Do Not Upset the Status Quo of Impression Management
This is an excellent TED talk with Amy Edmondson about Psychological Safety.
The real learning is to SPEAK UP.
Psychological Health and Safety Canadian Style
This is a fantastic theatrical overview of Psychological Health and Safety. The arts can convey the humanity better than any dry presentation. It is amazing to me it needs to be taught. But I have come to see there are real issues in the workplace as we have forgotten others needs.
Psychological Health and Safety
Psychological injury
“Psychological injury” refers to psychological or psychiatric conditions associated with an event that leads, or may lead, to a lawsuit in tort action or other legal-related claims, for example, in workers’ compensation, United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability benefits claims, and Social Security Administration (SSA) disability cases. Claimable injuries might result from events such as a motor vehicular collision or other negligent action, and cause impairments, disorders, and disabilities perhaps as an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition (e.g., Drogin, Dattilio, Sadoff, & Gutheil, 2011;[1] Duckworth, Iezzi, & O’Donohue, 2008;[2] Kane & Dvoskin, 2011;[3] Koch, Douglas, Nicholls, & O’Neil, 2006;[4] Schultz & Gatchel, 2009;[5] Young, 2010,[6] 2011;[7] Young, Kane, & Nicholson, 2006,[8] 2007[9]).
Legally, psychological injury is considered a mental harm, suffering, damage, impairment, or dysfunction caused to a person as a direct result of some action or failure to act by some individual. The psychological injury must reach a degree of disturbance of the pre-existing psychological/ psychiatric state such that it interferes in some significant way with the individual’s ability to function. If so, an individual may be able to sue for compensation/ damages.
Typically, a psychological injury may involve Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), a concussion, chronic pain, or a disorder that involves mood or emotions (such as depression, anxiety, fear, or phobia, and adjustment disorder). These disorders may manifest separately or in combination (co-morbidity). If the symptoms and effects persist, the injured person may become a complainant or plaintiff who initiates legal action aimed at obtaining compensation against whomever is considered responsible for the injury.
Contents
[hide]
Scope[edit]
In the following, psychological injury is discussed in relation to the law, forensic psychology, assessment, malingering, diagnosis, treatment, PTSD, chronic pain, TBI, disability, return to work, psychological tests and testing, and causality.
Psychological injury and law[edit]
Research and practice in the scientific field of psychological injury are predictably and intimately associated with legal research and practice. For example, workers in the field need to know evidence law, tort law, and insurance law, both at the national and local (state, provincial) levels in their countries of practice. This association between psychological injury and law began to be recognized as a distinct scholarly and professional entity in the first decade of this century,[10] in particular, as the result of the development of the first scientific society, the Association for the Scientific Advancement of Psychological Injury and Law (ASAPIL),[11] and the first peer-reviewed academic journal devoted exclusively to the topic, Psychological Injury and Law.
This type of case is quite adversarial, because psychological injury is associated with court, and because complainants might exaggerate or even feign symptoms outright. Psychologists and other mental health professionals must be well trained in legal matters, knowledgeable regarding forensic psychology, and qualified to conduct appropriate diagnostic and other assessment procedures (Boone, 2007;[12] Larrabee, 2007).[13] Also, see various professional guidelines, such as American Psychological Association, 2002,[14] Committee on the Revision of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, 2011;[15] and Pope and Vasquez, 2011.[16]
When mental health professionals fail to undertake comprehensive, impartial, and scientifically informed assessments, they risk challenges to the admissibility of the evidence that they present to court and having it dismissed as poor or “junk science.” The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993)[17] provided a basis for determining acceptable science in court, and required judges to function as “gatekeepers” for evaluating the probative or helpful value of the testimony for the case at hand. Two additional, related SCOTUS cases—General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997)[18] and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999)-[19] may be added to comprise what is often referenced as the “Daubert trilogy.” A Canadian case that addresses many of the same issues is R. v. Mohan (1994).[20] Some states still function according to Frye, or general acceptance standards, in determination of admissibility to court (Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 34 ALR 145 (D. C. Cir 1923).[21] Also, see the Federal Rules of Evidence (United States Government Printing Office, 2009[22]).
Note that psychological injury, as presently defined, is treated in court uniquely in civil cases. In this sense, although the area of psychological injury and law is related to forensic psychology, it does not relate to the criminal component of this area. Matters important to forensic psychology, such as adopting the correct procedures in practice, being an expert witness, and understanding the relationship of psychology and court, are also essential to practice in the area of psychological injury and law.
Assessment and malingering[edit]
Psychologists are trained and expected to be comprehensive, scientific, and impartial in conducting their assessments (Heilbrun, Grisso, & Goldstein, 2009[23]). Such assessments involve (a) interviewing (of the person being assessed, and perhaps involving family, work, and professionals), (b) document review (e.g., other reports; about school, work), and (c) psychological testing. The tests they use either directly assess—or include scales that assess—various signs of psychological injuries, and many are sensitive to malingering (conscious fabrication of symptoms for monetary or other personal gain, or symptom feigning, though this is not very common) and other response biases (Rogers, 2008[24]).
For example, rather than engaging in malingering, a complainant might be exaggerating excessively, or catastrophizing, out of an unconscious “cry for help” for not having been “heard” in prior assessments or for having her pains and other symptoms continue to limit her life activities. The validity of the complainant’s presentation, whether physical or psychological, needs to be determined by comprehensive assessments that can help discern threats to validity such as these. Psychologists should not arrive at facile conclusions either way along these lines. They must resist the pressure of the adversarial divide and the referral source, as well as other sources of undue influences on their professional judgment, in order to arrive at unbiased conclusions (see Berry and Nelson, 2011[25]).
Diagnosis and treatment[edit]
Psychologists and psychiatrists are those professionals typically qualified by their regulating or licensing bodies or boards to diagnose and treat psychological injuries. Psychologists are trained in the study of behavior and its assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. Many psychological tests are limited in their use to psychologists, as psychiatrists are unlikely receive substantial training in test administration and interpretation. However, being medical professionals, psychiatrists have skills and a knowledge base not typically available to psychologists. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—now in its fourth edition (DSM-IV-TR, American Psychiatric Association, 2000[26])—will soon be updated by a fifth edition slated for publication in 2013 (see Young and First, 2010,[27] for a critique). This Manual is prepared under the aegis of the American Psychiatric Association, but psychologists contribute to this process by participating in its working groups.
Rehabilitation and other clinical psychologists—such as trauma psychologists—may be in professional contact with injured survivors at the onset injury, shortly thereafter, and throughout the course of recovery, such that these professionals, too, need to know about the legal ramifications of the field. They may employ cognitive behavioral approaches to help their patients deal with any physical injuries, pain experience, PTSD, mood, and effects of their brain injuries (Young, 2008b[28]). They may assist the families of the injured, including spouses and children. They typically adopt a systems approach, working as part of rehabilitative teams. Their hardest cases occur when there is a death in the family as a result of the event for which legal action is involved and therapy is needed. These clinical, rehabilitation, and trauma psychologists refer to treatment guidelines in preparing their treatment plans, and attempt to keep their practices evidence-based when feasible.
Major psychological injuries[edit]
Posttraumatic stress disorder[edit]
The field of psychological injury is beset by controversies. In this regard, the three major diagnoses in the DSM–IV-TR most central to this area are often criticized for their definition, validity, and usefulness in court, and for their ease in feigning or malingering without detection. For example, PTSD is diagnosed based on 17 major symptoms (e.g., flashbacks, startling, nightmares, fears), but these often are placed on attorneys’ websites under clear headings such as, “Do you have these symptoms of PTSD?”, with the result that plaintiffs can be coached all the easier in how to present with this disorder. Moreover, the diagnosis may be given inappropriately to individuals based upon the slightest of traumatic events, even though it was meant originally for quite severe ones. There has been an explosion in cases involving the diagnosis of PTSD, and even in the military the diagnosis may be given too easily without careful assessment. In cases of valid presentation of PTSD, psychologists can help patients deal with their condition by applying specialized cognitive behavioral techniques, such as systematic desensitization and exposure therapy (see Frueh and Wessely, 2010[29]).
Chronic pain[edit]
Chronic pain is another controversial psychological condition, labeled in the DSM-IV-TR as Pain Disorder Associated with Psychological Factors (with or without a Medical Condition). The “biopsychosocial approach” recognizes the influence of psychological factors (e.g., stress) on pain. It was once thought that chronic pain could be the result of a “pain-prone personality” or that it is “all in the head.” Contemporary research tends to dismiss such conceptualizations, but they continue persist and cause distress to patients whose pain is not recognized as real. Psychologists have an important role to play in helping patients in pain by providing appropriate education and treatment (for example, about catastrophizing or fearing the worst), and by using standard cognitive and behavioral techniques (such as breathing exercises, muscle relaxation, and dealing with cognitive distortions) (see Gatchel, Peng, Fuchs, Peters, and Turk, 2007;[30] Schatman and Gatchel, 2010[31]).
Traumatic brain injury (TBI)[edit]
TBI refers to mild to severe pathophysiological effects in the brain and central nervous system due to strong impacts, such as severe blows to the head and penetrating wounds that might take place in accidents and other events at claim. Neuropsychological deficits associated with TBI include those relating to memory, concentration, attention, processing speed, reasoning, problem solving, planning, and inhibitory control. When these effects persist, other psychological difficulties might arise, even in mild cases (such as concussions). However, the underlying reason for the perpetuation of the symptoms beyond the expected time frame might be due to associated factors, such as poor sleep, fatigue, pain, headaches, and distress. Psychologists can help patients with TBI by guiding them in cognitive remediation and dealing with family. When the effects are serious and even devastating, the degree of care from the team may be intensive, covering multiple aspects of daily living (see Ruff and Richards, 2009[32]).
People of both sexes and all types of backgrounds, races, ages, and disability status are injured physically and psychologically in events at claim and in other situations. However, the research does not always consider these differences, and often the diagnostic manuals, psychological tests, and therapeutic protocols in use in the area also lack differentiation along these lines.
Disability and return to work[edit]
When psychological injuries compromise daily activities, psychologists need to address the degree of disability (see Schultz, 2009;[33] Schultz & Rogers, 2011[34]). Patients express symptoms that might be accurately diagnosed as PTSD, Pain Disorder, and/or TBI. However, the critical issue is the degree of impairment, limitation, and participation restriction in daily activities in which patients would normally participate at work, at home, in childcare, and in schooling. When the patient cannot undertake the functions involved in these important roles, the psychologist or other mental health professional may conclude that a disability is present, but this cannot be ascertained by the mere presence of a diagnosis of one sort or another. Rather, the psychologist must demonstrate that the person is disabled from the essential duties, tasks, or activities of the role at issue. For example, a forefinger injury leading to chronic pain might mean relatively little to an investment banker—as long as medications control it and other areas of functioning are not greatly affected—but might be devastating to a violinist. Psychologists may refer to the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (Rondinelli, Genovese, Katz, Mayer, Müller, Ranavaya, & Brigham, 2008[35]) in arriving at disability determinations, which addresses mental health, neuropsychological, and pain issues. However, like the DSM-IV-TR, this compendium is sometimes questioned for its scientific validity and usefulness.
Tort actions and other civil actions are often based on serious, permanent and important psychological injuries that create disabilities of a substantial nature in other areas, such as leisure activities, home care, and family life. Often, psychologists in court lock horns over the degree to which the event at claim and its psychological effects have created serious and potentially permanent psychological disabilities—in part, because there is no one test that can measure “disability,” per se.
Treating psychologists try to help clients return to work (RTW) or to their other functional roles and activities of daily living (ADLs). Clients are expected to adhere to treatment regimens, or be compliant with treatment recommendations. Partly, this serves to mitigate their losses, or attempt to return to their pre-event physical and psychological condition. When they reach or are progressing to their maximum medical recovery (physical and psychological/ psychiatric recovery), RTW might be attempted on a modified, part-time, or accommodated basis, and treatment might continue to help full re-integration into the workforce or other daily roles, and to maintain gains and avoid deterioration. Or, clients might be sent for training or education, based on their transferable skills residual to the event at claim and its effects. For those who do not make full recovery and remain disabled because of their permanent barriers to recovery, the goals of rehabilitation include optimizing adjustment, quality of life (QOL), residual functionality, and wellness.
Psychological testing[edit]
Psychologists need to use the most appropriate tests available for detecting feigning, malingering, and related response biases. In addition, psychologists need to be able to arrive at scientifically-informed conclusions in their evaluations that will withstand the rigors of scrutiny by psychologists on the opposing side and of cross-examination in court.
In terms of their education and training, psychologists need to be able to address the full array of areas under discussion, especially in forensic, rehabilitation, and trauma areas. They must become experts in assessment and testing, especially regarding (a) personality tests (e.g., the MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989;[36] Butcher, Graham, Ben-Porath, Tellegen, Dahlstrom, & Kaemmer, 2001;[37] and the revision the MMPI-2 RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008;[38] as well as the PAI; Morey, 2007[39]), and their embedded validity scales, such as the F family of scales in the MMPI tests, and (b) stand-alone symptom validity tests (e.g., the TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996;[40] WMT; Green, 2005;[41] SIRS; Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens, 1992;[42] and the revision SIRS-2; Rogers, Sewell, & Gillard, 2010[43]). The key factors in the development of tests that are acceptable to psychologists and to court is that the tests should have acceptable psychometric properties, such as reliability and validity. Also, such tests must be standardized by using populations that make sense for the area of psychological injuries, such as accident survivors experiencing pain and other trauma victims.
Causality[edit]
Another aspect important for psychologists to consider is the degree of influence of mental health conditions already present prior to the event at claim. Just as one might have a pre-existing back injury that a whiplash injury in an accident did not make worse, it could be that pre-existing psychological disorders were not worsened by the effects of an event at claim, no matter how traumatic. Therefore, in some cases—such as those involving a serious pre-existing schizophrenia or brain damage—it is possible that the event that had occurred did not actually exacerbate what had existed prior to the event at issue, or make things any worse. In other cases, by contrast, the person might have pre-existing psychological or psychiatric vulnerabilities, or relatively mild psychological or psychiatric conditions, and the event at issue brought to the surface the vulnerabilities or made the pre-existing conditions clearly worse. These are sometimes labeled “thin skull” or “egg-shell psyche” cases, and are the most intriguing and difficult to manage because of the potential “gray zones” in their causal interpretation (Young, 2008c[44]). Extraneous stresses, such as job loss due to worksite bankruptcy, might also complicate causal determination. Ultimately, the mental health professional considers the full range of pre-event, event, and post-events factors in apportioning or deciding upon causality.
Note that “litigation distress” refers to one source of stress for complainants or litigants; it concerns iatrogenic or stressful factors in the insurance and legal process that add to their stresses and complicate their recovery and psychologists’ understanding of the causality behind their injuries. Indeed, their injuries have been referred to as a result of “compensation neurosis;” however, there is little evidence to support this claim. For example, their injuries generally do not magically heal after they receive their financial settlements.
Value of the field and validity of the injuries[edit]
Psychological injury and law is a vibrant, fast growing discipline that stands at the intersection of forensic psychology, rehabilitation psychology, trauma psychology, and the law, as found in the society ASAPIL and its flagship journal, Psychological Injury and Law. It is at times controversial, but is constantly being researched and refined. Practitioners must remain abreast of related scientific, regulatory, and ethical developments or risk being challenged in court for the admissibility of their evidence, and even exposing themselves to malpractice claims for negligence.
Psychological injuries remain contested disorders and conditions, especially because of their association with court and related venues. However, psychologists and other mental health professionals who use state-of-the-art knowledge and procedures can help ascertain when they are valid. In such cases, the psychological injuries are no less real and no less in need of treatment.
See also[edit]
La Trobe University SPEAKS UP for Culture Change and Ceasing Intolerance
The Australian Human Rights Commission has launched its report Change the course: National report on sexual assault and sexual harassment at Australian universities. A quick analysis La Trobe is number 7 out of 39 in the country for sexual harassment. So there is work to be done.
Refer Australian Human Rights Commission for more information:
Richard Frampton, Director of Student Services speaks up about sexual harassment. He believes the survey is a fantastic piece of information to open up the conversation and NOT HIDE the issue. He indicates the importance of getting the conversation out that sexual harassment is not acceptable behaviour in La Trobe University. He speaks about the importance of respect of difference and tolerance for others. He mentions the issue of not being able to speak up. He speaks of the Hunting Ground video on sexual assault. He recognises sexual harassment and assault are prevalent.
He speaks of a victim centred approach, not withstanding the need for due process. He talks about clarity of sanctions and penalties for those behaving in this manner. He recognises the need to drive cultural change and any form of intolerance.
Here is the video from La Trobe University featuring Richard Frampton speaking up for change. It is followed by my own perspective.
I agree pathways to change culture must occur but I would develop an approach that moves away from an overall orientation of compliance and penalties mindsets towards cooperation and training in conflict resolution, emotional intelligence and really learning to listen to people with respect. So there is not a penalty imposed by but rather transformational cultural change that is inspired by an open culture. I regard the penalties approach as a form of policing and punishment to control and deal with, what is perceived as, problem behaviour rather than a therapeutic approach to transform conflict through education. This latter approach focuses on educating and developing understanding of underlying needs and concerns within a context of mutual respect. It empowers both involved in a dispute to take responsibility and own the solutions to a conflict. It removes the right versus wrong punishment approach which can escalate into legal issues. The choice is to alternatively move in a positive direction towards outcomes of mutual understanding and respect. I believe respect is a key issue. It can be written up in mission statements but do we truly understand what respect is? In my view mentally it is to make space for valuing the other despite the difference, hence allowing for another viewpoint. Emotionally we feel and make space for the reality of equality. What this does is opens awareness to the others right to freedom of thought and speech regardless of whether we agree or disagree. This stops judgement and distancing as we respect their right to choose. This is the basis of democracy.
Thus what can happen is that unquestioned or uncontested perspectives are decided without a willingness to engage in the conversation about attitudes and behaviours that are unresolved. The belief one side is right, within group think (people conforming with a predominant view) can blur the lines of neutrality and the prospect of opening to possibilities to resolution and instead seek to punish what is deemed wrong or threatening in some way. If there are no checks and balances or separation of powers then no contestable views can be made visible. It is not about being right but fair, that is the key to harmonising and resolving conflict. If neutrality cannot take place then there must be neutral third parties invited, accessed not just for staff but for students, alumni and visitors to the university. This must happen to ensure health and safety as a universal right. All, must be at a minimum, be able to access a fair and balanced complaints process akin to the Occupational Health and Safety guidelines to ensure equalization of power and the resolution of conflict. There must be no repercussions or exercising of power to suppress for fear of negative external appraisals. It is advisory that students are not treated as youth but adults, given the same processes and opportunity to present and express their case with advocacy.
Management, and those in decision making roles, are asked to consider that always there are two sides to all conflicts and that natural justice, is not just a term, but is about ensuring non bias and fairness. Accountability is not just a word but it is for each to own their part and have the strength to admit mistakes without repercussions, unless the errors were deliberately misleading. Truth telling is critical and within an environment of openness, the truth comes out. People tend not to be honest as they are afraid of the outcomes to their career or completion of their degree, PhD or reputation etc. so they hide, deflect or change stories to ensure a favourable end goal or at the very least, survival. Gandhi spoke of the ‘means justifying the ends’ as a modus operandi, I agree, the ends are not the means. In other words if values are central to the means, the means of ‘fairness’ will be valued and the end unfolds without control. The ends will always be positive ultimately if the means are couched within a genuine positive intent. When the end goal is ‘stated’ like protecting university interests (no matter what) then a university opens itself to abuses of power and concealing etc. Those involved in the process must have faith that those in power really are adhering and internalising high standards of integrity and fairness, otherwise those watching them for leadership will lose real hope and eventually become part of dissenting voices.
In positive cultures – critique, integrity, openness, respect, friendliness, accountability and responsibility would be rewarded as catalysing win/win solutions. All challenges are deemed as opportunities. Management gets up close and personal with staff, students and visitors to the university so that they are tuned into what is happening and leading by example. The ivory tower is then no more as all enjoy integration into a vibrant community.
Alternatively, fear based cultures will encourage secrecy, silence, suppression, group think and punishment which makes the community uneasy and fearful of change without real input. They may experience doubling of workloads without any consideration for their health or confront intransigent attitudes that tow the line without due consideration to others needs. The term ‘moving forward’ is a common statement I’ve heard where superiors may sooth themselves regarding painful change as progressive whereas others may perceive it as uncertain and overwhelming. So the challenge is to create environments genuinely open to diverse viewpoints being aired, to speak up if changes are creating issues for health, safety, balance and happiness. It is to deeply listen and question change and support those who are experiencing difficulties. It is not to push out those who do not conform, or are perceived in ways not approved of or indeed pose a risk to prevailing views but to embrace diversity. It is a little like the sand that creates the pearl. Contrast is what brings excellence as you are forced to confront uncomfortable aspects you may want to recoil from. That is, aspects you do not own. What we resist is inner conflict, fear is what drives the resistance, it is to understand the fear that enables you to embrace the contrast. I feel to explain this, we cannot force the world to change to make us feel happy, it is to focus on inner discord and transform it, thus externals will change. This is not known in business/institutional circles but it drives to the core of what we see in the world is a reflection of ourselves, thus change must happen within. Thus with positive intent, positive cultures will permeate from the top down and from the bottom up. It becomes who we are. Everyone comes on board as it feels good.
Richard Branson is a master of this type of business culture. He sees Virgin as intricately linked to the global community. He invites input and offers more say to his workforce. He is open to changing with the times, he recognises social and corporate responsibility are one in the same and he listens deeply to his staff within a framework of respect and fairness. As a leader he embraces challenges, he doesn’t like public speaking but became a speaker. He faces risks with courage as he did ballooning and sailing around the world. That is moving beyond fear to explore possibilities. He is quoted as ‘doing good is good for business’. That is why he is successful. This is an article about his approach to change.
He has influenced many global companies refer https://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-novick-okeefe/doing-good-is-good-for-bu_b_6369242.html
I am personally not for negative punishment models but positively learning from dialogue and examining outcomes or consequences. I believe in empowerment as a better way of attitudinal and behavioural change. Empowerment gives power to others it does not take it away. Disempowerment actually creates risks to health and safety in my experience. The old paradigm of traditional control tends to disempower through tighter controls. That is not to say an organisation doesn’t have policies and procedures, it should, but to look at where people are disempowered or where one side has more power than the other. That is what you look for. In my view, the old paradigm is no longer effective in todays society (global society) with its many issues, complexities and disruptions. Disruption must not be seen as a problem but an opportunity to learn flexibility and resiliency. Social norms are changing and young people are confronted by a loss of values, increasingly violent global media, social media, wars, climate change, rampant consumerism, greater insecurities, family breakdown, tighter regulatory environments, surveillance and fears about the future. In my view we have to learn how to work together to achieve positive results for all. This requires unending dialogue, peace building in communities, moving towards the middle ground and finding win/win solutions that work. In truth one must become very flexible to really embrace differences and rapid change. That is enhanced by international students as they have completely different cultural values and comprehension. Others may think their values and norms are common knowledge.
It is so important that even in difficult disputes where reputational issues are at stake or differences of opinion, that the university management has the courage to face problems and not favour corporate interests as the rationale for unfair decisions or protecting interests by removing problems. Those in governance must be 100% living in integrity with renowned ethics that are truly believed, speaking up as examples. Being seen to be is not going to cut it when things go wrong. What has to be understood is that respect is gained when the community recognise the management really are motivated by the highest good of students, visitors, alumni and the Australian community. They are clear about their purpose and not being influenced by other voices who seek self interest. They can call upon those in their immediate and broader community to work with them to assist in problem solving, enlightened and innovative projects and tackling challenges such as: government withdrawing funding and the implications of this for decision making and the future of Australian universities. Why not become more active like ‘activists’ and really stand up for the integrity and potential of education that serves not only the community but a world in real crisis. There are always creative pathways that can be taken when one is a principled leader. I think the world needs enlightened universities headed by those committed to their public that are not solely defined as corporate models of profitmaking spruiking mantras of growth where intellectual property (public) becomes private property rights as business infiltrate university funding streams and culture. In my view they have to stand up for independence and to be fully funded by the community they serve, otherwise the universities will fall into foreign hands and the Australian taxpayer loses another public asset. Whilst it is great to see foreign students on Australian campuses as they bring an international focus, cross cultural understanding and it is a great experience for the student to experience Australian society, that must not be the primary focus. My hope is that they are not all from elite backgrounds who can afford expensive university courses but from a cross section of bright students who have merit. Another Einstein or Marie Skłodowska Curie could be out there that are missed due to economic disadvantage. Government policy and universities can affect social systems in other countries if only those with money access foreign education. It gives them an advantage over other students who are not funded but gifted.
Equality and respect is an important social issue, not only for gender but across the board. Thus, it is important that the temptation to make more money is not supplanting Australian students access to university places as they don’t pay enough, hence influenced by basic economics. Another issue is students accessing low fee courses at university and again, the government must be held to account on not undermining a public good, in my view, as this impacts equality in the Australian social order. Only wealthy people gain access to education. This is potentially devastating to the ethos of egalitarianism as part of the Australian culture.
So what does this have to do with sexual harassment?
It is the bigger picture behind why it is hard for universities to tackle negative issues like sexual harassment. It is a reputation problem they face. Mindsets have focused on rational issues not social-emotional issues. It is also a government funding problem as universities have to find more funding. All 39 Australian universities would have been devastated by the Human Rights Commission Report as it affects their international standing as favoured educational providers in a highly competitive environment. This means that governments around the world know there is a sexual harassment problem in Australia they will turn to other countries to send their students. Thus the loss of what is important revenue streams. However, I would add that sexual harassment is evident in all countries around the world and far worse in some, given attitudes towards women are universally problematic. It is unlikely other governments would do the research as they are not awakened to this issue. Myself, as a woman, I am well aware of the challenges women face, I’ve been sexually abused, attacked and harassed many times in my life. I’ve never had a voice or any recourse. I know how tough it is to speak up. For me, the worst is to be ignored. That renders you non-existent. You can only repeat yourself and hope one day you are heard. The issues of respect and fairness are key.
So there needs to be a conversation not only about sexual harassment as it is gaining intense media attention but the quality of universities and the ethics and values they promote but have shown inconsistencies in application. They have to develop these values as the real point of their humanity not only a strategy of marketing differentiation. Values underlie why people choose an institution and this is what brings a real sense of security, safety and inspired innovation to those within the community. To be truly included and not isolated or blocked from involvement in a public university due to speaking up must become a ghost of the past as we move into a future of not only tolerance but acceptance of different voices. Harmony based cultures and real enlightenment about who we are and to discover our true purpose is to benefit humanity. To involve women and men in all endeavours, to not discriminate and to realise that there are only opportunities in disguise waiting for those wise enough to grasp the initiative. The report by the Australian Human Rights Commission is an opportunity to really develop world class universities, my hope is that La Trobe University will not only be seen to be but actually become a great university that develops humanities as an equal part of its science and technological focus. Economics without humanity is the reason these issues have surfaced and will continue to, not only in universities, but around the world.
Imagine a ‘reformation of universities’ into true guilds of enlightenment they used to be. Spaces of lateral, innovative and radical thought that break through the outdated boxed thinking we call logical reality, towards inspired geometric balance as harmony (homeostasis) in all what we be, do and say. This is why the Agora at the centre of the Bundoora campus is there. The Divine Comedy copper pyramid is another icon of going through the darkness to reach enlightenment. The other that comes to mind is the naked female neeling before the management building. I see her as ‘naked before truth’. Indeed to break out of conservatism and convention and really explore infinite possibilities as a lived truth. That is my inspired wish for the La Trobe University I believe in.
My time as a student at La Trobe university was one of the most wonderful years of my life. I learned Peace Studies there and my teacher was the best in his field, a true world expert in Gandhian nonviolence. It was a springboard for me to explore peace in the world. I travelled extensively and gave deep thought to nonviolence, values and peace in our world. You may visit www.worldpeacefull.com to see what has emerged from having an education and following my dreams. I am deeply grateful for that experience. I came to La Trobe to learn peace and I believe I am getting closer to that goal as I speak up for my own truth and treat those who differ with respect. They were my greatest teachers and still are. I see the importance of them.
It was Gandhi who envisaged ‘to be the change you wish to see in the world’, this combined with freedom of speech are the levies that produce greatness. The world is our mirror and if seems to be getting worse we must look at ourselves and what we value. To make a better world we must look within and find what is not in alignment with our vision. I envisage a peaceful world which is why I work on peace every day of my life. I am not perfect but it is my goal. I wish peace for every person as I have cultivated ‘love’ as my modus operandi of actioning peace. The two are intrinsically linked. To find peace around sexual harassment is to speak up about it, to express one’s truth, to do this with respect and to allow for differences. For me it is about problem solving as to why this happens. For example some questions to open up inquiry:
How do people become emotionally detached and not feel empathy for the other?
How do we create social emotional understanding?
How do values become transformed into living belief systems?
How do people reconnect with their true humanity so they can feel again?
How do we remove victim consciousness and replace it with empowerment?
How do we create cultures of responsibility and accountability?
How do we create social communities that are engaging in dialogue?
How do we create conflict resolving communities to deal with issues at the grass roots level?
How do we advance positive psychology over fear based toxic cultures?
How do we create cultures of peace?
How to move to problem solving away from the blame game?
How to choose respect and fairness? (equality)
How to develop assertiveness to deal with problems quickly?
How to inspire those in governance to lead by example rather than recoil as risk adverse?
How to create open, friendly, inclusive healthy cultures from the top down and the bottom up?
These are critical questions that drive to the heart of our humanity. That is why humanity and human rights are a life lesson that have come to all of us for healing. There are no mistakes in this life.
I send peace and happiness, all ways.
Sexual Harassment at Universities in Melbourne – Support Group
If you have had an experience of subtle sexual harassment at a university in Melbourne, please make contact. The purpose of this group is to offer emotional support to those who do not feel heard or feel demonised by raising sexual harassment allegations or complaining about subtle sexual harassment. This at its core is power games where a person is not being up front and honest about the situation.
In my experience very few deeply understand the reality for targets. This group is to show respect, compassion and understanding for those who do not feel heard and cannot find a way to resolve the matter. If you feel suicidal, note I am not a counsellor, but I genuinely understand. I am here to deeply listen and guide you towards healing.
Examples of this behaviour may include:
staring or leering
unnecessary familiarity, such as deliberately brushing up against you or unwelcome touching
suggestive comments or jokes
insults or taunts of a sexual nature
intrusive questions or statements about your private life
displaying posters, magazines or screen savers of a sexual nature
sending sexually explicit emails or text messages
inappropriate advances on social networking sites
accessing sexually explicit internet sites
requests for sex or repeated unwanted requests to go out on dates
behaviour that may also be considered to be an offence under criminal law, such as physical assault, indecent exposure, sexual assault, stalking or obscene communications.
If you need someone to talk to please contact this website.
The Toxic Reality of Stonewalling
<b>When the sociopath stonewalls you</b>
When the sociopath stonewalls you
Stonewalling
stonewallingcontempt
stonewalling
by Steve Becker, LCSW • Lovefraud.com
silent treatmentstonewallingstonewallsilent treatmentsilent treatmentsilent treatment
Stonewalling is when someone shuts you down from communicating. He just “bails” on your efforts at communication, refuses to take you seriously; refuses to engage a discussion of your concerns. He may ignore or dismiss you, express fatigue with you (and your concerns); he may listen without offering a thoughtful, respectful response, and then credit himself for having listened.
In any case, his unthoughtful, lazy, dismissive, or flat-out non-response to your feelings and concerns captures the essence of stonewalling and will reflect his pure contempt for which he’ll take no responsibility.
Rather, he may depict you as a boring windbag who doesn’t know when to “stop talking,” or who’s always making or looking for “trouble,” without recognizing or owning how his insistent refusal to listen, his determination NOT to listen, actually provokes, passive-aggressively, your very instinct to “talk” and “pursue him” until he gives a meaningful response. If you do persist, he may complain to others that he is being “harassed” for no reason, pointing out that he is doing “nothing” to you.
He may flat-out tell you he’s bored by, and uninterested in the concerns you raise, regardless of how strongly you feel about them, and regardless of how strong your need to discuss them is. It may be that the more urgency you feel to broach your concerns, the more he’ll contemptuously stonewall you.
His rebuff will feel cruel and leave you feeling especially helpless. It will also very likely be dripping with some form of passive-aggressive, if not aggressive, contempt.
Now this is stonewalling, and stonewalling is a nasty, hurtful thing to do to someone; it leaves the stonewalled party feeling as negated as a person can feel.
You don’t have to be a sociopath to stonewall. Plenty of non-sociopaths stonewall. But many sociopaths are stonewallers, and the act of stonewalling itself contains the cold, callous attitude of the sociopath.
The stonewaller’s absence of empathy for the stonewalled party, perhaps even the relish the stonewaller takes in messing with the stonewalled party’s head, in watching her twist and squirm and perhaps make humiliating efforts and bids to be heard—there can be something actually sadistic about this.
Stonewalling will tend to elicit some common feelings in the stonewalled party—among them shame, anger, rage, infuriation, humiliation, desperation (to be heard), helplessness, and a sense of being driven crazy.
Stonewalling, then, is a form of “gaslighting” insofar as it can leave the stonewalled party feeling as if she’s speaking a foreign language inaccessible to the stonewaller even though she knows perfectly well the stonewaller speaks the language, literally, but either refuses to speak it or “acts” like he doesn’t.
This can have a “crazy-making” effect, as if he’s accusing her (as he may very well do) of speaking incomprehensibly.
Stonewallers, whether sociopaths or not, are seriously disturbed communicators. Their indifference to the stonewalled party’s experience, as noted, can be chilling. Their stonewalling often reflects character pathology, in which case they won’t change—they will always be stonewallers.
Stonewallers are destructive people and it’s best to avoid them for your sanity’s and dignity’s sake. I make this strong suggestion where the stonewaller refuses to assume total and genuine responsibility for his stonewalling, which is too often the case.
You need to stop banging your head against the “wall” (the pun is apt) trying to reach the stonewaller, because he is not reachable. Futility is what you are left feeling again and again, until you feel depressed and hopeless. The futility is not in your head. It is real, and will always be the experience with the stonewaller, who disowns responsibility for the suffering his stonewalling causes you.
Identify the stonewalling people in your life; if they can’t, or won’t, take charge of their stonewalling, get them out of your life as best, completely and fast as you can.
By Steve Becker, LCSW. Use of the male gender pronoun was strictly for convenience and not to imply that females aren’t capable of the behaviors and attitudes discussed.
SilentTreatment2
The Power of Positive Management Changes the World
Sourced from: LinkedIn
The Power of Positive Management (Part 1)
by Steve Crabtree
Leading experts from the Positive Psychology movement tell how organizations can boost employee productivity and engagement
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” That old adage is good advice — but if “it” is the human psyche, you should definitely try to understand it. That’s the impetus that brings hundreds of psychologists, students, and other interested parties from around the world to The Gallup Organization’s Washington, D.C., headquarters every year to talk about what’s right with people.
The Third International Positive Psychology Summit convened this fall for three days of presentations and workshops on how to foster positive emotions and psychological wellbeing. The event was rich in management insights from executives and researchers who discussed how to apply Positive Psychology principles to the workplace.
The Positive Psychology movement has enjoyed strong growth since its origin in the mid-1990s. It was then that a group of prominent psychologists, including Martin Seligman, Ph.D., and conference organizer Ed Diener, Ph.D., began lamenting that the field of psychology had become heavily preoccupied with pathology — that is, with the idea that its predominant mission was to figure out why people were so screwed up.
PHOTO
Seligman and Diener — along with Gallup’s late chairman Donald O. Clifton, Ph.D., and a growing corps of other social scientists — committed themselves to the idea that the scientific foundations of happiness and wellbeing must also be studied in order to promote human potential. Seligman, who was presented with an award at the conference recognizing his leadership in advancing Positive Psychology research, described a number of successful “happiness interventions” that he and his colleagues have now validated empirically. (See “Authentic Happiness” in the “See Also” area on this page.)
This two-part article relates the first three of six management insights from this event.
Optimism and idealism are good for innovation
Vinton Cerf, Ph.D., the summit’s keynote speaker, isn’t an expert on psychology — but he knows a lot about using a new idea to transform the world. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Cerf played a key role on a U.S. Department of Defense project that led to the development of the Internet and Internet-related data-packet and security technologies. Cerf said that persistence in the face of skepticism characterized the process every step of the way; its adherents never stopped believing that the process could change everything.
“If you can provide a core belief that [a new idea] will work and grow and adapt, other people will come along who believe it, too,” Cerf said. “It also requires a certain amount of initiative to do things even if people think you’re crazy — they might be right, but doing it anyway is what’s important.”
Mike Morrison, Ph.D., knows all about the hurdles that innovators face. As dean of the University of Toyota, it’s his mission to create an environment in which those hurdles are lowered as much as possible. Morrison has used the Positive Psychology movement’s insights to foster innovative problem solving in the service side of Toyota’s business. (See “Toyota Applies Quality Management to People” in the “See Also” area on this page.)
Morrison said that one key is to develop a set of broad guiding principles, encouraging employees to think in terms of what “should be.” Those principles should trigger emotional responses in employees by giving them a sense of purpose; they should be elevating, timeless — and positive.
Want to keep employees healthy? Treat them with respect.
Do companies really need to concern themselves with the psychological wellbeing of their employees? Thomas Wright, Ph.D., of the University of Nevada, offered evidence that feelings of wellbeing at work go straight to the bottom line. In fact, Wright’s study suggests that companies that measure employee satisfaction may do well to look first at wellbeing. Satisfaction predicted productivity only among those employees whose psychological wellbeing at work was high — and low psychological wellbeing predicted high turnover regardless of job satisfaction.
So what are some things to keep in mind about psychological wellbeing? David Spiegel, M.D., of the Stanford University School of Medicine, described his decades-long study of people coping with advancing cancer, as well as Internet-based studies of responses to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. His work provides insights into the types of coping strategies, emotion management, and social support needed to help therapy group participants build bonds and express their emotions.
QUOTE: Encouraging employees to express grievances rather than letting them fester makes for a healthier workplace.
His research showed that after taking part in a series of “expressive” groups, participants — whether cancer patients or people simply trying to make sense of a tragedy like 9/11 — were less likely to suppress their emotions, but better able to manage them. Spiegel also noted that those who suppress emotions have abnormal patterns of cortisol release, a hormonal stress response. The bottom line: Encouraging employees to express concerns or grievances rather than letting them fester makes for a healthier employee — and a healthier workplace.
So will removing threats to their sense of dignity. Norbert Semmer, Ph.D., of the University of Berne in Switzerland, related his work on the effect of disrespect in the workplace. He noted that if employees perceive that the amount of effort they’re exerting is out of balance with the reward they’re receiving, they have increased risk of cardiovascular disease and psychological disorders. Semmer also discussed the importance of the perceived legitimacy of task assignments: If employees view their work as unreasonable or unnecessary (for example, they feel their tasks would need less effort if organized in a better way), their work becomes threatening rather than affirming, and their health and wellbeing are at risk.
Many employees may be suffering from “meaning want”
Gregg Easterbrook, The Brookings Institution fellow and senior editor of The New Republic, drew from Positive Psychology research for his 2003 book The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse. Discussing the book at the summit, Easterbrook declared that in American society, “The incidence of clinical melancholy has been rising in eerie synchronization with social gains and improvements in quality of life.” In other words, money really can’t buy happiness — and may in fact make true fulfillment harder to come by.
Since humans have had to struggle for survival for most of our history, our brains may be evolutionally calibrated to find fulfillment in overcoming threats to that survival. Take those threats away, and many of us feel adrift, purposeless. The upshot, Easterbrook says, is that “We’ve gone from material want to meaning want.”
What does that mean for employers and managers? Providing employees with a proxy for the struggle for survival — a sense that their work challenges them to use their personal attributes to accomplish a goal that’s important to them — is key to keeping them engaged.
In his presentation “Engaging the Human Spirit at Work,” Douglas May, D.B.A., of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, used a workplace survey to test the impact of three conditions: psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability. May found that meaningfulness — workers’ feelings that their job is important and highly relevant to them — had by far the strongest influence on engagement.
Next month’s article will discuss three more management insights from this event.
Steve Crabtree is a Senior Editor and Research Analyst at Gallup. He contributed to writing Building Engaged Schools, Gallup’s book on education reform.
Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is a serious issue and has recently been the subject of discussion here in Australia and in the United States. The issues of disempowerment of women through overt (physical) and covert (subtle) sexual harassment is important to understand.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has recently released its report on sexual harassment in universities. Some key ideas are highlighted below:
Sexual harassment
What is sexual harassment?
- What is sexual harassment?
- Identifying sexual harassment
- In what circumstances is sexual harassment unlawful?
- Sexual Harassment in the workplace
- Sexual harassment in education
- Making a complaint
- Sexual harassment and the Commission
- 2012 Sexual Harassment National Telephone Survey
- Recent media releases and speeches
- Publications
Sexual harassment is any unwanted or unwelcome sexual behaviour, which makes a person feel offended, humiliated or intimidated.
Sexual harassment is not interaction, flirtation or friendship which is mutual or consensual.
Sexual harassment is a type of sex discrimination.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) makes sexual harassment unlawful in some circumstances.
Despite being outlawed for over 25 years, sexual harassment remains a problem in Australia.
Sexual harassment disproportionately affects women with 1 in 5 experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace at some time. However, 1 in 20 men also report experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace.[1]
Identifying sexual harassment
Sexual harassment can take many different forms – it can be obvious or indirect, physical or verbal, repeated or one-off and perpetrated by males and females against people of the same or opposite sex.
Sexual harassment may include:
- staring or leering
- unnecessary familiarity, such as deliberately brushing up against you or unwelcome touching
- suggestive comments or jokes
- insults or taunts of a sexual nature
- intrusive questions or statements about your private life
- displaying posters, magazines or screen savers of a sexual nature
- sending sexually explicit emails or text messages
- inappropriate advances on social networking sites
- accessing sexually explicit internet sites
- requests for sex or repeated unwanted requests to go out on dates
- behaviour that may also be considered to be an offence under criminal law, such as physical assault, indecent exposure, sexual assault, stalking or obscene communications.
In what circumstances is sexual harassment unlawful?
The Sex Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for a person to sexually harass another person in a number of areas including employment, education, the provision of goods and services and accommodation.
Of all the complaints received by the Commission under the Sex Discrimination Act in 2009-10, 1 in 5 related to sexual harassment. Our Complaints Register contains complaints conciliated and finalised under the Sex Discrimination Act.
Sexual harassment in the workplace
Every year, sexual harassment in the workplace is one of the most common types of complaints received by the Commission under the Sex Discrimination Act. In 2009 – 2010, 21% of all complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission were under the Sex Discrimination Act, and 88% of those complaints related to sex discrimination in the workplace. The wide use of new technologies such as mobile phones, email and social networking websites creates new spaces where sexual harassment may occur.
Sexual harassment at work is against the law. Sexual harassment can be committed by an employer, workmate or other people in a working relationship with the victim.
Sexual harassment can be a barrier to women participating fully in paid work. It can undermine their equal participation in organisations or business, reduce the quality of their working life and impose costs on organisations[2].
Refer the Australian Human Rights Commission for more information https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/guides/sexual-harassment
Worldpeacefull Employment offers workplaces and communities the following process:
1.