Picture this – an employee notices a mistake that could become costly or damage a company’s reputation if unnoticed. The mistake is not theirs; it is related to what they do, but was made by a colleague. The employee acts immediately by averting the danger – they go about solving the problem, notifying everyone who needs to be notified. In shortest time physically possible, the situation is managed. The employee handles it gracefully – despite the colleague being frequently guilty of not paying attention, and not being liked because of somewhat unpleasant behaviour towards others, the employee in question doesn’t vehemently point fingers or draw attention to that fact, or even to the fact that they averted a potentially catastrophic consequence. They merely let everyone who needs to know – the erring colleague included – know that there was trouble, what it was, why it was problematic and that and how it was handled.
Next thing they know, their boss is grilling them viciously about why they didn’t spot the mistake sooner and why they even allowed it to happen. (You will remember that this was not originally their task at all.) They never receive a single word of praise… just criticism.
The above is a made-up case. But it is made out of bits of cases I either know or have directly worked on. Where positive approach and praise lack, employees often face this kind of maladaptive behaviour – never a word of praise, but a ton of negativity irrespective of whether or not they did anything wrong themselves. In vast majority of cases, the senior management at such workplaces either never had or have lost the feeling for offering feedback in a neutral or positive way. And that means that such companies are looking at miles of hard road if they ever even attempt to change, because maladaptive change tends to stick.
I’m not the first person to write on this topic. Top industry publications (and quite a lot of research) are full of confirmation of one simple fact – all beings, humans included, respond far better to positive approach than to negative, and leaders who elect neutral or positive approach towards even negative feedbacks, because mistakes do and can happen, are far more likely to retain their employees as well as have a happier, more productive office to work with. The trouble, however, is that people think about positivity in the wrong way. Either they attempt to achieve it in some New Age way that may not work at all or may only appeal to certain employees (think – how would you feel if you were disabled or otherwise incapable or unwilling to socialise through a work-bonding yoga class?), or they default to the old idea that praise is all absence of disciplinary action and/or critique. Praise is considered a weakness for both giver and receiver, and the need for it perceived as something negative. This stance involves cultural and gender issues, and can mess with diversity big time; and it ignores the need for, necessity of and efficacy of psychological safety in spite of all given evidence.
This is a cringeworthy situation to be in, be it as an employee or, indeed, a member of the managing team. Not only is it difficult for people who themselves do not feel like that about praise to act within the bounds of expected behaviours, it is also difficult for people who do to function well in general.
Let’s clarify one thing immediately – a positive work environment where praise is actually a part of the work all the time is not about the absence of disciplinary action and critique. This belief comes from misunderstanding what any of these actually mean, and the way maladaptive social and cultural behaviours treat them. In rigid, maladaptive environments of any kind, disciplinary action and critique (even more often criticism) represents a hierarchy – a balance of power. What people do, what they are expected or allowed to do and what they get punished for (often arbitrarily) generally has little to do with any factual issues; in rigid environments, all is based on the way someone in power can decide about underlings at will, to appease whims, control issues or simply to show who is not Other, or who stands where in this social hierarchy. Otherwise, punishment stems from perceptions of importance of observance of socially constructed beliefs and behaviours.
A mouthful?
That’s because it is. This is just a very basic description of something we see all the time…be it in context of SCR (social, cultural and religious) behaviours, hierarchies and traditions or in workplaces that reflect the same or similar maladaptive actions and reactions. And often enough, society and culture around us will just be a larger copy of the little world – the interpersonal relationships at home or at work, mirroring the expected behavioural trends.
Change, therefore, is recognition of these and the necessary step away from them, and that involved recognising that not all our behaviour is adaptive, and not much of it is cast in stone.
With this in mind, let’s revisit the concept of disciplinary action and critique.
In adaptive environments, disciplinary actions includes:
– grave mistakes and mismanaging (like showing up drunk and messing up an important meeting)
-illegal and criminal behaviour (like office bullying or using the office space to deal illegal substances)
These are handled in two ways – through the office itself where the law is not the first and most logical and necessary recourse (as it would be in the instance of severe bullying as defined by law or acts of violence, like battery and rape), or directly through legal recourse (so police and court).
And even in such cases, a positive approach can mean a lot. Imagine going through a horrible experience. A positive, empathic leader will not only listen and investigate – they will also take necessary action and offer what help they can offer so that you can recover better. This is what creates that elusive psychologically safe environment in a very real way in such cases.
In maladaptive environments even serious disciplinary issues are often ignored or handled haphazardly. The wellbeing of those affected is ignored, dismissed or even ridiculed. The gravity of error or behaviour are handled despotically – more down to how the boss feels today or what they personally feel is a problem than through actual investigation, assessment and clear vision of what is problematic and what is not. The employees tend to lose valuable time and much of their energy trying to gage the possible reactions of an unpredictable person rather than focus on doing their best.
Critique is much the same. First mistake I often see is that people seem to think that there is always room for improvement. While that may be debatable philosophically, there is absolutely no debate when it comes to task managing. If the task is done to the utmost of a realistic capability – so the person is working well, within a realistic time slot that they manage well and the results are good, then there is absolutely no need to think there is room for further improvement. Recognising optimal achievement is something that too many struggle with, due to social and cultural conditioning that posits that “no one and nothing is perfect”. This creates, in some people, especially those who have had a big share of that thinking in their childhood, a literal incapability to not feel that more could be done. If that person is in a leadership position, they create impossible standards for the employees to compete with; they also tend to neurotically chase after that standard, becoming irritated and unhappy easily, or just never unwind, which is not fun for anyone (them included).
For many, it’s also difficult to comprehend the difference between criticism and critique. A critique should be objective – it should be neutral or positive, focusing on what was good about as much as where things could actually be better. It should also offer suggestions of solutions and request feedback on what solutions the employee sees.
If an employee tends to dawdle over a task because they have poor computer literacy but the task demands in-depth knowledge of a company-used program, but otherwise performs very well, then a critique would see the manager praise how much and how well they do their tasks, make the observation that the computer part of things seems to take a lot of time, and suggest some training. The two should also consider, together, what the employee thinks could help.
Criticism, on the other hand, focuses on nothing but bad, often out of the blue and without there necessarily being need for it. In the above case, criticism would totally tear apart the employee’s skill and work management, regardless of the fact that they actually perform very well otherwise; it would offer no solutions and request no feedback, and definitely would not be interested in any other opinions but their own, even though the employee’s self-assessment may yield further clues as to what could be of help. My initial example – of the boss who uses the employee’s positive action for a dressing down – is an example both of maladaptive behaviour and criticism as a part of it.
Disciplinary action and criticism are used too often for minor mistakes. While disciplinary action has its place at all offices when truly needed, criticism does not – it is critique that should take both its place and that of disciplinary action unless truly needed. Using all kinds of harsher behaviours (like yelling) generally makes no sense, and it gets no results. Just a bad rep for the company in question, and a wary, emotionally tired workforce.
Praise as weakness is a gendered subject. Somewhere along the road, especially men began to be conditioned to feel that praise isn’t necessary. What deserves praise became more and more grand and unachievable; if, for instance, we feel that war heroes deserve praise, but no one else can possibly do anything that compares, how can anyone ever achieve anything praiseworthy in peace time? At the same time, we offer awards – a form of socially recognised praise – for peace efforts. Not only does this behaviour not make sense, it is harmful – for men especially, as they are generally taught to be tough and emotionally cold, handle everything life throws at them without seeking closeness or help, be hyperproductive, excel at everything they do and gain praise… which we do not want to give them. Resultantly, men are much higher up in numbers than women (who are allowed to express emotion and seek closeness, and can ask for help) when it comes to suicide and substance abuse, as well as perform poorer in interpersonal relations. This, in turn, exaggerates the narrative of male toxicity as a default, complicating diversity and gender efforts, messes up interpersonal relations and creates truly toxic men.
Unfortunately, there is no denying that people get their own share of this concept early on, and that it influences how (and how well) they work with others. Men often pass on praise completely, and focus on the negative; women who feel unsafe in their position as the “odd man out”, or have been on the unusually high receiving end of the “praise is weakness” narrative, may behave similarly. Both will behave this way if they were never taught that praise matters at all; both may feel safe to praise one gender over the other if they do at all. Who may differ – both may choose to leave out men or leave out women; for some, praising men makes sense because they are trying to work with the stereotypes of male success. For others, praising women is less of an incendiary territory, because women supposedly need different, kinder treatment than their male colleagues. You can imagine how this breaks down even further in situations that involve greater gender diversity and stereotypes of sexual orientation. A butch and a femme lesbian may work at the same office but will receive completely different treatments because they will be mentally slotted into different behavioural stereotype categories.
Everyone, however, requires the same amount of fair and positive approach, with the same amount of psychological safety.
Cultural elements are often present. In cultures where praise is heavily stereotyped as “deserving or underserving”, or in general as “undeserving”, positive approach lacks severely. This doesn’t mean that the people there don’t need it; it merely means that they get conditioned not to expect it, and consciously and subconsciously try to grapple with this throughout their lives. This may mean a certain amount of confusion, even depression, when entering workforces that do not behave this way; on the other hand, many may heave a sigh of relief, and then be puzzled if the managing team tries to mimic their culture from some mistaken perception of cultural intelligence.
So is there a simple solution to all this?
Simple solutions are hard, and there is no way around this. Most companies are better off working with an expert to figure out what to do about things that may be so subconscious they will have trouble figuring them out. But as is always the case, there are a few things that can help.
Self-awareness is always a good start. Being aware of how we feel and why may make us less likely to react wrong.
Socio-cultural self-awareness happens when we begin to dismantle our societal and cultural biases… including how we perceive ourselves and our world, and how this may not be factual in a given situation. That way, we begin to tap into what’s actually happening, not the social or cultural script about how life works and what we’re supposed to do in situations A-Z.
Learning about each other helps, especially when we employ the previous two points.
And, ultimately, giving ourselves some slack helps too – these aren’t things we can resolve overnight, and they require a lot of awareness and change that can only happen gradually.