ramblings & rantings
Social Care/Support, Society and Human Rights articles
▪ The Social Model of Disability
▪ The Social Model of Alcohol and Substance Use
▪ The visit of the King of Saudi Arabia
▪ Working with Difficult Groups
▪ Jeremy Kyle
The Social Model of Disability
The Social Model of Disability uses the term "disabled people" to
describe those with impairments as being disabled by society and the
environment rather than the impairment. Most rational people would
understand the frustration and anger that people would feel when
excluded due to lack of appropriate provision and attitudes that inhibit
full participation, dignity, inclusion and human rights.
Throughout my career as a practitioner and trainer I have promoted the
Model, absolutely supporting the core principles, however I have had
concerns about how the model often gets hijacked and interpreted in ways
that I do not believe are helpful to people who are already amongst the
most disadvantaged and marginalised in society.
The use of the term 'disabled people' causes considerable confusion.
Equal Opportunities and Diversity training has for decades promoted the
term 'person with a disability' rather than ‘disabled person’ as this
focuses on the person first and does not define the person by their
disability/impairment. The term 'disabled' can be seen as the equivalent
of 'old' (out of date; useless).
Few members of the general public and indeed working in social
care/support would fully understand the complexities of the issues and
therefore experience some considerable puzzlement with what they would
see as contradictory terms. Many 'disabled' people object very strongly
to being defined as 'disabled' whether it is by their impairment or
external factors, not only because of the socio/political message given
but also the confusion that the term can promote. When people are
confused they will often simply retreat, not wishing to offend; thus the
issue becomes marginalised.
It must be acknowledged that much social change and progress would not
have been achieved had a small pocket of people not acted in an
assertive and indeed aggressive way and been motivated to confront the
oppression and marginalisation they had experienced; however there are
many who object to being represented without consultation; being spoken
for by what they see as unelected representatives. Furthermore some object very strongly being accused of being
in denial because they do not obediently subscribe to a particular view.
Indeed some experience this uncontracted articulation of their thoughts
and feelings as being yet another form of oppression. On the other hand
one imagines that few women who reap the benefits of anti-discriminatory
legislation would object to this progress because they did not sign up
to the Women's Movement!
Anger can lead to action and action can lead to change. Conversely,
ongoing anger can result in inverted anger; depression with associated
low self esteem and feelings of helplessness. Likewise anger can be met
with brick walling and heightened hostility. It would be interesting to
research which was more significant in achieving the recent dramatic Gay
rights legislation in the UK; Peter Tatchell's somewhat aggressive
public demonstrations or the quieter, persuasive and more diplomatic
dialogue that Sir Ian McKellan had with Tony Blair.
I do not wish to speak for others and asked my friend and colleague, Janet to share her thoughts:
'I was diagnosed with MS many years ago and after struggling with the illness for a few years I needed to retire on health grounds and return to my family home in the North. I received a very acceptable package from my employers and this, together with benefits has enabled me to live comfortably since.
My local authority has provided a very acceptable standard of support; the service provided by the OT being particularly good and appropriate adjustments and adaptations to the house being made. My GP is really super as is my Consultant at the hospital. I have always been treated in a very personal way; afforded dignity as well as respect.
I am a very private person and do not wish people to 'fuss', nevertheless my closer neighbours have been very helpful and I know that should I need support, they, as well as family and friends would be keen to assist. I have found people in my city to likewise behave in a helpful and respectful manner and with the odd exception, folks out and about have not offended me in any way. I mainly use taxis for longer journeys and a buggy for local gadding about and once again, within its limitations this has been a good experience. This has not been the case when I travelled to Turkey, where it was virtually impossible for me to get about through lack of facilities and the stares in the street were very difficult for me.
I have been able to thus far maintain my place in a local choir and at a College of Higher Education and have met with only the most helpful 'attitudes' thereby enabling me to continue my involvement.
There are times when my illness does indeed 'disable' me; when my eyesight becomes a problem, when the pain becomes very challenging, when my balance problems make functioning an ordeal. No environment or 'attitude' would change this. This is a medical issue.
I know that service provision across the country is not even and that not all people have been as satisfied as I am. It is, of course right that we fight to ensure that people with disabilities across the board have their human rights respected and facilities and services that are due to them. Nevertheless I do think that it is simply wrong to portray all people with disabilities as society's victims.'
Janet Wills 2007
It is essential that the debate continues and as with all the other
issues regarding equality, views will develop over time.
Being silenced is one of the greatest of tyrannies.
Carl Rogers would turn in his grave.
I have no doubt that “Person Centred Planning” is a well intended focus and method for social carers, however I fail to understand how those reputable and accomplished individuals and organisations who apparently consulted and advised government seemingly failed to predict the huge tensions and contradictions that would arise in applying this term in the field of Social Care.
The core belief underpinning Person Centred philosophy is that individuals, in spite of the manifest behaviour and attitudes ‘know’ at the deepest level what is positive for their own growth and satisfaction; what they need and how they will achieve this. The essence of Person Centred support is the understanding and acceptance of people’s right to determine the own life, to make mistakes and live with the consequences; to make their own choices, even ‘bad’ ones or those that others would not approve of. The fundamental ‘attitude’ to the client is one of total trust that they can and will make the right choices for themselves, that we do not have right to prescribe any behaviour, to offer leads, protection, control, to exert authority, to set boundaries. The person will, through their own journey discover previously unrecognised depths and insights. They will, through the facilitation of a Person Centred approach develop and reach for their potential.
Should the conditions set by the facilitators be met, growth would be inevitable. In order for the conditions to be met the facilitators needed to be authentic in their motivation and relationship with service users, deeply and unconditionally respectful of them, accepting of all that makes them the people they are and work with them in a highly empathic and non judgmental way.
In my last real job, managing a mental health residential unit in North London I was privileged to work with a line manager who supported my attempts to run the unit on Person Centred lines. The unit offered a home and support to a group of people with enduring mental health needs and mild learning disabilities after many years of institutional care. Person Centred approaches initially failed; largely due to minimally trained staff unused to working in this very complex and demanding way, the need of service users to be ‘held’ due to the authorative nature of their previous experience as well as the statuary limitations that existed in a social care setting.
We did, in the longer term have some considerable success in supporting some people in this way, however it was a long, tough and ongoing process that required exceptional commitment and cost in financial, political and personal terms. In order to achieve this, all staff needed meaningful training. It took at least two years of training and constant Supervision for people to grasp the concept and apply it in this environment. Staff burned out fast and the turnover was considerable leading to constant and perhaps disproportionate time invested in inducting and supporting new staff.
I remember well my supervisor saying “Norman, the soil is too rich for these folks”. And it was true. Being constantly exposed to a Person Centred environment inevitably rubbed off on staff as the same therapeutic ‘pressure’ that existed for residents inevitably also touched the staff. There was a real ethical question i.e. when staff arrived on the doorstep intending to be residential workers, were they fully understanding of the implications of working in such an environment and the potential personal consequences. Had they genuinely understood this and consciously signed up to it? I think not.
Developing legislation, support methods, administration. Health & Safety, Good Practice guidelines, organisational policies and prescribed professional standards all constantly challenged the ethos. I remember having a somewhat angry exchange with an inspecting council official that aptly demonstrated the contradictions. She was concerned about a huge and rather disgusting stack of dirty dishes in the kitchen sink. How long had the washing up been there? I replied hat it was the second day. What was I going to do about it? Nothing, I assured her “I didn’t dirty the dishes”. I was advised that if the residents would not wash up I was to instruct staff to do so. I refused, explaining that it was a crucial therapeutic necessity for residents to experience the consequences of not washing up; i.e. not having any clean dishes. Of course there were Health & Safety implications and I am not sure how long I would have run with it before intervening. As it happened, the residents got the message and the washing up was done and indeed continued to be done. An important lesson had been learnt about looking after yourself. Any staff intervention would have satisfied staff that we had “done our job” but little else would have been achieved in the longer term and in the service user’s interest.
The approach failed, and of course needed to when we needed to intervene in more challenging circumstances, i.e. calling in a professional for assessment and possible sectioning to hospital; intervening when violence was beginning to rear its ugly head; when people were suggesting damaging themselves and others. The idea that we could be purely Person Centred in a support setting was a bizarre notion.
A pure model of ‘Person Centredness’ in Social Care is unworkable.
The adapted model currently in use in the field of Learning Disabilities explains the term to mean ‘putting the service user at the centre of everything’. I won’t argue with that and I cannot remember myself or anyone else seriously concerned with support work believing anything else. That is the core of social care and social work practice.
In addition to the inappropriate use of the term ‘Person Centred’ I am very concerned about some of the method and structure that supports implementation. I have no doubt that for people with the mildest Learning Disabilities and/or Mental Health needs, able to self advocate, Person Centred Planning may be the best thing since sliced bread; however for people less able to articulate their needs and wants, the model is fraught with problems and potential misuse.
Person Centred Panning incorporates documentation written by the service user; offering a picture of their life, of their aspirations and support needs. This is often done in imaginative ways, sometimes including the use of drawings and photographs. Whilst all this is far to ‘cutie-pie’ for my own sensibilities, I accept that many service users find this method useful.
My greater concern is for the folks who cannot so ably express their needs and wants. What about their plans and story books? No problem, the key worker does this for them. I have no doubt that there are some workers who genuinely and accurately, through the documentation, reflect the life and ‘Person Centred’ needs of the Service User; however I have too often seen these being presented in a way that could only be described as being fraudulent.
I would like to cite an example of a Person Centred plan I saw a while ago which went something like this (with some artistic licence):
‘I want to be woken up by staff at seven thirty in the morning so as to ensure that I have my shower and dress and have my medication and then help prepare breakfast.
I want support from staff to not produce behaviour that challenges when I have to wait my turn to have my money sorted out.
After breakfast I want to clean my room and do the laundry.
I want to help prepare lunch and then wash the dishes.
After lunch I want to go to the shops and do some sky diving and horse riding before going to the shops again and reading and building an aeroplane and helping staff put my clothes in my cupboard and ask staff to support me not telling people to ‘fuck off’ and then help cook dinner which comprises of staff doing it and me kicking off about having to stay in the kitchen watching them arse about with quiche and salad when I can’t stand it anyway…but I know its good for me and I want them to encourage me to stop eating chips and hitting Sharon and be nice to people and then go to bed without hitting anyone'.
And pigs will fly.
I have on many occasions pointed out the dangers of writing any document for a Service User in the first person, unless of course it is being dictated by them. One would assume that when one reads a document that says “I want……” it would accurately reflect what the person involved actually wants. In my view this false portrayal of stated needs is far more oppressive than more traditional models that more honestly and obviously focus on the professional view without any ‘Person Centred’ pretentions; at least these can be scrutinised and challenged.
My concern is that these documents probably more reflect what the Key Worker or staff want; this being disguised and presented ‘as if’ the Service User had provided the material. The response to my expressed concern has been fairly uniform i.e. that in the circumstances when the Service User cannot record themselves a range of people would contribute through board meetings so as to ensure that the needs of the person are reflected.
That sounds fine. So who are these people who will so accurately reflect the Service User’s views? The Doctor, Nurse, OT, Therapist, Continence advisor, Parents, Key Worker?
The thought of my own family contributing to my ‘Person Centred’ plan sends chills down my spine! I imagine I would immediately be put on a diet, have my cigarettes taken away from me, and heaven knows what else; all leading to me probably wishing for an early death!
In some meetings a ‘friend’ acts as informal advocate. Who is this friend who can so ably advise and contribute to a Person Centred plan? It occurs to me that a ‘friend’ who can articulate for someone with a profound learning disability is probably a totally unsuitable friend for them. What would be their motivation in this relationship? The power imbalance in such a relationship is a great concern for me. It seems therefore that the ‘friend’ is very loosely defined and there are many cases when the Key Worker takes on the ‘friend’ role. Heaven help us! We have been battling for years to clearly establish that it would be totally unethical for a paid worker with professional responsibilities attempting to portray themselves a friend. This is not friendship!
As with many other developing models, Person Centred Planning is loaded with potential. It bothers me enormously however that the model is being swallowed whole, and as with many other areas of our work becomes something akin to being God given, beyond analysis, beyond critical debate.
I trust that at some point we will take a step back and consider what we are doing in the name of good practice and rework the model. It may not bring us, as professionals, more glory, but it would hopefully stop some of the nonsense talk that professes to work in service users’ interests.
The Social Model of Alcohol and Substance Use
So as to avoid any accusations of hypocrisy I must immediately own up to having done more than my share of emptying bottles down the throat. My mother’s well fertilised rose bushes were testimony to this after countless occasions of teenage chucking up in the early hours of the morning after a heavy night clubbing. I had also indulged in more than a little pill popping and smoking of illegal substances as a student; it was in the job description. I did grow out of the illegal stuff when I entered the ‘real’ world, however did, for many years after, continue to indulge in the joys and pain of over-consumption of alcohol; that is until the onset of Diabetes. It was only then that I discovered that my drinking partners and I had been behaving in an extremely juvenile way and talking crap all those years. Sobering up was a cold and somewhat embarrassing experience.
Since being required to reduce my alcohol intake to a maximum of 2 daily units I have discovered that living within the dominant British culture without drinking is quite a challenging business. Whilst my own culture tended to structure life events around food and family, the British way does, in my experience, largely centre on the bottle. We celebrate with alcohol, socialise through alcohol, commiserate through alcohol and mourn through alcohol. How do we function without confronting the demon drink and without being regarded as being rather odd; or even odder in my case?
For some years I worked with people with a variety of eating disorders. What so many clients pointed out to me was the challenge of controlling eating within normal parameters when food was socially so central as well as a survival necessity. Unlike food, Alcohol and drugs were avoidable. Not so today. How do people function in our society without being exposed to alcohol and without retreating into an abstemis laager of the formation kind? It is very difficult indeed avoiding alcohol in a society where alcohol has such prominence in the supermarket, the high street, at festivities, on television. It’s tough, especially in a society that ritualises drunkenness, and places the value of overindulgent celebrities above the worthy. We say ‘isn’t it awful’ but playfully and warmly mock out of control behaviour. E.g. George Best and Oliver Reed. “Oh dear, they did go too far didn’t they; the naughty boys” Yet, often these folks are just one or two steps ahead of our own patterns. Dressed up with gallows humour and feigned embarrassment we exclaim ”Gosh I was legless last night; boy James was off his head”; hero stuff.
I had been aware of the increasing volume of alcohol intake within our society over the years. My own tendency was to overindulge at a dinner party, at a celebration; perhaps on a Saturday night; however after these brief episodes of binge drinking I and friends would suffer the hangover, go through the regret and never-touch-another-drop resolutions until the next occasion. More recently I have been aware that in addition to the major bouts, people I come across seem to keep this up on a constant trickle-trickle basis; daily pub visits, a bottle of wine over each meal, a few cans in front of the TV. My own evidence is anecdotal; however recent figures demonstrate that my impressions are not inaccurate. Alcohol use/misuse is highly institutionalised; normalised.
Most of us manage to get by without pickling our livers before the age of forty. Most of us manage to somehow function kind of ‘normally’ and integrate our drinking into our lives without going potty or needing to check into the Priory for treatment. So, we spend too much on the bottle and struggle with the mortgage; so we fell down at that wedding, but it was, after all, a celebration; its okay; not a serious issue. We do, however avoid acknowledging the very significant minority who drink instead of feeding their children; who buy booze rather than books; who trip to the pub rather than a holiday. We get by and we very conveniently project our behaviour onto those less able to cope. Those who provide the support are often hanging on by the skin of their teeth.
How do we cope with supporting those who are just a few steps ahead of our own behaviour? A troubling question. We introduce euphemisms. We do so under the guise of respectful language and being ‘Person Centred’. Thus we no longer refer to ‘alcoholism’ or ‘drug addiction’. We no longer even refer to ‘alcohol misuse’ or ‘substance misuse’. We now work with ‘substance use’ Okay, so where do we go with that one? Jenny uses substances. Wow! Surprise! I used toothpaste this morning and then washing up liquid, coffee, all bran, cigarettes. Where does this end? When does this begin to mean anything? In my view, by immersing ourselves in meaningless euphemistic jargon we deny the service user the right to real support by those who are sadly often lacking in the ability to do so with integrity; so blinded by jargon and professional preciousness.
Our projections are, in my view abusive. We as a society have created the very structure and process whereby it is inevitable that a proportion of our fellow citizens are going to get hooked and have their lives destroyed. Whilst the issue is manifest as their problem, it is a collective problem; one that we all own. Thus we need to find a way for collective ownership of the issue; acknowledge the part society as a whole has played in setting up these victims and the courage to acknowledge our duty to support them without being weasel mouthed about naming the huge tragedy that we impose on those less able to cope.
In order to provide effective support I believe that we need to:
Stop the gobbledegook; name the issues without endlessly toying with language that denies the reality of the tragic loss of personality, talent, good health and potential. We need to dispense with the term, once and for all “Alcoholic” as by labelling people we introduce a diversion to any cooperative therapeutic relationship i.e. arguing about the definition, thus damaging the potential for meaningful engagement. Describe the behaviour; not label the person.
We need to acknowledge that medical guidelines are perhaps the only legitimate reference we have to describing unhelpful drinking patterns and thus when we, and I stress the word ‘we’ drink more than the recommended quota we own up to misusing alcohol.
We need to agree to use the law as a guideline to the boundaries that differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable drug use; and stop the nonsense going-around-in-circles discussions characterised by ‘who am I to judge’, ‘It is a cultural issue’ etc. If we are unable to subscribe to a legal definition, I believe it is highly questionable as to whether we should be providing support to those who are battling with the issue. We simply cannot support and be subversive simultaneously.
We need to acknowledge the dependence that people develop and that by virtue of this their choices are often limited. People do not choose to land up sleeping rough, neglect themselves, spend their money on drugs/alcohol, mistreat their children and beat up their partners. Dependence is extremely powerful. It is in my view that it is sadistic to expect people to make life choices when their lives are so chaotic and dependant on substances. I am often surprised that we are surprised and indeed angry that a service user has spent their rent money on drink/drugs. For heaven sake what on earth do we expect! Offering ready cash to someone dependant is in my view cruel and the resulting recriminations and threats of eviction unbelievable unjust.
We, as a society need to acknowledge that this is a ‘there by God go I’ situation and get off our high horses that somehow the folks needing help come from an alien world. They are fellow citizens and that could be me, someone I care for; given certain circumstances.
We need to seriously and generously fund help, treatment and rehabilitation and ensure that our taxes are spent effectively. I deliberately use the word help, for this is, I believe is what people require. It is bad enough living a chaotic life without having chaotic supporters who are unclear about what their job is and whose personal behaviour is often questionable
We need to question the idea of ‘support’. What does this mean? Does it mean supporting someone to continue to misuse? By definition it could be the case.
We as a society need to clean up our own act. We must decide if it is acceptable for us to have such an epidemic of child abuse, spouse violence and poverty as an integral feature of British life. We need to decide whether it is acceptable for our alcohol and drug fuelled young people to maraud through the streets of our towns and cities rendering them no go areas. We are only going to make a difference when we accept collective responsibility and modify our nation’s behaviour.
The visit of the King of Saudi Arabia
Britain claims to be a liberal democracy and along with our European and American pals aims to set the promotion of freedom and democracy all over the globe as a key priority. We make a particularly big hoo-ha about it on public occasions such as Remembrance Sunday when we focus on the tremendous sacrifices made by the military and ordinary citizens in pursuit of this noble objective. We even go so far as to invite a range of foreign diplomats to lay wreaths of poppies in dedication; albeit some of them representing regimes with a none-too-glorious past, or indeed present when it comes to freedom and human rights.
Of course we should engage with all regimes at some level; how else do we influence those we have concerns about; even fear? History does indicate that it is possible for us to act as brokers in disputes and the possibility of the unthinkable actually happening is inspiring. I know that our perhaps well-intentioned input has led to some almighty cock-ups; nevertheless it does seem as if we have on occasions positively influenced outcomes through discreet engagement. However, when it comes to contact with despicable regimes, we do need to think carefully about the nature of the engagement with them. How do we balance the need to influence without being seen as supporting them?
I reluctantly accept that sometimes, in the national interest, it may be strategically rational for us to adopt a ‘white man speaks with forked tongue’ approach and brown-nose regimes that do not share our values. There is a point though when it does become somewhat confusing to ordinary chaps like myself as to who the real enemy is; the ally or the bad guys.
The recent spectacular and very public celebration of the King of Saudi Arabia by the Royal Family and the ‘great and good’ took my breath away. What on earth was this very public display saying?! What legitimacy was this giving a regime that has a record of human rights that Sadam and those of his ilk would have been proud of?
I unfortunately stumbled across the televised glittering procession to the banqueting hall at Buckingham Palace. This nauseating spectacle had the same mesmerising qualities of the compulsive need that some have to observe bad motorway crashes and as angry as I felt I somehow could not locate the of button on my remote control. The absence of any Saudi wives was obvious and I guess that as they would have needed to present fully covered up it was probably a good idea. The Queen (jewellery by Vulgari) at least had the good manners to look most unamused.
The after dinner speeches raised my blood pressure; the mutual declaration of love and devotion by the two heads of state masking the reality of the underlying motivation for this bizarre fiasco i.e. oil and cash and a bit of ‘better the devil you know’ not to mention Saudi being on the right side of the war on terrorism; or so they say (depending on your definition of terrorism and the particular role played in it; direct or indirect)
The final straw that led me to phone in an emergency therapeutic four-cheese Pizza was the Queen referring to the common values held by Britain and Saudi Arabia. Words (almost) fail me. Does this mean that the British way is to chop hands off? Oppress and abuse women? Kill Gay Men? I thought that we were at war to promote freedom and democracy. And pigs will fly. Considering the company that we keep it seems not.
I usually feel enormously proud of my adopted country. On this occasion I only feel shame.
Before we get too full of ourselves about being the bastion of civilisation and our glorious fight for freedom and democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq it might be useful for us to consider the reality of Human Rights in those very countries whose freedom we are so called ‘protecting’. There are still seven countries that invoke the death penalty for same sex relationships:
Iran
Mauritania
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
United Arab Emirates
Yemen
Northern Nigeria
This is not to say that Gay Men and Lesbians are treated with humanity elsewhere.
Philipp
Braun, Co-Secretary General of ILGA, said:
“The value and dignity of every human being is the centre of the
universal human rights philosophy. Each person is unique and entitled to
the most precious right guaranteed by Article 3 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the right to life. The very existence of
the death penalty is in direct contradiction with these principles and
completely diminishes the dignity and value of a human being. Sentencing
people to death for love and/or affection towards persons of the same
sex is even more barbaric and draconian. ILGA calls on the seven
countries which kill people simply because they fall in love with
persons of the same sex to immediately revise their laws and to abolish
the death penalty for consensual acts between adults of the same sex.
Philipp Braun further added:
“We urge the United Nations to use all its powers and authority to
uphold the value and dignity of each and every individual. ILGA welcomes
the fact that the UN Human Rights Commission in 2003 and 2004 already
voted as part of its resolution on the question of the death penalty to
condemn the death penalty for non-violent acts such as sex between
consenting adults. The right to life is universal and absolute, it
cannot be negotiated, conditioned or justified, there is no national
relativism in this matter and no country should be allowed or tolerated
for killing people.”
Patricia Prendiville, Executive Director of ILGA-Europe, said:
“The Council of Europe can be proud to be the only death penalty-free
region of the world which is making abolition a condition for the
admission of Belarus. But Europe cannot ignore the fact that countries
in other regions of the world put people to death for falling in love
and expressing affection. Europe should employ all its political and
economic authority, powers and influence in relations with those
countries which continue sentencing to death lesbian, gay and bisexual
and people. There cannot be any justification for working with and
providing support and assistance to those countries.
We urge the European organisations such as the European Union, the
Council of Europe and the Organisations for Security and Cooperation in
Europe as well as each and every European country not to ignore the
death penalty for same-sex acts in seven countries and use all available
means for addressing this issue with those countries”
Boycotts can be effective. The changes that have taken place in South Africa were certainly influenced by international condemnation of Apartheid and boycotts. Before commencing business in or holidaying to the countries mentioned below I ask you to consider how you might be legitimising their breach of human rights by providing support.
Please note that the information below is third party gained from the Internet and does not include the full legal details of each country. Some information may be out of date. If you may be affected by the law in these countries please research this in more detail; I do not hold responsibility for any decisions you might take based on the information I provide.
I only list countries on the more extreme end of discrimination; however this does NOT mean that there is equality in countries not mentioned (E.g. Russia) or that in countries that do not criminalise same sex relationships, the culture is accepting or that GLBT people are nor harassed, oppressed, discriminated against or victimised by the police, army, civil law etc).
AFGHANISTAN
Has a sodomy law, the punishment is execution, the methods are throwing the homosexual down from a high roof or hill or by burying them beside a wall which is then toppled on to them. (This information may have changed)
ALGERIA
Homosexual activity is illegal, punishable with up to 3 years imprisonment and a fine between 1,000 and 10,000 Algerian dinars.
ANGOLA
Homosexual acts are illegal, described as offences against public morality.
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
Has a sodomy law, punishable with 14 years in prison.
BAHRAIN
Has a sodomy law, punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, with or without corporal punishment.
BANGLADESH
Has a sodomy law, punishable with deportation, fines, and/or up to10 years to life imprisonment.
BARBADOS
Homosexual activity is illegal.
BENIN
Has a sodomy law.
BHUTAN
Male homosexual sex is forbidden by law, punishable with a maximum sentence of life in prison.
BOTSWANA
Male homosexual conduct is illegal punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment.
BRUNEI
Has a sodomy law, with a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment or a fine of up to 30.000 Brunei dollars.
BURMA (MYANMAR)
Has a sodomy law.
CAMEROON
Has a sodomy law, punishable with a penalty of 6 months to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to CFA 200.000. If one of the persons involved is under the age of 21 the penalty is doubled.
COOK ISLANDS
Has a sodomy law, punishable with 7 years in prison for sodomy, and 5 years in prison for indecent acts with males.
DJIBOUTI
Has a sodomy law.
ETHIOPIA
Punishable with a penalty of 10 days to 3 years' "simple imprisonment". This penalty may be increased by 5 or more years in certain circumstances.
GHANA
Homosexual acts between men can be punished
GRENADA
Has a sodomy law.
GUINEA
Has a sodomy law, punishable with six months to three years of imprisonment and a fine of 100 000 to 1 000 000 Guinean francs.
GUYANA
Has a sodomy law, punishable with up to life in prison.
INDIA
Male homosexual sex is forbidden by law, punishable with a maximum sentence of life in prison.
IRAN
Homosexuality is illegal, those charged with love-making are given a choice of four deathstyles: being hanged, stoned, halved by a sword, or dropped from the highest perch.
IRAQ
Has a sodomy law, the punishment is death (This information may be out of date)
JAMAICA
Has a sodomy law, punishable with up to 10 years imprisonment and hard labour. A penalty of up to 7 years imprisonment, with or without hard labour, is provided for anyone attempting to commit
homosexual acts or an "indecent assault" on another male person.
KENYA
Homosexual activity is strictly forbidden, punishable with up to 14 years in prison.
KIRIBATI
Has a sodomy law, punishable with up to 14 years in prison.
KUWAIT
Has a sodomy law, punishes sexual intercourse between men over 21 years of age with imprisonment of up of to seven years, it punishes sexual intercourse with a male under 21 with imprisonment of up to 10 years.
LEBANON
Has a sodomy law, punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one year.
LESOTHO
Homosexuality is illegal.
LIBERIA
Has a sodomy law.
LIBYA
Homosexual activity is illegal, punished with 3 to 5 years imprisonment.
MALAWI
Section 153 Penal Code, which prohibits "unnatural offences", and Section 156 concerning "public decency", are used to punish homosexual acts.
MALAYSIA
Homosexual acts are illegal, punishable by lashing and a prison sentence of up to 20 years. Even cruising is illegal, punishable with up to 2 years in prison.
Bans homosexuals from appearing on radio and television.
MALDIVES
Male homosexual sex is forbidden by law, punishable with a maximum sentence of life in prison.
MARSHALL ISLANDS
Has a sodomy law, punishable with 10 years in prison.
MAURITANIA
Has a sodomy law, punishable with death.
MAURITIUS
Has a sodomy law, punishable with up to 5 years in prison.
MONGOLIA
Has a sodomy law. Section 113 of the Penal Code prohibiting "immoral gratification of sexual desires", can be used against homosexuals.
MOROCCO
Homosexual activity is illegal, which provides a penalty of between 6 months and 3 years imprisonment and additional fines.
MOZAMBIQUE
Homosexual activity is illegal, punishable with a penalty of up to 3 years imprisonment in a "re-education institution" where hard labour is used to alter the prisoners "aberrant behaviour".
NAMIBIA
Male homosexuality is illegal.
NAURU
Has a sodomy law.
NEPAL
Male homosexual sex is forbidden by law, punishable with a maximum sentence of life in prison.
NICARAGUA
Has a sodomy law, punishable with up to 4 years in prison.
NIGERIA
Has a sodomy law, punishable with up to 14 years in prison.Since 2000, 12 of Nigeria's northern states have adopted Sharia codes for their courtrooms. Under Islamic law, homosexual sex is
punishable by death.
NIUE
Has a sodomy law, punishable with up to 10 years in prison.
OMAN
Has a sodomy law, punishable by up to 3 years in prison
PAKISTAN
Homosexual activity is illegal, punishable with life in prison, and corporal punishment of 100 lashes, while Islamic law, which also can be enforced legally, calls for up to 100 lashes or death by stoning.
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Has a sodomy law, anal intercourse is punishable with imprisonment of up to 14 years, other homosexual relations between men are punishable with up to five years imprisonment.
QATAR
Has a sodomy law, punishes sodomy between consenting adults (irrespective of sex) with up to five years imprisonment.
SAINT LUCIA
Has a sodomy law.
SAMOA
Has a sodomy law, punishable with 5 to 7 years in prison.
SAUDI ARABIA
Has a sodomy law, homosexual acts are subject to a maximum penalty of death.
SENEGAL
Has a sodomy law, an improper or unnatural act with a person of the same sex will be punished by imprisonment of between one and five years and by a fine.
SEYCHELLES
Has a sodomy law.
SIERRA LEONE
Has a sodomy law.
SINGAPORE
Male homosexual sex is illegal, and can be punished by life in prison, lesbian sex is legal in private.
SOLOMON ISLANDS
Has a sodomy law, punished with 14 years imprisonment.
SOMALIA
Has a sodomy law, punished with imprisonment from 3 months to 3 years
SRI LANKA
Has a sodomy law, punishable with up to 10 years in prison. No laws cover sex between women.
SUDAN
Homosexual activity is illegal, punishable by 100 lashes or death.
SYRIA
Has a sodomy law, punishable by up to 3 years in prison.
TANZANIA
Has a sodomy law, punishable with up to 14 years imprisonment. On the island of Zanzibar male homosexual sex is illegal, punishable with up to 25 years in prison. Lesbian sex is also illegal, punishable with up to 7 years in prison.
TOGO
Homosexual acts are illegal and are often prosecuted as rape or assault, punishable with fines and up to 3 years imprisonment.
TOKELAU
Has a sodomy law, punishable with 10 years in prison. You can receive 5 years imprisonment for making a pass at another male.
TONGA
Has a sodomy law, punishable with 10 years in prison.
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
Has a sodomy law, punishable with 10 to 20 years in prison.
TUNISIA
Has a sodomy law, punishable with imprisonment of up to 3 years for sodomy between consenting adults, entrapment is common.
TURKEY
Whilst in theory there is no anti-Gay legislation, there is a tendency to use a general law to hound Gays and Gay organisations
TURKMENISTAN
Has a sodomy law, punishable with 2 years in prison.
TUVALU
Has a sodomy law, punishable with 14 years in prison. You can receive 7 years imprisonment for making a pass at another male.
UGANDA
Homosexual activity is illegal, criminalizes "carnal knowledge against the order of nature" with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Has some sodomy laws, the Abu Zhabi Penal Code makes sodomy punishable with imprisonment of up to 14 years, the Penal Code of Dubai imposes imprisonment of up to 10 years on consensual sodomy.
UZBEKISTAN
Has a sodomy law, punishable with up to 3 years in prison for anal sex. Oral sex is legal. Lesbian sex is not mentioned in the law.
YEMEN
Homosexual activity is forbidden, punishable by death.
ZAIRE
Homosexual activity is illegal, punishable with up to 5 years in prison.
ZAMBIA
Has a sodomy law, punishable with 14 years imprisonment.
ZIMBABWE
Homosexual activity is illegal, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.
Useful resources for further research:
I once facilitated a Customer Care workshop for a group working in a call centre for the local garbage removal company. They spent most of the session moaning about how “difficult” the customers were and insisted that “if it weren’t for the customers we would really enjoy our jobs”. It seemed as if none of them had ever considered that without these “difficult” customers, there was no job! They also had not thought that perhaps the customers were getting a “difficult” service and that the complaints derived from a public that was totally fed up with having their garbage strewn across their front paths! In role play, they demonstrated that indeed they were “difficult” customer service personnel! By the end of a rather unsuccessful day I was definitely on the side of the ‘baddies’.
People are not difficult just for the hell of it. There is always a reason for it. The reason may not be understood; obvious; justified or rational; but nevertheless there is a reason. ‘Difficult’ behaviour may derive from a sense of injustice, frustration, boredom, Projection, Displacement, Transference and so on. Whilst the behaviour may be unacceptable, to be ‘worked with’ we need to acknowledge that in general ‘difficult’ behaviour is a stimulus-response issue e.g. without a poor garbage service there would have been little opportunity for customers to exercise or indeed exorcise the conscious or unconscious impulses so as to cause the ‘difficulties’ referred to.
The first stage in working with difficult groups is to get rid of the term! The term is an extremely negative one and somehow sets up the expectation, for us at least, that this is a battle between two parties and our role is to tame this awful group. The term is far too concrete, immovable and one dimential. This judgement may not only set up an adversarial dynamic i.e. both parties in a battle for supremacy/domination (Win-Lose) or (I’m Okay-You’re not Okay) but also be so great in scale that it may actual frighten us, anger us or set up feelings of failure within us before we’ve even begun. In order to reduce the situation into manageable and realistic proportions lets rather adopt self-talk language like:
- These people don’t seem to want to be here
- I am aware that several people in the group are being restless
- People on that side of the room seem distracted
- Two people look very angry
- I am finding it difficult engaging with these people
When many of us face this kind of challenge we are initially affected or indeed at times overwhelmed by feelings of:
- Helplessness
- Despair
- Fear
- Hopelessness
- Resentment
- Anger
- Frustration
Etc.
If we do not contact these feelings we are likely to act out in some way i.e. unconsciously demonstrate these; non verbally at least (leakage):
- Tapping feet
- Restless hands
- Narrowed eyes
- Pursed lips
- Shaky voice
Etc.
It is inevitable that these behaviours will be picked up by the group on some level and they will respond to this; often negatively.
It takes at least two parties to fight! Our non verbal clues may be experienced as an invitation to war!
It is therefore very useful, when making observations of negativity in a group to draw a deep breath and consider:
“Okay, so this group seems ‘difficult’. What can I actually observe? How do I feel at the moment?”
(This may mean setting up a short exercise to play for time)
Let’s then reduce the feelings.
“Okay I feel really angry. Why is this impacting on me in this way? The reality is they are pissed off about something that I have no knowledge about. What is my task? To teach. Okay, in order to teach I need to work with this group. In the end if they do not wish to learn, this is an issue for them and their organisation. It will not destroy my life. At the end of the day, as long as I know that I have done my best to manage this situation I would have done my job. I will go away back to my own lovely life. They will be left with the consequences; not me.
What about the evaluations? Well, I am not going to think about these now. I have the whole day to sort this out and I am going to see it as a ‘problem’ that is there for me to solve. That is my skill. That’s why I am a trainer. I have the knowledge and skills to deal with this. What a lovely opportunity for me to practice my skills”.
It is indeed difficult swallowing all of this at the time, but it is worth a shot; positive self talk.
Attempting to empathise with our learners may explain the demonstrated behaviour. This may seem impossible to accomplish, however the energy that goes into the process may divert our less rational responses and convert them into something potentially more positive; plus provide the group with a sense that they are not working with the enemy i.e. you.
The problem of ‘difficult’ group behaviour may derive from:
- Tiredness-perhaps work loads are extremely demanding and they are simply knackered
- Burn out-it may be that people are working in extremely stressful circumstances
- Poor management
- Resentment resulting from poor pay and working conditions
- Training overload-here we go again!
- Time stress-a full in-tray and here I am doing a refresher in Moving and Handling when the only thing I move is my lunchtime sandwich!
It may be that the ‘difficult’ behaviour has resulted from your earlier relationship with this group; that careless comment, that critical statement you made, that time you were very late, that occasion when you did not prepare well enough for the session, the occasion when you were unaware of the changing legislation.
It may be something about the way you initially presented. Did you come across as arrogant; a know-all?
Did you come across as challenging and dominating?
Did your clothes, jewellery, voice tone, language and so on give out a message that people were uncomfortable with?
It is possible.
In order to ‘deal with a challenging group, it may be very useful for us to consider what is going on in Transactional Analysis terms*:
Example 1
Trainer Jim walks into the room. Jim says “Hello I am Jim. I am here to facilitate your team building day” (Adult)
In response learners 1 & 2 adopt sulky expressions and half turn away from him. (Negative Adapted Child)
*Adapted theory.
Learner 1 then winks mischievously at Learner 2 (Rebellious Negative Adapted Child)
Jim begins feeling anxious and wants to run out of the room but forces himself to remain there; his hands trembling with rage and fear. He manages to hold a rather phoney warm smile (Negative Adapted Child)
Jim: I am really looking forward to getting started (Negative Adapted Child)
Even thought this sounds positive, the learners have picked up on Jim’s anxiety and phoniness; observing his uncomfortable body language and quavering voice.
Jim: Excuse me, where is the loo? (Jim is about to pee himself-Negative Adapted Child)
Learner 3 looks at Jim in a very direct way and says rather accusingly with a little sarcasm. “So you’re the brave one who is going to sort us out are you?”
(This sounds Adult, but the tone and body language indicates that this is Critical Negative Parent)
Jim gets cross and replies uncertainly and unconvincingly; his voice going up a few tones. “Well, I am going to try….but I can’t do more than my best….um…..why….are you going to beat me up?”
This is becoming a Child-Child interaction. Jim is responding to the Child invitations from the target Ego state (Negative Free Child)
There are strong Ulterior Transactions i.e. on a social level some exchanges would seem Adult-Adult and yet the body language indicates Child (on a psychological level)
Learner 4 walks into the room in a rush, throws his jacket on a chair and naughtily announces that he is going to make a coffee a have a cigarette. “If I’m late, start without me!” (Negative Free Child)
Jim become furious,” Excuse me!” He scolds loudly. You are to stay in this room and behave!” (Negative Controlling Parent). You lot need sorting out!”
Learner 4 stops in his tracks, eyes flaring angrily and flounces out the room, shouting “Piss off” (Negative Free Child)
Jim retorts “And you!” (Negative Free Child)
Learner 4 returns and says, pointing a threatening finger “Huh! you should know what happened to the last trainer who thought he was so smart!” (Negative Controlling Parent)
Jim is taken aback, withdraws and gets a sick feeling in the pit of his stomach. He realises what he has done and trembles (Negative Adapted Child).
Learner 5 enters the room: “Hi what time are we going to start?” (Adult)
Learner 2: “Ten o clock” (Adult)
Jim (One eyebrow slightly raised and lips narrowed),” When you lot decide to cooperate”. (Negative Critical Parent)
The learners start behaving in a very juvenile fashion, mimicking Jim and whispering and giggling (Negative Free Child mixed with Negative Rebellious Adapted Child)
This is not going to be a very good day for anyone! The UN needs to send in troops.
Let’s consider a similar scenario:
Example 2
Alma enters the training room and greets the waiting group.
Nobody responds. She initially feels threatened and anxious (Child) but after a very short time, through self-talk understands that she has no clue what this is about and is not going to make any assumptions about what’s going on. She does feel concerned about the situation (concern is an Adult feeling)
She decides to change her programme slightly to avoid group engagement as she thinks this might invite more negativity. (Adult)
She introduces herself and the day. She delivers her opening introduction and then, instead of doing the learning contract in Chalk and Talk manner, assertively invites the group to work in two smaller groups to draw up a contract. (Adult)
The group reluctantly splits into the two groups, however does not engage with the exercise. (Negative Adapted Child/Rebellious Child)
Alma decides to let the session run for ten minutes so that she has time to consider the dynamic and possible strategies. She knows that if she continues to observe the group she will become cross, so she turns away from the group and does not challenge them when their giggling and other avoidant and sabotaging behaviour becomes more obvious.
(Her thinking is Adult)
At the end of the ten minutes she assertively invites the group back into the circle and asks them to feed back what they have come up with. She has prepared herself for the possibility of defiance from the group and has rehearsed a range of responses. (Adult)
Both small group leaders defiantly deposit blank paper on the floor in front of the room. (Negative Adapted Child)
Alma approaches the white board:
“Sometimes groups don’t wish to contribute to the session at the beginning of the day, before they get to know me and start feeling comfortable with me. I respect that. (Adult)
“There are a few points however that I would like to put down; (she writes)
- We will behave in a respectful way towards each other
- We will keep to time
- We will work together so that we achieve the learning objectives that your managers expect
Okay?”
The group is quiet and thoughtful.
“Anything else? Anything you would like to add?”
No response; however no disruptive behaviour. By staying in Adult, Alma has successfully avoided getting into a fight with the group. As the day progresses the group engages more.
Example 3
Sharif works with the same group. The group demonstrates very similar behaviour to that met by Alma. He had adopted a very similar strategy, however after the contract setting; the group continues to behave in a disrespectful and disruptive manner. (Negative Adapted7Rebellious Child)
Before the morning break Sharif calmly draws his chair nearer to the group, stating quietly and assertively:
“We are going to have a break in ten minutes. Before we do so, I want to share with you that I am aware that so far this morning, you, as a group have contributed very little to the session. (Adult)
My guess is that something is going on that is getting in the way of us being able to work together (Positive Nurturing Parent)
I cannot stress enough the importance of us achieving the leaning outcomes today. (Positive Nurturing Parent)
Your organisation invests a lot of service users’ money in training and we all owe it to them to use this money and time well. (Positive Controlling Parent)
We are going to take a break now. On our return I hope and trust that you will fully engage with the programme. (Positive Controlling Parent)
You have twenty minutes” (Adult)
After the break there seems to have been quite a shift and the group begins to engage.
Example 4
Sonia has adopted a very similar strategy to Sharif on her course with this group, however after the break, the group, if anything seem to have become even stronger in their negativity and sabotage.
She attempts to engage the group in a Chalk and Talk session, however meets a stone wall. She stops after a rather fruitless five minutes and addresses the group.
“It seems to me that you haven’t shifted since before the break. (Adult)
There is obviously something that is really getting in the way. I sense that you are really pissed off ( Positive Nurturing Parent)
I don’t know with what or whom, but we need to take some time to clear the air.
What’s going on?” (Positive Controlling Parent)
She sits.
After an initial silence a spokesperson for the group articulates the group’s resentment describing a range of managerial decisions that has had enormous consequences for group members. Others then join in.
Sonia facilitates the disclosure and after ten minutes of offloading addresses the group:
I hear you. You are very clear that you feel as if you have been treated unfairly. (Adult)
Of course you will understand that I cannot comment, (Adult)
However I do really understand that when we feel like that it is very difficult to engage in a training session. What you’d really like to do is get the hell out of here and do something more creative like get to the pub! That’s natural (Positive Nurturing Parent)
Nevertheless we are here to learn and by the end of the day we need to have achieved the learning outcomes. (Positive Controlling Parent)
Are you willing to do that? (Adult)
The group agrees to engage.
Example 5
Sonia’s group continues; however throughout the next hour the group regresses. Sonia is aware of her irritation and is concerned that she might have ‘a go’ at the group which she is loathe to do as the last time she did this the group went into ‘sulk’ for the rest of the session. (Adult)
She addresses the group:
“It is now 11.45. It is my view that thus far we have achieved very little learning this morning (Adult)
You have shared with me a range of concerns about your work and knowing how important this session is to the organisation and indirectly to service users you have agreed to work together with me. (Adult)
I am very disappointed that you have gone back on your word (Adult feeling and observation)
I want you to know that I am not prepared to continue like this and wish to put you on notice that should this behaviour continue, I will be ending the session and reporting to your manager. Is that clear? (Positive Controlling Parent)
The group is obviously shocked and becomes very quiet (Positive Adapted Child) Sonia understands the quietness; she knows that after the initial silence members of the group will make tentative efforts to engage. She needs to give it a little time. She understands that there will be some anxiety in the room; perhaps for the rest of the session. She adapts the course and organises a practical activity which is more likely to break the ice than a group discussion. (Adult)
The group engages with the exercise.
Example 6
Sonia’s session continues.
At the end of the ten minute session she invites feedback and is very disappointed to learn that the group had spent the time recording ‘silly’ comments, including a couple of thinly veiled insulting comments about her.
She addresses the group.
“I am very disappointed that in spite of all the efforts I have made to engage with you, you are still unprepared to work in a cooperative way. (Adult)
I did say that should this happen, I would be suspending the session which is what I am now doing.
I do hope that you will reflect on this day and that you will consider the implications thoughtfully; for all, including yourselves (Positive Nurturing Parent), the organisation and the service users. I also believe that you too deserve more and better than this. (Positive Nurture Parent)
I would like to remind you that you are still within working time and that you would be expected to return to your workplace. I will brief the training department.”
(Positive Controlling Parent)
She calmly packs up her equipment. Whilst she is doing this one of the learners approaches her.
“We are sorry. Will you give us one more chance?” (Child)
Sonia: The session has ended (Adult)
Learner: But we will try harder………please (Child)
Sonia: The session is over (Broken record)
I am not suggesting that working with ‘difficult’ behaviour in groups is easy and that there are guaranteed outcomes to any particular strategy. We are human and have a range of feelings and corresponding behaviours that quite naturally at times get in the way of being the ‘perfect’ trainer.
Whist group behaviour is fairly predictable there will be unique influences in groups that will challenge us and our ability to do our job. Sometimes we will simply not be able to negotiate with a group. The group dynamics may be such that no one, with all the insight, expertise and goodwill in the world will match the negativity of the history of the group and individuals within it.
What I am saying however, is that an awareness of ourselves and our own behaviour when leading a group can have a least some influence on the potential outcome.
When I first came to the UK I lived in a rather grotty flat in the basement of a house owned by the Trant family in Islington. They were unusual folks (to say the least) and even in those politically incorrect days the terms that they used for different groups of people were pretty offensive.
Many years later the whole family was murdered by a rather cross son-in-law. I attended the memorial service and was astonished to observe that the majority of those in the vast congregation were Black African refugees who had been held at ports of entry and detained; that is, until the Trants had offered refuge for them in their own home. It appeared that at any one time at least three entire families were being cared for; much to their own cost. In spite of the rather distasteful terms used by the Trants I have not come across people so generous and genuine in their concern.
On reflection, It later struck me how illogical and unjust it was that the Trants had been afforded the same ‘racist’ label as those with considerably less goodwill. They had in deed demonstrated a regard for people that was rare.
When someone is charged with murder there are different levels that are considered e.g. manslaughter, negligence, crime of passion (France) etc. and I have often thought how racism, sexism, homophobia etc should be afforded the same consideration. People are not all the same, as indeed motives do vary considerably. It is just too simple and easy to label a person as being ageist, disablist etc. without considering the complexity of the issue of discrimination.
It is easy for us as trainers to keep abreast of changing attitudes and language and to dismiss the reality that most people are not often confronted with the need to examine such issues; not a feature of their day to day existence.
I believe that we are now mature enough to be more thoughtful when we label people who offend our strongly held beliefs.
The people who want to ‘repatriate’ all those with darker skin are not the same people as those who out of sheer ignorance use the word ‘coloured’. The people who beat up Gay Men are not the same people who out of ignorance genuinely believe that Lesbians want to be men. The people who believe that women should stay at home and varnish their nails are not the same as those who live with deep and destructive hatred of them. The people who use the word ‘retarded’ are not the same folks as those who believe that they should be ‘put down’.
It is time, I believe for us to revise our own terminology to more accurately reflect the differing motives of those who offend us.
I was tutoring a course at Alwyck Housing when the receptionist interrupted the session to tell me that I needed to contact my office urgently. I asked her to reply on my behalf that I would do so in the break but she insisted that it was an emergency that required an immediate response.
At the time my mother was critically ill, so I excused myself from the session, rushed downstairs to the office and called base. I was told that a trainer had insisted that I be called out of the session as a matter of great urgency and call him, which I then did.
When the trainer answered the phone he explained that he had arrived at the training venue that day and that all the parking spaces had been taken. This meant that he had to park a block away which was unacceptable to him.
Another trainer called me one day; absolutely furious. “I thought that you were an organisation committed to equality and I am disgusted that when I arrived at the venue today there were just two black people in the group. I will not work for your tokenistic agency again” (Like I had control who organisations employed!)
A trainer who constantly hassled us for more work and refused our offers on each occasion explained that, “I do not get out of bed for less than 600 per day”.
On another occasion, a trainer turned up to our office in the West End of London. We were very pleased to see him until we realised hat he was in the middle of a training course and had come to the office to photocopy his handouts, leaving the group to train themselves for an hour and a half.
On yet another occasion we had a phone call from a training manager very concerned that the trainer had ‘disappeared’ from the venue. They had sent out a search party who eventually discovered him sunbathing on the beach ten minutes walk away whilst the group were working on a rather long case study.
There are countless other stories very similar to the above that I could relate. What they all have in common interestingly enough is that they had all trained with us for approximately two years. There really does seem to be a time frame pattern which I refer to as the Prima Donna syndrome.
Who it affects
Most trainers are vulnerable, however those most at risk tend to be those with less experience of working independently.
Onset
Some people have an earlier onset and others a little later, however two years does appear to be the incubation period.
Pattern of development
There is a very typical pathway:
Phase 1: Foreplay
Enormous enthusiasm at interview; loudly proclaimed expression of altruistic motives and passion for serving to improve the lot of the less fortunate. Expression of a strong desire and need to work with an ethical agency; standards and mutuality overrides any monetary consideration.
Phase 2: Honeymoon
Frequent contact with the agency, a willingness to take on challenging and demanding work. Enthusiasm to contribute to the developing ethos.
Phase 3: Not tonight dear
Less contact, less input, difficulties in communication, first signs of resistance to implementation of standards
Phase 4: Frigid
“I am too busy” to take on any work that requires preparation, reply to e mails or phone calls, spell check, and deliver work on time etc.
First signs of money madness.
Phase 5: Delusion
I am irreplaceable
People will unconditionally engage with me
Organisations have unlimited budgets
I can set my own standards and indeed change these at whim
I know just about everything and do not need to develop, be supervised, and take advice
Clients will keep on purchasing the same old stuff I trot out over and over
No matter what I deliver learners will and indeed should adore and hero worship me
I am beyond constructive criticism and can’t get it wrong; it is always the group’s, the office’s, the world’s fault if something goes wrong
Phase 6: The Cold War
Anger at level charged for expenses, distance to travel, requests for information or anything else for that matter.
Passive aggressive behaviour; usually comprising of finding a fellow sufferer and exchanging symptoms.
Considerable energy invested in resenting the agency
Suspension of contact
Obsessive preoccupation with finding ways of working independently but keeping up appearances of involvement during the process of disengagement so that the rent gets paid.
Phase 7: Death throws
Manipulation of circumstances to provoke stomping off or getting ‘fired’ to justify own action and blame the agency for the breakdown.
Phase 8: Bereavement
This involves lying on a slab in the training mortuary having discovered that the ‘world is not my oyster’. Desperate attempt to reengage on he grounds of having been previously stressed and out of control
Treatment:
Sadly there is no treatment beyond stage 3. The Syndrome needs to run its course
Precautions:
Regular Supervision
Frequent referral to original terms of engagement
Attendance at team days
Giving as well as receiving
Tiptoeing out of the comfort zone
Eye on the ball-keeping in touch with professional developments
Reminders about what this is all about; beyond fees
Constant reminders of how blessed we are to be able to do what we do
Awareness that there are thousands of people waiting to ‘step into dead mens’ shoes