“Doing for others what they are capable of doing for themselves,” is the classic definition of codependency, with the rider, “As a ‘change-maker,’ I feel better now that I’ve fixed somebody else’s problem. It’s a relief to have the situation under (my) control.”
This is a massive delusion. It’s also classic narcissism. (“All about me! What a hero I am!”)
Nobody “fixes” anybody else, and the only change we can make is to ourselves. For others, we may be signposts (resources/recovery capital).
Getting real, clients don’t always do what I think is best for them: my lovingly generated treatment and recovery plans are so often ignored, and I take it personally. Client “failure” is denounced as “non-compliance,” while my frustration with the “non-compliant” becomes a major, but rarely acknowledged, cause of self-inflicted burnout.
Speaking at the Syracuse Behavioral Health conference pre-Covid, the late Stages of Change co-creator, James Prochaska, spoke of how well-intentioned professionals default to wanting clients to be taking action. It’s a comfort to us to know that clients are following our direction. But, Prochaska argued, this action step is actually Stage 4 of his person-centered model.
According to Prochaska, the change process begins with Pre-contemplation (not thinking about a new automobile at all), proceeds through Contemplation (the upkeep on this automobile is getting expensive, maybe I need a new one?) to Preparation (what kind of automobile would I like? can I afford it? could I do a trade in? who’s an honest dealer?” etc.); all before taking the action step of handing over money and driving off in my new automobile (Action). Hopefully, I’ll still love it in 6 months (Maintenance).
I use an everyday example here, following Prochaska’s belief that his and Carlo DiClemente‘s model maps out any decision from the life-changing to the ordinary. Try it and see!
Simply, change is the client’s process, not the professional’s. We’re deluding ourselves if we base our professional pride on compliance (“how well/poorly does my client follow my orders” – yes, it can be faked), rather than evidence of that client’s increasing self-efficacy, which is the true purpose of our work.
Self-efficacy likely takes longer to develop than directive treatment plans, especially in early emergence from active use. Like the mama bird sending her chick out to fly, it is, however, the approach that works to build recovery capital.
Meanwhile, we misunderstand what “asking for help” means:
- The premature ask: When the client couldn’t be bothered to exhaust her preexisting resources first – e.g., “Quick-fix this for me.” It’s a perfect set-up for codependency: the client gets the job done but learns nothing; the fixer exercises her power to makes things right, feeling relief through having done so but abjuring her professional responsibility to support the client’s self-efficacy.
Because the job got done without any client learning, she’ll be back for more, diminishing her self-efficacy with each successful premature ask – a process that used to be known as “learned helplessness.”
- The skillful ask: When the client has exhausted her preexisting resources (including Google) without success, her ask becomes an expression of her self-efficacy. On a case-by-case basis, the professional may/may not be in a position to offer signposts which the client will be invited to leverage as supportive (or not) of her goals – that is, the professional offers suggestions and resources but doesn’t attempt to fix anything. No opportunity here for a codependent high.
It can be difficult to discern the difference between these asks. A sure sign of the premature ask is when you’re triggered into a codependent response. Take a breath! Ask yourself, am I being asked to do more for her than she’s prepared to do for herself?
A clarifying approach might include such questions as: “Please tell me what research you’ve done so far, and what did you learn? What is your supervisor’s opinion? Have you visited any relevant websites and what did they suggest?” You’ll know how much work she’s done from the reply, if there’s a reply.
Remember the rule: if you agree to do more work on her behalf than she’s prepared to do for herself, your engagement is codependent.
We teach a man to fish; we don’t do the fishing.
That is, we’re resources (signposts), not codependents (fixers).
