Choosing a robust quality of work life.

The immense popularity of the 1980's best seller, In Search of Excellence (Peters, 1984), is an expression of the desire to find an alternative to bureaucratic organizational life. The choice for greatness is the commitment to behave differently ... to achieve in a unique way ... not to play the game. It is also a risky choice because by just choosing greatness we run the risk of not achieving it. Admittedly, choosing a unique path in a traditional organization can be dangerous. In many companies following a path of high risk means simply behaving like a human being. It's choosing this riskier path that is the essence of what Covey calls responsibility (1989).

Caution vs. Courage

Many of the external messages we receive in our careers seem to demand caution. There are highly institutionalized efforts that give us the feeling that we are being watched and evaluated. Coaching, of course, is a critically important ingredient in advancing one's professional development. All too often, however, feedback in performance reviews conveys the image that, "We, the management, have agreed that you need to work on the following areas." Who can help but feel cautious in the face of this powerful consensus? Performance reviews are but one of many types of events that impel us toward caution.

The alternative is to choose courage. It comes in the form of small steps, sometimes taken mostly in two-person conversations. It means confronting an issue, when others ignore it; to say that a meeting isn't going well, when everyone else seems satisfied. It means acting differently. It is summed up by Warren Bennis, former President of The University of Cincinnati: "Managers do things right--Leaders do the right thing." It means being a leader.

This is not a bells-and-whistles kind of courage. It is not the courage of theater, when truth, justice, and the American way are on our side. Organizational courage is murkier--when the issue in and of itself is less than monumental, and when we believe that management is not, in fact, on our side. The choice of self-assertion and risk is the only antidote for caution.

Debasement vs. Self Enhancement

In actual practice, of course, almost no one chooses debasement. More commonly, we just allow it to occur. As a result of widespread caution, it is not surprising that so many people in contemporary organizational life feel devalued. The two go hand-in-hand. This phenomenon is so prevalent that it cuts across both the private and public sectors, different industries and job titles. In consulting with several Fortune 500 and intermediate size companies, I have found that many people, from entry-level positions to the top of the hierarchy, often feel devalued. It is a curious common denominator of organizational life. Frequently, it results from second-guessing, professional jealousy, or self-centeredness that inhibits people from enjoying and appreciating the success of others. Feedback, when it comes, inevitably focuses on faultfinding.

Whatever the root cause or whatever form it takes, debasement can corrode the quality of anyone's work life. Even when performance appraisals indicate good performance, people often feel debased, put down and undervalued by the organization or associates. At best, devaluation of people leaves an acrid taste in one's mouth. At worst, it approaches slanderous vilification that can eviscerate the most robust sense of self.

This happens only if we choose to allow it. If we play the game when the cards are inherently stacked against us, is it any surprise that people come out feeling like losers? Fortunately, there are several self-enhancement recourses. To invoke a line sung by Kenny Rogers, you have to know "when to hold them and when to fold them." In other words, when the deck is stacked against you--don't play. When people engage in devaluing what you contribute, either individually or collectively, the only way to win is to walk away. As Eleanor Roosevelt once said, people have to have your permission to make you feel inferior or put down.

From a practical standpoint, this means a second choice is necessary. One can turn to outside sources for professional recognition and "strokes." Indeed, this approach seems especially viable as a pragmatic means of dealing with work cultures that devalue achievement. Those who feel devalued by departmental colleagues rely on external confirmation. Many times these same people have an excellent reputation in other departments or from clients, vendors, associates outside of the organization, and family.

The final choice involves self-inoculation. The surest way to bolster one's immune system against devaluing comments is to draw upon inner strength. If I value myself, what does it matter what others think? If I genuinely feel and act with integrity, self-praise and self-acceptance become an impermeable antitoxin against those who seek to tear one down. As one distinguished colleague of mine at another institution once said, "They try to peel my self-esteem back like layers of an onion, but they--not I--are the ones who cry."

Dependence vs. Autonomy

The final choice we make is between dependence and autonomy. We are told that the organization values independent thinking and autonomy, yet it often treats us like children. The choices are between standing up (autonomy) for the right to be your own person and bending over (dependence) to the demands of the organization. Autonomy is the attitude that my actions are my own choices and the organization of which I am a part is, in many ways, my own creation. We are the cause, not the effect.

To be sure, it is difficult to maintain this in view of the breadth of evidence that autonomy makes us vulnerable. The numbing reality is that many organizations breed dependence. When we feel dependent, we are waiting for someone above or below us to give direction. It is comforting to be led. It feels safe and it implies a promise that if we follow, our future will somehow be assured. It's an old and not particularly enticing script. With minor variations, it reads, "Stray ye not far from the corporate mother ship, and ye shall be taken care of. Stray ye far, and ye shall reap eternal damnation."

I've heard sentiments like these expressed often: Stay in step...Don't rock the boat...I am concerned about how this looks...We're concerned about her fit in the organization. The high price we pay for buying into this conformity and dependence is learned helplessness. We actually start to believe that there's not much we can do to affect our own fate. This is lamentable, because the inevitable casualty is our own sense of self.

Each of us has to decide--whose organization is this? This organization is where I will spend the best days of my life, and I must confront my own fears and the security that dependence offers. When we choose autonomy, we realize that there is nothing to wait for. We do not require anyone from above us to tell us how to manage our unit, or whether or not to do the right thing. We will know. The heavy weight of the organization on my shoulders is burdensome, but can also liberating if I choose to respond by taking control of what happens to me.

If the people from on high don't like what I am doing, let them stop me. Better to proceed than sit and wait for direction. It is better to be seen as a stubborn independent than just another foot soldier in the army of incompetents. This is a high-risk, high integrity choice we have to make.

Often, the choices we make connect the subtle points that circumscribe who each of us is as a person. Referring to Figure 1, when we relinquish our ability to act boldly by attempting to "play it safe," we tacitly acknowledge that the organization controls our destiny. For many people, the surrender to compliance and the status quo takes its toll. Over the course of our careers, we begin to feel passive. Worse yet, the self-fulfilling prophecy overshadows how we see ourselves. Internalizing career fears and uncertainty leads to feelings of helplessness, which, in turn, leads to inaction. In other words, our behavior becomes compliant and unaggressive. Frequently, the inevitable casualty in this process is self-esteem. Who can maintain a hardy sense of self in the face of chronic apprehension and feelings of powerlessness?

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

In this way, we confront an inevitable paradox of our own making. Often, people discover that the safe route was an illusion. "Playing it safe" puts us more at risk in many organizational cultures. During restructurings in many organization, managers often engage in a collaborative process about who leaves and who stays. In these settings, it important to become more, not less, visible. For example, I have recommended that many of my clients devise a specific short-term career plan to increase their contribution levels. This approach deliberately avoids a defensive strategy by refusing to "lay low" and wait for the axe to fall.

Referring again to Figure 1, when we choose a more robust quality of work life, we consciously choose to play offense. We invigorate ourselves with a vitality that touches the human need to be masters of our fate. The self-fulfilling prophecy applies here too. When we feel empowered and proactive, we feel more of a sense of internal control and have confidence to act more boldly.