The Quest for Power – manipulation in the workplace

If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is! How many spam emails have you received that say you have won a lottery? Just send your account details and presto you are an instant millionaire!

A schoolteacher (Y) tells the story of a colleague who at first appeared to be just that, too good to be true. She was very helpful and polite; a member of several committees, which would make decisions about school matters. As time progressed the schoolteacher began to take note of her colleagues behaviour and in the end she concluded that indeed her helpful co-worker was ‘too good to be true.’

In time her co-worker (X) would reveal her true intentions, to seek at all costs to get what she wanted by fair means or foul. How did she do this? What manipulative skills did she bring to bear to get the approval and power she needed? Read on.

X would be very generous and overly helpful to those who were new to the school. She would be pleasant and kind, always making sure they were tended to. Was all this a means in itself or a means to an end? Was she kind for kindness sake or was the teacher (Y) a mere pawn in her game, a target to be groomed for her own deceitful ends?

X had established a strong working relationship with the boss and other staff members would comment on the lengths she would go to please him e.g. make him coffee, get him cake and biscuits and volunteer to do things for him. The more she ministered to his needs the higher she was held in his esteem. Her sense of worth would continue to be bolstered as the boss grew to rely more on her readiness to help at any time.

X would recount how on so many occasions over time she had been victimised by others. At the netball club she would volunteer for various committees until she had a say in almost every area of club management and organization. She would do things so perfectly that others would comment on her exceptional talents. She was indispensible in her mind and achieved her desire to be the centre of attention. Others would grow to resent her influence and people left the club. When the club president suggested that changes be made to accommodate others X cried foul. What had she done? She only wanted what was best for the club! It just wasn’t fair!

X had claimed in the past that someone had rearranged personal items on her desk. For instance she said that someone had rearranged photographs, relocated paperwork and other things on her desk. She didn’t name anyone in particular but she left an impression that someone was treating her badly and unfairly. Had this actually happened or was it a strategy to focus attention again on her needy self? Others were left to consider which cruel staff member was the culprit making X’s life so difficult.

Mysteriously files would go missing on Y’s computer only to be retrieved by guess who? No need for a second guess! When X wanted to ingratiate herself to someone what better way than to be the one that ‘saves the day.’ X was heard to say, ‘these aren’t my files but I feel as if they are my own. It’s just like I lost them.’ Was this yet another contrived situation to demonstrate how empathic she was, how concerned she was for others. It perhaps was also an opportunity to get a kick from having power and control over the situation. Consider the phenomenon of the ‘Firefighter arsonist’

‘There are cases of fire - fighters who have started a fire, reported it and attended the fire with their unit in the hope of being seen as the hero who saves the community. In other cases the motive may be to gain self-esteem through a demonstration of power and control.
’BushFIRE Arson Bulletin No. 16 Australian Institute of Criminology

X would claim that issues at home constantly challenged her – relationships with siblings, relationship with spouse, and serious health problems of family members. People initially would show care and concern but again was this yet another way to get peoples attention? Wouldn’t people regard such stoicism and resilience admirable? Some began to question the veracity of such claims. ‘It doesn’t only rain but it pours!’ ‘Don’t I have enough to deal with? Now this!’ This was the mantra, often accompanied by tears and claims of how unfair people and situations were.

It wasn’t unusual to observe X ministering to the needs of children demonstrating her compassion and desire to ‘be there’ for them. This was done in full view of others, her soothing words just loud enough for her ‘admiring’ colleagues to see her. How wonderful it appeared that X could be so caring and compassionate. What was the intention behind this? Were the children being used so that X could showcase her skills and compassion? This was perhaps yet another opportunity to be noticed, to be the centre of attention.

People began to wise up to X’s emotional blackmail and victim behaviour and they began to question her true intentions. Attention seekers need attention and some decided that they would not continue to fuel her need to be needed. If someone questioned her or asked for more information about something she would protest how affronted she was and that she was being unfairly treated. If people weren’t convinced she would become tearful. How could anyone think ill of someone who was so caring, compassionate, competent and hard working? Why should she be held to account like everyone else?

The professional victim is adept at deflecting blame, using hard luck stories to win sympathy, making herself ‘indispensible’ to influential others. This all feeds her need to be needed. She has low self worth and has such a poor opinion of herself that she relies on the approval of others to feel good about herself, an approval addiction/dependence. In previous posts we have discussed Serious Approval Dependence (SAD) where the individual needs to be noticed and esteemed by others. When this is taken away, the individual can be left with feelings of inadequacy, self-doubt and self-loathing. She may also resent those who don’t acknowledge her talents and capabilities (as they absolutely should! – see Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance). She is often left feeling angry, anxious and depressed.

X could do with some professional support to understand why she feels as she feels and behaves as she does. Albert Ellis’ REBT would help her tease out those irrational habits of thinking that she has constructed over the years. What self-sabotaging ‘musts, oughts and should’ type thinking underlie her unhelpful feelings and behaviours?

Person X above is worthy of understanding and respect but at the same time those around her would be wise to protect themselves from her manipulative behaviour.

1. Be aware of she who sits on every or most committees
2. Don’t feed her need to be needed – she needs your approval, don’t give it!
3. Be prepared to become a target of her anger/resentment if you are strong enough not to be drawn into her web of lies and deceit.
4. Tears and claims of victimhood will be the strategy of choice used when there is any sense that she has been caught out (‘My integrity is at stake here! This is so unfair.’)
5. She will put others down strategically when others who are ‘on side’ are around.
6. She will delegate difficult jobs to others (that she can’t do herself) and criticize them when they fail (as they will do).
7. She will withhold important information from colleagues.
8. She will deny professional learning opportunities to her 'underlings' and then criticize them when they don’t perform as well as they ‘should’.
9. She will tell her line manager that so and so is lazy, inefficient (who will believe her as she is his confidante at his disposal 24/7 and therefore must be right)
10. The above strategies will be used to her advantage e.g. engineer the employment of people she knows to positions on staff (to replace those inefficient others who ‘don’t do a good job’) who she can control.
11. She will tell lies to get what she wants.
12. She will be aided and abetted by line managers who wouldn’t want to get her offside as she is greatly needed (just as she likes to be).

The Obnoxious Child

According to my lap top thesaurus obnoxious means 'loathsome, hateful, insufferable and abhorrent' amongst many others. Students present with a range of developmental needs and it is teachers business to find out what those needs are and how best to address them. What do we do when we have concluded that a particular child is loathsome? What have we done when we have labelled a student so?

If you are an educator or someone who works with children you may have had moments of utter frustration where you have declared to yourself or to others that so and so is a total ‘shit’ and is ruining what is otherwise the ‘perfect’ class. What do you do when you think this way? What do you do when you feel this way? How do you act when you think and feel like this?

Your frustration may be fleeting as you talk to others and reflect on the situation and anger and frustration eventually gives way to concern as you again try to find another way to support this child.

On the other hand your anger may be sustained and your resentment towards this child may build to the point where you believe the only satisfactory outcome would be if this child could be removed from your class, the school, your life!

Interestingly the same obnoxious child we are talking about may not evoke the same sentiments in your colleague who works with this child. Why? We are talking about the same child are we not?

Let’s consider the above scenario from an REBT/REBE perspective in regard to the teacher and the student and perhaps suggest ways in which the teacher can manage a trying and challenging situation.

Ellis strongly recommends that we examine our core philosophical beliefs about others. He talks about unconditional acceptance of others, acknowledging that people will make mistakes and do inappropriate things, which don’t/can’t negate the positive aspects and qualities of the person. From this viewpoint we can say that the child may have done/does ‘obnoxious’ things but is herself not obnoxious. Having an attitude of acceptance of the person separates the person from the deed and whilst it may not be easy to do it is well worth cultivating such an attitude for the benefit of the child and the teacher.

If we believe that people can be totally bad or obnoxious we then may feel resentful and angry towards the ‘bad’ person. This feeling of anger and resentment will be sustained as we maintain the belief that this person is making us angry. Logically then it will follow that we can only be happy when the source of our unhappiness is removed (the obnoxious child is making us angry). REBT holds that this philosophical stance is self-defeating for the teacher (I only accept people who are ‘good’ and not ‘bad’) because it maintains the unhealthy feelings outlined above and leads to poor actions towards the child e.g. ignored, constantly criticised, put down. It is important to be clear about the source of our anger and resentment towards the obnoxious child (and any other person we decide is ‘bad’). Albert Ellis said, “We feel and act as we do because we believe as we do!” He calls this Conditional Acceptance of Others; we only accept others when they meet our demands to behave as we want them to behave when we want them to. When we don’t get what we must have we feel angry. WE MAKE OURSELVES ANGRY BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE THINK!

What are the consequences for the child? She is in a perilous position because a very significant person in her life (you) has decided that she is not worthy of your attention or respect. She is bad (not good) and bad people should be punished (ignored, put down). Not only does she do bad, she is bad! This will only reinforce her belief that she is bad (a shit, an arsehole, worthless) and this will manifest in longer-term behavioural and emotional problems. The Dalai Lama says:

“In our daily life a certain way of thinking makes us happy, and a certain way of thinking makes us unhappy.”

What can the teacher do to manage this situation effectively? How can she manage her feelings and behaviour? How can the child be supported in this challenging situation?

1. Understand that you determine how you feel and behave. Not others.
2. Examine your beliefs. Do you accept others only on certain conditions?
3. Cultivate an attitude of acceptance of others; understand the difference between behaviour and person.
4. Monitor your self-talk. Beware of shoulds, oughts and musts.
5. Accept yourself (look up Unconditional Self Acceptance).
6. Accept that things may not always work to plan.
7. Think in preferences not shoulds. ‘I would prefer she did as she was asked but I accept she doesn’t absolutely have to.’
8. ‘It takes a village to raise a child.’ Address the child’s needs from a whole school perspective. Enlist the help of others.
9. Believe that the child is not essentially bad. Damn the sin not the sinner!

Are you a bad person for believing that a student is bad? Absolutely not! You have many positive qualities and capabilities, which can never be taken away. You are always worthwhile no matter what. Is this not also true of the ‘obnoxious’ child?

“In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher." Dalai Lama

Dr Albert Ellis

RAGE!

Seamus is a competitive person who likes to win. He regards himself as an intelligent person who is ‘the best’ student in the class. He settles for nothing less than an ‘A’ in his work and has grand plans for his future education and career. He derides other student’s efforts and will declare to them that he is the ‘smartest in the class.’ He is known for the odd put down, telling others how ‘retarded’ they are.

His peers tolerate his conceit and suffer his company in playground activities. He doesn’t appear to be aware that others may not be comfortable around him at times as he continues to declare his superiority over all others.

The above is problematic for himself, his peers and the school community as Seamus has a severe anger management problem. He is moody at the best of times and becomes enraged too readily. Why?

According to REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) he may have constructed a set of core beliefs (rules) that determine how he responds emotionally and behaviourally in certain situations. His rules are:

‘I must absolutely achieve my goals (or I am a failure).’
‘I must prove to everyone how competent I am.’
‘It is awful when others do better than me.’
‘I absolutely must have the approval of significant others.’

These rules are debilitating as Seamus strives for perfection and the approval of others. He is highly anxious about how he is perceived (‘the smartest’) by others and is badly aggrieved when he doesn’t get the attention he believes he must have.

How then can this student be supported in the school setting?

1. Introduce all students to Dr. Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance – feelings, thinking and actions are all interconnected.
2. Teach that there are helpful rules and unhelpful rules that we have constructed over time, which determine the behavioural choices we make.
3. Teach words that represent the broad spectrum of emotions that we feel and explain that extreme unhealthy negative emotions are linked to irrational thinking (the unhelpful rules we construct) and that healthy negative emotions e.g. annoyed are linked to rational thinking (the helpful rules we construct). Use the Emotional Thermometer to illustrate this.
4. Teach students about the Catastrophe Scale to help them put into perspective the ‘badness’ of situations they encounter. Is losing a pencil as bad as breaking a leg for instance?
5. Invite children to discuss and suggest why a ‘must’ belief is self-defeating and a ‘preference’ rule is self-helpful.

As a class examine and deconstruct the validity or otherwise of ‘must’ statements and ‘preference’ statements. The following is an example of how this can be done.
- A year 6/7 class is introduced to the ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance and the emotional thermometer and catastrophe scale. Students talk about extreme unhealthy negative emotions like depressed, anxious, enraged and healthy negative emotions like disappointed, upset, and concerned. They talk about the kinds of thinking/beliefs that underpin such feelings and associated actions.
- Talk about feelings of rage and depression and their association with the core belief that ‘I must absolutely always achieve my goals and when I don’t it is a catastrophe and so awful I can’t stand it. I am a failure.’
- Students discuss why this ‘core rule’ is self -defeating (makes extreme negative feelings and poor behavioural choices).
- They then suggest reasons why this is so i.e. they challenge the veracity of this belief in the light of the evidence.
- They are invited to talk about helpful thinking e.g. ‘I would prefer to do well but it is hardly so awful that I can’t stand it and I am always worthwhile.’ They then explore why this is a rational belief and why the evidence supports this view.

Previous blogs have explored other important teaching items like Unconditional Self Acceptance, which helps the individual manage difficult situations like failure and rejection in a healthy way.

Seamus’ tendency to experience rage in situations where he does not achieve to his lofty standards and to harshly criticise those ‘lesser mortals’ who don’t measure up to his superior capabilities is cause for concern. This can be addressed as a whole school by introducing Rational Emotive Behaviour Education as follows:

1. All teachers and support staff are trained in Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy).
2. All staff is trained in the application of REBE through Giulio’s tried and tested SIX ESSENTIAL STEPS TO EMOTIONAL and BEHAVIOURAL WELL BEING.

If you are interested to find out more about Rational Emotive Behaviour Education contact Giulio on 0412668815 or by email borto1@chariot.net.au.

‘As a highly skilled exponent of Rational Emotive Behaviour Education, Giulio has repeatedly demonstrated the value of his work in helping school children to cope more effectively with interpersonal conflicts, including bullying and harassment. His work is well supported by research that he and I have undertaken with Australian schoolchildren and presented together at national conferences.’
Dr. Ken Rigby, Adjunct Professor, University of South Australia

Musturbating Ed and Cool Al!

Edwin had had an unsuccessful recess. He had been involved in an altercation with two others regarding a basketball game. The two other kids were playing one on one and had enough players. Edwin didn’t react too well when he was told he couldn’t join in.

Albert on the other hand had approached the two basketballers earlier and asked the same question as Edwin. When told he couldn’t join in he watched the game a while and then moved on.

When asked why he did what he did, Edwin protested that the two boys made him angry and it was their fault that he kicked the ball away because they didn’t let him join in.

According to Dr. Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance Edwin believes that A, someone or something, makes him do and feel as he does. He is yet to understand the relationship B (what he believes) has with C (how he feels and behaves).

According to Edwin’s view of the world he is not responsible for his feelings and actions (they made me angry) and feels justified in what he did (kicked the ball away). He came to the attention of the supervising teacher and was reprimanded accordingly. What is his rule for living? What are his core beliefs about himself, others and the world in general?

Albert responded in a different way to the same scenario. Did he lose his temper and kick the ball away? No. He accepted that he couldn’t join in and moved on to other things. There were no reprimands as Albert’s actions were not hurtful to others as he dealt with the situation appropriately.

Edwin is known to react in challenging situations. He is quick to anger and blames others, things events for how he feels. The world and all its inhabitants are at fault - never he! Edwin would like all the hassles, people he doesn’t like, things he is responsible for to be removed from his life so he can be happy. Woe is he as the world conspires against him, rendering him a hapless victim of circumstance. How did this happen? (Refer to previous posts).

Edwin’s Lament

Anger holds sway

When I don’t get my way

And I despair

It’s just not fair!

Albert on the other hand rarely acts without forethought. He is generally calm and will healthily feel annoyed and disappointed when things don’t go his way. He doesn’t stew over things and tends to get on with others and seems to be happy in his own skin. He is doing well at school, meeting challenges with reasonable optimism and doesn’t take failure too much to heart. Others respect him and he has a circle of good friends.

Albert’s View

I may not always get my way

And that’s quite ok

No need to despair

Sometimes life’s not fair!

What are the rules that underpin the actions (behavioural choices) and emotions of these two young people? The situation is the same but the outcomes are different. How so?

Edwin and Albert have different views on life, different rules for living. Edwin finds himself battling to cope a lot of the time and Albert seems to navigate the tough times in a more reasonable manner.

Edwin’s rule:

‘I must get what I want. When I don’t, it’s so awful that I can’t stand it.’

His unrealistic expectations of himself, others and the world contrive against him. “IT”, (the world, things and others) are not driving his actions and emotions, he is! He thinks those kids should absolutely allow him to join in the game. They don’t and therefore it’s their fault he feels so bad and acts aggressively.

Albert’s rule:

‘I prefer to get my way but I don’t absolutely have to. I can handle difficult situations. I can stand it.’

Albert therefore is inclined to annoyance and disappointment (healthy negative emotions) rather than rage and extreme sadness (unhealthy negative emotions). He believes those kids don’t have to let him join in. He doesn’t turn a small problem into a catastrophe; it’s an inconvenience but not the end of the world.

Implications for teaching practice

• Teach students about the think feel do connection.
• Talk about ‘rules for living’ as discussed above – why is one helpful and the other not?
• Challenge the rationality of these rules – why is one rational and the other not?
• Remind students that when they act and feel in a way that causes self and/or other harm (e.g. petulant Edwin had to sit out because he disrupted the basketball game) an irrational rule is at work.
• Reinforce those behaviours in children that suggest preference thinking- the student who accepts that she can’t go on the computer as scheduled for instance.
• Talk about helpful and unhelpful personal rules in day-to-day interactions. Decide which rule is helpful e.g. ‘I must be chosen to be the library monitor.’ Or ‘I’d like to be library monitor, but there are others who would like to be also.’ What are the consequences for each (behaviorally and emotionally) if neither gets their wish?
• Remind students that their worth is not determined by how well or badly they do or how others view them (approval/disapproval).
• Pose questions for students to ponder such as: How does ‘it’ make you angry? What is ‘it’? Why does ‘it’ not make others angry?

Rational Emotive Behaviour Education will give schools the capacity to support students to manage their potentially destructive behaviours and emotions. It will reinforce those attitudes and beliefs that are self/other helpful (rational).

Strategies for Breaking Approval Dependence (BAD)

You have Serious Approval Dependence (SAD) and you know how you got it! By dint of your biological inheritance and how you were socialised you have constructed the very debilitating core belief that your worth depends on how others view you or how well you perform in your work, study, sex etc. If you have concocted this warped and destructive belief then you can deconstruct it and replace it with USA, Unconditional Self Acceptance. How do you do this? By self-awareness, vigilance and hard work, that’s how!

1. Know how you are feeling.
2. Understand that your feelings and behaviour are connected to your thinking.
3. Identify your habits of believing.
4. Decide whether or not your thinking is helpful, rational.
5. Challenge your beliefs with vigour.
6. Be forever vigilant.

Activating event (A)

You are a member of a parent group at your child’s school and you are generally happy to sit and listen at meetings. There are times when you have been inclined to say something about an issue of interest to you but you always stop yourself from saying what you want to say. You notice how anxious you feel; your heart races and you begin to sweat a little. You stop yourself from commenting as the opportunity goes by, and you castigate yourself for wimping out. Typical you think.

Is this scenario a repeat of many over the years where opportunity has gone begging and been missed, when the nettle was there to be grasped and you chose to avoid it. Is this a case of Serious Approval Dependence (SAD)? You bet it is and it’s nigh time you had a one on one with your enemy YOU!

How do you feel and act (C)?

Strategy one: Identify how you were feeling around the time you wanted to say something and how strong? (8/10 anxious). Determine whether this is a healthy negative emotion or a helpful one – does it help or hinder you achieving what you want? Answer: Not healthy because you didn’t do what you wanted to do, share your ideas with the group.

What are you thinking (B)?

Strategy two: Identify your self-talk at the time, what were you saying to yourself? Answer: ‘if I make a mistake, what would they think of me? My views are not that important, they seem more knowledgeable than me. It would be awful if I sounded confused or hesitant. I couldn’t stand it if they thought badly of me.’ This is irrational as it is stopping you from doing what you want to do.

Challenge your thinking (D)

Strategy three: Identify a particular statement and challenge it’s veracity (start a diary and record how you thought, felt and acted in various situations). Lets consider the statement:

‘I couldn’t stand it if they thought badly of me.’

Q. If they disagreed with my views would that equate to them damning me as a person?

A. No. A particular viewpoint is not ‘me’. I am more than what I say.

Q. If they disagreed with me would it be ‘so awful that I couldn’t stand it!’

A. No. It would hardly be catastrophic that someone would disagree with me. Breaking my leg could possibly be worse but even that is not catastrophic or so awful that I couldn’t stand it.

Q. Must others always agree with me? Should they see things as I do for me to be worthwhile?

A. Of course not. My worth is not at question here; my ideas and views may be but they are not ‘me’.

Q. Do I need others to agree with me for me to be worthwhile?

A. No. My worth is not given to me and cannot be taken away. I can only be worth – less if I believe I absolutely must have the approval of others to be worthwhile. I am worthwhile because I exist not because someone else thinks I am!

Q. What benefits could I gain by risking the disapproval of others?

A. I will see that the sun will rise again and the birds will continue to twitter in the treetops. Those who care for me and approve of me unconditionally will continue to do so. Even if I stumble and stutter I will not drop dead. I can practice my public speaking skills if I choose to do so. I will accept that sometimes I will stuff up because I am human and that’s what humans do.

Q. What will happen if I continue not to risk the disapproval of others?

A. I will perpetuate the mythological belief that somehow others views of me determine my worth. I will continue to practice Serious Approval Dependence and remain a ‘wall flower’ at the ball, waiting for someone to pick me!

Eleanor Roosevelt said

No one can make you feel inferior without your permission.

Don’t give anyone or anything permission to determine whether you are worthwhile or not. You don’t need it, you exist and that’s that!

Breaking Approval Dependence (BAD)

Approval addict, empath, love slob, approvalist, co dependent, need junkie are terms that come to mind to describe those who suffer from conditional self-acceptance (CSA). Dr. Albert Ellis’ REBT explains that when an individual has a compulsive need to secure another’s approval it is self defeating. The antidote is unconditional self-acceptance (USA).

USA - the belief that self worth is not diminished by failure or rejection i.e. I have failed= I am not a failure. I have been rejected = I am not a reject (I am always worthwhile).

Roses are red
Violets are blue
I’d like you to like me
But I don’t need you to!

CSA- the belief that self worth is diminished by failure and rejection i.e. I have failed = I am a failure. I have been rejected = I am a reject (I’m worthwhile if you think I am).

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Please like me
As I need you to!

Where do we start to help the person who needs to be needed, who absolutely must have the approval of significant others? If she seeks help this would be a useful place to start. She may be aware that she has a help compulsion that is both self defeating and also not helpful to others (deny them opportunities to do for themselves for instance). She may say that she feels anxious a lot of the time and is obsessive about doing excellent work and helping others too readily, even when there doesn’t seem to be enough hours in the day to fit everything in. You may ask what is wrong with wanting to do excellent work? Nothing at all if you don’t damn yourself when things don’t turn out as you believe they must! The perfectionist believes failing to do things perfectly equates to being a failure, being imperfect and that’s terrible! She may say she feels angry when others don’t acknowledge her appropriately as she believes they should. She may also comment on others who may not do things properly or who aren’t capable enough and who therefore need to be rescued. Who else can do things better and is more capable of doing the job? She is of course.

She may relate that in childhood she never seemed to do the right thing and was never good enough. Her dad would say that she was hopeless and her siblings were favoured over her (her sister was better, prettier). She tried so hard to get the approval of her dad but she never seemed to measure up. (I must try harder! I’m such a failure!) She learned that she was not worth much if her dad didn’t think she was. She believed if her dad didn’t approve of her then she was unworthy and worthless. She had developed Sustained Habits of Inflexible Thinking Syndrome and one such habit was to believe that her worth absolutely depended on the approval of significant others. More flexible and realistic thinking can accommodate her very human tendency to make mistakes and to deal with rejection in a healthy way such as believing that her worth is not given to her or taken away by others. She can work on Flexible and Realistic Thinking Skills.

Counselling scenario excerpt.

Cl = client Cr=counsellor

Cl: My colleague makes me so angry. He doesn’t show me any gratitude for what I do.

Cr: You say your colleague makes you angry and that he doesn’t appreciate your work.

Cl: Exactly. I only want to make things easier. I am just helping. He should be more gracious.

Cr: So your colleague is making you angry because he doesn’t show you his appreciation as you think he should?

Cl: He is so unprofessional and disrespectful.

Cr: Can you give me an example of something you have done for him?

Cl: I organised a meeting for clients and made sure that refreshments were available. I prepared a program and everything!

Cr: Was he not happy with what he asked you to do?

Cl: He didn’t ask me. That’s the point. I did it so that he wouldn’t have to do it. He’s so ungrateful.

Cr: So what would make things better for you? What would help you feel better?

Cl: He should acknowledge my efforts and appreciate the things I do. I am so unappreciated and it’s not fair!

Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance explains that behavioural and emotional disturbance (C) is generated by the bullshit we tell ourselves (B) not because of the activating event i.e. what happens (A). The client above is clearly blaming her feelings and actions on A, the unfair colleague who doesn’t appreciate her. You can hear the blame in statements like: ‘He makes me so angry.’ How does he make her angry? Is she not in some way responsible? It would be very unfortunate if others always determined how she felt and behaved. Do others control her? Clearly she is not taking responsibility for her actions and emotions. So what is making these feelings of anger and depression? Is her colleague the culprit? Is he to blame?

Ellis’ ABC model incorporated B, the beliefs we hold to be true. Our client above has constructed a set of rules for life (B) and the question is what are they? Are they helpful?

The excerpt above contains key words that tell us what our clients’ rules are. You may have noticed some ‘shoulds’ dispersed throughout the dialogue.

‘He should be more gracious.’

‘He should acknowledge my efforts and appreciate the things I do.’

This kind of thinking is irrational in the sense that no matter how much you demand something the reality is you may never get what you want. What’s the use of demanding what you can’t have? Now you can healthily prefer that your colleague gives you his approval but that is different to demanding it. Her rule is:

‘People I respect absolutely should treat me well.’

You may also have noticed that our client is damning her colleague in absolute global rating terms like:

‘He is so unprofessional and disrespectful.’

His actions may be deemed unprofessional and disrespectful but is he unprofessional and disrespectful? He is and he does are different terms with different meanings. Our client is making a judgement that her colleague is bad for doing bad. Her rule is:

‘He should acknowledge me and because he doesn’t he is unprofessional and disrespectful.’

Our client also shows signs of low frustration tolerance because she is not getting what she must have. Consider:

‘I am so unappreciated and it’s not fair!’

It would appear that when she doesn’t get what she needs and must have she can’t stand it and it is awful. Her rule is:

‘When I don’t get what I must have (his approval) I can’t stand it and it it’s awful.’

An REBC (Rational Emotive Behaviour Counsellor) would help the client understand the B-C link, B meaning the thinking that drives the behaviour and emotions (anger/hostility) at C. Whilst there are a few irrational core beliefs that can be challenged as outlined above the one to focus on as a priority is the clients belief that:
‘I need the approval of others to be worthwhile.’

To be continued ….

APPROVALISM – the philosophy of the ‘love slob’

An approvalist is one who practices the philosophy of Approvalism. An approvalist lives life for the service of others seemingly without thought for self, ministering to the needs of others, making life ‘better’ for them. A good approvalist needs to do for others and her worth is measured according to how others view her and how helpful she can be to others. Approvalists say ‘yes’ to others demands and requests and are ultra sensitive to the needs of others (they must be rescued and saved). If they don’t perform to their own lofty expectations or (quelle catastrophe!) others don’t seem to value them (as they should) then they tend to harshly judge themselves as being ‘bad’ and may down themselves harshly! They will think, ‘I should have known that he needed support. I should have been there. I should have done better. I am a loser. It’s my fault he is in such a mess.’ They may also experience deep anger and direct it towards those ‘who do not appreciate me, after all shouldn’t they be grateful for what I am doing for them?’ (‘They are not good like me they are bad!’).

The approvalist has a ‘help’ compulsion, seeking out others to help even when not invited to. They tend to over empathise with the other, feeling what they feel, experiencing ‘their pain’. Such ‘empaths’ seek to be continuously approved of. They will forever revisit the bottomless ‘well of approval’ as each fix of affirmation is never enough. They don’t believe that they are that worthy of others appreciation and will find it difficult to accept their thanks and praise.

Why would this be so? How could it be that a person would become so dependent on others for their quick and fleeting ‘feel good’ fix? How does one become an approval junkie?

Dr Albert Ellis, the creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy refers to ‘love slobbism’ to describe a person’s self-defeating tendency to think they need the approval of others to be worthwhile. This behaviour is driven by a ‘must’ or a ‘should’ belief based philosophy internalised over years of socialisation amid role models who may have themselves suffered the debilitating effects of ‘musturbation’ i.e. ‘My son/daughter should always ‘make’ me proud and they should always be highly regarded by others. They must not let me down as that would shame me.’ If any of these irrational demands are not met it’s considered to be catastrophic and awful, so awful ‘it cannot be tolerated.’

The approvalist has been taught as a young person that she is 'good' when she does good. When she does as she is told, follows instructions and conforms to rules and expectations she is rewarded and she feels good. She works hard at school and gets good grades but when they are sometimes not good enough, she feels she has let others down and she must try harder next time so they will be pleased. She believes doing bad is being bad!

'The codependent-in-training is taught to walk on eggshells. To ensure survival, the child learns to be extraordinarily sensitive in reading the moods and thoughts of others. The child learns very early to pay attention to and tiptoe around the dysfunctional family members - at the child's expense. These interactions take place silently, implicitly. The child learns to ignore the self's inner needs, instead pretending that all is OK.' Why Be Codependent? by Dr. Irene Matiatos

Her mentors comment on the behaviour of others, expressing approval when they behave correctly, as they should do. They will scoff at those who don’t behave accordingly and may judge them unfairly. They may even feel angry and aggressive when someone happens to be driving in ‘their’ lane on the highway or feel unfairly treated if the person they open the door for does not acknowledge them as they should!

She will notice how her mentors will feel aggrieved when things don’t go their way. The weather, the government, their in-laws etc appear the ‘make’ them so unhappy. She will be harshly criticised when she doesn’t live up to the expectations of her role models and may be compared to other siblings who ‘always do the right thing.’ She will try harder to be the person others want her to be because she believes her value is dependent on the views of others.

In time our subject will have constructed a set of philosophical beliefs that will undermine her efforts to be happy and successful. She believes she must achieve the lofty goals she sets herself, she must meet others approval (or she is hopeless/worthless/a dud). She will often feel overly anxious as she tries to solve the problems of others who must be saved (as she is the only one who can save them!)

The approvalist has learned to be co-dependent, needing, not preferring the approval of significant others. She needs someone to need her, someone to rescue and to depend on her, someone who needs to be needed. If someone needs her then she can indulge her own need to needed. Co-dependency …

'… is a dysfunctional relationship with the self characterized by living through or for another, attempts to control others, blaming others, a sense of victimization, attempts to "fix" others, and intense anxiety around intimacy.' http://www.veteransoftruth.com

REBT deems this irrational to the extreme, as the person who has this affliction will feel and act in ways that are self-defeating. She will continue to be at risk as long as she believes that her worth is inextricably linked to the approval of others. What are the options for the approvalist to rehabilitate herself? How can she be delivered from self-sabotaging Conditional Self Acceptance to the light of self helpful Unconditional Self Acceptance?

The approvalist may question how she feels when she doesn’t get the recognition she ‘must’ have. Or maybe not as she may already ‘know’ that she feels angry because a significant other has made her angry. Maybe she doesn’t know at all why she feels as she feels as her only focus has been on others feelings and never her own. She perhaps will direct anger at them either overtly and/or passively. After all someone else has made her angry and therefore he/she deserves to be treated accordingly. What makes her anxious or angry? It is those who don’t agree with her, who don’t acknowledge her, as she believes they should! They are not feeding her addiction to be needed or approved and are therefore a threat to her well being. If they are making her feel this way then it would be logical to remove them from her environment (if they are not there they can’t hurt her however this is not a practical option). Just like a splinter makes inflammation and infection, just remove the splinter and all is well!

Alas physical hurt and emotional hurt are different. In a physical sense if I pinch you, you feel hurt and this would be true of the majority of people. If I don’t acknowledge you, you may feel some degree of emotional hurt. An approvalist will experience more extreme emotional discomfort than a person who is not when they don’t win the approval of significant others. Why? Because the approvalist needs approval and the self-accepting person does not! If the belief that ‘I need the approval of others to be worthwhile’ can be constructed over time then it can be deconstructed and replaced with Unconditional Self Acceptance and as Dr Albert Ellis would say this will deliver the sufferer from the despair of ‘shithood’ to the hope of ‘self worthyness.’

Whilst the co dependent has learned over time to control others and her environment and minister to the needs of others she could now turn her attention to something that has been hitherto ignored: her needs.

This is a major undertaking and the beginning of a journey that will require a lot of hard work and support to get well. The process will be enlightening and challenging and will be explored in a blog to be posted soon.