I always give a heads-up to my students when we discuss topics related to organisational behaviour: don’t wear the shoes of the organisations; wear employees’ shoes; they may bite, but they do talk the essentials. So, this article is again a pragmatic take on people rather than on a specific entity, as I see organisations as just reflections of a wider society.
Now that we are so bent on criticising the toxicity of organisational cultures, shouldn’t we also look within and around? What kind of narratives are we really building in the community that help create such toxic cultures? Don’t you think toxic organisations and corresponding cultures cannot survive if society doesn’t embrace them? If so, when and how should we whistle-blow the red signs in our societal norms, and where should we really work to cancel such toxic cultures? This article may not give specific suggestions but may help you question many and answer some.
Financial independence, an illusional guard?
It is absolutely important to be financially independent; however, once barricades for financial independence are broken, individuals often begin to endure any amount of abuse and work towards financial luxury. Sadly, we as a society have this collective understanding of treating unnecessary overwork as hard work and ambition.
“Financial luxury is not equal to financial independence.”
Financial luxury invites obsessive affiliations to high-paying brands, obsessive work, and obsessive passion. Is obsessive passion good? Definitely no. Why? Obsession equals uncontrollable urge, and uncontrollable urge equals several repercussions when the situation doesn’t favour the urge. Of course, you may have boundaryless ambition and vision. But you may need to have boundary-bound activities to stay focused. Again, there is a problem here too. In a small study conducted among young adults and Gen Y, I found out that individuals often become less certain about their boundary-less vision and boundary-bound activities as and when they compare social media posts of others claiming boundary-bound achievements. This pattern is especially true on professional social media. Isn’t this sad? While we take on a marathon, isn’t it unfair to look upon the sprints for comparison? Sprints may induce pleasure, and marathons may help you attain happiness. Now, pleasure is good, but only when it is understood as a momentary fleeting memory and not as a rope to clench to.
Hand of God, some justification idiom!
Have you heard of the “Hand of God” story? It is both an irony and an alarming reflection of our pluralistic ignorance. Diego Maradona used his hand (remember, he plays football!) to score a goal during the Argentina vs. England quarterfinals of the 1986 FIFA World Cup, after which Argentina went on to win the World Cup. When asked, he momentarily responded that it would have been the hand of God that helped his country fetch the cup. But later in his autobiography, he mentioned it was his hand and not the hand of God!
- Source: Wikimedia
Now why I love this story is that it doesn’t have filters; it doesn’t show a character as heroic or godly. The character is flawed and transparent and resonates with human non-idealistic realism. But the question here is, why did Maradona do that? It’s the performance pressure brought out by society that he had no choice but to succeed. And how come society (including me) still treats him as a hero? A classic example of pluralistic ignorance in which the individual and the society fall prey to the societal definition of success, therefore leading to ignorance towards moral infractions. When society gives you no choice but to experiment and fail, you may take either of the two paths: one, you will take only the road well taken. Two: if you take a risky, unexplored road, you will be constantly under pressure since success is uncertain and there is no option for failure. While number one leads to success, it also leads to boredom. Number two leads to possible unethical behaviours.
Further, society’s repetitive definition of success is dangerous; why? Such definitions will help capitalist organisations to take advantage of the collective conscience about success.
We only know the stories of medallists who had won the race, wars, and art, who had won the elections, who had successfully served a position, who had built a successful unicorn, and who had fetched the maximum number of Olympic medals. With all due respect to all of these resilient heroes, I believe we should strongly showcase individuals who have shown spirit over medals and decorative titles. The story of Ivan Fernandes, for instance. His sportsmanship is a story to be told, just like how we embrace Saina Nehwal/MS Dhoni/Virat Kohli/Christiana Ronaldo. A short glimpse at Ivan Fernandes and his famous story on the field: Both the athletes, Ivan Fernandez Anaya, belonging to Spain, and Abel Mutai, belonging to Kenya, were competing in an international race held in Spain. Abel Mutai, seemingly a certain winner, mistakenly stopped about a few meters before the finish line, as he was clueless about the Spanish signage. However, even when Ivan had the privilege of the closely trailing competitor, he didn’t take advantage of the situation but quickly guided Abel Mutai to finish the line.
“By constantly reminding ourselves of such conscientious actions along with the successful history created by the winners, we may slowly shift the focus from competitive sports to sportsmanship.”
Love for the Zero-sum game
It has always been a tussle of war between Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi on who is the G.O.A.T. Is it fair to give the title to one player based on the world championship title? Objectively, yes. However, the experiences created by Messi may not be the same without the experiences created by Ronaldo and vice versa. We have to understand the significance of “relative experiences” when we think of individual glory. Zero-sum games need not be a pragmatic parameter in the world of infinite opportunities and options. We as a collective may easily dig ourselves out of the treacheries of collective madness if we could redefine success with elements that hold social values over personal wins. If you think it is too philosophical to be acted upon, you must take a backseat and think about our institutionalised actions, which are considered philosophical for other worlds:
Touching one’s feet to seek blessings is too philosophical.
Worshipping the sun is too philosophical. Greeting a teacher good morning is too philosophical.
“Being philosophical doesn’t mean they are only theoretical. They can be equally pragmatic!”
It is high time the Indian school education system works on the curriculum that celebrates the stories of individuals who haven’t won titles but deserve strong social recognition. This is how we can build a generation that embraces self-growth without being plagued by toxic performance pressure.
Either we redefine success in our society or just let the organisations take advantage of our mob mentality. No, I am not arguing for the organisations. I am trying to pull out an alternate narrative here. I had to give you an instance when I have also taken a devil’s advocate seat in this scenario. One of my PhD students and I had an argument on the measures to reduce rape crimes; the arguments usually spillover into the emails:
The student was keen on arguing why societal change is more important than the rules, and I was keen on arguing how rules (please see the hot stove rule by Douglas McGregor) may reduce rape crimes. We never had a conclusion on the argument, not because I didn’t want to win; of course, I wanted to win. But how can I not appreciate the gentleman in my student? So, if winning is not the key, then what is the ultimatum?
The story of the Chinese butterfly helped me understand my chaotic existence and partially address the above-mentioned question. Here it goes:
Chuang Tzŭ, a Chinese Taoist philosopher, had a vivid dream that he was a fluttering butterfly, and now that he woke up from the dream, he was even more confused because he wasn’t sure whether he was a butterfly right now dreaming he was a man or he was a man dreaming he was a butterfly. This particular Chinese narrative has been retold and researched in several perspectives to underscore two main themes:
The first one is the confusion hypothesis, meaning, “You never know who you are, a butterfly or a man, where are you? In a dream or reality?” This particular hypothesis may resonate well with immigrants, flustered-deer-on-the-headlight adults in a new work location, and multi-passionate individuals with terrifying role conflicts, to name a few.
The second one is “endless transformation, meaning you can neither comprehend the destination nor be content with your ultimate goals. It is okay to let your goals, achievements, and definitions of achievements evolve during the grand scheme of things. Both these assumptions may help us understand that it is only fair and totally fine to be confused and evolve continuously without smelling a concrete achievement, and it is completely okay if we are not able to gather who we are at the moment. It’s okay, chill, do something good and meaningful; there is always time to find out who we are; it need not be discounted by mere medals, wins, and financial figures.
P.S. This concept of eudaemonia and redefinition of success may not be applicable when your basic needs are not yet met. That’s completely a different problem to be tackled. Never settle for something frugal until “YOU” feel the need to be so. I hope you assess where you stand in the hierarchy of needs, what you really want, and what your success definition is. And it’s okay if you are not able to figure it out today; the butterfly may visit your garden very soon. Have patience and forget not to keep working on the garden. It is absolutely okay even if it is a “Chinese” butterfly as far as it is tending to our peace and harmony!
Disclaimer: All Opinions on the post are personal.
iamniveditaks.com 