I would like to present a framework for thinking about how parents interact with their kids, and how they demonstrate leadership with their kids. I’m going to talk about it in term of roles that parents can take in relation to their children.
There are six roles. Think of a continuum, a line, going from left to right with six boxes right next to each other on the line. At the far left is a parent role which signifies the maximum use of parental authority, power, and control over the child, and the absolute minimum of child exercise of freedom and choice. At the other end is a box representing almost no use of parental authority, power, and control, with complete domination by the child, who exercises total freedom and choice. The child or children are running the entire family, and the parent is in the role of being a servant to the children. Impossible? No, it's rare, but it does happen.
Now let’s look at what the six boxes contain, and how they are labeled. As you probably can guess, I’ll be recommending that parents avoid the ones on the outside ends of the continuum (Old School approaches to parenting), and aim to function within the two roles in the middle of continuum (New School approaches).
1. The Sheriff.
The role on the far left, with absolute domination by the parent, who exercises complete control over the children, and where the children have practically no freedom and choice at all, is the parent in the role of the sheriff. Like the sheriff, the parent feels responsible for their child’s safety, and so the parent makes lots of rules to protect the child, teach the child right from wrong, etc. The children have
no say. The parent also tries to strictly enforce the rules in the family, and is quick to catch children breaking the rules and correct, them, scold them, yell at them, judge them, and punish them. The intent is instill fear in the child–fear of breaking the rules or doing “wrong” and not making mistakes. While the parent is well-intentioned, and truly wishes to help the child, their overly strict approach often backfires. Children resent being treated so harshly and punitively, because it hurts, and they will often respond in anger and defiance. The parent is trying to control the child’s behavior, which is impossible to do, and children resent that. The parent’s approach is essentially disrespectful, and so they end up teaching the child how to be disrespectful. They end up inviting exactly what they don't want: the child's anger and defiance.
2. The Boss.
In the work world, a boss and employee have a basic agreement: You do these things for me and I will pay you. If the employee doesn’t like the way the boss is treating him/her, s/he can quit and leave the situation. Not so for children. They didn’t voluntarily choose to come and “work” for this family, and they can’t just quit and leave. In this role the parent gives orders, commands, and punishments, but is not quite as abusive as the sheriff. But if the parent is too “bossy,” and does not involve children in making rules and consequences, then the results with the child are similar to what the sheriff gets from the child: disrespect and defiance. Again, the parent’s approach is essentially disrespectful, and so they end up teaching the child how to be disrespectful. Again, the parents end up inviting exactly what they don't want: the child's anger and defiance.
3. The Guide.
The guide on a safari or a canoe expedition is hired to show a person the way and keep them safe from risks on the journey. S/he knows the territory, and has traveled it before, and knows what when to give recommendations that s/he expects to be followed. The canoeist trusts the guide, and will usually follow the directions of the guide when they are given. However the guide does not try to make all decisions for the traveler, and even when s/he has suggestions to make does not make them by being bossy and disrespectful , like the boss or the sheriff. This is true for the parent-as-guide, too, where the parent involves the child in decision making and allows them the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them. The guide role is the most appropriate one for parents of young children. The result of a parent consistently using this role with young children is that the children earn to trust the parent and welcome their suggestions--because that is precisely what the parent-guide is doing: welcoming the child's ideas and suggestions, allowing them to take the initiative and make mistakes, and recognizing that it's not worth trying to control the child's behavior because that is usually resented by the child. It's also impossible to do. The parent-guide instead invites the child's cooperation.
4. The Consultant.
The consultant is hired by a company’s boss to analyze and make recommendations. But no good consultant will try to get “bossy” with the boss and give critical or disrespectful feedback, or even suggestions, if they are not wanted. This is really the only effective role for parents of teenagers in most cases, unless the teen is very compliant, because the parent has been fired by the teenager as the teen’s boss. It’s usually the parent’s job to get rehired by the teenager as a consultant. In playing this role the parent does not give orders and commands, but instead makes requests and asks lots of questions in order to understand where the teenager is coming from and help them think through solutions for themselves. The consultant gives suggestions only when they are asked for. It’s not that the parent is giving up his/her authority or power. S/he is simply using it in a new way to help the teen learn responsible decision making. The parent-consultant keeps his/her ego in check, recognizes the teenager's autonomy, and works toward securing cooperation and agreements with him/her.
5. The Friend.
In this role the parent fails to exercise proper leadership by trying to act like they are the child’s little buddy, and always on the child’s side. This parent gives in a lot to the child inappropriately, hoping the child will like them, and then be more willing to obey, conform, or act more responsibly. This parent is feeling a little desperate and helpless, and hopes that if s/he is a friend, the child will decide to be friendly and cooperative. This role is actually disrespectful too, because the parent is not giving what the child needs and is inappropriately expecting the child to do what the parent cannot do: guide.
6. The Servant.
In this role the parent is a complete marsh mellow, or a jellyfish, or a doormat. The parent is missing in action, let’s the child call the shots and in the process gives all of his/her power away to the child, and, usually based on fear, tries to placate of humor the child so the child won’t get angry, think poorly of the parent, or do something wrong. This parent needs to develop a tougher skin, and learn how to appropriately assert themself and stand up to the child. If s/he can’t the child is in charge of the home, or (as they say) “the inmates are running the asylum.”
Application
So, the roles I recommend that parents use are the two in the middle: that’s the guide (with younger children and preteens), and the consultant with teenagers and maybe preteens too. I recommend making conscious efforts to catch yourself in action with your children, and frequently ask yourself, “Who are you now?” Meaning, “What role was I in just now when I said (or did) that?” If you’re aiming at being in the guide role with younger children, and the consultant role with teenagers, you will be doing and saying the things that most effectively give children the maximum use of choice, freedom, and decision making, while at the same time you are remaining present, and available to them, and aware of what their needs and capabilities are, relative to their ages.
In my parenting classes we spend some time discussing these roles, and where the parents see themselves functioning most of the time, and also where they think their own parents functioned most of the time. It’s important to have some understanding of this because of where we all learned to be parents. We all graduated from parenting school, didn’t we? Where was that, and who were our teachers? Our childhood home, and our own parents. I’d say that 99.9% of us learned all our parenting methods, attitudes, and values from our own parents when we were kids, and so understanding where your parents were on the continuum of parent roles will pretty well tell you where your own tendencies are going to focus.
Comments