Embarrassment, Shame, and Guilt at Work: Coping

Dictionaries define coping as dealing with problems or overcoming obstacles. Because embarrassment, shame, or guilt can be problematic, it's useful to wonder about how to cope with them. I've written about eight patterns of coping, based on the work of Virginia Satir, extended slightly, but we don't need that level of granularity for this discussion. Two kinds of coping will suffice. Congruent coping takes into account the world as it is, with balanced regard for oneself, for others, and for the world at large. Incongruent coping is unbalanced. In incongruent coping we have too much or too little concern for ourselves, or for others, or for the world. Let me illustrate by comparing incongruent and congruent coping patterns for dealing with feelings of embarrassment, shame, and guilt.

Embarrassment

Coping incongruently with embarrassment can involve concealment or denial. Lying about feeling embarrassed is an example. Explaining away your own behavior by blaming your faux pas on someone else is another example. Even simpler: pretend it just didn't happen, and hope you aren't blushing visibly. Some people who frequently cope incongruently with embarrassment can become quite skilled. They develop artful techniques for concealing their missteps, detectible only to the practiced eye or ear.

Coping congruently with embarrassment might start with the realization that everyone experiences embarrassment now and then. Just now, it was your turn. Search for humor in the situation. Lean into it. Exaggerate it and see if you can elicit laughter from the people who have witnessed your misfortune. Use the incident as a basis for deepening the connection between your witnesses and yourself.

Shame

Some of the more popular approaches to coping incongruently with feelings of shame are rejecting the feeling itself, or rejecting the incident that might have led to the feelings, or reflexively rejecting the moral standard that had been violated, or rejecting all responsibility for the outcome of the incident. These strategies don't lead to much learning beyond how to deploy these strategies more effectively. That's why these strategies are unlikely to help develop the ability to prevent or avoid further shame-inducing incidents.

Coping Because embarrassment, shame,
or guilt can be problematic, it's
useful to wonder about
how to cope with themcongruently with feelings of shame requires taking ownership of the action that violated the moral standard in question. Learn about the harm your action induced, to others or to yourself. Examine whether the internalized moral standard is truly worthy of internalization, or is perhaps in need of amendment or even rejection. Learn what led to the violation with a view to avoiding repetitions. Consider the possibility that you might have had better alternatives that you rejected, or that you didn't consider in the moment, or that you've never known about.

Guilt

Incongruent coping with feelings of guilt involves denying the action you took, or any responsibility for the action. Or you might repress the entire incident, driving it out of your awareness. Whenever the incident does come into your awareness or recollection, you can congratulate yourself for having driven it out of your mind for however long a period that was. Feeling good about forgetting your transgression is a way of rewarding yourself for denying it. You can adopt the (mistaken) view that forgetting the transgression, or being unaware of it for a time, is the same as "getting over it," even though it clearly is not. If there was a victim, you can blame him or her, claiming by whatever contorted argument you can devise that the victim caused you to do (or not do) whatever you did (or didn't) do. If all else fails, you can try a trading strategy. In trading, you assuage your feelings of guilt by punishing yourself for your infraction. For example, you might deprive yourself of something you enjoy, especially something that you gained or kept because of the action (or inaction) about which you now feel guilt.

Coping congruently with feelings of guilt entails acknowledging the feelings, accepting that you've done (or didn't do) whatever it was you did (or didn't do), checking for any possibilities of making amends, and looking to the future to see what you can learn. To do these things requires understanding the standard that has been supposedly violated. Verify that the standard is truly yours, and that you aren't applying someone else's standard. Verify that the feelings you're experiencing are proportional — that they are commensurate with the infraction. Ask yourself, "Am I making too much of this?"

Accept that you can't revise the past. What you can do is make better choices in the future. Use your energy to consider what you can do differently to avoid making the same bad choice again. You'll find lots of advice on the Internet to the effect of "move on." Moving on can be more easily said than done, but it can be a bit easier if you recognize that moving on is the only path that leads to opportunities to practice dealing better with this particular situation, or with guilt in general.

These examples of coping emphasize embarrassment, shame, and guilt. But humans must cope with other problems, too. Compared to congruent coping, incongruent coping comes more easily in this moment, but it usually makes for difficulty in the next.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Emotions at Work:

The Tweaking CC

When did you last receive an email message with a "tweaking CC"? Probably yesterday. A tweaking CC is usually a CC to your boss or possibly the entire known universe, designed to create pressure by exposing embarrassing information.

Decision Making and the Straw Man

In project work, we often make decisions with incomplete information. Sometimes we narrow the options to a few, examine their strengths and risks, and make a choice. In our deliberations, some advocates use a technique called the Straw Man fallacy. It threatens the soundness of the decision, and its use is very common.

When You Need a Lift

When we depend on praise, positive support or consumption to feel good, we're giving other people or things power over us. Finding within ourselves whatever we need to feel good about ourselves is one path to autonomy and freedom.

The Focusing Illusion in Organizations

The judgments we make at work, like the judgments we make elsewhere in life, are subject to human fallibility in the form of cognitive biases. One of these is the Focusing Illusion. Here are some examples to watch for.

Directed Attention Fatigue

Humans have a limited capacity to concentrate attention on thought-intensive tasks. After a time, we must rest and renew. Most brainwork jobs aren't designed with this in mind.

See also Emotions at Work and Emotions at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info