Constructive handling of fear in conflict-prone professional fields[1]

By Peter Anhalt

In our projects and beyond, we are increasingly confronted with the fact that people in certain professional fields experience situations in the course of their work that trigger fear in them. A few examples:

At a parents‘ evening, a couple disturb the proceedings, become louder and louder and finally insult the teacher as incompetent and “left-winged”.

A judge who has sentenced a defendant to a punishment then receives threatening letters stating that they know where he lives and that he must expect consequences for his actions.

A member of the non-judicial staff asks a client who walks very loudly through the corridors to be quieter. The client then steps up close to her and starts shouting at her that he won’t take orders from her.

A doctor who carries out corona vaccinations in his practice is recognised in a supermarket and called a ‘murderer’ in front of several customers, who will be held accountable for his actions one day.

A train conductor asks a group of young men to put on a mask. In response, the young men loudly make fun of the train conductor and disparage her appearance.

Many other examples could be cited here. Based on our work experience, we get the impression that such situations are increasing and are now also occurring in fields of work where these dynamics are not to be expected from the outset.

An attempt at causal research

There seems to be an ominous connection between the uncertainties of times of crisis and their amplification in social media, which ultimately leads to an uncomfortable shifting of the boundaries of social interaction in non-digital life as well. Especially in such times, people seek clarity and unambiguousness that life does not provide. This results in a rejection of diversity in both people’s lives and their sense of purpose.

Because diversity itself causes fear: of loss of control, of loss of meaning, of ‘doom’. This fear is often covered up by anger or hatred of the impositions of this world and then seeks addresses – often other people who become enemy images and whom one wants to fight. Our free and democratic society is characterised by structural diversity. For people who cannot stand this, this results in rejection and even the fight against structures that are associated with the ‘system’ and which stands for this diversity and the ambiguities associated with it.

On the other hand, these people cannot avoid the ‘system’ because they must send their children to school, they are dependent on official structures or are even forced to appear at offices and courts, e.g. because they have crossed legal boundaries with their behaviour and have been reported. It is becoming increasingly apparent that these individuals quickly and vehemently overstep boundaries in their behaviour. They threaten, insult, raise their voices, engage in monologues, devalue their counterparts, etc.

It is clear that when legal boundaries are crossed (threatening letters, specific violent fantasies, attacks, etc.), this should be punished strictly and promptly. This can help the employees of the affected institutions and be conducive to their own sense of security. But that alone does not help, because not every conspicuous and challenging behaviour is justiciable and, on the other hand, it only takes effect when the threat, insult or aggression has already occurred.

This means that employees in institutions are increasingly finding themselves in situations in which they become insecure and afraid. This fear includes not only the threat to physical integrity, but also to mental health. If an attempt is made to devalue or ridicule the other person, this can also trigger fear in the staff members concerned.

The following section therefore aims to show which strategies can help to deal constructively with this fear and the situations from which it can arise.

Preliminary remarks on fear

First, fear is a deep feeling, like other feelings too, such as love, joy, anger, etc. We usually distinguish between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ feelings, with fear being one of the ‘negative’ feelings. However, this devaluation is problematic. A ‘negative’ feeling is one that I don’t want to have (because it’s unpleasant), that is ‘forbidden’ or whose occurrence doesn’t fit with my self-image. So, I might try to talk it out of me or talk it down. I may have learned this early on, for example, because of certain gender stereotypes or behavioural norms.

However, this means that I overlook the fact that the feeling is my feeling, i.e. that it expresses something that is inside me: fantasies, memories, but above all needs, such as security, a sense of belonging, appreciation, being seen, being in a relationship, etc.

In addition, fear is an important feeling that acts as a kind of (early) warning system. Fear is important because my body is signalling me: something is wrong here, the situation is dangerous, now I’d better run for it. Or: the conversation/behaviour of the person I’m talking to is weird; communication shouldn’t be like that. Suppressing this feeling or training yourself out of it can have fatal consequences under certain circumstances.

If, on the other hand, I take my fear seriously, my view of my fear, and thus also my view of myself, will change. The first step in dealing constructively with fear is to accept it as a valuable feeling that provides me with important information about myself and the situation in which I find myself.

There are two ways of dealing with fear, as illustrated by the following example:

Before he was expatriated from the GDR in 1976, the singer-songwriter and GDR dissident Wolf Biermann was repeatedly in danger of being imprisoned. Nevertheless, he did not stop expressing his opinion very clearly in words and music, knowing full well that he could be arrested by the secret police for doing so. He was once asked whether this meant he was not afraid. He replied with the interesting sentence: ‘Of course I’m in fear, but fear does not possess me.’

What is interesting about this sentence is, first, that with the beginning ‘of course’ Biermann already assumes that fear is allowed to be and was perceived by him and not devalued because it is ‘natural’ and due to the situation. In addition, he makes it clear that there seem to be two types or rather levels of fear, namely: ‘I am in fear’ vs. ‘Fear possesses me’.

So, it can happen that fear has you. In these moments, we lose sight of our multidimensionality and our otherwise helpful strategies and are now only fear or trapped by fear, which obscures our view of our other possibilities. This feeling can last for a short time or become entrenched, but it should be taken seriously in either case.

Usually, we have resources and strategies that allow us to deal constructively with fear or that help us to regain our strength from a certain distance in time and space when we are in a state of all-encompassing fear or panic. However, it cannot be ruled out that the fear takes over and remains. What is needed here is support and ways to find a way out of this ‘being trapped in fear’.

What is needed above all is distance. In the short term, this may mean that I step out of the situation and avoid possible follow-up situations, e.g. by changing departments, perhaps only temporarily. Sometimes a sick leave is appropriate. In both cases, it is important to use this time to process what has happened, either alone or – even better – in conversations with colleagues and/or friends or family or by seeking professional spaces for reflection (supervision, therapy).

It is helpful to realise that this is not about personal failure, but rather about getting to know and respecting my (current) limits. This will often be helpful in returning to an old occupation. However, there will always be the option of considering a job or career change as a solution.

Fear does not have to mean that you are afraid.

Biermann describes himself as someone who, when faced with an existential threat, was able to say that he was afraid, but that this fear did not control him. Based on this sentence, we would like to consider below what it means and what it takes to ensure that fear does not control us.

We are multidimensional beings, which means that, in addition to fear, there are many other resources that can prevent fear from having an all-encompassing hold over us. We will examine these resources in more detail in the above-mentioned contexts.

In a work context, you usually have a team that you work with. In our context, a team is helpful if fear is communicated openly and appreciatively within it and does not have to be fended off or devalued. A team sometimes must learn this first or redefine it again and again. In some fields of work, the issue of potential threats and the resulting fear has always been a virulent one (e.g. in the judiciary, police, psychiatry), and those working there should be able to deal with it professionally. [2] In recent years, however, new fields of work have emerged (e.g. public offices or schools) in which employees find themselves in new, threatening situations for which they are unprepared or which they had not anticipated when choosing their profession.

In both cases, it can be useful to make this the subject of supervision: recognising, allowing and understanding fear, and considering together how to support each other. This is even more important in rather ‘speechless’ teams, where there is no culture of constructive interaction and support. Fear paralyses and often leaves people speechless, and in a rather speechless team this will be intensified. Particularly in teams that work with people in different contexts, supervision has a preventive effect, including around anxiety.

The above also requires an appreciative management that has the employees in mind and can talk to them appropriately, also without fending off and devaluing fear, but also without increasing it. To be able to do this, the management must have already faced the issue of fear themselves and reflected well on themselves and their role. Particularly in professional fields in which threats are a new and unfamiliar challenge, the management function becomes more complex and goes far beyond organisational action. As a rule, a team will always take its lead from the management and how it deals with the topic of ‘anxiety’. This means that the person in charge has a special responsibility. Here, management coaching can be helpful, dealing with the topic of anxiety and how to deal with it, and reflecting on the special management tasks that arise from situations in which employees can experience anxiety.

Both the team and its management largely determine a constructive ‘culture of fear’ in the institution concerned. However, organisational cultures are not only shaped ‘from below’, but also ‘from above’. In this context, managers and heads of authorities have a particular duty to review the corresponding cultures and optimise them if necessary. This can be an essential part of organisational development or consulting.

Another resource for combating fear, which is related to the above, is knowing and trusting the law (on my side). On the one hand, I need to know what the law is, and on the other hand, I need to be able to rely on the fact that the procedures for dealing with rule violations, for example in courts, schools and public offices, are clearly regulated and known to everyone and are consistently implemented. As clear as this may seem, there is always reason to point it out and to raise awareness of the responsibility to consistently investigate threats and hate comments of all kinds. The explosive nature of digital threats in particular is still not taken seriously enough.[3]

In addition to these organisational conditions, the following aspects are also helpful and necessary:

· Knowledge at different levels

Knowledge about yourself: This knowledge includes reflecting on one’s own biographical experiences and how one personally deals with closeness and distance or power and powerlessness. It can help to reflect on certain questions or to talk to others about them, both in preparation and after incidents that trigger fear.

Self-awareness – knowing your own limits and abilities – helps because it shows you that in most cases you are not completely at the mercy of threatening situations. It can strengthen your own attitude to know your own influences and to be able to categorise them.

However, it must also be clear that it is not enough to just look at yourself and your strategies, but that this is just one important building block among many others in defending against threats. This avoids the danger of placing all the responsibility on the person affected.

· Proximity and distance

From a very early age, I have formative experiences of closeness and distance, both constructive and strengthening, but also destructive and constricting. These experiences largely determine my inner reactions to situations in which something or someone gets too close to me, which in turn will influence my behaviour. To be able to act professionally here, it helps to reflect on important questions:

o When do I feel too close to something or someone and why?

o What is the connection to formative experiences?

o What is different now?

o How do I generally ensure a good (inner and outer) distance?

o Which of these is appropriate in the current situation?

· Powerlessness

As a rule, certain situations trigger a feeling of powerlessness in me. This does not mean that I am indeed powerless. Rather, the current situation is linked to earlier biographical experiences of powerlessness, which reactivate the ‘old’ feeling and restrict me in my professional actions. Here, too, questions for reflection can be helpful:

o When do I feel powerless (in relation to what)?

o Why do I allow another person to trigger the feeling of powerlessness in me? (This question alone has a special power because it immediately puts the questioner at a distance from the other person and can evoke one’s own constructive activity).

o What can I do about it?

An important aspect of both topics is that old experiences are often connected with the current situation and determine it. However, the context of both experiences will be very different. Above all, the person concerned is currently different from the person in the times of the earlier experiences. These often relate to childhood and early adolescence, where it was much more a matter of being truly at someone’s mercy. In the present, the person concerned is an adult facing a situation to which they can react differently, more maturely, more freely.

Experience shows that to find a deeper answer to all these questions, a space is often needed that is shared by other people and with whom I can talk about myself. One way to reflect on these questions is through supervision (in an individual or group setting). However, further training on the topic that includes a high degree of self-reflection is also helpful. The latter is sometimes more effective because it is often easier for people to talk about themselves in front of and with others with whom they are not connected through a shared work.

Knowing (and recognising) my counterpart

In addition to knowing about oneself, it is helpful to look at the other person and see what determines them. In this context, knowledge about radicalisation and destructive dynamics is helpful.

Knowledge about radicalisation: Inappropriate, aggressive behaviour is not fundamentally linked to radical or extremist ideas, but in the present situation it is often enough associated with radical or extremist ideas, in which case the employees in courts, offices, etc. are automatically associated with the ‘system’ that ‘must’ be rejected or even fought against. If I am aware of this and can categorise it, it helps me to better assess the person I am dealing with and to be clearer and more confident in my behaviour.

Knowledge of destructive dynamics: Aggressive client behaviour stems from a variety of sources: anger, fear, hatred, defensiveness, insecurity, dogmatism. A ‘powerful’ or ‘forceful’ manner often indicates the person’s own insecurity. Recognising this can strengthen my own sense of security and make me more capable of acting. This also includes being able to deal with the fact that my counterpart may see me as an opponent or even an enemy. Here it is important to realise that all these dynamics are about transference, i.e. my counterpart does not see me, but an image of me that he or she has created. Being aware of this can help to protect against feelings of devaluation.

The following strategies can be derived from the above:

· Dealing with my own fear:

o How do I deal with it?

o What triggers fear in me?

o What patterns do I have, which are helpful and which are not?

· Dealing with the other person:

o It is important that I decide whether I want to distance myself, try to build bridges, de-escalate or choose a different path. In this context, it helps to have a clear and reflective understanding of my professional role and the associated tasks. It can strengthen my self-confidence if I know what my task is and is not in each situation.[4]

· Safety strategies:

o If difficult situations are to be expected, it can be helpful to prepare for them calmly – and, if necessary, in discussion with others. It is also important to think about fundamental aspects of a setting that provides (more) security, such as the room situation (who sits where?), conducting conversations in pairs only, etc. Finally, de-escalation training has become an important and necessary offer for employees in certain professional fields. It is worth considering extending this to other professional fields as well.

Another area that cannot be discussed in detail here is basic self-care, which is particularly important when working with challenging people. Being ‘well positioned’ in this regard makes it easier to integrate the stresses that this work entails. This also helps to prevent anxiety.

If I have the above available and internalised, it means that the feeling of ‘I am in fear…’ is joined by many resources that enable me to face my own fear and not to let it take over and paralyse me, but to develop and have strategies and attitudes available that allow me to act professionally.

This makes it clear that being afraid does not have to mean being unable to act. I can act despite or rather with fear or insecurity. And that in turn means being courageous. Because only if I act professionally despite or with fear am I courageous. The goal of the person attacking is often to make the other person a victim and to feel better, more powerful or more victorious about this dynamic. However, it is within my power not to accept this assigned role of victim.

Conclusion

In times of ongoing crises, the above-mentioned phenomena will continue to accompany us for a while. It is therefore even more important to stand up to them, to take courage and not to be paralysed by fear, but to clearly and professionally isolate those who, for whatever reason, want to terminate the democratic consensus on a large and small scale.

To do this, you need to treat yourself well and with respect and be aware of your own limits. You need good, encouraging, and empowering relationships, as well as constructive and supportive structures. While such structures are already in place in some areas of extremism prevention, current social debates clearly show that more and more people in an ever-greater range of professional fields are experiencing hostility, and sometimes even hatred and threats. There is therefore a need for a significant expansion of support services, both to strengthen people’s own skills in dealing with such situations and to ensure that perpetrators are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Talking to other people about the challenges mentioned also has another important effect. Focusing on the loud and aggressive can sometimes lead to people feeling like they are fighting a losing battle because their actions are often the ones that have an unpleasant after-effect. This makes them seem bigger than they are in retrospect.

It is only through dialogue with others that we realise that these people, however dominant they may appear, are in the minority. And finally, we see ourselves as connected to other people who care about our liberal-democratic order and a non-discriminatory, appreciative coexistence and who, each in their own way, do something to defend all of this.

[1] The following statements are based primarily on reflections from practical work in counselling and training counsellors. For orientation and further insight into the topic of ‘feelings’, see, for example, Daniel Goleman: Emotional Intelligence, Munich 1997. For a broad and accessible outline of the topic of fear and how to deal with it, see Horst-Eberhard Richter: Umgang mit Angst, Gießen 2008 (original 1992).

This article cannot go into depth on how fear can also be a determining element in aggressive and threatening behaviour. On this topic, see Erich Fromm: The Fear of Freedom, London 1947 (26th edition, original from 1942). For a more in-depth philosophical treatment and an outline of the ‘ontology of fear’, Paul Tillich’s ‘The Courage to Be’ is also recommended (Berlin/Munich/Boston 2015, 2nd edition, original from 1952).

[2] However, this is not always the case. A few years ago, a nurse was seriously injured by a patient in a closed psychiatric ward. In the subsequent supervision session, the head nurse on the ward was asked how the colleague could be received appropriately after her recovery. She replied with the succinct sentence: ‘When you’ve fallen off a horse, you get back on and ride on.’ It is understandable that this intervention did not help the mood in the team.

[3] A tragic example is the suicide of Austrian doctor Lisa-Maria Kellermayr in the summer of 2022, cf. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/oesterreich-lisa-maria-kellermayr-hass-im-netz-1.5634605, last accessed on 13 January 2023.

Jan Böhmermann has done some very impressive research on the often dubious and inadequate work of the police in this field, see: https://www.zdf.de/comedy/zdf-magazin-royale/zdf-magazin-royale-vom-27-mai-2022-100.html, last accessed on 13 January 2023.

[4] See also Peter Anhalt, Christopher Kieck 2021: Communication in the face of a disagreement on values – a model for more understanding and more conscious decisions; in: Interventions. Journal for Responsibility Pedagogy, 16th edition, Berlin.

This article has been published first in: Interventionen – Ausgabe 17, 2023