Professional Dishonesty - Part Four

NOTE: This is Part Four of a continuing entry. See Monday 4/30, Tuesday 5/1, and Wednesday 5/2 for Part’s One-Three.

The first of Halleck’s three attitudes is the one area of the seven professionally dishonest behaviors with which I have a problem. He calls this attitude ‘denial of limitations’ and points out that we are lying to young people when we insinuate that they can be “anything they want to be” and encourage them to achieve “beyond their limits”.

It’s not that I disagree in theory. Certainly if a young person is developmentally or physically unable to aspire to an outcome, it is both dishonest and downright cruel to imply that the outcome is an option for them. My concern, however, is how prone we are to underestimate a young person’s abilities, and how quickly we sometimes presume limitations.

Take Halleck’s examples. Writing in 1963 he lists among the ‘limitations’ faced by young people the fact that many “are from troubled homes and lower socioeconomic groups”. At the same time he points out that most professionals are from a “middle-class background” with a “far greater potentiality”. He concludes by stating that “with a few exceptions they are dealing with people of limited potential who will never be like them”. I trust I am not the only one seeing a bias here, and that’s my concern with this ‘attitude’. While I agree with the truth of the statement, I have little faith in most adult’s ability to accurately assess a young person’s potential.

Halleck also identifies the “open up; trust me; all will go well” attitude that many adult professionals have in their approach to adolescents as one of his seven lies. The attitude completely underestimates or negates the risk that most adolescents are taking when entering into the relationship. To be in a position of contact with an adult professional usually presupposes previous adult relationships that have not worked well or been safe for the adolescent. Additionally, the exhortation itself may imply more than the adult professional is able to provide. The adolescent often knows that the adult is a person with whom they will have only limited future contact. The adult is a person who has multiple loyalties and these loyalties may conflict with their loyalty to the adolescent. It is not a true partnership between equals that is being offered, it is a request to surrender autonomy, independence, and control, and trust that the adult professional will not abuse that power. To the adolescent, this can often appear to be a really bad deal.

Halleck’s final lie is the attitude of “we like you but not your behavior”. He identifies this attitude as a rationalization for a professional’s emotions of anger and frustration. The fact is, no matter how big of an advocate you are for young people, or how understanding you are of their circumstances and behavior, sometimes young people are going to piss you off. Halleck claims that to mask your emotions behind platitudes such as this is both dishonest and unfair to the adolescent. Perhaps more important, it is unsuccessful. The acting out adolescent knows that their behavior can sometimes be obnoxious, provocative, and outright infuriating. FYI; that’s the purpose of the behavior. Covering up your real emotions with intellectual rationalizations will only inspire greater effort on the part of the adolescent, or help them conclude that you’re a big phony.

My intention is not to give you permission to dump every emotional reaction you have when working with adolescents. All I (and Halleck) am suggesting is that there is a place for properly expressed emotions within the professional relationship. In fact, if we are angry with an adolescent, role modeling by expressing that anger in a productive and appropriate manner will be much more helpful to the adolescent than will masking it with artificial rationalizations.

Tomorrow I’ll conclude with final thoughts.