Author: IntegrityWorks

There are no meaningless jobs

“You see, any human being is originally-he may forget it, or repress this-but originally he is a being reaching out for meanings to be fulfilled or persons to be loved.”

I love that quote. It’s from a Matthew Scully interview of a then 95 year old Viktor Frankl reflecting on his life’s work. Viktor Frankl wrote, among many other books, “Man’s Search for Meaning” and later founded Logotherapy, a school of psychotherapy based on the premise that our primary motivational force is to find meaning in our lives. “Man’s Search for Meaning”, written in 1956, documented the horrible suffering of concentration camp prisoners, including Mr. Frankl himself, and in part focused on trying to make sense of how people, even in the midst of the most brutal circumstances imaginable, could somehow find purpose in life. It’s an absolutely compelling read, and for those who have not yet read it, I strongly recommend that you do. You’re likely not going to find a better book to help you gain perspective. Consider also that Mr. Frankl’s quote of “any human being” includes the guards who terribly oppressed him.

But why do I mention the book here, in a blog on an organizational culture website? I hasten to note that I do not at all mean to draw comparison between the experiences of concentration camp survivors and people’s working conditions and environments. I do not wish to diminish the unfathomable suffering of the former and their loved ones. But what is relevant, I think, is this concept that we all are meaning-making beings, and that it is not the situation that we are in that necessarily determines our state of mind, our happiness, and the way we treat others. More than anything, the ability of people who suffer greatly, but still find a way of feeling hope, offering kindness to even people who oppress them, while struggling to maintain their values, speaks to the importance of personal qualities like attitude, personal conviction, freedom of thought and will and faith. Let those people inspire us.

I’m sure you’ve come across chronic complainers at your work place-always moaning about how their job “sucks”, and how poorly they’re being treated, and how they’re never given enough appreciation, acknowledgement, reward, and respect. Often times these are the same people who treat other people with disrespect, who work to rule, who are sullen, uncooperative, unfriendly, even at times bullying. If you ask them why, they invariably will talk about how they aren’t being treated fairly. If they were treated better then maybe they would treat other people better. How could they possibly be positive given how poorly they’re being treated? And really, their job is beneath them-they deserve far more.

Now I’m not saying that they’re not being treated poorly and, if there are inequity issues, they should be addressed. But at the same time, is it not possible for them to make some personal meaning out of their jobs and to find a way to spread some sunshine (some “love”) around for their colleagues? I believe that co-workers have a responsibility to each other to raise each other up if possible, and I’d like to believe that we are better off if we embrace a commitment to ourselves to find some meaning in anything we do. Tell me you haven’t heard someone whistling as they’ve cleaned-perhaps they know the contribution they’re making and perhaps they feel good about their work ethic and being able to provide for themselves and their loved ones. From this perspective, there are no meaningless jobs, unless we let them be.

Meaning is created by us. Meaning is not found in our jobs inherently, we have to decide what meaning to make of our work, and whether part of that meaning can be about helping our co-workers make their lives positively meaningful.

I was asked once by a manager why he should bother supporting his team when “upper management” treated him “like crap”. Why should he care if others didn’t? I gave him a half decent answer about personal accountability I suppose, but I really wish I had had this quote from “Man’s Search for Meaning” to offer him at the time: “We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

Thanks for “listening”,

Yours,

Theo

Can People Change?

Interesting question isn’t it, and don’t tell me you’ve never asked it before. Think for a moment. Ask yourself, “Have you really changed over the years?”

Chances are you’ll say something like, “Yes, in some ways, but not in others.” Now ask yourself, “How many people do you know who have really changed over the time that you’ve known them?” Chances are you won’t think of many. I’ve noticed over my years of consulting that people are far more likely to credit themselves with the ability to change than they are others.

Of course, for some, not changing is considered a sign of strength. Staying constant shows stability and reliability. Why make unnecessary changes? Perhaps it’s an expectation we have living in a world where truisms like, “Change is inevitable” and “Change is constant” abound. We’re expected to be able to adapt, learn, grow, and at times, we’re expected to be able to eliminate unwanted habits and behaviours and replace them with more desired ones. So maybe the question should be, “How many people do you know who have changed after saying that they needed or wanted to?”

The question of whether people can change is an important one in relationships and in the workplace. Performance appraisals and evaluations would be rather pointless if people weren’t able to make use of the feedback that they were given. Of course, there are people who do claim that these exercises are pointless, and that the trick is to get the right people straight away rather than wasting time attempting to force square pegs into round holes.

The question regarding the possibility of change is complicated by the fact that people argue over what constitutes real change. Is a change in behaviour a significant change, or are changes in thinking and even personality what’s needed to qualify for “real” change. After all, people do seem to fall back into old habits, especially when they’re trying to change for somebody else. How long does a change have to last in order to count as a change?

Sufficient self-help and motivational instruction books have been written about this topic to denude half the world’s rainforests. Enough already! I’m going to answer the question once and for all. Think of it as my contribution to end Global Warming.

YES, people can change, BUT only some of them and only some of the time. From my experience, there are 10 key factors required for people to change. The more any of these factors are missing, the less likely it will be for change to happen. In order to change people must:

1) Be aware of the need for change
2) Want to change
3) Possess a sense of curiosity
4) Have the ability to self-reflect and be self-aware
5) Be open to feedback (the absence of defensiveness)
6) Know what specifically needs to change and what will replace it
7) Understand how to change
8) Receive constructive feedback throughout the change process
9) Be given emotional support and encouragement throughout the change process
10) Gain some kind of personal reward (reinforcement) from having changed

If all, or at least most, of those factors are in place for people, change is indeed possible. The longer the change lasts, the greater the likelihood of the change becoming a part of who they are, and then they won’t have to keep concentrating on maintaining it. But you can see from reading this list why change can be so difficult to achieve.

The two factors of them all that seem critical to the capacity to change is the presence of a sense of curiosity and the ability to self-reflect and be self-aware. Some people have an innate curiosity about the world and that greatly aids them in making changes. It could be argued that generally we all start off being curious and then many of us seem to lose it, but once lost, curiosity seems very hard to retrieve. And I strongly recommend managers include job interview questions which invite candidates to share times when they’ve thought about their thoughts and made a belief change or a change in their way of thinking. Self-aware and self-reflective people are for more likely to be able to adapt and make tough personal changes.

An Executive friend of mine claims that only 10% of people are capable of real change. He figures it’s much better to find out what his people are good at and have them focus on that, rather than waste time and resources trying to change them into something they’re not. That’s a good strategy especially if you have the Human Resources available to fill in the gaps, but perhaps not always possible.

If it’s critical to you that a person you’re relating with make some changes in order for the relationship to work, (either professionally or personally) think of all the factors that need to be present for change to occur. Consider the advice of my friend, and the possibility that you need to accept that the person you’re dealing with may not be a good fit, or perhaps is a great fit in a role with different expectations.

On the other hand, knowing and applying the requirements for change can make it much easier for people to create the changes they want (if that’s truly what they want).

Theo Selles, M.Sc.
President, Integrity Works
647-686-0116

The Six blind men and the Elephant


I present to you a Super Blog! A blog comprised mostly of an old Indian parable about the six blind men and the Elephant, and an invitation to you to think of how you would apply it to your organization. If you’d like you could start a conversation about it on the Integrity Works forum. I’ll join in, and also promise to share my thoughts about the parable and how it relates to organizations in my next blog.

“It was six men of Indostan, to learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation might satisfy his mind.

The First approach’d the Elephant, and happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk, cried, -“Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp? To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal, and happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands, thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out his eager hand, and felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like is mighty plain,” quoth he,
“‘Tis clear enough the Elephant is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun about the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail that fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

MORAL.
So oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant not one of them has seen!”

John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)