by Anne Dickson
• Do you ever feel ‘unprofessional’ precisely because of your dislike of the prevailing norms?
The answer to these questions for many women is ‘yes’. Time after time, women (and some men too) find themselves working in a climate that they find soul-destroying, frustrating and unpleasant. A sense of alienation, though, is not a position of strength especially when there seems to be no other option. This discourages us from considering other approaches or dismissing them as woolly, unrealistic, impractical and naive. The combination of a lack of alternative plus the tendency to deride anything that doesn’t fit into the dominant culture often leaves us feeling powerless, individually and collectively.
Experiences that reinforce a feeling of powerlessness include:
• Being discouraged from criticising or challenging the status quo
• Confusion and doubt in response to ‘double talk’, dishonesty and fudging
• Incompatibility of values and being personally undervalued
• Not speaking the same ‘language’
• Lack of confidence
• Overwhelming history of tradition if working in an institutional setting
• Backlog of personal emotions related to the above
• Isolation
One step towards regaining some personal power in this context is to identify any underlying values that many women sense are truer to their own beliefs and preferences: alternatives which would promote more satisfaction, a feeling of self-respect and, significantly, would contribute to a better working climate all-round.
There is a world of difference between, on one hand, feeling you are inadequate because you’ve got it wrong, and on the other, realising that your personal values are as relevant, important and as legitimate as the dominant ones. Your values aren’t wrong, just not mainstream. They may be minority values. They may be labelled as soft, unrealistic, naïve and belonging to cloud cuckoo land. But nevertheless, if they are your values, don’t lose sight of them: they may be shared by more individuals than you realise.
Handling confrontation at work
When you have occasion to criticise inadequate performance or deliver bad news whether this means confronting a colleague, someone higher up than you on the ladder or someone lower down, you are faced with a choice: how do I handle the situation?
Do you comply with the norm? The template for handling criticism at work is familiar and already in place. It is worth examining in some detail. Consider the following examples of statements of someone who believes he or she has no problem at all with giving criticism to an employee:
‘Dave, we’ll make this quick. You’ve been here, how long, three months now? You seem to have a problem with the other guys on the team and they’re not happy so I’m not happy. If you don’t do something about it, I’m going to have to let you go.’ (Nothing specific but generally threatening)
‘Cheryl, this is unacceptable. Do a better job next time.’ (No specific change requested)
The disadvantage of vague suggestions is two-fold. First, if you do not say exactly what you want, the other person will not know exactly what you want. So how can they agree to do what you ask if they are not clear about what it is they are agreeing to? It also makes it difficult for you if, three weeks later, you complain ‘I asked you to improve your performance’ and the reply, justifiably, is ‘I have’. What do you say? You know you meant something else but if you don’t spell it out, you have little redress.
Apart from being ineffectual, this approach is also aggressive but has become standardised and unfortunately confused with assertiveness. It is what I call ‘the hit-and-run’ method, because it allows you to put your point across without taking any responsibility for your behaviour. Each aggressive interaction leaves the other person defensive, perhaps hurt or disappointed but the obvious advantage of this strategy is that it enables you to avoid having to deal with the other person’s feelings in response to what you have said.
Other hit-and-run tactics include informing an employee of their dismissal by email, by text or even putting all their belongings into a black plastic bag for them to discover when they arrive for work on a Monday morning. These tactics are rationalised by subscribing to the view that employees are units of labour, not human beings. For many people, therefore, a personal reluctance to criticise directly is reinforced by a system in which this behaviour is officially sanctioned.
Institutionalised aggression occurs in classrooms, the boardroom, the staffroom, the office, on the shop floor and in hospital wards. Even official feedback or personnel reviews are little more than opportunities to hand down one piece of criticism after another with no specific alternative suggested and zero opportunity for or interest in the other person’s response. Because aggression is de rigeur in the workplace – integral to the competitive and entrepreneurial ethos – you will find men and women in authority who don’t think twice about the fallout from aggressive behaviour: a kind of take it or leave it attitude.
Even if you are not that comfortable with this way of dealing with criticism, you may feel there is no other way. Some individuals, facing the task of criticising members of staff or colleagues, have to ‘psyche’ themselves up because, as we saw in Chapter 14, criticism is generally perceived as a weapon. We tell ourselves: ‘I know this is going to be unpleasant and hurtful, but there are times when you have to sit someone down and be really brutal with them because it’s necessary and it’s for their own good. Things can’t go on as they are.’ Mentally preparing ourselves, we build up the tension and take aim.
It is remarkable how common this perception is, as if it is inconceivable that criticism could be constructive, without being hurtful, nasty and ultimately an ordeal both for you (the critic) and your ‘target’. The art of constructive criticism takes on a particular importance in the workplace. If you apply precisely the same guidelines as we looked at earlier in a personal context, you would find it possible to criticise someone professionally without it being brutal, without it being devastating and without having to build yourself up to do the dreadful deed. The recipient (as opposed to target) could learn something useful and even feel supported by the process. What is usually overlooked is that assertive (and therefore constructive) confrontation actually increases an employee’s willingness to improve and to co-operate precisely because of being treated as a human being.
Balancing the two faces of power
If you want to take a chance and try a more enlightened approach; if you’re interested in exercising the kind of authority that enables and facilitates motivation and co-operation instead of subscribing to the culture of aggression, you need to balance two faces of power in your own mind. Embarking on a confrontational exchange with someone at work still requires the use of self-disclosure and the answers to your three key questions worked out beforehand.
If you follow the principles of opening and closing the conversation, you’ll find that it’s perfectly possible to be straight, direct, clear and unequivocal in your message, all without aggression. This is not just a psychological strategy: it requires you genuinely to consider the person in front of you not exclusively through the labels of enemy, subordinate, loser or rival: it requires you to look at those labels or categories and then see beyond them to a wider reality. The label – the object – ceases to be all there is: you see in the round, with more breadth. This is when your communication becomes assertive. Make no mistake: the assertive option is not a soft option. It can be very powerful but is rooted in another kind of power.
Wendy was head of human resources and had received complaints about one of the directors, Mike, regarding missed meetings and generally substandard performance. She had already passed them over to Simon, the CEO, but nothing had happened. She knew this was because Mike and Simon were buddies which explained the lack of action: the problem was also that she disliked Simon immensely. She hated his arrogance, his cronyism, his sexism: everything about him really.
So far, she
had not said anything because she didn’t think she could do so without an unpleasant fight. What can she do? First she has to let go the perception of him as enemy: otherwise she will not be able to even begin the dialogue. Secondly, she has to be clear about the answers to those three questions: What is happening? How does she feel? What does she want to be different? The answers in Wendy’s mind are:
• Simon is ignoring the complaints about Mike
• I feel furious and powerless
• I’d like Simon to deal appropriately with Mike
(She enters Simon’s office having pre-arranged a time to meet.)
Wendy: Simon, this is not easy for me. (Simon looks at her and waits.) I want to keep this brief. As you know, I’ve informed you of three complaints about Mike’s work performance and it seems you haven’t passed them on. I’d like to know why.
Simon: (bristling) I have no idea what you’re implying, Wendy. I haven’t passed anything on precisely because I conducted my own investigation and found the complaints to be completely groundless. I suggest you check your facts before accusing me of anything. (Stares at her threateningly)
The tension between them is palpable. Wendy is torn between her loathing for Simon and her nervousness. She’ll either have to back off or fight back . . . or she can choose to stay out of the warzone and stay with her request. She takes a very deep breath.
Wendy: OK. Simon, I really don’t want to get into a fight with you. It would be pretty pointless as you’re my boss. But I want to say this. We’ve had complaints about Mike from three separate members of staff. They know that I pass them on to you and then nothing happens. What I would like you to do is deal with these complaints appropriately. (Repetition and reinforcement)
Simon: But I’ve already . . .
Wendy: I’d like to finish, Simon. I am not on some personal vendetta. I’m asking for the sake of the whole department because as long as these problems are seen to continue, it is doing us all a lot of harm. (Stands up) I’d like you to consider it, Simon. I won’t take up any more of your time. (Moves to the door)
You can’t change the system but you can challenge your own fear of speaking up by speaking truth to power instead of allowing yourself to be intimidated. Wendy will never change her opinion of Simon but she was able to state clearly what she wanted – in the face of antagonism and yet without hooking into it – and make her exit. By putting aside the concept of ‘enemy’, she was able to stay with her own personal power and be effective. This is the source of real confidence.
Another constituent of personal power is integrity, being true to oneself. There are times when we have the opportunity to assert our own values even if these are at odds with the mainstream. Helen found herself facing this kind of challenge when she heard that a long-term employee faced losing his job because of restructuring in the company. She didn’t like the man particularly but objected strongly to the proposed procedure of waiting until the Friday before he was due two weeks’ leave to tell him not to come back after his holiday. She believed that it was unfair to treat him in this way.
She had tried, at the time, to say something to her own superior but had been dismissed as being too sentimental and reminded that this was the way things were done. She was left with a sense of guilt and self-reproach: an emotional state often masking feelings of anger and powerlessness. It is the loss of integrity that damages our self-esteem so deeply.
Practice 1
She set the scene by making an appointment to see her superior, giving him due notice of the importance of the matter.
Helen: I’m here because I’ve been thinking about Peter and the decision to sack him.
Gavin: (shrugging his shoulders), ‘Yes it’s tough but he’s got to go.
Helen: I feel that he should be told in another way..it’s not a very nice way to do it.
Gavin: There’s no nice way.
Helen: No, but I feel that he should be treated decently . . . (faltering).
Helen learned that self-disclosure is vital. This means avoiding phrases like ‘I feel that’ which tend to preface thoughts not feelings: make an honest declaration because, if a value is important to you, only you can express this.
Practice 2
Helen: This is awkward for me (self-disclosure) but why I’m here is because I feel uncomfortable (self-disclosure) that Peter should be dismissed in such an insensitive way.
Gavin: We are not here to be sensitive.
Helen: I realise that I am in the minority, but it’s important to me. Even if you take no notice, I want to state here how strongly I disagree with the manner of Peter’s dismissal. It has a demoralising effect on the whole department when one person is treated in this way.
Gavin: (looks at Helen and pauses . . . does she have a point perhaps?!) So what do you suggest, a whip round and a party?
Helen: No, I’m being serious. He isn’t popular, you know that. But I would like to see him, with you if necessary, and tell him in advance. I think that’s a fairer way to treat one of our employees.
Helen had no idea whether her boss would alter his position on the matter but, by clearly stating her proposed alternative, she was able to live with her integrity more intact.
Sometimes it is inevitable that we have to face up to a harsh reality and be the bearers of bad news but even legitimate rejection can be handled without aggression. As her manager, Lisa was faced with telling Annette, a junior employee, that she had not been given a permanent position in charge of web-site development. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that Annette had been temporarily promoted to this position but, although she had been efficient, the interview panel had found her teambuilding skills were not good enough.
The three answers for Lisa were:
• Annette hasn’t got the job
• I feel awkward about telling her
• I have to give her the news
Even when it seems too obvious to ask yourself these questions, the answers will always help to focus on what you are feeling and where you’re going in the conversation so you start off from an internally stronger position.
Lisa: Annette, thanks for coming (pauses . . . looks at her directly) This is a difficult situation but I have to tell you that you didn’t get the job, I’m afraid.
Annette: Why not? I thought I’d done really well!
Lisa: You have in some ways but the panel decided you lacked team-building skills.
Annette: What the hell does that mean?
Lisa: I think they mean you need to be more approachable and to consult others more as well as managing your responsibilities.
Annette: And how are you supposed to learn that?
Lisa: Well, I suppose you could go on a course.
Annette: (her eyes filling with tears) I am so disappointed. I really thought I’d have a good chance. I thought I’d done the job really well.
Lisa: (sympathetically) I’m sure you must be disappointed. I would be too.
Annette: Why didn’t anyone say anything before?
Lisa: I guess you didn’t have a proper appraisal because you took the post temporarily. (Needing to close now) Look, Annette, I think it’s best that we end this meeting now but I’d be happy to see you again when you’ve had time to consider things. If you decide you do want to improve your skills somehow, we can talk about it at a later date. Is that OK? (Annette nods and get to her feet.)
Lisa: Thanks for coming in and I’m sorry it wasn’t good news.
This kind of interaction doesn’t take much more time than the hit-and-run strategy but the difference in effect on employees is remarkable. Handling authority assertively is not about losing face or scoring points. It is less concerned with winning as an outcome than emerging from an interaction with an appropriate balance between yourself (and the demands of your role) and respect for the other person.
19
Your Body – Friend or Foe?
This chapter looks at our relationship with our bodies: not in a sexual
context – this is the theme of the following chapter – but the ways in which we listen to or ignore, accept or reject our bodies; whether we are familiar or unfamiliar with what occurs in our bodies; whether we feel truly at home within our bodies or view them more as a project we are lumbered with and constantly need to improve upon. More often than not, a woman doesn’t so much cherish her body as the ‘temple of her soul’ as engage in a virtually life-long struggle with it: the result is a conflict between body and mind, appetite and excess, between feelings and reason, indulgence and punishment, truth and pretence.
Many women see their bodies, if not as an out-and-out enemy, then certainly with the unfamiliarity of a stranger. We are often suspicious and uncertain as to how our bodies might respond. We try to keep them under control: we disguise them, stuff them, starve them, decorate them, mutilate them, hide them, restrict them or deprive them. We use them to attract, seduce, satisfy, console, give birth and serve others. If they slow down with overwork or old age we sometimes show them little respect or compassion: we push them beyond their limits or regard them as useless and unattractive, no longer worthy of care and attention.
Image-consciousness has risen to new heights in our culture in the course of last three decades: the ‘image is all’ ethos affects every one of us, whether or not we subscribe to it, and it is no longer exclusive to the female gender. Image-consciousness erodes integrity and the consequence is that women of all ages remain deeply ambivalent about their bodies. We are (often intensely) preoccupied with how much our bodies measure or weigh or the calorific count of the foods we put into them; we submit them to fitness regimes, remove evidence of any natural hair, hide them behind veils or flaunt them in provocative and revealing clothes.
One of the prerequisites for satisfying and fulfilling sexual encounters with another person is a familiarity, respect and sense of harmony within our own bodies. Instead of concentrating exclusively on external assessment of our bodies as a measure of our self-esteem, I believe it’s important to start with our sense of our selves: how do I relate to this body of mine, not only its external image but also my interior existence (emotions, instinct, intuition, spirit)?