Is there a substantial difference? Or are they just two words for the same thing? And does it really matter? Prior to the 1950s, they would have been just two words for the same thing. That is, if anyone ever used the term “negotiating” boundaries. The practice of “negotiating” boundaries comes primarily out of the 1980s with the flattening of business hierarchies and the strong orientation to women’s rights. With the exception of sales negotiation, it was rare to talk about negotiating relationships until the mid-1980s. And since then there has been tons of research and some training solely in the practice of negotiating interpersonal boundaries. In simple terms, setting boundaries is one individual determining boundaries for others. Negotiating boundaries is two or more creating a workable agreement on the boundaries between them.
So, there’s a significant difference between setting and negotiating boundaries. Major business leaders as well as many community leaders recognize these differences even without distinguishing between the two terms. But, ask the right questions and they can clarify immediately. I’ve learned, sadly, that these same professionals are typically incapable of using the negotiation competence in their family. Shifting competencies from one context to another without training is highly problematic—even for top business school grads. Similarly, lower level bureaucrats, patriarchal families, pastors, the Roman and Evangelical churches, small and medium-sized privately held owner-firms lack insight to the distinctions and sometimes have a lot of resistance on their hands as a result of their ignorance.
Creating still more difficulty, my psychologist colleagues have no rhetorical format for negotiation. Common formats provide the means for improving, changing or even rejecting former ways of communicating. Without a common format, they’re always attempting to reinvent the wheel, a strategy which readily results in failure or limited success. They talk a good talk about “setting boundaries,” but lack awareness of the extensive implications of differing boundaries. This is surprising, because the counseling profession knows that ignoring or flagrantly setting boundaries is one of the major causes of family breakdown. And there are plenty of other people and organizations in the dark and looking at abject failure because of their ignorance and unwillingness to operate on the basis of negotiating boundaries.
The role of power
Although I’ve never heard anyone make the distinction between setting and negotiating, it’s time to start using the rhetoric much more carefully. Why? Because, the distinctions are primarily about power: who’s got it and what are the most effective ways to use it.
In business organizations power is traditionally viewed from three perspectives: vested, expert and network. Simply put, vested power is the legitimate power given to an individual to run teams, projects or disciplines within an organization. Expert is the power conferred on an individual who has the necessary knowledge others require for success. And network power is that of a person who knows a terrific amount of people who are capable of providing the necessary support and insight which individuals or groups require to succeed. Obviously simplistic, but occasionally useful clarity.
However, as a result of the unique work of the French academic, Michel Foucault, we understand that power is a lot more complex than the above little model. Foucault emphasizes that where there is power, there is also resistance. So, it’s all the more important to understand that successful power has much more to do, for example, with how a person or an organization chooses to organize ideas, make comparisons, and locate new ideas, often metaphorically, within highly respected old ideas. To an obvious degree, knowing what to say, how to say it, and what not to say in a given culture can be powerful negotiation strategies. That kind of expertise is usually necessary for successful boundary negotiation, which at its core is a matter of interaction around “I’ll do this if you’ll do that.” Simple relationships can sometimes be negotiated in three minutes, while major organizations or nations may take ten to twenty years to negotiate their differences in order to achieve mutual goals...
It is possible, however, to get a leg up on potential interpersonal boundary interactions in organizations by understanding the other’s personal commitments and the organization’s cultural biases. For example, my process for executive coaching begins with interviews of about a dozen different colleagues of that executive. The last question in my interview is, “How will I get in trouble in your organization?” With a lot of laughter, the interviewee gives me tons of information about what I can say and not say, and what I can do and not do. My attention to these cultural rules grants me a terrific amount of power for avoiding, and then sometimes renegotiating boundaries with both the individual and the organization. Of course, rules are very different in each culture as, say, 3M vs. General Mills, Honeywell vs. Genentech, or American Express vs. First Bank One. If you’re an employee rather than a consultant, you can do the same thing by observing how language works in the organization and dropping in seemingly innocent questions about language and organizational procedures.
Going through the same process in a small, privately held HVAC, I was told in no uncertain terms that if I said “blah, blah” I’d get my ass canned—immediately! The boundary was set—and clear! “That’s how most consultants lose their contracts at our firm.” By observing that (ridiculous) power rule, I delivered successfully. But years into our relation, I negotiated with the new CEO and excised the rule from the culture. I’m still welcome at that firm. Foucault has taught us that power—and boundaries--are not merely vested or expert, but negotiated linguistically. Linguistic ability distinguishes the ordinary person from the exceptional colleague—far more than work process.
Many people grew up in homes in which boundaries were not observed. In some the relationship was control over the other person. But where there was emotional, physical or sexual abuse, boundaryless survival was inevitable. When you’ve grown up in situations like this, boundaries are not only unfamiliar, but upsetting. It’s also important to emphasize that boundaries need not be harsh or scary. When our children were young, we set the expectation (boundary) that everyone had a daily chore. But the rest was highly negotiable sometimes with us and more often with each other. We helped early on with negotiation education. Very quickly they got the point and needed no help from us. It’s a fantasy to think that boundaries aren’t necessary in families. Without boundaries the response is chaos—and often unhappiness, frustration and low performance. Many of these children were simply unprepared for adult relations and personal fulfillment, much less an adequate income.
Problematically, negotiating boundaries requires a level of competence rarely necessary for merely “setting boundaries.” Yet, boundary competencies are becoming much more necessary as a consequence of the burgeoning, differing work models and contexts of today. But managing these complexities is key to success or failure in one’s relationships—and work.
Most people need actual negotiation training to succeed with boundary tools. Picking up a book doesn’t usually go far. Understanding negotiation doesn’t mean you can negotiate. Negotiation fits my oboe illustration: I certainly understand how to play the oboe, but I sure as hell can’t get anything out of the instrument except a few squeaks. Applied thinking ability, like negotiation happens in a different brain area than abstract thinking. One psych PhD, a client vice-president in a multi-national organization, asked about a problem her twin boys, sixth graders, were having in a leading religious school. She had been called in on three different occasions because her boys were caught swearing in class. A single mom, she let me know upfront that she hated swearing--and wouldn’t permit it at home. But, remaining in the school was a high priority for her and her boys. It was obvious she had no tools for actually negotiating boundaries, so I just “dumped” my simple answer and negotiation process for achieving her ends and satisfying her boys--something I’m usually loathe to do. I fudged and said, “It’s almost a given that sixth grade boys have to swear if they’re going to become ‘real men.’” I suggested some tradeoffs, including swearing at home. Given the options, she went for that possibility. The next day after a few comments, she tried negotiating: “I’ll let you swear at home, if you’ll stop swearing at school. What do you think?” I warned her they might try to push the envelope a little, which they did. But they just as quickly backed off and accepted the resolution. A couple months later she told me the solution was working fine. No more teacher calls from school. “And you?” I asked. Surprisingly, she responded positively, saying she was OK with turning a deaf ear, and that it was a lot happier at home.
Authoritarian power?
Like that mother, it is very important when desirous of initiating or changing boundary rules to recognize that “setting boundaries” is usually viewed as authoritarian, unconsciously if not consciously. If you take an authoritarian approach to boundaries, you’re liable not to get the cooperation you desire. Just think about the resistance toward wearing masks. At least 20% of the population is not going to respond to setting mask boundaries. Americans are nutty about even “perceived” authoritarianism, much less the “greater good.” But there is a much higher probability of success if our leaders take a negotiated approach which sounds like “if you do this, then that (good reward) will happen.” But the leader also needs to be trusted, and able to get other leaders to set the example before framing the example in negotiation terms.
The “mask issue” reveals the high complexity and potential for failure surrounding “setting vs. negotiating.” It also reveals that 25% of the population is, well, crazy: they can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion, and have little to no ability to draw accurate inferences and conclusions—much less behave on the basis of them. Raw, individualistic, sometimes stupid independence, rather than the health of the community is the current cultural, psychological and political philosophy. The crazies would rather die of the virus than obey “set” boundaries. So, thanks, but no thanks to persistent Freudianism and Ronald Reagan’s irresponsible, libertarian orientation to community which drives many of today’s squandered health opportunities.
When someone attempts to set boundaries for me, it’s an emotional red flag, a hangover from my past religious vocations that immediately earns my resistance. But, it’s ridiculously easy to get at least a major portion of what you want from me if you choose to negotiate the interpersonal boundary. I’ll observe your boundary if the situation is very personal, involves the greater good or are arguing from scientifically based conclusions. If the boundary is very personal, it will need to be stated clearly, with personal explanation. Without that clarification and buy-in, setting a personal boundary is asking for trouble and just creating future obstacles. More and more breakdowns with another person--and ultimate separation.