#82 Men, agents of and pathway to cultural metanoia (Too Tall Poppies and other disposables)
Let’s take a look at some of the ways/situations/encounters/exchanges
in/by which men sabotage other men! We have spent considerable time looking at
how individual men self-sabotage. Yet perhaps the depth and persistence of
conflict/competition and the underlying psychic “soil” from which these
situations grow and develop, while not open to excavation, or certainly
elimination from the hard wiring, warrants a deeper and more exhaustive look.
Men sabotage other men directly and indirectly, in
different ways.
On the “direct” front, a rather recent model,
originating from Australia, has been termed the “Too Tall Poppy Syndrome.” Premised
on the concept that all poppies (workers) should grow to the same height, this
syndrome finds anyone who is working above and beyond the minimum/modest/moderate
level in an employment situation, is attacked, in what many would argue is an
blatant attempt to “bring him/her down” to the level of the ordinary workers’
performance. We have all witnessed this dynamic under a variety of rationales,
some example of which include:
·
He/She is just sucking up to the boss by demonstrating
excessive energy and ambition and creativity
·
He/She is working to impress for a
superlative reference in the process of seeking that promotion
·
He/She is what in some contemporary North
American workplace cultures just being another of those FNG’s (----ing New
Guys) who is, like that new broom trying inordinately hard to make a first
impression
·
He/She is demonstrating a new operating
procedure taught to all new recruits, that just ridicules the way we have been
doing things for centuries (even if the new methods are designed to protect
workers from injury)
·
He/She thinks she knows everything and wants
to show everyone around here up
·
He/She came here from the big city where
they all think they know it all, and wants to ‘convert’ everyone to their
sophisticated level
·
He/She is a grad of “X” school where they
all believe they own the world, and the boss likely believes his/her ‘brand’
will improve the prospects for investor participation
·
He/She is from country “x” or “y” known as
(here fill in the most superficial, reductionistic stereotype of that country)
and we all know how they operate
·
He/She just arrived in this country, and needs
to spend a few years proving him/herself, before attempting to exert any influence,
even if that influence sis healthy for the enterprise
·
He/She comes with a high recommendation
from a personal friend of the boss, and that is enough to delay, block,
preclude his/her successful entry here
Debilitating and
undermining activity is costing billions both in lost revenue and lost
opportunity to cut costs not to mention the wounds such activity inflicts on
the psyches/emotions/aspirations/confidence and potential loyalty of the target
worker. And the only “reward” is the personal “self-aggrandizement” of the
perpetrator, and that in itself is another of the faux-rewards many seem ready
willing and able to fall for. The polar alternative, of gushing supportive and
potentially condescending words over a co-worker is, equally, despicable. As in
so many other facets of public discourse, there has been a growing trend of
binary options as the only two available for the average person.
The poverty, not only of
generosity and objective mentoring, but of the plenitude of approaches from one
worker to a colleague, comes from a dry desert of expectations about how we are
expected to treat each other in our workplaces,
and even in our homes. Is it our imaginations that have been starved of
examples of empathy, help and support? Or are we so insecure, generally, that,
in order to strengthen our sense of ourselves, we have to bring another down.
Are we frightened of being “ostracized” by co-workers if we befriend a new worker,
or especially a worker from a different ethnicity, culture, language or faith?
Are we needing to ‘fit in’ with those workers currently working alongside us
that what is a new person, idea, suggestion, process, strategy, tactic, especially
if it comes from one of those “tall poppies,” that we easily and glibly and predictably
dismiss, disdain, undermine, sabotage both the person and the idea?
There is a perhaps
infrequently paradox in the act of saying “No” (in any of the millions of ways
and circumstances we say it out loud or silently). When we say “No” to another, we are in truth, also saying “No”
to ourselves. That paradox may not be easy to digest, to assimilate and to
accept.
Nevertheless, think about
it! We see something, hear something, learn something that strikes us as “irritating”
or off-putting, insulting, demeaning, presuming, assuming and often based
entirely on a rumour which is, itself, based on another bit of gossip. And when
that ‘something’ has a name and a face to which it can be easily attached, then
that person, in our cast of acceptable characters, drops a peg or two, perhaps
even consciously or unconsciously we push that person off the dock of our “associates”
list. And in the course of our own process of alienating the other, we, in
fact, eliminate ourselves from the potential to heal the rift, shed light on
the partial, and potentially damaging “something” and ‘move forward’ as the
counsellors keep telling us we all need to do.
This is not to argue that
men, more than women, are demonstrating what a Russian professor of Comparative
Education, at the University of Ottawa, ridiculed as the Russian method of
solving problems: eliminate it. It is to concur with that wise and
unforgettable professor (Dr. Ramunas) that elimination is a highly preferred
method of considering, assessing and disposing of a problem, especially a
personnel problem. After all, in a masculine mind set, the “task” take
precedence over the “person” and the “person” is more susceptible to judgement
than any of the other “resources” in any plan, given that a person is both
likely to “screw up” (given our own experience of screwing up and projecting
that potential onto all others), is right in our face and is potentially unlikely
to change whatever it is/was that set us off in the first place.
Human nature, that most
complex, mysterious, fascinating and perplexing of creatures, is both the most
significant and the most costly resource in the corporate/organizational/social/political
panel of instruments/influences. And, the cost of ensuring the predictable,
dependable, profitable performance of the process (no matter the theatre),
through human labour is considered the “highest” and most easily disposed cost
item in the budget. Every single male (and female) in a position of executive
responsibility has weaknesses, vulnerabilities, a past, and a highly polished
and perfected sheen on the Mask s/he has created to “pass muster” in the long
litany of interviews, drinks, papers, theses, projects, teams and achievements
that litter his/her biography.
And each of those leaders
has a clear picture of the kind of person s/he has found it both comfortable and
smooth to work with, as well as a cast of characters who have been troublesome,
conflicted, or as we now euphemistically put it, “high maintenance.” (Men
especially use this term to describe a ‘high maintenance spouse” whose intricate
eccentricities he will also often admire and smile in recounting.)
“High maintenance”
workers, like magnets, attract such descriptives as “hard to manage,” “threatening
to power,” or “narcissistic and unmanageable,” and as soon as signs poke through
the ashphalt of the CEO/corporate culture’s consciousness, those in the inner
circle begin to take note. This worker is not fitting into our culture. S/He is
not learning how we do things here. This worker is one we will have to watch
carefully, and potentially find a way to usher him/her out.
Executives have a myriad
of creative, if manipulative, road maps for completing the divorce, including
such demonic approaches as, “Do you think he will leave if we load his plate so
high that he simply cannot accomplish the job?” Another favourite, “S/he seems
very friendly with one of our favourite (men or women) and that friendliness is
dangerous, if not grounds for beginning a file because we will need evidence
when we dismiss.” Perhaps, if neither of these would prove useful, we might
find another tact: “Things have gone missing in the office/back shop/supply
room/ and it seems to happen coincident with the appearance of this person in
that area; we need to take note!”
Oh, I can hear the cries
of “Why are you so contemptuous of quality control? After all, all businesses, corporations,
and organizations depend on a smooth running of the operation, as designed by
the originators, and our history has always honoured both their persons and their
ingenuity. We have found that we function more effectively (and more
profitably) with those who conform to our expectations, without acting like a
burr in our shoe. And when we find those counter-productive and counter-intuitive
to our culture, we simply have to eliminate them.
This will not suffice as
an academic treatise on workplace tensions. It is, rather, based on a litany of
experiences, both personal, and reported, from a rather extensive working life,
spanning seven decades, and literally dozens of supervisors. From a grocery
clerk, to civil servant, to salesman, to beer store clerk, to teacher, coach,
vice-principal, assistant department head, student, intern, chaplain in
training, counsellor trainee, entrepreneur, clergy, mailman, and project
manager, many male and female co-workers and supervisors have crossed paths.
And, if there is a single
observation about people in positions of power and responsibility, from my experience,
that merits reflection, it is that most, if not all, are highly attuned to their
“polling” (whether formal or more importantly informal). If individuals who
seem to ‘count’ among the working staff, take issue with the executive, that is
a warning sign. If workers who are known to be both diligent and committed take
exception to decisions of the “top,” that too is a signal of warning. If a new
idea is proposed, depending on the proposer’s reputation (and not on the merit
of the proposal) the idea is either investigated or dropped like a nuclear
device.
Preserving one’s position/power/legacy/reputation,
by the chief executive, is the primary objective of those in power. (Of course,
it will be argued that if that edifice begins to crumble, there will be
inevitable damage to the institution!) Nevertheless, the status, income, power and
impunity with which most Chief executives currently operate is so far removed, and
so highly remunerated, as to warrant a severe dart in that balloon. We have
become a culture of single-operator tyrants, in a culture in which their circle
incestuously and gratuitously genuflects at that altar of executive power. And,
once again, males are predominantly responsible for this development, along
with the concomitant development of eviscerating worker rights of both safety and
compensation.
And the most recent
pandemic continues to document for all to see, the almost unbelieveable divide
in danger/safety as well as in income/influence. Those our culture/society/economy/
most needs are those most seriously and negatively impacted by COVID-19. Those
in power, (with exceptions) too often incarnate contempt for those on whom the
health of everyone depends, shown by withholding protective equipment, and/or
failing to resource needed ventilators.
It may well be time for
the economy to be overturned, with a profound recognition, both in attitude and
in corresponding policy and law, that vacuums the inflation from the perks and the
investment options, the power and the single-and-unquestioned power and authority
of an individual executive. The voices of all of those “tall poppies” who do
not precisely “fit” into the corporate culture are needed now more than at anytime
in my lifetime.
And this is one space
where tall poppies will find embrace, support, welcome and encouragement. They
may find opportunities for seizing the ‘whistleblower’ megaphone; they may find
opportunities to expose the alcoholism of their chief executives in favour of
time out for treatment and no longer a protracted denial and cove-up; they may
find voice and alliances for other, especially men, who no longer are willing
to be assassinated through rumour, innuendo, or especially political opponents.
And, just yesterday, the world learned that
the strategists of the upcoming campaign of the current occupant of the Oval Office
have brashly announced that their prime goal and modus operandi will be to “assassinate”
the character of the Democratic nominee, Joe Biden.
Hate speech has long
since fallen by the wayside as a determinant of civility. So has truth fallen
as a measure of value and integrity. So too has the quality of one’s policy
proposals drifted into the floor of the polluted ocean of public opinion, like
so much detritus, plastic, and garbage.
We are left with a
minimalist, pre-adolescent, immature, indefensible and unsustainable prospect
of a presidential campaign unworthy even of the name. And, once again, men are
at the forefront of the kind of battle we will be offered.
Other men, (there have to
be more than those members of the Lincoln Project, former Republican,
non-trumpers) who see the world in ways similar to the perception from the north
shore of the St. Lawrence river, just across the bridge from New York State,
where the current governor is offering a humane, intelligent, compassionate and
also non-eliminating, non-reducing masculine voice to the effort to mitigate
the heinous and lethal plague, COVID-19.
Is there more than a ‘mindful’
masculinity in the cultural womb awaiting the appropriate and needed mid-wives
and agencies to give it birth? It says here that a healthy masculinity, for
which we all work and pray, will come more likely from men telling our stories,
than from prescriptions of processes and attitudes and behaviours.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home