale. My second pony had a rough time in his youth - when we first got him he would *shake* if you raised your voice. When asking for something, Parelli talks about four phases - and uses the idea of "air, skin, muscle, bone" to give you the idea of how those phases progress. (I doubt many of us ever use a true phase 4. But in the same way, I suspect we tend to go in somewhere more than phase 1)

I think that makes the cue a negative reinforcer - as the required behaviour terminates the reinforcer. Initially they (Parelli) weren't into treats and thinking about it, even "rub to a stop" is a negative reinforcer (the rub stops when the horse stops). More recently the horsenality concept has meant treats are used with appropriate types of horses.

But that is straying into another subject, about rewarding wanted behaviour. "Accepting" can simply be that - no reaction, no reward, just accepting. Not accepting doesn't have to be a negative reaction but could simply be asking for the same thing again.


You get what you accept... at work

In a work situation, by contrast, we are rarely in a one to one situation and more often in a one to many or many to many context. Added to that, you aren't always in the leader role and may instead be in peer groups, or working across different levels of hierarchy within the organisation.

So in work, how does "you get what you accept" work ? While almost by definition there is an implication that if you don't want a particular behaviour to persist - you have to "not accept" it. But how acceptable is it to "not accept" something in work, especially if the unacceptable behaviour is from above you in the organisation hierarchy ?!

Is there a greater need for diplomacy in a work environment ? My initial reaction is yes, but I dislike the implication that I can somehow be undiplomatic with my horse. A horse tends to expect a much more straightforward or honest reaction, whereas at work people come to expect a certain amount of dissembling.

The reality of needing to keep your job, to pay the bills, simply does not form part of the interaction with a horse, but can not be escaped in the work situation. How much is it ok to compromise your integrity in the work place ? If the presiding culture simply does not support active challenge, where do you draw the line in terms of speaking your mind versus biting your tongue ? And if there is no option to "unaccept" within the work environment, is the only option to reject the entire work environment and change job ?