9 - Creating Psychologically Healthy Workplaces
The author balks a bit at the notion of creating a perfect work environment. The ideal situation in which employees feel delighted to come to work each day and feel a level of bliss on the fringe of delirium is likely an unrealistic goal. "Work" still means being paid to do things that are not entirely pleasant, and there is likely no way around that. But at the very least management can attempt to create an environment that is psychologically healthy rather than toxic.
The (Sad) State of Psychological Health in Organizations
A "healthy" workplace does not require employers to cater to their workers' pleasure, merely to avoid causing unnecessary displeasures. In the context of the present book, it is about creating an environment where employees feel empowered and respected, where they can contribute meaningfully to the limits of their ability, and where most of all they are not dominated by fear. It should not be regarded as a luxury, but a basic human right to be treated with dignity and respect.
Companies currently make efforts only against the most egregious violations of human dignity. They do not use threats of physical violence against their workers, nor tolerate such behavior among workers. But remain largely indifferent to intimidation and harassment by means of non-physical threats (threatening to terminate employment, shaming and humiliation, social ostracism, denial of advancement opportunity, etc.)
The problem is compounded by the fact that this is often an intentional part of the corporate culture. IT is deliberately encouraged. Managers are trained to leverage threats as a means of controlling employees, and they often encourage their employees to form a gang and bully non-conformists.
In such a situation, hope of creating a psychologically healthy workplace seems dim.
The Value of Engagement
Fear is often used to bully people into acting without thinking - doing exactly as they are told, and nothing more. And this is the only thing that fear is good for. This is exactly the reason that organizations with fear-based cultures find that they are unable to have engaged employees.
The term "engagement" has been bandied about much of late, so it's meaning may have become muddled. In its most basic sense, engagement is enthusiasm for one's work - the desire to contribute more of oneself, to achieve more than the minimum acceptable level of performance. Companies with engaged employees have greater effectiveness and efficiency in virtually every meaningful metric than those with disengaged employees.
Engagement is increasingly important in the modern workplace, in which the value that employees contribute to a firm is not primarily derived from the performance of routine tasks according to pre-defined procedures, but the contribution of innovation and problem-solving skills. Customers, who provide the revenue of a firm, are less willing to interact with any employee who is unable to serve them because they are constrained by policies and procedures, so even low-level front-line employees (clerks and cashiers) must exercise these skills to be effective.
The control-oriented management techniques are based on the premise that employees don't want to do their jobs - but what we find is exactly the opposite. Most employees want to do their work, want to be competent and productive - and their greatest source of frustration and dissatisfaction is that they are prevented from doing so. When this goes on for long enough, employees become disengaged and demotivated.
The value of engagement is in productivity, attendance, and retention. Engaged employees enjoy their work, want to be there, and want to contribute. Conversely, disengagement results in poor productivity, absenteeism, and high turnover. Disengaged employees loathe work, want to leave, take advantage of opportunities to miss work, and do as little as they can when they are on the job.
As an aside, the author insists that "feel-good factors are not enough." Casual dress codes, having pets at the office, free sodas, and even cash bonuses to not address the fundamental problems that cause employees to be disengaged: they are not empowered to do their best in the workplace.
Engagement and Productivity
Traditional businessmen are skeptical of engagement, and see it as some sort of altruistic exercise. In their minds, being kind to people is contrary to the image of a hard-nosed businessman, and caring about employee's happiness seems very touch-feely.
Studies into the phenomenon of happiness finds that it is often derived from relationships with other people. Having the financial resources to meet basic needs is table stakes - a person who cannot afford enough to feed his family is unhappy, but one who can cover this need is not necessarily happy - he is merely complacent. Likewise, having more resources to ensure that needs will be met for the reasonable future leads to a person who has no problems, buit is not necessarily happy. And having the financial resources to purchase a life of luxury does not create happiness, as many very wealthy people are quite miserable.
Happiness is derived from a sense of accomplishment - being free to pursue one's own goals and having the resources to make progress toward them. Another source of happiness is the relationships we have with other people: family, friends, and community. The degree to which individual or community sources of happiness matter depends on the person, but most peoples' happiness depends on some combination of those two.
And this is where work has the ability to create happiness. If a person's personal ambitions align with the mission of their company, than accomplishing the mission is aligned to achieving one's own goals - and produces happiness. If a person's community ambitions is to have positive relationships with others, then the relationships they have with coworkers (with whom they interact most of the time) also produces happiness.
Conversely, if work is an obstacle to personal ambition and the relationships with coworkers is hostile and contentious, then work produces unhappiness. (EN: And this is binary thinking. My sense is there is a middle ground where work is irrelevant to personal ambition and relationships are weak but not hostile. Such a position would be unfulfilling, but not prone to cause unhappiness aside of a vague sense of ennui and pointlessness.)
As an aside, the author speaks of the unhappiness that results from idleness. Even when a person has the financial means to support themselves without working, they experience distress from having a sense of purposelessness. They are not achieving anything, nor interacting with anyone. And this leads to the nagging sense that something is wrong with their lives. Because they are idle, they feel unfulfilled.
(EN: I recall a study that suggests that work is a cultural value, and that it is waning. While previous generations defined themselves by their production, younger generations are now defining themselves by their consumption - and as a result there is less sense of ennui among the unemployed, and work is an exchange of displeasure for the means to acquire objects to consume.)
The qualitative-quantitative divide
The author considers the schism between qualitative and quantitative measures. Because of their nature, quantitative goals render a simple pass/fail assessment: we either made the numbers or we did not. Qualitative goals are not as easily assessed - the sense of whether we are "satisfied" cannot be proven, and our pass/fail assessment is based on a vague sense we are satisfied enough.
While quantitative goals have the appearance of objectivity, they are often quite arbitrary. We can measure performance against objectives, but the objectives are chosen in an arbitrary manner: we can measure the percentage increase in sales, but what does that mean? Moreover, the bar is always being raised - if we increase sales this year, then we want another increase the following year. Qualitative goals are not affected by the same arbitrariness: we want to eat until we are satisfied - we do not need to eat a specific amount of food to be satisfied and attempting to consume a specific number of ounces to satisfy a quantitative goal is potentially harmful.
The problem within organizations is that the quantitative model is overused. Things are not merely quantified, but monetized in arbitrary ways, and then people are tasked to pursue metrics that are often meaningless and sometimes quite harmful. And they are well aware of this, but management gives their concerns little attention.
This is not to be interpreted as a proposal for the opposite extreme. Quantitative measures can be useful - but they are being overused and used inappropriately. In some instances, qualitative measures are more valid, and going by what "feels about right" is a valid and more productive approach.
Fresh approaches to organizational life
The author considers a number of firms that have adopted a more positive attitude toward their employees. Specifically, Google's strapline of "don't be evil" is applied internally as well as externally. The company is often lauded for the way it treats its employees, and it is also lauded for being a highly innovative firm. This is not a coincidence.
What the firm has found is that engaged employees are innovative, controlled employees are not. The various amenities and perks provided on their campus are provided for the convenience of their workers. (EN: It's often portrayed as a productivity tool - if there's an onsite gym, barber, dry cleaning service, etc. then the employees can spend more time at the office.)
Other employers mimic some of Google's practices, though few seem to espouse the reason that drives them: a happy employee is an engaged employee, who is able to devote more of their time and energy to doing the things that drive innovation for the firm. Eliminating internal controls and even making non-work tasks more convenient enables the workers to contribute more to the firm's success.
Developing Engagement
The author mentions the various "organizational initiatives" that have attempted to rejuvenate organizations through large-scale programs. Most employees have been through several of these, which cause a temporary upheaval but fail to deliver any real results. As such, there's a great deal of cynicism about these "pep rallies." Managers who have also been through the process before, generally when outside consultants are brought in to make large-scale changes, and they see little results to justify the cost.
This is largely because organizations are galvanized against making an significant changes. Any "new" idea is twisted and bastardized so that people can carry on just as they had before, maybe using different language. Alternately, they will go through the motions to make it seem like they have adopted a new paradigm, but in reality they are doing the same things in the same ways.
The Real Organization
There is reference to "the grapevine" within an organization: the informal network of employees that communicates outside of formal channels. Managers are generally wary of the grapevine, because it is beyond their sphere of control and assume that it is composed entirely of subversive elements. In some instances, it can be: false rumors and disinformation breed. But in many instances, the grapevine transmits valid information an can be useful in building support.
>From a functional perspective, the "organization" of a company has less to do with its hierarchical chart and formal rules and protocols. The organization is the manner in which the company actually operates. And in many instances, a highly functional shadow network is instrumental in holding together a firm whose explicit systems are flawed. This can often be seen to a lesser degree in employees who get things done quickly through their personal networks within the organization instead of going through channels.
>