The Kojo Nnamdi Show

"It's Always Personal" -- Monday, August 1, 2011

If your guests are correct in that "It's Always Personal" when it comes to organizational life, it may well be that what is required in most American workplaces is a fundamental, strategic change of organizational culture, as difficult as this may be to effect.

Organizational culture, just as the culture of society at large, evolves – albeit slowly. Culture tends to lag behind contemporary social reality -- it takes time for culture to “catch up.” As a result, it is rare that the culture of any organization precisely reflects the complex environments in which it operates.

Given the history of American attitudes regarding the importance of an individual’s emotional life, (particularly as expressed within organizations), it is not surprising there would be a lag between current social reality in this regard and the cultures of most organizations. (Indeed, even today, only the most aware and pro-active organizations devote requisite resources to understand evolving realities and work diligently to shape their culture to reflect these.)

Consider that not much more than a hundred years ago, the concept of an individual having (and expressing) an emotional life independent of their rational mind was not even accepted by most “experts.” So too, only a few decades ago, organizational professionals gave little heed to the emotional lives of employees, preferring a "stimulus/response" approach. Indeed, only in the past few years have economists begun to question the accuracy of their long-held perception of consumers as solely rational decision makers. These economists now integrate the effect of emotions on decision making, a shift that has significantly increased the complexity of economic inquiry.

While experts may have been slow to recognize the importance of the “life of emotions,” as compared to the “life of the rational mind,” what does current American social reality teach us about how we really feel about the importance of our emotional lives and emotional expression? Do we consider these as inconsequential as the work of some experts might suggest?

The answer is easy to discern.

Flip on the TV any given day and watch nationally syndicated Dr. Phil earnestly attempt to increase the awareness of willing, emoting individuals in crisis. Change the channel and see the most minute details of the emotional lives of public figures laid bare. Shift focus for a moment and consider that “emotional counseling” is considered a major job-growth area in the United States over the next ten years. In a similar vein, observe the marked increase in child psychologists during the past decade. Both every day experience and research data make it hard to argue that Americans are not interested in their emotional lives and emotional expression.

If, as contemporary American life appears to suggest, “It’s Always Personal,” then one might expect organizational cultures across the entire American workspace to foster a modus operandi that successfully integrates, accepts, and positively utilizes the full range of potential expressions of an employee's emotional life. Another reasonable expectation would be that these cultures include active recognition that respect for an employee's emotional life is as important to the success of the organization as respect for the employee's rational life.

While these may be reasonable expectations, the fact is the cultures of many organizations still do not reflect the fact that: 1) People have emotional lives that cannot be separated from other aspects of their beings; and 2) Personal emotions are likely to be roused and expressed in the workplace just as typically as they might in any other setting.

Given our own experiences in contemporary America, how can so many organizations be so out of touch or unresponsive? And what is the impact of this?

Many organizations consider dealing with the emotional expressions of an employee as "messier" than dealing with the expressions of that same employee's rational mind. In addition, it is considered potentially more risky to deal with emotional expression, because dealing with emotional expression requires entry into a world far different from the rational. This is a world requiring a very different set of skills to navigate -- skills far less prevalent in the organizational world (and, perhaps, more difficult to acquire) than those necessary to navigate in the rational world.

(The words "messier" and “risky,” as they pertain to dealing with emotional expression, are used advisedly. Other words for messier could have been chosen -- for example, "more complicated," "more complex," or even "of additional value." Likewise, other words for risky could have been used – for example, “full of opportunity” or “alternative point of view.” "Messier" and “risky” imply a particular point of view regarding the usefulness (or lack thereof) of certain types of information. When it comes to considering emotional expression, these word choices indicate a pejorative view many organizations take. Other organizations, frequently leaders in their field, tend to define such information in positive terms and utilize it accordingly.)

Most organizations are both “mess” and “risk” averse. While it is seldom easy to effectively shift organizational culture, if the essential elements of that shift are perceived in terms of “mess” and “risk,” the challenge is even more formidable.

What is the potential impact of an organizational culture that fails to positively address the emotional life of its employees, which is to say, a culture that fails to accurately reflect contemporary American values?

In a nutshell… The answer is a lack of employee involvement in depth and a concomitant deleterious effect on the organization’s bottom line.

Without such a fundamental cultural orientation, almost all “tactical," reform interventions in an organization (such as Diversity Training or personal coaching initiatives) are unlikely to have lasting impact and well may frustrate, rather than foster, desired organizational objectives. (Why? Because these initiatives are not supported by the organization's fundamental values. They amount to window-dressing.)

In addition, recent research on decision making shows that even though organizations highly value "rational decision making," the foundation of much decision making is as much emotional as rational. Integrating information from both “sources” is beneficial because the "whole person" is tapped and the results of such decision making tend to be more elegant and more enduring. If the emotional life of an employee and the expression of such are not respected, it is likely an essential repository of employee wisdom will be lost to the organization.

The failure of an organization to respect the emotional lives of its employees and to integrate the expression of such has implications far beyond decision making.

When aspects of the emotional life of an individual are not understood, respected, and/or allowed expression, certain results can be expected. This is true whether the individual is in the workplace, the home, school or any other environment. Emotions are not bound by the various environments in which a person exists. There can be anger in the workplace, as well as anger in the home. There can be joy in the workplace, as well as at home.

While an individual may alter the expression of such emotions in differing environments (perhaps because the particular expression of a particular emotion in one environment is not considered appropriate in another), the fact remains the emotion still exists. Employers, just as spouses, parents and friends, suffer the consequences of failing to be aware of or allowing the expression of emotions of others. (Understanding that the underlying emotional dynamic is similar across social situations, it is not surprising to find that organizations putting little to no emphasis on appreciating the emotional lives of employees, tend to allow or even foster the manipulation of employee emotions as a way to achieve desired ends.)

As stated at the outset, if your guests are correct in that "It's Always Personal" when it comes to organizational life, it may well be that what is required in most American workplaces is a fundamental, strategic change of organizational culture, as difficult as this may be to effect.

So saying, the truth of the matter is that most organizations, like most individuals, prefer gradual change to revolutionary change. Most organizations would rather stick a proverbial toe in the water and observe the consequence, rather than jump head first off a diving board.

Despite the fact that organizations (as compared to societies) have an advantage in their ability to consciously affect culture on a broad and deep scale, organizational change frequently mimics change in society at large in that it often comes gradually. The organization slowly adopts seemingly minor shifts in attitude and/or behavior until this accretion reaches a critical mass. At that point, fundamental change becomes inevitable. In this light, organizational efforts at telecommuting, alternative work hours or even diversity training can be seen in the context of increased consideration for the emotional needs of employees.

Cultural change within any particular organization may proceed quickly or slowly. The way in which an organization perceives and responds to change is as much an aspect of its culture as any other attitude or behavior it supports.

Regardless of how any particular organization is predisposed to deal with change, there are strong factors afoot supporting the integration of the concept, “It’s Always Personal.” To name but two:

1) The measurable, pragmatic benefits that redound to those organizations with the foresight to recognize the importance of respecting the emotional lives of employees cannot be ignored. Few organizations are willing to forego the competitive advantage such shifts in attitude and behavior can provide, even if those shifts require concerted and sustained effort.

2) While organizational culture tends to lag behind current social reality, this lag (measured in both time and the extent of the discontinuity) can only exist for so long before the existing culture ceases to serve the organization. Adherence to the outdated culture becomes dysfunctional and this dysfunction can be empirically measured – ultimately by shifts in the bottom line, but, before that, by measures of employee and customer satisfaction.

Actions by organizations regarding respect for the emotional lives of employees, even if perceived as minor, have continued and expanded over the past five years. Given the increasing public prominence of the issue, this trajectory may prove inexorable.

One way or the other, it would appear the artificial, never-the-twain-shall-meet, work-self/personal-self organizational dichotomy is likely to become a cultural anomaly, if not a relic.

Marc David Block