Never Assume
Shame is the lie someone told you about yourself.
ANAIS NIN
This is a bit of older writing that I only now thought to
post.
There are some basics that we hold as important in our work,
some that are even laid down in guidelines from the various bodies that we are
professionally involved in. We think about vulnerabilities and boundaries and
professionalism and confidentiality and the line of responsibility, be it
management or supervision, and we respect people and are open with people and
have the skills to discuss topics that might be sensitive, and we can manage
anger and distress and we work hard not to cause distress to others and not to
use our power to bully or harass or intimidate or cajole.
Routinely these are held as being templates for our own
behaviour toward others.
Maybe it is only in adversity that we hope that these are
also templates for others’ behaviour towards us.
But what if they are not? What should we do, can we do, do
we do, when there are allegations made against us, in private, in secret,
gossiped about by our professional peers and we only discover it through third-hand
reports? Where that professionalism and respect, those templates that we hold
so close and stridently at times for the clients, are not recruited by our
peers.
“Should” is always hard to answer.
What we do is to question ourselves and our behaviour, look
into our past and try to find what might fit with allegations that we have not
been informed of. They’ve been talked about but not by you, not to you. With no
yardstick everything is fair game for doubt and anxiety.
What we do is wonder how we are meant to behave back in that
environment, how we might actually behave when the smiles are on show and the
knives are concealed. To change your behaviour could be judged as evidence that
you know that your previous behaviour was wrong. To not change your behaviour
might suggest that you are unaware, unreflective, uncaring.
What we do is feel disrespected, feel that our reputation is
tainted.
What we do is feel ashamed of our profession that claims to
work in the best interests of all of us, claims to treat us all fairly and
reasonably and respectfully, demands this of us to others, but is wanting when
those same protections should be upheld within our profession.
Reputations suffer and seldom recover.
Presumably that’s why we have professional guidelines for
how accusations and allegations and investigations are handled, procedures for
ensuring that people are safe. Guidelines that indicate that the first thing a
colleague does when they have concerns about you is to discuss it with you (the
following is from the BPS guidelines);
As far as possible, psychologists should seek to resolve
any conflict with or between other professional colleagues (including relating
to consultation/supervision or line management) by clear communication,
relevant evidence and collaboratively working through the issues in reasoned
argument within the context of respectful relationships. The psychologist
should first approach the colleague in confidence, if it is appropriate, with
relevant information, in a manner that is collegiate and helpful. If misgivings
continue, the psychologist should consult with an appropriate colleague to
share concerns and to seek advice. Where appropriate they should keep a written
record of the meetings and steps taken to resolve any difficulties. Where there
is serious or continual disagreement, both parties need to take whatever action
is appropriate in their professional context, consulting other experienced
professionals as necessary. Supervisors and line managers have professional
obligations concerning professional standards, ethical practice and ‘fitness to
practise’ issues. If line managers or supervisors have any concerns regarding
performance in these areas, they have a duty to discuss these with the
psychologist and, if necessary, address the matters by in the first instance
following appropriate employment policies and procedures, or in the case of an
independent practitioner, making a report to the HCPC.
You are working with vulnerable people, possibly vulnerable
staff, possibly vulnerable trainees, so we might assume that this work would be
reconsidered, redistributed, revoked. You might expect that the target of your
alleged inappropriate behaviour would be managed in some way so that they are
safe from you – perhaps they are reassigned, given different work patterns.
You might expect a meeting with your accusers or management
in order to discuss the concerns so that you can recognise any issues and then
work, with support, to change, if change is needed.
You might expect that you would be involved to ensure that
there was professional duty upheld, professional responsibility discharged, and
professional respect enacted.
You might expect confidentiality, so any issues are only
discussed within the managerial or supervisory context, not bandied about
indiscriminately and unnecessarily, because that’s how we think of our clients
and our work. Certainly, you might expect this professional confidentiality before
you have been involved in any discussions and only broken if you are found to
be unresponsive to those concerns.
You might expect that the professionalism that you are said
to have breached will be maintained by the people who are so observant of that
professionalism, because obviously that professionalism matters. You might.
You might expect that a continuing process of trying to
identify damning evidence would not be kept secret from managers when there are
issues of risk and impropriety, because professionalism demands that there is
protection rather than a disingenuous, risky gathering of information when it
has been established by those professionals that there are genuine and serious
concerns. To misquote John Farnham, you might expect openness rather than
Secret Squirrel endeavours (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dP7KX1qgyU) that
are solely aimed at giving you enough rope to hang yourself. You might actually
expect that.
You might expect that the skills that allow us to formulate,
not just the person but the person in context, would mean that wider patterns
of behaviour would be examined to determine if there was targeting or if
patterns of behaviour were being misattributed, whether accidentally or with
ignorance or malign intent.
You might expect that any attempts to identify motives would
be hypotheses as that is what our professionalism requires us to understand
formulations as being. Sometimes the only way to understand an individual’s
motives, in fact always the only way to identify another’s motives, is to start
by asking rather than resorting to a belief in mind-reading or a belief that
one knows people. Quite clearly those beliefs suggests that you absolutely
fucking don’t.
You might expect that the professionals who are identifying
inappropriate behaviour in you would not use their power over the alleged
victim of such abuse of power to demand that they need to keep all of this
secret and do nothing to protect that alleged victim. Unless one is unable to
determine that the thing in the mirror is oneself.
You might expect that there would be a degree of analysis
and self-reflection when things had got to this stage to examine what one’s own
motives were and if they were for the good of those at risk, for the service,
for the profession and if so, why the necessary steps were not being taken to
ensure that professionalism was upheld.
You might expect honesty rather than fakery and false
camaraderie.
But what if that doesn’t happen? What do you want to come
from this? What can come from this? How would either of these be achieved?
At some times you will feel that none of these matter
because the thing that matters is your sense of self, your sense of who you
are, and this is called into doubt not just because of the accusations but
because of the way they have been hidden and managed.
If there is shame in this, it’s important to take one’s
share.
If you have done wrong you have to take it, be educated
about it, and learn from it. This might require punishment, a period away from
the job, being fired, being closely monitored, restricted duties. You need to
be made safe, however that can be done. You owe it to your profession and your
colleagues and your clients.
Surely if you are thought to be doing something so serious
then something has to be done, steps taken because without doing so how is the
duty of care taken care of? How can you be under such close scrutiny, be
discussed in supervision, be measured against an employer’s complaint
procedure, be discussed in secret without something being done?
The shame is the failure to act absolutely and the failure
to act professionally.
If the templates of professionalism have not been applied
then shame on the professionals who are indiscrete and ill-informed and so
righteous that they don’t think to discover if they might be wrong, if they
have misjudged, if their urge to be seen to be right blinds them and they are
reckless and unthinking and reflect nothing of the power of gossip and innuendo
to be harmful long after the events. The arrogance that secrets made through
the inappropriate use of power can be kept. The ignorance that a window is the
panorama. The disgrace that one’s own history defines the moral high ground. If
that is our professionalism, then it is a professionalism to be embarrassed by
not to be lauded. It is morally bankrupt, ethically unsound, and dangerous. It
degrades us, undermines us and we are no longer fit for purpose. If that is
your professionalism one of us is in the wrong game.
Never assume that you will not do wrong, either mistakenly
or purposefully. Never assume that our professionalism won’t allow you to fail.
Never assume that the professionalism that you might strive to apply in your
treatment of others will be granted you from within your profession.
There’s the shame.
Comments