4 - Cultures of Fear Within Organizations
The author goes back to the topic of the recession, as it has had a significant effect on business culture. Prior to the recession, there was a bold spirit of enterprise and the ability to undertake risks - even if they did not work out, the damage would be minor. But in a recession, there is a fear and conservatism, an unwillingness to take risks. But the recession has impacted more than just investors: it has deeply affected the individual, in his role as a consumer as well as employee. Consumer fear prevents spending, which exacerbates an economic recession. And employee fear prevents innovation, which also delays the recovery.
The author speculates that the fear that has come from the recession will not disappear quickly when prosperity returns. Consider the generation that lived through the Great Depression - the Silent Generation were permanently traumatized by the experience, and tended to be very cautious as consumers and employees for the remainder of their lives.
While the present recession is not as dire, its effects are similar: employees are unwilling to take risks, are fearful of doing anything that calls negative attention to themselves, and are generally cowed by fear of being laid off in a tough economy. This has given rise to a "widespread culture of fear within many workplaces" - resulting in a lack of confidence and a sense of disengagement in employees.
Even before the recent recession, the economic downturn of the 1970s put an end to the notion of lifelong employment. During that downturn, companies cut workers by the tens of thousands. Workers who had been loyal for decades, even those who had made personal sacrifices to help the firms, were unceremoniously sacked. This was devastating to the trust between employee and employer, and made the relationship strictly mercenary and depersonalized - a worker was a "human resource" to be used until he was used up, or until someone or something could be found to do the job cheaper.
And since that time, there have been repeated blows to the notion of job security: economic crashes, outsourcing and globalization, the use of contractors and temporary workers, the fall of labor unions, and so on. At this point, the idea of job security seems like a quaint anachronism - and where there is no security, there can only be fear.
Symptoms of fear in the workplace
There is a cultural prejudice against discussing fear. To admit to having fear is a weakness, and in an organizational context it is a lack of faith in leadership - so while it may be felt, it is seldom discussed. The author speaks of her own experience interviewing oil rig workers in Scotland, expecting that they wouldn't be very expressive - but she found that they expressed a great deal of fear to an anonymous researcher that they would be loath to disclose in the workplace.
Sometimes, the fear is pinned to obvious causes - a difficult job market in a down economy, the collapse of industry giants, a poorly performing stock market, rumors of job cuts and facility closings, and the like. But there is often fear that is not well-founded, which is no less real - and worse still, because an imaginary or implausible fear cannot be discussed or dispelled.
She refers to a consulting firm, which defines the following as symptoms of a culture of fear:
- A preoccupation with conformity to rules and procedures
- Organizational factions with little opportunity for lateral movement
- Measurement with no consideration of whether metrics are meaningful
- Preference for short-term gains without regard to long-term costs
- One-way appraisals
Exploring fear in organizations requires objectivity. Naturally, all organizations want to be perceived as opening and welcoming, and many critics assume that all workplaces are frightening and threatening environments. Neither extreme is true in most instances. Moreover, just because an organization is results-driven, rigid, and demanding does not mean it is a hostile environment - it has more to do with the way in which employees are informed and managed than the goals to which they are applied.
Most organizations are also diverse - except for the very smallest, there are different business units and teams, which each have distinctive cultures, and each manager has an idiosyncratic influence over the culture of his own group of subordinates. And notably, organizations are terribly inaccurate in their self-assessments: some of the most toxic workplaces are led by executives who think that they provide an excellent working environment and have a positive culture.
How can we gauge fear?
Any time you set a goal or make a request of someone, there is the fear of failure. To eliminate anxiety about success is to eliminate the existence of an organization, as without directions and goals it is impossible to coordinate activity. It would be a stretch to call this fear, but some would describe it in that way. Some employees thrive on challenge, others feel intimidated by it - so it is impossible to have a set of practices that will be applicable and motivational to all.
The author suggests that a method of assessment is the degree to which anxiety and stress becomes debilitating and demotivating. Where a challenge is reasonable, there is motivation to achieve it and positive expectations of being rewarded for doing so. Where challenges are unreasonable, there is merely the motivation to escape punishment for a failure that is perceived to be inevitable. (EN: What's missing here is the "insufficient challenge" option, which also saps motivation.)
The effects of fear on organizational life
In panic situations, people tend to do things that make the situation worse. Consider accident reports that demonstrate drivers who stood on their brakes when attempting to slow down on an icy road, or those who stomped the accelerator rather than the brake in their panic. In moments of quiet reflection, we know these are the wrong things to do - but when panic sets in, we lose our minds. The same is true in organizations.
Fear of consequences of failure results in dysfunctional behavior. Employees tend to avoid risk for fear of failure (rather than accepting risk with hope of success). They seek to conform, because following the rules and doing the same as everyone else are methods of escaping individual culpability. There is also the tendency to employ defenses - to escape responsibility by blaming others, or even sabotaging the work of others to seem better by comparison.
Managers, meanwhile, are reluctant to adjust unreasonable demands, and instead introduce greater controls, more measurement, and constant vigilance over employees, which only heightens the fear and paranoia among workers. This is seen as "rational management" rather than terrorism, and it is claimed (and even believed) that controls are in place to help employees rather than debilitate and inhibit them.
The tendency to do what we have always done
In general, people are conservative. Even in the best of times, they cling to the adage that "'If you keep on doing what you've always done, you'll keep on getting what you've always got." This is only true when the conditions are exactly the same - but a change in conditions requires a change in tactics.
There is also the notion of the need to "try harder" rather than "try something different." An employer who finds that a little bit of stress creates a little boost in performance assumes that a larger dose of stress will create an even bigger boost in performance. This is clearly misguided.
Fear also prevents us from thinking creatively, so instead we lay on with things that we assume will work. A manager who is fond of control will go overboard when things don't work - as if doing more of the same will produce a better result.
Following the leader
It's also mentioned that in stressful situations, employees tend to mirror the behavior of their managers. A leader who is cool, calm, and collected under pressure helps assuage the doubts and fears of his subordinates. One who loses his mind encourages them to do the same.
But this is also true in other regards: a domineering leader encourages employees to engage in dominance games with one another. A leader who is a creative thinker encourages his subordinates to engage in novel thinking. It's generally found that the leadership style tends to spread throughout his unit, which can be detrimental if his style is dysfunctional, or even when there is a desire to assemble a group of diverse people to apply different perspectives - and then all tend to follow the leader.
This tendency to conform leads to a sense of depersonalization, which also feeds fear. The sense of being a cog in the machine, an easily replaceable part without personal distinction, creates a sense of insecurity - which is ironic, given that people choose to conform in order to feel secure in being part of the group and culture. Some employees take the opposite tactic - to become a maverick and express their individuality. This tends to lead to insecurity as well, as an individual is perceived as being different from the rest, singled out as a nonconformist, "not a team player." So neither tactic creates a sense of security.
Fear undermines performance
The employer who feels fearful is one who isn't playing to win, but who is attempting to avoid taking too much damage when he is inevitably defeated. This leads to an employee who seeks to merely meet expectations rather than exceed them, and to avoid taking risks that might lead to greater success.
Fear also impacts working relationships with colleagues and managers. There is a sense of competition and paranoia with peers, and a desire to avoid interaction with authority figures to remain invisible and "hide in the pack" of others.
Fearful employees do not call attention to problems they notice (for fear that authorities will shoot the messenger) or suggest novel ideas (for fear of being blamed for an outcome that is worse than current practices). Fearful employees also have low morale, and may already be planning their escape.
Productivity: Statistics and Theories
The author cites a study that suggests decreases in worker productivity: since 1948 the average annual growth in productivity has been about 2.5% - but since 2011, it has averaged only 1.1.%. Similar decreases have been reported in the US, UK, and Australia.
(EN: I'm a bit leery, because this seems to assume that growth in productivity can be sustained indefinitely, and is entirely applicable to the workers' morale. The author dramatically states that productivity is at an "all-time low" but her evidence indicates it is not decreasing, simply increasing less quickly - and moreover, it may be the result of external factors.)
One UK researcher attributes the slowdown to a lack of capital expenditures. That is, companies that are fearful of the economic downturn are not investing in the equipment that would make workers more productive. The author also suggests that she has done research and noted that there does not appear to be much change in business processes: managers are focused on doing existing things more efficiently, rather than in exploring ideas to work in a different and more productive manner.
She also notes the decrease in real wages that has been ongoing for more than a decade. That is, the annual salary increase of workers is less than the increase in the cost of consumer goods, resulting in a net loss of purchasing power. So while the nominal earnings suggest an increase in income, earnings are not rising quickly enough to keep pace with inflation, which is an added source of stress and concern for workers who recognize that they are working harder and getting less for it.
Studies on workplace climate and trends
(EN: The author pulls together random snippets from various sources that support the idea that workers are feeling insecure about their firms, professions, and continued employment - aside of being supportive of the general theme, it's a collage of random bits.)
Fear as a management tool
Another problem in dealing with fear in the workplace is that it is often seen as a management tool. For centuries, dominance of nobility over peasants and master over slaves was maintained and reinforced by means of violence and terror: obedience was given out of fear - and this medieval mindset remains. The author gives examples of companies who show no reluctance to threaten their workers if they do not do as they are told.
A particularly egregious example is given of a firm that sent threatening letters to the homes of workers whom the company wanted to sign disadvantageous contracts with the firm, at a time when the men were not at home. A manager plainly admitted that this was intentional: "'we wanted the wives to put pressure on their husbands to sign. We deliberately sent the letters when they were on the rigs."
Naturally, the problem with using this tactic is the resentment it causes among the workers. A medieval lord or slave owner had absolute dominion over peasants and slaves, but free workers can (and do) take the first opportunity to leave an oppressive workplace.
(EN: It has been predicted that when there is an economic recovery, there is likely to be a mass exodus of workers who have been waiting for years to find an opportunity to leave employers who have taken advantage of them during the crisis. Time will tell.)