How "Two-Great Choices" Prevents Power Struggles

A family recently told me that they were at a birthday party when they overheard a dad say to his son, “The rule is kids can’t walk around the gym with food. You have two great choices: you can sit at the table and have your pizza; or, you can put the pizza down and play.” My clients turned to this dad and asked, “Do you work with Claire Lerner?” Bingo.

Indeed, the “Two Great Choices” has become a  foundation and hallmark of my work with families. Here’s why: almost every family who comes to see me is ensconced in daily power struggles with their children. This dynamic is exhausting, enraging, frustrating, and ultimately very detrimental to both parent and child. When there is a power struggle, everybody Ioses. Parents lose their sense of competence and authority, as well as positive feelings about their child, and parenthood, period. Kids lose because they are not supposed to be in charge. While on the outside it may seem they want to have all the power, on the inside it makes them feel unsafe and insecure.

Further, when power struggles prevail, children experience a lot of negativity and anger from their very frustrated parents which erodes the parent-child relationship and leads to more power struggles.

It also prevents children from learning critical life skills, like: how to get through mundane daily tasks, accept rules and limits, and learn to manage life’s frustrations and disappointments.

As I watched these scenarios unfold via video and on home visits, I identified two key factors that set families up for protracted power struggles:

1) The default for most parents is to make threats in a desperate attempt to get their kids to cooperate. “If you don’t pick up these toys right now, I am going to take them all away!” “If you throw a fit every time we turn off the tablet, we will just have to take away all screens!” Making threats sends the message to your child that you are in for a fight. This puts kids in oppositional, power-struggle mode, especially children who are more defiant by nature. Negativity and threats tend to amplify their resistance. They dig in their heels more firmly. (Not to mention that in some cases, children know their parents will not follow through on the threat so they are not cowed by it.)

2) Parents’ knee-jerk reaction is to focus all their attention on changing their children’s behavior, aka, getting them to agree to cooperate: to stop playing and get ready for bed, to stay in bed after lights-out, or to sit at the dinner table, to name a few. The more parents try to get their kids to cooperate with the direction, the more kids resist, obfuscate, escalate, or become increasingly provocative, to show their parents “You’re not the boss of me.”

The big “aha” I had from observing these interactions is that when parents are focusing all of their efforts on trying to make their child change their behavior—when they are trying to convince their child to cooperate with a direction or agree to a limit—parents are actually ceding control of the situation to their child. All of the tactics they employ to get their child to comply—threats, bribes/rewards, nagging, cajoling, using logic (“Don’t you want to go to sleep so your body will be big and strong in the morning?”), gamifying (which sometimes works but often loses its allure for children at some point, not to mention it can be exhausting for parents!)— put the outcome in the child’s hands. How? All of these strategies depend on the child choosing or being able to change their behavior. Parents are hoping against hope that one of these tactics will result in their child changing their mind and doing the right thing: climbing into the car seat, putting their toys away, agreeing to sit at the dinner table.  

But what I observed time after time was children not being swayed by their parents’ logic; not accepting the bribe or reward; not conceding for fear of the threat. The parent threatens, “If you don’t stay in your room after lights out I am going to take your lovey away.” The child responds by handing the lovey over to her dad and continuing to prance around the house after lights-out. (You have heard many of these stories if you have read any of my blogs/newsletters or my book.)

I also witnessed children being very strategic. They quickly figured out that their parents were so eager for them to comply with an expectation/limit/direction, that they, as one dad framed it, would “extort” them. The child would follow a direction or make a good/right choice only if they received some reward or special treat for complying. They would stay in their bed after lights out if mom read them five more books. They would sit at the dinner table, but only if they could bring their tablet and watch a show.

Enter the “Two Great Choices”

I developed the “Two Great Choices” approach to solve these foundational problems; to provide parents with a tool that had the promise of ending the dreaded, pernicious power struggle. It goes like this:

“Stella, I know it’s really hard to leave the playground when you are having so much fun. But it’s time to go home to get ready for dinner. This is a ‘have-to’. The great news is that how it happens is up to you. If you want to be in charge of your body, you can climb into the car seat on your own. If you choose not to do that, I will be a helper and get you safely in the car seat. You decide. What is the best choice for Stella: to get in on your own or have mommy be a helper?”

The key is to this approach is:

Option #1 is the child chooses to cooperate. They get into the car seat to go to preschool, they stop throwing blocks, they stay at the table to eat their food.

Option #2 is an action you can take to ensure the limit/expectation is met. You place your child in the car seat, remove a toy they are playing with inappropriately, take away the food they are eating in an off-limits space.

Using the “Two Great Choices” gets you out of the power-struggle by helping you:

1) Shift from making threats to offering choices. Any threat can be turned into a choice: “If you don’t stop throwing those blocks right now I am taking them away!” turns into: “You have two great choices: Option #1 is you play with the blocks safely and get to keep playing with them. Option #2 is the blocks go away to ensure safety. You decide.” This reduces the child’s knee-jerk defiance that results from being told what to do or when facing a threat if they don’t cooperate with a task or limit.

2) Move from trying to get your child to change their behavior—something you have no control over—and, instead, on controlling the situation—what you do control. It ensures an end game that enables parents to stay in charge in a positive way, not leaving the important outcome in the child’s hands. In the case above, you would put the blocks away if your child didn’t stop throwing them. Other typical examples:

“Washing hands when we get home from the playground is a ‘have-to.’ How it happens is totally up to you. You have two great choices: if you want to be in charge of your body, you can choose a sink and wash your hands. If you choose not to do that, I will be a helper and use a wipe to get them clean. You decide.” (When you end your presentation of choices with the positive phrase, “you decide”, it reinforces the idea that you are not the one making the choice—your child is. You are just implementing the consequences of their decisions.)

“We know you love treats and it never feels like enough. But we have limits on treats because they are not good growing foods for your body. So your two great choices are: you can follow the rule and not take a treat without permission; or, I will be a helper and move the treats to a safe place, out of reach, because it’s too tempting.”

Parents often ask why I call it the “Two Great Choices”, when it’s really only one good choice. I added the “great” modifier because it puts parents and kids in a more positive state of mind. Tone accounts for a lot and is contagious. In this model, you are messaging that even Option #2 is a good choice, even if your child doesn't like it. Remember, just because children want something doesn't mean that's what they need or what is best for them in that moment. Option #2 is about being a helper. You are not angry or frustrated. You are not punishing them (even though they may make you feel like you are, when they react in the face of your setting a limit they don't like by calling you a "mean, unkind mommy.") You are just helping your child follow an important limit.

This approach also teaches kids to make good choices by implementing natural consequences. Once children experience that you are not going to get drawn into a battle trying to get them to do something, or to stop doing something, and they are just left with experiencing the natural consequence, they start to make better choices.(See this blog for more on how to avoid power struggles.)

What about when a child is too young to make a choice?

The beauty of this approach is that it is helpful for kids who are under three and not yet able to process choices/consequences. It is also effective for kids who are old enough to process choices and make decisions about their actions when in a regulated state, but are in “red zone”/distress-mode and are unable to tune in to the choices you are giving them or control their actions in that moment.

Say your two-year-old is jumping on the couch. Each time you respond, “You have two great choices: you can sit on the couch and bounce like this (as you demonstrate), or daddy will be a helper and move you to a safe space away from the couch.” When/if your child doesn’t stop jumping on the couch, you follow through. As calmly as possible you move them away from the sofa as you say, “No problem, daddy will be a helper and keep you safe.” You don't expect your child to be able to make a conscious decision. But over time your child puts your words and actions together and begins to understand how this works. And, most importantly, in the moment it prevents the power struggle and keeps you in charge in a positive way. (Also see this blog about what to do when limit-setting gets physical.)

What about when a child is too dysregulated to make a choice?

When a child is able to make intentional choices when calm is dysregulated—their downstairs brain has taken over—this approach enables you to be their rock, which is exactly what they need in that moment; not to go down the rabbit hole of trying to convince, cajole, bribe, reward, or negotiate with a child who is spiraling out of control and can’t think logically. You still offer the choices, but don’t expect them to be able to make a conscious decision, and know that you will likely have to go quickly to Option #2.

Here is a typical example: Charlie (5) is having a meltdown because his dad came to pick him up from school instead of his grandma whom he was expecting. He sits down in the middle of the parking lot and refuses to budge, screaming at his father to go away. His dad responds: “I know you don’t like that I am here instead of grandma. You don’t like when something unexpected happens. I understand. We need to be safe right now, so you have two great choices: you can get up on your own to go to the car, or I can be a helper and bring you to the car.” Charlie likely has not even processed these choices, and continues to scream at his dad to go away. His dad says, “No problem, I’ll be a helper,” as he picks Charlie up as calmly as possible and gets him to the car. All the while he is saying to himself, “I have a great kid having a hard time. He just needs me to be his rock and help him move through this difficult moment.” Accordingly, he does not respond to any of the kicking and shouting. He gets Charlie safely buckled in, turns on some music Charlie likes, and stays quiet. He doesn’t try to make it all better, talk Charlie out of his feelings, or teach him a lesson. He just gives Charlie space. Charlie eventually recovers and has had one more lived experience that he can do hard things, and that his dad is his rock.

What about situations when a parent can’t implement the end game-do something to ensure the limit is implemented?

These are situations when you are not able to ensure the limit is implemented, that the rule is followed. For example, if you have an older child whom you are not able to or are not comfortable physically moving to get them into a car seat, the bath, etc. Or, if it is a task like cleaning up toys, putting dishes in the sink, or getting dressed in the morning, You can’t mind-meld with a child to get them to agree to follow through on these tasks.

In these scenarios, I find that the combination of not getting drawn into the power struggle, which is the fight many kids are looking for to feel empowered and which is very reinforcing, plus a natural consequence, results in kids making the healthy choice, ala the examples below:

Logan consistently refuses to throw his trash away. "Logan, we all have responsibility to take care of our home. So, Option #1 is you throw the wrapper in the garbage. Option #2 is you choose not to throw it away, which means we have to do it. This takes time away from "extras" so there will be 10 less minutes of screen time when you choose not to do your job and we have to do it for you. It's up to you to decide which choice is better for you."

Paolo won’t clean up his toys. “Paolo, you have two great choices: Option #1 is you choose to cooperate with the rule to put your toys away and you get to play with them again tomorrow. Option #2 is that the toys you choose not to clean up go away for 2 days (or however many days you choose). You decide. What’s a better choice for you?” Another Option #2 is that you, the parent, have to do the child’s job if they don’t do it, which takes time from the “extras”—playtime, screen time, books before bed, etc.

Molly unbuckles her seat belt on the way home from preschool. Her mom, Lauren, tells Molly that keeping the seatbelt on is a "have-to"—they can't drive without her buckled in. She acknowledges that she can't make Molly cooperate with this rule, as she can't be in the back seat to ensure she stays buckled. So Molly's two great choices are: Option #1 is to keep the seatbelt on, which means they will have more time to play at home before dinner. Option #2 is that for every minute that Molly is unbuckled, and mom has to pull over to the side of the road, one minute is taken away from playtime before dinner because mom has to use this time to do other things she couldn't do while they had to wait. (I find this is an effective strategy for many situations when your child is not cooperating with a transition and you don't feel you can physically move them.)

In all of these scenarios, parents are acknowledging that they can’t make their children do these things, that it’s the child’s choice. And those choices have natural consequences. They are also teaching their children that cooperation saves time, which leads to more time for the “extras.” When they don’t cooperate, it takes time away from the “extras.” This reflects exactly how the world works. (Here is more on using natural consequences to encourage cooperation.)

Don't be dissuaded by your child’s indifference to the natural consequence. Initially, your child (especially if he is fierce and feisty) will act like he couldn't care less about the consequence, to show you that nothing you do affects him (as if to say, "Knock yourself out"). But if you stay the course, over time I find that children start to make better choices because...THERE IS NO MORE CURRENCY FOR THEM IN THE DEFIANCE. It's the battle and sense of power that is often what is motivating them. Once that is no longer at play—you stop giving them any fodder to react to (i.e., trying to control their behavior and telling them what to do), they realize it's much better for them to throw the damn wrapper away, clean up the toys, place the dishes in the sink, or wash their hands... and get their coveted screen time or whatever "extra" they desire.

What to do when your child rejects both choices

As one three-year-old put it: “I don’t like the choices you're choicing me!”

Let’s say your child is grabbing toys from their sibling. You respond: “We don’t grab. You have two great choices: you can give the toy back to your brother or I can be a helper and give it back. Which do you choose?” Your child responds along the lines of, “I don’t like any of those choices!” Or, “I am going to tell you the choices!” You respond: “No problem, I will be a helper and you just follow through with Option #2.

How to come up with the “two great choices” in the heat of the moment

It takes a minute to think about what these choices should be. Here is an approach that enables parents to use this strategy most calmly and effectively:

1. State the problem, matter-of-factly. “Our rule is no eating on the couch. I see you are having a hard time following that rule. I am going to take a mommy moment to think about how I can help us solve this problem.”

2. Then you turn away, and out loud, talk yourself through what your options are. This gives you a minute to avoid being reactive and to think through what the choices can be. It starts with stating what you don’t control, to be sure you don’t go down that path of trying to convince your child to cooperate. “Let’s see—Caleb is a human being, so I can’t actually make him agree to go back in the kitchen to eat. So I guess his two great choices are: Option #1—to cooperate with the rule and choose to eat in the kitchen. In that case, he can keep eating. Or, Option #2 is I will be a helper and take the food away. That might feel really uncomfortable, but it will make sure the rule is followed.”

3. Follow through on the plan, as calmly as possible.

This approach of taking a mommy/daddy moment is even more powerful when you do it together with your partner.

Say it’s a car seat battle. One parent comments to the other, "It looks like Olivia is having a hard time following our direction to get into the car seat. Let's take a mommy/daddy minute to think about how we can solve this problem." Have your adult discussion about how to solve the problem and what choices you are going to give your child in front of them, provided that you can do it calmly and respectfully. This approach has many important benefits for you and your child, including: 

• preventing reactivity

• giving you time to come up with a more effective response

• providing a model for your child about what collaborating in a mutually-respectful way looks like

It can also be very useful to think in advance about situations that arise regularly with your child and make a plan for what their choices will be, so that you are prepared. It’s when parents don’t have a plan that things tend to go off the rails.

Check out this blog to see how using these “Two Great Choices” fits into an overall positive disciple approach.