Cognitive dissonance studies have shown that “getting people to act contrary to their attitudes (when they believe they have freely chosen to do so) is a powerful way to change beliefs and attitudes, including low self-esteem”(Rizvi and Linehan 2005). A mentor encouraging a mentee to reconsider their position when they feel justified in blaming another (whether this is appropriate or not) is a powerful instigator for attributing the sentient to where it belongs regardless of the legalities of any situation. The example used here is an individual and their work group.
[Before continuing to read on here, you may wish to refer back to table in Sect.1.1of this book, where some of the changes that trigger blaming are outlined].
A person’s life is interrupted when a change or an incident occurs (e.g. losing their job) changing the nature of how they see things including perceptions around key relationships and indeed the context. The intensity of the change is dependent on the meaning the person assigns to it and how significant it is in altering their life.
For example, loss of employment needs to be considered in the context of the person’s e.g. age, prospect for future employment, financial reserves, number of dependents, labour market opportunities, expected loss of employment as well as the level of personal and professional disruption they experience as a consequence.
It may also change whether or not they can continue to function as they expected to do prior to this event. Regardless of the nature of the change, a person’s usual routines are interrupted in some way. The affected person has to adjust to meet the demands being placed on them due to this incident. The incident is perceived to be dislocating in terms of self-concept depending on the degree they identified with their work or professional role; perceptions of others, their roles and relationships, changing boundaries, communication patterns, norms, intentions and values.
Understanding these aspects and teasing them out in mentoring is important in understanding the complexity of blame for the mentee whofinds themselves in such a situation.
In the face of a blame-inducing incident, people will initially question their own part in it and self-concept. The mentee’s understanding of who they are and how they relate to others and their social worth may become confused. What is con- cealed prior to the event may become clearer or not as the case may be. The incident such as redundancy may produce a marked shift in roles, depending on the gravity of the issue for people. Some will welcome the“nest egg”others will not. There will be a shifting of power with some people jockeying to influence the situation and particularly, the outcomes. Often, conflicts will arise intensifying the blaming.
These conflicts limit a person’s capacity to diagnose what is going on and to adjust to an incident. Thus, assessment of the nature of the changes to roles by the mentor is critical as it offers an understanding into one aspect of the chaos and conflict for the mentee thus releasing anxiety for them.
5.8.1 Personal and Professional Boundaries
The mentee’s boundaries including tasks, social and psychological need to be understood as these may be perceived as significantly altered. Boundaries are used by the mentee to manage internal and external interactions (McLendon and Petr 2005) and allow a balance of connection and independence with others especially at work. A psychological boundary is one that serves as an injunction/expectation for when and how colleagues can interact (Hartmann1991). Subsystems and coalitions within the mentee’s professional sphere or workplace lead to a significant change following an individual’s loss of job or redundancy. Blame is often a response to ward off a pending change or a sign to understand what lies beneath it.
The impact on the routine and functioning of the mentee (Myer and Moore 2006) is an example of the way boundaries can be altered following an incident.
The more a person’s daily routine is altered by an incident, the more existing boundaries are affected.
Another example that a mentee may bring to mentoring is where their work group experiences a situation involving some group members and not others. For example, some of the members may be made redundant or become incapacitated due to a workplace accident but not the mentee. These incidents not only severely disrupt work group boundaries but also the mentee’s boundaries such as a sense of autonomy. In both cases, a mentee may experience “survivor guilt”and find this very troubling. If a mentor senses this level of anxiety or the mentee raises it during mentoring, this information helps both understand the complexity of the incident and work together to develop interventions to reinstate a sense of stability and a way forward for the mentee.
Boundary ambiguity is associated with a disturbance in the usual or expected unfolding of actions or events (Manning 2009). In crisis situations, boundary ambiguity can become exacerbated by past encounters and relationships that have been unproductive (Manning2009). The greater the experience of nonconformity in boundaries, the more severe the impact on the people involved in it. Reconsidering boundaries assists the mentee develop a sense of order around the situation of uncertainty e.g. in the case of the threat or loss of employment. Boundaries can be made more permeable or rigid depending on the mentee’s perception of the incident and the manner in which boundaries are used (Carroll et al.2007).
5.8.2 Communication
Closely related to the concept of boundaries involves the flow and exchange of information preceding the event, during it and post. In many cases, blame may be directed at the failure of adequate communication not only in terms of the nature and frequency of communication but also the quality of listening and sharing of information. In the aftermath, situations, communication patterns are modified because of uncertainty about the situation (Tjersland et al. 2006), disagreement about what should have been done and actions now required (Coombs2012), and the desire to establish control (Lalonde and Roux-Dufort 2013). Communication patterns will become chaotic during an event which induces blame.
How the mentee describes a situation of change or crisis and who is to blame is significant. The description may focus on directly observed facts, their hearsay from others, or they may provide an obviously embellished account of what went on. For the mentor, it is important to work with the mentee to ascertain how chaotic the account is compared to the event, whether or not there is a desire to assign blame by the mentee or from others towards them. The aim is to establish a sense of control as the mentee attempts to cope with the situation.
The mentor needs to be attentive to changes in the way the mentee is commu- nicating to detect some of the emotions they are experiencing associated with this event. Another issue concerns the trustworthiness of communication or a tendency to embellish excessively the severity of situations (i.e., created unwarranted catastrophes).
The nature of the incident can be instrumental in the type of change in com- munication patterns. For example, sexual harassment may result in the exchange of information with only selected members of a work group. Communication might also be altered due to the fact that some work group members are no longer available or are not able to communicate. Blaming may be a way to desensitise their feelings about this issue. While mentoring, the mentor needs to consider the type of information exchanged or not exchanged. Confessions may be made, demands placed on others, fears expressed, and declarations proffered that would not otherwise have occurred. At other times, information may be less forthcoming as so that people protect themselves from further being identified with the incident and its
possible negative effects on them personally or professionally. Identifying the changes in communication patterns is an important part of understanding the mentee’s response to such an incident.
5.8.3 Norms
A norm is a guide or a custom for action (Fehr and Fischbacher2004). Norms also govern expectations about how work is to be conducted as well as how a person responds to specific situations. Norms around conversational topics in an operating theatre amongst male and female surgeons and nurses or gossip amongst profes- sionals are examples of this. Such norms provide structure and consistency in a professional setting. When all members comply with the norms, everyone under- stands what is going on. However, when norms are breached in some way by one or more members, the sense of co-operation is undermined. The person perceived to be responsible for the breach is less believed and marginalised. These changes not only change co-operation within the group but also can reverberate to the wider situation as people gossip about it. In other words, the adjustment to change may cause work group members to interact or react quite differently, positively or negatively.
When an incident affects work group processes, people can become distracted and focus on things tangential to work or the incident. Assessment of changes in work group norms assists mentees to understand better observed actions within the work group. Interventions can then be tailored to help people regenerate norms that can help them to adjust as well as others to work together to resolve the situation if possible.
5.8.4 Aims
Work gives people direction and to engage in prosocial actions. When things do not proceed according to intentions, people experience unexpected uncertainty. For example, when the economy is stable, a small-business is likely to develop goals that provide security and stability for staff including additional rewards and bene- fits. In periods offinancial downturn, the goals may have to change and conse- quently, are no longer perceived by staff as secure, predictable, realistic, or obtainable. Because of the uncertainty, staff may become resistant, voice their concerns and blame management. The lack of uncertainty regarding long-term goals can precipitate individual work group members to doubt their individual competence, the competence of other work group members, and/or the work group’s competence to sustain itselffinancially and can lead to greater stress and disarray in the functioning of the work group. This issue may be brought to mentoring for discussion.
It is important for the mentor to note that following a change at work especially if unexpected, mentees may engage in less logical thinking and more towards dealing or not with their emotions. When all is going well, people may engage in a logical process to resolve issues of concern. When things are not going well, they may resort to blaming through fear of uncertainty without reviewing what part they played in bringing the situation about. The mentee may become too short-sighted and/or unrealistic to see things clearly and seek out a mentor as a result.
The mentoring relationship serves to hold the mentee together during the immediate peak of a crisis over an issue. The mentor assists the mentee to deal with the emotional highs and lows before working on specifics. Working through a realistic assessment of the impact of an incident should include exploring the reality of how the mentee is affected. This approach is aimed at assisting the mentee to regain a sense of security and stability.
5.8.5 Values
Values provide a stimulus for the mentee’s attitudes and actions. They may be experiencing a misalignment of values personally and professionally. The values that a person considers important may be altered by the perceived uncertainty of an unexpected change or incident. Values may be altered as perceptions of mentee’s needs change especially in response to change (Schmidt and Welsh 2010). For example, a person may decide that they are investing too much time into their work triggered by a personal or professional change in their life which has brought on a mounting pressure between the demands of paid work and their personal and family life. A mentee who previously prioritised work ahead of personal life may rebalance their priorities and invest more time in their personal life. This change leads to an adjustment in their personal value set which may not align with the expectations of their employer as far as available time spent at or for work.
As with the previous characteristics, assessment of changes to values gives mentors important information to work with the mentee towards resolving issues.
Examining the changes in values helps mentors to assist people to balance, actively and rationally their individual needs and collective values and determine whether work group decisions are logical in light of their values and are not solely emotional responses to the stress of the incident. A problem-solving approach that ways the costs and benefits of decisions in light of the work group’s circumstances, values, and goals can be very beneficial.
The above factors are interrelated and overlap to some degree. However, understanding the changes that take place in each of the characteristics is critical for providing crisis intervention services to people.