I didn’t do it!

Why it is that some can’t acknowledge a mistake or oversight when a simple admission of ‘yes it was me’ would be quite the ordinary thing to do. Everyone would understand; don’t we all make mistakes? Remember the Fonz from Happy Days? He couldn’t say sorry because the Fonz was perfect so how could he ever make a mistake?

There’s a person I knew once, who was a bit Fonz like in his estimation of himself, though nowhere near as endearing, who would not acknowledge any wrong doing or mistakes that he may have made and would cast aspersions elsewhere on others who were not ‘as fastidious’ as he!

This person however was very vigilant and sensitive to the behaviours of others. Once, when a person ‘committed’ a minor, innocuous ‘infringement’ of expected norms, he said to the miscreant, ‘it was you who left the fridge door open in the kitchen! I know it was you! Just don’t do it!’

Now, you may be thinking, 'surely that can’t be true, so much fuss over a simple everyday happening?' No, it was characteristic of this person, always predictably intransigent in his attitudes towards specific others (he had his favourites!).

What assumptions did this person make about others? Albert Ellis, creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, would suggest there are some, what he called, ‘musturbatory’ thinking going on here. These black and white beliefs see people and life in black and white terms, either this way or that way; no in between grey area thinking allowed! A ‘musturbator’ was he! Many would opine that he was just an ordinary, everyday bully cum tyrant whose toxicity was palpable. Many would also comment on how the workplace was that much better when he was away! 

Essentially, according to REBT, our non-Fonz like manager, expected people to behave as he thought they should, no ifs nor buts! And if they didn’t? They were bad people (unless a favourite!) who deserved everything they got!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Toxic

 Toxic

A stench hangs heavy

Like a shroud

Envelopes and consumes

Imbues, infests, paralyses

It trails behind

And around

Menacing, targeting

It’s evident

Even when the physical form

Is no longer there

Imprinted there

And within

The experience

And resides

In the conscious

And unconscious self

What to do?

Cast off, remove

The repulsive stains

Of misogyny 

Sexism

Homophobia

Toxic

Some people have a negative effect on the work environment and it helps to spend as little time as possible with them. The narcissist is not able to see the world from another's perspective and can justify their actions according to the deficits of others i.e. it's them not me. They then go on their merry and often destructive way, sans any guilt it would appear.

The Angry Man

And the world continued to turn. His world turned within that world. In his world everything was neat, tidy, symmetrical, clean, and predictable. This was his template for ‘normal,’ the way things 'should' be. Ordered. His world was the way it 'must' be and the big world beyond was anything but. The tension between what he demanded of the world and how things were in reality was always close to breaking. Taut. Tense. 'The Angry Man.'

We might talk of one world but there are many individually constructed worldviews. Mental health according to Albert Ellis is when we best align our own expectations and demands of self, others and life in general based on what we are most likely to get. If we don't want to feel uncomfortable and if we believe the world should give us what we want and it doesn't there is a disparity between what we want and what we receive! As Ellis reminds us:

'The world isn't for us or against us. It doesn't give a shit!'

The 'Angry Man' had a 'mindmap' of the world that didn't change. Over the years whilst the terrain had continued to modify his map did not accommodate these adjustments. He would demand that the world should be as he demanded it to be to agree with his map, but when his demands were not met he would erupt and cry foul!

He would blame everyone and everything for his anger. He was being done to, the world was against him; he was a victim. His self pity took precedence over everyone else's needs and sensibilities and he would demand that they would deliver what he wanted nay what he must have to feel OK again. His black and white views couldn't allow for any grey or reasonable assessment of situations. He couldn't bring himself to changing his own expectations of how things could be.

The 'Angry Man' in his position of workplace leader would target individuals who would not deliver what be believed he must have. His philosophy of:

 'I must absolutely always get what I want and if I don't the world is a terrible place and these people must be punished!'

Albert Ellis calls this 'musturbatory' thinking where the 'musturbator' thinks in oughts, musts and shoulds. Those who don't provide what he must have are often the target of bullying. The bully believes the victim makes him angry and she therefore deserves to be bullied! His toxicity is palpable and he will go to all lengths to get what he must have!

The 'Angry Man' would never concede that he is responsible for how he feels and behaves because he 'knows' this is not so. 'If only 'they' could see what 'they' are doing. If only 'they' would give me what I want!' is his internal dialogue, on continuous loop in his head. He programs and reprograms what he 'know's' is true by constantly practicing and reinforcing this irrational reality he has constructed.

His world turns within a world that can never give him what he believes he must have, a mismatch of realities that the 'Angry Man' can't understand as he stresses and strains to demand a world that will never (can't) match his own constructed reality.

Screwballs, Nutters and Faulty Bits

'There's enough there for an entire conference!' the psychiatrist guest was heard to say to another on witnessing the behaviour of hapless Basil of Fawlty Towers fame (BBC TV UK).

'There's enough there for an entire conference.'

This quote comes to mind whenever I experience behaviour that is beyond the generally agreed norm of what constitutes civility in the workplace. A persons general demeanour and actions can have a positive effect on others; encouraging, supportive and respectful or they can have an otherwise entirely negative effect on them!

Basil's behaviour invoked feelings of frustration and anger from others (how can anyone be so inept) but it was counter balanced by other more 'reasonable' characters like Sybil and Polly who would challenge Basil who it seemed was incapable of any insight in to how his behaviour effected work colleagues! Poor Manuel would cop it mercilessly from Basil who always remained loyal and respectful of his malevolent boss.

Please don't hurt me!

An REBT perspective on Basil's emotional and behavioural status would (and probably has already!) take up 'an entire conference!' What are his 'mustabatory' demands on others and the world? What is he getting (or not getting) that he must not get. And why is it so awful when the world doesn't deliver what he must have and why is it never his fault (Faulty) when things go awry?

Have you ever worked in a situation that would provide 'enough material for an entire conference?' Do you work in an environment bordering on the toxic where a particular individual has hijacked what would otherwise be a pleasant and cordial and more productive workplace? Do you find it difficult to be in the same proximity of this individual (s)? How do you manage yourself and how do you maintain your own sense of worth and dignity?

Any ideas would be most welcome!

Basil and his counterfoils Sybil and Polly