Parenting Judgement

Formula Parenting

Putting parent power to the (psychometric) test
By Stephen Overell
Published: August 27 2005 03:00 | Last updated: August 27 2005 03:00

In my bit of pathologically child-centred north London, the work ethic was imported into the business of raising kids many years ago. The little dears must be pushed, motivated, fulfilled. They must live in a dizzy social whirl. And they must always have their say in key family decisions - nanny or nursery, playground or playdough.

Meanwhile, their harassed, task-juggling parents treat child-raising as a leadership skills exercise: the key question is how can they really deliver as a parent?

It is against this kind of background, I exaggerate only slightly, that Michael Lock's new psychometric instrument for analysing how parents make decisions seems like the most natural development in the world.

Lock has qualifications both as an educational psychologist and an occupational psychologist, and his "parental decision tree" is a spin-off from a version he developed for managers. It aims to encourage parents to examine their natural "decision-making style" and, if necessary, improve their parental judgment. So far, it has been used mostly by child psychologists and workers in children's homes but Lock plans to extend it to parents soon.

"There is a leadership dimension to parenting because power is being wielded. What the decision tree aims to do is help parents understand how to engage with the situation in the best way," he says. "Much of the time it is likely to reassure them in the style they are adopting but sometimes it may challenge them by recommending a style they would not pick themselves. Plenty of parents are struggling because they have given away too much power to their children."

In the expectation of being exposed as a wholly inadequate father of two, I approach Lock's decision tree somewhat gingerly. After entering a password on his website, the software asks me to type in my dilemma. There are so many. But I opt for the classic: how to handle toddler tantrums.

The computer then asks questions, such as: "Is this a really important decision?", "Do you feel time urgency?", and "Could the children sort this out on their own?" Just when I am beginning to think tantrums are not the tree's strong point, it comes back with its advice, based on my yes or no answers: "The parent should act as personal coach." This means: "I share the problem with the children individually, getting their ideas and suggestions, then I make the decision."

It had the same advice for all my other dilemmas, too - from potty training to getting children to sleep. It was only when I threw in a sneaky one - "To shout or to bribe, which is the best method?" - that the recommendation changed to: "The parent acts as questioner". This is defined as: "I obtain any necessary information from the children and then decide on the solution to the problem myself."

Frankly, I tell Lock afterwards, I am a little doubtful about the wisdom of this advice because toddlers can spot a quisling a mile off. He explains the decision tree is really aimed at the parents of older children. However, as he proceeds to give feedback on my answers, it is clear the apparent simplicity of the system can be deceptive.

The 10 questions are derived from situational analysis techniques that seek to get to the heart of any problem. And the various permutations of yes and no can be surprisingly revealing.

For example, Lock noted in my answers a tendency to think all dilemmas are urgent. If this was a pattern that re-occurred over, say, 30 dilemmas, he said he would want to ask if I was always in a hurry. It is also only after 30 or more visits that the information parents would really like to know emerges: what kind of parent they are. This comes out of the patterns of answers to the 10 questions.

Lock shows me a bar graph of a father who has been using the system. The graph indicates a very clear preference for taking control of situations, being "directive" in the jargon. The risk of such an approach, according to Lock, is "overly submissive children".

But, hang on, aren't terms like "personal coach" and "directive" arbitrary labels that will serve to make anxious parents even more anxious about the exact nuances of their behaviour?

Lock says there are eight key parenting styles that are "well-established in the literature", from "chief", who hoards all power, to "hands-off", which lets children sort things out for themselves. While parents should and do vary their styles, they nevertheless naturally tend to favour one of them.

He says it is not his intention to worry anyone but he believes parents will benefit from greater self-knowledge when they make judgments.

So how does he explain why the system appears to favour the "personal coach" option - the one, interestingly, that is so beloved by fashionable management theory?

"'Personal coach' is a reasonable place to be as a parent," he suggests. "The parent has not ceded control but they are interested in the children's ideas. It does not pretend to be the definitive answer but rather suggests the best bet in terms of how an individual should handle the coming conversation."

Visit the Formula Parenting website