Recognize when Plan A (unilateral imposition) makes things worse

Adult-imposed solutions can win the battle and lose the war — notice when enforcement is escalating rather than solving.

Why it works

Plan A — the adult imposes their will — works when the child has the skills to comply and simply needs a clear expectation. For a child with lagging flexibility or frustration tolerance, Plan A demands the very skills they lack, reliably triggering an explosion. The adult wins the power struggle but skips the skill-building that would prevent the next one. Recognizing the pattern makes it possible to shift strategies before the escalation cycle locks in.

How to do it

1. After an explosion, ask: was this triggered by an adult-imposed demand the child lacked the skills to meet?
2. Track which demands reliably produce explosions — these are unsolved problems, candidates for Plan B.
3. Reserve Plan A for genuine safety issues where collaborative problem-solving isn’t feasible in the moment.
4. For recurring Plan A failures, move the problem to proactive Plan B rather than increasing the consequence.

Evidence

Greene’s model is supported by research showing that punitive responses to skill-based deficits maintain or worsen behavior; consequence-based programs show limited durability for children with executive function deficits. (clinical)

Direct comparative evidence for Plan A vs. Plan B in home settings is limited; the clinical principle is well established, the randomized evidence comes primarily from institutional contexts.

Common mistake

Doubling down on Plan A when it keeps failing, interpreting the explosion as the child “choosing” not to comply rather than as evidence that the skill isn’t there yet.