The Hobby Matrix

From the Greenagel Equations

The Greenagel Equations are a set of practical frameworks developed between 2005 and 2008 in school, outpatient and family treatment settings. They were built in rooms, not in theory, and have been used with students, families, law enforcement, veterans and therapists.


A life concentrated in one environment is a life vulnerable to collapse.

The Hobby Matrix was created in an early recovery group at Hunterdon Drug Awareness in 2009 or 2010. People were there with six to 12 months sober. We were working on increasing their activities and friends. I saw that people leaned inside or outside, solo or group.

I started drawing four boxes on the board and asking people to mark where their time actually went. Most people were dominant in one or two areas. I almost never came across anyone who had multiple checks in all four boxes.

This was not about hobbies for fun.
It was about protective architecture.

Balance does not mean equal time. It means no quadrant is chronically empty.


How It Works

Draw four boxes.
Ask where time goes.
Look for zeros and clustering.
Increase breadth.


I treated a 17-year-old who spent nine hours a day watching short videos. He watched all day, every day. During school and well after midnight. He had drifted away from friends and activities.

Inside/Solo – dominant and unhealthy.
Everything else – empty.

Interventions:

Reach back out to friends from the neighborhood
Reach back out to kids on the academic team
Start playing baseball again
Go to the gym
Hike with his father
Watch movies

He went back to baseball. The gym started but was intermittent. Still, a win. He hung out with friends and made some new ones. He even went to a couple of parties, which alarmed his mother, but I told her it was a good thing.


A 33-year-old woman had a breakup over different views of having kids. She had spent the last two years on relationship island and alienated her friends. Shopping was a big coping skill that had gotten her into some financial problems. I was concerned about her possibly drinking to escape or seeking rebound relationships. The breakup happened in winter.

Inside/Solo – biggest risk.
Outside/Group – rebuilding required, hard in winter.
Inside/Group – reconnect with friends, avoid bars.
Outside/Solo – exercise is an underused strength, more likely in summer.

Book a solo trip for summer that is high on physical activity. Exercise two to three times a week to prepare for it. Reach out to friends and plan a few group activities.


Mid-20s woman. Social butterfly. Easily had two to four things to do each day on the weekend. Organized canoe trips, ax throwing, escape rooms, fancy dinners, concerts and dancing. During the weekday, just went back to her apartment and scrolled while watching television. She could not imagine going to a movie or restaurant by herself. Had no problem ordering take out almost every night.

Inside/Group – dominant, healthy.
Outside/Group – dominant, healthy.
Inside/Solo – empty.
Outside/Solo – empty.

The inability to eat alone is the key behavioral marker. Weekday solitude becomes dysregulating because it has never been trained. Try going to a restaurant by yourself. Don’t scroll. Bring a book.


A 57-year-old retired cop. No friends, no hobbies. “When I was on the job, people contacted me all the time. Now I know it was because they wanted something. I worked nights and weekends and crazy amounts of overtime. I gave up hunting and fishing in my 20s.”

Pre-retirement:

Inside/Solo – empty.
Inside/Group – co-workers.
Outside/Solo – gave up activities in 20s.
Outside/Group – built-in contacts, built-in structure.

Post-retirement:
Everything – empty.

Interventions:

Start fishing and hunting again
Look into fishing and hunting clubs
Consider volunteering. Ex-cops like to feel useful.
Consider return to religious services
Won’t do gym; would try swimming. Good for winter exercise.
Open to getting a dog
Suggested reaching out to other retired cops to start a breakfast group

He joined a hunting club. The following year, he went on a hunting trip to Montana. He went back to Church and found volunteer work with them. Another ex-cop organized a breakfast group and he went.


A life concentrated in one environment is a life vulnerable to collapse.

It is not about hobbies.

The Hobby Matrix does not require equal time in all four areas.
It does require at least one viable activity in each quadrant so no environment becomes unfamiliar

Which quadrant is empty? Which one dominates?

The Math of Trust

From the Greenagel Equations

The Greenagel Equations are a set of practical frameworks developed between 2005 and 2008 in school, outpatient and family treatment settings. They were built in rooms, not in theory, and have been used with students, families, law enforcement, veterans and therapists.


Tr = C x Ti

Trust = Consistency x Time

If consistency is low, trust remains low, no matter how much time passes.

If time is short, trust remains low, no matter how sincere the behavior is.

Only when both increase does trust rise meaningfully.

Multiplication matters. Not addition.


I developed this in an outpatient group. Clients in early recovery complained

  • “I’ve been sober for three weeks. Why don’t they trust me?”
  • “It’s been six months. What else do they want?”
  • “It’s been two years. Why are they still cautious?”

They confused improved mood, verbal remorse, insight, intentions and sobriety with trust.

The equation cut through it.

I originally wrote it as consistency over time. A client corrected me. “Divided doesn’t work. It’s multiplied.” He was right.

Trust is behavioral. Not emotional.

Hope. Love. Guilt. Fear.

None of these belong in the equation.

Only

  • What do you consistently do;
  • over how much time

Trust is rebuilt over small repeated behaviors. Over long stretches. Without drama.

You don’t earn back 10 years of broken trust in 90 days.

A client at three weeks sober:

  • C = high
  • Ti = extremely low

Multiplication keeps trust score low.

This helps families see they are not cruel or unforgiving. It shows they are rational.

A husband who has been caught texting other women three different times over an eight year marriage:

  • C = low
  • Ti = high

It shows she is rational.


Trust is not repaired by apology. It is repaired by predictable behavior over time.

I had a client who, in his addiction, burned his parents’ house down.

He talked about it in our first group. That was about ten years ago. His family came to multi-family group. It was his mother and stepfather – which added its own layer of tension and history. We didn’t go near the fire. We worked on the basics: staying sober, going to group, telling the truth, no drama.

The family kept coming.

At nine months sober, during a three chair exercise in the middle of the room, he apologized for burning the house down. It was touching and slightly funny at the same time. Every witness had the good grace not to laugh. There is no small way to say a sentence like that.

It mattered.

Over time, he was allowed to visit the new home. Trust was not restored because of the apology alone. It was rebuilt because of consistent behavior over consistent time.

  • C = high
  • Ti = medium

Trust returned slowly.


Students at Elizabeth once described a male social studies teacher as being “on the rag.” I was writing at the board when I heard it. I turned around.

“That is not appropriate.”

“Mister, he is. Some days he is easy going. Other days he comes in and it’s like his wife told him she wanted a divorce at breakfast. We never know what we are going to get.”

“Well, that’s a better way to put it.”

“With you we know what every day is going to be like.”

C = low
Ti = high

Trust remains low.

Time is the proof.
If you want trust, multiply.

Blue-Blue, Blue-Red, Red-Red

From the Greenagel Equations

The Greenagel Equations are a set of practical frameworks developed between 2005 and 2008 in school, outpatient and family treatment settings. They were built in rooms, not in theory, and have been used with students, families, law enforcement, veterans and therapists.


Every relationship you have ever had fits into one of three sets: Blue-Blue, Blue-Red or Red-Red.

Romance, family, work, strangers.

The Blue represents healthy behavior. The Red represents unhealthy behavior. Red behaviors include but are not limited to yelling, insults, breaking promises, public humiliation, lying and cheating.

Which relationship type is stable?

Blue-Blue is stable. I’m healthy to you, you are healthy to me.

But Red-Red is also stable. And stability does not equal health.

One cold December day I was walking in Elizabeth. I came up on an old couple. They were shrunken and slow moving. They were dressed neatly. I thought “what a cute couple.” As I got close, I heard one sharply say, “you didn’t send the fucking Christmas cards!” I was horrified.

They were Red-Red. And, I’m speculating here, they had probably been Red-Red for fifty years. This can last decades. In fact, it can be passed down from father to son, grandmother to granddaughter.

Both parties operate on the same rules. Escalation is mutual. Neither expects regulation. The chaos is normalized.

What about Blue-Red?

It’s unstable. It can’t stay this way forever.

The Blue person here often wonders if they are crazy. They are playing by Blue rules. The Red partner is not. The Blue partner assumes fairness. The Red partner assumes dominance or chaos. That destabilization creates anxiety, self-doubt and hypervigilance.

What does the Blue want?

For the Red to become Blue.

It’s the least common outcome.

What is more likely to happen?

Blue becomes Red.

At some point, Blue cracks. They say something awful. They yell. Maybe they act out by drinking, gambling or cheating. The point is, by staying in the relationship where they keep living with bad behavior, they slowly morph into Red. This is the most common outcome.

There is a third outcome though.

Blue leaves.

In couples or family therapy, I try to help Blue figure out if they are turning Red, they should try to set boundaries or leave.

I usually try to get Blue to leave. But if Red shows some willingness to work on themselves to change, they can wait around a bit longer, if they want. It depends on a few factors, including safety, how long this has been going on and how much damage has already been done.

I was treating a cop. His wife wanted a divorce after 18 years. He was devastated. He tried to save it. No. So he did everything she asked, hoping he would win her back. She was mean. He thought he was Blue-Red. I told him he was Red-Red, because he was unhealthy too. Not unhealthy mean, but unhealthy accommodating. He eventually got better. Then he started dating Mary. Mary really liked him and wanted to settle down. He liked her, but not as much as she liked him. And he didn’t want to settle down. From his perspective, she was Red and he was Blue. I told him because he was leading her on, knowing that she thought he would change but he never would, he was in fact Red. He saw it clearly. And he finally broke it off.

Red and Blue are behaviors, not identities. The same person can be Red in one relationship and Blue in another.

Red doesn’t mean evil. It doesn’t always mean cruel. It just means unhealthy. Excessive accommodation. Self-erasure. Begging for love.

Almost everyone has been Red in some relationship in their life. When we recognize it, we gain some wisdom. When we start to change from Red to Blue, that is real growth.

Once you have labeled your relationships, you can figure out which ones you want to put more time into and which ones you should cut, and which ones might be worth a little effort to save through change.

If your behavior depends entirely on how someone else behaves, you are not free.

Choose carefully.

Behavior–Values Matrix

From the Greenagel Equations

The Greenagel Equations are a set of practical frameworks developed between 2005 and 2008 in schools, outpatient and family treatment settings. They were built in rooms, not in theory, and have been used with students, families, law enforcement, veterans and therapists.


I had a drinking problem when I was 18. It was hard to get alcohol. A friend of mine said there was an old lady in a town about 15 miles north of us that would buy it for us. She was 30. She lived in a ramshackle apartment building. The inside was dirty and sparsely furnished. She was smoking and there were a couple of pots on the stove. There were two kids, a girl who was maybe six and a boy who looked eight. There were two old people. I asked if they were her parents. “No, I watch over disabled older people. They’re nice enough,” she giggled. And then, “let’s go.”

I was startled. She meant to leave the kids and the disabled old people alone with the pots cooking on the stove. I didn’t like that. She was at the door with her bag and looked at me. “Let’s go.”

I turned and followed her out the door. I knew better and moved forward anyway. On the drive to the store, in the parking lot and on the way back, my whole body was churning. “This is wrong,” I thought. “I wasn’t raised like this. Those people should have never been left alone.”

My heart was pounding when we got back to her apartment. Everything was fine. The boy had made macaroni and cheese. Nothing had happened. It didn’t matter. It could have. I was horrified. My desire for alcohol had caused me to do an awful thing. I betrayed my values of protecting others by putting four vulnerable people in danger. I look back on that afternoon with piercing regret and deep shame.

I intentionally got blackout drunk as fast as possible. It was the only time I actually drank to blackout. The other times, it had been a side effect of my heavy drinking. This time I planned to get blotto. It temporarily helped. When I woke up, the regret washed back over.

This is not about my problem with alcohol at 18.

This is about behavior misaligned with values.


Looking at this matrix, my values were high but my behavior was low. I was in conflict. I felt guilt and then shame. If my behavior had matched my values, I would have felt whole. If my values had been selfish, I wouldn’t have felt anything at all.


I was working at Hunterdon Drug Awareness (HDAP) in the summer of 2005 and running groups in jail for men and women. One of the clients in there was a 19-year-old man who had been arrested eight times in the last year for marijuana possession, including twice on the same day. He was in jail this time because he tested positive for marijuana while on probation. He loved smoking weed but didn’t want to be in jail. On the spot, I drew up this matrix.

“Let’s say that saying ‘I don’t want to be in jail’ is a high value. Therefore, ‘I don’t care if I’m in jail is the low value.'” On this, he agreed. I continued, “Based on the fact that you are on probation and have been told you cannot smoke weed, we’ll put staying away from weed as a high behavior and smoking as a low behavior. Because you are on probation.” He begrudgingly agreed.

I showed him that his values were high but his behaviors were low.

“Either stop smoking weed and stay out of jail or change your values and accept jail as a consequence.”

The room went silent.

He saw it.

The fantasy he wanted:
Bad behavior + good value outcome.

That. Does. Not. Exist.


Most people don’t suffer because they lack values.

They suffer because they want the outcome their values promise without changing the behavior they require.

That is behavioral-values dissonance.

It’s painful.


This applies to:

Career. “I value excellence.” Do the minimum.

Marriage. “I value loyalty.” Cheat.

Parenting. “I value presence.” Always on phone.

Friendship. “I value honesty.” Avoid hard conversations.

Nation. “We value rule of law.” Ignore it when convenient.


At some point in their lives, almost everyone has betrayed their values.

Behavioral change is not about:

Self-esteem. Validation. Affirmations.

It’s about:

  1. Clarifying your values.
  2. Auditing your behavior.
  3. Closing the gap.

No one escapes this math.


Live your values.

Do Not Pick A Job, Pick A Supervisor

Why Supervision Matters

“Do not pick a job, pick a supervisor.”

I’ve been telling that to my social work students, interns and supervisees since 2011.

Neither the pay, nor the job title, nor the commute, nor the work-from-home policy should determine where you work. The driving variable is the supervisor.

That’s a difficult sell. It may mean taking a harder job, for less money, farther from home. It runs against a professional culture that prioritizes short-term comfort over long-term formation.

Supervision functions much like parenting. If you train under a good supervisor, you are far more likely to become a competent and grounded clinician. Strong clinicians can emerge from poor supervision, but it is rare. Poor supervisors, on the other hand, reliably produce underprepared and often embittered clinicians.

Before defining good supervision, it helps to understand what bad supervision looks like.

Bad Supervision

I recently read an evaluation where the clinician didn’t give a basis for the diagnosis, misspelled names, got dates wrong and provided laughable recommendations.

Bad supervisors fail in predictable ways. They often:

  • assign work but don’t tell you how to do it, then get angry when they don’t like what you did, discourage questions
  • load work on employees and do little themselves, take credit for your work
  • are unavailable, frequently cancel, rush supervision or multitasks
  • do not review paperwork line-by-line
  • exist only on paper
  • over-validate without correction
  • react defensively to questions or mistakes, collapse when challenged from above or by outside forces

My first supervisor at Integrity got high after I was there for three days. Four months later, I got my second supervisor. He liked to yell. He didn’t like that I had good relationships with the clients; he wanted them to fear me. These were the values of someone who had never been responsible for other people. I quit eight months later.

A good supervisor is not enough if the institution itself is unethical. No supervisor can permanently compensate for a corrupt system.

How Supervision Is Conducted

Supervision is the act of watching, training, directing, correcting and protecting a worker to make sure they complete tasks safely, ethically, properly and efficiently. Supervision is far more layered than just one-on-one work. A good supervisor will use at least a few of the following methods to train their employees:

  • Individual supervision
  • Group supervision. You learn from listening to co-workers present and get feedback
  • Trainings on areas of expertise. I recently trained a bunch of new supervisees on ethics, suicide, social isolation, documentation, sports gambling and how to run group.
  • Observation of supervisees in individual and group work. A supervisor should never just rely on the self-report of employees in the beginning
  • Supervisees observe the supervisor and other clinicians in order to develop their own style
  • Article reading and discussion
  • Case Presentations. This should be done without notes. This is best in group supervision.
  • Caseload Reviews
  • Live note review. Clinicians should get direct, in-person feedback regarding DAP notes and treatment plans so they are time focused and have specific behavioral interventions.
  • Video a clinician’s work and then watch it together. This is the only one I don’t do. Dave Erickson did this for decades and it was quite effective.

In most states, individual supervision must take place at least twice a month. Group supervision can fill the other weeks. I believe it is best for supervisees to bring an agenda. A good supervisor teaches triaging work. A great supervisor uses their own mistakes as teaching moments.

Reviewing paperwork is the area of supervision I like the least, but it is extremely important. It allows another clinician to understand what happened, it legally protects the worker/supervisor/company, third party payers require it and it is one of the only ways states monitor what has happened in treatment. Paperwork includes intake forms, treatment plans, individual notes, group notes and correspondence with referral sources including courts, jobs and schools. A good supervisor teaches clinicians how to write.

Three important aspects of supervision that I touch upon every month are scope of practice, countertransference and professional development.

Scope of practice refers to the area a licensed medical professional has been educated, trained and supervised in. An ophthalmologist doesn’t work on feet. Yes, they are a doctor but their scope of practice is the eyes. A supervisee’s scope of practice should not exceed their supervisor’s. If I am not competent in an area, I cannot supervise it safely. Expansion requires additional training and appropriate consultation.

Countertransference is when a clinician has an emotional reaction to the client. They could like them, hate them, dread them or overly root for them. Substance misuse counselors in recovery occasionally fall into a trap of wanting their client to get sober more than the client does and getting upset when it doesn’t work out. Countertransference tends to hit workers earlier in their career. Sometimes, countertransference should be discussed with a supervisor; other times, with a therapist. For example, if a clinician is treating someone whose disastrous romantic relationship reminds them of their own marriage, it may not be something they want to share with their supervisor. But, that supervisor should have taught them enough about countertransference that the worker knows to discuss it in therapy.

Professional development is pretty self-explanatory. I teach and review skills with workers, such as diagnosing, running groups, writing reports or conducting trainings. It also includes getting more education, pursuing new credentials and earning advanced licenses. It involves working with different demographics and on different types of cases. From the start, I explicitly prepare workers to either (a) get promoted with the company or (b) become strong enough to find a better job somewhere else. It is good for them, the field, society and in the meantime, I get great work out of them because they know they are moving forward towards something better.


Supervision must be modeled, not just taught.


Administration and Environment

When most Americans go to a doctor’s office, they are handed a clipboard and told to fill out a bunch of forms, including what might be a very in-depth medical history.

Do not hand clients a clipboard of paperwork. Walk them through it. They will take it more seriously and you will learn a lot more about them. Because you explain each form, sometimes apologizing for the duplicate nature, you will begin to build trust. During an intake several years ago, a cop told me that a paver ran over his foot when he was 18 and working on a road crew. He couldn’t walk for almost a year. It was important for me to know and I wouldn’t have found out if not for doing the intake paperwork with him and asking additional questions.

Individual and group rooms should be safe and interesting. There should be art on the walls to look at. I believe that clinicians should have something about their favorite sports team or musician or movie on the wall. It can spark a conversation, or at the very least, show the client you have your own life (although it can be annoying for other people who use your office when you aren’t there; one part-time worker got so frustrated by being asked about Bob Dylan because of the concert poster in my office that she thought about quitting).

A good supervisor makes sure the clinician eats during the day and takes regular time off.


Relationship and Alliance Building

I teach clinicians to acknowledge differences with their clients during the first session, particularly age, (most important), race and gender. One must explicitly state why you can work with them anyway. Invite questions or concerns.

I want clinicians to find common interests with clients: places visited, books read, favorite movies, sports, hiking, restaurants, television, music, video games, aquariums and any other hobbies that you have in common.

If you don’t know much about their job or hobby, ask them. A recent client educated me about meteorology. A fifteen year old taught me about Oxycontin in 2005 and another one of my clients at Rutgers informed me about fentanyl back in 2009. My work on the opiate epidemic was informed and inspired by my early clients.

If it is possible to leave the office, I think going for a walk with a client can be incredibly effective. A park is best, but not required. To be clear, one should follow agency policy, know the area and trust the client.


Clinical Standards

Diagnosis

The core rules in the DSM are that one does not diagnose when a medical condition or substances can explain the symptoms; and that only the most pervasive disorder in a clinical tree gets diagnosed (not bipolar disorder and depression, just bipolar disorder, as depression is an aspect of it). In 2009, a young woman from Connecticut walked into my office at Rutgers and told me, “I’m bipolar. I’m borderline. I’m addicted to alcohol and marijuana and mushrooms and LSD. I’m also anxious, depressed and have ADHD.” I told her to slow down and start with her name. She had been hit with so many diagnostic labels that it became her identity.

Clinicians should never simply reaffirm prior diagnoses. I tell my students and workers, “Even if you saw that I did it, I want you to review my work.” Once a diagnosis exists, professionals often stop checking. This is a known problem in physical medicine and mental health. A young soldier once walked into my office with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. She had gone to a hospital because she couldn’t sleep for days and had difficulty concentrating. This was because she had caught her live-in boyfriend with another woman in their bed when she came home from the Army and was justifiably incredibly upset. When she went to the ER, the doctor hit her with the bipolar diagnosis. The Army was going to kick her out until I met with her. I was enraged. I had to write a detailed report about how her symptoms were consistent with someone who had been horrifically betrayed by a romantic partner and not bipolar disorder. Her life was almost irreversibly worsened by a bad diagnosis.

A good clinician teaches clients: how the diagnosis was reached, what criteria were met and what treatment options exist.

A good supervisor teaches clinicians to place clients in the appropriate stage of change, especially when stuck or frustrated.

A good supervisor teaches clinicians that “If you don’t know something, say you don’t know.”

A good supervisor teaches clinicians to recognize when something is outside their scope and consult or refer out and to also recognize when a higher level of care is needed.


Individual and Group Practice Standards

Confidentiality must be explained at the start of individual work, as well as the five exceptions to confidentiality (record release, medical emergency, suspected abuse of elder/minor/disabled people, homicidal or suicidal ideation, court orders). Confidentiality should be stated at the start of every group, even if everyone in group has been there before. It reinforces the rules and structure.

Every session should end with reviewing what was discussed. That also signals that time is up. I believe that clients should be given one to five things to do before the next time you meet, with a particular focus on behaviors.

Individual sessions should not exceed one hour. Group sessions should not exceed 90 minutes. Do not tell people not to cry. Normalize distress when appropriate. Let people know reactions can be typical and healthy. Use humor if you have it. Confront and challenge only after trust is established. Use their words. Do not use blank facial neutrality. Be sad with them. Be angry for them. Do not be shocked.


Documentation and Ethics

Document everything: phone calls, emails, texts and random meetings. If someone provides information about a client by phone, email, letter or in-person, tell the client what was said and by whom, even if it is uncomfortable. Back in 2004, I didn’t keep a fax receipt for some paperwork I sent to the Orange County NY court regarding one of my clients at Integrity House. When I went with him, his probation officer claimed they never got the report. I couldn’t produce the fax receipt so the judge threw my client in jail. I went to my car and cried.

Supervisees must carry adequate malpractice insurance. It is strongly advised the supervisors and their clinicians use the same carrier, lest one’s insurance company sues the other and the case gets tied up for years. Do not skimp on coverage.

It is the supervisor’s job to teach the ten most common ethical problems and the eight most common punishments. Those are basic. There are much more in-depth ethical conversations to be had.


Lessons From My Supervisors

I want to tell you about my three supervisors, Joe Butler, Jass Pelland and Lisa Laitman. And I want to share three great lessons from each of them (there are more, but all you get are three).

I met Joe Butler in 2004. He led group clinical supervision on a weekly basis at Integrity House. He was a great listener. He asked probing questions of the other counselors and helped them to see what they should do next with their clients. I had been working there less than a month when he suggested that I go get my MSW. That was on January 27th and I got my application in before the February 1st deadline. My earliest exposure to family work was watching Joe run family education groups before visits.

Joe told me to stop talking about my teenage arrests and recovery background as a way of bonding and treating clients. “You are an outstanding peer but you want to be a clinician. You need to develop counseling skills. If you rely on your biography and personality, it’ll work, but you’ll never really get better.” I stopped talking about my background for two years. Joe taught me about clinical skill development.

I did my first year Master’s Internship at Integrity House. Joe had me work with women, people with HIV, people with sexual trauma and teenagers. New populations, new types of problems. During my second week in graduate school, a teenage boy told me during the intake that his neighbor had molested him for a few years. I told Joe, thinking that he would take care of it. Instead, he told me to have the Mom come in and I would tell her with her son in the room. “Joe, I’ve only been in school for two weeks.” He told me that it was my responsibility. Joe taught me to have hard conversations early.

During my time at Integrity House, my caseload had far better outcomes than any other counselor. Around the ninth month there, one of my clients left and got high. I was devastated. I was angry at him but also blamed myself. “You can’t wear your clients’ successes and failures. You didn’t get them sober and you can’t get them drunk. You are part of their process. That’s it. You control what you do with them; they are responsible for what happens. If you wear their successes and failure, you will emotionally burn out.” I became a process guy. Joe taught me that I am responsible for my work, not my clients’ outcomes.

I started working for Jass Pelland at Hunterdon Drug Awareness in 2005, shortly after I had left Integrity House. I was originally hired to run multi-family group on Friday nights. Despite only working five hours a week, she made sure to give me weekly supervision. I soon started working there about 25 hours a week. I ran six groups, conducted intakes and had a few individual clients. No matter how busy we were, I got individual supervision every Monday at 4 pm and took part in group supervision every Tuesday at 5 pm.

In late 2006, I conducted an intake on a late-thirty-something-year-old white male. He thought it was important for me to know his sexist, racist and homophobic beliefs. You know the type. I have almost always been able to find something to like or some way to bond with a client. I found him to be distasteful and deplorable. I didn’t want to work with him. I told Jass that I completed it and that he needed treatment but I didn’t want to work with him. She asked me why. I told her that he was racist and sexist and spewed bile the whole time and I didn’t like him. She said, “I don’t care about that. He needs treatment, so you treat him.” I told her that he also hated gay people. Jass is a lesbian, so I figured that would do the trick. “So what? He needs treatment. We provide treatment. So you will provide treatment.” And I worked very hard at providing him quality treatment despite my personal difficulties with him. Jass taught me that treatment is not contingent on liking the client.

In 2008, we admitted a trans woman into our program. She had been kicked out of Sunrise House Detox because they didn’t know where to put her. Jass made all of us take a half day course on providing substance misuse treatment to trans people. I asked her why we were spending so much time learning how to work with just one client from a very rare population. She raised her voice, not in anger, but to emphasize how important her next words were: “We need to be able to provide quality treatment to any individual in the community, but particularly to people who can’t get it anywhere else. We are not here to just treat the most common people and the most common cases.” She taught me that competence must extend to the margins.

More than any individual lesson though, what stands out most about Jass is that she was a role model. Every month, she reviewed every current client file. This meant she looked at between 120 and 150 charts during the last three days of the month. I would get two to five pages in red ink about all the things I needed to fix. There were no shortcuts, no cut and paste. Our notes were so good that our agency was used by the state as a model of what an Intensive Outpatient Program’s (IOP) paperwork should look like. She taught me to write every document like it would appear in court or on the front page of the Star Ledger. Other clinicians and I would complain about intakes, caseloads and paperwork. Then we would glance down the hall and see Jass working at 9 pm. She did intakes herself, carried a caseload, ran groups, took urines, supervised us and reviewed all of our paperwork. No matter how hard she pushed us, she demanded more from herself. And, as I write this I have a lump in my throat, that is how I am now. Despite the long drive during rush hour traffic, I worked part-time under her for six years.

I met Lisa Laitman when I arrived at Rutgers in 1997. She oversaw the Alcohol and Other Drug Assistance Program and ran the Recovery House. I had decided to live in the transfer dorm my first year but I made sure to get to know her. I moved into the Recovery House my second year at Rutgers and found her to be an incredible mentor.

Lisa came to Rutgers in 1983 and created an early recovery group in 1984. In 1988, Rutgers became the first school in the world to have specialized housing for students in recovery. She was a trailblazer of the first order. In 2009, Lisa hired me to be the Recovery Counselor on both the New Brunswick and Newark Campuses. I met with students individually, ran group, trained resident advisors (RA’s) all over campus, took students to meetings, organized activities, found new students, coerced alumni to attend events and handled small and big crises.

Despite the Recovery House being her life’s work, she handed me the proverbial keys soon after I was hired. We met weekly and I kept her apprised with what I was doing, but she let me run with it all. She trusted my abilities, work ethic, values and judgement. She was confident enough to give me autonomy. She taught me that trust produces responsibility.

Lisa emphasized emotional regulation over success and criticism. When I worked at Rutgers, we had tremendous institutional support from the President and extra funding from the State. Lisa was happy about it but she had a long view of things. “A few years earlier, the former Dean of Student Affairs wanted to get rid of Recovery Housing. He didn’t think we were serving enough students and that our population was a giant potential liability.” She rode out that rough time and kept the Recovery House going. “When you are disliked and disregarded, just keep doing the work. It’ll turn. And when you are praised and celebrated, don’t get too full of yourself or let your guard down, because it’ll turn.” Stay frosty. Lisa taught me to regulate my ego before I regulated anyone else.

The last story is too long to retell, but you can read about it here. Basically, there were some students who said some bad things about the recovery students. I wanted to punish them. Lisa saw another way. And she was right.

The wildest part?

I picked all three to be my supervisors.


Burnout

I teach my students, interns and clinicians to watch for when they are irritable. Or, in some case, more irritable than usual. I watch them for cynicism, which can be tricky, because I fall into societal-level cynicism on occasion. I tell them to beware of over-identifying with clients and to avoid rescue fantasies. But to also not wall themselves off with detachment or rule rigidity. Watch out for moral superiority, I tell them (this is another trap I can fall into). And don’t become numb.

Burnout is not avoided by affirmative signs (“happiness” or the absolute worst, “gather”) and going to yoga (I love yoga, to be clear). Burnout is prevented by having reasonable caseloads, a clear scope of practice, access to consultation, time off without guilt, leaders who model restraint and humility and weekly quality supervision.

I regularly review clinicians’ cases. I check in on countertransference. I tell them about my mistakes and how to avoid them. I model saying “I don’t know” and “I’m not sure.” I am aware of my scope of practice and refer to other clinicians and programs without shame. I take breaks for coffee and meals. I take time off, both long weekends and extended vacations.

There is an extremely important caveat here. A good supervisor isn’t the be-all and end-all. A good supervisor cannot permanently compensate for a corrupt institution.


Non-negotiables for New Clinicians

  • Do not wear client outcomes.
  • Do not diagnose when substances or medical conditions can explain symptoms.
  • Reassess diagnoses even when they come from good clinicians.
  • Teach clients how diagnoses were reached.
  • Explain confidentiality every time.
  • End sessions with review and next steps.
  • Eat during the work day.
  • Document everything.

Putting It all Together

Early supervision protects clients first. It protects clinicians second. It protects institutions third. It accelerates development and prevents bad habits from hardening into character.

Jobs come and go. Titles change. Salaries fluctuate.

Do not pick a job. Pick a supervisor.


Rules for Writing in Professional Life


Yesterday I published The Corruption of Language in the Helping Professions. In it, I took apart TikTok talk, academic fog, government drivel and MAGA and progressive doublespeak. It was both an homage to George Orwell and a long, specific catalog of what not to do.

That piece violates one of my own rules. It names problems without offering enough solutions beyond “don’t write like this.”

That failure bothered me.

I spent an inordinate amount of time today listing, organizing and editing what follows.

While I think it would help almost anyone’s writing, this is meant to be particularly instructional for my students and supervisees.

Purpose

Good writing clarifies thinking. Bad writing hides it. In clinical, academic and policy work, unclear language causes harm. This doctrine exists to reduce vagueness, avoid professional self-deception and improve accountability.


I. Core Rules of Clarity (Orwell)

  1. Avoid dead metaphors and stock phrases.
    If you have seen it in print a thousand times, cut it. (Orwell)
  2. Prefer short words to long ones.
    If a shorter word works, use it. (Orwell)
  3. Cut unnecessary words.
    If a word can be removed without changing meaning, remove it. (Orwell)
  4. Use active voice whenever possible.
    Name the actor. Avoid hiding responsibility. (Orwell)
  5. Avoid jargon when plain English works.
    Scientific and academic language must clarify, not impress. (Orwell)
  6. Break any rule rather than write something barbarous.
    Rules serve clarity, not rigidity. (Orwell)

Source: George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946).


II. Precision and Accountability

  1. Every claim must point to an action, decision or behavior.
    If it cannot, it is likely meaningless.
  2. Name who does what.
    “Systems failed” is weaker than “The agency did not hire staff.”
  3. Avoid hedging language that adds no information.
    Phrases like at this time usually add nothing.
  4. Distinguish observation from interpretation.
    State what you saw. Then explain what you think it means.

III. Evidence and Citation (Required)

  1. Cite sources for factual claims.
    Use links, APA citations or MLA footnotes. Pick one and be consistent.
  2. Attribute ideas even when paraphrasing.
    Avoid even the appearance of plagiarism.
  3. Use dates, locations and verifiable details when possible.
    This allows readers to check your work.

Frederick Douglass Clause:
Douglass wrote his first autobiography so skeptics could verify his identity and experiences. Checkability is an ethical act, not a stylistic choice.

Source: Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845).


IV. Numbers and Mechanics

  1. Numbers one through ten are written out.
    Numbers eleven and above appear as numerals. (MLA)
  2. Spell out acronyms on first use.
    Assume no shared knowledge.
  3. Titles of books, films and magazines are italicized.
    Be consistent.
  4. Avoid repetition unless intentional.
    Repetition must serve emphasis, not carelessness.

V. Sentence Structure

  1. Favor short sentences.
    Clarity over flourish.
  2. Use occasional longer sentences intentionally.
    A soft rule: nine short sentences, one longer combined sentence.
  3. Avoid stacking multiple roles or ideas into one sentence.
    Separate ideas deserve separate sentences.

VI. Ad-Hominem Rule (Frank’s Dad’s Clause)

  1. Critique actions, decisions and outcomes.
    Do not attack appearance, intelligence or personal traits.
  2. Be tougher on behavior than on people.
    Precision is stronger than insult.

VII. Questions in Writing

  1. Use questions sparingly.
    Questions can evade responsibility or lead the reader.
  2. If you ask a question, answer it.
    Do not outsource your position to the reader.

VIII. Profanity and Tone

  1. No profanity for students or supervisees.
    This is protective. Professional credibility comes first.
  2. Tone should match purpose.
    Clinical notes require restraint. Essays may allow voice.

IX. Clinical and Professional Writing Standards

  1. Describe concrete behaviors.
    Avoid abstract labels without examples.
  2. Explain how conclusions were reached.
    Especially in evaluations and reports.
  3. Distinguish diagnosis from description.
    State criteria, not just labels.

X. Learning to Write Better

  1. Read widely and constantly.
    Newspapers, magazines, history, fiction, non-fiction, comics, plays, biography, instructions and poetry.
  2. Write often.
    Emails, notes, journals, reports and essays.
  3. Do not outsource writing.
    Thinking happens in the act of writing.
  4. Edit other people’s work.
    This sharpens judgment.
  5. Teach.
    Teaching forces clarity and audience awareness.

Canonical Sources Referenced

  • Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. 1946.
  • Strunk, William & White, E.B. The Elements of Style.
  • Zinsser, William. On Writing Well.
  • Modern Language Association (MLA) Style Guide.
  • Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. 1845.

Disclosure: Structural organization and editing assistance were provided by a large language model in accordance with my AI Use & Writing Standards. All rules, positions and conclusions are my own.
See: https://greenagel.com/ai-use-and-writing-standards/

The Corruption of Language in the Helping Professions

I have been having my Rutgers seniors read Orwell’s On Politics and the English language since 2012. It’s a difficult article, as Orwell intentionally filled it with long sentences, obscure words and vague political speak in an effort to demonstrate bad writing while railing against it. Very meta.

Orwell took particular issue with dying metaphors (toe the lineride roughshod overstand shoulder to shoulder withplay into the hands of), pretentious diction (phenomenon, epoch-making) and meaningless words (patriotic, justice, democracy, freedom) in political writing, as they were lazy, vague and made it harder to understand what is actually being said.

Orwell explicitly lists six rules to prevent bad writing:

  1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
  2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
  3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
  4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
  5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
  6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous

Ever since, I’ve been crossing out words, sentences and paragraphs in my students’ work. I scrawl “vague, stale, too wordy or what are you actually trying to say here?” all over their papers. I am much loved.

In 2018, I compiled a list of stale business phrases to show how Americans failed to heed Orwell’s advice and actually got dumber:

  1. Give 110 percent
  2. Think outside the box
  3. Hammer it out
  4. Heavy lifting
  5. Throw them under the bus
  6. Don’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched
  7. Pushing the envelope
  8. Let the cat out of the bag
  9. Let’s circle back
  10. Win-win situation
  11. Blue-sky thinking
  12. Boil the ocean
  13. Synergy
  14. Low-hanging fruit
  15. Take it to the next level
  16. Barking up the wrong tree
  17. Going forward
  18. Let’s ballpark this
  19. Run this up the flagpole
  20. Back to square one
  21. There’s no I in team
  22. Back to the drawing board
  23. Paradigm shift
  24. Elephant in the room
  25. Raise the bar
  26. Drill down
  27. Best thing since sliced bread
  28. Deep dive
  29. Skin in the game
  30. Reach out
  31. Touch base
  32. Play hardball
  33. Don’t reinvent the wheel
  34. Kept in the loop
  35. The bottom line
  36. Down the road
  37. I’ll loop you in
  38. Hit the nail on the head
  39. ASAP
  40. Team player

I have pulled directors and executives aside after I’ve heard them utter these phrases and hit them with Oscar Wilde’s “you talk so much and don’t have anything to say.”

Last week, Marina Laurent, a current student of mine (and an Air Force Veteran, so double winner) wrote about how in other social work classes she has been taught about “person-centered practice” and “reports barriers to care.” My god. I’ve been railing against psychobabble and therapy-speak, the style of academic journals, vagueness, political doublespeak and TikTok talk for decades. Decades, dude. Oh to have lived in earlier times when people read more, wrote better and were eager to get vaccinated.

So, on to some villainous phrases that are used in 21st century social media, social work, psychology, academia, government and politics.

TikTok Talk

  1. Triggered
    Strong emotional reaction framed as identity. The crown jewel disaster for preventing growth.
  2. Gaslighting
    A specific form of manipulation turned into a synonym for disagreement.
  3. Narcissist
    Clinical diagnosis flattened into a personality insult. If your spouse or ex is an actual narcissist, you might want to get evaluated to see why you were with them so long.
  4. Avoidant
    Attachment shorthand used to explain incompatibility without effort.
  5. Emotional unavailability
    Vague label that avoids naming needs, limits or expectations.
  6. Breadcrumbing
    Intermittent interest reframed as pathology rather than ambivalence.
  7. Love bombing
    A real behavior diluted by applying it to early enthusiasm.
  8. Manifesting
    Magical thinking repackaged as personal agency.
  9. Boundaries
    Important concept misused to shut down conversation.
  10. Trauma dumping
    Sometimes real. Often used to avoid listening.
  11. Red flag
    Actually a pretty good term. A few traits should be universally disliked, like being cruel or having a penchant for raping. There are others. The rest, though, are pretty arbitrary. In dating, two red flags for me are if she doesn’t read at least one book a month and if she spends more than 15 minutes on social media.
  12. Healing journey
    Directionless process without goals or metrics. California hippie therapy.
  13. Inner child
    Powerful metaphor misused as an excuse.
  14. Emotional safety
    Undefined protection from discomfort.
  15. Toxic
    In English, this means a substance or environment that causes death. In 21st Century America, it means a bad job, a bad boss or a bad boyfriend. “He literally poisoned me.” I don’t want to get into what literary means.
  16. Hard launching
    Performative certainty.
  17. Vibes
    A refusal to articulate thought. This is just an awful word.
  18. Holding space
    Means nothing without behavior.
  19. Doing the work
    Work unspecified. Outcome unclear.
  20. Alignment
    Spiritual language used to avoid decision-making.
  21. Unhealed
    True Orwell shit. Awful, stupid term. I can’t figure it out.
  22. Core wound
    Speculative diagnosis with no treatment plan.
  23. Self-abandonment
    Catch-all for regret. Again, just a radically stupid term.
  24. Energetic match
    Astrology for relationships.
  25. Hyper-independence
    Normal autonomy reframed as pathology.

Social Work and Psychology Babble

  1. Trauma-informed
    Claimed without describing changes in practice. Most trauma-informed therapists and programs actually aren’t.
  2. Client-centered
    Baseline ethics framed as innovation.
  3. Evidence-based
    Which evidence? Applied how?
  4. Best practices
    Consensus without specificity. There are so many places that say they use best practices that aren’t a good program. Meaningless.
  5. Barriers to care
    Gestures at problems without naming responsibility. Shout out to Marina.
  6. Strengths-based
    Used to avoid discussing deficits that matter.
  7. Lived experience
    Ends debate rather than clarifies expertise: I’ve lived, worked and deeply consulted in the following institutions: military, law enforcement, secondary education, higher education, corrections, media, state and local politics and health care. I guess that means I understand the United States better than almost anyone then.
  8. Safe space
    Safety from what: discomfort or harm?
  9. Processing emotions
    Action-free phrasing.
  10. Whole-person care
    Undefined scope.
  11. Harm reduction
    Reduced how? Measured where? A lot of harm reduction people look like active drug users. That hurts the movement.
  12. Meeting clients where they are
    Often means expecting nothing.
  13. Empowerment
    Power undefined.
  14. Resilience
    Jamba juice was closed. Annoying. I got through it though because I’m resilient.
  15. Noncompliant
    Client won’t do what I say and isn’t getting better. He is non-compliant.
  16. Treatment resistant
    Avoids examining quality of treatment delivered.
  17. Clinically indicated
    By what standard? I train people to put down a diagnosis and to list which criteria they meet. That’s clear. Do you see the difference?
  18. At this time
    Useless hedging.
  19. Rule out
    Sometimes replaces reasoning.
  20. Scope of practice
    Properly used, it protects clients and clinicians. Misused, it becomes a shield against competence. For example: autism, geriatrics and eating disorders are outside of my scope of practice.
  21. Case management
    Real case management requires assessment, planning, referral and evaluation. Many places use the term and do none of it.
  22. Stages of change
    A powerful model when clinicians actually assess stage and adjust approach instead of reciting theory.
  23. Continuum of care
    Often imaginary. Often used to justify sending you to their other business.
  24. Wraparound services
    Undefined bundle. A way to get more money out of you.
  25. Clinical judgment
    Sometimes a cover for intuition alone.
  26. Therapeutic alliance
    Important, but not sufficient. “We like each other” isn’t enough.
  27. Self-care
    Someone must specifically cite the behavior and how it is helping. Otherwise this is sometimes an excuse to skip work or avoid the in-laws.

Education and Academic Language

  1. Critical thinking skills
    Rarely defined or assessed. Very few teachers teach these. If you want to develop critical thinking, first do a take down of your own positions. That’s critical thinking.
  2. Transformative learning
    Transformation unspecified.
  3. Creating dialogue
    Dialogue toward what decision. Do you mean talking?
  4. Inclusive pedagogy
    Methods unstated. Sometimes it is impossible to reach 100% of the classroom. Getting through to 80% is quite good.
  5. Student-centered learning
    Buzzword without structure. You get to decide how to learn. What a world!
  6. Experiential learning
    Working for free. Often for someone who doesn’t know what they are doing.
  7. Scaffolding
    Educational jargon replacing explanation.
  8. Learning objectives
    Written but not measured.

Government and Policy Language

  1. Moving forward
    Temporal filler.
  2. Stakeholders
    Obscures power differences.
  3. Operationalizing recommendations
    Means someone else will figure it out.
  4. Leveraging resources
    Resources unspecified.
  5. Public-private partnership
    How to give public money to private businesses while looking virtuous.
  6. Data-driven decision-making
    Which data. Interpreted by whom?
  7. Systemic challenges
    Avoids naming actors.
  8. Policy solutions
    Solutions without cost or enforcement.
  9. Pilot program
    Delay tactic.
  10. Task force
    Action substitute.
  11. Anti-American
    Used to silence dissent.
  12. -gate
    Suffix inflation that trivializes real scandals.
  13. Culture war
    Distraction from economic policy.
  14. War on XYZ
    I don’t agree with your criticism. The War on Christmas is one of the great 21st century exaggerations.
  15. Whole-of-government approach
    Means nothing.
  16. Evidence-informed policy
    Weaker version of evidence-based.
  17. Best available science
    Often ignored. Sometimes funded by Exxon.
  18. Capacity building
    Capacity for what?

Emotional Cushioning Language

  1. This feels heavy
    No shit. Good therapy deals with hard stuff.
  2. I hear you
    Acknowledgment without response.
  3. That’s valid
    Conversation ender.
  4. Let’s unpack that
    Often goes nowhere.
  5. It’s complicated
    Usually true. Often lazy. Lots about life is complicated.
  6. Sitting with discomfort
    Avoids action.
  7. Showing up
    Presence without responsibility.

Corporate and Workplace Language

  1. Synergy
    Meaningless.
  2. Low-hanging fruit
    Avoids hard work.
  3. Circle back
    They won’t circle back. Those were just words.
  4. Deep dive
    Extended meeting. Usually a waste of time.
  5. Reach out
    Contact.
  6. Bandwidth
    I’m not your best worker.
  7. Deliverables
    Tasks.
  8. Next-level
    Unspecified improvement.
  9. Paradigm shift
    Rarely one.
  10. Win-win
    Usually not.

Cultural and Media Language

  1. Narrative
    Often replaces facts.
  2. Platform
    Inflated importance.
  3. Amplify
    Broadcast without critique.
  4. Problematic
    Accusation without argument.
  5. Reframing
    Spin.

MAGA and Progressive Political Language

  1. Law and order
    Arresting brown and black people.
  2. Common sense reform
    You should agree with me.
  3. Radical agenda
    Policy I dislike.
  4. Mainstream values
    Undefined majority.
  5. Woke
    An insult to be used when you don’t like policies that help Black people.
  6. Cancel culture
    Social consequence reframed as oppression. If you rape, you should be cancelled.
  7. Weaponization
    Criticism reframed as attack.
  8. Deep state
    Institutional complexity. Often involving lawyers who uphold the law, turned into conspiracy.
  9. Fake news
    Unfavorable reporting.
  10. Populist movement
    Vague appeal to the people. Usually means they want free stuff for people like them but not for different kinds of people.
  11. National conversation
    Media talking to itself.
  12. Bipartisan solution
    Compromise without substance.
  13. Protect our democracy
    Often rhetorical only.
  14. Historic moment
    Every news cycle.
  15. Lawfare
    Legal accountability reframed as persecution. More importantly, not a real word.
  16. Freedom
    If I can’t do what I want, then I’m not free.
  17. Parental rights
    Selective control over public institutions.
  18. States’ rights
    Federal enforcement I dislike.
  19. Election integrity
    I don’t want Democrats to win.
  20. Traditional values
    Whose tradition, exactly? My ancestors drank wine out of the skulls of their enemies. For realz.
  21. Centering voices
    Who chooses which voices matter?
  22. Systemic oppression
    True in many cases, often poorly defined.
  23. Words are violence
    If I break your lower leg into three distinct pieces, you’ll figure out what is actually violence.
  24. Harmful rhetoric
    Speech I dislike.
  25. Restorative practices
    Useful tool treated as universal solution. Often a political loser.
  26. Power dynamics
    Sometimes analysis, sometimes conversation stopper. Often “I don’t like men.”
  27. Decolonizing
    Often metaphorical, rarely literal. Comes across as anti-white. A political loser.
  28. Radical empathy
    Empathy without limits. This is a stupid term. Empathy works just fine.
  29. America First
    Was a Nazi-adjacent phrase in the 1940s.
  30. Patriot
    Loyalty test, not civic duty.
  31. Globalist
    Person I don’t trust. Really, this means Jew.
  32. Elites
    People with education or power I resent.
  33. Real Americans
    Not coastal urbanites who do yoga and like French food.
  34. Hard-working Americans
    White people.

The Final Offender

  1. Unprecedented times
    Every generation thinks so. The Bubonic Plague was really bad.

Many of these words or phrases often need to be explained to people. A rule in comedy is that if you have to explain a joke, then it isn’t funny. These phrases persist because people are lazy. Full stop. They allow the speaker to avoid precision, conflict and accountability. A few of these phrases are racist dog whistles, giving the speaker an out: “that’s not what I meant.” Yes it is. When language stops pointing to specific actions or decisions, it stops working.