compliments of FutureVisions^SM

creating sustainable results in growth and performance

By now you have uncovered a number of shoulds that describe how you ought to behave. Some of these shoulds function as healthy guides. Some of them are psychological bludgeons that the critic uses to destroy your self-esteem.

Right now, review your list of shoulds and mark the ones that your critic has used as the basis for attacks. You are now in a position to evaluate these rules to determine if they are healthy and useful.  For each should your critic uses, do the following three things:

1.  Examine your language. Is the should built on absolutes and overgeneralizations such as all, always, never, totally, perfect, and so on? Use "I’d prefer" or "I’d rather" or "I want to" instead of "I should." The specific situation where you’re applying the should may turn out to be an exception to the rule. Acknowledge that possibility by using language that is flexible.

2. Forget concepts of right and wrong. Instead, determine the consequences of applying the rule to the specific situation. What are the short- and long-term effects on you and the people involved? Does the rule make sense, given who will be hurt and who will be helped?

3. Ask yourself if the rule fits the person you really are. Does it take into account your temperament, limitations, enduring traits, ways of protecting yourself, fears, problems, and things that you are not likely to change? Does it allow for your important needs and dreams and the pleasures that sustain you? Does the rule really make sense. given who you are and will likely remain?

Rebecca’s case is a good example of how these steps will help you deal with your shoulds. Her list included a should that her pathological critic used almost daily. The critic said she should weigh no more than 120 pounds, while Rebecca, in fact, weighed 135—140 pounds.

The first thing Rebecca did was to examine her language. The phrase "no more than 120" gave the should an absolute quality. Rebecca rewrote her rule more flexibly—’ ‘I’d prefer to weigh in the neighborhood of 120 pounds." Next, she examined the probable consequences of applying her should. Here is her list of positive and negative outcomes.

Positive

1. Look slimmer.

2. Fit into some of my smaller clothes.

3. Feel more attractive.

4. Like my body more.

Negative

1. Have to weigh my food.

2. Constantly have to think about what I eat.

3. Constantly worry about gaining weight.

4. Have to go back to Weightwatchers.

5. Really have to eat out less.

6. Most of my clothes will no longer fit.

Liking her body and feeling more attractive were a big lure for Rebecca, but the negative consequences were much greater than she had realised. She had never put down in black-and-white before all the problems that dieting created for her.

Finally, Rebecca asked herself whether the "120 rule" fit the person she really was. She had to admit that her natural weight seemed to fluctuate between 135—140, and only with arduous dieting was she able to get into the 125 range. Soon enough her weight would start to climb and she would feel a sense of failure and a drop in self-esteem. Furthermore, much of her social life revolved around restaurants and shared meals. A diet meant curtailing her main way of being with friends. Rebecca’s lover was clearly attracted to her as she was, and so there was little to gain in the way of emotional or sexual intimacy from weight loss.

With great reluctance, Rebecca began to accept that the "120 rule" didn’t fit her and seemed to be costing more than it was worth. Arthur is a high school composition teacher who suffers a continuous sense of guilt about his inability to "really teach writing." His critic attacked him with a rule he’d learned from a beloved professor: to write decently, students must write daily. At the very least, Arthur felt that they should complete several assignments per week. But in Arthur’s large classes, he rarely gave more than two writing assignments per month. Here’s how he dealt with his should.

First he rewrote the rule in more flexible language: "I’d like my students, if possible, to have two writing assignments per week." Then he examined the consequences.

Positive

1. Students get more feedback.

2. Students learn faster.

3. I feel successful because I see more progress.

4. My students score higher on the state achievement tests.

Negative

1. With five classes averaging thirty students each, I'd have 300 essays to read per week.

2. I'd lose most of my weekend correcting papers.

3. It would severely limit time with my family.

4. I'd never get to go rock climbing.

5. It would take a lot of my physical energy.

Negative outcomes more than outweighed the positive, and it was clear to Arthur why he gave so few writing assignments. At last, Arthur examined the question of whether the rule really fit him. His answer was a qualified yes. He still believed in the value of frequent assignments. But he now had an answer to his critic. Applying the rule in his crowded school would simply cost him too much both physically and emotionally.

Jamie’s inner critic was clever. Her critic used two contradictory shoulds so that she remained in a permanent no-win conflict. Jamie is a painter who has a good local reputation. She is also the mother of a ten-month-old boy. On the one hand, the critic told her that she should give all her available time to her son. On the other, the critic demanded that she continue to paint at the same level of productivity she had before the baby was born.

Jamie’s shoulds damaged her self-esteem in two ways. The "give everything to your son rule" made her reluctant to arrange any child care. As a result, she felt depressed and listless during the day because there was no time for painting or recreation. These feelings led her to kick herself for being a lazy, bad mother. Jamie’s self-esteem also took a beating from the "keep painting rule." In the evening, when she felt too tired to face an empty canvas, she kicked herself for wasting her talent and being "uncommitted" to her art.

Here’s how she dealt with her shoulds. First she rewrote them using flexible language: "I want to give most of my time to my son, but I want to keep painting as much as possible." Then she examined the consequences of each should.

A. Give most of my time to my son.

Positive

1. Don’t have to feel anxious or guilty about turning him over to someone else.

2. He’s safer with me than anyone else.

3. He gets more attention and love from me than anyone else.

4. The baby cries when I leave him.

5. I worry about his separation anxiety.

Negative

I. No energy to paint.

2. Seem to get depressed during day.

3. Miss painting and feeling involved in a canvas.

4. Feel stuck in the house.

5. Miss involvement with the artistic community.

B. Keep painting as much as possible.

Postive

1. The pleasure of painting.

2. A sense of meaning.

3. A break from the baby.

4. Maintain connection to art world.

Negative

1. Without child care, painting would exhaust me.

2. If I got dependable child care, it would cost xxx a week.

3. I would have to cope with anxiety and guilt about leaving the baby.

4. The baby gets less attention and love while I’m away.

5. I feel that the baby’s less safe while I’m away.

Jamie asked herself whether her should made sense for the person she was. It was clear that her needs for artistic expression, meaningful activity, and time off from the baby were being denied by the "give everything to your son rule." She was trying to do without one of the sustaining pleasures in her life and it was costing her in the form of low self-esteem, low energy, and depression. After several weeks of ambivalence, Jamie finally decided to get a baby sitter for two five-hour periods—with the thought that she would later expand to fifteen hours if she felt comfortable.