How is Your Workplace Limiting Your Emotional Freedom?

 

We read a great deal about employee engagement
these days.   Great talent is supposedly in short supply. Many
organizations are looking to attract and retain the best people,
especially in anticipation of economic challenges that are the new
normal.

We scrutinize what constitutes great leadership.  Phrases like
“Culture eats strategy for lunch” (or is it breakfast?) are becoming the
new organizational memes.  Yet, we still can’t seem to get some basics
of creating healthy organizations right.

One fundamental problem is that most organizations don’t see themselves as dynamic systems.   Most strategies and remedies are still based on parts
thinking.  While some organizations acknowledge their internal and
external connectedness, they still largely function along segregated
lines.

According to Peter Senge, author of the seminal book on organizational systems thinking, The Fifth Discipline, “Organizations
are living phenomena in a very real sense and they were appreciated in
that spirit for a very long time. It was only a couple of hundred years
ago that our view of organizations—and particularly business
organizations—really began to change. When we started to harness the
power of machines in the early years of the industrial era, gradually we
started to see more and more of life as machine-like. It leads us to
see everything, including ourselves, as nothing but an elaborate set of
mechanisms. This way of thinking has developed insidiously over a few
hundred years, to the point where we no longer realize how captive we
are to it.”

Few would disagree that cultural forces are instrumental to shaping
organizational life, but it’s challenging to understand the impact of
culture on daily human experience.   After all, organizational culture
is the aggregate of shared thinking, beliefs and values and it is –
dynamic.   That dynamic is most powerfully influenced by the vision and
practices of organizational leadership. Because emotional contagion
is real, the thoughts, feelings and actions of organizational leaders
are constantly reinforcing or shifting the dynamics of an organization’s
direction.

It’s Viral

John Wenger, author of the excellent blog, Quantum Shifting, writes, “We
are so infected by the culture of our organizations that we lose
awareness of it. Ask a fish what they think of the water and they will
say, “What water? In the same way that a fish is unaware of water, we
are largely unaware of the influence the systems in which we live exert
upon us.”

The constant demands organizational life makes on our emotional
psyches are both overt and obscure.  In the blizzard of tasks that
string a work day together, many people are simply reacting to events as
they are presented.  But within the undercurrents of communication,
culture is influencing feelings that are shaping behavior.

As a result, each organization develops an emotional landscape.
Conveyed by the formal and informal norms of every organization,
department, team and workplace relationship, what is emotionally
acceptable to express and what is taboo is quickly learned.

While organizational structure and processes are always impelling feeling and action, employees are often not aware of how.
Commonly at the root of conflicts, internal and external, are the
underlying forces of these systemic influences.   Because we’re not
looking at the macro picture to understand the micro dynamics, we miss
the real drivers of behavioral outcomes.

The past fifteen years have brought a new understanding of the brain
and especially of experience-dependent neuroplasticity. Simply put, we
now know that brains are socially interdependent. They are in a
sense – systems within systems.  In fact, the emerging field of
“organizational cognitive neuroscience” (OCN) is the cognitive
neuroscientific study of organizational behavior.  OCN lets us start to
understand the relationship between our organizational behavior and our
brains.

How Organizational Demands Impact What We Feel

Emotional prohibition and freedom within organizations is determined
by a multiplicity of forces. How individuals will be emotionally
affected by those forces will depend on their needs, beliefs and
values.   While some people can tolerate and adjust in restrictive
emotional environments, most will wither and often resist.  In most
cases, this is occurring unconsciously. Because much of the emotional
adaptation takes place out of awareness, dysfunction is often the
result.

From an individual, group and organizational perspective, it is
vitally important to understand the forces can impede or encourage
emotional freedom.

Some organizational forces that inhibit emotional expression:

  • Dishonesty. The
    singular value that most of our clients identify as being critical to
    effective performance is honesty. That’s why the rampant dishonesty of
    many workplaces has such a deleterious effect on employee participation
    and vital workplace relationships.  Nearly every organization has its
    “truth” norms and every employee has to crack the code of what is
    allowed. Often this occurs unintentionally. Even if senior leadership
    intends and professes their allegiance to transparency, an employee’s
    relationship with a manager can set the tone that overrides willingness
    to honesty share thoughts and feelings.  At the macro level the mismatch
    between what an organization says and what it does also determines
    “safety levels” for self-expression. Sadly, many employees say it is
    simply “too risky” to be honest at work.
  • Lack of Trust.  The
    correlate to honesty.  Overall institutional trust levels had slipped
    in public opinion polls even prior to the 2008 recession. Since then,
    they’ve dipped even further.  Charles Green, author of the Trusted Advisor (book and blog) points out that trust
    is too vague a term to work with. To do something practical, we need
    first to identify the trust realm; are we talking about personal trust,
    or business/organizational trust, or social/institutional trust?”

    Trust is after all an idea about a set of behaviors that either
    reinforce our sense of comfort and safety or alert our brains that the
    “risk” is too high.  Lack of trust influences what we feel and the
    actions we take. It is the cornerstone of decision-making. Low trust
    produces feelings of anxiety, apprehension and fear.
  • Coercive Power. 
    The nature of organizational hierarchy and power has been getting
    significant attention lately.  I’ve written in this blog about the slow death of authoritarian leadership and the need for greater critical thinking
    abilities to challenge the imposed status quo. But most institutions
    are still dominated by central authority whose very nature (and
    “success”) is predicated on coercing behaviors that conform to the will
    of its senior leadership. In their fascinating book, “The Starfish and the Spider,”
    authors Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom write about the difficulties of
    the Spanish Army in defeating the Apache Tribes of Southwest America.
    Turns out the Apache had no centralized chief, only what was called a
    Nant’an (Geronimo was a Nant’an) a spiritual and cultural leader with no
    coercive power.  In fact, Geronimo did not, and could not, tell the
    tribes to fight. He could only lead by example. If the tribal members
    thought it was a good idea, they would follow. The phrase “you should”
    doesn’t even exist in the Apache language.  Certainly centralized power
    has its place in organizing some human activities. But its top-down
    approach is being seriously examined in light of global
    interconnectedness and instant communication.  One question central to
    evaluating coercive power arrangements must focus on the effect coercion
    has on emotional expression.
  • Peer Pressure & Bullyism.
     Findings in neuroscience show that the brain is constantly on alert
    for what it perceived as threat and reward.  While most people
    understand that peer pressure has real consequences, most workers don’t
    yet comprehend its brain-altering impact. Workplace behaviors that range
    from subtle coercion (often couched in humor) to outright bullying can
    place people is emotionally defensive positions.   Because many people
    within the workplace haven’t developed their collaborative and conflict
    management skills, communication, especially when differences occur, can
    resort to dominant groups (or individuals) imposing their will on
    others.  Autonomy is not simply a nice idea, but an essential domain of healthy brain functioning.
  • Stress.  Most
    workplaces are pressure cookers. Overwork is epidemic. Sixty hour work
    weeks are common, often spoken about with pride and admiration.  No
    matter what “strategies” people use, lack of rest, movement, diversity
    of activity and poor nutrition will result in allostatic load.
    The term describes the physiological consequences of chronic exposure to
    stress which can cause cumulative strain and damage the body in the
    long run. Under these conditions, it’s not uncommon for the brain to be
    activated in a low-level fight or flight mode. Unresolved emotional
    issues are easy to trigger and re-trigger under these circumstances.
    Impatience can trigger frustration which in turn can trigger anger.
    Physical and mental exhaustion sets the stage for these emotions to
    overwhelm personal performance and interpersonal relations.
  • Morals & Ethics.
    Our personal beliefs and values play a major role in how we experience
    and act in the workplace. The disconnect between organizational
    practices, senior leadership and individual performance is often very
    high. In a 2010 Maritz poll,
    only 11% of American employee strongly agreed that their managers
    showed consistency between their words and their actions. Only 7%
    thought their senior leaders and co-workers looked out for
    their best interests.  The poll also found that about 20% of respondents
    didn’t believe that their company’s leader was completely honest and
    ethical.  Of those who responded this way, only 3% said they looked
    forward to coming to work. The natural emotional response under these
    circumstances is cynicism, mistrust, anxiety, resentment and anger.

An employees’ real “engagement” is not possible without the emotional
resonance that comes from a belief in the integrity of an organization
and its’ leaders.  There will always be emotional spillover
from an individual’s personal needs and feelings into organizational
culture. Self-development and greater skill in self-management can go a
long way to helping that stay balanced. However, nothing can influence
individual performance and interpersonal relationships as powerfully as
institutional culture.

I’m sure you heard the attractive phrase, A fish rots from the head down?” 
The phrase underscores the importance of leadership, at least from the
perspective of centralized authority. Whether controlling or open,
leaders and the organizational culture they shape set the tone for
emotional expression.  And the people will follow.

Maybe it’s time to study Geronimo?

As always, I appreciate your readership, comments, subscriptions, shares, likes and tweets. 

Louise Altman, Intentional Communication

Link to original post

Avatar

Uncategorized

Leave a Reply