Psychological burnout in the workplace is a painful, silent crisis receiving inadequate attention from both organizations and individuals. The social stigma of appearing weak prevents victims from speaking up and the need to be seen as virtuous in light of such a debilitating condition keeps organizations (i.e., leaders in control) from accepting blame, much less do anything about it. Despite, and as result of this comorbid “coverup,” everyone both knows what burnout from excessive workplace stress is, and knows a victim of it. This is a very personal affliction. What’s worse? Recovery from psychological burnout is extremely difficult – even with lots of help.
Anecdotal evidence of the increasing problem of burnout at work can be found in my typical day. Lately I’ve been taking an increasing number of calls from self-claimed victims (or near it). And these calls come from individuals both at, and out of, work. It’s clear to me that this is not a simple matter of the binary reality of having or not having work. Those who call “with work" wrestle with the question of whether or not they should quit, and those “without” work struggle with whether or not to finally give up the search for meaningful work. This is evidence of a third brutal truth beyond hushed victims and organizations in denial. No two people experience the stressors that lead to full blown burnout the same way. What one calls stressful to the point of ruin, another claims to be exhilarating. What all calls have in common is a deep and painful sense of lost relevance -- and loneliness.
Naturally, prevention is the best course of action. But for the reasons already mentioned, few (and increasingly fewer) organizations are ready or able to take action before it’s too late. The worse things get, the less willing and able organizations are to reckon with the causes of psychological burnout. The problem is more ominous than the mere absence of some innocuous organization stressors such as employee engagement or basic satisfaction with working conditions. Psychological burnout is squarely on the dark side of organizational behavior.
But the survival instinct is strong, and people experiencing stress will turn to independent means when outside help isn’t available. Too frequently, however, independent action exacerbates the problem causing more stress despite seeming innocent enough. Stress is like quicksand, you don't know how deep it is, it's very difficult to escape, and the struggle to do so can dig you in deeper. Some of these behaviors are actually helpful in the right circumstances but things change under stress. For example, taking time off is an obvious and popular means of reducing stress. The paradox here is that work and the stressors at work don't take a vacation, in fact they actually accumulate over the time when one is experiencing chronic stress. But some "go to" behaviors are clearly dysfunctional in the case of burnout and may create an even worse, vicious cycle, e.g., abusing alcohol.
Nope. No matter how much we want or pray for peace; how much we want the yelling on cable news networks to cease; or how badly we want to end acts of violence taking place in our schools, we must recognize that aggressive behavior is hardwired in our DNA. We can’t “all just get along?”
As social animals, humans have immutable, instinctual, irrepressible needs: the need to bond with others “get along” and the need to dominate, or “get ahead” relative to others. That’s simply the way it is. We will ALWAYS relate to other humans in these instinctive ways. Even your most revered saint is subject to this reality. And you most definitely are, too.
The ONLY people apparently exempt from both of these needs are, in psychological terms, “crazy,” “nut jobs,” “whackos,” etc. Apparently, I say, because an argument could be made that they are labeled, “abnormal” for the very reason that they don’t have both needs met.
The “sticky wicket” here is how we define, “get ahead.” Here’s my crack at it.
The pivotal criteria between hippies who’d “like to buy the world a Coke” and cowboys who take evil-doers and “hang ‘em high” hinge on intent and intensity.
We can all identify with the good old rivalry of game-based competition (good intent, strong intensity), and the trivial “rounding errors” in tax returns (bad intent, low intensity). {I’ve only heard about these.}
A simple taxonomy of "getting ahead."
The table, below, depicts one of the oldest, but strongest, means of influence due to its simplicity - even if a bit inadequate. (Hey, I’m a fan of tales of “ducks and bunnies.”) ANYWAY, in this case two variables (Intent and Intensity), each with two values (good/bad, high/low), are put together. Alas; the classic 2 x 2.
A simple taxonomy of "getting ahead."
The labels in the grid are mine, but others would work just as well. (However, if you disagree, you’re wrong. AND bad! – JK*)
BUT...
“BOHICA” (I really shouldn’t say what this acronym represents, so I won’t say that it ends with, Here It Comes Again.)
“Intent” is particularly squirrely. It’s hard to ascertain the intent of someone else: "I did this for you, not me." (hmm) “I didn’t mean to eat all of the ice cream.” (Not hard). And what if the act of intent affords no value to the one in question, “Yes, I drank all your champagne, but I didn’t enjoy it.” (Guilt by confession)
What isn’t so slippery: Few (sane) people proudly parade the image of being “Hostile.” Most don’t even like the idea of being “Mischievous.” We don’t like (allow?) the possibility to arise from our unconscious identity that we may be "bad." The more intense our point of view, the less we like (allow?) it to be anything but affirmative and decisive. "From now to eternity, I will NEVER vote for a ...."
Distinguishing good and bad is subjective. (Note the ‘wiggle’ room here) For the most part, our interpretation calmly flows with the “river of the rest.” For example, “You shouldn't interrupt someone in mid speech.” (That is, unless they NEVER shut up or are an insufferable boor.) “Going with the flow” isn’t infallible. We can believe we’re absolutely good and right, but somehow do unthinkable harm. Many egregious atrocities have been committed in the vortex of popular thinking (e.g., slavery).
Some will take umbrage with my admittedly loose, but intentionally illustrated sense of right and wrong. “God determines what’s right and wrong.” I can hear from some. “Yes,” I respond, "She does." "But..." our operational legal and moral systems are primarily determined by the populous. And, yes, they may be right or wrong about what’s right or wrong. (Huh?)
Anyway, the point I want to make has little to do with defining what’s right or wrong regarding guns, freedom of speech, whatever you like. I simply intend to give credence to the point that sometimes, some times, good people do bad things. I have my own opinions regarding what’s right or wrong, but who cares?
If you accept the conundrum that good people can do bad things, then the conflict between the person and their behavior must be addressed - more realistically, reconciled. Otherwise we have a bad person. And we don't like this answer. So, we in effect, invoke the moral(feeling)/rational(thinking) equivalent of a psychological “get out of jail free” card.
Cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance. The “slight of mind” that allows us to sleep knowing that we held our nose and voted for ____. OMG.
Cognitive dissonance. It's what you’d guess; mental conflict or disagreement. Cognitive dissonance looms large wherever disagreement lurks.
Take the maelstrom of shootings in US schools. Some say easy access to weapons is at fault, yet the same people may have guns themselves, or at least want others to have them. Others believe that inadequate defense mechanisms are a weak link in our free society, thus allowing such tragedy. Furthermore, arming trained people with guns in schools is a good start to confronting these horrific maladies.
Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Obviously, the answer depends on who you ask. But both points of view, intensely debated, are staunchly justified by those who hold them.
Cognitive dissonance.
A singular event, with the same information available to all, is fiercely contested. Both “sides” have no doubt that they are right; the other side, dreadfully - dangerously, wrong.
How does this happen?
Cognitive dissonance.
Allow me to walk you through the examples of two potential cognitive processes regarding the two most polarizing points of view on gun control. For illustrative purposes, I’m going to make them super simple and extraordinarily extreme. I am NOT going to try to make them “good.” I speak for NO ONE here. I’m just making a point. Here goes...
“Guns are easily obtained and pose deadly force. If we eliminate guns, we’ll eliminate the problem.”
“Guns are our most effective defense in crises like these. By equipping our schools with guns, we’ll eliminate the problem.”
Both positions invoke cognitive dissonance because both are debatable and, moreover, both are obviously ignorant (as written). Note: we also don’t like to think of ourselves as “ignorant.”
Advocates for eliminating guns want to protect our schools by taking away the weapon of deadly force (guns), but know that two guns are better as long as one gun exists. (Unless they have complete trust in the wielder of the first gun.)
Advocates for the right to bear arms (guns) want to protect our schools by inserting the powerful weapon on site as defense, but know that guns carry risk. And more guns create more risk.
Now. Simmer down. The message is intended to make a point, not a point of view.
I say that both sides “know” these things, but that doesn’t mean they acknowledge them. This is where the BIG BUT comes in.
"Sure. Guns offer powerful protection, BUT at what risk to have so many; in our schools?"
"Sure. Guns pose risk and the more guns, the more risk, BUT at what cost do we allow armed attackers access to unarmed schools?"
When you hear someone pivot on a “BUT” they’re invoking cognitive dissonance.
It’s all about the BUT. When you hear someone pivot on a “BUT” they’re invoking cognitive dissonance. They’re creating a way to hold two conflicting beliefs (one, probably suppressed and unconscious) at the same time.
Cognitive dissonance allows both of these positions to ‘jump’ over the line between good and bad intent
Again. This article is not about gun control. The references are used only to make my point because it’s divisive. Both sides have intense beliefs. Both sides have valid points. Both sides have flaws. Cognitive dissonance allows both of these positions to ‘jump’ over the line between good and bad intent (or at least position one’s self in “the good box.”)
Wake up. We can’t. We won’t. Not gonna happen. We'll never, "all just get along."
We’ll never "all just get along." In virtually all cases, cognitive dissonance justifies our unpopular (among some) position by giving us an “out” of the bad box.
Most can identify with the feeling of discontent when others seem to be getting promoted for less apparent reason than your promotion would justify. It’s natural – we want to win and a big piece of winning in organizations is getting promoted. It probably comes as no consolation to learn that there are many factors potentially influencing why you’re not getting promoted.
There’s very little one can do in the short term if there is no open position above you. Organizations do NOT like to add more heads to higher levels simply because they are “ready and able.” CFOs in particular do not like to see a proliferation of senior-level jobs relative to the organization’s general growth at all levels.
Overcoming the tightly managed promotion “quota” is also highly difficult. The simple fact is that there typically aren’t enough promotions for all for whom a “truth measure” would indicate are ready. Organizations are always smaller at the top than at entry levels.
Lastly, you can’t do much about your time in position except wait. And the bad news is that spending a given amount of time at any level is no guarantee of promotion. Most will simply retire or leave the organization without making it to the coveted top positions.
There’s actually a fourth reason that you’re not being promoted: You’re not known by enough managers or executives above you. Simply impressing your boss is usually not enough unless they are truly a selfless advocate.
You’re not known by enough managers or executives above you.
But this is something you can do something about. You can improve your reputation at higher levels of the organization. Here are a few suggestions to enhance your reputation, and therefore, your promotability:
Participate on as many cross-functional assignments as you can. The vast majority of promotions are not made by one’s boss alone. You need to be visible to your boss’ peers, and to some extent, your boss’ superiors. This second one can be very tricky -- you don’t want to hurt your chances by upsetting the political hierarchy, i.e., going around or above your boss.
Create a career plan for yourself, or with your boss, and discuss it with them. Of particular importance: Clarify exactly what performance results and which competencies are critical to your promotability. This cannot be overstressed: Be as objective as possible about both the results and competencies associated with promotions. “Higher ups” can, and do, frequently hide behind nebulous developmental goals or achievements.
Make sure you manage your “but.” I’ve sat through hundreds of “talk talent” meetings. One of the most common things I hear is, “They’re really good at {fill in this blank}, BUT… they haven’t overcome {fill in your ‘but’}."
In summary, you may be extremely good at what you’re doing now, but there are many factors potentially holding you back despite being a superstar in your current role. Don’t think about progression from the perspective of why you deserve a promotion. Instead, apply some of these tips to improve your promotability. This way when opportunity does arise, you’ve got a better chance than you’d have on your job record alone.
Get out there. Be seen working side by side with higher levels or at least the “up and coming”. Cover your “buts”. And possibly most important, be likeable.
