Patterns, individualism and increasing stress

May 16, 2019

The individualism inherent in contemporary work appear to be placing us under more and more stress as we are forced to choose between competing commitments based on seemingly incompatible logics about what constitutes wise and effective individual and collective action.

Individualism and Contemporary Work

Modern organisations and views about work and performance tend to be dominated by a powerful emphasis on the individual. Amongst other things this has resulted in the persistence of “heroic” forms of leadership and of bureaucratic and therapeutic forms performance management. It has also led to the significant emphasis on individual behaviour and organisational culture. Often the emphasis seems to be: if we can fix/align all the bits, then the whole will work properly

This emphasis on individualism often has unhealthy effects. When people (including leaders) feel the pressure of expectation to excess, they can fall victim to anxiety and depression. When leaders take the ideology too far and see delivering results, regardless of the cost, as the only goal, cultures can become increasingly ruthless and lapse into unethical and uncaring conduct.

Action-logics, structures and technologies

In our work environments, as in life more generally, each of us has distinct patterns (sometimes called action-logics) in the ways in which we respond to the demands of situations and the expectations of others. These are sometimes called action logics.

An interesting consequence of the focus on individualised management and leadership development seems to be a mismatch between the “action-logic” of individual leaders and the structures and technologies within which they are required to operate.

I have put the term “action-logic” in inverted commas because it is drawn from one part of the adult development literature, the work of Bill Torbert. In this literature there seems to be broad agreement that adults experience changes in the patterning of how they make sense of and relate to the world around them. There isn’t, however, a fully agreed way to describe these patterns (sometimes also called levels or stages of development/consciousness). Nor is there agreement about how that might impact on a person’s orientation or stance at work, especially in a leadership role.

The Mental Demands of Modern Life

In 1994 Robert Kegan, one of the pioneers in this field, suggested that we may be facing a situation in which

“… the mental burden of modern life may be nothing less than the extraordinary cultural demand that each person, in adulthood, create internally an order of consciousness comparable to that which would ordinarily be found at the level of a community’s collective intelligence.”

He goes on to say:

“We grieve the loss of community we take to be a condition of modern life in large part because it is profoundly lonely. We feel unaccompanied at the level of our own souls. Are we unaccompanied because the gods have died or abandoned us, as early modern philosophers contended, or because we feel charged to become them?”

Most notably Kegan argued in 1994 that, by his estimates based on studies that had been published up to that time, if what he called his fourth order of consciousness (termed self-authoring) was the necessary standard for success in modern life, more than half the adult population were, in effect, “in over their heads”.

Twenty-five years ago …

So, according to Kegan, what were these demands?

To invent or own our work (rather than see it as owned and created by the employer).
To be self-initiating, self-correcting, self-evaluating (rather than depending on others to frame the problems, initiate adjustments or determine whether things are going acceptably well).
To be guided by our own vision at work (rather than be without a vision or to be captive to the authority’s agenda).
To take responsibility for what happens to us at work externally and internally (rather than see our present internal circumstances and future external possibilities as caused by someone else).
To be accomplished masters of our particular work roles, jobs, or careers (rather than have an apprenticing or imitating relationship to what we do).
To concieve of the organisation from the “outside in” as a whole; to see our relation to the whole; to see the relation of the parts to the whole (rather than see the rest of the organisation and its parts only from our own part, from the “inside out).

Twenty-five years on

Twenty-five years on not much has changed in one respect and a great deal in others. Most noticeably, it seems to me, if anything we often seem to find ourselves caught in situations in which we are trying to juggle competing commitments on both sides of this formulation. Maybe it is possible to recast Kegan’s list somewhat.

Here is my crack at it:

To invent or own our work but not the reason for doing it or the results that must be obtained.
To be self-initiating, self-correcting, self-evaluating but usually within the constraints of corporate values, generic competencies and a generally bureaucratic performance management system.
To be guided by our own vision at work but only in alignment with the broader organisational vision and the expectations of customers and stakeholders..
To take responsibility for what happens to us at work externally and internally even if the circumstances have been the result of factors over which we have limited or no influence or are a product of constraints in the larger system.
To be accomplished masters of our particular work roles, jobs, or careers rather than working in communities of practice and having access to wise mentors and coaches who can help create conditions conducive to our onging evolution and development and the ongoing evolution of our systems of activity.
To concieve of the organisation from the “outside in” as a whole; to see our relation to the whole; to see the relation of the parts to the whole rather than transparently seeing the rest of the organisation and its parts from the perspective of our own knowledge and understanding and engaging in dialogue to get a collective sense of the whole.

Achiever or Re-Defining … or both?

If I’m anywhere near the mark, in thinking about this in terms of the notion of action-logics, this would suggest patterning in terms of an Achiever logic, but with a strong pull towards Re-Defining.

Leaders who operate largely from an Achiever orientation tend to be:

Strategic, outcome oriented with a focus on results and effectiveness, setting long term goals and deliberately prioritising work tasks.
Guided by the belief that leaders motivate others by making it challenging and satisfying to contribute to larger objectives.
Primarily either assertive or accommodative in communication style, but with some ability to compensate with the less preferred style.
Drawn to learning and more likely to accept or even initiate feedback, particularly if it is perceived to be helpful in achieving desired outcomes.
Mutual in relations, aware of their personal patterns of behavior and feel guilt if they don’t meet their own standards but nonetheless be typically blind to their own shadow.

Leaders who operate more from a Re-Defining stance are more likely to be:

Visionary and facilitative with a focus on the present and historical context
Guided by the belief that leaders articulate an innovative, inspiring vision and bring together the right people to transform the vision into reality, empowering others and actively facilitating their development.
Collaborative, tolerant of individual difference, aware of context and contingency, seeking independent, creative work and attracted by difference and change
Adept at balancing assertive and accommodative communication styles as needed in particular situations.
Genuinely interested in learning from diverse viewpoints, aware of owning a perspective, inquiring and proactive in seeking and utilising feedback.
Likely to articulate and question underlying assumptions and challenge group norms and to become something of a maverick

I’m not sure what this means or whether thinking about in terms of adult development and the mental demands of life and work is useful. Perhaps it is simply a feature of our more “liquid” times. I do think it’s a question worth asking. Can we operate with a foot in both camps? If so, what practices would help?

For the moment suffice it to say, it’s no wonder that smart people choose to leave organisational life. Much worse, it’s easy to see how those who stay frequently come to suffer anxiety, stress, burnout and ill-health.

Practice

I am going to think and write about this some more so I invite you to join the conversation by making a comment or getting in touch.

Over the few weeks maybe take some time to notice how often you are caught in one of the dilemmas listed above. How often does this happen almost without you noticing? How does it make you feel? What strategies do you find yourself adopting – to cope? To change the situation?

References

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads : the mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Stavropoulos, P. (2008). Living under liberalism : the politics of depression in western democracies. Boca Raton, Fl.: Universal.

Torbert, W. R., et.al. (2004). Action inquiry: The secret of timely and transforming leadership. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Verhaeghe, Paul. (2014) Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us. The Guardian