The Hidden Cognitive-Communicative Dangers in Phone/Web Conferencing – Part I:Disarming the Dangerous Alliance of Assumptions, Anonymity & Aggression

Part I

Part I begins with an emerging irony: the advance of technology doesn’t guarantee more effective transmission and sharing of complex information, especially involving groups of people in various electronic settings, such as phone conferences, webinars, and webcasts. To reach its potential, “high tech” must dance with an uncommonly skilled “high touch partner,” one who can interact with, coordinate, and guide “distant” learners and participatory team members. Four broad domains of conceptual and applied knowledge are outlined as critical to achieving “Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent Electronic/Phone Conferencing.” The essay also focuses on the information processing glitch built into the electronic meeting/web experience: to compensate for reduced sensory input the human brain makes inferences, tentative assumptions, and hypotheses. And when insufficient time, need for control, or other personal “hot button” issues begin driving the perceptual experience, problems arise. Finally, Part I closes by examining the “Biasing Effect, especially the way perceivers differentiate how they explain the source of motivation and make evaluations, comparing themselves to others along two dimensions: a) Deed vs. Intent Filter and b) Attributional Error.


The Hidden Cognitive-Communicative Dangers in Phone/Web Conferencing – Part I
Disarming the Dangerous Alliance of Assumptions, Anonymity, and Aggression

Consider one of the ironies of our ever-changing and expanding technical world: Being a high tech specialist, “nerd” or even a “maven” is not sufficient to guarantee the effectiveness or success of electronic meetings, phone conferences, webinars, and webcasts. More critical is the ability to apply traditional yet foundational knowledge of “soft” or “people skills” in four vital areas:
1) an understanding of emotional insight-interpersonal intelligence; i.e., a “Four ‘C’-ing” Mindset” – being Curious and Compassionate, Critical and Creative,
2) verbal and nonverbal communication, especially active listening & questioning as well as interactive public presentation,
3) group dynamics, structure, developmental stages, managing conflict, individual and team performance, group process, along with “high task-high touch” cohesion and coordination, and
4) leadership-facilitation substance, style, and savvy, i.e., purposeful use of self as role model and catalyst; akin to being an orchestra leader who guides-supports-questions-confronts-dares individuals and teams to bring out their best music.

Though “smart” upgrading abounds, traditional barriers to “Message Sent = Message Received” remain; and new cognitive-communicative challenges sprout like weeds in our ever-growing technological web. Even with the most sophisticated, cutting edge devices, you can still only psychologically “touch” a colleague, client, or audience member, and then only by knowing how to project and connect with your head, heart, and soul.

Based on reading the incredibly learned new book, The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind, and Brain, (2012), by Eric Kandel, and my attempt at developing a “high tech and high touch” workshop/webinar program – “Designing Electronic/Phone Conferencing that’s Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent: Skills, Structures, and Strategies for Mastering the Medium, the Message, and the Meeting,” I have finally perceived the obvious: there’s a weed-like information processing glitch built into the electronic meeting experience (and it’s not the devious use of the “mute” button). Actually, this perceptual dynamic has a powerful impact on the degree to which your evaluations and communication are “real, responsible, responsive, and respectful.” (Email stressdoc@aol.com for my article “The Four ‘R’s of PRO Relating.”)

Seeing, Not Sensing, and Distorting the Obvious and Ambiguous

Many people quickly recognize that one of the drawbacks of most phone conferences or webinars, even with video conferences, is the absence or limited nature of visual data – facial and hand gestures, overall body language, and especially the eyes as “windows to the soul,” eyes that sparkle or get “big” from wonder, greed or fear, along with tears of sadness/joy, etc. Such signals help place verbal information and exchanges in a nonverbal and more meaningful context. And while rapidity and pacing of speech, as well as volume, volubility, lability excitability, reaction time, pattern of interruption or accommodation, inflection, tone, exaggeration, hemming and hawing, repetition, pausing, silence, accent, repeatedly clearing the throat, etc. are all important nonverbal markers, they can’t fully compensate for the lack of visual data. As important, not all users of electronic meeting technology are sufficiently conscious of or versed in integrating this non/verbal-contextual data into their informational-communicational playing field. Clearly, eliminating or minimizing sensory input, signaling, and feedback cues and clues may adversely affect the probability of “Message Sent = Message Received” (MS = MR).

However, the informational and interpersonal issue is not simply one of sensory deficiency. For many, the real problem occurs when trying to remedy the absence or the ambiguity of data. And our brain is fairly compelled to take on this challenge... Alas, necessity may lead to invention that is less “brainchild” and more “fiction, fabrication, and fantasy.”

According to Kandel, our senses provide us data that is approximate and incomplete. Our brain attempts to fill in the gaps and often compensates for reduced or uncertain sensory input by making inferences, tentative assumptions, and hypotheses. While often accurate, a serious information processing problem may arise in ego-, identity- or performance-defining and challenging situations for a perceiver, especially when stimuli are not fully clear, rational, predictable, or explicable. However, when a brain is seeking closure, one does not have to feel overly anxious or threatened to quickly abandon the tentative and come to definite conclusions and judgments, often prematurely. In general, most want to replace an ambiguous, uncertain, or vulnerable state, to dismiss the tentative with a sense of confidence or competence; perceivers’ want to be comfortable, correct and in control, even if the belief is more fantasy than reality.

The Biasing Effect

For example, one of the reasons many rape victim’s often erroneously blame themselves for the dreadful event is that the notion that life could be so horrifically random or chaotic is just too disorienting or devastating. (And for the spiritually inclined, why would their God abandon them?) Believing they could have done something different and didn’t helps regain some semblance of future or anticipatory control, no matter how illusory the belief and self-damning the consequences.

However, social psychology research reveals that the potential for misperception and misjudgment also lurks in mundane, everyday activities. One important source of illumination comes from “Attribution Theory.” This theory examines how someone perceives another person’s motives and behaviors, especially in comparison to the way such an individual makes self-evaluations. Here are two attributional points to ponder:

1. Deed vs. Intent Filter. In general we are quicker to judge other people by their actions and deeds; we are skeptical of and do not simply give them a pass for their articulated intentions. Conversely, we are less demanding, we lower the evaluation bar, when it comes to our own behavior; having right-minded intentions, even without follow-up action or achievement, often lets us off the negative judgment hook.

This perceptual biasing tendency, however, may experience a 180 degree reversal for people with depressive dispositions. Such individuals at times selectively overlook environmental and/or biochemical constraints impeding or disrupting an ability to transform intentions into action steps, and they misjudge themselves accordingly. Or consider the example of a person grappling with some form of clinical depression who, nonetheless, accomplishes a significant task. Not surprisingly, this individual may lack both sufficient self- and diagnostic awareness or at, minimum, may be more pessimistic. Upon task completion he may still be critical because it took him longer or he had to work harder than his peers or colleagues. That is, he winds up questioning his intrinsic aptitude, intelligence, desire, and/or talent.

At the same time, there is research that reveals depressive individuals may have a more realistic assessment of the external constraints in a situation or task. That is, they are less naively “optimistic” about their degree of perceived control in comparison to “normal” subjects. Perhaps there is some optimal balance between optimism and pessimism, between one’s perceived internal and external “locus of control” for overcoming attributional bias and attaining objective self-recognition and evaluation.

2. Attributional Error. An area ripe for applied research is perceptual error based on an observer attributing a person’s motives or actions to personality factors, often to the exclusion of situational forces. Here’s an illustration. Let’s say a relatively new colleague at work (whom you don’t know well) has come in late two or three times in the past week. It wouldn’t be surprising if you (and others) began to start wondering about his or her motives and competencies, e.g., is the person lazy, disorganized, disenchanted with work, or just plain old passive-aggressive? However, if you were to come in late a couple of times, or were asked to speculate about reasons for your hypothetical lateness, research indicates you would likely quickly note, for example, the traffic conditions, needing to get a child to daycare, illness in the family, etc.

Can you see the bias? When explaining our own problematic behavior we first focus on situational or outside conditions affecting intentions and actions, thus providing a rationale or protective cover for any outcomes or consequences. In contrast, while observing others our initial predilection is to judge based on inner personality or motivational traits, not on environmental constraints. An assessment focused on the individual alone, not seen in context, is more judgmental, making it harder to be empathic or forgiving, or even just truly curious. (For example, “I wonder why she behaves that way?” said with obvious tone, and an emphasis on the “she”-word, is often more a disguised judgment than a question of genuine concern.) And this tendency to broadly, quickly, or indiscriminately place personal evaluation over situational factors is called “Attribution Error.”

Deficient Data and Perceptual Drama: Transcending the Electronic-Human Dilemma

As noted previously, an electronic, information transmitting-sharing medium that reduces sensory data and that heightens informational ambiguity, thereby facilitating a rush to understanding if not to judgment, is problematic enough. But add a perceiver ready to rapidly or selectively filter both because of a normative propensity for perceptual-judgmental error and:
a) festering negative experience or painful memories stirred by the person-situation context,
b) general time pressure, boredom, exhaustion, or distraction,
c) current emotional – personal, professional, family, work-life balance – stress or frustration,
d) competitive, career advancement, respect and reward, or workplace self-esteem issues, and
e) being overly invested personally in only one acceptable decision or possible outcome, that is, having a “believing is hearing” or “black or white” mindset, then misinterpretations, misjudgments, prejudgments, rigid viewpoints, and bias tends to happen.

Closing Summary

Part I begins with an emerging irony: the advance of technology doesn’t guarantee more effective transmitting and sharing of complex information, especially involving groups of people in various electronic settings, such as phone conferences, webinars, and webcasts. Four broad domains of conceptual and applied knowledge were outlined as critical to achieving “Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent Electronic/Phone Conferencing.” The essay also focuses on the information processing glitch built into the electronic meeting experience: to compensate for reduced sensory input the human brain makes inferences, tentative assumptions, and hypotheses. And when insufficient time, need for control, or other personal “hot button” issues begin driving the perceptual experience, problems arise. Finally, Part I closes by examining the “Biasing Effect, especially the way perceivers differentiate how they explain the source of motivation and make evaluations, comparing themselves to others along two dimensions: a) Deed vs. Intent Filter and b) Attributional Error.

Stay tuned for Part II: “The Dangerous Alliance of Assumptions, Anonymity, and Aggression.” Until next time…Practice Safe Stress!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part II

The BM2 -- Biased Mind X Blazing Mouth -- Syndrome in Phone/Web Conferencing: Disarming the Dangerous Alliance of Assumptions, Anonymity, and Aggression -- II


Part I begins with an emerging irony: the advance of technology doesn’t guarantee more effective transmitting and sharing of complex information, especially involving groups of people in various electronic settings, such as phone conferences, webinars, and webcasts. To reach its potential, “high tech” must dance with an uncommonly skilled “high touch partner,” one who can interact with, coordinate, and lead “distant” learners and participatory team members. Four broad domains of conceptual and applied knowledge were outlined as critical to achieving “Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent Electronic/Phone Conferencing. The essay also focuses on the information processing glitch built into the electronic meeting experience: to compensate for reduced sensory input the human brain makes inferences, tentative assumptions, and hypotheses. This becomes a significant problem when lack of time, need for control, or other personal “hot button” issues begin driving the perceptual experience and hardening your assumptions. Finally, Part I closes by examining the “Biasing Effect, especially the way perceivers differentiate how they explain the source of motivation and make evaluations, comparing themselves to others along two dimensions: a) Deed vs. Intent Filter and b) Attributional Error. Part II provides strategies for surmounting the dangers when trying to maximize the “Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent Use of Medium Message, and Meeting.”

The BM2 -- Biased Mind X Blazing Mouth -- Syndrome in Phone/Web Conferencing: Disarming the Dangerous Alliance of Assumptions, Anonymity, and Aggression -- II

So what is the necessary course of action (and not just having “good intensions”) for an electronic conferencing perceiver/participant desiring to be objective, insightful, knowledgeable, and empathic? Consider these “Paradoxical Information-Communication Insights, Tools, Techniques, and Tactics for Managing the Medium, Message, and Meeting”:

1. Pay Attention, Hold Fluid Assumptions, and Ask Clarifying Questions. When processing information that is intrinsically incomplete, sign up for Triple “A” Anti-Bias Insurance:
a) Pay Attention to Other and Self. Especially when data is limited in a meaningful way, paying attention to communicational nuances and subtleties is vital. Though essential, don’t just concentrate on the person’s words. Familiarize yourself with the aforementioned nonverbal markers, such as pace, tone, volume, excitability, pattern of interruption, etc. To enrich understanding, as much as possible, in your own and others’ communications, start attending to the presence or absence and/or intensity of these cues. Focus on this sensory input both when you are in the same room with the other party and when interacting electronically.

Actually, start building awareness by mindfully attending to your own conscious and fleeting, premeditated and spontaneous, verbal and nonverbal, physiological and psychological signals – for example, sighs, facial grimaces, and eye-brow raising “whatever’s,” as well as overt and covert emotional triggers, recurring thoughts, and the meaning of your actions for self and others. Appraise your responses and, especially, your defensive and oversensitive reactions in all manner of personally and professionally important or intimate interactions. For example, unresolved psychological issues involving past or present significant members of your family or relationship partners, especially painful early childhood or young adult experiences, are often a major biasing factor. Coaching or counseling can significantly aid this reflective and feedback-driven process.

b) Avoid Premature Hardening of the Assumptions. Often when sensory input is reduced, as previously noted, the brain makes inferences and fills in the gaps; our sense organs operate on the basis of “simplified physics,” not always providing us with complete or representational information. (It’s why we can be readily tricked, for example, by visual, tactile, or auditory illusions, e.g., think of the “phantom limb” syndrome, hearing voices, or the world of painting, video games, or the movies (i.e., the IMAX experience), whereby your brain enables an intense three-dimensional experience to be projected onto a two dimensional canvas or screen.) And when the setting or medium (or message and messenger) in some fashion is data-reception or transmission compromised or challenged, misperceptions are likely to happen.

Of course, mortal error, that is, subconscious or historical-emotional biasing looms ever-present in the human psyche. And painful subterranean memories, vague dissatisfactions, ego insults, as well as lingering conflicts or “grief ghosts” are quicker to surface under conditions of chronic stress, uncertainty, or vulnerability. Now a perceiver overlooks the tentative nature of a hypothesis, too hastily turning provisional, speculative, or unconfirmed assumptions into judgments or beliefs if not “hard facts.” This conversion process tends to occur when feeling anxious or “at a loss,” when expectations or role-identity-psychological-family security markers have been unexpectedly shaken or suddenly overturned and, especially, when possessing a rigid need to be correct, in charge, or in control. So in addition to an overdue stress management regimen, work-life-grief transition coaching, or some personal therapy, how do you protect against the obstruction or hardening of assumptive arteries?

c) Ask Clarifying, Hypothesis Testing Questions. Start developing the mindset of a researcher and coach by asking questions that clarify both the outer-environmental/situational factors and inner-psychological dimensions – from personality traits, aptitudes and attitudes to motivational or situation-specific states – impacting the emotions, thought, and behavior of the individuals or groups that are the focus of your attention. Reframe your assumptions as speculative hypotheses that need to be tested and retested. While a bit of hyperbole, as much as feasible, limited information needs to invite unlimited questions before reaching a conclusion.

Such questions help keep assumptions tentative and restrain premature judgment. For example, much better to tactfully say, “I really would like to understand your thinking here” rather than “I can’t imagine how you could possibly believe (or do) that!” And if you have a hard time keeping your provocative, inner CSI detective or attorney under wraps, remember the Stress Doc mantra: Count to ten and check within…when in doubt, check without (that is, check in with the other party).

The moral: stop imagining (or projecting) your judgmental beliefs and values, and start inquiring without being inquisitorial; unless, of course, you’re in a virtual courtroom or similar venue, where being adversarial is the functional norm. (Though we know how quickly this adversarial tactic becomes dysfunctional when carried from the courtroom to the boardroom or bedroom.)

What Are “Good Questions?”

Good questions are not intended for winning the “gotcha” game; especially when using electronic media, they need to close the knowledge gap between what you and others infer from message sent and what the messenger intended, believes, or hopes to achieve. (Of course, inferences are also frequently influenced by past transmissions, interactions, and overall experiences) When these questions:
1) are asked with humility - "I don't have all the answers" – along with a desire to truly listen and learn from the other party, and to more genuinely understand before confronting and judging,
2) reflect an interactive process that is not contaminated by hardened assumptions or “personal baggage,” and
3) help the other feel safe to express his or her mind candidly and even critically, then this process often is affirming for the individual being questioned. Now your message becomes: “I really want to know your thoughts and feelings; I value your perspective and position. And I will not lash out or wilt under fire (but won’t accept abuse either).”

While acknowledgement doesn’t mean agreement, (actually, most folks just want a fair hearing), such respectful dialog may even rebuild trust between one-time antagonists. But remember, especially in an electronic/phone conference, these questions may need to be posed frequently, as there are plenty of gaps and barriers to MS=MR.

Of course, in today’s TNT – Time-Numbers-Technology – driven and distracted world, there are many occasions when timelines and deadlines are critical, and delay leads to unacceptable consequences; decisions, judgments, and action steps must be made based on the data at hand, despite its limitations, information gaps, or uncertain nature. Nonetheless, whatever steps can be taken to check out inferences and assumptions, to uncover hidden agendas, to close the gap between what you imagine and what you might in fact discover, along with “clearing the air” between different interests or “silos” and getting real buy-in before launching, take them. Authentic start-up commitment is your most important process!

2. Are You Strong Enough to Be Vulnerable? Why do so many have a hard time asking questions, in addition to the often questionable assumption that they already have sufficient information and “the answer”? Some obvious points come to mind: a) people don’t want to be seen as nosey, rude, or presumptuous, maybe even a “know-it-all”; they don’t want to overstep their boundaries; others may become uncomfortable, defensive, or angry, b) in some contexts raising questions puts into question your blind loyalty; e.g., my “Law of the Loyalty Loop”: Those who never want you to answer back always want you to back their answer, c) there’s a fear that asking the wrong question may reveal a lack of knowledge, intellect, savvy, or maturity, or that the questioner will be so judged, d) in related fashion, some see asking questions as not being decisive or needing others’ approval, and e) it may open the floodgates; others may now feel free to put the questioner under scrutiny or the “Intimate FOE: Fear of Exposure” spotlight.

I suppose my going on four decades experience as a therapist, coach, wide-ranging psychological-organizational subject matter consultant, workshop leader, group facilitator, including a ten-year run orchestrating an AOL chat group – “Shrink Rap ™ & Group Chat” – and now webinar presenter motivated me to hone my questioning skills. Perhaps the most important qualities for being an effective and empathic questioner involve three “beings” and one “appearing.” Let’s examine Four Keys to “Good Questioning” that Cultivates Openness, Understanding, and Trust – being Humble, being Curious, being Mistaken, and appearing Naïve (facilitating, of course, all manner of coming OUT ;-):

a) Being Humble. Perhaps the foundation of good questioning is a sense of humility; the dynamics of life and people is complex, requiring an appreciation for both a common humanity and an uncommon diversity. We live in an “always on/upgrading” bio-psycho-social-cultural-geographical-global world. You must be able to acknowledge not having all the answers and that input and ideas from others are vital for achieving a more valid and valuable understanding of this interpersonal world, and the various and meaningful points of view. In fact, this approximates one definition of “respect” – paying close attention to another’s lived experience and world view. Alas, respect is often in short supply when compelled to rapidly jump from one person-situation task or problem to the next.

As noted previously, especially when using electronic media, you want to close the assumption-knowledge gap between inferred and intended message through messenger-receiver feedback. It may require some time, attention, and “good questions” to discern the goodness of fit between message received and what the messenger overtly proposed and covertly believes, what she expects and hopes to achieve, the tension between her fears and fantasies. (Remember, for many of us, a most intimate yet subterranean fantasy is often hidden at the core of a great fear.)

b) Being Curious. Clearly the above-mentioned humility doesn’t keep a good questioner in his or her place; to the contrary, it releases and exercises an individual’s exploratory senses and muscles. And curiosity isn’t all brain; it’s also brawn, or at least the backbone to ask tough or sensitive questions with a tactful, patient, yet persistent manner. You are not afraid to discover the good, the bad, and the ugly about this individual (or about yourself), and you will work hard to hold quick judgment in abeyance.

Sure you are seeking information for its own enlightening properties. But when it comes to the realm of multimedia and emotional insight-interpersonal intelligence, good questions say others are important to get to know, to understand, to connect with, and to learn from. Ultimately, back and forth questioning and sharing helps build empathy, trust, and partnerships.

c) Being Mistaken. While curiosity will not likely kill the chat, or other electronic media, curiosity often means moving out of a comfort zone, both your own as well as stirring or even provoking the object of your curiosity. (I’m using the word “provoking” or “provocative” based on its French derivation, “provocare” – to arouse or awaken energy or curiosity, to stimulate the mind.) Especially when visual/sensory data is reduced, a good questioner must be willing to ask about the apparent or even patently evident, to not assume there is comprehension or agreement when genuine and mutual understanding has not been earned. A listener might even wonder why you don’t know “that” answer, or is puzzled or put-out as the piece of information you seek seems so “obvious.” However, what seems obvious to one may not be so to another, especially when a questioner is exploring a deeper or more comprehensive person-situation assessment. Better to incur the other party’s judgment or incredulity than to bypass the necessary headwork, heart work, and homework.

In addition, when time is a factor in the quantity and quality of engagement, you must have the confidence to ask assumption-based, “big picture” questions even when you know you have not found or put together enough pieces of the puzzle. (You might want to say, “This question may seem out of left field, but I just want to check if there might be a connection between these two events, as unlikely as it may seem.”) Remember, your goal is less being right and more to help draw others out, thereby enabling the pieces-parties to connect. And being an active questioner, no matter how sensitive or tactful, you must be prepared for, if not fully comfortable hearing, “I disagree” and, even, “You are wrong!”

Again, the risk is often worth the reward: For authentic relationship building, based on my experience in trenches virtual and veridical (veridical: “corresponding to facts; not illusory; real; actual; genuine”; Dictionary.com; I needed to come up with a “v”-word counterpoint to “virtual,” when people are in fact physically, “fl-2-fl” – flesh-to-flesh – in the same room), it’s vital allowing others to be constructively critical. Acknowledging and mutually engaging with anger expressed in an acceptable manner (often by the receiver not confusing “attitude” or “face-saving” smoke for “hostile” or “abusive” fire) is a necessary condition for intimate sharing and connection as well as the evolution of trust. [Footnote: A pattern of hostility or abuse must be countered by one or more of the following:
(1) appropriate, preferably f-2-f, engagement, and limit-setting, if necessary, with the aid of a conflict mediator,
(2) momentarily withdrawing from the line of fire to lick any wounds and reflect upon resources and strategy, and/or
(3) reporting the problem to appropriate authorities, hopefully ones more responsible and responsive than some recent heads of academic institutions. If not genuinely or adequately responsive, the threat of an outside attorney may get the attention of the authorities. (Of course, taking on a company tends to be fraught with risk and requires the financial means along with courage, support, and stamina.)]

d) Appearing Naive. What I mean by “appearing naive” has less to do with such synonyms as “inexperienced” and “unsophisticated” as it does with guileless, trusting, or especially “artless,” which “stresses absence of plan or purpose and suggests unconcern for or lack of awareness of the reaction produced in others.” And while a good questioner usually has some purposeful motives and goals and is sensitive to other’s emotions and needs, there still is openness, even innocence, in one’s approach to people, problems, and possibilities. You momentarily let go of everyday assumptions or expectations, as if you are on vacation traveling in a foreign land; you have a tabula rasa or “blank slate” and mentally meander with fresh, childlike-eyes and ears open to whatever is encountered along the exploratory path. And an unexpected benefit: people focus on your energy and elan vitale; they frequently want to be plugged into you and your power source.

3. Recognize and Take Responsibility for Hurt, Angry “I”s, and Psychological “Hot Buttons.” Much like associating to the old Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), especially when attempting to assess the human drama without key sensory data, not only do people make inferences and jump to assumptions, but interpretations can readily become judgments and insinuations. And this phenomenon is magnified when the stimulus person-situation has touched if not triggered one of our “hot buttons.” A hot button is a psychic issue or complex of emotions smoldering in your psychic underground that get aroused (or may explode or implode) in reaction to another’s communication or behavior. However, the other’s presence, words, looks, or actions are usually not the “real” concern; the subjective perception of the other as aversive or an antagonist is exaggerated by the release of our own painful “emotional echoes.” In addition to this overt and covert emotional hurt, hot button behavior is often set off by one or more of the “Four Angry ‘I’s.” Again, let me briefly explain.

Anger is a state of heightened activation or arousal of the autonomic nervous system (for example, increased heart rate, rapid breathing, flushed face, chest pains, sweaty palms, raised voice, etc.) that is fueled if not fired by our cognitive – conscious and unknowing – interpretations. You experience those "Four Angry 'I's," that is, you have a palpable sense of:
1. Injustice. A rule of conduct, a cherished belief or instrumental goal is being threatened or abused; you see yourself (also others with whom you are psychologically dependent or connected) as a victim of an injustice, unfairness or disloyalty.
2. Injury. You feel disrespected, discarded or ignored; there's a sense of insult and humiliation along with injury – often psychological, at times also physical.
3. Invasion. You perceive your freedom, autonomy, boundary, and personal space/control as constricted, disrupted, or violated; your identity and bodily and/or psychological integrity are being threatened or attacked.
4. Intention. There is an energy and determination to do something about the above injustices, injuries, and invasions; you are ready – reflexively and/or purposefully – to challenge the status quo.

Hot Buttons: Morphing Fiction into Friction and Flame Throwing Tongues and Fingers

Of course, being highly sensitive to other’s pains and passions often makes for a caring and compassionate listener. However, this same sensitivity, when sufficiently stirred, if not conscious and consciously channeled, can lead to fighting deep-rooted, disguised, or misguided, “mountain over molehill” battles. By definition, it doesn’t take much for an overly sensitive or immature ego to be pushed beyond its pain, angst, or shame limit and for the “injured” or “insulted” party to self-righteously push back. It’s hard to listen above your own long-simmering, rumbling heat and friction. Subterranean static not only complicates the perceived and primary source – psychic vs. actual, past vs. present – of the message; it also compromises your ability to assess objectively whether the sender’s message was a reasonable or acceptable missive or intended as a dismissive aside or demeaning dart.

And when fiction morphs into friction, a “hot button” receiver’s push back may take the form of quiet passive-aggression, i.e., silence, forgetfulness or procrastination, and/or a condescending or intellectually cutting remark or “scarcasm,” in addition to loud or rapid, defensive or harsh growling, swearing, and ranting. And, of course, the electronic age allows for all kind of counterattacks. Hiding behind a keyboard or IPad screen or “Not so Smart” phone, it’s easy to take on a Dirty Harry, “Make My Day” avatar. Remember, your primitive brain is not only hardwired to a flashing and fiery tongue but also to those dart- and flame-throwing thumbs and fingers. I think we need a new mantra: Anonymity is the father of aggression!

An IT Officer of a bank shared how when the CEO holds electronic phone conferences he becomes a pushy, “little Napoleon.” When running a live, fl-2-fl, in-the-same-room meeting he’s still a no-nonsense, “let’s get it done” leader; however, the body postures and gestures along with the eyes in the room evoke a degree of, if not empathy, at least executive concern for how the living, breathing, emotionally sentient social group is appraising him. Some form of social approval-social control helps tamp down Mr. B.s excess testosterone and lurking, aggressive shadow side.

Anonymity, Aggression and Empathy

Actually, the absence or reduction of clearly discernible facial gestures, emotional and bodily expression, and an inability to look into people’s eyes is more than just a data issue. It is just this sensory input that heightens a sense of empathy and concern for fellow human beings. Without these cues clearly it is harder to detect and identify with another person’s emotions, intentions, pain and passion, and overall state of mind. Too often the other party at the end of the virtual line is less a person and more an anonymous, nameless, recipient or “message target.”

Alas, I warned about the effects of Internet anonymity and acting out aggression through electronic counterstrikes with the ‘90s essay, “Is It an Email or E-missile?” The essay was inspired by a DC “think tank” consultant who wasn’t thinking. In a heightened emotional state, our hero had mistakenly hit the “Send All” button; now a scathingly “hot” email reply was launched, not to the intended antagonist across the country but to about a thousand recipients across the globe. The Chief Executive had him in my office the next day for “Anger Management” sessions! There’s an inverse relationship between anonymity and aggression (perceiver aggression goes up) and anonymity and empathy (perceiver empathy goes down). Hmm…maybe some using the “mute” button not just for distraction but for detachment – to short-circuit morphing into a mutant monster – is not such a bad idea.

Okay, enough. I could go on and on embellishing our “hot button” topic mostly because I know this double-edged, emotionally-interpersonally sensitive creature on a very personal level. Suffice to say, I’ve had to work long and hard (and be ever-vigilant) to achieve some semblance of understanding and psychic control. (Email stressdoc@aol.com for “Surviving the Conference Call Battlefield: A Contentious Case Vignette – Part I.”)

Closing Summary

This essay begins by noting an emerging irony: the advance of technology doesn’t guarantee more effective transmission and sharing of complex information, especially when it involves groups of people in various electronic settings, such as phone conferences, webinars, and webcasts. Four broad domains of conceptual and applied knowledge were outlined as critical to achieving “Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent Electronic/Phone Conferencing.” To be productive in this electronic media age, a leader, presenter, or participant needs awareness of and/or training in: 1) emotional insight-interpersonal intelligence, 2) integration of verbal and nonverbal cues and skills for active listening and questioning as well as interactive public presentation, 3) group dynamics, structure, developmental stages, managing conflict, individual and team performance, group process, along with “high task and high touch” cohesion and coordination, and 4) leadership-facilitation substance, style, and savvy, i.e., purposeful use of self as role model and catalyst; akin to being an orchestra leader who guides-supports-questions-confronts-dares individuals and teams to bring out their best music.

Drawing on evolving research in the field of neurobiology, the essay also focuses on a weed-like information processing glitch built into the electronic meeting experience: to compensate for reduced sensory input the human brain makes inferences, tentative assumptions, and hypotheses. This becomes a significant problem when lack of time, need for control, or other personal “hot button” issues begins driving the perceptual experience. In order to reduce the uncertainty or anxiety inherent when stimuli are not fully clear, rational, or explicable, many individuals are quick to abandon the tentative and come to definite conclusions and judgments, often prematurely.

Part I closes by examining the “Biasing Effect, especially the way perceivers differentiate how they explain the source of motivation and make evaluations, comparing themselves to others along two dimensions: a) Deed vs. Intent Filter and b) Attributional Error. Clearly a paradigm if not a philosophy shift is needed: To maximize the productive use of smart technology in today’s “always on,” rapidly changing complex social-business, productivity and wellness arenas, we will need to upgrade “high touch skills” to build a truly powerful “high tech and high touch bridge.”

Part II of this essay commences with “Paradoxical Information-Communication Insights, Tools, Techniques, and Tactics for Managing the Medium, Message, and Meeting”:
1. Pay Attention (to Other and Self), Hold Fluid Assumptions, and Ask Clarifying Questions.
2. Are You Strong Enough to Be Vulnerable?; this includes Four Keys to “Good Questioning” that Cultivates Openness, Understanding, and Trust – being Humble, being Curious, being Mistaken, and appearing Naive (facilitating, of course, all manner of coming OUT ;-):
3. Recognize and Take Responsibility for Hurt, Angry “I”s, and Psychological “Hot Buttons.” Hot button sensitivity, when sufficiently stirred, if not conscious and consciously channeled, can lead to fighting deep-rooted, disguised, or misguided, “mountain over molehill” battles.

Finally, discover: a) ways to prevent “fiction morphing into friction” or “deficient data leading to human drama,” and b) the inverse relationship between anonymity and aggression (perceiver aggression goes up) and anonymity and empathy (perceiver empathy goes down). More than ever we need to defuse this “Hot War”: “No more turning emails into e-missiles!” Until next time…Practice Safe Stress!

Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote, kickoff and webinar speaker as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring, and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a Team Building and Organizational Development Consultant as well as a Critical Incident/Grief Intervention Expert for Business Health Services, a National EAP/Wellness/OD Company. He is providing "Stress and Communication,” as well as “Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for a variety of units at Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services.

A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, the Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. The Stress Doc blog appears in such platforms as HR.com, WorkforceWeek.com, and MentalHelpNet. His award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" – www.stressdoc.com – was called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.

Burnout and (Vicarious) Trauma-Inducing Work Environments: Part III - “Dirty Dozen” Stressors and Critical Strategies for Defusing Dysfunctional Fire

This article focuses on the ways that organizational-cultural systems foster a TNT – Time-Numbers-Technology – driven and distracted, burnout-prone environment. It also highlights broad, organizational burnout prevention structures and dynamics or “Seven Management Strategies to Defuse Negative Workplace Stress.” Please email stressdoc@aol.com if you’d like more info on how the Stress Doc can help defuse a smoldering-walking on eggshells, conflicting-exploding, or imploding-underperforming work environment through a variety of workshop, team building, coaching, and consulting programs.

Burnout and (Vicarious) Trauma-Inducing Work Environments: Part III - “Dirty Dozen” Stressors and Critical Strategies for Defusing Dysfunctional Fire

Part I of this series captures the realm of Vicarious Trauma and Caregiver Burnout, illustrating its common occurrence among many roles and relations in contemporary society. In addition, the essay examines how the humanitarian if not heroic efforts of helpers and healers can without sufficient awareness and supervision become a disguised and hazardous process of codependency. Part II more specifically examines some common psychological dynamics, cognitive beliefs, personality characteristics, and patterns of coping and caregiving between Codependency and Vicarious Trauma, especially how “E”asy it can be for an excess of empathy and enthusiasm to transmute into exhaustion along with unrealistic expectations, egoals, and varieties of inverted exorcism.

Now we come to Part III which focuses on the ways that organizational-cultural systems foster a TNT – Time-Numbers-Technology – driven and distracted, burnout-prone environment, though I’m not yet specifically examining dynamics that encourage VT. However, in a 24/7 always on, “do more with less” world that seems to forever cycle between constant upgrading and the next downsizing (or “frightsizing” as I like to call it) should it be surprising that employees increasingly alternate between feeling “lean and Mean” or exhausted and burnt out? And in a hazardous work environment, one’s resistance to VT is definitely compromised.

Three key questions need to be on employers’ and HR professionals’ minds: 1) what are some of the signs of an organization stoking the burnout fires and 2) how can I identify burnout in my troops? And finally, 3) what strategic steps are needed to defuse these burnout issues both from an organizational and an individual perspective?

Fueling the Burnout Fires

Let’s begin with “The ‘Dirty Dozen’ of Dysfunctional Organizations.” (The following updates the list that first appeared in my book, Practice Safe Stress: Healing and Laughing in the Face of Stress, Burnout, and Depression.):

1. From TLC to TNC. People are always on call; there’s little boundary between work and home. Work environment is driven by "time, numbers and crises" not by "tender loving care." Beware a philosophy that extols customers as kings while treating employees as peasants; it's a formula for revolt, inertia or sabotage.

2. Rapid and Unpredictable Change. Both a constantly reorganizing or downsizing as well as an expansionary mode heighten stress levels. Also, unstable leadership and a revolving supervisory team/work force, and adjusting to new personnel along with a loss of institutional history and wisdom heightens pressure. Rules and procedures don't appear to be operational; "the book" has lost some critical pages. Chronic uncertainty and mistrust from lack of timely information or from communication not perceived as genuine or accurate.

3. Destructive or Demeaning Communication Style. The norm is condescending, explosive, or passive aggressive styles of communication; there’s excessive workfloor razzing or scapegoating. Managers are talking over employees; nobody is truly listening. Either defensive counterattacking or robotic groupthinking is common. You're turned off from the repetitive, mindless mantra: “There’s no ‘I’ in team."

4. Authoritarian Leadership. Rigid, militaristic mindset; "superiors" vs. "subordinates" or "inferiors" pollutes the ambience. Typical slogans: "You don't get paid to think" or "My way or the highway." Leaders blow up if challenged and break up any participatory decision-making or team building efforts. Often try to cloud the real problem by blaming, intimidating, or targeting others.

5. Defensive Attitude. There’s an overall dismissive attitude regarding feedback with little interest in evaluation of people and policies. Only numbers count. Not safe to give feedback; people quick to feel disrespected or rejected. Yelling and intimidation or, conversely, avoidance and minimizing are the preferred ways of dealing with conflict.

6. Double Standard. Different policies and procedures, bias in application, for management and employees, blue collar or white collar, racial or sexual discrimination – "Workfloor vs. Tower" dichotomy. Double standard also manifests as management gets substantial training or support for dealing with change processes and employees get minimal orientation and ongoing support.

7. Unresolved Grievances. No mechanisms or only adversarial ones – "us vs. them" – to settle grievances. Or, dysfunctional individuals protected or ignored because of contractual provisions, red tape, cronyism, or union cover, etc. Management has abdicated its leadership role; it fears or is or ashamed of having inadequacies, incompetence, or dysfunctional system dynamics exposed.

8. Emotionally Troubled Personnel. Management not actively assisting troubled employees get the help they need; no (safe/confidential) Employee Assistance Program (EAP) option. No coaching for supervisors dealing with dysfunctional personnel. “Good old boy” system turns an eye in the face of dysfunctional stress carriers and team killers. This gap can create a tumor for the work team – scapegoating, loss of respect for leader, apathy and lowered morale, etc.

9. Repetitive, Boring Work. Not just an assembly line syndrome. Also, "The Bjorn Bored Syndrome": When Mastery times Monotony provides an index of Misery! Your niche of success becomes the ditch of excess and stagnation. There’s a lack of opportunity for job stimulation-rotation-transfer or not enough new blood is coming into the system. And in a bad economy, people who are feeling burnt out, and would normally make a job change, cling tighter to “the devil they know.”

10. Faulty Equipment/Deficient Training. Equipment or procedures (or lack of the same) that don't allow people to work effectively or efficiently…and then workers are criticized for not being productive. Also, tensions rise when management rapidly inundates people with new equipment and operational standards while not providing sufficient time and resources for successful training/startup.

11. Hazardous Setting. Disruptive ambient work conditions – temperature, air quality, repetitive motion issues, overcrowded space, and problematic noise levels, excessive overtime, nocturnal schedule, and interrupted sleep, etc. There's an inflated number of health claims and/or grievance procedures. Personnel shortage results in lack of backup resulting in potentially dangerous work expectations and conditions.

12. Culture of Violence/Abuse. There is a culture or past history of individual violence and abuse, e.g., family battering, gang membership, etc. The person has been exposed to violent or explosive role models often with a context of alcohol and drug abuse. There is also an abusive systemic culture. Leadership covertly uses peer bullying to keep certain employees in line. There is cultural tolerance for predatory or discriminatory behavior. The workfloor is dubbed “The Plantation.” Finally, under sufficient stress, employees with lingering Post-Traumatic Stress Injury (PTSI) can be set off.

This “dirty dozen” provides a slightly larger than life portrait of a hazardous work environment. While somewhat "blue" in tint, the "white collar" world also needs to pay heed. No matter the color, these dysfunctional workplaces both overtly drain and frustrate employees and generate a smoldering background. Now a seemingly trivial event can set off a chronically stressed, troubled individual. Of course, some folks are ready to go even in the best of environments.

Strategies for Defusing Workplace Stress and Strengthening Resiliency

So what’s an enlightened business owner or professional management team to do? The next segment will outline how organizations, professional healers, and personal helpers can encourage commitment, build morale, strengthen mind-body-spirit integrity, and prevent the spread of burnout and VT.

Let’s begin this survival strategy spotlight by outlining some broad, burnout prevention dynamics or “Seven Management Strategies to Defuse Negative Workplace Stress” posited by American Psychologist along with fleshing out by the Stress Doc:

1. Workload Fit – workload corresponds to a workers’ capabilities (sufficient training, experience, supervision, etc.) and resources/tools for meeting job demands; when “doing more with less” is morphing into “doing more with nothing” there’s a problematic gap between expectations (if not fantasies) and reality; “good stress” occurs when people have to mostly stretch into high yet doable workloads and time lines and not chronically strain and drain; and speaking of viable resources, technology/equipment is not always breaking down; you can reach knowledgeable people in a timely manner when you need directions or assistance,

2. Stimulating Work – people find their work meaningful, challenging, and rewarding; there’s opportunity for new and relevant learning along with applying knowledge and skills; and there’s a chance to achieve "Organizational IRAs": Incentives, Rewards/Recognition, and Avenues for Advancement ,

3. Role Clarification – ensure that roles and responsibilities are clearly defined; and when role conflict invariably occurs in our TNT-driven and distracted world, there is a safe forum and trusted facilitator/mediator to resolve tension, confusion and discrepancies; sometimes you may need a task or matrix group to rewrite roles and responsibilities,

4. Employee Participation – allow employees input regarding actions that affect their job; absent this input, employees may feel like “pawns” simply being pushed around – their experience and knowledge seems devalued, they feel “out of control”…and people can both burnout and burn-up – smoldering passively and exhaustively, acting out aggressively, or getting even passive-aggressively,

5. In-house Communication – improve internal communication, especially about career development; employee participation and effective communication-coordination requires the existence of internal sharing structures – from regular team meetings and periodic division-wide or “all hands” meetings to focus groups and matrix planning meetings; and the key is that these small and large group venues really do ask for and act upon reasonable employee input; alas, sometimes workplace trust must be rebuilt for these sharing structures to operate effectively and efficiently, to yield workplace synergy – transforming parts into partners,

6. Workplace Socializing – time for social interaction among employees; encouraging formal and informal interdepartmental gatherings not only is good for morale and networking, but research shows it also plants ideational-operational seeds and cultivates new perspectives as well as possible innovative projects and practices, processes and policies,

7. Flexibility in Scheduling – when possible, create flexibility in employee work schedules to minimize conflict with outside personal/family responsibilities; may need to develop and negotiate pilot projects re: optimal office-telecommunication balance; also essential are strategies for keeping telecommuters in the everyday operational and career development loop.

Part III has outlined some basic stressors and strategies that profoundly impact the work environment and culture. Part IV will highlight the Stress Doc’s uncommon take on tools and strategies for “Building Stress Resiliency” in a TNT work environment-culture. Until then…Practice Safe Stress!

Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote and kickoff speaker as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring, and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a Team Building and Organizational Development Consultant as well as a Critical Incident/Grief Intervention Expert for Business Health Services, a National EAP/Wellness/OD Company. He is providing "Stress and Communication,” as well as “Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for a variety of units at Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services.

A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, the Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. The Stress Doc blog appears in such platforms as HR.com, WorkforceWeek.com, and MentalHelpNet. His award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" – www.stressdoc.com – was called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.

Surviving the Conference Call Battlefield: Skills and Strategies for Successful Small Group Phone Conferencing – Part II

Part I captured the tension of a high stakes conference call with a high profile client and fellow team members. The essay highlighted the challenging dynamics of the non-Skype phone environment along with the divergent if not competitive natures of the participant egos. Such an electric mixture invariably exacerbates interpersonal conflict and misunderstanding. Yet when conflict is productively engaged it may breed “constructive discontent,” that is, fertile ground for intimate communication and creative collaboration.

Strategic and Empathic Phone Conference Calling

Feeling more settled after final electronic dialogue with the Conference Call Principal, I could address my latter decision to write about our contentious dialogue and to view the experience as a learning lab for improving conference calls. Part II, actually, has relevance for a variety of communication modes and mediums. Here are the “Top Ten Strategies for Successful Small Group Phone Conferencing”:

1. Take Time for Pre-Conference Call Planning. Clearly, as a consulting team we had not done sufficient preparation. In particular, when time is tight, having an agenda plus spelling out presentation time limits is critical. A “visible,” that is, an active and assertive Conference Call Director is essential to make sure the agenda is followed in a timely manner, including allotting the presenters specific time segments and quick feedback when a person is straying from time or topic constraints. If spontaneous engagement with the client breaks through a time boundary, you can always go with the flow…up to a critical point or two. And this leads to another essential planning arena – communication ground rules. Are colleagues encouraged to break in with questions or comments? Are differences in perspective to be aired privately or publicly? My bias is to allow for reasonable and respectful divergence, even if some discord may ensue. As noted from the outset of the essay and in George’s closing comments (both found in Part I), conflict is a spur to reflection, imagination, and clarification; productive conflict will invariably strengthen a product or process and, hopefully, even a partnership. And aligned with ground rules, do the different parties have specific roles and responsibilities? The answer is likely yes; do some review if not an actual role-play to clarify this “r & r.” Adaptation means integration of the forest and trees while allowing for creative bio-psycho-social diversity. As noted by Adam Gopnik, in his book about Darwin and Lincoln, Angels and Ages: “Repetition is the law of nature but variation is the rule of life.”

Which brings me to my philosophical foundation and team building variation on the traditional team mantra, “There’s no ‘I’ in Team”…There may be no ‘I’ in team but there are two ‘I’s in winning – Individuality and Interactivity. And these “I’s can “C.” Winning teams enable “Individual Courage-Creativity” and “Interactive Critique-Community!”

2. Be Aware of the Obvious Challenges of Phone Communication. On a non-Skype conference call many of the messaging cues and clues are not available. Pacing of speech, volume, inflection, tone, exaggeration, pausing, clearing the throat, etc. are all important nonverbal markers; they can’t fully compensate, however, for the lack of visual data, such as facial expressions, hand gestures, and overall body language. Again, achieving congruity between message sent and received becomes more challenging. Some clear implications: a) use concrete and descriptive images rather than abstract or overly conceptual language, e.g., I recall a manager trainee’s phrase describing the effects of major organizational restructuring: “I once had a career path, then this boulder fell from the sky and crushed it.” Well, you may not want to be overly dramatic, but being vivid and visual gets your message across and b) consider this on point, no “b.s.” variation of the KISS mantra when it comes to phone presentations: Be Smart – Keep It Simple and Short!

3. Find “Small” and Meaningful Areas of Personal and Cultural Connection. Especially when time is limited and there is little opportunity for casual chatting, seize an opportunity for that personal “touch,” e.g., my connecting with the VC around our common ties to Stony Brook University. Here’s another connector: While I hadn’t been conscious of this factor during the call, it’s possible that geo-cultural diversity also supported or, at least, influenced my bold interjection during Allen’s “run-on” presentation. Both my colleagues have southern roots; I’m pretty sure the VC has a northern background. Perhaps placing greater value on the social graces, southerners, in general, may be a bit more accommodating, less impatient, in this situation; “Yankees” tend to be more comfortable with (or at least used to) more abrupt interaction. (And the southerner may feel a greater sense of injury and injustice in the face of such effrontery.) Of course, such untested intuitions and generalizations should be used very carefully and sparingly when exercising strategy.

In similar fashion, be careful of assumptions. For example, Allen concluding that he obviously didn’t need to pause or check in with the VC because her paraphrase captured key points of his presentation, is speculation at best. Just as easily, one might surmise that she had a chance to test her basic understanding, a relief to all parties. Allen now had some confirmation that they were on a common page. Perhaps this knowledge, along with my jumping in, helped Allen wrap up sooner rather than later.

4. Connect to Pain and Passion Using Client’s Words and Language. There’s an urban myth that the meaning of a message is mostly influenced by nonverbal dimensions. Don’t buy it. Words, grammar, and jargon, that is, semantics – “the study of how meaning in language is created by the use and interrelationships of words, phrases, and sentences” (Encarta Dictionary) -- matter…especially when we can (or cannot or do not) speak the language of the other party. When the VC mentioned her concern about the existence of “silos” or barriers between departments in her division, my sharing a story about helping a military brigade remove the same at a pre-deployment/leadership retreat clearly hit home. Conversely, out of frustration, telling Allen that “he was shooting himself in the foot” was a poor choice of words for having him hear my desired message: that a fairly lengthy, non-stop presentation, lacking “check-in” was diluting the accessibility and power of his verbal presentation. And the disruptive effect of my interjection (some would say “interruption”; see words count) was magnified by the conference call’s importance, tight time margins, and competitive milieu. When text is not placed in context, message sent will struggle to become message received.

5. Deliver Meaningful Messages in Organized Chunks. It often takes some forethought and planning for a message to be “short and simple” yet also “smart.” Several keys come to mind: a) try to establish what information is essential and what is of peripheral or secondary import; beware falling in love with your own pearls, b) make concise and clear connections and weave colorful associations or relations among relevant data, c) try to illustrate your ideas by telling a succinct story – whereby your conceptual content is framed by an emotional moral or message, and d) when possible, make unexpected, thought-provoking, imaginative, and playful (but probably not “off the wall”) connections, that is, follow the wit and wisdom of a renowned American humorist. According to Mark Twain, Wit is the sudden marriage of ideas which before their union were not perceived to have any relation.

The challenge of organizing meaningful messages is heightened, of course, when you are responding spontaneously to a question or feedback. Alas, too often when a communicator doesn’t receive “MS = MR” feedback, he or she thinks: “Well, let me try to connect or prove my point with another story…and, if necessary, then another.” When connection is up in the air, if the presenter is sufficiently confident, the best strategy is to put on the brakes and check in with the target of your message.

6. Learn to Pause and Check In. In a "T n T" – Time-Numbers-Technology – driven and distracted world, communicators often feel they have to cram in the info as time and attention spans are often limited. Alas, providing your audience with a lengthy, seemingly endless laundry list almost assures that key issues and ideas will be lost in the verbiage. Might we say that the trees will get lost in the forest? Learning to pause, to segment or chunk your message tends to help the receiver catch the gist – details and big picture – without fumbling the ideas, intentions, or implications. (The communicational analogy might be writing concisely, using short and to the point paragraphs.) Momentary breaks from the back and forth also allow the parties to ponder and posit new possibilities. Now active listening may morph into mutually creative sharing and listening.

And surely, another vital reason to check in is receiving feedback, that is, to: a) gain insight as to what degree your intended message was actually received, b) determine the extent to which the receiver is on a similar wavelength and psychologically onboard and, most important, c) discover or, at least, begin to uncover any and all listener unspoken agendas, objections or concerns about the sender’s posited or perceived position, plan, or philosophy; bottom line – are you getting closer to achieving that elusive problem-solving partnership? When social-psychology research confirms that “attributional bias” (making questionable, fictional, or fallible judgments or explanations about another’s or one’s own motivations, intentions, and actions) is the interpersonal-perceptual norm, checking in becomes essential for effective and efficient communication and collaboration.

One technique for affirming “MS = MR” involves paraphrasing or repeating the other's message in the person's words or in your own distillation. In essence, my interruption provided the VC the space-time opportunity to paraphrase. Especially if a sender has conveyed a significant amount of information or complex instructions, it's wise to say, "I know I just said a lot. Would you mind paraphrasing back (or putting in your own words) what you heard?" Again, the motive is not to catch the other but to have both parties on the same page, and ultimately to use common ground as a springboard for synergistic dialog.

7. Be Conscious of “Hot Buttons” and Exaggerated Sensitivity. A hot button is a psychic issue or complex of emotions that get triggered in reaction to another’s communication or behavior. And by definition, it doesn’t take much for an overly sensitive or immature ego/button to be pushed beyond its pain or shame limit and for the “injured” or “insulted” party to self-righteously push back. Clearly, one of my “hot buttons” relates to sensitivity to other’s pain or, at least, the perception of their pain. (To my chagrin, there’s also the possibility of projecting my own pain onto the other party). Hopefully the former contributed to my interjecting on behalf of the VC. But here’s another and possibly related smoking trigger: I’m talking with someone making a point or, more likely, trying to explain or justify his or her behavior. I then acknowledge their message, which occurs reflexively through a variety of facial cues, with or without verbal accompaniment. However, out of a desire to further rationalize their intentions (likely a mask for their own insecurity or, for example, feelings of guilt), this individual begins to reiterate or unnecessarily elaborate the same point. Now I’m getting edgy, in all senses of the word. I then may cut them off with a somewhat hastily reassuring “I get it” or, if necessary, I quickly and perhaps curtly paraphrase the gist of their message. I don’t know if this pattern merely reflects momentary frustration or a composite of Type A tendencies and impatience, attention deficit, and/or a belief that my esteem is being skewered: “Hey, don’t you think I’m smart enough to get it the first time.” (A still lingering judgmental mother’s voice may be operating here.) And, of course, the “hot button” pitfalls are only exacerbated on a visually “cue-less” phone call.

8. Listen to Feedback; Don’t Simply Launch. It’s hard to listen above your own psychic noise. The problem is that the subterranean static interferes with an ability to objectively assess whether the sender’s message was a reasonable or acceptable missive or intended as a dismissive aside or demeaning dart. Clearly, message heard may not have been message delivered. And even if the intent was self-centered or hostile, do we have to respond in kind?

But alas, it’s just about midnight; the counterstrike missile is on the launching pad and it’s too late to abort the countdown. Not surprisingly, hot buttons are directly wired to your primitive brain and a flashing and fiery tongue. Again, guilty as charged: my conscious concern for the VC’s receptor state and about Allen not connecting with the client was obscured by my excitable rhetoric which, as you may recall, was, “shooting yourself in the foot.” Stress Doc heal thyself. I need to take my own medicinal mantra. Don’t just count to ten…Count to ten and check within. That is, to replace a reaction with an integrated head and heart response, I must recognize existing pain, take responsibility for personal vulnerability and hyper-sensitivity, along with some immaturity, and begin mentally massaging my own “hot button”…even in the heat of battle. Hopefully, this will disarm the need or desire for a reactive strike; perhaps now all parties can build bridges not blow them up or slowly burn them.

9. Is an Existential Decision Really On the Line? In a seminal article, “The Four Faces of Anger,” written in the ‘90s (email stressdoc@aol.com for the article), I also noted the “Four Angry ‘I’s”: we tend to have an angry response (constructive) or angry reaction (destructive) when we perceive another’s communications or actions as being unjust, injurious (or insulting), or invasive, and we have the intention to do something about the above injustices, injuries, insults, and/or invasions. And this aggressive energy pours out when the issue stirs our “passion.”

Passion! What does it evoke? Intensity, heat, steaminess…the “s”-word: “soap opera?” No, of course it’s sex? Actually, we in Washington, DC know the “s”-word for passion…It is “Senator.” (Or it was until Bill Clinton ruined my joke.) Interestingly, if you have a good dictionary the “s”-word for “passion” is neither sex nor senator…it’s “suffering,” as in the Passion Play. This relates to the sufferings of Jesus or, more generically, to the sufferings of a martyr. (Imagine all this time I never knew my Jewish mother was such a passionate woman!)

Actually, the best free association I’ve heard to the word “passion” (from a workshop audience member) has been “Rosa Parks.” Which inspires speculation around the connection among “suffering,” “passion” and being a powerful leader or motivator? For me it’s an individual who recognizes personal and social wrongs, feels their own and others’ pain, (or, at least, has a low threshold for “constructive discontent”), and is capable of learning from and being motivated by past inequalities and injustices, without being a slave to self-righteous retribution. And of, course, this knowledgeable, determined, and principled individual is willing to take a courageous stand in the present – even if by sitting down – in the face of adversity or danger.

However, as depicted on my “Four Faces of Anger Model,” there’s a fine line between constructive “Passion” and damaging “Rage.” So when I broke in on Allen’s presentation was I responding to a higher calling or was my empathic pain more subjective than objective, was increasing frustration polluting Allen’s space and our team image? It may be hard to predict whether you will be seen as hero or villain or both. You may have to do a quick “hot button” survey, decide if you can trust your heart and gut, assess risk and reward, for example, are you willing to make a precarious high dive, and are you prepared to face the consequences. Still, depending on the circumstances, there is often a saving grace. Phone call antagonists have the potential to genuinely grapple with the conflict, if not face to face, then at least voice to voice.

10. Don’t Forget to Debrief. Certainly the wisest move I made during this contentious conference call was asking for a debriefing session upon the VC’s exit. I realized George and Allen needed to vent their anger and that as the initiator of the conflict it was my responsibility to carefully listen to their angst and arguments. Do I wish I had been more patient and measured in my reaction-response? Absolutely! Alas, I’m not a saint. However, I’m savvy enough to know and apply some “hands on” research: allowing people to question or challenge your actions, plans, or point of view, to say “you’re wrong” and “I’m right” (and to feel they have been genuinely heard; again, I fell short here), that is, to encourage their freedom to disagree and be contrary, before you “set them straight,” actually has a counterintuitive result: enabling others to exercise their difference in a conflict situation often helps the antagonist move closer to your original position. As I’ve been known to say:

If you can allow people who say, “Yes, but”
To rebut
Even if they may be a pain in the…
(But you know what I mean)
Then we may get them to say, “But, yes!”

And in similar fashion, my having a chance to go “back and forth” with my “teammates” allowed me to send a more humble and strategic follow-up email to George, which evoked the desired result – George’s text reply: You are still part of the team. Disagreement and conflict will only strengthen our final process and product.

Closing Summary

I suspect the conference call conflict and tough debrief gave each one of us plenty of food for thought, as well as fertile ground for cultivating some new insights and perspective, including some common understanding. As endings often replicate beginnings, I can’t think of a better way to close this essay than by returning to the Part I opening quote from John Dewey, a pragmatic philosopher and “Father of American Public Education”: Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity. It instigates to invention and sets us at noting and contriving. Conflict is the sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.

To productively grapple with the dynamics of phone conference calling and to respect and authentically connect with even contentious parties, try engaging with these “Top Ten Communication Strategies”:
1. Take Time for Pre-Conference Call Planning
2. Be Aware of the Obvious Challenges of Phone Communication
3. Find “Small” and Meaningful Areas of Personal and Cultural Connection
4. Connect to Pain and Passion Using Client’s Words and Language
5. Deliver Meaningful Messages in Organized Chunks
6. Learn to Pause and Check In
7. Be Conscious of “Hot Buttons” and Exaggerated Sensitivity
8. Listen to Feedback; Don’t Simply Launch
9. Is an Existential Decision Really On the Line?
10. Don’t Forget to Debrief

These skills and strategies, tools and techniques will strengthen your communication presence, whatever the medium or message and will help one and all…Practice Safe Stress!

Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote speaker and "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. A training and Critical Incident/Grief Intervention Consultant for the National EAP/Wellness Company, Business Health Services in Baltimore, MD, the Doc is also leading “Stress, Team Building and Humor” programs for various branches of the Armed Services. Mark is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com.

Surviving the Conference Call Battlefield: A Contentious Case Vignette – Part I

The Stress Doc captures the tension of a high stakes conference call with a high profile client and fellow team members. And the delicate yet thorny dynamics of a non-Skype phone environment along with some self-absorbed and excitable egos only exacerbate the interpersonal conflict and misunderstanding.


Surviving the Conference Call Battlefield: A Contentious Case Vignette – Part I

John Dewey, “The Father of American Public Education,” observed that, “Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity. It instigates to invention and sets us at noting and contriving. Conflict is the sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity.” Wow, did I walk right into some conflict the other day…And I suspect this particular interpersonal arena is ripe for passive and aggressive clashes and competitive contests – the multiparty phone conference. Before articulating some of my hard-earned illumination (in Part II), let me paint the not so pretty picture. There were four parties to this conference call: A principal of a National Human Resources Consulting firm (George), two “subject matter” experts/consultants (Allen, an IT Design Consult and yours truly, the Stress-Communications-Team Building Consultant), and the client, a Vice Chancellor (VC) of a major Atlantic Coast University, who reports directly to the University President. The VC provided a needs overview: She has become head of a pivotal university division in the past six months. She is interested in installing a major IT systems upgrade and wants to hold a communications-team building retreat for her managers and front-line supervisors. She’s aware that on top of everyday demands and performance pressures, her people are feeling the effects of regime change. And a technical and operational paradigm shift significantly adds to the uncertainty and stress!

The VC did not have a lot of time so introductions were brief; there was little chance for small talk, though the VC and I connected around her being a program officer for several years at my alma mater, State University of New York at Stony Brook. (SUNY at SB is playing in the College World Series elimination. Go Seawolves!) George and the VC had previously met. In fact, George’s consulting firm has a successful project ongoing for the VC. (Allen and I had never engaged with one another or with the VC.) Allen, the IT point person for most of this proposed business contract pie was instructed by George to begin his presentation. Allen laid out a technical analysis of the potential problems when attempting such a major IT upgrade. He also reinforced how he could help avoid the pitfalls while also highlighting background info on previous successful projects. And while Allen may have strained his arm a bit patting himself on the back, as I’m writing this, his marketing method all seems so practical, knowledgeable, and logical.

A Communication Consultant’s Quandary

However, in real time, Allen’s approaching five minutes of non-stop talking and he’s not flagging for a second; also some of the language is pretty abstract in nature. Of course, the communication challenges are magnified as it’s a non-Skype call, and obviously we can’t read people’s facial expressions or body language... IT guy is not pausing, let alone checking in with the VC; he’s pounding her with an interminable laundry list, and my throbbing head senses trouble. In addition, somewhere lurking in my psyche was a quivering question mark quickly morphing into a theatrical stage hook: was my sometimes impatient Type A “New Yorka” mode getting the best of a complex judgment call? Is the Stress Doc about to become a villain or hero?

Earlier, George had noted that during these “contract development calls” the key is to “connect to the client’s pain.” I don’t know about the VC, but I’m not just squirming; I’m getting uncomfortably anxious, and beginning to wonder how the VC could not be feeling a bit overloaded, if not in palpable pain. Ah, the challenges of having acutely sensitive auditory and empathy channels.

Deciding not to contain myself any longer, I stammer, “Allen, you’re making a lot of essential and excellent points; I’m wondering where the VC is with all this information.” Well the silence on the phone was deafening. Oops, I immediately intuited crossing a conference call protocol boundary line.

After the pregnant pause, the VC gingerly went into the abyss, paraphrasing some of the key points that had been articulated; she acknowledged that Allen was addressing relevant issues. (While the VC’s tone was not one of obvious relief, she didn’t brush off my interjection by telling Allen to simply continue. As will be apparent shortly, the meaning of this interlude and the VC’s comments were subject to varied interpretation and fuel for further contention.) Allen now smartly wrapped up his presentation.

George proceeded to give me the green light, and I began by underscoring the danger and opportunity to bond as a team in the face of “change and performance pressure.” Again connecting to a previously stated concern, I provided an example of successfully breaking down military silos and fostering unprecedented team planning-coordination at a Ft. Hood Brigade Senior Officer/Senior NCO Retreat. Upon sharing a strategic point or story, I then walked my talk, checking in with the VC. I closed with some research on factors contributing to executive “Psychological Hardiness” during times of major reorganization. Finally, I asked the VC if the material presented was relevant to her concerns for the Team Retreat and received strong confirmation.

The Elephant in the Room and in the Forest

After George’s closing remarks and upon the VC leaving the conference room, I asked George and Allen if we could debrief. I immediately addressed the elephant on the phone line: “I guess we need to talk about my decision to break into Allen’s presentation.”

George quickly focused on my interruption as potential evidence for the VC that we are not on the same page as a team. He reiterated that both Allen and I had not asked about the “client’s pain.” Initially I was frustrated by George’s “broad brush” observation, though on one level he was right: I had not specifically asked about her concerns. Instead, with time limits in mind, I had used the VC’s words, such as “organizational and staff pressure” and “silo issues,” as springboards for my targeted presentation.

Not surprisingly, Allen’s feedback took a different tack/attack: First, he emphasized that the IT info provided was critical for such a large and complex project. Allen also labeled my comment unwarranted as the VC’s paraphrase indicated she was following his argument. (I believe such an absolute assumption is questionable without clarification from the VC.) Allen continued, affirming that he was trying to help the consulting firm win a multi-million dollar contract; not so subtly implicit in his message was that in contrast my part of this “buy” was small potatoes (my words not Allen’s). Allen’s ego was definitely bruised, as he kept reiterating the critical value of his expertise.

At some point, perhaps trying to show he was not just a “nerd” and that he also had a degree in psychology, Allen interjected during my presentation, linking IT and OD (Organizational Development). (Was he also playing “tit for tat”? Anyway…) Allen claimed that his IT “vision” would reduce stress levels for the VC’s people as it would improve lines of communication and coordination. (I resisted the quip about the “fine line between vision and hallucination!”) Acknowledging this likelihood, at the same time, I also asserted that during the team retreat her folks initially don’t want to be presented a fait accompli – upper management’s “game changing” solution. Employees at all levels want to be heard and to have input in this magnitude of change process. During times of major transition, people first want recognition for their TLC, that is, they want to know that someone is carefully trying to: a) understand and address their feelings of “Threat, Loss, and Challenge” and b) preserve their position and/or help enhance their role responsibilities and identity, competency and self-esteem in the new and evolving operational ecosystem. (Speaking of ecosystems, perhaps a barrier to Allen’s and my communication was our differing perspectives in addition to personality temperament. Breaking it down into a simple – probably a too simple analogy – Allen was looking at the long-term adaptive viability of the “forest” and I was concerned about the healthy and interdependent functioning of the “trees.” Clearly, an optimal strategy cultivates Yin-Yang integration of the two perspectives.)

When Message Sent Is Not Message Received

While reaffirming my respect and admiration for his IT Design knowledge, I reluctantly acknowledged having to accept that Allen might not hear my two interrelated concerns: that he was not checking in or sufficiently connecting with the VC and that by talking without pausing, by overloading his communication, he was undermining “message sent being message received.” (Perhaps I needed to talk his language, e.g., by noting a less than optimal “noise to signal” ratio.) Alas, at some earlier point, getting frustrated with not being heard, I unnecessarily upped the emotional-competitive ante by saying, “I just felt you were shooting yourself in the foot.” My bad! With his ego already bruised, Allen once again took my comments as a dig at his competence. (While his systems knowledge was clear, it’s not a stretch to say I was critiquing his “emotional intelligence,” interpersonal-client awareness, and marketing savvy. And believe me, I’m no marketing maven.)

Triangles, Egoals, and Growing Pains

During this debrief George and I also disagreed over some points of my presentation and team participation. But at the heart of the back and forth, in so many words, both men were questioning whether my ego needs, a need to impress, to outshine, or ally with the VC, contributed to my disruptive action. While “triangulation” or “two against one” is a frequent interpersonal ploy or trap in small group interaction, and allying with mom over dad and brother often makes for intriguing fiction writing, I didn’t think this was the basis for my action. I believed and affirmed that my intention was concern for the contract by connecting with the client. I also emphasized that it was not easy for me to break in. I knew I was taking a risk not playing according to “script.” But I felt my motivation was the greater good, not personal aggrandizement or “egoal” needs. I also mentioned that “George knows we have a 15 year history of disagreeing openly, but when all is said and done, I follow his lead.” (Allen’s and George’s working relationship is of a much shorter duration.)

George agreed with my self-assessment as a passionate and opinionated “team player.” (I don’t do group think very well.) George also reminded us that being a “unified team,” “pausing while presenting” and “connecting to pain” are all vital for winning the contract, and we began wrapping up. I may have surprised Allen by saying warmly in closing, “I look forward to two quirky guys meeting in August” (the time frame for the retreat assuming we win the contract).

Upon hanging up, I definitely was uneasy and made two decisions, one quickly, the other a bit more gradually: first, I would send George a follow up email, and later I would try to capture key tactical points from this intense half-hour learning laboratory. Here’s the email:

Hi George,

Sometimes I wish I wasn't so passionate, but that's me, I guess.

I really appreciate that we can verbalize our different perspectives and opinions; and know that I respect your knowledge/lead and will follow your lead.

But I will be more restrained when a colleague is talking. Though based on your feedback, I suggest a telephone conference rule: no non-stop talking for more than 2-3 minutes without pausing; and when you pause, if the client doesn't immediately comment, ask if the info shared was clear, or ask if they have any questions; have their project issues/goals been addressed, or are there any outstanding questions or concerns?

I would say this was another growing pains learning opportunity. If you have any additional thoughts, I'd like to hear them. Thanks.

Mark
------------------------

To George’s credit his Smart Phone response was prompt, wise, and to the point: “You are still part of the team. Disagreement and conflict will only strengthen our final process and product.”

Building on George’s observation, Part II will provide tools and techniques for helping one and all bridge communication gaps and to…Practice Safe Stress!

Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote speaker and "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. A training and Critical Incident/Grief Intervention Consultant for the National EAP/Wellness Company, Business Health Services in Baltimore, MD, the Doc is also leading “Stress, Team Building and Humor” programs for various branches of the Armed Services. Mark is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When Does Vicarious Trauma (VT) Become a Sign of Codependency? – Parts I & II

The other day I launched my inaugural workshop on “Combat Strategies at the Burn-in and Burnout Battlefronts” during a “Loss and Grief” program sponsored by the Psychiatric Institute of Washington, DC. The majority of folks in the audience were social workers and other allied health professionals. An issue from an audience member that resonated with many was the potential for “Vicarious Trauma” (VT). The literature has an international flavor, often speaking to the “humanitarian aid” employee involved with some wide scale, “man-made” or war-torn trauma or disaster, e.g., rape, pillage, “ethnic cleansing,” etc. However, vicarious trauma along with its conceptual and operational cousin, “caregiver burnout,” has a wider interpersonal reach and problematic scope. In addition to fleshing out the VT concept, this essay will examine how certain personality traits and tendencies can fuel the vicarious and vicious exhaustive and erosive “trauma-burnout” cycle.

Who Can Catch VT?

According to the Vicarious Trauma and Headington Institutes, “Vicarious trauma is the process of change that happens because you care about other people who have been hurt, and feel committed or responsible to help them. Vicarious Trauma is what happens to your neurological (or cognitive), physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual health when you listen to traumatic stories day after day or respond to traumatic [or emotionally maddening, discouraging, and disheartening] situations while having to control your reaction. VT is a process that unfolds over time. It is not just your responses to one person, one story, or one situation. It is the cumulative effect of contact with survivors of violence” and disaster. However, I believe Vicarious Trauma is not only the product of horrific drama; VT conditions need to be placed on a spectrum of distress and disruption. Other less sensational yet often no less demanding person-social situation contexts contribute to VT susceptibility, including continuously working with or caring for:

1) stateside military personnel and their caretakers – from VA personnel to spouses and parents – grappling with post-traumatic stress injury or traumatic brain injury and its personal and interpersonal effects; men and women who can’t help but compare their pre- and post-“down range” mind-body state: the lingering mental fog, the depression, the nightmares, the angry flashes, the reduced physical mobility, etc.; and, especially with military personnel or even family members, despite the high command’s systematic efforts to destigmatize mental health issues, the many individuals in a “macho culture” who remain ashamed to acknowledge or to discuss their vulnerable and/or compromised “head case” conditions,

2) people who are struggling with poverty or economic displacement, many warehoused by the criminal justice system, or grappling with environments (e.g., a tight job market or foreclosed housing market) that foster a sense of “learned helplessness,” hopelessness for the future, or angry resignation,

3) the victims of domestic, child abuse, sexual abuse, and bullying or other anti-social and destructive actions; intervening with substance abusers and those engaged in other self-defeating addictions and behaviors, including defiance and denial,

4) people whose disastrous, disruptive, demeaning, and/or self-defeating experience may result in a profound sense of loss of personal control and of trust, often contributing to a wariness with perceived “authority figures” and a resistance to accepting counsel; a clash of divergent cultures or conflicting cultural practices between providers and recipients of aid or service may exacerbate interpersonal contentiousness or distance,

5) the aged and infirmed, or being responsible for individuals struggling with profound physical, neurological, and cognitive-affective illness, disability, and/or dementia; not understanding the nature and limits of the condition may create unrealistic expectations and frustration for both parties,

6) a once strong family member or significant other who has now lost his or her bearings, balance, and/or bladder control; in their new “strong one” role, a caretaker who prematurely buries his or her grief regarding this loss and potential “role reversal” is inviting exhaustion if not drama or trauma,

7) teachers who can’t get through to young, irritated students who come to school hungry, or students from dysfunctional families whose hostile and hurtful patterns of interaction in the kitchen are invariably acted out in the classroom; or when a child’s chronic stress contributes to noticeable underachievement, attention deficit, and learning disabilities, if not a sense of shame and depressive tendencies; alas, hurt and hopelessness can morph into withdrawing inside a hardened protective shell,

8) a parent trying to reach, reason with, and restrain a forever angry or defiant, bingeing, texting or drinking while driving, living on the edge, thinking he or she is invulnerable teenager or young adult.

Clearly the potential for Vicarious Trauma and Caregiver Burnout cuts across a wide swath of essential and everyday roles and relationships. At the same time, depending on your personal sensitivity, ongoing stress levels, and the plight of those with whom you are engaged, “you can [eventually] come to question your deepest beliefs about the way life and the universe work, and the existence and nature of meaning and hope.” Such daunting and draining work may result in “existential angst” – the sense that one is constantly being pushed out of a comfort zone and is forced to question the meaning of events, one’s own and others’ actions and reactions. How could a benevolent “God” allow such atrocities, catastrophes, or unexpected and unfair casualties? Why were this person and these people targeted?

Being the witness, recipient, or active participant in distressing, disheartening, disillusioning, and disempowering life scenarios and stories, “day after day, and year after year” can take a profound toll on one’s mind-body-spirit.

So the numbing or alienating field of VT may not just be thousands of miles away; it may be as close as your professional office, a classroom, your living room, or the home of a family member.

Defining Codependency

Clearly, people who place their mind-body-spirit on the line, helping those fighting for post-traumatic survival or struggling to maintain some sense of economic and/or psychological stability, autonomy, self-worth, and competency in a “survival of the fittest” world rate a Purple Heart for passion and compassion. However, this “Vicarious Trauma” and “Caregiver Burnout” helping context is fraught with both subtle as well as the previously noted more obvious risks. If not sufficiently aware of one’s own psychological patterns and needs that can befog clarity and objectivity, purpose and boundary, the situational hazard may not be the sole or primary cause of the VT Syndrome. One must ask two critical questions: does Vicarious Trauma or Caregiver Burnout ever morph into (or, as likely, finally expose) Professional (or Personal) Codependency? That is, do cognitive beliefs, personality characteristics, and patterns of coping and caregiving increase the likelihood of getting VT? And do organizations or family-cultural systems themselves ever purposefully enable or unwittingly facilitate such trauma or burnout?

According to Wikipedia [and my own editing], Codependency is defined as a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is:
a) controlled or manipulated by another [or who allows themselves to be controlled or manipulated],
b) is affected by or involved with a partner with a pathological[/medical] condition (as in an addiction to alcohol or heroin) or [caretaking a significant other with a traumatic injury or seriously disabling condition],
c) and in broader terms, it refers to the dependence on, [fear of,] or control of another,
d) it also involves placing a lower priority on one's own needs, while being excessively preoccupied with the needs of [or the well-being, approval, performance, or success of] others, and
e) not surprisingly, codependent natures often attract individuals with narcissistic issues, that is people who feel entitled to the care, admiration, and service of others; [however, a subtle form of narcissism may also be present in this codependent dyad, that is, the self-sacrificing individual may also believe, albeit on a covert level, that the world owes him or her for such unselfish, accommodating, and altruistic attitude and behavior; such “fairness” and “heaven’s reward’ fallacies would invariably heighten susceptibility to Vicarious Trauma, both regarding unrealistic expectations in general with wary recipients of aid in particular].

Codependency can occur in any type of relationship, including family, work, friendship, and also romantic, peer or community relationships. Codependency may also be characterized by denial, low self-esteem, excessive compliance, or control patterns. More specifically, people who are codependent often take on the “martyr role”; they constantly put others' needs before their own and in doing so forget to take care of themselves. [In fact, such individuals often use the role of “rescuer” to distract or lose themselves or deny and project their vulnerable emotions onto others’ problems.] This creates a sense that [there’s a serious issue for which] they are "needed"; they cannot stand the thought of being alone and no one needing them. Codependent people are constantly in search of acceptance. When it comes to arguments, codependent people also tend to set themselves up as the "victim." When they do stand up for themselves, they feel guilty.

Codependency does not refer to all caring behavior and feelings or to normal kinds of self-sacrifice or caretaking, but only those that are excessive to [a dysfunctional] degree. For example parenting is a role that requires a certain amount of self-sacrifice and giving a child's needs a high priority, although a parent could nevertheless still be codependent towards their own children if the caretaking or parental sacrifice reached unhealthy or destructive levels. [Such scenarios might include a child compelled to fulfill the unfulfilled fantasies of a parent, or one frequently parenting the parent, or prematurely and subtly yet fairly literally having to be the “man” or confidant in the household; or when a lonely parent needs to be “best” friends with a teenage son or daughter]. Generally a parent who takes care of their own needs (emotional and physical) in a healthy way will be a better caretaker, whereas a codependent parent may be less effective, or may even do harm to a child. Another way to look at it is that the needs of an infant are necessary but temporary whereas the needs of the codependent are constant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part I has examined the realm of Vicarious Trauma and Caregiver Burnout, illustrating its common occurrence among many roles and relations in contemporary society, and how the humanitarian if not heroic efforts of helpers and healers can without sufficient awareness and supervision, become a disguised, draining, and hazardous process of relating. Part II begins to flesh out the bridge between codependency and Vicarious Trauma.

When Does Vicarious Trauma (VT) Become a Sign of Codependency? – Part II

Vicarious Trauma as Type “E” Codependency

Alas, succumbing to this self-defeating pattern and propensity may be all too “E”asy, especially when so many of these qualities seem positive, thereby making it difficult or uncomfortable to acknowledge their polar nature. Let’s itemize Ten Key, Double-Edged Characteristics of that “Everything for Everyone, Everywhere, Every Time, and Invariably Exhausted” Type “E” Personality:

1. Empathy, Experience and Emotional Perspective. Feeling another’s pain (whether of an individual or a social group) and wanting to respond actively and compassionately to aid the struggle is an honorable, valuable, and principled mission. A capacity for empathy, an ability to walk in another’s shoes (and especially to feel their bunions) is perhaps the cardinal virtue of “emotional intelligence.” At the same time, an ability to place the problem or struggle in context, that is, being able to identify and understand the multiple factors contributing to the battle is crucial. One needs to see the positives and negatives, the fears and fantasies on all sides; though these dynamics, along with resources and responsibilities, of course, are not necessarily evenly distributed or weighted.

For example, one social worker spoke of leading an emotional support group for public defender attorneys who frequently show signs of vicarious trauma over time when working with rape victims. One attorney nearly reached his breaking point upon becoming a new father to a baby girl. The intensity of his identification with the problem and the victims, along with a more personal vendetta against the perpetrators, skyrocketed. (Of course, if an attorney – male or female – had been sexually assaulted or abused, some therapy focusing on their traumatic history should be a requisite for working with rape victims.)

Experience and Emotional Perspective

When your experience and emotional perspective generates heightened identification and commitment it is especially important to blend some detached concern along with emotional self-awareness if empathy is to remain a vital and virtuous quality and not fuel a vicarious or vicious cycle.

In fact The Headington Institute [http://headington-institute.org/Default.aspx?tabid=2646] poses two critical questions bearing on the role of empathy and VT:
a) With what sort of problems or people do you find it especially easy to empathize? and
b) What are some ways that caring about people who have been hurt affects you?

2. Expectations, Egoals, and Early Pain. As the Headington Institute website noted, feeling deeply invested in your work or caretaking with a great sense of professional and/or personal responsibility “can lead to very high (and sometimes unrealistic) expectations of yourself and others….For example, you may take it personally when your work or the work of your organization doesn’t have the impact [or the results] you want. Ironically, your sense of commitment and responsibility can eventually contribute to feeling burdened, overwhelmed, and hopeless in the face of great need and suffering. [You may also] extend yourself beyond what is reasonable for your own well-being or the best long-term interests of beneficiaries, [especially if your self-sacrificing nature believes, albeit unconsciously, people should recognize and respond to your painstaking efforts.]

A kindred issue and a potential stressor inherent in caring work is the notion that your worth is dependent on your “success” rate, that is, your competency as a helping professional depends solely on the performance or outcomes of others. Whether “you did your best” or “all you reasonably could do” is never good enough. And especially when engaging others in the complex, often subjective realm of pain and trauma, psychology, and motivation there may be many intervention and intervening factors beyond a professional’s control, including operational policy and procedure. (For example, when talking VT, an overwhelming “doing more with less” caseload size, insufficient worker input in relevant practice issues and decision-making, quality of supervisory support, as well as organizational productivity “numbers” for both people services and paperwork obligations all need to be objectively evaluated.)

If a caregiver minimizes the uncertainty of this mindscape and landscape, and is quick to perceive a client’s or patient’s limited progress as a personal indictment of provider competence (or of the client’s worthiness), or conversely, believes she should be able to reach and rehabilitate just about everyone on her caseload (or management is quick to use a similar judgmental mindset), then accountability expectations need to be scrutinized.

Egoals and Early Pain

In fact, such expectations may indicate this individual (or organization) is less goal-focused and more egoal-driven, that is, the person’s motivation on some level is not mainly determined by the client or infirmed family member’s needs. What’s troublesome is that the helper’s thoughts, feelings, and actions are often covertly driven by approval, power, and/or status needs and, even more, propelled by punctured pride and a thirst for vindication against previous intimidators or abusers. Actually the motivational foundation is often subconscious (early childhood) wounded pain, shame, and smoldering rage. And this lurking pain can too easily and disingenuously devolve into the rigidly righteous or “heroic” HE MAN or sacrificing or savior-oriented SHE MAN complexes.

Humanitarian work as a profession is often characterized by self-neglect, toughing it out, risk-taking, and denial of personal needs. All of these can contribute to more severe vicarious trauma.

The H stands for “Humiliation” and the E stands for “Emptiness” while the S stands for “Self-Sacrificing.” Some people are attracted to healing work to fill their own emptiness and diminished ego or self-esteem; others over time succumb to feelings of exhaustion and emptiness. Remember, burnout is less a sign of failure and more that you gave yourself away! “Expectation, Egoals, and Early Pain” explain much about this erosive spiral.

3. Enthusiasm and Escapism, Exceptionalism and Exorcism. Fire and fervor can be wonderful qualities to spark and fuel any meaningful endeavor, especially one involving service to others. People may be inspired by your energy and ideals. However, unbounded and unrestrained enthusiasm eventually runs into a brick or burning wall. As was noted in the ‘60s classic The Phantom Tollbooth, “Fantasy and imagination suggest how the world might be. Knowledge and experience limit the possibilities; melding the two yields understanding.”

As we’ll see in Part II, escape as in “R & R” – Rest and Recreation – is one of the strategies for preventing or recovering from VT. And momentary escape or controlled flights of fantasy can prime the imagination and originality pump. But if escape becomes constant flight along with “rationalization and running away,” then trauma or drama will likely be your travel companion.

When enthusiasm cannot grapple with some limited or restrained possibilities and boundaries, then, according to Headington Institute, “Research on stress and coping suggests that VT will be more problematic for people who tend to avoid problems or difficult feelings, cannot ask for support, blame others for their difficulties, shun self-reflecting mind and soul searching as weakness, or withdraw from others when things get hard.”

Exceptionalism and Exorcism

Sometimes “headstrong” enthusiasm may morph into rigid idealism, eventually fomenting a fundamentalist doctrine. Such an extremist: a) knows there’s only a single axiomatic truth or “one right way,” b), is motivated to escape one’s past pain and shame, or becomes blind to the multifaceted nature of “reality” and “truth,” c) escapes taking responsibility for one’s own actions or errors, d) labels non-believers as sinners if not infidels and enemies, and e) sees strict and virtuous behavior as a passport to entitlement and exceptionalism or infallible judgment and retribution. Alas, with such a doctrinaire paradigm “heaven on earth” may well transmute into “there’s hell to pay.”

Speaking of hell brings us to our final “E” – actually an “E” phrase: “Emotional and Existential Exorcism.” When an individual has a history of personal trauma, especially a trauma that matches or has some parallels with the trauma of the person or people he is assisting (for example, someone who was sexually abused as a child working with rape victims, that is, someone with “intense empathy”) personal therapy and/or careful supervision is essential for balancing emotional involvement and detached concern. Guided awareness is necessary to help manage the emotional identification and countertransference – whereby the helper unknowingly projects his prior painful experience onto the client – thereby confusing the emotional boundaries, needs, and realities of this acutely intimate and mutually vulnerable encounter. (Such identity-boundary confusion and the need for “virtuous and vicarious control” is often a hallmark of codependent relating.) And the Headington Institute adds, “This risk factor may be especially relevant for staff (that) have often survived the same events and suffered similar losses as those they are assisting. In addition, those with a personal trauma history who are (consciously or unconsciously) using humanitarian work primarily to seek their own recovery instead of engaging in personal healing processes, may have a harder time with VT.”

My explanation is that the person infusing his or her recovery issues and needs in this so-called healing process is engaging in an “exorcism,” the ceremony that seeks to expel an evil spirit from a person or place (TheFreeDictionary.com). But the real focus of the exorcism is not the person who recently has undergone trauma. The actual target is the “healer” himself, now engaged in an invariably intense and inverted exorcism, attempting to expel his or her own demons in the guise of purging, purifying, and restoring another. In fact, I have come up with “Three Types of Exorcisms”:
a) emotional exorcism or “emoto-cism”: ridding oneself of present pain, loss, angst and/or rage, and disorientation while attempting to subjugate one’s “Intimate FOE: Fear of Exposure,”
b) existential exorcism or “exis-cism”: ridding oneself of identity confusion and uncertainty about one’s future competence, worthiness, and direction, and
c) echo exorcism or “echo-cism”: ridding oneself of ever reverberating, painful, accusatory overt/covert voices and memories, including “grief ghosts” (email stressdoc@aol.com for my series on “Burnout, Burn-in, and Grief Ghosts”) while attempting to subjugate one’s “Intimate FOE: Fear of Exposure.”

Hopefully, these “Ten Key, Double-Edged Characteristics of that “Everything for Everyone, Everywhere, Every Time, and Invariably Exhausted Type ‘E’ Personality” illuminate potential links between codependency and the propensity for Vicarious Trauma.

Closing Summary

Part I of this series has examined the realm of Vicarious Trauma and Caregiver Burnout, illustrating its common occurrence among many roles and relations in contemporary society, and how the humanitarian if not heroic efforts of helpers and healers can without sufficient awareness and supervision, become a disguised and hazardous process of codependency. Part II more specifically examines some common psychological dynamics between codependency and Vicarious Trauma, especially how “E”asy it can be for an excess of empathy and enthusiasm to transmute into unrealistic expectations, egoals and varieties of inverted exorcism.

Part III will focus on the ways family-cultural systems and organizations foster VT amongst its members and how personal helpers and professional healers as well as organizations can prevent the likelihood of Vicarious Trauma and Caregiver Burnout. Until then…Practice Safe Stress!

Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote and kickoff speaker as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a Team Building and Organizational Development Consultant as well as a Critical Incident/Grief Intervention Expert for Business Health Services, a National EAP/OD Company. He is providing "Stress and Communication, as well as Managing Change, Conflict, and Team Building" programs for the Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services. A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, The Stress Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.