If you Break it, you Buy it!

When I was a kid, I recall seeing signs in lots of shops that stated?if you break it; you buy it. The meaning was unambiguous to me, and I knew that if I were to handle something in the shop and drop it or damage it in any way then I would be expected to pay for it.?

To this day, the concept makes perfect sense to me although I don’t seem to see those signs around as much any longer. For the same reason that it seems reasonable to me that I should pay for something in a store that I might have broken while playing with it, it seems reasonable to me that an organisation should pay for members who become broken during their service.

For the most part, contingency exists for this to occur, although I certainly appreciate that individual experiences with these systems vary dramatically and not everyone has a positive outcome. At the time of writing this book I am yet to put in any claims for service-related issues and embarrassingly, it took me nine years after my discharge to even register as a veteran with the Australian Department of Veterans Affairs.?

There were multiple reasons for this significant delay. Firstly, I’m slack! Plain, and simple! Secondly, I was very lucky not to suffer any career ending physical or mental health injuries from my service that would have necessitated an earlier registration. But thirdly, another couple of key barriers to my lodging any service-related claims are a personal unease with the term?entitlement, as well as a reluctance to accept any form of?disability identity,?no matter how relatively small it might be compared to others.?

I have discussed these latter reasons with many military and first responder members who have transitioned and who share this mindset. It makes sense, it’s the very mindset that made them so effective in the role. They went in as volunteers, they deliberately made the bed that they ended up lying in, and if they copped a few bangs and scratches along the way then they take ownership for that.?

I also hear that the reluctance of some to seek any form of compensation is seeded in the deep desire to avoid being associated with others who have adopted a strong?disability identity. This is particularly prevalent with mental health diagnoses and often the desire to not be stamped with a PTSD diagnosis. I get it, I was one of those discharging veterans. This mindset then results in the transitioning member not seeking any support, rehabilitation, or compensation at all for their service-related issues and can lead to a certain degree of resentment to the organisation they have transitioned out of, not to mention sub-optimal management of their conditions. ?

At the extreme other end of this spectrum exists those who have become identity fused with the disability identity and perhaps even (mostly unconsciously) adopted a victim mentality. In this extreme, the individual might start to feel that they have no control over their own future and that they are outsourcing their wellbeing to their former organisation to fund, and their treating medical and psychological team to facilitate. I’m not for one second suggesting that the individual wants this outcome or has deliberately chosen it. I fear that in some instances the system can drive the circumstances in this direction.?

From my vantage point, this is what has happened to several of my former friends and colleagues. One case study that comes to mind was a former army special operations soldier and friend of mine who I’ll call Scotty (not his real name). Scotty was well established in his unit and had completed multiple operational tours of war zones. Over his time, he had accumulated several niggling physical injuries and, on what would end up being his final operation tour, he was involved in an incident that weighed heavily on him from a psychological perspective. On return from that tour his physical injuries were starting to limit his ability to perform his role, so he underwent surgery to try to fix them. During his physical rehabilitation period his mental health started to deteriorate due to rumination on the incident he was involved in.?

After a period of psychological management, he was eventually referred to a psychiatrist and a formal diagnosis of PTSD was made, rendering Scotty unsuitable for service in his role as a special operator while he had ongoing psychiatric treatment.?

He continued to turn up to work but couldn’t perform his former role and hence was given other more menial tasks to fill his time. This put him on the outer of his tribe of special operators (the?lower end?of the special operations Bell Curve) and a distance began to form between him and his tribe. Scotty’s sense of significance and purpose deteriorated, and his mental health worsened. Unfortunately, his surgery had not been successful in fixing his physical injuries and things started to head in the direction of a medical discharge from the army, causing further deterioration in Scotty’s mental health.?

As he worsened, his treating psychiatrist recommended that he not attend the workplace at all due to concerns that it served as a trigger to his previous traumatic experiences. As the process of his medical discharge progressed, Scotty began to adopt the disability identity in place of his former identity as a highly functioning special operations soldier. His new fight became that of convincing the system that he was indeed broken, to secure a pension and his financial security on discharge. As should be the case, the more broken he could demonstrate he was from his service, the higher his pension would be. Scotty’s claims were 100% legitimate, but I watched with dismay as he was required repeatedly to state his claims of disability and fight the system to acknowledge that he had become?totally and permanently incapacitated?due to his service. I can only imagine what that label alone would have done for Scotty’s mental health!?

With so much of the process existing completely outside of Scotty’s ability to control or influence, it made sense to me that he was forced into a degree of victim mentality during the process. He quite literally was along for the ride when it came to his professional and financial future being determined by the powers to be. Eventually he was discharged on a pension and despite gallant efforts to rebuild himself, Scotty lost his ongoing battle and became yet another veteran statistic.?

Now I appreciate that there were many factors going on in Scotty’s life that I had no idea about and I’m not for one moment suggesting that he consciously adopted a victim mentality. Furthermore, I’m not passing judgement on what happened here, or in any other similar case, I’m simply making observations from my perspective. A former highly functioning special operations soldier was physically and mentally injured and despite everyone’s best efforts and intentions, he ended up losing his sense of significance and purpose, losing his job, losing his tribe, being cast out of his in-group, labelled by the system as totally and permanently incapacitated, and ultimately losing his life.?

Locus of Control

When it comes to the adoption or avoidance of a victim mentality, a key concept to understand is?locus of control.?

American psychologist Julian Rotter developed the concept of locus of control in the 1950s and it basically describes the amount we feel we can influence the outcome of any given situation.?

Locus of control exists on a spectrum from the negative end (external locus of control),?where we feel disempowered and like we have no ability to influence what happens in our lives, to the positive end (internal locus of control),?where we feel like we’re in the driver’s seat of our lives and can influence the outcome of situations directly.?

This is not new wisdom, with Stoic philosophy from two thousand years ago being littered with references to the concept. Here are a couple of my favourites:

“You have power over your mind, not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength”.?Marcus Aurelius

“Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle; Some things are within our control and some things are not”.?Epictetus

Whenever possible, we want to drive our locus of control towards the internal end of the spectrum but to do this we need a realistic appreciation of what we can and can’t control or influence.?

Building on Rotter’s work is Steven Covey (author of the book?7 Habits of Highly Effective People)?who distinguishes between?proactive?people, who focus on what they can do and influence, and?reactive?people, who focus their energy on things beyond their control and are prone to a victim mentality.?

Covey uses a model based on two circles to illustrate his concept.

Covey’s model is based on two circles. The outer?Circle of Concern?describes all the factors in our lives that concern us but that we don’t have any ability to control or influence. The inner?Circle of Influence?is the stuff that we can either directly control or, at least, realistically have an influence on.?

To drive our locus of control towards the internal end of the spectrum, the goal is to identify what situations in our lives exist in what circles and then focus our energy only on the things in our circle of influence. It’s easier said than done, but we need to try to let go of the things in our circle of concern because no amount of emotional energy spent in this space is going to influence the outcome and furthermore, the more energy wasted here, the further we reinforce an external locus of control (the perception we can’t influence things) and risk adopting a victim mentality.?

Let’s have a look at how this applies to the transitioning member who has accumulated some service-related injuries over the years. In my opinion (only now, nearly a decade after discharge!) it makes perfect sense to put in claims for any legitimate injuries relating to service. This requires overcoming the mentality of being someone who doesn’t ask for help, and the mindset that fears association with disability identity. Approach it from the perspective of the?you broke it; you buy it?philosophy.?

With that said, the next step is to apply Covey’s circle model to the situation. The transitioning member can directly influence their attendance at medical and psychological appointments for review and accurate diagnosis of service-related conditions, however they need to appreciate that the ultimate outcome of any claims exists in their circle of concern.?

Once the claim is lodged, the best thing they can be doing is then focusing their emotional energy on rehabilitation and trying not to invest energy in the outcome of claims process (once again, I get it; Easier said than done).?

If a diagnosis is established, then by definition the member has a disability identity thrust upon them, but this needn’t be a negative thing. With a degree of?cognitive reframing,?the positives of the situation might be seen. For example, participation in initiatives such as the Invictus Games for wounded servicemen and women (or equivalent for other services) might become a focus for transitioning military members to positively reframe their disability identity. Likewise, if appropriate, becoming an advocate of mentor for other injured transitioning military members or first responders might be another positive way to embrace a disability identity. Whatever works for the individual, but it’s the focus on the?ability?component that counts.?

Our identities are made up of a variety of individual factors, as well our social identities relating to the in-groups that we are a part of. One risk for the member transitioning due to medical or psychological injury is that they adopt a victim mentality and become identity fused with the disability identity. These risks must be fought with every resource the member has, focusing on their circle of influence, with every attempt made to let go of things in their circle of concern, and a balanced investment in parts of their identity other than their disability identity.?

To round out this newsletter, I’d like to use another one of my favourite Stoic quotes from the great Marcus Aurelius:

“Get busy with life’s purpose, toss aside empty hopes, get active in your own rescue – if you care for yourself at all – and do it while you can”.

Call to action: Know Thyself!

Do you have an internal (positive) or external (negative) locus of control??

There are several scales that can be used to give you an insight into where your locus of control lies. An internet search will reveal a few that you can do for free online. I recommend starting with Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale and go from there. Remember to answer the questions honestly and not how you feel will give you the best-looking results. If you do identify that you have an external locus of control, then use the ancient Stoic wisdom and Covey’s Circle Model to turn your focus on your circle of influence (things you can control or influence) and away from your circle of concern (things outside of your ability to control or influence).?

Have you legitimately been injured by your service?

This isn’t about taking the piss and fabricating or embellishing injuries from your military or first responder careers, it is about breaking down the counterproductive mindset of not claiming for legitimate injuries from your service and doing what you can control or influence to have these injuries recognised.?

Getting active in your own rescue here involves being proactive in accessing your service medical and psychological files, seeking the appropriate assistance in lodging claims, and then attending appointments to validate your injury status. The focus should be on positively developing and following rehabilitation plans to get back to the best physical and mental version of yourself you can be following transition. Remember, the ultimate outcome of your claims exists in your circle of concern, so try to let that go and focus on what you can control and influence instead.?

Sometimes, service-related injuries may not be as obvious as you might think. The compounding effect of many varied exposures over a career in the military or a first responder role can cause insidious injuries that are not immediately attributable to one specific incident.?

It is recognised that military and first responder roles cause significantly higher cumulative physical and mental stress on the individual than more?normal?jobs, which is referred to as?allostatic load.?Recent research in this area by Frueh et al (2020)[1] has led to the term?Operator Syndrome?to encompass the:?

“…natural consequences of an extraordinarily high allostatic load; the accumulation of physiological, neural, and neuroendocrine responses resulting from the prolonged chronic stress; and physical demands of a career with the military special forces”.?

While this article focuses in on the somewhat extreme exposures of military special forces soldiers, the same pattern of health issues can be seen to varying degrees across the full range of military and first response roles. I highly recommend that anyone reading this book should also read Frueh et al’s article (you can find the reference below) to further understand some of the less obvious physical and mental health consequences of their service and perhaps to guide the claims process.?

This Newsletter is an adaptation of a chapter from my new book "Sh*t I wished I knew before I discharged" which is available now through online book retailers such as?Amazon Australia ?and international sites.?

As always, comments and questions are welcome. If you feel this newsletter might resonate with others in your community, please share it widely.?

Until next Friday, stay safe, and don’t forget to have some fun!

Cheers,

Dr Dan Pronk

Reference

[1] Frueh BC, Madan A, Fowler JC, Stomberg S, Bradshaw M, Kelly K, Weinstein B, Luttrell M, Danner SG, Beidel DC. "Operator syndrome": A unique constellation of medical and behavioral health-care needs of military special operation forces. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2020 Jul;55(4):281-295.