international journal of reality therapy 2007 spring

The William Glasser InstitutePresident & FounderWilliam Glasser, M.D.Executive Director

Linda Harshman22024 Lassen Street, #118Chatsworth, California 913111-818-700-8000FAX 818-700-05551-800-899-0688

The William Glasser Institute-AustraliaPresident

Lois AndersonP.O. Box 134BurpengaryQueensland 4505Australia

The William Glasser Institute-IrelandDirector

Brian Lennon6 Red IslandSkerriesRepublic of Ireland011-849-9106FAX 011-353-1-849-2461

The Reality Therapy Association in JapanContact Person

Masaki Kakitani2205-23Oiso-MachiKanagawa 255Japan0463-33-8819FAX 0463-61-2434

The William Glasser Institute-New ZealandPresident

Sharlene PetersenWGI-NZPO Box 130 OS9Christchurch, New ZealandPh 64-3-3264056FAX 64-3-3264057

KART: Korea Association for Reality TherapyChairperson

Rose- Inza Kim707-10. Hannam 2-dongyongsan-gu 140-212Seoul, Korea01]-82-2-790-9361/9362FAX 011-82-2-790-9363email: [email protected]

Canadian Association for Reality TherapyPresident

Jean Suffield530 Des ChenesBeloeil, QuebecJ3G 2H8Canada514-446-5671FAX S14-446-5908

Association for Reality Therapy-SingaporePresident

Kwee-Hiong Clare Ong, Ph.D.Robinson Road Post OfficeP.O. Box 1231Singapore 90243]e-rnail: [email protected]

The Institute for Reality Therapy UKContact PersonDirector of Training - John BrickellAdministrator - Adrian Gorman

PO Box 227BillingshurstWest Sussex, RH14 OYUUnited KingdomTel: 01403 700023e-rnail: [email protected]

The Israeli Reality Therapy AssociationContact Person

Refuah InstituteProf. Joshua Ritchie, MD., Dean95 Derech HahoreshJerusaJem 97278, Israele-rnail: [email protected] 2 5715112Fax: 972 2 5879557web: www.refuah.net

Croatian Association for Reality TherapyPresident

Dubravka StijacicKuslanova 59a10.000 ZagrebCroatia

Reality Therapy Association-SloveniaPresident

Bojana GobboMorova 296310 IzolaSlovenia3866662706FAX 386 6674 7045

International Journal of Reality Therapy

Vol XXVI No.2 Spring 2007

Jong-Un Kim A Reality Therapy Group Counseling Program

as An Internet Addiction Recovery Method

for College Students in Korea

3

Diane Gossen Is It OK to Coerce? 10

David R. Law Appraising Performance Appraisals:

A Critical Look at an External Control

Management Technique

18

Zachary Rapport Defining the 14 Habits 26

Larry Litwack Basic Needs - A Retrospective 28

Michael H. Fulkerson Description of the Intensive In-Home

Fami Iy Service Program31

Ron Mottern Working with Forensic Clients in Quality Education:Tools of the Trade

33

Robert E. Wubbolding Mission Possible: I

Teaching Certification Week, Part I36

Thomas S. ParishDaniel Williams

Some Tips Regarding How toMotivate Athletes

39

Thomas S. Parish

Laurence Van Dusen

The Personal Choice Model

Regarding Mental Health41

lnternational Journal of Reality Therapv > Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI, number 2 • -,

------- --------------- -

International Journal of Reality Therapy

Editor: Larry Litwack, Ed. D, ABPP,RTC

Editorial Board

Karen Sewall, Ed. D.St. Albans, Missouri

Robert RennaWaltham, Massachusetts

Arlin V Peterson, Ed.D.Lubbock, Texas

Thomas Parish, Ph. D.Fayette, Iowa

Editorial Office:International Journal of Reality Therapy

650 Laurel Avenue #402Highland Park, IL 60035email: [email protected]

The International Journal of Reality Therapy is directed to conceptsof internal control psychology, with particular emphasis on research,theory, development. or special descriptions of the successful appli-cation of internal control systems especially as exemplified in realitytherapy and choice therapy.

The International Journal of Reality Therapy is published semiannu-ally in Fall and Spring. ISSN: 1099-7717.

Material published in the Journal reflects the views of the authors,and does not necessarily represent the official position of, or endorse-ment by, the William Glasser Institute. The accuracy of materialpublished in the Journal is the responsibility of the authors.

Subscriptions: $15.00 for one year or $28.00 for two years. (U.S.currency) International rates: $23.00 for one year or $40.00 for twoyears. Single copies, $8.00 per issue. Send payment order to the edi-tor. Back issues Vol. 1-8, $3.00 per issue. Vol. 9-14. S4.00 per issue,Vol. 15-19, $5.00 per issue.

Permissions: Copyright held by the International Journal of RealityTherapy. No part of any article appearing in this issue may be used orreproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission ofthe editor-except in the case of brief quotations embodied in the arti-cle or review.

2 • International Journal of Reality Therapy. Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI. number :2

SaleOption One

Complete Set of Vol 1-25 of Journal

1981-2006

List Price = $ 216

Sale Price = $ 110

(International = $ 135

Option Two

Vol 15-25 of Journal 1995-2006

List Price for 20 issues = $ 148

Sale Price = $ 75

Send order to

Journal of RT650 Laurel Ave, #402

Highland Park, IL 60035

International Resource GuideVol 1 Hard copy of RG

(approx 200 pp) through 1995

US & Canada $ 25

International $ 30

Vol 2 Hard Copy of RG(approx 55 pp) 1996 to now

US & Canada $ 10

International $ 15

Both Vol 1-2

US & Canada $ 30

International $ 40

Send order to above address

Author and Title IndexesVol. 1-5 in Vol. 6-1Vol. 6-10 in Vol. 10-2Vol. 11-15 in Vol. 16-1Vol. 16-20 in Vol. 20-2Vol. 20-25 in Vol. 25-2

A Reality Therapy Croup Counseling Program as An InternetAddiction Recovery Method for College Students in Korea

long-Un Kim

The author is an assistant instructor at Donga University in Busan, South Korea

ABSTRACT

College students worldwide are vulnerable to Internetaddiction because the Internet is becoming more easilyaccessible with colleges, and a majority of college studentsnow use the Internet as part of their educational tools. InKorea, college students are the highest level of Internetaddictive users.

Glasser (1985) has used Choice Theory to explainaddiction. Recently, Lewis & Carlson (2003) and Howatt(2003) have taken advantage of Reality Therapy for a coreaddiction recovery tool. In this way, Reality Therapy canbe used widely as a treatment for addictive disorders suchas drugs, sex, food, and work as well as Internet.

Group counseling appears to be the predominant modal-ity for treating addiction (Fisher & Harrison, 1997). Thesupport, confrontation, and insight gained from other indi-viduals experiencing similar cognition and emotionsfacilitate therapeutic recovery.

Thus, this article explores the application of ChoiceTheory and Reality Therapy as an Internet addictionrecovery vehicle, and develops a group counseling pro-gram that group counselors can use when working withcollege students with Internet addictive disorders.

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of Internet use worldwide hasincreased markedly during the few years. Along with allthe benefits the Internet brings, problems of excessiveInternet use are becoming apparent. There are also someclinical observations that some people 'get hooked', anddevelop an Internet addiction.

The Internet is becoming more easily accessible withschools, colleges, and public libraries all going online.Many college students now use the Internet as part of theireducational tools. In addition, the cost of computers isbecoming more affordable so the number of home com-puters is on the rise. With such ease of access, the Internethas become an integral part of our lives (Huang & Alessi,1997; Griffiths, 2000). With these changes, it is anticipatedthat the number of those who excessively use the Internetwill also continue to increase in Korea. Typical Internetbehaviors among excessive users included participating inchat rooms, checking e-rnail, scanning messages on Usenetgroups, and playing multi-user games (Young, 1997).

The Korean Ministry of Information andCommunication conducted a survey of cyber addiction.They recruited 2600 ranging from elementary level toadults. Of these, 4.8% were classed as Internet addictiondisorder. Of Internet users, 7.9% were college students,the highest level. Lee (2002) surveyed 3000 ranging fromelementary school to college students. Nearly 4.8% of theparticipants were Internet addiction disorder. Of thosewho exhibited Internet addiction disorder, college stu-dents were 36.7%, the highest level as well.

Internet addiction is described as an impulse controldisorder that does not involve use of an intoxicating drugand is very similar to pathological gambling. Internetaddiction is called an Addiction Disorder, PathologicalInternet Use, Excessive Internet Use, and CompulsiveInternet Use.

Young (1996a) conducted the earliest empiricalresearch on excessive Internet use. According to Young(1999), Internet Addiction is a broad term covering a widevariety of behaviors and impulse control problems. This iscategorized by five specific subtypes of Internet addiction:

• Cyber-sexual Addiction: Compulsive use of adultchat rooms or cyberporn.

• Cyber-relationship Addiction: Over-involvement inonline relationships.

• Net Compulsions: Compulsive online gambling,shopping, and obsessive online trading.

• Information Overload: Compulsive web surfing ordatabase searches.

• Computer Addiction: Obsessive computer gameplaying (e.g., Doom, Myst, Solitaire etc.).

A number of other studies have highlighted the dangerthat excessive Internet use may pose to college students asa population group. This population is deemed to be vul-nerable and at risk given the accessibility of the Internetand the flexibility of their schedules (Moore, 1995).College students are vulnerable to Internet addictionbecause of many factors, including difficulty adapting tolife away from home and underlying psychological prob-lems, such as depression or social anxiety. School is atraining ground for adulthood and individuals must beresponsible for themselves. But there are students spend-

International Journal of Reality Therapy' Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVl, number 2 • 3

ing way too much time on-line, probably to the detrimentof their school work and other activities.

It is important that counselors recognize the signs andsymptoms of Internet addiction. This includes not onlydetermining the amount of time spent on the Internet, butalso whether Internet usage has negatively disrupted anymajor areas of the client's life, including recreational.social, occupational, legal, financial, and physical or men-ta\. Also, counselors and therapists need to be familiarwith the signs of Internet addiction and some of theemerging treatment strategies.

Reality therapy has been used widely as a treatmentfor addictive disorders such as drugs, sex, food, work andso forth. Glasser (1985) has used Choice Theory to explainaddiction. Lewis & Carlson (2003) has recently takenadvantage of Reality Therapy for a core addiction recov-ery tool. Howatt (2003) developed a core addictionrecovery tool based on Choice Theory, figuring out thatChoice Theory can serve as a core addiction recovery tool.

Reality therapy is designed to help individuals controltheir behavior and make a choice of new and difficult one,in their lives. It is based on choice theory, which assumesthat people are responsible for their lives and for whatthey do, feel. and think.

It is difficult to directly change our feeling or physiolo-gy separately from our doing or thinking. We, however.are able to change what we do or think regardless of howwe feel. Thus, the key to change behavior lies in choosingto change our acting and thinking.

By having clients commit to changing their Internetaddiction and to explore their total behavior. the coun-selor could bring about changes in their Internet abuseand stick to those plans. In doing so, he would not acceptexcuses from clients. Rather, he works hard to help themtake control over their Internet addiction behavior.

Reality therapy seems to be of value for counselorswho deal with persons with Internet addiction. Regardlessof the kind of addiction, a universal variable is that per-sons who display addiction behavior should make therational choice to achieve their wants. Thus, ChoiceTheory in Reality Therapy can be used as an Internetaddiction recovery method and provide a pathway tomake an effective choice.

Group counseling appears to be the predominantmodality for treating addiction (Fisher & Harrison, 1(97).The support, confrontation, and insight gained from otherindividuals experiencing similar cognition and emotionsfacilitate therapeutic recovery. Millions of recoveringaddicts have experienced success from attending 12-stepsupport groups. for example, Alcoholics Anonymous,Narcotics Anonymous. Overeaters Anonymous, etc.Internet addicts may experience similar success in attend-ing a group designed specifically for individualsexcessively using the Internet. A number of these support

4 • international lournal of Rl'ality Therapv • Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI, number 2

groups have already been established in the United States.

Recently. as a method of prevention and treatment forInternet addiction behaviors, a few of these support groupand treatment programs have been developed in Korea.However, a group counseling program based on ChoiceTheory or Reality Therapy for Internet addiction treat-ment is rare. The purpose of this study focuses ondevelopment of a group counseling program as a corerecovery vehicle for Internet addicted college students.This program would be based on Reality Therapy, includ-ing such things as control theory, five basic needs, totalbehavior, friendly involvement, and making a plan. Inaddition, this program includes cognitive-behavioralapproaches such as time management techniques, and thereminder cards suggested by Young (1996).

A Reality Therapy Group Counseling Program

I. Some guidelines for application of this program

A group leader must be flexible and know when it isadvisable to deviate from the proposed session plan. Timeis frequently the enemy of the group leader. Group ses-sions have a time limitation in terms of both the length oftime for a session and the number of planned sessions.Thus, the group leader should not try to plan for more top-ics than could be covered in a group session. The size ofgroup and the quality of interaction often suggest thenumber of topics that can be discussed in a given session.

The group preparation can be divided into four sec-tions:

1. State what the session is expected to accomplish,namely, purpose. or objectives

2. Check the material that will be used and what needsto be collected prior to the session. Materials, includ-ing blank paper, topic-oriented games, posters,construction paper, a chalkboard and chalk. crayons,scissors, or an overhead projector or a video, mightbe used during the sessions.

3. Detail the strategies. including what the group leaderplans to say to the group, group activities, topics fordiscussion, homework assignments, and a brief sum-mary of what was accomplished.

4. Evaluate the group experience both in terms of indi-vidual growth and the extent to which the group, as awhole, accomplished its objective.

2. The descriptions of a reality therapy group counsel-ing program

What follows is a plan for ten group sessions dealingwith Internet addiction college students. This program wasevaluated and supervised by specialists certificated by theKorea Counseling Association. Each session takes 60 to 90minutes in length. Constructions of each session were pre-ceded as the procedure of introduction of session goal.

teaching, activities, homework assignment, and sharing.

Although each session has been carefully planned, cir-cumstances from the previous session or issues that couldarise might suggest to the group leaders that the planshould be altered. Group leaders need to be flexible.

Session I

Objectives

1. To enable the group to get to know each other

2. To set goals for the group

3. To plan an icebreaker to encourage members to feelcomfortable with each other

4. To agree upon the group rules and sign a rules contract

Specific strategies

1. Members are asked to

• introduce themselves to the group

• state one reason they are in the group

• state one thing they would like to gain from being inthe group

2. Reiterate the purpose of the group and set somegoals for the group

3. A counselor in reality therapy group makes a sincereeffort to establish a friendly relationship with clientsthat will sustain itself during the treatment. In doingso, group members are able to meet a basic need forthe feeling of belonging. The group leader shouldshow that he cares about clients in group work and iswilling to talk about anything that both clients andthe counselor think worth changing. Rules such as noeating, drinking, or smoking during sessions, atten-dance and no attacking of others in a pleasant andpositive manner. After group members have brain-stormed the rules they feel are important, be surethe concept of confidentiality has been cited as a ruleand ask the group why "what we say in the groupstays in the group" is so important.

4. Divide the group into pairs. Members of each pairinterview their partners. They should know thename, likes and dislikes of their partner, two wordsthat describe their partner, and one thing they havein common with their partner, like a favorite season,food, sport, singer, book, hobby, movie, TV program,etc. After ten minutes, partners introduce their part-ners to the whole group.

5. Determine the time/day schedule for the remainingsessions.

6. Encourage them to return next week

7. Summarize the session

Session 2

Objectives

1. To help the group understand more about theInternet addiction.

2. To introduce five basic needs to the group.

3. To administer Internet Addiction Checklist to thegroup.

Specific Strategies

1. Briefly restate the purpose of the group and reviewthe group rules.

2. Explain five basic needs and explore what kind ofneeds have been missed. We develop pictures in ourheads to satisfy basic needs and the pictures arestored in what Glasser (1985) refers to as the qualityworld. It contains our expectations, our core belief,and opportunities to fulfill our needs. According toGlasser (1996), we have four basic psychologicalneeds including belonging, power, freedom, and funas well as the need for survival. All of these needsare met through our pictures, namely, quality world,in our heads. If you are an Internet addictive user,what kind of needs do you miss?

3. Complete the Internet Addiction checklist

Direction: on the Addiction Checklist below, Please respondto these questions

• Do you feel preoccupied with the Internet (thinkabout previous online activity or anticipation ofnext online session)? Yes No

• Do you feel the need to use the Internet withincreasing amounts of time in order to achieve sat-isfaction? Yes No

• Have you repeatedly made unsuccessful efforts tocontrol, cut back, or stop Internet use? Yes No

• Do you feel restless, moody, depressed, or irritablewhen attempting to cut down or stop Internet use?Yes No

• Do you stay online longer than originally intended?Yes No

• Have you jeopardized or risked the loss of a signif-icant relationship, job, and educational or careeropportunity because of the Internet? Yes No

• Have you lied to family members, therapist, or oth-ers to conceal the extent of involvement with theInternet? Yes No

• Do you use the Internet as a way of escaping fromproblems or of relieving a dysphonic mood (e.g.,feelings of helplessness, guilt, anxiety, depression)?Yes No

lntcrnational Journal of Reality Therapv s Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI, number 2 • .5

4. Share factors of the Internet addiction as time permits.

5. Summarize the session to the group.

Session 3Objectives

1. To introduce choice theory to the group.

2. To explain time-management techniques.

Specific strategies

1. Quickly review the group rules.

2. Explain choice theory to the group and practice totalk to oneself in terms of choice theory.

Glasser (1996) describes that people do not becomesad; rather, they choose to be sad. For instance, if you useInternet excessively, you can't control Internet use andmay feel helpless and hopeless. When people say "I amchoosing to be addictive rather than Ibecome an addict".you are less likely to choose to abuse Internet.

3. Teach the group to use time-management techniques

If you stay online longer than initially intended,Incorporate planned Internet time into your weeklyschedule. Internet addiction does not require that a persongo 'cold turkey' and quit all usage. Measure your timeintentionally by setting into your schedule specific startingand stopping times. Set a reasonable goal, perhaps 10hours a week on-line if you currently devote 30 hours.Instead of "One day at a time", practice "One time a day."

Probably, if this is not effective because you ignore theabove, you can also use a real alarm clock to be set whenyou need to end the session. Keep it a few steps from thecomputer so you have to get up to shut it off.

4. Homework assignment: Apply things learned in thissession to the real life.

5. Review the session

Session 4Objectives

I. To help the group understand 'Total behavior'.

2. To help the group improve alternative activities.

Materials needed

Toy cars, copies of car picture drawing acting andthinking in front wheels, feeling, and physiology in rearwheels)

Specific strategies

1. Briet1y review group rules, if needed.

2. Follow up on the homework assignment. Ask thegroup to share their implementation of time-man-agement techniques learned in previous session.

3. Explain Total Behavior'.

6 • International Journal of Reality Therapy· Spring 2007 • \/oI.XXVI, number 2

-------_._ ....._--------_ .. _--_.-

Acting. thinking, feeling, and physiology make up'total behavior'. The rear wheels are feeling and physiolo-gy, whereas the front wheels arc acting and thinking.According to choice theory, it is difficult to directly changeour feeling or physiology separately from our acting orthinking. We are able to change what we act or thinkregardless of how we feel. Thus, the key to change behav-ior lies in choosing to change our acting and thinking.

4. Encourage the group to establish an alternative act-ing. Establish an alternative activity. Think of ahobby or activity that you have always wanted to tryand commit to doing it in place of some of the hoursspent currently on the Internet. The more fun thingsyou have in your life every day, the less you wilt missthe constant Internet buzz and give in to the cravingto go back to it.

5. Present clients' alternative acting to the group.

6. Homework assignment: Apply things learned in thissession to the real world.

7. Summarize the session.

Session 5Objectives

1. To introduce WDEP to the group.

2. To help the group ask oneself for the Internet addic-tion behaviors.

Specific strategies

I. Briefly review group rules, especially, confidentiality.

2. Follow up on the homework assignment.

3. Explain WDEP to the group and practice theprocess of WDEP. WDEP refers to Wewants.De-direction and doing, Eeevaluation, and Pe-plan-ning. As mentioned earlier, total behavior consists ofdoing, thinking, feeling, and physiology. Change inone's life or control over one's life occurs throughdoing. For example, if you use the Internet exces-sively, it is helpful to ask specific questions, like"what am I doing?", "Does my behavior help me orhurt me'?", and "By doing what I'm doing, am Iget-ting what Iwant?" These questions help clarifyclient's pictures or perception of what I am doing. It'sa good idea to focus on planning that involves doingbehavior that meets the clients' basic needs. This canbring about changes in your pictures or perceptionsor beliefs, as well as feeling.

4. To encourage the group to use these questions in thesituation of Internet abuse.

• Does my behavior help me or hurt me?

• Are your wants realistic and attainable?

• By doing what I'm doing, am I getting what I want?

• How does it help to look at it like that?

You spent too much time on-line to the detriment ofyour school works and other activities. By following thisquestion up, it can help you consider whether Internetaddiction can help you or hurt you. These questions, also,help you specifically evaluate your behaviors and see ifthey are really worthwhile.

5. Share their experiences of Internet abuse as timepermits.



Session 6Objectives

1. To help the group recognize Internet usage pattern.

2. To help the group recognize their addictive triggers.

Specific strategies

I. Quickly restate the purpose of the group and reviewthe group rules.


3. Identify your usage pattern. To begin to shake thehabit, practice the opposite.

• What days of the week do you typically log on-line?

• What time of day do you usually begin?

• How long do you stay on during a typical session?

• Where do you usually use the computer?

4. Recognize your addictive triggers.

• Ponder your own feelings when you head for thecomputer. Complete the following sentence:Before I turn to the Internet, I feel_________ . Some typical answers arebored, lonely, miserable, depressed, anxious, angry,and stressed. It is important to raise awarenessabout the fingerprints of these individual feelingsbecause they prompt your addictive response.

• Next complete this sentence: When I am engaged inmy favorite Internet activity, I feel _Typical responses include relaxed, excited, happy,confident, competent, fulfilled, respected, calm,loved, supported, sexy, and hopeful.

• Recognizing these two feeling states: how you feelbefore you go on-line and how you feel when you'reusing the Internet.

• Allow you to see what you are running away fromand tune in to what you hope to gain on-line. Eachtime you decide to use the Internet as a response tothese triggers, you face a choice point.

• As you get more into your recovery efforts, thesechoice points are crucial for altering cognitive andbehavioral patterns.

5. Share Internet addictive triggers as time permits.


7. Review the session.

Session 7Objectives

1. To help the group make a concrete plan to do better.

Materials needed

Copies of time plan form

Specific strategies

1. Briefly review the group rules.


3. Make concrete plans to do better.

To recover from any addiction, one must have a concreteplan of acting and steps to accomplish each point on theplan. The key word is concrete. If you are not getting anysleep, discipline your self to turn off the computer at II p.m.instead of 2 a.m. and go to sleep. Change your schedule sothat the changing behaviors will be easier to initiate. If youneed a job, pick up the phone and set appointments for con-sultations or visit a job board on campus or revise yourresume and distribute it to 5 places that you think might havepotential for the type of work you prefer. The main objectiveof this recovery step is to act in your own behalf.

4. Complete time plan form.

5. Present it to the whole group.


Session 8Objectives

1. To make a verbal or written contract.

2. To help the group commitment to plans.

Materials needed

Copies of a written contract form

Specific strategies

l. Briefly review the group rules, if needed.

2. Make a verbal or written contract. When making acommitment to plans, it is important that the plan befeasible to carry out. It's a good idea to use a verbalor written contract to ensure commitment. You guysand I can develop a written contract. The contract isa few sentences on a piece of paper written towardcommitment to plans.

International lourn.il of Reality Therapv • Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2 • 7

3. Encourage the group to commit to plans.

• Transfer positive qualities that you discovered ordeveloped on the Internet to "real world" experi-ences. Don't limit your social life. Look for thesupport and affection from people that you can seeand touch. If you were witty, caring and intelligenton the Internet, likewise you can be so in real life.Visualize yourself acting with the same positivequalities in a typical social situation you might faceat work, school or at the grocery store.

• Change your situation. Look at the circumstancesof your life and how they may be contributing toyour loneliness. Take positive action in your ownbehalf and change your real life for the better.

• Explore the difficult feelings. If you turned to theInternet because a sudden accident or illness leftyou homebound, you've probably got some strongemotions stirring inside you. You may have turnedto the Internet at a transition time in your life:between jobs, relationships, and levels of education.What ever the feelings you are having, the only trueway through them is to talk about them to someoneyou trust, write about them, let go of some of theintensity of them and then move on beyond them.Although exploring difficult feelings may feel trau-matic at first, eventually most people find ittherapeutic and helpful in getting themselves'unstuck' from a pattern of thought and behaviorthat is destructive and addictive.

3. Homework assignment: Post a written contract onthe place where can easily see in your room andPractice with patience.

4. Remind the group that there are only two more ses-sions.


Session 9Objectives

1. To allow the group to make positive reminder cards.

2. To encourage the group to practically use positivereminder cards.

Materials needed

Copies of 3-by-5inch-index cards

Specific strategies

1. Quickly review the group rules and the purpose.


3. Make positive reminder cards and encourage thegroup to use in his real life.

• Make a list of the five major problems caused byyour addiction to the Internet.

8 • lntern.uional Journal of Reality Therapy' Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI. number 2

• Make a separate list of the five major benefits 01cutting down your Internet use.

• Transfer the two lists onto a 3-by-5inch-index cardand keep it in your pocket, purse, or wallet.

• When you hit a choice point where you would betempled to use the Internet instead of doing some-thing more productive or healthy, take out yourindex card as a reminder of what you want to avoidand what you want to do for yourself.

4. Discuss examples of Internet problems and examplesof major benefits of reducing on-line time. Examplesof Internet problems could be no job-hunting, lostsleep, ignoring real-life friends, not facing causes ofanxiety or secrecy with a loved one. Examples ofmajor benefits of reducing on-line time could be pur-sue job leads, better rested, time to devote toreal-life relationships, and finding new ways torelieve stress.


6. Remind the group that the next session will be thelast meeting.


Session 10

Objectives

1. To review the critical learning from all previous ses-sions.

2. To cite the goals and extent to which they have beenachieved.

3. To recommend to the group what still needs to bedone and make suggestions about how these thingscan be accomplished.

4. To compliment the group for their accomplishmentsand hard work.

5. To have a group celebration.

Materials Needed

Copies of an evaluation survey

Specific Strategies

1. Review significant accomplishments of the group.


3. Circle whip

• How does each member of the group feel about theending of the group?

• What did each member of the group learn from theexperience ancl what are the members doing differ-ently now as a result of what they learned?

4. Thank the group for the hard work they did and itscooperation.

5. Ask the group to complete a group evaluation sheet.

Please respond to these questions

•I found this group experience to be worthwhile. YesNo

•Iwould recommend being in a group to my friends.Yes No

• The group made progress in accomplishing its goal.Yes No

• What I liked most about this group was

• What I liked least about this group was

• To improve the group I would suggest

6. Remind the group that even though the group expe-rience has ended, confidentiality is still expected andis still important.

7. A light, healthy refreshment can be offered to endthe group session

CONCLUSION

Internet usage has tripled in the last three years withcontinuing growth is expected. University students caneasily access to Internet in colleges. a boarding house. pub-lic libraries, as well as at home. Counselors and therapistsneed to be familiar with the signs of Internet addiction andsome of the emerging treatment strategies. Treatments forInternet addiction are beginning to emerge. Traditionally.counselors who specialized in the treatment of addictionsintegrate individual, group, and family counseling with aheavy emphasis on the rational choice. Some research hasbeen proved that Group counseling was the predominantmodality [or treating addictions.

Thus, the purpose of this study is to develop a groupcounseling program on an Internet addiction treatmentvehicle of college students. This program is based onReality Therapy including control theory. five basic needs,total behavior, friendly involvement. and making a plan. Inaddition, this program includes cognitive-behavioralapproach such as time management technique, using thereminder cards. The core instructions of choice theoryunderlying rationale that drives reality therapy(Wubbodling, 2000) are very useful in helping clients toestablish a healthy recovery by exploring them how theycan meet their basic needs by questioning their doing,wants, self-evaluation, and plans as well as choosing moreeffective behaviors. Future research should focus on fur-ther defining the phenomenon of Internet addiction interms of relating it to genetic, biologic and psychosocialvariables. In addition, further research is needed to provethe effectiveness of this program.

REFERENCESFisher, G., & Harrison. TC. (1997). Substance abuse:

Information for school counselors, social workers,therapists, and counselors. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Glasser, W (2000). Reality therapy in action. NY:HarperCollins.

Glasser, W (1998). Choice Theory: a new psychology ofpersonal freedom. NY: HarperCollins .

Glasser, W. (1996). Choice Theory. New York:HarperCollins.

Glasser, W (1985). Control Theory: a new explanation ofhow we control our lives. New York: Harper & Row.

Griffiths, M. D. (2000) Internet addiction-Time to betaken seriously? Addiction Research, 8,413-418.

Howatt, WA. (2003). Choice Theory: a core addictionrecovery tool. International Journal of RealityTherapy, 22(2), 12-15.

Huang, M. P. & Alessi, N. E. (1997). "Internet addiction,Internet psychotherapy": Reply. American Journal ofPsychiatry, 154(6).890.

Korean Ministry of Information & Communication(2001). A Survey on the Realities of Cyber Addiction.KMIC-Ol, 16-28.

Lee, C. C. (2002). A Study on Development of RecoveryStrategy for Internet Addiction of Korean Children.Korean Ministry of Information & Communication.

Lewis, 1.. & Carlson, J. (2003). Reality Therapy forAddictions with Robert Wubboling. New York, NY:Prentice Hall. Video Edition.

Moore, D. (1995). The Emperor's virtual clothes: Thenaked truth about the internet culture. Chapell Hill,NC: Algonquin.

Wubbolding, R. (2000). Reality Therapy for the 21stCentury. Philadelphia. PA: Brunner-Routledge.

Young, K. S. (1999). Internet addiction: Symptoms, eval-uation, and treatment. In L. VandeCreek & T.Jacskon (Eds.), Innovation in clinical practice: Asource book, 17 (pp. 19-31). Sarasota. FL:Professional Resource Press.

Young, K. S. (1997). Internet addiction: The emergence of'a new clinical disorder. [Online].http://netaddiction.com/index.html.

Young, K. S. (1996a). Internet addiction: The emergenceof a new clinical disorder. Cyber Psychology andBehavior, 3, 237-244.

Young, K. S. (1996b). Psychology of computer use: XL.Addictive use of the Internet: A case that breaks thestereotype. Psvcholor;ical Reports, 79, 899-902.

The author mav be reached [email protected]

lnternational lou mal of R['~lity Therapy· Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI. number 2 • 9

IS IT OK TO COERCE?

Diane Gossen

The author is an educator who has a/so worked extensively in corrections and addictions. Formerlva senior [acultv member in theWilliam Glasser Institute, she has conducted training all over Canada, the United States, and in a dozenoverseas countries. Her work has been

translated into French, fcr;lalldic,. Sloveniun,.Croarion, and Spanish. and has received wide distribution hv ASCD and Phi De/to Kappa.The article IS thefirst chapter of her latest hook Irs All AbO/IT fie, published ill 2004.

The complete book is availahlefrom www.realrestitution.com

We must come together in ways that respect the solitude ofthe soul, that avoid the unconscious violence we do when wetry to save each other, that evoke our capacity to hold anoth-er life without dishonoring its mystery, never trying to coercethe other into meeting our own needs. - Parker J. Palmer

Is it okay to coerce people for their own good? Whatwill they remember years later-their success or the feelinsof being coerced? I have had two experiences that causedme to reflect on this. The first was a conversation with afanner staff member from Radius, the longest continuous-ly running Reality Therapy-based program in the world,Several years ago we had a staff reunion. On this occasiona former teacher remarked to me, "When you were mydirector, 1 loved you and I hated you." I was a bit caught offguard and asked why she would say that. She responded,"Well, you always thought Icould do more than I thoughtIcould do." I said to her, "Well, you did it, didn't you?" Shesaid, "Yes, but it was so uncomfortable." Th~ momentpassed and we moved on to laugh and share our friendship.

The next day I reflected seriously on this. I remem-bered that I often asked her to take on the more difficultstudents because she had had a rough upbringing herselfand I knew she could relate to them. Sometimes sheobjected, saying she was overloaded with aggressive kids,1 believe that at this point I praised her, extolling her skills.If she demurred again, r would say, "If you don't take thisstudent, who's going to help him?" At this point. becauseof guilt, she complied with my request. She was alwayssuccessful, but thirty years later she remembers feelinguncomfortable.

I also thought about the question of coercion when Iwas asked by a childcare worker in Quebec "Is it okav toforce the kids in the halfway houses to do on-the-job train-ing? You know it strengthens them." Ianswered, "You'reright, but the question is, What will they remember-theirsuccess in the program or the fact that they were forced toparticipate?" -

Now I ask you, How many of you reading this bookwere forced to practice a musical instrument or to playasport? Did having to attend church or temple make you aspiritual person? Can you think of a time when vou com-plied, but dropped an activity as soon as the pressure wasoff? Were you forced to dress or act a certain way, but youchanged as soon as you were out of sight? Think of arecent time you showed affection, Did you do so to avoid

10 • Internationallournal of Reality TherJPY • Spring 1007 • Vol.XXVI, number 2

-------_ .._- --

a contlict or did you do it because you felt it? The act isthe same. The result is very different.

In working with a new group each week over the pastyear, I have had plenty of opportunities to hear answers tothese questions. A common response is, "Yes, it's okay tocoerce for safety-for example, to prevent a small childfrom going on the road." People feel that age is a factorand youth don't understand the possible consequences oftheir actions. People also speak of the need to exert forceif someone is going to hurt him- or herself or another. Onthe other hand, there are very diverse opinions about prac-ticing the piano. Many report they were made to practice,Some are grateful; others never touch the piano today.One person reports loving to play another instrument nowbut not the piano. Several express the wish that their par-ents had forced them to practice.

People ask so many important questions about coer-cion. Who decides what is good for another? Who reallyknows? Whose needs are being met? What really is coer-cion? If we define it as pressure. it can be positive ornegative, What's the difference between encouraging andpersuading? Where is the line between guiding and coerc-ing? What is challenging and what is forcing? When doinspiration and motivation become coercion'? What's thedifference between a gift and a bribe? Is daring a personto do something coercive? When I ask people, ,.Do youhave a feeling that tells you when you are being coerced?"they nod vigorously in affirmation and answer. "When wefeel we have no choice."

Some groups take a global view. One group said the con-formity of communism was comfortable for people inRussia, but the price was freedom and independence.Another said that Japan is stronger on conformity than oncreativity. North American Native Indian participantsexpress their view that it is disrespectful to pressure a per-son. They even espouse a principle of non-interference togive people a chance to make up their own minds.Someone said, "We can coerce people in Iraq, but theminute we leave, they'll go back to being the way they wantto be,"

CONTINGENT ON YOUR COMPLIANCE?

Another significant question comes from the work ofAlfie Kohn: Is it okay to take what people want and need

-------------------

and make the receipt of it contingent on their compliance?What does it do to the relationship? I ask you, as you readthis, to think about your friendships and your intimate rela-tionships. Would your friends still be your friends if youwithheld approval from them in order to control them?What would happen if your loved one withheld affection inorder to get you to do something for him or her? Doescoercing a person to comply show lack of optimism andbelief in their innate goodness, their deep desire to loveand to learn, and their internal motivation to achieve?

Do you let yourself be more coerced by those youadmire? Can you avoid being influenced by those youlove? Is it easy to resist coercion if you have no respect forthe person who uses it? One person said, "My mother dideverything for me. It was a burden after awhile. I lefthome to rebeL I didn't even leave a phone number." Dopeople say, "Thanks for making me do that"? What aboutmarriage? Does a person choose marriage for rules andconsequences? Do you say, "Let's get married so we cancontrol each other?" Do you accept a job for the joy ofbeing monitored and rewarded? Why do you choose yourprofession and who do you want to be? A lot of peoplesay coercion is part of life, so just get used to it. Many notethat the education system is based on coercion. Othersfeel any organization has the right to coerce an individual.

Sometimes in my workshops I say that a complimentfeels good the first time and okay the second time. Then Iask how it feels the third time, and everyone intones,"What do they want from me?" It's not the complimentthat is the problem. It is our habit of giving complimentsto induce others to behave in a certain manner to meet ourown needs, not their needs.

It is not bubble gum itself that is the problem, nor money,nor love and attention. The rewards themselves are in somecases innocuous and in other cases indispensable. Whatconcerns me is the practice of using these things as rewards.To take what people want or need and offer it on a contingentbasis in order to control how they act-this is where the trou-ble lies. (Kohn, 1993)

This is not to suggest that we stop expressing pleasureto others. If a compliment is heartfelt and spontaneous, itdoes not have a dangerous side. Our pleasure may also berevealed non-verbally with a nod or a hug. It is importantto cue people to the impact of their actions on us. Theycan then decide how to behave in relation to us. If ourdelight is genuine and an integrated part of our behavior,our goal is not coercion.

Unfortunately, stimulus-response teaching has urgedus to synthesize and simulate pleasure in order to impactothers and control them. This is particularly true withregard to children. I could pull off my shelf at random adozen books on education and self-help. If they were writ-ten in the last half of the twentieth century, there is a goodchance they will contain sections on positive reinforce-ment. Parents will be encouraged to mete out praise.

Teachers will be exhorted to single out high performers forrecognition. Lovers are encouraged to do acts of serviceto gain their partner's approval. Behavior problems willbe dealt with by rewarding people for being good. Theexamples are endless.

This can also be found in any teen magazine for girls.Such titles as Seventeen urge girls to adopt certain wiles toattract the opposite sex. To be honest, r can rememberhaving similar conversations with my daughters and advis-ing them how to attract someone by giving complimentsand feigning interest in what the other person liked.However, now I would say, "Be the person you want to beand see who loves you." Otherwise, people seeking datespackage themselves to please the object of their affection.As the relationship progresses, their true self will eventu-ally be revealed. When this occurs, their partner will feeldisappointed that the person is not what he or she seemedto be; the relationship fails.

If people are in touch with who they really are, theymay attract fewer people initially, but those they attractwill stay because of the authenticity of the first contact. Ihad a conversation with my niece in which she revealedthat she had gone through a conflict in her junior year asto whether she should be what others wanted her to be orbe herself. She chose the latter and reported that she hadeven more friends and, as a result of being genuine, waschosen class president. Whether we're talking about amarriage, a friendship, or a teacher-student relationship,unless the individual we engage feels free and independ-ent, he or she will gravitate away from us to other settingsthat offer more freedom.

WHAT GIVES US THE RIGHT?

This brings us to reflect on another basic principle.What gives us the right to evaluate another person'sbehavior? Why do we think it is our responsibility? Havewe considered that any evaluation may be disruptive? Ihave noticed that even when I am giving a person a posi-tive observation, my comment disrupts their focus. Asthey continue their task, they now have two things to payattention to-the initial goal and my opinion of their per-formance. They may even be distracted from a creativechoice in order to provide me with more of what I want tosee. This is especially true if I am a significant other or ina position of authority.

I have not even touched on the concept of rewards.Much has been written on this. It is not only the rewardsthemselves that pose a problem, but the fact that we with-hold them to assert influence. I have a saying: We makethe place for them to feel bad. We do this by accustomingthem to a certain level of reward or praise or even encour-agement, then suddenly removing it. My brother opens apresent and smiles and everyone knows he likes it. r opena present, smile and say something about the present that

International Journal of Reality Therapy' Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI, number 2 • 11

~~----~~~. --------------

I like or how I plan to use it. My sister opens a present,and if she doesn't say she loves it three times, we ask herwhat's wrong. She has accustomed us to that level of pos-itive response. How is it in your family? What about thefamily you married into? Is there a difference for men andwomen? Is there a geographic difference') A cultural dif-fercnce?

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

I noticed a big difference between Maine and NorthCarolina when I worked in these states. Positive rein-forcement was not as common in Maine as in NorthCarolina. A Japanese-bern woman who married anAmerican sailor and moved to Seattle told me that themost difficult thing for her to learn was giving compli-ments. She said she felt it was disrespectful to commenton another person's performance but forced herself to doit so they would know their hospitality to her was appreci-ated. Another example is when nine Australians attendedan international conference in Los Angeles. The confer-ence was three days long, so they designated three peopleeach day to give compliments so the hosts would knowthat their efforts were admired. The Australians told methat the need for such reinforcement was necessary inAmerica, but because it would be considered "over thetop" in Australia, they were uncomfortable performingtheir task.

My friend who comes from orwegian Lutheran stockalso provided me with insight. She told me complimentswere very rare in her family because of the emphasis onpersonal humility. She said that when she and her siblingsdid well, it was viewed as doing what was expected.Therefore, there was no need for a comment. However,when a performance was not up to par, they experienced asilence sometimes laced with guilt or disappointment.How was it for you?

My husband's family was Scottish. He never heardcompliments and was not expected to give them. When [married him, I expected lots of positive reinforcementbecause that was how I had been raised. When I didn'thear it, I felt pain. I even felt unloved. When [ hinted forit, I'm sure at least half the time my spouse missed the cue.The other half, he may have felt coerced to do somethingthat was not natural to him. J was only nineteen, I didn'tknow better.

Why do we do what we do? An interesting question.We try to receive input from the world that matches theexpectation we set for ourselves. Different cultural filtersresult in different expectations. In one culture comment-ing on a person is considered ill mannered. In another. thesame behavior is interpreted as concern. In another. suchcommentary is a gauntlet thrown down for a verbal duelchallenging us to marshal our defenses. It is not so muchwhat we say or do but why we say or do it that needs to beexamined to gain self-understanding.

12 • International Journal of Re;.1Iity Ther;1J)Y • Spl'ing 2007 • Vol.XXVI. number 2

WHY DO PEOPLE BEHAVE'?

Every time something is not the way we want it to be,we behave to change it. How do we behave? We act, wethink, we feel, and our body responds. Why do webehave? This is a more difficult question. Do we behavebecause forces in our environment shape us? Sometimeswe seem to behave to avoid pain, but if we didn't careabout safety, we might not notice pain. Why else mightsomeone behave? Well, we seem to behave to get some-thing we want. Do you agree? Do you behave to get asmile, a paycheck, a reward? Why else might a personbehave? James Wilson in The Moral Sense suggests thesethree reasons.

Three Reasons People Behave

Level One - To avoid pain

Level Two - For respect or reward from one another

Level Three - For respect of self

You can identify why each person is behaving by thequestions they ask. It they ask, "What happens it 1 don'tdo it?" they are behaving to avoid pain due to the disrup-tion of a need, physical or psychological. If they ask,"What do [ get if I do it'?" they are behaving to gainapproval or reward from the significant others they haveplaced in their quality world. If they ask, "Who willI be ifI do it?" they are behaving for respect of self, to becomethe person they aspire to be.

Have you ever been in a situation where you deliber-ately did something that actually caused you pain orinterfered with approval or reward from others? Haveyou spoken out in favor of an unpopular cause or defend-ed someone under attack? Why would you do this whenthe result appears to be pain, social censure, or perhapsfinancial loss? Why did you behave this way? What beliefwere you protecting? What kind of person were youbeing? Think about yourself. You are reading this bookright now. Why are you reading it? Are you reading itbecause something unpleasant could happen if you don't?Perhaps you could be called upon to summarize its con-tents. Are you behaving because a significant other hasasked you to read it and you wanted to please that person?Perhaps you will look good if you can quote recent litera-ture. Or are you reading this for yourself? Are youreading to evaluate whether it will be useful in helping youbecome the teacher, parent, friend, or person you want tobecome?

Stop and self-evaluate for a minute. Perhaps yourmotivation for reading this is a combination of all threereasons we behave. It would not be unusual to behave ini-tially to avoid discomfort. then to see how doing it couldhave a payoff. Finally, you could be engaged in qualityunderstanding because you see how an idea can be usefuland exciting to your becoming the person you want to be.

What is your family belief?

What do you believe?

What does it say about you if you do it?

Will it help you to be loving, powerful, free, and play-ful?

Why would you want to do this?

Who are you becoming?

CHANGE THE WAY YOU THINK ABOUT IT!

If you want to change an unpleasant activity for your-self, experiment with shifting your perception. It you go toan event you are dreading, decide in advance if you aregoing to do it to avoid discomfort, to please someone else,or to be the person you want to be-caring, responsible,committed. An onerous social occasion, a bottle drive foryour young child, a visit to a senior citizens' home, orstudying for exams to please your parents can take on newsignificance. If you tie your actions to the approval of anyof the recipients, you will be bereft and at a loss if they donot thank you. If you do it just to avoid pain, you will feelan energy leak manifested as fatigue or resentment. If youdo it to be the person you want to be, you will be energizedand fulfilled. The time expended will be exactly the same.The experience can be significantly different. Only in thefinal position will you gain internal strength.

I had an aunt whom I visited at the old folks' home. Ihad been feeling guilty, telling myself I should go and visither. I went to avoid pain [Level One]. Sometimes I'd gobecause I thought she'd be happy to see me. But she did-n't always recognize me. When I went for her approvaland she didn't recognize me, I felt bereft. I thought, Whydid I make the effort? It doesn't make a difference to her.There's no payoff in it for me! [Level Two]

I intentionally tried to shift my thinking to the thirdlevel. I asked myself. What do we believe in our familyabout taking care of older people? HO\v do I want to betreated when I am this age? What does it say about me ifI care for her? Who will I be if I do it? This is internalmotivation.

By moving myself to the third level, I was able to self-evaluate at the highest level of moral reasoning, and Ialways felt satisfied. I noticed I stopped telling people Iwas going to visit her, as if I had been doing it to avoidtheir censure. If she was asleep, I just sat with her and did-n't feel disappointed because my satisfaction was notdependent on her acceptance of my gesture. I was doingit for myself, to strengthen myself and to grow.

Another example occurred on a night several years agowhen I phoned home and spoke to my spouse. In responseto my asking what he was doing, he answered, "I'm water-ing your plants." He said it in a grudging tone, so I

suspected he was doing it to avoid pain. [Level One] Asweeter tone might have indicated to me that he was doingit to please me. [Level Two] This position might have beenall right for him as long as I expressed appreciation for hisefforts. If I didn't, he would have felt ripped off. That'sthe problem with Level Two, the need for respect orreward from others. At this level feeling good depends onthe other's response. I asked him, "Why don't you do itfor yourself? You like the plants." [Level Three] When Igot home, I asked him one other question: "Did you thinkabout what I said about the plants?" He said, "It wasn't assignificant to me as it was to you." Hmmm.

When I returned home on another occasion, my soncomplained, "Mom, you check the plants even before yousay 'Hi' to me," and he was right! What do you think Ifound when I checked the plants? Dry? No, soaking wet.And when had they been watered? Probably as I wasbeing driven from the airport. And what do you think myson was feeling? Resentment? Fear? Guilt? Probablysome negative feeling because that is the legacy of doingthings from the Level One position. It's remotely possiblehe might have been joyously watering, but based on thedry buds in the pots, I doubt it.

To finish this story, I want to say that after these briefconversations with my family, the plants started to lookbetter. When I came home, they were damp, not wet.When we moved the gardenia tree to the front porch, myspouse said, "Don't put it there; it doesn't like that muchlight." Was he now resonating with them, playing themmusic, talking to them? I doubt it, but I'll bet he felt moresatisfaction as he watered the plants. It took him the sameamount of time but the result was strengthening, ratherthan being an energy leak.

When a friend of mine heard teachings about the threereasons people behave, she realized that she dreaded mak-ing supper. She said she was going into the grocery storeand slamming food into the cart. She knew when there wasa bad feeling, she was doing it to avoid pain. So she saidshe sat in the parking lot before she went into the store andasked herself, Why do I want to make this supper anyway?I could buy it, or I could let everyone make their own. Nextshe thought, I could do this for the family, to please them.Then she thought that if they didn't say thanks, she'd feelunsatisfied because she would be doing it for the reward.Then she asked herself, Why is it important to me for thefamily to have supper together? Why is it important tomake it with my own hands? She answered herself fromher core beliefs. She had heard that a family who alwaysate supper together stayed together, and she had wantedthis picture for herself. Now when she goes to the grocerystore, instead of experiencing anger, she feels with everyitem she puts in her grocery cart that she is being more ofthe wife and mother she wants to be. Instead of her ener-gy being depleted, she is strengthening herself.

International Journal of Reality Therapy. Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI. number 2 ·13

Choose something you are dreading doing in the nextweek-perhaps an onerous social engagement, a demand-ing activity with a child, a clean-up, or a difficultconfrontation. Think about why you are dreading it. Mostlikely you want to avoid pain. This is Level One. Try nowto move yourself to Level Three by reflecting on yourbeliefs. You may find Level Three encompasses LevelTwo. For example, the person I want to be is also a personwho helps others meet their needs. Level Three is not aselfish position. See if you can feel the shift in motivationand energy!

What Do the People in Your Life Say'!

To Avoid Pain.

"What will happen if I don't do it')"

For respect or reward from others.

"What do I get if I do it?"

For Respect from self'.

"Who will I be if I do it?"

Questions to Think About

1. Think of something you were forced to do as a child.How did you feel? What has been the long-termresult?

2. Think of a friend or spouse. Have they tried tocoerce you to do what they want? How did they doit-positive or negative pressure? What was theoutcome for you?

3. Think of something you want to change in anotherperson. What influence are you using-persuasion.silence, disapproval, rewards, consequences? Whydo you do this? Do you have confidence in the innerwisdom of this other person?

4. Think of something you love to do. How did youlearn it? How do you feel when you do it?

RSD IS ROOTED IN ABORIGINAL PRACTICES

Much of what I learned and put into RSD is rooted inaboriginal practices. Independence is encouraged ratherthan conformity. There is a strong group built by the adultsand children through shared beliefs. Elder Bill McLean ofthe Stony People talked about traditional child rearing.He said that when he was in residential school and thesupervisors tried to scare kids into compliance, there werealways some students who would not give in, even if theywere punished, because deep inside they knew it was notthe right thing to do. They were very courageous andstrong in their values at a young age. They could not bebullied or threatened into hurting another person. Theywere behaving to be the people they wanted to be.

i 4 • international Journal oi Reality Therapy' Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI, number 2

-Ernie Phillips, an elder at Salmon Arm, Be came to a

RSD training. He asked to speak. He talked about howhe was hurt as a child when he went to school and how helearned to hate white people. As a man he healed himselfand now is back to his early sense of being connected withall human beings. Many of you reading this have heardsimilar stories. Western discipline based on punishmentdoes not strengthen youth. It shames them and weakenstheir resolve to do the right thing. It alienates them.Punishment is aimed at breaking the group apart, ratherthan using the strength of the group for healing.

People sometimes look at a child, a loved one, a streetperson, or even a politician and say, "He is bad." As webecome more educated, we learn to say, "His behavior isbad," judging not the individual but his acts. Psychologyclasses teach us to separate the person from his behavior,but they never question the wisdom of our judging others.Aboriginal people learn something different. They learnthat it is disrespectful to evaluate others. One can onlygive information about how one feels. They choose not toidentify the source of the problem with the other person,but rather create conditions for that person to be vulnera-ble and to own responsibility for what hurt has happened.If you ask an elder to comment on a community, the worstthing they would ever say is that the people are having ahard time helping each other.

The Principle of Non-Interference

Many a time I have heard an aboriginal person say,"I'm not going back because it doesn't feel good there."They act for themselves, and they are taught that it isundesirable to draw conclusions about another's motives.Sometimes we misread this as indifference when parentsconfronted with their child's behavior say, "It's up to him,"rather than passing judgment. This is the respectful prin-ciple of non-interference with another's behavior.

Justice Rupert Ross. a Canadian judge, was funded totravel Northern Canada for two years to study FirstNations justice practices. He says, "I have come to see tra-ditional child rearing as a three-legged stool, where two ofthe legs-teaching children responsibilities to the groupand developing their personal attributes and skills-madeit possible to allow for a third leg of almost complete inde-pendence to make particular choices." The principle ofnon-interference works well in a stable, respectful societywhere children look around and see adults exemplifyingtheir values. It doesn't work in a society where television isa stronger teacher than the family or where adults are abu-sive. where adults aren't modeling their values. As tribalcommunities are impacted by the dominant society, itbecomes harder to retain these principles. MartinBrokenleg and Larry Brendtro's Reclaiming YouthSeminars do a very good job teaching First Nations beliefsto people who work with troubled youth.

----_.-------

The Concept of Blame

The concept of blame in aboriginal culture differs fromthat of European culture. In the non-aboriginal culture,forgiveness involves a precept that the offender shouldhave been responsible and not done the initial harm.Among native people, because they don't seek to find faultin the first place, there is no need to forgive. Acceptanceof human frailty is a basic premise. A person's offense isviewed as the result of outside forces not always undercontrol. This view is not to promote excuse making or toexcuse the person from responsibility. It is, however, con-sistent with a view of behavior which advocates looking atthe whole person, not just his or her offense. We need tolook at what's going on in the environment and communi-ty. What are the outside influencing factors? Do the youthhave easy access to alcohol? Have the sports facilities beenclosed down? Does this person have family to help them?

Ross gives us these words from the Sandy Lake Bandof North Western Ontario:

Probably one of the most serious gaps in the system is thedifferent perception of wrongdoing and how to treat it. In thenon-native society, committing a crime seems to mean thatthe individual is a bad person and must be punished ....The Indian communities view wrongdoing as a misbehaviorwhich requires teaching or an illness which requires healing.

My friend raised on The Pas Reserve in Manitobahelped me learn this concept. I asked her how she was dis-ciplined as a child. I knew at home they didn't speakEnglish, only Cree. She said what I have heard from otheraboriginal people, "It's hard to find the words in English."When pressed she said, "The direct translation would be,'The right thing, you're not doing it.'" I asked if she meantright as in right or wrong. She said, "No, the right thingmeaning the moral thing, the way of our people." Then Iasked her if the adults told her what to do to fix a mistake.She said, "They never told us. We had to look around andfigure it out for ourselves." I said, "What if your snow-shoes were on backwards? Did they say they were on thewrong way?" She said, "They'd say that they're on back-wards; then we would have to decide what to do." I askedwhat her grandmother would do if she spilled something.My friend said, "She'd just throw me a rag." Then shesaid, "No, if my Kookum thought I could fix it on my own,she would pretend not to notice because it was too embar-rassing for me."

How different, I thought, from how most of us hadbeen raised. Our mistakes would have been pointed out tous maybe with impatience, but more likely with a lightguilt. Our parents and I myself thought it was our duty tocorrect the children in our family. Mistakes were seen asbad. They were not viewed as opportunities to learn andto correct oneself. We thought children had to be made tofix things. We didn't understand that everyone has thedesire to make things right if given a chance.

When I worked for Brandon University in NorthernManitoba at Cross Lake, Island Lake, and Oxford House,I was impressed by the dignity of the five-year-old childrenwho came to school. They had no television at that time.They had little English, and they had been raised in a tra-ditional manner to be independent and to think of theeffect of their actions on others. When I sat in the one-room airport, toddlers were not whining, having tantrumsor banging on the candy machine. They were calm. Theirneeds were met. They observed and they were patient.When in Cross Lake, I observed in ] ennifer Thomas's classas she taught in Cree. The primary children listened andwanted to cooperate with each other. They were very self-disciplined. I started to pay attention and to learn this wayof working with children. Many of the ideas in my bookRestitution: Restructuring School Discipline were learnedthrough these teachings. For example, I included the storyfrom Island Lake of the boy who was independently draw-ing until a teacher from the city inadvertently created adependence by complimenting him. This practice wasunusual in an aboriginal culture. To comment on anotherwas considered disrespectful. When she commented on hispicture, he first looked surprised; then he looked pleasedbecause the teacher smiling at him was an important per-son. The next day he began to watch for the teacher and tohold up his picture for praise. His independence had shift-ed to dependence. Then when he didn't want to draw andshe withdrew her praise, he experienced a loss. He behavedin a variety of ways. Sometimes he started drawing toplease her. Sometimes he scrunched up his paper. Othertimes he put his head down and wouldn't work. Each timehe was looking outside for the teacher's response, ratherthan looking inside for the joy of drawing. In one week hehad gone from an internal to an external focus.

Thinking about this incident, I asked myself What righthave I to evaluate another, either positively or negatively? Isit true that positive comments disrupt a person's locus ofcontrol? I wondered if I have an obligation to comment onothers as a parent, teacher, and counselor. Could compli-ments interfere with another's autonomy? Couldcompliments deprive others of ownership of their achieve-ments? If so, in what way would this happen? How could Igive information and own it as only my perception? Whatgives me the right to comment on others? Would it be calledarrogance to do so or would it be named caring? I toldmyself to think about the long-term results of my comments.

The main cultural difference I observed was that abo-riginal people asked children to look inside to know if theywere doing the right thing. When an elder was asked,"Am I doing the right thing?" she would say, "Look insidevourself and you will know the answer." My culturetaught children to look outside for rewards or to avoidconsequences. Aboriginal values taught independentthinking and self-discipline. When Louis Bear was sent tothe residential school, his grandfather told him, "Never

International Iournal of Real ity Therapy. Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI, number 2 • 15

-----.~---~~~~

forget who you are, and don't let your feelings be a prob-lem to other people." In the schools in which I was raised.children had to be supervised all the time to see if theywere meeting expectations. The teachers were responsi-ble for discipline, and students would behave only whenadults were there to monitor them.

THE RESTITUTION TRIANGLE

The Restitution Triangle process, which you will recog-nize throughout this book, reflects the concepts I observedin aboriginal culture as well as the ideas of control theoryand reality therapy. RSD focuses on using the RestitutionTriangle. On Side 1 of the triangle we stabilize the youth,moving him or her from fear and anger and failure so thatlearning can take place. From brain research we havelearned to focus on safety and learning. We say, ..It's okayto make a mistake. You're not the only one. Your mistakeis a small part of a big life. We want you to be part of ourgroup. We can solve this together. You are not alone. "

Side 2 of the Restitution Triangle embodies the art ofRSD. It is based on the principle that at any momentgiven the context and given the way one is perceiving theworld, a person is doing the best he or she can. There aretwo corollaries to this thesis: (1) the person didn't makethe worst possible choice at the moment, and (2) the per-son could be doing worse. It also follows that if there is aworse option, there may also be a better one. We exploretwo worse options to discover what the person could havedone that would have been either more aggressive or whatthe person could have done that would have been morepassive (usually inaction or not caring). This process willbe covered in detail further on in this book.

Let me share a common example. If a youth is teasedabout his family and he fights back, a worse option for himwould be to not care about protecting his family. Not car-ing is the more passive option he is avoiding. Fighting ishis aggressive choice. What would be more aggressive

would be to fight with us and to not listen. We can ensurethis will happen if we castigate him. However if we ask,"Could you have done worse?" we engage the youth andhe can begin to understand his motivation. We can vali-date his family loyalty and ask him to stick up for himselfwithout violence.

If a child lies or cheats, we consider this a passivebehavior because it involves hiding. a secretive behavior.What worse thing is the child avoiding? Most likely fail-ure and punishment. Could he be doing worse? A morepassive option would be to not care about coming toschool at all. A more aggressive option would be to rip upthe paper and swear at the teacher. The underlyinganswer to "Could you have done worse?" is always "Yes,not meet my needs."

Side 3 of the Restitution Triangle taps into internalideal pictures and shared values. On this side we tell theyouth, "Think about the kind of person you want to be".We also refer to the agreements the group has made.These may be family, class, or team beliefs. It is crucialthat our questions here are asked in a calm tone ratherthan being guilting or confrontational. The goal is for theyouth to tap into his or her moral sense. You may havedone work with your class on character education orvirtues. If this work has been rooted in children's self-reflections, rather than being externally promoted, youhave one of the groundwork pieces of RSD in place. Ifnot, open discussion must be initiated in a non-judgmen-tal, non-persuasive fashion. If you have a solidrelationship with the. person you are helping, you canmove right into Side 3. With my own children I will prob-ably begin here on Side 3, asking about our family beliefsand asking them if they are the kind of people they wantto be and how they can solve their problems. With a guiltychild, I'll go to Side 1 of the triangle to help them under-stand that we all make mistakes and harmony can berestored, With an aggressive person, I always go first toSide 2 to seek to understand their motivation.

The Restitution TriangleNot forno Reason

add to it

Could you havedone worse?

What we believe

Family beliefs

Ideal classroom

Person youwant to be

Be goodfriend toself

Not interestedin fault

WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN.

'0OK to makea mistake

You're notthe only one

1() • lnteruational journal of r,e~lity Therapy > Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI, number 2

Perfection nota humancondition

---_.--_ ..--. -.-.------.--~------- .. ,~ ---------------------

REFERENCESBreudtro. I., Brokenleg. M. & Van Bockern. S. (1990)

Reclaiming Youth At Risk: Our Hope for the Future.Bloomington: National Education Service.

Gossen. D. (1992) Restitution: Restructuring SchoolDiscipline. Chapel Hill: New View.

Gossen, D. (1996) The Restitution Triangle. Saskatoon:Chelsom Consultants.

Kohn. A. (1993) Punished By Rewards, Boston:Houghton-Mifflin. p.4.

Ross. R. (1996) Returning to the Teachings. Toronto:Penguin, p. 84.

Ross, R. (1992) Dancing with a Ghost: Exploring IndianReality. Toronto: Reed.

Wilson, J. (1993) The Moral Sense. New York:Macmillan.

Asking the Restitution Triangle questions of the youthuncovers the other options they have considered and dis-carded. Our questions accomplish five positive ends.First, the child feels a sense of relief as she realizes she did-n't do the worst thing. Second, the child is able torecognize the personal value she was protecting by herbehavior. Third, the child begins to have a sense of hope.Fourth, the child will exhibit absolutely no desire to lie tous. Fifth. the child will spontaneously move toward creat-ing a solution. The final outcome of using the RestitutionTriangle is greater self-understanding for the child and astrengthened relationship with us.

SUMMARY QUESTIONS

I. Do Ibelieve that children are born with goodness inthem?

2. Do I ask them to look inside to find the answers?

3. Do I believe they are doing the best they can to meettheir needs, even at the moment of their misbehav-ior?

4. Am I willing to share my own foibles with those Iguide and teach?

5. Have r helped my students and my own children toidentify their beliefs and to think about who theywant to be and how they want to treat others?

It's All About We:Rethinking Discipline Using Restitution

By Diane Gossen

• Ask yourself, "It is okay to coercesomeone for their own good?"

• Learn how to dialogue with staffabout the difference betweenrequesting compliance and set-ting the stage for creative solution finding.

• Understand Restitution Self Discipline as a restorativeprocess which is a pay forward rather than a payback.

• Use the questions of the Restitution thinking sheetand the Restitution Triangle

• Explore tools to build school and classroomsocial contracts based on family beliefs.

• Decide how to set bottom lines to protect a respectfuland safe learning environment.

• Have fun practicing different conversations to have with youth.If it isn't fun it isn't Restitution I

T·his past decade many educators have had their eyes opened, with regard to the difference between the external discipline of

rewards and consequences and internal belief based disciplinePrograms based on reinforcing good behavior have given way to anemphasis on helping youth become moral people by developing a setof personal values. Many programs have integrated the concept ofmore choice for students. Sometimes this has led to an approachthat is too laissez faire approach. Based on the science of ChoiceTheory and the restorative philosophy of aboriginal people this bookartfully outlines a carefully developed process which will reduce inci-dents of discipline, foster self-directed learning and improve gradescores and be a pleasure for adults to use to help youth. This bookoutlines how we can weave between the monitor of therules and the manager of beliefs.

l.uernatior-nl Journal of Reality Tnerapy » Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2 • 17

Appraising Performance Appraisals: A Critical Look at anExternal Control Management Technique

David R. Law

The uuthor is afacultv member with the William Glasser Institute.He teaches with the Western Quebec School Board in Gatineau. Quebec, CUI/lido

ABSTRACT

Despite the fact that managers in most businesses andpublic institutions have learned and embraced manage-ment principles and techniques consistent with internalcontrol psychology, the vast majority still carry out someform of regular employee performance appraisals. Thisarticle illustrates how performance appraisals are a relic ofexternal-control boss-management, and explains why theperformance appraisal process is generally disliked byboth the appraiser and the employee being appraised. Thegoals and underlying assumptions held by managers andhuman resources personnel are discussed, and some of thecounterproductive aspects of performance appraisals areidentified. Finally, alternatives to performance appraisalsare explored, focusing on workplace relationships andcommunication.

INTRODUCTION

Performance appraisal systems have been a commonelement in the workforce since 1914, when Lord andTavlor Co. instituted a formal performance evaluation sys-te~ in which they started rating their employees annuallyagainst pre-established performance objectives (Markle.2000). Whether they are called performance reviews,annual reviews, performance appraisals, merit ratings.performance ratings, employee ratings, or some other title,these performance appraisal systems have been a staple ofbusiness and public sector management ever since. Sincethe flourishing of the Management-by-Objectives (MBO)movement, performance appraisals have become analmost universal element in management.

In more recent decades, MEO has gradually given wayto more relationship-focused, team-building managementstvles. This more modern approach to management usesconcepts such as "leadership" and "coaching" instead of"bossing" or "managing" (c.f. Glasser, 1994; Scholtes,1998). This movement towards building relationships andestablishing open, two-way communication reflects theideas of internal control psychology. One element of theold-school, external control psychology approach to man-agement persists, however: the continued use ofperformance appraisals. In 1995, William Mercer Inc. sur-veyed 218 companies, and determined that almost allmanazement and technical/knowledge workers receivedannu~ performance evaluations (Markle, 2(00).

18 • lnternarional Journal of Reality Therapy' Sprillg 2007 • Vol.XXVI, number 2

Coens and Jenkins (2002, pp. 13-14) identify five ele-ments common to almost all performance appraisalsystems: 1) the performance, behaviors or traits of individ-uals (not teams, groups, or departments) are rated orjudged by someone else: 2) these ratings/judgments arescheduled (usually annually or quarterly) as opposed tobeing tied to completion of particular tasks or projects: 3)such ratings and judgments are not applied to selectedindividuals, but rather are systematically undertaken withall employees of a particular department or organizationalunit: 4) the process is either strictly mandatory or tied tosome reward system (such as pay raises or promotions); 5)information is recorded and kept in [he employee \. FIe bythe employer.

Why do employers go to considerable effort andexpense to undertake this system of performanceappraisals? In a nutshell, it is because they believe that itincreases productivity and profitability. Companies identi-fy a number of purposes for conducting performanceappraisals. Beyond measuring individual performance,other objectives include: providing feedback to employ-ees: improving individual performance; providingmotivation and recognition: determining pay raises andpromotions: coaching, mentoring and counselling; deter-mining training and development needs: making decisionspertaining to downsizing or layoffs: and finally, to haveproper documentation for legal purposes, such as employ-ee litigation. (Coons and Jenkins, 2002, p. 15).

PROBLEMS WITH PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS

A review of the literature on performance appraisalsfinds it littered with criticisms of the performance apprais-al process. Indeed, it may be more accurate to use theword condemnations rather than criticisms. W. EdwardsDeming identified performance appraisals as one of the"Seven Deadly Diseases" destructive to organizations(Deming, 2000, p. 98), and has called them .... .the 1110stpowerful inhibitor to quality and productivity. in tl~eWestern world" (Kohn, 1999, p. 129). Not one to I11lJ1cehISwords, Deming wrote:

"ln practice, annual ratings are a disease, annihilating long-term planning, demobilizing teamwork, nourishing rivalryand politics, leaving people bitter, crushed, bruised, bat-tered, desolate, despondent, unfit for work for weeks afterreceipt of rating, unable to comprehend why they are inferi-

or, It is unfair, as it ascribes to the people in a group differ-ences that may be caused totally by the system that theywork in." (Deming, 2000, p. 102).

Deming was by no means alone in his condemnation ofthe practice. Appraisals have been said to .•... inspirehatred and distrust among employees ... " (Lee, 2006, p.21). Human resource (HR) professionals, who are respon-sible for the design and implementation of theircompanies' performance appraisal systems, are not muchmore enamored of these systems than the managers whocarry out the appraisals or the employees being appraised:one survey reported that only five percent of HR profes-sionals were "very satisfied" with their own systems(Markle, 2000).

If firms and organizations establish and undertake reg-ular performance appraisals for seemingly worthypurposes, why are they almost universally despised byboth the employee and the manager doing the appraising?According to Scholtes (1998), the range of problems withperformance appraisals is largely due to the fact that per-formance appraisal systems are based on a set of widelyheld, invalid assumptions. Many of these false assumptionsrelate to the process of the evaluations themselves. Forinstance, the following are taken as given: inter-evaluatorconsistency; intra-evaluator consistency; reasonable andachievable work standards; work standards directly rele-vant to the business and its clients; identical workprocesses; stable work systems capable of delivering theexpected results; evaluations lead to improvements in indi-vidual performance; individual performance can beidentified separate from system factors; and the employeehas control over the results. (Scholtes, 1998). Many ofthese assumptions have questionable validity. In manycases, performance appraisals have been instituted prima-rily in an attempt to motivate employees, despite the factthat" ... appraisals were never designed to improve per-formance, only to measure and rate it" (Lee, 2006, p. 19).

One issue relating to performance management in par-ticular raised the ire of W. Edwards Deming. As the earlyproponent of Total Quality Management, Deming advo-cated for the application of statistical control methods inindustry, and an awareness of the interrelated systemsinvolved in any medium or large scale organization.According to Deming, as much as 94 % of the variance inperformance in organizations is due to the systems in placerather than the individual employees. Statistically, half ofthe remaining percentage overperformed, and half under-performed. Deming felt that it was unfair andunproductive to assign credit or blame to individualemployees, unless management could determine whetheran employee's variances were due to personal or systemicreasons: " ... apparent differences between people arisealmost entirely from action of the system that they workin, not from the people themselves" (Deming, 2000,p.l l O). Scholtes (1993) adds that not only do appraisals notaccount for such variability in a system, they can, in fact.

increase the variability.

A similar problem is that performance appraisals donot account for teamwork. In fact, in trying to apportioncredit or blame to individual members of a team, theappraisal process undermines teamwork substantially.Individuals are torn between actions that would benefitthe team and its goals, and actions which might place theemployee in good light for the appraiser. As Scholtespoints out, there is a difference between teams and team-work: "It is relatively easy for a leader to set up teams. Butcreating and sustaining an environment of teamwork isvastly more important and enormously more difficult."(Scholtes, 1998, p. 175). Teamwork depends on relation-ships, and an environment must be established thatcultivates relationships. Performance appraisals have noplace in such an environment.

EVALUATIONS AS EXTERNAL CONTROL

However there is a more fundamental problem inherentto performance appraisals. At the core of the problem withperformance appraisals lies a set of outdated assumptionsabout human nature and motivation. Douglas McGregor'sclassic examination of management theory identified thepredominant assumptions about human nature and motiva-tion held by managers in the 1950's. McGregor labelled thisapproach Theory X, and suggested a more effective alterna-tive which he labelled Theory Y (McGregor, 1960).According to McGregor, Theory X thinking assumed: 1)that the majority of employees held an inherent disdain forwork and would avoid it if possible; 2) as a result of this ten-dency to avoid work, employees must be coerced,controlled, threatened and punished in order to put out areasonable effort; and 3) the average person prefers to bedirected, shuns taking on responsibility, and has little ambi-tion. In contrast to this perspective, McGregor proposedTheory Y. based significantly on Maslow's (1968) hierarchyof needs. Theory Y held that: 1) the average individual doesnot dislike work, and can in fact take much satisfaction fromwork, under the right conditions; 2) there are alternatives tocoercion and the threat of punishment as a means to elicitwork; 3) under proper conditions the average individual willaccept and seek further responsibility; 4) individuals will becommitted to corporate objectives when their job satisfiestheir ego and self-actualization needs; 5) most people arenaturally curious, imaginative and creative; 6) modern (ie:mid 20th century) industrial work greatly underutilized theintellectual potential of the labor force (McGregor, 1960,pp.33-49).

Mctiregor's Theory X and Theory Y managementstyles closely coincide with William Glasser's concepts ofBoss-Management and Lead-Management (Glasser, 1994).According to Glasser, there are four main elements toBoss-Management. A boss-manager: 1) sets the tasks andwork standards with little or no consultation with workers;2) tells how work should be done, rather than showing how;

Intcrnational lournal of Reality Therapv > Spring 2007. Vol,XXVI, number 2. 19

3) directly or through a designate, evaluates the employees'work; and 4) uses coercion in an attempt to have the work-er perform in a manner deemed suitable by the boss(Glasser, 1994, p.ll). In contrast to Boss-Management,Glasser proposed as an alternative an approach he calledLead-Management. which paralleled McGregor's Theoryy. In contrast to Boss-Management, a Lead-Manager: 1)engages workers in a two-way discussion about tasks andwork quality; 2) models explicitly how a job is to be done;3) encourages workers to evaluate themselves the qualityof their own work; and 4) works as a facilitator, providingappropriate training, learning opportunities and an envi-ronment which allows and encourages constantimprovement (Glasser, 1994, pp. 13-14).

The problem at the heart of performance evaluations isthat they represent a form of external control. Indeed, ithas been suggested that the world of work represents ourpredominant external control environment, based on thetheory of rewards and punishment (Wubbolding, 1996).As employees, we dislike performance evaluationsbecause, as human beings, we are hard-wired to resistexternal control. For the most part, managers dislike doingappraisals because they damage their relationships withthe employees. Ironically, there is considerable evidencethat even a positive evaluation can be de-motivating (d.Kohn, 1999; Deci & Ryan, 1985), because it is still per-ceived by the employee as controlling. Additionally,positive feedback in a performance evaluation can end upbeing demoralizing if it is Jess flattering than either a pre-vious appraisal or the appraisal of a co-worker (Coens &Jenkins, 2002, p.i30).

Hooten (1997, p. 53) demonstrated that being facedwith evaluating someone can lead the evaluator to experi-ence such physiological responses as " ... increasedanxietizing, increased heart rate, worrisome thinking, andmild fidgeting." These responses reflect the evaluator's dis-comfort with the external control nature of the evaluationprocess, as evidenced by more comfortable physiologicalresponses when offered an alternative: to conduct an inter-view focusing on the work, goals, effectiveness, and areasfor future improvement. With this conversation-orientedscenario, the interviewer reported a very different physio-logical state: " ... she would feel excited, her body would berelaxed, she would be thinking how pleasant the experi-ence would be ... " (Hooten, 1997, p. 53). This smallexperiment demonstrates that our "gut level" responsesare typically very reliable indicators of attempts at externalcontrol, for both the evaluator and the individual beingevaluated. The stress-inducing nature of external controlmanagement can therefore negatively affect both psycho-logical and physiological health. Kobasa and Pucetti(1983), for example, found that employees of supportive,less-controlling bosses reported fewer illnesses and gener-ally superior overall health than those employees whoworked for a manager with a more controlling orientation.

20 • International journal of Reality Therapy' Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI, number 2

One writer used Eric Berne's concept of ego-states toillustrate the degree to which external control manage-ment limits the development of the employee. Externalcontrol boss-management .... .locks the manager and the.subordinate in a parent-child relationship" (Scholtes,1998, p. 39). In the role of parent, the manager becomesjudging and controlling, while the "child" becomes rebel-lious and spiteful. Using Berne's concepts, it is clear thatthe more appropriate work relationship than Parent-to-Child is that of Adult-to-Adult (Berne, [964). Otherwise,managers run the risk of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy:if management views workers as untrustworthy, then theywill create external control systems, policies and proce-dures, which eventually lead to an alienated,untrustworthy workforce.

The external control elements of performance evalua-tions are myriad. Typically, performance evaluations aremandatory procedures, scheduled by the manager ratherthan the employee. While tbe meetings may vary from sys-tem to system and evaluator to evaluator, they typicallyfollow a [ormat pre-established by management. The eval-uations deal with issues (problems) identified by themanager. and relate to goals or standards largely set by themanager. The manager, or evaluation team, in essence sitsin judgment of the employee, who usually is alone.Typically, the focus is on the employees' past efforts, actionsand decisions. Finally, appraisals are very often tied to deci-sions by management about salary, bonuses, advancement,and layoffs. The discrepancy in power in these situations ispalpable.

Many performance evaluations are tied directly orindirectly to financial rewards, in the form of merit pay,bonuses, or career advancement. This represents the "car-rot" in carrot-and-the-stick external control bossmanagement. The "stick" in such an approach includesreductions in salary, withholding of pay raises, or even ter-mination of employment. Critics of performanceevaluations suggest that this can lead to inter-employeejealousy, hostility and competition. It also reduces the like-lihood of employees developing professional creativity, asemployees get locked-in to focusing on meeting specifiedgoals in the conventional manner. Appraisals linked toreward systems can lead some employees to intentionallycreate "solvable problems" so that senior staff can takenote of the effective manner in which the employees dealwith these situations. They have recognized the irony thateffective management work habits which eliminate prob-lems before they occur often goes unnoticed by seniormanagement. Additionally, some employees or their man-agers will intentionally establish achievable performancegoals in order to ensure a positive appraisal. Thus the exis-tence of appraisal systems might lead to systemic erosionsin performance over time (Nickols, 1997).

it should be noted that typically performance apprais-al systems are expensive to run. Nickols reports that these

ineffective systems frequently cost in the area of $2,000per employee per year. One large corporation conser.va-tivelv estimated the costs of its performance appraisalsvst~m at $100,000,000 annually (Nickols, 1997).

ALTERNATIVES TO PERFORMANCEAPPRAISALS

W. Edwards Deming is considered to have been one ofthe most influential thinkers in the management field, andis revered in Japan as the person most responsible for thephenomenal development of industry in that country fol-lowing World War II. Deming is also perhaps the mostfamous critic of performance appraisals, and advocatedabolishing appraisals as a key step in moving an organiza-tion towards quality. When asked what an organizationshould do in place of performance appraisals. Deming isreported to have replied: "If your performance evaluationsystem does more harm than good, just quit doing it. Youdon't have to have an alternative to make an improve-ment." (Markle, 20(0). Deming's answer reflects a startingpoint for a discussion on alternatives to the current humanresources practice of carrying out performance appraisals.

One of the difficulties managers and bureaucrats havein following Deming's advice is that performance evalua-tions are so entrenched in the administrative mindset thatit is inconceivable to eliminate them. It appears that man-agers, like nature itself, abhor a vacuum. They want toreplace the current system with a new system, becausethey have trouble conceiving in the way Deming did. ofthere simply being no system at all. Instead, many man-agement professionals suggest that the solution is to createbetter appraisal programs, or alternatively to consider theinformation from appraisals within a wider context. alongwith other sources of information (Brinkerhoff & Kanter,19S0). As a result, companies frequently revamp their per-formance appraisal systems. One study revealed that overseventy percent of companies surveyed had eitherchanged their system in the last two years. or intended todo so in the future, and reported that companies oftenrestructure the performance appraisal systems two orthree times a decade (Markle. 20(0). Some companieshave recognized the destructive and non-productivenature of t[leir performance appraisal systems and havestopped the practice. Unfortunately, most of those compa-nies that have decided to give up individual performanceappraisals have replaced them with alternatives that stillreflect external-control psychology. For example. evaluat-ing the performance of work groups or teams rather thanindividual employees (Lawler. llJ94) still represents a top-down, judgmental management style. Negative groupratings not only might dcmotivare individual employees inthe g~'oup, hut 'tlH:r~ is also tilt: possibility that such ratingsmight initiate a pattern of blaming or competition withinthe group_ thus breaking down the sense of teamworkmanagers hoped tu encourage. Similarlv, some have

reverted to the old practice of gift -giving in place of theirevaluation-based merit systems. Reward systems are still aform of external control: and fail to motivate individuals,as research has amply demonstrated (Kohn, 1999).

As far back as 1957, before introducing the concepts ofTheorv X and Theory Y. Douglas McGregor published acritiql{e of performance appraisals, and offered an alterna-tive approach. This essentially involved a paradigm shift,in that McGregor called for self-appraisal by an employee,rather than external evaluation by a superior (McGregor,1957). In essence, McGregor's approach flies in the face ofthe predominant school of psychological thought of thatera. behaviorism, identified first and foremost with B.F.Skinner. Instead, McGregor's thinking reflected an under-lying, nascent internal control psychology, similar toWilliam Glasser's Choice Theory (Glasser, 1998). Forexample, consider the following statement by McGregor:

"Effective development...calls for creating a relationshipWithin which a man can take responsibility for developing hisown potentialities, plan for himself, and learn from puttinghis plan into action. In the process, he can gain a genuinesense of satisfaction, for he is utilizing his own capabilitiesto achieve Simultaneously both his objectives and those ofthe organization." (McGregor, 1957, p. m.

As discussed earlier. both McGregor's Theory Y andGlasser's Lead Management provide a different approachto external control management, offering a substantiallydifferent type of relationship between managers andemployees. The open communication and trusting relation-ship obviates the need for formal performance evaluations.Other writers have proposed management approaches sim-ilar to McGregor's Theory Y and Glasser'sLead-Management. Markle (2000) used the term catalyticcoaching to ~describe a management style which has at itscore a partnership between employee and manager charac-terized by open, two-way communication and a sharedvision of one another as capable, motivated individuals.Similarly, Peters & Waterman (1982) called for the empow-ennen[' of employees by expanding employees'opportunities for self-direction and self-control. Scholtes'1011I1 quality leadership, which is rooted in the ideas of W.Edwards Deming, called for ..... a fundamentally differentview of the relationship between employees and the organ-ization" (J oiner and Scholtes. 1988, p. 4). Scholtes replacedthe notion of management with that of leadership. where-hv, from the top d~)wn, an organization's leaders utilizeopen. two-way communication to develop a shared vision,giving workers a sense of meaning of the work and theirinvol~ement in a significant undertaking (Scholtes, 1l)98, p.172). Block (L9L)]) proposed the term stewardship todescribe a form of management that involved a redistribu-tion of purpose, power and privilege in the workplace.Fundamental to this approach is the idea that managerssurrender the need to control: in place of external controlwould he an atmosphere which encourages and facilitatesself-management on the part of the employees.

It should be noted that the internal control managementapproaches identified above do not constitute an abdicationof managerial responsibility. Some managers. in trying toavoid external control boss-management, carry out what iscalled Laissez-faire management. Described byWubbolding (1996, pp. 18-19) as "Management byWithdrawal," this type of manager delegates authority,responsibility, and the setting of standards to subordinates,in an effort to fit in and be popular. In the absence of thekind of open, two-way communication described above, thismanagement style is doomed to fail with anything but themost motivated workforce or team. In contrast, participato-ry management (or "lead management", or "democraticmanagement") involves collaboration between managerand employee, with joint goal-setting, open but non-criticalconversation, and a supportive environment which encour-ages self-evaluation on the part of the employee.

Kahn (1999) offered some suggestions to consider inplace of performance appraisals if the goal of managementis to foster improvement. He suggested that what is calledfor is a continuous process of two-way conversationbetween manager and employee which involves a changeof ideas rather than judgments, and which is devoid of ele-ments of ranking, competition and compensation (Kohn,1999, p. 185). Kahn was particularly emphatic about sever-ing any link between appraisals and compensation,arguing that such reward systems tend to decrease intrin-sic motivation and diminish the notion of a task havingmeaning on its own merit. In a similar vein, Deci and Ryan(1985) persuasively argued that the extrinsic nature of anyreward system will inhibit intrinsic motivation. Kohn alsoadvocated that management needs to create the properconditions to encourage workers' natural intrinsic motiva-tion, suggesting:

" ... a manager committed to making sure that people are ableand willing to do their best needs to attend to three funda-mental factors. These can be abbreviated as the 'three C's'of motivation - to wit, the collaboration that defines the con-text of work, the content of the tasks, and the extent to wh ichpeople have some choice about what they do and how theydo it." (Kohn, 1999, p. 187).

It is noteworthy that Kahn's "three Cs' closely associ-ate with three of Glasser's five Basic Needs as set out inChoice Theory (Glasser, 1998). Kohn's collaborationwhich is so elemental to the nature of work reflects whatGlasser called the Need for Belonging. The contentreferred to by Kohn directly relates to Glasser's Need forPower. Glasser (1998) pointed out that meaningful workwas one common way of fulfilling this need. Kohn musedon what made for a good job, and offered this: "Let usstart by aiming high: at its best, it offers a chance to engagein meaningful work ... It isn't just that the process of work-ing provides enjoyment, but that the product being made(or the service provided) seems worthwhile and evenimportant, perhaps because it makes a contribution to alarger community." (Kohn, 1999, p. 189). Finally, when

22 • lnternational Journal of Reality Therapy • Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2

Kohn speaks of choice as a fundamental factor in theestablishment of conditions for intrinsic motivation, wecan see elements of Glasser's eed for Freedom: "We aremost likely to become enthusiastic about what we aredoing - and all else being equal, to do it well- when we arefree to make decisions about the way we carry out a task"(Kohn, 1999, p. 193). Thus, when American workers weresurveyed about the best way to motivate employees, theyselected neither pay nor recognition as the optimal moti-vator. Rather, the number one choice of responses was:"Let me do more to put my ideas into action" (Coens &Jenkins, 2002, p. 184).

Glasser's more recent writings have focused on theparamount significance of relationships to human happi-ness (Glasser, 1998). Rath reinforces this notion as itapplies to the workplace. Rath studied the admittedlyunusual (and often policy-violating) situations whereemployees reported being true friends with their manageror superior. He reports that workplace friendshipsbetween managers and employees offer a multitude ofbenefits to the organization. Such environments are char-acterized by increases in: job satisfaction, productivity,innovation, employee retention, and support for col-leagues (Rath, 2006), none of which would come as anysurprise to Glasser or any other internal control theorists.It would seem that these side-benefits would lead organi-zations to try and create working environments that fostersuch relationships, if for no reason other than the profitmotive. Yet, such relationships are difficult to developwhen the manager is expected to conduct the most acute-ly-experienced external control element common in theworkplace: the performance appraisal.

Glasser suggested that if a company remains commit-ted to some kind of annual meeting between employeeand manager, then this should take the form of a solvingcircle. This represents an application of his marriage andfamily solving circles to the workplace. Within this compa-ny solving circle, the manager and employee would shareideas about how they might collaboratively improve thecompany. Such an approach avoids any destructive patternof judging, blaming or criticizing by focusing on what canbe done in the future, rather than what has happened inthe past. Glasser suggested that a manager might initiatesuch a solving circle discussion in this manner:

"I'd like you to tell me what you think you might do toimprove things around here and what you think I might do tohelp. It's not important that we come up with somethinggreat, but this is the time for us to level with each other andtalk about what you want and how I might help. It's not thetime for each of us to talk about what anyone else is doing,that we can talk about at our monthly meetings" (Glasser,1998, p, 303).

By focusing on future improvement rather than pastperformance issues, the company solving circle approach ~helps the manager and employee develop and maintain a

strong, trusting relationship. It eliminates the atmosphereof fear that pervades organizations which use traditionalperformance appraisals. According to Glasser, the coreidea embedded in Deming's advocacy for striving towardquality is to "Drive out Fear" (Glasser, 1998, p. 284).Organizations characterized by even a moderate amountof fear prevent employees from putting work in their qual-ity worlds. As a result, the quality of the organizations'products and services suffers.

Csikszentmihalyi's writings focused on exploring whathe termed flow: periods of optimal experience in everydaylife. One's experiences flow" ... when a person's skills arefully involved in overcoming a challenge that is just aboutmanageable ... when high challenges are matched with highskills, then the deep involvement that sets flow apart fromordinary life is likely to occur" (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p.30). Csikszentrnihalyi (1990) described what he called"the paradox of work": work typically provides most peo-ple with the most opportunities for experiencing flow, butmost people would prefer to give up work for leisure time,which rarely involves flow. Csikszentmihalyi (1997)focused on explaining how individuals can learn to leadmore fulfilling lives in assorted situations, including work.Managers can extend his concepts, however, and attemptto create jobs and work environments which naturally setconditions conducive to flow. These include: a) assigningtasks which challenge the employees' skills but are achiev-able; b) establishing clearly stated goals and objectives: c)providing sufficient information to allow the employees toimmediately know that they are successful: and d) allowsome freedom of choice and variety (Csikszentmihalyi,1990, p. 152). A key condition for flow is the optimumlevel of challenge in the work: work which is easily accom-plished provides little sense of meaning and becomesboring, while work that is overly difficult ends up frustrat-ing the employee. Therefore, as an employee's skillsimprove over time, assigned tasks will need to be madeincreasingly more challenging. Matching the skill set of theemployee to that required on the job will therefore requireregular, honest communication between subordinate andmanager. Relying on annual or even quarterly appraisalswill not suffice. Rather, it would appear that managing tocreate optimal experiences in the workplace requires fre-quent, non-threatening communication in the workplace.The fact that such communication leads to more valuedrelationshi.ps as well makes this doubly valuable.

Christopher Lee offered an approach he calledPerformance Conversations" as an alternative toappraisals. Recognizing that there are a number of mod-ern approaches to management which all reflect a turntowards internal control psychology, Lee advised:

"Regardless of what model we use, simple dialogue - two-way communication - is the indispensable criterion uponwhich work relationships ",ill be built and thrive.Communication, cooperation, and collaboration shouldbecome buzzwords that help. to define new generations ofemployee-manager relationships." (Lee, 2006, p: 224) ...:

Under this approach, Lee suggested that .it is theresponsibility of both manager and employee to maintaindialogue, seek solutions to challenges, arid trust each.other. At the heart of this relationship should be ongoing,open, and honest solution-focused conversations. Lee(2006) proposed that such a system of communicationcould use a set of record-keeping performance logs. Theseare intended to keep all parties on a track of open commu-nication, and, unlike management-recorded performanceappraisals. both employee and manager are expected torecord information to be shared with each other. Underthis kind of management style, the employee is much morelikely to find work to be a needs-satisfying place. Glasser(1998) proposed that we all have five basic psychologicalneeds: Power, Belonging, Fun, Freedom and Survival.Employees who work in such an environment feel a senseof ownership for their work (Power) and can develop agood relationship with coworkers and managers(Belonging). Such a work atmosphere is likely to be lessstressful (Survival) and open to flexibility (Freedom) andcreativity (Fun). As a result, employees and managementare much more likely to put their workplace and its peopleinto what Glasser called their Quality World. Glasser hassuggested that:

",. .it is more how the worker is managed than the work itselfthat determines whether the worker will do the quality worknecessary for a company to be productive. A company shouldbase all decisions on how well each decision has a chance topersuade and then to maintain (1) the company, (2) the man-agers, (3) the products and services, and (4) the customers inthe workers' quality worlds". (Glasser, 1994, p. 79.)

Perhaps the failure of most companies and organiza-tions to create such a need-fulfilling environment explainsthe "paradox of work" identified by Csikszentmihalyi(1990): despite the fact that work offers opportunities forflow experiences, the employees would rather be away fromwork because they have not placed work in the qualityworld. Indeed, if the work environment could be of a natureenvisioned by Glasser, McGregor, Scholtes, Lee and otherinternal control oriented thinkers, then the optimal psycho-logical experiences which Csikszentmihalyi has labelled asflow would be even more common. No doubt the quality ofthe workers' lives would be measurably improved.

.;. ~

QUALITY COMMUNICATION

How can a manager create the kind of conversationsand environment which lead to the employees placingwork inside their quality worlds? One approach is thatproposed by Wubbolding (1996). The essence of

International [ourna] oi Reality Therapy. Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2 • 23

Wubboldings approach is that it applies the core elementsof Glasser's Reality Therapy (Glasser. 1965) to the interac-tion between manager and employee. Wubboldingsuggests that the manager use the WDEP system: help theworker explore their Wants, identify what they have beenDoing. then Evaluate the effectiveness of their choices,and finally Plan a more need-fulfilling course of action(Wubbolding, 1996. pp. 26-35). He also offers guidancerelating to the nature of the communications managersshould use with workers. In particular. there are certainelements to be avoided: Arguing, Belittling, Criticizing,Demeaning, Excusing, instilling Fear, and Giving up easi-ly (Wubbolding, 1996, pp. 40-41).

Additionally, I propose that a manager keep in mindwhat Glasser (2002, p.l3) called the seven deadly habitswhich destroy relationships: Criticism, Blaming.Complaining, Nagging, Punishing, Threatening, andRewarding to Control. In place of these classical internalcontrol habits, Glasser proposed seven connecting habitswhich build strong need-fulfilling relationships. These are:Caring, Trusting, Listening, Supporting, Negotiating,Befriending and Encouraging (Glasser, 2002. p. 14). Ifboth manager and employee embrace these elements intheir work relationships, then they are well on their way toestablishing a true internal control work environment. Insuch an environment, quality, as envisaged by Deming(2000) and called for by Glasser (1994), naturally ensues.When we think about the nature of performanceappraisals, it is clear that they much more closely repre-sent the seven deadly habits than the seven connectinghabits.

In a recent article in this journal, Pamela Fox provideda clear example of the kind of communication exemplifiedin internal control management:

"I constantly said 'Everyone sees things differently. Is therea better way to do this? What are you seeing around theplace? What are our cl ients saying?' ... 1learned to say that weweren't looking for fault; we were looking for a better way todo things. 'Everyone sees things differently. Tell me what yousee. What would make it easier to do a better job?' And thenI would add, 'Here is what I see and why I think it is impor-tant to the business. What do you think of that?" (Fox,2006, p. 14).

Fox emphasizes that such conversations between man-agers and employees allow the individuals to developshared perceptions, and set new references. In this light,personnel issues are seen as nothing more than informa-tion, thereby providing the manager with the ..... theopportunity to control more effectively for the referencesof cooperation and coordination that define the work ofmanagement" (Fox. 2006, p. 1S). This is the kind of COIll-

munication Stephen Covey referred to as one of the sevenhabits of effective leadership: seek first to understand. andthen to be understood (Covey, 1991). As modeled by Fox

(2006). above, internal control conversations clarify workers' expectations and allow manager and employee tejointly set the work objectives. With such shared perceptions, we move closer to what Rakowski (2006) caller..... the perfect performance world: working people knowfrom day to day how the people to whom they report viewtheir performance." There are no surprises with theseongoing, day-to-day communications, so the deleteriouspsychological impact of an unexpected negative appraisalwilt not take place.

If we accept that a primary goal of management is toimprove future performance, then the communicationsbetween manager and employee must avoid affixingblame. Instead of a past-orientation, the conversationsshould focus on the present and particularly the future, bycooperatively exploring how to remove existing barriers toperformance and create conditions for future perform-ance. Quality is improved when we improve processes,not by increased inspection (Joiner & Scholtes, 19~8). Aswe have discussed earlier, these improved processes andconditions for success will have to reflect the psychologicalneeds of the worker. With this in mind, it becomes clearthat there is no room for performance appraisals in today'smodern, internal control oriented organization.

CONCLUSION

The nature of management and employer-employeerelationship has changed in recent decades, and now moreclosely reflects the principles of internal control psycholo-gy. Vestiges of external control boss-management are stillin evidence, however. Chief among those is the continuedreliance in many organizations of performance appraisal.systems, as well as their affiliated reward systems.Appraisal systems are both ineffective and inefficient.These performance appraisals are ineffective in that theydo not measure performance, primarily because they failto take into account the system factors which account formost of variation within an organization. They are ineffi-cient in that they erode interpersonal relationships,teamwork, creativity and motivation. Organizations whichundertake performance appraisals fail to recognize thatmotivation comes from within the individual - it is notexternally implanted. Organizations can create an atmos-phere conducive to internal motivation, however. Such aworkplace is characterized by ongoing, open two-waycommunication between management and employeeswhich focuses on future achievement rather than past fail-ures. Workers need to know that they are trusted, that ,their work is meaningful, and that their input is valued. ,i

With this ill mind, it becomes clear that there is no roomifor performance appraisals in toduys modern, internal 'jcontrol oriented organization.

---- - -----------------~

REFERENCESBerne, E. (1964). Games People PI{/}!. New York: Grove

Press. .

Block, P. (1993) Stewardship: Choosing Service OverSelf-In teres f. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Brinkerhoff, D ...& Kanter, R. (1980). Appraising the per-formance of performance appraisal. SloanManagement Review. 21 (3),3-16.

Cocns, T & Jenkins, M. (2002). Abolishing PerformanceAppraisals. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Covey. S. (1991). Principle-Centered Leadership. NewYork: Simon and Schuster.

Csikszentrnihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology ofOptimal Experience. New York: HarperPerennial.

Csikszcntmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding ns«. New York:Basic Books.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation andSelf-Determination in Human Behavior. New York:Plenum Press.

Deming, WE. (1984). The New Economics. Cambridge,MA.: MIT Press.

Deming, WE. (2000). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA:M.LT Center for Advanced Educational Services.

Fox, P (2006). Reflections from Villa Nirvana: PCT inbusiness and management practices. InternationalJournal of Reality Therapy, 25(2), 9-15.

Glasser, W (1965). Reality Therapy. New York: Harper &Row.

Glasser, W (1994). The Control Theory Manager. NewYork: HarperCollins.

Glasser, W (1998). Choice Th em' v. New York:HarperCoIlins. -

Glasser, W (2002). Unhappy Teenagers. New York:HarperCollins. -

Hooten, D.A. (1997). Lead management vs. boss man-agement in employee evaluation. internationalJournal of"Reality Therapy, 17(1),53-54.

Joiner, B.L., & Scholtes, ER. (1988). Towl QualityLeadership vs. Management by Control. Madison,WI: Joiner Associates Inc.

Kobasa, S.CO., & Pucetti, M.Y. (1983). Personality andSOCialresources in stress resistance. journal of"Personality and Social Psychology. 45,839-850.

Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by Rewards. New York:Hough ton-Mifflin.

Lawler. E.E. (llJ94). Performance management: The nextgeneration. Compensation and Benefits Review26(3).16-19. .'

Lee, CD. (2006). Performance Conversations. Tucson.AZ: Fenestra Books.

Markle, G.L. (2000). Catalytic Coaching: the End of"thePerformance Review. Portsmouth, NH: QuorumBooks.

Maslow, A.H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being.New York: Van Nostrand.

McGregor, D. (1957). An uneasy look at performanceappraisals. Harvard Business Review, 35(3),89-94.

McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise.New York: McGraw-HilI.

Nickols, F. (1997). Don't redesign your company's per-formance appraisal system, scrap it! CorporateUniversity Review, 5(3), 54-59.

Peters, T, & Waterman, R. H. Jr. (1982). In Search ofExcellence. New York: HarperCollins.

Rakowski, R.J. (Accessed online. May 1, 20(6).Workplace Issues.www.suitel01.com/article.cfm/workplace _issuesl1 0232411

Rath, T. (2006). Vital Friends: The People You Can'tAfford to Live Without. Princeton, NJ: Gallup Press.

Scholtes, P.R. (1993). Total quality or performanceappraisal: Choose one. National Productivity Review12(3), 349-364. -'

Scholtes, P.R. (1998). The Leader's Handbook. NewYork: McGraw-HilI.

Wubbolding, R. (1996). Employee Motivation. Knoxville,TN: SPC Press.

The author may be contacted at davidr/[email protected].

lntern.itiona] loumnl oi Reality Therapy' Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2 • 25

-----_.-----

Defining the 14 Habits

Zachary Rapport

The author is assistant professor at Lincoln University

ABSTRACTIn Glasser's published writings on Choice Theory, no

precise definitions are offered for the seven deadly habitsor the seven connecting habits. This paper offers defini-tions for all fourteen habits and information on the originsof each word.

In the book, Unhappy Teenagers (2002), Dr. WilliamGlasser lists seven habits that have a negative effect on ourrelationships with other people: Criticizing, complaining,threatening, blaming. nagging, punishing, and rewardingto control/bribing.

In the same book, Dr. Glasser also lists seven habitsthat have a positive effect on our relationships with otherpeople: Caring, trusting, listening, supporting, befriending,encouraging, and negotiating.

HABITS AND DEFINITIONS

According to Glasser (2002), " ...success in any endeav-or is directly proportional to how well the people who areinvolved in it get along with each other." (p.2l)

The more we get along, the more we achieve success.

To get along with people, stop using the seven deadlyhabits and start using the seven connecting habits.

To efficiently achieve the above, the first step is to fullyunderstand the definition for each habit. When you fullyunderstand each habit, you can identify each one, distin-guish one habit from another habit, and betterself-evaluate the extent to which the habit is helping youmaintain good human relationships.

Glasser's published writings do not contain definitionsfor each habit. The purpose of this article, then, is to offerdefinitions for each habit.

I COMMENTS, •••••• c,c@

CriticizingJudging someone or something as bad andcommunicating that judgment.

The word critic comes from the Greek word krites. It means, "judge".

ComplainingTo feel dissatisfied or frustrated with some-one or something and communicating thosefeelings.

The word complain comes from the Latin word complangere. Commeans, "very much". Plangere means, "to hit the chest". To hit the chestvery much gives us a good image of someone who is complaining.

ThreateningAttempting to force someone to do or notdo something by communicating that anundesirable result will occur unless the per-son complies.

The word threaten comes from the Old English word threatnian. Itmeans, "to force".

BlamingCommunicating that someone has causedsomething undesirable to happen or nothappen.

The word blame comes from the Old French word blasmer. It means, "toaccuse". The word blasmer comes from the Latin word blasphernare. Itmeans, "to speak badly of".

NaggingRepeatedly criticizing, complaining, threat-ening, or blaming.

The word nag comes from the Old Norse word gnaga. It means, "to eatat bit by bit".

PunishingTmposing a disadvantage on another. The word punisii comes from the Latin word punier.

Rewarding to ControlfBribingAttempting to induce someone to do or notdo something in exchange for somethingdesirable.

During the 14th Century in France. a bribe was alms (charity) given to abeggar. A century or so later in England (because Beggars starteddemanding alms), the word came to mean. ··to extort or steal". Later, theword came to mean. "a voluntary inducement to get someone to dosomething for the giver".

~

26 • International journal of Reality Therapy' Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2

HABITS AND DEFINITIONS'!WI!IIII••••••

COMMENTS"fI!IIIIIlP!I!!I

CaringHaving and communicating a genuine inter-est in another or concern for another.

The word care comes from the Old English word caru.It means, "trouble".

TrustingHaving and communicating confidence inanother.

The word {rust comes from the Old Norse word traust.It means, "help".

ListeningPlacing and holding your attention on some-one's communications.

The word listen comes from the Old English word hlysnan.

SupportingSaying and doing things that help anotherachieve a goal, maintain or improve a stateof mind.

The word support comes from the Old French word supporter. It means,"to bring to". Supporter comes from sub and portare. Sub means,"under". Portare means, "to carry".

BefriendingBehaving as a friend to someone.

EncouragingInspiring courage and hope.

The word be comes from Old English. It means, "about," "near," "by".The word friend comes from the Old English word freond.

The word encourage comes from the Old English word encoragier. Itmeans, "to give courage to".

NegotiatingMeeting with someone to discuss an issueand reach an agreement.

The word negotiate comes from the Latin word negotium. Neg means,"not". Otium means, "ease". Not at ease. One may feel not at ease whilediscussing a disagreement.

REFERENCESGlasser, W. (1998). Choice Theory: A new psychology of

personal freedom. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Glasser, W. (2002). Unhappy teenagers: A way for parents

and teachers to reach them. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Hendrickson, R. (2004). The facts on file encyclopedia ofword and phrase origins (3rd ed.). New York, NY:Checkmark Books.

The Heron Derivation Dictionary (4th ed.) Sheridan, OR:Heron Books.

Webster~' I1 new riverside dictionary (rev. ed.). (1996)Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

The author may be reached [email protected]

lntemational journal of Reality Therapy. Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2 • 27

: .... BASIC NEEDS - A RETROSPECTIVE

Larry Litwack

The author: asenior /aL:1I11r nu-mberin WCI.l.\' emeritus i;ro/i!ssor o/Collnselillg and Applied Educational Psychology at. N()"lhel/.~'Iern University. and has edited the IlIlel'l1atiOllLl1 JOllrl/a/ of Reality Therapy since 198 I.

ABSTRACTA brief analysis of the concept of basic needs as dis-

cussed by a number of individuals.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English. Language defines a need as 1) a condition or situation inwhich something necessary or desirable is required orwanted. 2) a wish for something that is lacking or desired.Human needs have been described in may ways over theyears by a number of different individuals.' Perhaps a goodplace to start is with the comment by Stendhal in LeRouge et Ie Noir in 1830. He stated: .

"There is no such thing as 'natural law': this expression isnothing but all nonsense. Prior to laws, what is natural is onlythe strength of the lion, or the need of the creature sufferingfrom hunger or cold, in short, need"

Generally, what seems to be the case when reviewingthe literature is that the term basic needs typically refers tot~e need that human beings have for food, shelter, clothing,air, ~nd water - in other words, the basic needs for physicalsurvival. However, several individuals have broadened theconcept of basic needs beyond the survival leveL

The individual that seems to be the most widelyaccepted originator of the concept of basic needs beyondJust the survival level is Abraham Maslow. In 1954,Maslow developed what he called a Hierarchy of HumanNeeds. He believed that these needs were instinctual orinnate. Maslow assumed that needs are arranged in a hier-archy in terms of their potency or strength. Although allneeds are instinctive, he felt that some were more power-ful than others. Maslow arranged his needs in the shape orform of a pyramid.

The lower the need in the pyramid, the more powerfulit is. The higher the need is in the pyramid, the weaker andmore distinctly human it is. The lower, of basic, needs ofthe pyramid are similar to those possessed by non-humananimals, but only humans possess the higher needs.

The first four layers of the pyramid are what Maslowcalled "deficiency" needs or "Dvneeds": individuals do notfeel anything if they are met, but feel anxious if they arenot met. Needs beyond the deficiency needs are "growthneeds", "being values", or "Bvneeds." When fulfilled, theydo not go away; rather they motivate further.

The base of the pyramid is formed by the physiological

28 • International Journal of Reality Therapy > Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI, number 2

--- ~--~~--.--~~ _. ---_ .. -.

needs, including the biological requirements for foodwater, air, and sleep. The second level is the need for safe-ty and security, including the needs for structure, order,security, and predictability. The third level is the need forlove and belonging, including the needs for friends andcompanions, family, identification with a group, and anintimate relationship.

The fourth level contains the esteem needs. This grouprequires both recognition from other people that results infeelings of prestige, acceptance, and status, and self-esteem that results in feelings of adequacy, competence,and confidence. Finally, self-actualization sits at the apexof the original pyramid. Maslow's original theory ofhuman needs builds on the earlier work of Henry Murrayin 1938.

In .1970, ~aslow published a revision of his originalpyramid, adding the cognitive and aesthetic needs at thetop of the pyramid. In some of his later writings, he alsoproposed the concept of spirituality at the apex of thepyramid.

. Some years after Maslow's original description of hisHIerarchy of Human Needs, William Glasser in 1965described his belief in two basic needs. These' were th~need to love and be loved, and the need to feel we areworthwhile to ourselves and to others. These would seemto be the equivalent of Maslow's third and fourth levels.

By 1981, Glasser's thinking had broadened. He statedthat" I have come to believe that I am driven by five needsthat together make up the forces that drive me. There maybe other needs, but these are the ones I find in my head."The ones he identified were basic needs of survival loveand belonging, power or recognition (originally ~alledworth and recognition), freedom, and fun. The first fourseem to parallel the original pyramid of Maslow. One keydifference was that Glasser believed that all needs were ofequal strength rather than a hierarchy.

Whereas Maslow believed that the needs he identifiedwere intrinsic or innate, Glasser believed that the basicneeds he identified were genetic. Whether or not they arecontained in human genes is a matter of opinion. Until sci-entists complete the mapping of the human genome, itremains a topic for discussion.

There were others who also discussed the concept of

needs as a driving force in human behavior. Building onthe earlier work of Alfred Adler. Rudolf Dreikursbelieved that the primary driving force for humans was theneed to belong. He stated that humans frequently dis-played mistaken goals based on this basic human need.These he identified as needs for power, attention, revenge,and avoidance of failure.

In 1989, Brent Dennis, reality therapy certified, in theSpring issue of the Journal of Reality Therapy, posited theexistence of a fifth psychological need - that of Faith. Hestated

"Faith is. in fact. the fifth learned psychological need: itcould not be otherwise. Faith is considered as the overarch-ing human psychological need that affects how we choose tomeet our other four learned needs of Belonging. Power. Fun.and Freedom."

He goes on further to quote Lumpkin and Green whostated

"In addition to our basic needs for survival and procreation,our psychological needs we are picturing include ...#5. Needfor some power higher than ourself -God!"

Glasser responded in the Fall 1989 issue of the Journalby concluding

"It is of interest to postulate that there are. in addition to thefive needs that most of us accept. other basic needs. forexample. that the need for God or religious belief is built intoour DNA as Brent Dennis argues. Some will believe this,some will not. but there is no possible way to resolve an argu-ment about belief. Even if there was a way to musteroverwhelming evidence against Brent Dennis' argument. thiswould not prove him wrong or negate anyone's belief inGod Whatever the needs may be and whether we knowwhat they are or not, this will in no way change what is realto each of us which always includes all the pictures that any-one chooses to place in his or her internal or all-we-wantworld."

In May 1999. I arranged a National Conference onInternal Control Psychology co-sponsored byNortheastern University and the LABBB CollaborativePrograms (the LABBB program was the second identifiedQuality School). Speakers included William Glasser,Albert Ellis, William Powers, and Alfie Kohn. The talksby Glasser, Ellis, and Powers can be found in the Fall 1999issue of the International Journal of Reality Therapy

(Vol 19, No.1)

As part of his presentation, Albert Ellis directly com-mented on a number of similarities and differencebetween RT and REBT. Regarding our discussion of basicneeds, he stated:

"We have strong innate and learned desires or preferencesfor survival, love and belonging. power. freedom. and fun.But when we self-defeatingly insist. demand. and commandthat we absolutely must survive. must beloved by others.must have power over people, must be free. and must havefun. then we choose to make our desires and preferences

into dire necessities and thereby defeat ourselves."

Reac.lers are encouraged to read the complete presen-tation in which Ellis comments specifically on similaritiesand differences between Rational Emotive BehaviorTherapy and Reality Therapy.

More recently, Ervin Staub and Laurie Pearlman, ofthe Trauma, Research, Education and Training Institute,discussed on the Internet the idea of needs. They stated

"Human beings possess fundamental. shared, universalneeds. We are talking here not about physical needs. like theneed for food. but psychological needs. These needs must befulfilled to some degree for us to be able to function reason-ably well in the world. for our well being and continuedgrowth ....

Human beings have basic needs for:

1. security or safety

2. effectiveness and control

3. positive identity and self-esteem

4. positive connection and esteem for and trust in oth-ers

5. autonomy and self-trust

6. comprehension of reality or world view

People also have an "advanced" basic need for (7) spir-ituality, including transcendence of the self.

1. The first one is the need for security. We need physi-cal safety to survive and security becomes apsychological need. We define it as the need to knowor believe that we will be free from physical and psy-chological harm (physical attacks on our body, andattacks on our self-respect and dignity) and that wewill be able to satisfy our essential biological needs(for food, etc.) and our need for shelter. We alsoneed to feel that those we love are safe. Safety orsecurity is the most basic of psychological needs.

2. The need for effectiveness and control is anotherbasic human need. Its fulfillment leads to the beliefthat we have the capacity to protect ourselves fromharm and to fulfill our important goals. We also needto know that we can control our behavior towardothers. As adults, self-control gives us confidencethat we can lead purposeful lives and have the poten-tial to influence our community and the world.

3. Another basic need is for a positive identity and self-esteem. The fulfillment of this need requires us todevelop and maintain a positive view or image ofourselves. A positive identity requires self-awarenessand an acceptance of ourselves, including our limita-tions. It requires experience and learning about theworld and ourselves in the world. This provides uswith faith in our ability to become who we want tobe.

International journal of Reality Therapy • Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2 • 29

4. We also have a basic need for positive connectionand esteem for others. This is a need to have closerelationships to individuals and groups: intimatefriendships, family ties, and relationships to commu-nities.

5. Independence or autonomy and self-trust is anotherbasic need. It refers to the ability to make one's owndecisions, one's own choices, to be not only connect-ed but also separate. It means trusting one's ownjudgment and perceptions.

6. Another basic need is for comprehension of realityor a world view. This is a need to understand peopleand the world (what they are like, how they operate,why people do what they do, why things happen asthey do). It is the basis for understanding our placein the scheme of things. Our view of people helps usmake sense of the world and of our relationships topeople, places, institutions and life as a whole. Ourcomprehension of reality can help us create meaningin our lives. It can help us fit into the world and tohave a vision of how we want to live life, our valuesand morals.

7. Finally, we have a need for spirituality, includingtranscendence of the self. This is a need to connectwith something beyond the self. This need becomesespecially important in later life, but the groundworkfor its satisfaction is laid all through life. We can ful-fill it through spiritual experiences or connection toGod or other spiritual entities. We can fulfill ourneed for spirituality through the experience of con-nection with nature. We can fulfill it by creatinghigher, more universal meaning in our lives. We canalso fulfill it by devoting ourselves to the welfare ofpeople, either by directly helping people or by work-ing for social change.

CONCLUSION

As we review the literature relating to the concept ofneeds, there seem to be several conclusions that can bedrawn.

1. Although a number of individuals have discussed theconcept of human needs, there seems to be littlecross-referencing or acknowledgment of the work ofothers. If we accept the work of Maslow as perhaps abaseline, it seems that all who came afterwardseither restated or reworked his seminal ideas.

2. Whether needs are intrinsic, innate, or genetic maybe irrelevant. The most important fact may be thatthe behavior of human beings is designed to meetpersonal needs, desires, wishes - in other words, Ibelieve there is something missing in my life and Iwill strive toward the missing piece(s).

30 • International Journal of Reality Therapy' Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI, number 2

3. If one studies the history of mankind, it is difficult todismiss the power of spirituality. Whether called aformal religion, humanism, or a belief in nature,throughout history mankind seems to have had theneed to believe in something other (higher, different)than oneself. A personal belief system has helpedindividuals deal with personal, community, andnational crises. It is difficult to deny the need tobelieve when one examines the choices people makeand the sentiments they voice in their final moments.

4. As believers in the power of internal control psychol-ogy (as exemplified by the concepts of realitytherapy and choice theory) it is difficult to deny thebelief of others in their need to believe and thestrength and/or solace they receive from believing.

,i

1

REFERENCESDennis, B. (1989) "Faith: The Fifth Psychological Need"

in Journal of Reality Therapy, Spring, Vol 8(2), pp39-56

Ellis, A. (1999) "Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy asan Internal Control Psychology" in InternationalJournal of Reality Therapy, Fall 1999, Vol 19(1), pp4-11.

Glasser, W. (1965) Reality Therapy. New York: Harper &Row

Glasser, W. (1981) Stations of the Mind. New York:Harper & Row

Glasser, W. (1989) "A Clarification of the RelationshipBetween the All- We- Want World and the BasicNeeds" in Journal of Reality Therapy, Fall, Vol 9(2),pp 3-8

Maslow, A. (1954) Motivation and PersonalityStaub, E. & Pearlman, L. (2002) Understanding Basic

Psychological Needs. In www.heal-reconcile-rwan-da.org/lec_needs.htm

The author may be reached at [email protected]

Description of the Intensive In-Home Family Service Program

Mike Fulkerson

The author is the program manager/or Therapeutic Child Support Services and the clinical directorfor therapeuticfoster care(It River Valier Behavioral Health in Owensboro, Kentucky.

ABSTRACT

In this article, the author reports on how ChoiceTheory/Reality Theory (CTlRT) can be used with S.T.E.Pto provide effective Intensive In-Home Family Therapy.The results show substantial progress in helping the "iden-tified client" and the parents make positive changes intheir behaviors within a short period of time.

The Intensive In-Home Family Service Program

This program is comprised of three components: par-enting evaluation and education, the facilitation of familymeetings, and the individual addressing of relationshipissues within the family. All three components are deliv-ered in the context of the family home environment.

Parenting Evaluation and Education

In the initial phase of the program, parents are taughtthe basic principles of CT/RT and STEP SystematicTraining for Effective Parenting (S.T.E.P) developed byDinkrneyer, McKay, and Dinkmeyer in 1997, is a parentingcurriculum based on Adlerian Therapy (AT) principleswhich has much common ground with Reality Therapy.S.T.E.P helps parents learn effective ways to build rela-tionships with children without using external controlmethods such as punishing, criticizing, and rewarding tocontrol. Like Reality Therapy, S>T>E>P> teaches thatrelationships are strengthened by encouragement andcooperation.

During the first session, the staff conducts a needsassessment of the family, including the administration ofthe S.T.E.P survey to help determine the starting point oftreatment. A S.T.E.P. Survey minimum score of "80", outof a possible score of "108", is a treatment goal. If thepost-test score is below "80", staff will provide six weeks ofparenting education. By the end of the six weeks. a post-test measure will be taken. The purpose of the testing isnot to "pass" or "fail" the parents. Rather, the purpose isto identify areas that could be improved as well as to get abaseline regarding parental attitudes and actions.

The Intensive In-Home Family Service Program(llFS) is 12-18 weeks in duration, pending the needs of thefamily. The counselor meets with the family a total ofthree hours per week. Some time is spent with the parents,some with the child or children, and some with the entirefamily.

The counselor explores and shares expectations of theprogram, focuses on what parents have tried previously,encourages self-evaluation of past efforts, and attempts toobtain a commitment to a plan to complete the IntensiveIn-Home Family Therapy Program. The primary role ofthe counselor is that of an educator.

As stated previously, the participants learn the basicprinciples of CT/RT as well as the S.T.E.P. curriculum.Recently, I have been incorporating many of the ideas ofDr. Richard Primason's book entitled Choice Parenting,which is an excellent resource for those looking to applyChoice Theory to parenting. By the end of this phase, par-ents will have learned about basic needs, goals of behavior,the quality world, total behavior, effective ways of commu-nicating, conducting family meetings, and managingbehavior in non-punitive ways (Primason, 2004).

Family Facilitation

During the second phase, the role of the counselorswitches to more of a facilitator. In this next phase, thecounselor models effective ways of leading family meet-ings. At this time, the house rules are established, with thechildren giving substantial input to the development of therules and consequences in the home. The children areasked to develop the rules and consequences with theunderstanding that the parents have final approval(Primason,2004).

Although this approach may appear somewhat permis-sive to some, its effectiveness is quite paradoxical, becauseif the children are given some control and input, they aremore likely to accept and follow the rules because they seethem as their own ideas rather than rules which are beingimposed on them.

In addition to increasing their sense of power by givingthem input into the rules and consequences, the childrenare encouraged to self-evaluate their weekly performancein following the rules. The family members are provided

International Journal of Reality Therapy » Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2 • 31

with the opportunity to give non-critical feedback in theform of support, encouragement, or confirmation to otherfamily members.

The parents log and rate the frequency and intensity ofthe targeted, more desirable behaviors. At the beginningof services, parents are asked to identify what desirablebehaviors they would like to see their children using. Abaseline of the current rate of these targeted, desirablebehaviors is documented. By the end of this service, thesedata will be compared with the post-test scores to see ifthere has been an increase in more effective behaviorsbeing exhibited by the children.

Family Mediation

According to William Glasser (1998), most long-termpsychological problems are the result of problematic rela-tionships. Since parent-child relationships are soinfluential in other relationships, this is the emphasis ofthe third phase of the program. Individual meetings withfamily members may be necessary to identify unmet needsto be addressed in order for more effective family commu-nication to take place. The counselor serves as a mediatorin addressing stress, anger management, and communica-tion issues which may affect the family dynamics.

Autonomy is the primary need of focus because thecounselor's goal is for family members to function on theirown with the assistance of the counselor. In this phase, thefamily members begin conducting their own family meet-ings. The parent(s), and eventually the children, will beinvolved in leading the family meetings. Ideally, familymembers will rotate in leading the meetings.

Parental S.T.E.P Survey Scores:

Pretest = 67.6

Posttest = 84.5

N =29

Avg. Gain = +16.9

Children's Percentage Increase In More Desirable,Need-fulfilling Behaviors

Pretest = 37.8%

Posttest = 82.5 %

N = 40

Avg. Gain = 44.7

32 • lntemationa! Journal of Realit)' I herapv > Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2

The scores of the targeted behaviors are determined bythe evaluations of the family members. The children areencouraged to practice self-evaluation because it is a greatway of teaching children responsibility as well as theimportance of living according to one's own values. Onefrequent occurrence during the family meetings is theapparent discomfort that many of the young people havewhen self-evaluating their behavior. This discomfort oftentimes becomes the catalyst for positive changes in thechild's behavior.

In conclusion, the program has shown how CT/RT canbe easily integrated with STEP in providing TTFS. Theresults of the pre- and post-tests shows objective measuresof impact which can be obtained combining AT/RTICTwhich in turn can help families be more successful instrengthening relationships.

REFERENCES

Dinkrneyer, D. Sr., McKay, G.D., and Dinkmeyer, D. Jr.(1997) Systematic Training for Effective Parenting.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.

Glasser, W. (1998). Choice Theory. New York: HarperCollins.

Prirnason, R.. (2004). Choice Parenting. New York:iUniversel

1The author can be reached at '~

373 I Frederica Street, Owensboro, Kentucky. ~1

- -----------------------

Working with Forensic Clients in Quality Education: Tools of the Trade

Ron "'1ottern

The aUI17m; RTC, is rhe GED, ESL. and Adult Basic Education lnstructorfor the Literacy Councitor Williamson COUl1t\,. Texas. at the Williamson Countv Jail

ABSTRACT

In the field of adult education, working with forensicclients, i.e., clients who are a part of the criminal justicesystem, presents unique and challenging teaching opportu-nities. Forensic clients tend to possess cognitive processesand exhibit behavioral characteristics, due to their cogni-tive profiles, that can make the educational processespecially challenging. Working with incarcerated clientsmay present obstacles to the teaching process itself, andtrying to influence coerced clients, i.e., clients who arereq uired by the courts to attend classes, can require excep-tional motivation work on the part of the educationprovider. At the same time, helping forensic clients workthrough their cognitive and behavioral difficulties andapply responsible thinking and behavior to their educa-tional process can be very rewarding. There are varioustools that can be utilized by teachers to facilitate the edu-cational process. Among these are cognitive behavioralmodalities and concepts developed by Truthought. LLCand the William Glasser Institute, including application ofChoice Theory in the practice of Quality Education.Utilization of these tools has proven to be efficacious inhelping forensic clients succeed in adult education pro-grams such as the General Educational Development(GED) program of Project Better Chance at WilliamsonCounty Jail.

INTRODUCTION

Working with forensic clients occurs in two types ofsettings: incarceration, which includes work in jails, pris-ons, and treatment centers facilitated by corrections andcriminal justice; and community based programs that pro-vide educational services to clients who are on probationor parole.

Working with incarcerated clients may present chal-lenges such as limited time and space for instruction.limited testing opportunities and limited resources forstudy by the client, apart from the designated educationaltime slot. Incarcerated clients may also be in a state offlux. If the educational program is administered in a coun-ty jail, for instance, the clients may be very transient,awaiting sentencing and movement to a state jail. a treat-ment center or another correctional facility.

Unique Challenges Presented by Characteristics ofForensic Clients

Forensic clients share many cognitive and behavioraltraits. Dr. Stanton Samenow, along with Dr. SamuelYochelsou, authored. The Criminal Personality, a threevolume work based on the authors' 14 year research studyat St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, D.C. The resultof this study led the authors to conclude that criminalsthink differently from non-criminals. While this maysound cursorily superficial, what they suggest is that thereis a fundamental difference in the thought processes, i.e.,the way of thinking, of criminals and non-criminals. Inessence, forensic clients think differently from other adulteducation clients. Attempting to teach forensic clients inthe same manner as non-forensic clients is often unpro-ductive and a waste of valuable instructional time.

Dr. Sarnenow's work has been systemized byTruthought, LLC, a company that provides training andcertification in its particular method of teaching irrespon-sible thinkers to think and behave in responsible ways. Abasic understanding of some of their concepts can be use-ful to teachers working with forensic clients.

Truthought, LLC. posits that there is a continuum ofthinking and behavior, ranging from Responsible toIrresponsible, Arrestable and Extreme (respectively).

Irresponsible behavior (including Nonarrestable,Arrestable and Extreme Offenses) are caused by errors inthinking that arc grouped into nine "Barriers inThinking":

1. Closed Thinking

2. Victim Role

3. Superior Self-Image

4. Reckless Attitude

S. Instant Gratification - "I want it now"

6. Fear of Losing Face

7. Power Control

S. Possessive Attitude - "It's mine"

9. Uniqueness

Illtel'llatiollal lournal {)i Realitv Therapv > Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2 • 33

... _- .- ------. -----

These Barriers in Thinking are corrected, according toTruthought, LLC, by nine "Steps to ResponsibleThinking":

I. Open Channels

2. Personal Accountability

3. Self Respect

4. Daily Effort

S. Self Discipline

6. Courage Over Fear

7. Healthy relationships

8. Respect for Others

9. Humility

There is also a list of 19 "Time Bomb Tactics" that arethe result of the nine Barriers in Thinking. These are list-ed under the major headings of "Shifts Blame or Focus,""Lies and Deceives" and "Ignores Obligations."

A good understanding of these various Time BombTactics and the Barriers in Thinking can help teachers workmore effectively with forensic clients. There have beenmany instances where a student took and failed a practicetest and, after being provided with materials and studyingfor a couple of hours (or, in some cases, a few minutes), thestudent stated that s/he was again ready to test. Whenworking in a non-forensic setting, adult education clientstend to have life experiences that tell them that learning isincremental and takes time. Forensic clients, due to theirthinking errors, choose not to learn from their life experi-ences in a responsible way and use a variety of Barriers andTactics that may complicate the learning process.

The example, given above, is related to the Time BombTactic 19, i.e., "Says 'I'm changed' after one right thing,"and Time Bomb Tactic 16, i.e., "Chooses only what is self-gratifying," both of which are under the Ignores Obligationsheading. The Barriers in Thinking that drive this particularbehavior are probably Instant Gratification, e.g., "Expectsinstant response," Superior Self-Image, e.g., "Focuses onpersonal good deeds," Reckless Attitude, e.g., "Considersresponsibility dull," and Uniqueness, e.g.. "Demands moreof self than others." Knowing that a forensic client is usingthese Barriers in Thinking (as a daily pattern of thinking), ateacher can help the student move into responsible thinkingof "Self Respect" which corrects Superior Self-Image, "SelfDiscipline " which corrects Instant Gratification, "DailyEffort" which corrects Reckless Attitude, and "Humility"which corrects Uniqueness.

Without knowledge of these thinking errors and theircorrective measures, teachers may be surprised to find thatthey are being blamed by students for trying to hold thestudents back after the students claim that they weren'treally trying on the test and if allowed to re-test. they'll do

34 • lnternationa] Journal of Reality Therapy > Spring 2U07 • Vol,XXVI. number 2

much better. There are many Barriers and Tactics beingused in this scenario. It doesn't take many of these situa-tions, and the scenarios are practically endless, to wear outa teacher and produce burn out. Knowledge of the TimeBomb Tactics and Barriers in Thinking, however, will helpthe teacher place the responsibility where it belongs, i.e.,on the student, and do it in such a way as to influence thestudents to remain in class and advance in their education,i.e. by presenting students with choices.

Basic Needs Profiles

Another useful tool for teachers is knowledge of BasicNeeds and how to use Basic Needs Profiles. The conceptof the Basic Needs underlies Choice Theory and RealityTherapy and was developed by Dr. William Glasser,founder of the Quality School Consortium and author ofSchools 1Vithollt Failure. Knowing how to help forensicclients examine their Basic Needs and create Basic Needsprofiles can help teachers facilitate a more satisfying rela-tionship with students by helping fulfill their Basic Needs.

According to Choice Theory, there are five BasicNeeds, four Psychological Needs and a Survival Need.The four Psychological Needs are Love / Belonging /Acceptance, Power / Recognition / Achievement, Fun /Learning / Excitement and Freedom / Independence /Choice, The terms used to describe these Needs may vary,e.g., Love and Belonging, or Fun and Learning, but theyrefer to the same genetic Need. Everything that one doesin this life is designed to fulfill one or more of the BasicNeeds. The Basic Needs are the primary motivators in lifeand whatever level at which they exist cannot be altered.If I have a high Need for Power / Recognition /Achievement, then I cannot change the level of that Need.I will either find ways to meet that Need or I will sufferbecause the Need is not met. The suffering from failure tomeet Psychological Needs is misery.

The Basic Needs may be graphed using a pathogram tocreate an individual Basic Needs Profile. Once a BasicNeeds Profile is constructed, the teacher can use this infor-mation to help motivate students. For example, if ateacher realizes that a particular student may have a highNeed for Power/Recognition, then the teacher can make aspecial effort to provide that student with recognition.Students with high Needs for Freedom/Choice can beallowed some latitude on decision making within the class-room. Once the Needs Profile has been created, the waysin which it may be used to help motivate students are lim-ited only by a teacher's resourcefulness and imagination.

As a general rule, forensic clients tend to have a highNeed for Power/Recognition and Fun/Excitement and alow Need for Freedom/Choice and Love/Belonging.While the Need for Freedom/Choice may be low in rela-tion to the other Needs, the longer that Need is frustratedthe higher the motivation becomes to fulfill it.

RESULTS

The concepts and practices taken from Truthought,LLC and Choice Theory/Reality Therapy were appliedwith the student population of Project Better Chance atWilliamson County lail (WC1) in Williamson County,Texas. Results were tabulated based on student perform-ance on the General Educational Development (GED)sub-tests for a nine month period, beginning in March2006 and running through December 2006. The GED testis composed of five sub-tests that measure reading, writingand arithmetic abilities in the subjects of Social Studies,Science, Language Arts Reading, Language Arts Writingand Math.

With 171 sub-tests administered, 165 sub-tests weresuccessfully passed. The passing rate average was 96.5percent.

Twenty-one (21) GED diplomas were received byWCl students during the testing period. The requirementsfor receiving the GED diploma in the State of Texas(requirements vary from state to state) are: a passingscore of 410 on all five individual sub-tests and a cumula-tive test average of 450. It is possible to pass all sub-testsand not receive the GED diploma due to an insufficientcumulative test average.

CONCLUSION

Some of the issues that affect the quality of interactionwhen working with forensic clients are programmatic andcan be solved by a skilled administrator. Other issues tendto fall in the area of motivation and can only be addressedby the classroom instructors, themselves. Working withforensic clients can be more difficult and demanding thanworking with other adult learners due to the special cir-cumstances and unique cognitive challenges presented byforensic clients. As results from the Williamson Countylail program indicated, learning and using concepts takenfrom Truthought training and Choice Theory/RealityTherapy training can help teachers working with forensicclients to maintain healthy relationships with students,motivate students, and avoid occupational burn out.These "tools of the trade" can help enhance educationaloutcomes and promote teacher longevity.

REFERENCESGlasser, W. (1969). Schools without failure. New York:

Harper & Row.Samenow, S. & Yochelson, S. (1976). The criminal per-

sonality. Vols. 1-3. Northvale, Nl: Aronson.Truthought, LLC. www.truthought.com.

Mr. Mottern may be contacted at [email protected]

lnternauonal Journal of Reality Therapy. Spring 20()7 • Vol.XXVI, number 2 • 35

Mission Possible: Teaching Certification Week, Part II

Robert E. Wubbolding

The author is Director ofTraining for the William Glasser Institute

ABSTRACT

Certification in reality therapy provides professionalsthe ability to have a specialty which then adds a unique-ness in their area of service. Certification week under theguidelines of the William Glasser Institute policies is a cul-mination of 18 months of study, practice, and growth bythe participants. A recent survey demonstrates the percep-tion of the participants that their training is highlyeffective. The breadth of presentations presented in thisarticle and the diversity of their talents and professionsenhances each person's skills and techniques, thus helpingto secure the permanence and growth of the Institute indecades to come.

Introduction

Certification in reality therapy provides professionalpeople with a credential that indicates they have complet-ed a training program of approximately 18 months. Duringthis time they attend workshops known as "intensiveweeks". Between these four-day training sessions, theyparticipate in a basic and an advanced practicum duringwhich they further develop their knowledge and skills.Certification is awarded at the closing of the third four-daysession held three times a year in various places in NorthAmerica and in countries from Singapore to Kuwait.

Certification Process

According to the Programs, Policies & ProceduresManual of The William Glasser Institute (2006), the mis-sion of the Institute is to "teach all people choice theoryand to use it as the basis for training in reality therapy,quality school education, and lead management." Thislofty goal is targeted primarily by means of the certifica-tion process.

Wubbolding and Brickell (2004) outlined the certifica-tion process culminating in the four-day certification week.During this final step before achieving the credential"reality therapy certified" (RTC), participants demon-strate their skills with role plays and their knowledge withbrief presentations.

Participants' Self-Assessment

In an effort to assess the skills and knowledge ot' par-

36 • International lournal of Reality Therapy • Spring 20117 • Vol.XXVI. number 2

ticipants attending the February 2007 certification week inLos Angeles, the author surveyed their self-perceptions ofwhat he believes is central to the effective practice of real-ity therapy. Their self-assessments reveal that, for the mostpart. they see themselves as having been taught the essen-tial building blocks of the practice of reality therapy. Theresults of the survey are presented in Figure I.

Figure 1: Participants' Self-Assessment on EnteringCertification Week

Number of Participants = 17

1. Were you taught 5 - 7 specific types of self-evalua-tion?

YES-65% / NO-35%

2. Were you taught specifically how to help clients/stu-dents evaluate their own behavior, i.e., were youtaught specific questions to ask them?

YES-lOO% / NO-O%

3. Were you taught the difference between choice theoryand reality therapy, i.e., choice theory is the explana-tion and reality therapy is the delivery system?

YES-88% / NO-12%

4. Were you taught reality therapy as a WDEP system?

YES-lOO% / NO-O%

5. Were you exposed to paradoxical techniques?

YES-82% / NO-17%

6. Were you taught that procedures and environmentare essential to know for certification?

7. Were you taught that self-evaluation is the corner-stone in the practice of reality therapy?

YES-lOO% / NO-O%

8. Were you taught to give feedback with environmentand procedures applied to the helper and choice the-ory applied to the client or student'?

YES-70% / NO-24'Yo / not sure 5%

Clearly, participants see the importance of self-evalua-tion, the value of procedures, and the difference betweentheory and practice. While the participants in the February2007 certification week were well prepared by previousinstructors and practicum supervisors, improvements intraining prior to certification are always in order. Theobservation that improvements can be made is in no waya criticism of previous training. Rather it represents thatquality is a moving target and is never perfectly achieved(Deming, 1993). r suggest more specificity in teaching pro-cedures, especially self-evaluation. Helping trainees learntheory and practice can be improved by dividing role playobservers' responsibilities into the following categories:

1. One observer watches for choice theory applied tocounselee, student, i.e., the helpee. The observercarefully notes helpee's unmet needs, unfulfilledquality worlds, out-of-balance scales, effective andineffective choices, self-talk, and perceived locus ofcontrol.

2. Another observer watches the helper set the envi-ronment: use of toxins and tonics (Wubbolding,2(08). Does the helper argue or accuse, blame orbelittle, criticize or create conflict and collude withexcuses. On the other hand, does the helper practicetonic behaviors such as communicating hope, listen-ing for metaphors, demonstrating respect, focusingon what the helpee can control, accepting helpee'sbehaviors without either agreement with anti-socialbehaviors or being overly sympathetic?

3. A third observer focuses on the helper's questioningskills regarding wants (W), doing or total behavior(D), self-evaluation by client (E) and action planning(P). More specifically, the observer marks whetherthe helper assists helpees in defining and clarifyingtheir wants: what they want from the counseling orconsultation session, from family, friends, job, etc., aswell as whether they want to change their ownbehaviors and how hard they want to work at mak-ing changes (level of commitment). This observeralso notes whether the helper assists helpees to bespecific in their descriptions of current behavior, i.e ..actions, thinking, and feelings. Additionally, does thehelper ask self-evaluating questions, such as, "Is yourcurrent behavior helping or hurting you, bringingyou closer or farther away from other people?" "Iswhat you want realistic?" "Is what you want gen-uinely beneficial to you or to others'?" "Is yourcurrent level of commitment going to get the jobdone'?" "Is it really true that you have as little con-trol over your life as you think you have'?" "Is yourplan simple, attainable, measurable, immediate, con-sistent, and controlled by the planner'?" (Wubbolding2000, 2006).

Presentations by Participants

Demonstrations of participants' knowledge and abilityto teach choice theory and reality therapy were of thehighest quality. Participants were eager to present specifichighlights or gems of their knowledge and creativity with-in the 15 minute time limit. In their engaging andhumorous presentations, they provided ideas and methodsthat other participants said were replicable and of practi-cal value. Examples of presentations include:

Teaching inner control. Nancy, an elementary schoolcounselor. teaches each class in her school a weekly 30-minute lesson in choice theory and reality therapy. Thegoal is to help students gain insight into their own needsand how they are met. She presents lists of words and asksstudents to categorize them according to their own needs.Much discussion follows this simple activity. Yet the resultsare notable. One student inappropriately passed from thesecond to the third grade chose to return to the secondgrade and was given the opportunity to choose his ownsecond grade teacher. He said, "1 don't know how to be inthe third grade." He is now performing at the top of hissecond grade class. The school has moved from the bottomthree of 66 schools in academic performance to the top 10schools in the district. Earlier, the superintendent hadplanned on closing the school. There are now 150 on thewait list.

Cutting and self-mutilation. Andoni, a school psychol-ogist specializing in crisis intervention, described how heapplies reality therapy to students. He stated that the rushof power and freedom motivates cutters and self-mutila-tors. Yet the relief achieved is only temporary as theillusion of need satisfaction passes. He asks counselees,"What are you getting out of this behavior?" He adds, "Ifyou want something different you will need to do some-thing different." When he teaches them new behaviorsthey feel more in control of their lives and the motivationto hurt themselves lessens.

Management. Carla, a manager in a utility company,explained how she teaches lead management. total behav-ior, five needs, and the WDEP system. One of theexamples she offered was helping her trainees describehow creative they are in finding ways to absent themselvesfrom work in order to go hunting. She helps them transferthese ingenious behaviors to the work place by using theWDEP formulation of reality therapy. She believes theseprinciples focusing on inner control enhances employeejob satisfaction and productivity.

Jeopardy. Using categories such as emotions, drugs,sports. music. and choices, Deirdre, a counselor workingwith high risk youth. helps them decide how they want todiscuss each category. For example, under the categoryemotions, they discuss how they can control their angerand how to conduct self-interventions by asking themselvesquestions for the purpose of dealing with feelings. She

International lournal of Keality Therapy. Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2 • 37

states that they more readily disclose themselves than theydo in formal counseling sessions which enables the coun-selor to help them evaluate their own behavior and makeplans for reaching goals and for more effective living.

Girls' Volleyball. Marie, a high school varsity coachand Spanish teacher, described how she dealt with a girls'volleyball team performing below expectations and poten-tial. She believed that the team's needs for belonging andfun were satisfied. Yet, she had hoped for a more success-ful season and wanted them to compete at the state level.She conducted meetings and asked them. "Where do youwant to be in the last two weeks of the season?" Shebelieved she could adjust her goals to theirs if necessary.However, they stated that they wanted to play in the statetournament and that they needed to change their behav-ior. She told them to take a run and come back with theirdecision. They usually had a run for 10 minutes, but thisrun consumed 30 minutes. They decided to push them-selves harder and asked her to join in the push. Theirrecord at the end of the season was 36 - 6. They lost in thesemi-finals to a team that won the state championship. Atthe end of the season, they wrote letters to the next year'steam that would be opened at the beginning of the season.

Other presentations focused on a board game teachingreality therapy, teaching choice theory kinesthetically witheach finger of a glove representing a need, changing phys-iology, parenting skills, "the web of control", a gameteaching choice theory through the fun need, developing aschool constitution, meeting with a car salesman, depictingthe quality world through pictures, teaching total behaviorto "tough kids", and 6-inch cards shaped like keys used inteaching Glasser's book Choice Theory (1998).

Observing certification participants practice realitytherapy and make presentations provides a faculty mem-ber with the opportunity to see many creative uses of atheory and a practice that individuals continue to extendand apply in new and exciting ways. Certification weeksallow for current and future leaders to express themselves.These grass roots applications provide opportunities andbeacons for future research as well as structures that caninsure the permanence and growth of the William GlasserInstitute in decades to come. I am reminded of the wordsof Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, "If you want tobe a leader, get out into the trenches. That's where the wis-dom is."

38 • Internauona] journal oi ReJlity ThcrJPY • Sprillg .!llO.7 • Vol.>:.XVI, number 2

CONCLUSION

The entire certification process aims at increasing par-ticipants' skill and knowledge. The certification weekprovides a culmination of training and offers an addedopportunity to demonstrate each participant's unique cre-ativity and inventiveness. And yet finality need notcharacterize certification week. People receiving the RTCcredential can proceed onward. They can becomepracticum supervisors and intensive week instructors. TheWilliam Glasser Institute invites them to look for opportu-nities to lead, to be further involved, to remain active, andfurther their skills and knowledge as well as to stay con-nected with local, state, regional and international eventsof the William Glasser Institute.

REFERENCESDeming, W. E. (1993). The new economics. Cambridge:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory. NY: Harper Collins.

Programs, policies, and procedures manual of theWilliam Glasser Institute (2006). www.wglasser.com.Accessed 2111/07.

Wubbolding, R. (2000) Reality therapy for the 21stCentury. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner Routledge.

Wubbolding, R. (2006). Reality therapy (mining manual.Cincinnati, OH: Center for Reality Therapy.

Wubbolding, R. (2008). Cycle of managing, supervising,counseling and coaching. Cincinnati, OH: Center forReality Therapy.

Wubbolding, R. and Brickell, J. (2004). Teaching certifi-cation week. International Journal of Reality Therapy,24(1), 49-51.

The author may be contacted at : wubsrttiifuse.net

Weh site: realuytherapywub.com

Some Tips Regarding How to Motivate Athletes

Thomas S. Parish and Daniel Williams

The senior author is associate professor ofpsvchology and the second author is a sophomore in psychology,both at Upper Iowa University, Fayette, Iowa

ABSTRACT

SPORTS is a buzzword in our society today, and it isnot limited to anyone sport in particular. For instance,golf has its "Tiger Woods," baseball has its "Barry Bonds,"and basketball has its "Michael Jordan." Icons all!However, what motivates the top players may be quite dif-ferent from what motivates the less "popularized" players.Hence, what might motivate an individual at the beginningof his/her career (be it in middle-school, high school, col-lege, ot beyond), is unlikely to remain that way later on.Of course, there are exceptions to this rule (e.g., GeorgeBrett of the KC Royals), but success at higher levels oftenmeans that the so-called "motivators" change accordingly.Why is so? How can we alter this less-than-admirable ori-entation from "winning-for-money's sake," back to agreater emphasis being placed upon "winning-for-win-ning's sake?" This paper will attempt to address this issueand offer some ideas that should be helpful too.

Some Tips Regarding How to Motivate Athletes

Everybody is motivated by something! Athletes are nodifferent since they need to be motivated too. The ques-tion is, what "motivates" them to become involved insports, and what motivates them to stay involved in sportslater on? Notably, William Glasser (1986, 1998) proposedthe "Needs Wheel," which basically suggests that all of us(including athletes) are motivated by one or more of thefollowing:

1. "Power, worth, and recognition," which is based onthe notion that many strive to "show off," "outper-form others," and/or "win awards" because theycrave the attention that comes from doing so success-fully. For some, i.e., those who truly excel, there maybe additional forms of "psychological pay," besidesthose that were mentioned above. In addition, earn-ing "big bucks" (before taxes, at least) could alsoprovide even stronger feelings of power, worth, andrecognition, plus fulfill other needs, too (e.g., satisfysurvival needs), as they obtain large sums of money,a luxurious home, more-than-enough food, stylishclothing, plus other things that are more likely to bemade available to them because of what they do, Aquote that may apply here is, "Those who have thegold ... rule." Notably, though, what forms of

"power, worth, and recognition" that serve as moti-vators may change over time and/or situation, withyounger athletes more likely motivated by simplyoutperforming their competitors, while other motiva-tors seem more likely to rule as the athletes reachtheir physical prime and learn that if they don'treceive monetary compensation, as well as other tan-gible rewards, they'll strike or quit, rather than playthe game just for the sake of playing it.

2. Fun is another motivator for some, especially whenthey're young, but often lose their allure as they findit difficult to endure. Truly, the additive effects ofthe "bumps and bruises of life," take away from theidea that sports are fun, unless we're among the very,very young.

3. Freedom, which comes when choices abound, isanother motivator for some, especially once theyrealize, that finding the best alternative(s) usuallymeans that they could win the biggest prize, whilethey soundly beat all the other "guys."

4. Love and belonging is a strong motivator, too, espe-cially for those who support the team, and do allthey possibly can, since in so doing, they more likelygain the "warm fuzzies" they need while they helptheir team to succeed. In so doing, everyone's needsseem to be better met, since all seem to want whatthey ultimately get. Defining this "love and belong-ing" is really hard to do, for some see it as verysensual in nature, while others believe that you sim-ply must do it for those who care for you.

5. Survival is a need on Glasser's (1986, 1998) "NeedsWheel," too, and still applies to athletes who fearbeing hurt, and/or can't bear the pain they experi-ence daily, which effectively can't be offset by any ofthe sport's perks. Some, though, hang tough, evenwhen things get really rough. To them, who canendure, will go the greatest spoils, that's for sure.

How can we figure out various athletes' wants andneeds, and come to realize the best way to proceed?Questions like these will always abound, but the answersto them aren't easily found. For those who manage torespond well to this task, they will likely be very popularas they correctly answer the questions they are asked. For

lnternarional Journal of Reality Tberapv » Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2 • 39

if we can distinguish what some athletes want, while oth-ers may not, their value will likely rise quite a lot. Ofcourse, it can't be a function of some "crystal ball." butwhether or not they can correctly discern players' needs,and make the correct call. Truly, these people must heedthe "Platinum Rule," as they strive to figure out what oth-ers want to do. More specifically, the "Platinum Rule"says, that we must do unto others as they want done untothem," and the sooner we realize that this should be ourmain goal, the quicker we will get the job done.

Who is it that should play in accordance with this rule?Well, coaches, players, and everyone else too. For if wedon't understand what others want and need, it is mostunlikely that we, or our teams, will ever succeed. But onceeveryone is on the same page. and truly come to under-stand that as we help others to succeed at whatever theywant to do, and/or meet their needs, too, we will all morelikely succeed, at least as a general rule.

REFERENCESGlasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New

York: Harper & Row, Publishers.Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory. New York:

HarperCoIlins, Publishers.

40 • lnternational lou rna I of Redlity Therapv • Spring :10CF • VoI.XXVI, number :2

The Personal Choice Model Regarding Mental Health

Thomas S. Parish and Laurence Van Dusen

The first author is associate professor ofpsychology and the second author is allundergraduate student in psychology. both lit Upper Iowa Universitv

ABSTRACT

Several mental health/mental illness models are brieflyconsidered in this paper, including the medical model. thepsychiatric model, the public health model, and the per-sonal choice model. While all of these models provideinsights regarding the etiologies of various mental illness-es. and ideas concerning how many of them might berernediated, the personal choice model seems to offeradditional benefits that have heretofore not been careful-ly considered. These benefits will be elaborated uponthroughout this paper.

The Personal Choice Model Regarding Mental Health

The Medical Model

The Medical Model recognizes symptoms, looks forpathology to support them, but does not diagnose diseaseunless supportive pathology is found (Glasser, 20(5).

The Psychiatric Model

The Psychiatric Model is used to diagnose a mental ill-ness. such as those described in the DSM-IV-R. but reliesupon symptoms alone, without necessarily discerning anysupporting pathology (Glasser, 20(5).

Notably, neither of the above mentioned models seeksto identify the concept of "mental health." and/or seeks todifferentiate between "mental health" and "mental ill-ness." In addition, both models basically take the positionthat the doctor/psychiatrist is in charge of treating the dis-ease, and that the patient's/client's role is very passive innature.

There is another model. however, that needs to be con-sidered, especially if one believes that patients/clients arereally more likely to be "in control" of themselves andhow they interact with their environment. This model maybe called by various names ...

The Public Health Model (Glasser, 2005)

The Personal Choice Model (Parish and Parish, 2005)

Both of these models, noted above. focus upon thenotion that control is in the individual's hands, at least as a

general rule. However, no man (or woman) is an island.Hence, other factors may operate that could impact theindividual in various ways.

Said somewhat differently, personal choices can oper-ate to control and/or moderate the effects of the otherinfluences, at least in general terms. However, such con-trol can be reduced or enhanced through one's personalchoices.

As mentioned above, both models by Glasser (2005)and Parish and Parish (2005) are totally in keeping with"Choice Theory." as proposed by Glasser (1998). In fact,they could be thought of as simple extensions of it.

Regarding external influences. Glasser (2005) assertsthat. .. not getting along as well with others as we wouldlike to is the number 1 "mental health problem" of theworld, while Parish and Parish (2005) contend that it issimply the number 1 "personal choice problem" in theworld.

In either instance, the cure to the problem isn't drugs(Barness & Parish, 20(6). Rather, as Glasser (2005) sug-gested. we only need to learn better ways to achievepositive relationships with those whom we value, for in sodoing. happiness will more likely be achieved.

Interestingly, Glasser (2005) contends that "externalcontrols" or "external influences" destroy marriages,which may seem to be beyond our personal control.However. Parish and Parish (200S) propose, instead. thatsuch marital destruction is actually often simply a functionof our own inefficient "personal choices,"

Hence. according to Parish and Parish (2005), to cor-rect these inefficient personal choices that are causing usso many problems. we simply need to create more and bet-ter positive alternatives from which to choose. After all,life really is the search for positive alternatives, or at leastit should be if we are truly going to learn to interact moreefficiently with others.

Why should we embrace the "Personal ChoiceModel," rather than the "Public Health Model?" Well, the"Public Health Model" basically suggests that most of ourproblems are caused by sources of "external control," andtherefore such problems might be perceived by many to befar beyond their personal control.

International Journal "i Reality Therapv • Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI, number 2 • 41

In contrast, the "Personal Choice Model" contends thatthe source of many of our problems is our own inefficientpersonal choices, but that if we strive to act more efficient-ly, we will more likely be "mentally healthier" and"emotionally happier" as a consequence of these actions.Hence, good mental health and personal happiness is morelikely to occur when we fill our lives with "efficient choic-es" or "efficient behavior," while poorer mental health andgreater unhappiness is more likely to occur if we make"inefficient choices" or engage in "inefficient acts."

Said somewhat differently, life consists of our efforts tofind "positive alternatives." If that's the case, then eachindividual needs to ask himself/herself the following ques-tions:

"What do I want?"

"What am I doing?"

"Is what I am doing helping me to get what I want?"

"If not, what must I do differently in order to moreeffectively get what I want?"

Once again, if what you're doing is getting you whatyou want, then you should find yourself to be reasonablyhappy and well adjusted, and therefore more likely to be"mentally healthy." In other words, you have chosenwisely!

If, however, what you're doing is not getting you whatyou want, then you will find yourself to be generally frus-trated and not likely to be well adjusted, and thereforemore likely to be deemed to be "mentally ill." In otherwords, you (i.e., your client) may be said to have chosenunwisely! In turn, you (i.e., your client) must seek morepositive alternatives if you/s/he wish( es) to be all thatyou/s/he wish( es) to be. Otherwise, most would concludethat you are acting very unwisely. Bottom line, though, isthat it is always going to be your (i.e., your client's) choice,unless you/s/he have given up that option, or had someoneelse make that decision for you/him/her (e.g., like a judgeor a psychiatrist). Who do you really believe should makethese decisions? If it's you, then be sure to choose wiselyregarding what you need to do.

42 • lnternanonal lournal of Reality Ther.ipv • Spring 2007 • Vol.XXVI. number 1

REFERENCESBarness, R, & Parish, T. S. (2006). Drugs vs. reality ther-

apy. International Journal of Reality Therapy, XXV(2),43-45.

Burger, WR, & Youkeles, M. (2004). Human services incontemporary America: Sixth edition. Belmont, CA.:Brooks-Cole.

Glasser, W (2005). WARNING: Psychiatry can be haz-ardous to your mental health. New York:HarperCollins, Publishers.

Glasser, W (1998). Choice theory. New York:Harper Collins, Publishers.

Parish, T. S., & Parish, J. G. (2005). Negative and posi-tive motivation and "Choice Theory:" How they fittogether. Paper presented at the 2005 InternationalMeeting of Reality Therapists, which was held inDublin, Ireland.

The authors may be reached at theDepartment of Psychology, 29 Professional Building,

Upper Iowa University, Fayette, IA 52142.

International Journal of Reality Therapy' Spring 2007 • VoI.XXVI, number 2 • 43

Guidelines for Contributors

a) Manuscripts should be submitted to the Editor, Larry Litwack, Journal of Reality Therapy, at theeditorial office address. In the case of a manuscript written by more than one author, the cover-ing letter should indicate the name and address of the author with whom the editor shouldcorrespond-that is, the corresponding author.

b) Manuscripts must be submitted on disc, either on rich text or word. The name and address of eachauthor should appear on the manuscript's last page. In manuscripts written by more than oneauthor, the corresponding author should indicate the order in which co-author's names shouldappear in The Journal if the manuscript is accepted.

c) In accordance with the Copyright Revision Act of 1976, we are required to have the followingstatement in writing before we may proceed with a review:

"In consideration of The Journal of Reality Therapy taking action in review-ing and editing my submission. the author(s) undersigned hereby transfer.assign or otherwise convey all copyright ownership to The Journal ofReality in the event such work is published by The Journal."

d) Authors should strive for brevity. readability. and grammatical accuracy. The title of a Manuscriptshould be succinct and lend itself to indexing.

e) Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Publication Manual of the AmericanPsychological Association. Fifth Edition.

f) Each manuscript should be accompanied by an abstract that is a maximum of 960 characters andspaces (which is approximately 120 words). A good abstract concisely summarizes the content anddirects present and future readers to the article.

g) Manuscripts are received with the understanding they are not under simultaneous considerationby any other publication. The Journal will not be responsible in the event a manuscript is lost: andonce published, manuscripts may not be published elsewhere without written permission from theeditor of The Journal.

h) When a manuscript is received by the editor. it is referred to two members of the review board.Reviewers are asked to consider these questions:

1. Has the subject been covered adequately in The Journal so the publishing this manuscript wouldbe redundant?

2. Is the manuscript on a problem or topic of sufficient importance in demonstrating RealityTherapy to warrant its publication?

3. Is the content of the manuscript scientifically accurate and philosophically sound?

4. Does the manuscript contain any false or misleading statements?

5. Does the manuscript have readability, i.e., is it clearly written, succinct. and easily understood?

6. Will the manuscript require a great deal of revising to make it acceptable?

i) All accepted manuscripts are subject to copy editing.

international journal of reality therapy 2007 spring

Documents