1 - The Paradox of Fear
The various folk sayings about fear demonstrate a paradoxical perspective: on one hand we see fear as a motivator to performance, and on the other hand we see it as an inhibitor. The idea of getting rid of fear altogether seems inappropriate - as it does function as a survival mechanism to enable us to avoid harm. But at the same time, it causes us to react in the most haphazard ways. And while organizations recognize that fear and dread do not lead to sustainable performance, they do not hesitate to leverage negative emotions to get what they want in the short-term, as a matter of habit.
She also raises the question of whether fear is at all necessary in the present world. We no longer live in a primitive society, exposed to constant threats. We are unlikely to be savaged by wild animals or die of a superficial injury, or starve or fall sick from anything we might encounter on a daily basis. So in most instances, fear is an irritant that serves no functional purpose.
Fear as a cultural norm
One sociologist describes America as a culture "engrossed with fear." Statistically, the level of danger Americans face in their daily lives is significantly less than twenty years ago, but our perception is that danger has increased.
Much of this is media-driven. Consider the fear of airline accidents as an example: over the past two decades, there are generally fewer than a dozen deaths among commercial airline passengers, as compared to over 30,000 from traffic fatalities. In fact, twice as many people are killed by lightning strikes than in airline mishaps. Yet the level of panic about airlines is much greater.
In general, American culture takes a dim view of fear - it's an emotion that is meant to be tamed and suppressed. But at the same time we recognize that fear has its uses: it sharpens the senses and gives us a boost of hormones that empower us to deal with danger. There are folk-tales of people who gain superhuman powers when driven by fear, and many instances where those who have lived too long in fear are clearly damaged.
For most people, intense and justified fear is not a part of daily life - it's something we think about more often than we experience, and attempt to plan ways to cope with fear of situations we will never face (consider fire drills in schools and office buildings). These exercises give us a false sense of confidence that allows us to clear our minds of self-doubt, regardless of whether it is effective.
She mentions the negative effects of fear as an obstacle that prevent us from doing things that are necessary (public speaking, for example) and a constant source of regret (for the things we have not done because we failed to overcome our fears). When we succeed in a situation that caused us to feel fear, we credit courage or bravery - which are not emotional states, but evaluative statements about the way a person behaves when experiencing the emotion of fear.
Fear in organizations
Fear that is experienced by a single person in a solitary context is different to the kind of fear that exists in organizations, which is more subtle and insidious. She also specifies that this book will focus mainly on large organizations, though group-panic does exist in small and informal groups.
In such organizations, being part of the herd is the safest course: follow rules and fit into the group. Culture is, by definition, an agreement among a group of people to behave in the same way. And while those who step outside of the norms of a group can achieve exceptional results, they can also fail, and with failure comes punishment for breaking away from the norms.
The fear of being punished, humiliated, or rejected is one of the primary tools of collectives that keeps the members of that group in line - and discourages them from stepping out of line. In many instances throughout history, the punishment for breaking ranks from a group have been severe - up to and including execution for heresy or treason, or even disobedience of the group's rules.
While executions are less common, there is still a very stern "or else" that leverages this fear in any organization to keep its members obedient, docile, and fearful to leave or transgress against the group.
There is a bit more musing on the conflict between the individual and collective: in childhood and old age the collective is necessary to survival, as it is when we are sick or injured. But to able-bodied adults, the collective can be quite a burden - given that extra effort is necessary on their part to provide for the children, elderly, sick , and injured. But even as adults we thrive on recognition and social contact, and find cooperation to be more effective in many instances than individual effort. In that sense, it is the fear of the danger of being alone, more so than any love of our fellows, that makes a society or group cohesive.
The author also mentions the recent recession, which has lasted nearly a decade. A financial crisis often causes panic, which exacerbates fear. Companies feel vulnerable and become risk-averse, and this trickles down to the rank and file workers. Messages to take it slowly and play it safe have put a damper on innovation and risk-taking. Additionally, economic downturns come with a fear of layoffs, a common corporate tool used to cut costs. And while the fear of unemployment is typical, it is further exaggerated in times of recession as an employee may be laid off into an economy that isn't hiring.
Re-humanizing the workplace
In management literature, it's generally agreed that happy workers are productive workers, and that they must feel safe in order to innovate. And while much applause is given to the concepts, it is clear that they are not being prioritized: people report feeling more miserable at work than they ever have been. The problem is that many authors and consultants suggest a course of action without considering the cause of the problem.
Largely, she blames the problem on the obsession with control within the workplace: the measurement, monitoring, and reporting of performance beyond all reason and often without reason. The worker must not merely do his job well, but do it in record time - and to break that record the following day, and then break that record the day after. This constant sense of not being good enough undermines employee's morale and creates doubts about their ability to meet increasing expectations. She also sees obsessive measurement as an indication of a lack of trust and respect for the workers.
She also mentions the common practice of culling - hiring more people than will be needed and cutting out the poor performers. This practice creates contention and competition among the workforce, and a constant fear of being cut.
This is not unique to the present age, but goes back to the earliest years of the industrial revolution, in which workers ceased to be craftsmen and became machine attendants - feeding and maintaining the equipment. The measure of the value of a machine was the amount it could produce, and a machine that produced less was scrapped in favor of one that would produce more. The same measurements were applied to the human factor of production.
Rectifying this situation will require more than lip-service and superficial attempts to reduce the misery of the workforce - "it may mean rethinking the way in which we organize work."