Striking a balance between work, health, and happiness can be a difficult task. Advancing research makes it clear that supporting one’s mental and physical needs is essential to maximizing productivity. In his COMM292 Blog, Thao Atkinson writes about “karoshi”, a Japanese term meaning “death caused by over working”. Today, the workplace often provides counselling and mental health seminars that increase the perceived organizational support for employees. However, burnout still runs rampant in many organizations, where heavy stigma and fierce competition make it difficult to eliminate.

For many jobs, companies expect the displayed emotion of their employees to match with the values of the company and the impression they want to give to their consumers. For example, nurses need to constantly show sympathy and patience despite working long hours and doing emotionally taxing work. The discrepancy between displayed emotions and felt emotions can be draining on top of the emotional energy required to work, contributing to high levels of workplace related exhaustion.

Additionally, the competitive nature of many offices make it difficult to admit needing a break. When there are a limited amount of promotions available, employees do their best to make sure they stand out amongst their peers. While one could say that being self-aware enough to know where your limits lie, the heads of many companies interpret this as being incapable of handling pressure and not strong to do what others are not struggling to do. In fact, mental exhaustion can be the result of a number of factors not directly related to work. Unfortunately, this stigma can create even more emotional labour, which is often unseen and left untreated.

In an age where a work-life balance is of increasing value, it is essential for managers to adapt their systems to better suit the emotional needs of their employees. More focus must be placed on this underrated issue, which can drastically impact a company’s productivity and efficiency.

Word Count: 327

Image: source

Some say that the divide between boss and employee is collapsing. In the modern workplace, it isn’t uncommon to see employees walk by their boss and converse with them comfortably and somewhat casually. Certain channels of the media and much of the newest entering workforce would agree that the corporate hierarchy is transitioning into a more open relationship between employees and employers. However, according to Stanford’s organizational behaviour professor, Jeffrey Pfeffer, office politics and rank still rule many corporate systems. As he states in this article, the reason this traditional power framework still exists is because it has been a successful system for years and it still effectively promotes organizational citizenship behaviour.

A short analysis of some of the world’s largest companies shows that hierarchy is still heavily intertwined in modern business. That is, the higher ranking your position is, the more benefits and control you have, and the more intense the competition is for your job. There are some definite benefits to this system, most notably, increased productivity from people trying to out-do their colleagues. However, this type of productivity is simultaneously met with the deterioration of teamwork, an underrated danger that outweighs the benefits of the traditional workplace hierarchy.

The key to teamwork lies in trust. It is nearly impossible to build a great team if each member cannot rely on other members to value the overall well being of the team. It requires trust to effectively delegate tasks, give honest feedback, and maximize productivity as a team. One of the largest advantages to working in teams is the ability to give team members positive feedback and suggestions for improvement, both of which are instrumental to maintaining, and more importantly raising,  high performance standards. Instead of promoting employee cooperation that will raise output and expectations, hierarchy encourages a toxic environment of selfishness. For example, by helping a peer improve their work, you give them a better chance at promotion and decrease your own chances. While this may encourage people to try and outperform their colleagues and work harder, it is ultimately producing a lower work standard since not everyone is performing as well they could with teamwork.

Even though the majority of companies say they value people with good teamwork skills, teams are substantially less effective under the ranked power system. There needs to be an increased focus on creating a system that rewards helping your colleagues instead of penalisation. It is clear that a change in this outdated system is essential to fixing the lack of teamwork in companies.

Word Count: 421

Image: source

When I first meet people, they can almost immediately tell that I am an introvert. When I first learned about the term “introvert”, I assumed what most people do: that it was synonymous with being shy and quiet. My definition of the term has since changed, and I now define it as a person that gains energy and clarity from internal reflection and contemplation. Unfortunately, there are still a significant misunderstandings and assumptions about introverts and extroverts alike, particularly in the workplace. It can be difficult to understand the negative potential impacts this can have on an organization.On the contrary, these stereotypes affect a number of organizational aspects, ranging from the type of job the person can do to who gets a promotion and who doesn’t.

The majority of stereotypes are not said directly, but instead implied through work distribution and assumptions about strengths and weaknesses.  For instance, it’s rare that one hears someone say “John is an introvert so we should put him in charge of more administrative and organization based tasks”, but knowing that John is an introvert, it is likely that someone will suggest he do a task catered to what they assume to be his strengths. As evidenced by numerous group project in high school and university, expected strengths and weaknesses are not necessarily true. Being deemed an extravert by the Myer’s Briggs Type Indicator does not necessarily mean the person is good at being a leader or talking in front of a large audience. On a similar note, an introvert can still deliver an astounding speech and have phenomenal leadership skills. These assumptions are hazardous to the workplace, and can negatively affect the level of performance in a company.

You may ask why people that are affected by these stereotypes do not simply correct the error and clear any misunderstanding. The most complex problem has less to do with eliminating misunderstandings from those making the assumptions, but is restoring the belief in the affected group’s ability to do things that are not typically assumed of them. Self fulfilling prophecy is a powerful force that causes many people with large varieties of skills to limit themselves to the ones that others believe they are good at. Remediation begins with education on what introversion and extraversion truly means, as well as what it does not mean. With clear information and openness to different abilities from different personality types, businesses can leverage understanding of personality to expand the capability and teamwork within an organization.

Word Count: 416

Image: source