Behaviour is a common topic of conversation, from parent groups, and school staffrooms, to in the press and the halls of government. Behaviour strategies and interventions, both positive and punitive, are part of all school policies. A focus on behaviour is to be found in health too, such as in the reward and sticker charts that positively reinforce engagement and compliance in therapy. Thus it is not just behaviour, but managing specific behaviour, that is subtly present in many systems professing to help us do and be well.
Yet, in focusing on behaviour management, there is so much that we can miss in terms of care. "
To behave is to act in a particular way, or to act in a way that is considered correct" (Cambridge Dictionary, 2025). When we attempt to manage behaviour, we risk focusing only on the actions that are visible on the surface, and not the person at the centre. Our judgements about what is correct are also highly subjective and influenced by a multitude of external and internal factors, including the timeframe in which we view any behaviour to occur.
Skimming the surface, and the pitfalls of behaviour management for wellbeing.
1. Subjectivity
Functional Behaviour Analysis (FBA) is a common method used to analyse and manage behaviour. Judgements are made using tools such as ABC (Antecedent, Behaviour, Consequence) charts, often when an individual is doing something that others would like to stop or change. These are variously called 'behaviours of concern' or 'behaviours that challenge'. If we flip these phrases around, and look to whom they are a concern and challenge, we see the concern and challenge presenting to the person who is making the judgement. The role of the person at the centre is a passive one, or being 'done to'. Their feelings, emotions, 'insiderness' (McGreevy et al., 2024) are often completely ignored and go unseen.
As much as there may be arguments that this process is done for an individual's wellbeing, exploration of the components of Self Determination Theory, Acceptance, Competence and Relatedness, suggests this is far from the case.
- Acceptance: In behaviour analysis the individual's actions are not accepted. This is the reason why such analysis is happening in the first place.
- Competence: The person's different way of being, whether in the moment of the action being observed, or in the preceding moments, is seen instead as something that needs to change. This also means that the individual is perceived to be failing in some way, usually against what is 'expected'. Yet, expectations are themselves subjective and subject to societal preferences.
- Relatedness: There is power at play in deciding who sets the agenda and the rules. This then leads to a very clear hierarchy, that negates more equitable ways of being and relating and connecting to others.
Managing behaviour in this way is clearly more about enforcing another's will, and very much less about the wellbeing of the person at the centre of the judgements. Even the wellbeing that may be the argued focus of any intervention, is all too often an idea of wellbeing in the minds of those carrying out the observations.
2. Time
Human experiences are multi-layered and multi-faceted, built on the many intersections of our identity and lives over time. Meanwhile, an ABC formulation's focus is short term, looking at events that directly proceed the action being monitored. This misses out the personal and unique journey that we all take through life. Our actions are fluid responses to so many different components. The environment around each of us is a case in point; a tapestry of sensory inputs, cultural narratives, interactions and perspectives.
The timeframes for these factors are as numerous and varied as the factors themselves. Think about a person who from birth has found noisier environments a challenge. Consider their unique sensory thresholds, their learning experiences, their memories of coping and not coping, the energy that this involves, and how much energy they may have available at any one time.
A focus on just the preceding event/s, omits to recognise an individual's 'personal journey' (McGreevy et al., 2024). The time available for true curiosity is limited. We see a person to be fixed, instead of a person whose unique path through life is just as valid, just as valuable.
A better way
The person at the centre is the most important person to include in any discussions around support, yet this voice is most likely to be missing in so much of our current support. We need to find ways to help individuals feel safe, to explore and share their experiences, their ideas, keeping these at the heart of what we do, allowing space to join with them on a journey to discover together what being well looks like to and for them. What are their concerns and priorities? What do they want to do more of, and how can we make that happen?
We must go beyond the surface layer, go deeper and value 'uniqueness' and 'insiderness' (McGreevy et al., 2024). Those who do this deeper work recognise and value authenticity, and offer opportunities for autonomy and agency. These are also the elements so often embedded in the narratives of parents, carers, friends, whose relationships with those they support are most likely to be built on truly human foundations of respect, care and love from the start. It is essential that we offer space to hear and value these voices too in any support that is offered. We must recognise that whilst we as professionals may have a lot of knowledge, we are not experts in others' lives. Our humility is one of the most important tools available to us in offering care.
Care is above all relational work: “Care happens in the space between people, in an unhurried encounter” (Heath & Montori, 2023). Being alongside others, really knowing them, building trust and respect, making time to hear and share different stories and narratives, these are all essential elements of humanistic, experience-sensitive care (McGreevy et al., 2024). In these acts we further show acceptance, and value competence and relatedness, firmly putting wellbeing back at the heart of therapy.
A note on the relationship between neurodiversity-affirming practice and wellbeing
According to the conventions of the neurodiversity paradigm, "neurodiversity is a natural and valuable form of human diversity" (Walker, 2014). Self-determination theory is then bidirectional in terms of whose wellbeing we are working to support. If we can actively accept others' differences alongside our own, value others for who they are, if we can do our best to build our offers of care on a foundation of being alongside, not doing to; on connecting to a person, not judging them from positions of power; everyone in a therapeutic relationship can be well. The synergy of allyship helps us all, not just to manage, but ultimately to thrive.
References
Cambridge Dictionary, (2025 16th March). Meaning of behave in English.
McGreevy, E., Quinn, A., Law, R., Botha, M., Evans, M., Rose, K., Moyse, R., Boyens, T., Matejko, M., & Pavlopoulou, G. (2024). An Experience Sensitive Approach to Care With and for Autistic Children and Young People in Clinical Services. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678241232442
Walker, N. (2014). Neurodiversity: Some basic terms and definitions. Neuroqueer: The writings of Dr. Nick Walker. https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions
Comments
Post a Comment