Get Adobe Flash player

Bullying

Psychological Health and Safety

Psychological injury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Psychological Injury)
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

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]

When You Know Something Wrong is Happening to You

Proud to have written this for Thrive Global —  (Source: LinkedIn)

Not to deter from sexual harassment’s watershed moment(s)

but bullying in USA workplaces is four times more common

by

I am glad that sexual harassment is having a moment…many moments in fact. The truth needs to come out. Not to take away from this, and in the spirit of adding to the conversation about mistreatment at work, but bullying in US workplaces is four times more common than sexual harassment.  “I didn’t know that was a thing” was my friend’s response when I told her I was publishing a book on international workplace bullying laws.Workplace bullying is a thing. The Workplace Bullying Institute has found that 27% adult Americans have been bullied at work, while 49% have been targets or witnesses to bullying.

What is workplace bullying, and equally important, what isn’t it?

Workplace bullying is cumulative and repeated conduct which may include false accusations of mistakes, screaming, exclusion, withholding resources and infromation necessary to the job, behind the back sabotage, and unreasonably heavy work demands.

It is not everyday disagreements and “dust-ups” in the office, someone having a bad day and losing his/her temper, reasonable instructions, a tough performance review.

It is also not discrimination as it not based on being in a protected class such as race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, or disability.

Workplace bullying damages: the targeted employee may experience a wide range of physical and psychological symptoms, up to and including commiting suicide; the organization faces absenteeism and turnover, reduced morale, and harm to reputation. An employee who witnesses the bullying of another can have a stronger urge to quit than those who experience it firsthand.

It may make people feel a little crazy: they are experiencing repeatedly abusive treatment by a supervisor or co-worker, not related to their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc, but knowing something wrong is happening to them.  A term, workplace bullying, to attach to their distress is a relief. It makes it real.

There’s a big problem here. Workplace bullying is generally not illegal in the US. So if you are being repeatedly and severely harassed at work, and it isn’t because of your race, or your age, or gender, or religion or disability, there is not a law to protect you  or to deter your supervisor or co-worker’s abusive conduct.

To add insult to injury (I’ve never actually used this term before but it seems fitting here) numerous countries have laws against workplace bullying, including Sweden, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Australia, Quebec, and Ontario. The laws use different terms: victimisation, moral harassment, psychological harassment, but their message is the same: severe abusive conduct in the workplace is not acceptable.

There is movement in the US to prohibit bullying in the workplace. The Healthy Workplace Bill, to legislate against bullying, has been introduced in 29 States and moves closer to passage each year. Meantime, a company policy against workplace bullying and a confidential complaint procedure can  go a long way to temper abusive conduct. You don’t need a law to create an organizational culture of respect.

As is said–When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Bullying behavior and its sour, destructive impact is on display in the highest office of the US.  Maybe workplace bullying is beginning to have its time.

Bullying Series Part 12c: Toxic or Healthy Workplace Cultures?

This last part of the Toxic or Healthy Workplace videos focuses on Comcare’s Bullying Risk Management Tool with some suggestions that may assist organisations to work smarter not harder.

Click on Pdf of the Bullying Risk Management Tool. https://www.comcare.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/70422/Bullying_risk_management_tool.pdf

When management makes a decision to place wellbeing ahead of profit in terms of priority they will discover the latter increases. There are many innovative and positive ways to improve workplaces. It requires a willingness and awareness understanding that management affects people’s lives and they can choose to make a difference in the lives of their staff. Imagine if all staff loved coming to work. Hence not being seen to be but walking the talk.

Bullying Series Part 12b: Toxic or Healthy Workplace Cultures?

Part 12b and 12c focus on Comcare’s Bullying Risk Management Tool adding personal experience and insights to evaluating this tool.

It is an excellent tool for organisations seeking to implement healthy workplace cultures. Click on https://www.comcare.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/70422/Bullying_risk_management_tool.pdf for the Pdf of the tool.

Bullying Series Part 6: SPEAK UP About Suicide, Bullying, Toxic Culture and REAL HOPE

This video reveals a very candid discussion about suicide. It is an authentic discussion revealing issues we typically will not talk about. The information will expand on what you have thought about and extend beyond the typically narrow perspectives in the media.

It is the second video expanding more complex issues about suicide providing more information around the social issues around suicide. This video opens up real questions about what is democracy? The importance of values to unify people, the truth of equality, enlightenment, the adversarial legal system, lack of social support, stress, sorrow and pressure etc.

A Children’s Parliament is discussed to share a model highlighting humour and play, inclusivity, conflict resolution, values and creativity. She uses the example of climate change as a problem to be solved and providing a different way of seeing through REAL HOPE. This design could be modeled in enlightened companies or organisations that are focusing on working together for higher outcomes. But first we have to become authentic and be who we are.

Susan speaks about her experience in Russia with Dr. Patch Adams and the importance of starting a narrative on love. This word is never used in professional discourse yet it is the pink elephant in the room. It is the most important subject and it is what brings people together, produces happiness, healthy workplaces and will ensure stability to inspire people to stay happily in their workplace. Patch Adams travelled to Russia as a Peace strategy and to make a real difference. Clowns remind humanity of our true happiness.

This is for organisations that are seeking to genuinely engage in community development and honest dialogue. There has to be a genuine rethink about business and its impact on people and the planet.

Excellence will emerge from developing inclusive enlightened communities in workplaces and society.

Bullying Series Part 1: What is Bullying?

Do you seriously want bullying to stop? If you do you have to develop a depth understanding of what this behaviour is about, the drivers and to recognise that it is a form of abuse (violence). Bullying is destroying peoples lives as they do not feel they are safe, being heard or believed. Many are drowning silently in a sea of silent apathy and isolation.

Many organisations are simply ticking boxes in respect of training online with bullying. This is not an effective approach. There has to be face to face training to ensure people can hear each other, can understand the nature of bullying and how people can emotionally address this experience. It is very important that the issue of suicide is understood and dealt with in the workplace or in the community.

Bullying arises from powerlessness in both the perpetrator and the target. The key to turn it around is education, values e.g. empathy/responsibility, individual coaching, group training and developing positive self understanding and esteem to enable people to find their power.

Bullying can be stopped when we decide to face it. There are too many people who do not understand the nature of it, do not have the legislative backing to intervene or minimise the psychological issues associated with trauma. This video is to help explain the issue with greater clarity and compassion.

If it happened to your family member what would you do?

The Bullying and Verbal Abuse of Gordon Ramsey

What is disturbing about watching this video is Gordon Ramsey’s style which is more akin to a Sargent Major in an army bootcamp than a Head Chef in a commercial kitchen. Yet within the psyche of this man is the belief that he is somehow helping people to excellence when in truth he is destroying their self esteem and if repeated this may lead to long term psychological injury. Abuse is about the intention to repeatedly hurt the other verbally or threatening physically to hurt them, this is violence in its many forms. In truth his anger (higher level) is a call for help as he is unable to deal with the stress of things not working out the way he thinks it should, he can’t cope with outcomes different from his beliefs and perceptions. He reflects a rigid mindset that has a strong vision of what he thinks it should be. As he continues this behaviour he is clearly unable to self reflect and question his verbal negativity within himself. The fact that people cannot produce what he is asking is the reality but he creates a context whereby he can offload his own anger and pain onto others under the guise of them failing to do the right thing or as he would like (please him). This anger may have started when he was young. I would suggest it definitely has. He has been bullied himself and he believes this is the way to get ahead in life. He has come from a culture and generation where this was this has been the norm in many families. You have to be tough to succeed would be his mantra and indeed, what he has been taught. He believes he is justified in abusing because he is the unquestioned Head Chef and he believes he is right.

Bullying in kitchens is common as it is a process where all have to work under pressure to get food out on time. They typically work long hours and there is a hierarchy. The Head Chef believes control is leadership and that he can control others, not unlike a totalitarian dictator. His statements are not challenged as the others feel they have to do as they are told. This is not a democracy of equal input. They feel powerless in his presence to defend themselves and this is definitely the setting for a toxic culture and possible suicide. If a person over a period of time is subject to this type of abuse their self esteem will erode as their identity is deconstructed. They will start to feel anxiety and fear making mistakes. After a time they will feel terrified to go to work as the feel psychologically and possibly physically threatened. The fear is likely to produce more mistakes as they focus more on mistakes not perfecting the process which the Head Chef believes he is motivating through fear. In truth he is creating more mistakes by pressuring and abusing people. It puts them on egg shells. If they depend on the money they will feel trapped in this job with no way out. They will comply 100% to make him happy to ensure they are not abused (safety) but they will find they will be abused, as abuse is how his pain body derives power.

Perfectionism is a character trait of bullying and it comes from a deep seated belief of not good enough. If it is extreme, as this film portrays, it reveals a man who is deeply powerless within himself to achieve what his mind believes he must achieve ‘excellence’. The pressure he puts on others he puts on himself and the abuse he projects is really what is coming from within himself. He would do this to himself. ‘Not good enough’ comes to me intuitively with this man. Never good enough yet seeking to reach perfection and constantly disappointed as he can’t do it and others are unable to reach this level. He is worthless in his mind. So he projects power to gain it and feel superior to justify his power over others. This is a classic profile of powerlessness parading as power and the negative harm psychologically of abuse. An example for trainers and teachers to share with staff when looking at verbal abuse and bullying.

So how could Gordon turn this around? Firstly it is unlikely he will change. He would have to be ready to stop given the pain he is feeling within. He is highly stressed. He has blocked or denied his behaviour and found reasons to justify why it is right. He believes he is right and will not accept any criticism, it reflects deep insecurity. This mindset if he has thought it a long time will be wired into the brain. He would have to have some sort of epiphany or life crisis or criticism to awaken him to the desire to change. It will be hard as all the abuse he has projected he would have to face and that is very painful. For those bullying it is easier to pretend they are right and believe it.

It is better for those working with him to make decisions about their self esteem, to find ways to inquire into their felt pain and negativity as a result of abuse and to be able to deflect such negative behaviour by laughing within and seeing it as not real. To realise that it is his problem and no matter who is in front of him he would abuse them. Abuse is not personal that is why much of his abuse is ‘fuck off’ (rejection) and critical comments. He believes he can remove the problem or blame someone for something not right get them out of his kitchen rather than change his mindset and deal with his own thoughts that believe he is right, they are wrong and he must be obeyed. This is what a dictatorship looks like. No respect for the feelings of others, no empathy and an attitude of ‘man up’ and ‘If you can’t handle the heat get out of the kitchen.’ That feels apt. He is totally insensitive to human rights, values, dignity and respect. These values are a foreign planet. His approach will absolutely destroy another psychologically if he senses any threat to his authority.

The law of attraction talks about a well stocked kitchen as a metaphor for life has everything in its kitchen. What you focus on you expand. So if there is something in the kitchen you don’t want the more you focus on it the more it is there. You attract the imperfection, the not good enough because that it the focus. The only way in reality to get something out of your kitchen (can’t in truth get rid of it) you simply do not focus on it. So he would learn to praise and focus on only what works not what doesn’t, the people in the kitchen would start to change as they would be wanting the praise so that would inspire them to try harder. The bootcamp approach is an old mindset of abuse coming from attitudes that say you have to scare people into change or excellence. It is not true.

If this behaviour happened here in Victoria, Australia he would be up for criminal proceedings giving the Bullying clause under the Stalking Act. Refer http://theconversation.com/bullies-beware-youre-now-stalkers-under-victorian-law-1767

People will applaud the way he spoke but the reality is that he uses bullying and intimidation to get what he wants and he believes he is right.  He likes the power of having them on their toes.  His put down with ‘kitchen donkey’ is a way of making her feel like she is an ass.  Yet within Gordon is great rage as he projects his anger onto others yet it is with himself that he is angry. Yet denial keeps him in a space of aggression blaming others so he is justified in his abuse.  He is the boss so he get’s away with it. He has great pain within and this is how it expresses.  There is also issues in the staff who feel powerless, this is where stress and anxiety develops as they feel under attack and can’t defend themselves.  Rather than bruises or wounds psychologically they are being attacked.  It can’t be seen so they won’t find empathy around their suffering. Yet Ramsey is evoking in them pain which is from their past.  The way through this is ‘to know thyself’ examine fear and move through it. If you need to cry then fully express the sorrow as it passes. People go into therapy as they rationalise away their pain and had no real role models to show them how to deal with their emotional triggers.

It is worth having a look at the Pain Body by Eckhart Tolle which will give insights into the pain body and will reveal why Gordon does what he does. Refer video:

Senior Executive Speaks Out About Bullying

http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2015/02/19/dresden-native-andrew-faas-has-penned-the-bullys-trap

Dresden native Andrew Faas has penned ‘The Bully’s Trap’ 12

By Ellwood Shreve, Chatham Daily News

Andrew Faas, left, author of The Bully's Trap, signs a book for Geri Lyn Wilson, of Blenheim, Ont. after giving a presentation on bullying in the workplace in Chatham, Ont. on Thursday February 19, 2015, organized by the Foundation of Chatham-Kent Health Alliance. Ellwood Shreve/Chatham Daily News/QMI Agency

Andrew Faas, left, author of The Bully’s Trap, signs a book for Geri Lyn Wilson, of Blenheim, Ont. after giving a presentation on bullying in the workplace in Chatham, Ont. on Thursday February 19, 2015, organized by the Foundation of Chatham-Kent Health Alliance. Ellwood Shreve/Chatham Daily News/QMI Agency

Andrew Faas knows all about bullying in the workplace – because he used to be one.

Today, he’s a leading advocate to combat the issue, which can debilitating psychological and physical impacts on employees.

The Dresden native, who is author of ‘The Bully’s Trap,’ discussed the topic of bullying in the workplace on Thursday in Chatham during a Lunch & Learn session presented by the Foundation of Chatham-Kent Health Alliance.

Faas recalled that early in his career working for Loblaws that a senior executive came into his office to ask his advice about how to handle a young manager who bullied people into getting things done.

“I’d fire the SOB,” Faas recalls telling the executive.

He never suspected the response would be: “The problem, my son, is the young SOB I’m talking about is you.”

Faas said it become his most important lesson in leadership, which led to him becoming the youngest vice-president of Loblaws, where he worked for 23 years.

“I learned that motivating out of respect, rather than motivating out of fear, is far more effective.”

Faas was also the victim of bullying when he blew the whistle on a corrupt executive, which included such aggressive actions as having his e-mail and phone hacked and receiving an anonymous death threat.

He said this had a horrible psychological and physical impact on him.

Faas credits the intervention of others around him who recognized his deterioration and helped him to confront the situation.

“Most people, I have discovered are not as fortunate,” he said, adding this experience became the catalyst for writing ‘The Bully’s Trap.’

He has discovered everyone seems to have a story to tell of either them or someone close to them being targeted by a workplace bully.

While there has been much media coverage of bullying in schools, Faas said there has been scant attention give to the issue of bullying in the workplace.

He noted a major difference with workplace bullying is the bullies are often vested with power and control.

He believes workplace bullies are “masters of deflection, deception and manipulation,” and the reason they bully is because they can.

Geri Lyn Wilson of Blenheim was among those who attended the event and purchased Faas’ book.

“I know it’s an issue in many workplaces and it’s important for people to know there is support out there,” she said.

Wilson added bullying could also be happening in your personal life as well.

When asked by The Chatham Daily News about the reaction of the corporate world to him shining this kind of light on such an issue, Faas said: “In most cases they say, ‘It may go on elsewhere, but it doesn’t go in my environment.’”

He added that usually the reason corporations give this response is they are not getting the information they need.

In many cases, corporations have the processes in place to gather information, such as reviews and employee surveys, “but there’s such a disconnect from what they get from that and what the reality is.”

He added the reason is in most cases, people are afraid to even a fill a form expressing what really goes on.

Faas said he has worked with companies that get the message about dealing with bullying.

He is working on developing a psychologically safe workplaces program to raise awareness about the impact bullying has on the mental health of employees.

“Bullying is a systemic issue the requires a systemic resolution,” Faas said.

 

Ellwood.shreve@sunmedia.ca

Twitter.com/DailyNewsES