Hi everyone, this is a post concerning nuances of the PoJA, one of my favoriate MB concepts to think/talk about. My wife and I are currently in a situation where an initial agreement was one-sided (she wanted it, I was reluctant), but now we're both in enthusiastic agreement. I emailed the Harley's last Friday to see what they thought; they were extremely quick to respond, on today's show!! (at about the 53 minute mark).

My original email to them is below, followed by my attempt to write down their response. I think I got most of it, but if someone could post the link for completeness sake, that would be great, thanks.

What I got out of the response was allowance for an agreement to be made where both spouses are not enthusiastic about it. In that situation, Dr. Harley recommends a "try-it-you-may-like-it-approach," where if the agreement can be reversed, it's ok to temporarily make the agreement even if you're not enthusiastic about it.

That's what *I* got out of the response, but I'd like to know what others get out of it and if others have been in similar situations and can describe their experience. Thanks!

(This will make more since after you read the email & response: My original email was skimmed by Joyce, and she left out a piece of information (that we wanted to get rid of carpets) that undoubtedly would've changed Dr. Harley's response. He suggested carpet as a solution, but I think his point is still valid: there would've been an alternate solution had I not liked the wood floors. Read on, it'll make more sense below. Also, for those who haven't heard the show, they reference Dave, a caller from earlier in the show.)

Original email

Hi Joyce, I wrote to you & Bill twice a couple years ago asking for dating-relationship advice, and you responded both times with great answers that helped. That relationship ended, but I have since met someone else, fallen in love, and we�ve been happily married now just over a year.

My wife and I like discussing Marriage Builders topics we read in your books and on your website. One topic that fascinates me is the Policy of Joint Agreement: never do anything without enthusiastic agreement between you and your spouse. I�ve seen a number of discussions on the Marriage Builders forums about the Policy that have cleared up some misperceptions I had and helped me learn how to apply it.

I�d like to know what you think of agreements that appear to violate the Policy but actually work out in the end.

An example is one my wife and I are currently involved in. We have discussed replacing our carpets because we have a lot of pets, and the carpets are taking a beating. My wife wanted to replace them with wood floors, but I was hesitant partly because of the expense, and partly because I wanted to explore more options. My wife found some wood on sale that she really liked and was anxious to purchase it. I could see how much she really wanted the new floors, and since there was only a limited supply of wood on sale, I agreed; it was more of a reluctant agreement, however, not enthusiastic, which violated the Policy of Joint Agreement.

We then got an estimate to install the floors, but after incurring the expense of the wood itself, the estimate was more than we could afford. So my wife researched do-it-yourself options, and we started installing the floors ourselves. We have about a room and half done so far, and I have to say, the floors are beautiful; when we�re finished, our home will look much better. I am now VERY enthusiastic about the floors, and I�m glad she persisted in spite of my reluctance. Additionally, an unexpected benefit is I love the time we spend together installing them.

Even though this situation is working out well, I realize it had the potential to not work out at all. If I had NOT liked the floors, I would�ve been reminded of them every time I walked in the door, and this could easily have led to resentment.

My feeling now is that if we had followed the Policy of Joint Agreement, we'd still be living with tough-to-maintain carpets and missing out on the beautiful floors that are now materializing. It�s true we might've been able to get wood floors in the future, but who knows when the price would've been as good as we obtained. And in the meantime, my wife might've experienced the resentment of having to put up with deteriorating carpets every time SHE walked in the door.

It seems in this case, violating the Policy of Joint Agreement worked out better than adhering to it. I�m wondering what your thoughts are about situations like this in which a reluctant agreement evolves to an enthusiastic one after it�s made. When the reluctant agreement is made, it�s not known whether the reluctance will evolve to enthusiasm, so there�s risk involved.

In the case of my wife and I, this is not the first time I�ve reluctantly agreed to something she wanted and found out later it worked out for the best. Consequently, I�m trusting her judgment more and more, and decisions that might previously have felt reluctant are becoming easier to make. (I�m beginning to wonder if my wife knows what�s best for me more than I do!)

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thank you in advance if you choose to respond since I�m sure you get a lot of email.

Radio show response

Joyce: (skims the part of the email where I describe the scenario, paragraphs 3-5) So his questions is, sometimes a violation of the Policy of Joint Agreement, can it work?

Bill: I�m not sure that would qualify as a violation of the Policy of Joint Agreement because what they did was they worked through a situation where..., I�ve always argued that if you make a deal that is a temporary solution -- now of course, a new floor, it�s hard to call that a temporary solution � but there is an argument that could be made that if he hated the floor, they could�ve gotten something else, they could�ve put a carpet on top of it.

Joyce: May I just say, he says, �Even though this situation is working out well, I realize it had the potential to not work out. If I had NOT liked the floors, I would�ve been reminded of them every time I walked in the door, and this could easily have led to resentment.�

Bill: And I think the solution to that would�ve been to put a carpet over the floor. Granted it would�ve cost more money, but on the other hand, they would�ve had the time putting it together, that would�ve been fun.

Joyce: So you think what they did was an ok way of...

Bill: It was not exactly a violation of the Policy of Joint Agreement, like in Dave�s case where he basically said I don�t want to have any more children, and she went ahead and had children anyway.

Joyce: So it was a bending of the rule.

Bill: Well, it wasy a try-it-you�ll-like-it approach. Now, this is something that I recommend. As long as you can reverse the situation, which in the case of a floor, technically you can.

Joyce: But children, you can�t.

Bill: Right, this is why his resentment continues to this day; even though it turned out really well -- he loves his children, he's glad he had them -- even though he�s really happy, he was really not willing at that point to have more children. In this case, he�s saying, "I did agree, I did let this thing go, and who knows, maybe I might like it," and he did. And so now he�s happy. So I wouldn�t consider this exactly a violation. And what would I recommend to a couple; I would say when you are in a conflict over somethinng, the idea of trying something out just to see how it works is a good idea. See if you like it, see if you like using this, and if you don�t like it, do something else.

Joyce: But, say it�s a move, a move to another state; you can�t try that out.

Bill: That�s right. Now I had a couple I was counseling recently on where should they live. And basically one of them wanted to live on one coast, one of them wanted to live on the other coast, and we studied what it was about each person that wanted them to live where they wanted to live. It turned out that it had a lot to do with economics, it had a lot to do with issues that weren�t having to do with exactly why they wanted to live on one coast or the other. So what they ended up doing was they got a new house on one of the coasts that solved the problems that the person would�ve had living on that coast. I can�t go into the details because we don�t have enough time, but we worked on that for over a year, and they finally came to an enthusiastic agreement about it.

Joyce: And what helped was there was a third party, as well.

Bill: Yeah, and we kept brainstorming, kept brainstorming. But again, a house is something that you can technically... well, you can move again. If you hate where you�re living, move again, until you�re both happy with it.

Joyce: He finalized it by saying �this is not the first time I�ve reluctantly agreed to something she wanted and found out later it worked out for the best. I trust her judgment more and more, and decisions that might previously have felt reluctant are becoming easier to make. I�m beginning to wonder if my wife knows what�s best for me more than I do."

Bill, laughing with Joyce: Until one decision comes up that really doesn�t work.

Joyce: Let�s not give up the reins, yet. Keep it equal on your input, absolutely.

Dr. Harley often recommends the try it to see if you like it solution. It's part of respectful persuasion. Now, you can't FORCE your spouse to try something (there's no rule that you HAVE to try something), but you can ask them if they'd be willing to. In addition, being willing to try something you're not sure you'll like is being willing to be persuaded by your spouse. It can open up a whole new world of possibilities you never would have considered on your own.

Markos and I do this all the time. If I want something, but he doesn't, I might ask him if he'd like to try it for a little while and we can stop it if he still doesn't like it.

The thing is, when he comes to me and says "I don't like this. I want to renegotiate," I must then be willing to stop what we agreed upon and renegotiate to find something else. Just because we agreed to try it does NOT mean that we MUST stick to the agreement.

I tend to want to renegotiate things more often than Markos does. He tends to like what we try, whereas I am more likely to say "I don't like this!"

You must always be willing to renegotiate.

Hi Prisca, thanks for that refreshing post! Up until a week ago, I had been thinking of the PoJA in black and white terms; either you were, or were not, enthusiastic about something, and if you weren�t, you did nothing. It�s nice to know there�s some wiggle room.

My wife and I are like you and Markos in that I usually end up happy with things she suggests, even if I�m initially neutral about them. However, we both recognize that I�m somewhat of a giver-centric person, sometimes willing to ignore my taker and do things for her. When negotiating an agreement, she�s very good about confronting me and making sure I�m genuinely in agreement and not simply doing it for her. It�s nice to have someone who knows my weaknesses and is willing to shore them up rather than exploit them.

If you mention this post to Markos, can you please ask him a favor? In his signature, he used to have an audio link called �What Marriage Builders is all about� or something like that. I used to have that link, but I�ve lost it and would love to have it again. Thanks!

Respectful persuasion is key to PoJA. Dr H tried demonstrating this with the example of persuading Joyce, a fish-hater to eat sardines with him. He said on the radio recently that the right recipe might do it. She said she doubted it and would not even have them in the house because they smelled.

I tried fresh sardines out of the sea on a barbecue and they had no odour at all. My first thought was whether this would work for the Harley's! I don't think so, because although the odour was not there, Dr H wants them to eat sardines together and Joyce is so particular an eater she isn't enthusiastic about trying.

However she did try sea fishing with him and loved it, much to her surprise.

Also, unless my memory deceives me I think they moved for Dr H's job once when Joyce was unenthusiastic with the caveat they could return home if she wasn't happy, but it worked out.

It's on my list.

That is good that she realizes this. My H had a long bad habit of agreeing to things that made him unhappy just to make me happy. For that reason, we had a few disasters along the way until he learned to stop doing that. Pretty much, though, he has learned to not practice capitulation but will sometimes try new things on the premise that we can stop if he doesn't like it.

Take steps to start listening to your Taker more. Giving people are often the most vulnerable to having angry outbursts. They give and give and give until they just can't take it anymore and blow. So start taking steps now to avoid that problem developing in your marriage. Don't rely on her to make sure you're not just giving in. Start verifying that for yourself.

She mentioned it, and here it is:

What Marriage Builders is All About

I'm glad you found Prisca's post helpful.

Here it is.
Radio Clip of KeepLearning's question

Thanks Prisca. Although I do know that, friendly reminders are always appreciated.

Thanks Markos for the link; it's one of my favorites.

And thank you too BrainHurts, you're the best!

You're welcome.