Why Is It So Difficult To Leave a Bad Job?

/in /by

Have you ever been in a bad employment situation but couldn’t bring yourself to leave? Nearly every client tells us about trauma they experienced at work, whether it’s an unsupportive or deliberately cruel manager, a company implementing policies that are unfavourable to employees, continuous layoffs creating stress and anxiety, or politics that left them feeling devalued.

Yet they stayed, some for years, even though they knew their work environment was bad. Here are five reasons it’s hard to leave a bad job — and what to do about them.

Loyalty to your “work family”

Working at a company for a long time can create a sense of loyalty to the organisation and team members. One of our clients, Beatrice (not her real name), worked for a law firm for more than 15 years and expected to be made a shareholder. But she learned she was rejected from partnership. “The lightbulb went off, and this was never going to be my company. I have given my life to these people, and they didn’t value me that way. I had to decide, did I want to start over and try to become a shareholder somewhere else?” That was the breaking point for her, but even with an offer in hand from another firm where she would be a shareholder, she still struggled to depart. “I felt tremendous guilt leaving my old firm. I celebrated every major holiday with them. Two partners are my kids’ godparents. It was like my family.” In the end, Beatrice weighed her loyalty to the firm against the firm’s loyalty to her, which helped her decide to accept another firm’s offer.

What to do about it

Recognise that companies hire you to use your skills and capabilities to provide a service. If you’re no longer providing the value the company expects or the company changes its goals and your skills are no longer needed, the company will let you go.

Now, reverse that logic. Look at how you’re serving the company through the lens of what you need to feel fulfilled and valued in your job. Determine if the company is still providing the value to your life that you need and deserve.Is it good or bad?

Some questions to ask yourself include:

  • Is the company providing me benefits and development opportunities that will enhance my career and life?
  • Are the company’s policies inclusive of my specific needs?
  • Is the company recognising the value I’m bringing with more money, a promotion, partnership, or some other important recognition that matters to me?
  • Every company-employee relationship is about loyalty and commitment on both sides, not just achieving goals and collecting a paycheck.

A cult-like atmosphere

When you join a company, everyone is working toward a common mission or goal. If the company has a righteous mission such as helping people be healthy, successful, happy, or helping to sustain the earth, then employees feel like they’re contributing to the greater good of humanity or the world. Deciding to leave the company can feel selfish or even traitorous, like you’ve “given up” on the collective mission.

Even if the company isn’t making big impacts on people or the world, the inside atmosphere is about collaborating to achieve a goal together. That feeling of being a critical part of a team or feeling “strong” because you can withstand any suffering to achieve the goals becomes addictive and diminishes the damaging aspects of a bad job.

What to do about it

If you’re feeling an intense camaraderie that prevents you from leaving what you know is an unhealthy work environment, take some time to define your what’s important to you and determine whether those values are being fulfilled in the job — separate from the company’s needs.

Here are some questions to ask yourself to make that determination:

  • What’s important to me at work, and how do I define what that means?
  • Which values are being consistently honoured or violated?
  • Is there anything I can do to ensure my values are honoured?

For example, if being respected is a value and you define it as having your ideas heard and considered, but your manager consistently talks over you or ignores your ideas, your value is being violated. Can you discuss with your manager why this value is so important to you and influence it being honoured? If not, you’ll need to decide whether the company mission is more important than your values.

Nostalgia for what the company was

When you join a company and have a great experience for months or even years, you’re fully engaged in your job. Then change happens, whether that be a new leader, new structure, or a shift in strategic direction, and you may struggle to cope with it.

These kinds of organisational changes can result in feelings of shock, denial, frustration, and depression. If you find yourself struggling to accept and adjust to the changes over time and find yourself saying, “I don’t want to leave because I really love the company” instead of “I don’t want to leave because I love my job,” then you may be stuck in the past, hoping the company will go back from being bad and revert to what it once was.

What to do about it

Change is hard, so give yourself time to adjust and process what it means for your job. After you’ve accepted the change, take an objective look at whether the present situation still fulfils your values and career goals. If you’re still struggling in your job post-change, consider the following questions:

  • What was the company like when I joined, and what is the company reality today?
  • What would make the environment better for me?
  • Can I make any additional changes or requests to fulfil the values that are no longer being fulfilled?

Companies, teams, and leaders all change — often especially as companies grow. It’s up to you to determine whether you want to live in the present reality or a past that no longer exists.

Equity handcuffs

Some employees receive equity grants in a company, such as RSUs or stock options. Stock grants vest over a period of time, usually years. Therefore, after suffering a distressing work environment, you may feel even more strongly that you deserve to wait out that vest for what you’ve been through. But how much trauma are you willing to endure? Waiting for equity to vest could be detrimental to your health, so it’s critical to understand whether it’s worth it.

What to do about it

Determine exactly when and how much you will receive from each vest at the current stock prices and ask your broker or accountant these questions if you can’t figure out the answers:

  • After taxes and option strike price payments, how much will I receive?
  • If I walk away from this money or wait until my stock vest, will this impact my retirement outlook?
  • What net amount would I need to earn in compensation at another company to make up for the unvested stock value?

Equity incentives are granted to keep you in the job, and many companies offer additional grants during your tenure through compensation programs. Therefore, there’s never a “final” vesting date. But you can break the never-ending vest cycle if you have an exit date in mind based on how much you want vested before you depart and how much you’re willing to forfeit.

Fear

There’s no shortage of things to fear when it comes to making a job change: Fear you’ll jump into another tough situation, that you’ll have to prove yourself all over again, that you won’t be able to make as much money, fear that you will be bad elsewhere. Fear that you don’t even know how to look for a job. If you’re feeling beaten down from a bad work situation, fear can leave you with little confidence that making a change will lead to a better work environment.

What to do about it

To help you bypass your fears, instead of just dreaming about what your life could look like in a positive work environment, deliberately visualize it. Close your eyes and consider the following when trying to combat negative thoughts and fears:

  • If I weren’t scared to leave, what would be possible?
  • What does my new work environment look like, smell like, feel like?
  • What kind of support do I need to feel more confident in making a change?

Finally, think about what advice you would give a close friend about a work situation that mirrors your own.

Leaving a bad job is never easy, and each person’s breaking point is different, so beating yourself up over why you stayed so long in a traumatic situation won’t help. But learning from each experience will empower you to own your career choices and leave earlier if you find yourself in a comparable situation again.

CURIOUS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF OUR UNBIASED HR SOLUTIONS?

Take the first step towards transforming your remote work culture by requesting a free demo assessment from Great People Inside.        

Our team of experts will guide you through the assessment process, showcasing the effectiveness and value of our tailored solutions for your organization.        

During the demo, you will have the opportunity to explore the comprehensive features and functionalities of our psychometric assessments, experiencing firsthand how they can empower your HR strategies and drive positive outcomes. From personality assessments to cognitive abilities and team dynamics evaluations, our assessments provide valuable insights to enhance talent management and foster inclusive remote work environments.        

Don’t miss out on this opportunity to test the power of unbiased HR solutions. Request your free demo assessment from Great People Inside today and embark on a journey of fair and effective talent management in the remote work era.        

Together, we can unlock the true potential of your remote teams and achieve remarkable success. Request a Free Demo Assessment.        

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is B_txt_01.png

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210823-why-does-quitting-your-job-still-feel-so-hard
https://www.themuse.com/advice/4-reasons-you-should-stop-feeling-guilty-about-leaving-your-job
https://www.careersindepth.com/post/why-you-feel-like-you-cant-quit-the-job-you-hate

The CEO Myth – Being The Ultimate Decision Maker

/in /by

A common misperception about the CEO’s role is that they are the ultimate decision-maker, and that the prize of getting this coveted position is that you now get to make all the decisions. In reality,  the CEO’s role is much more about shaping rather than making decisions.

There’s a fundamental reason for this subtle difference. Organisations face countless decisions daily, and it would be impossible for a CEO to be involved in each one. Attempting to do so would slow down the entire operation and could even bring it to a standstill. As a result, rather than making decisions directly, the proper role of the CEO is to enable others to make decisions the CEO can support. Of course, there are times when the CEO must be the ultimate decision-maker, but the CEO’s approach should be inspired by Occam’s razor: The fewer decisions the CEO can make, the better.

CEOs have several tools at their disposal to shape decisions in their organisations. Some are at the level of the organisation as a whole. CEOs can shape decisions by aligning everyone around a shared purpose, articulating priorities, and setting goals. Decisions are also shaped by developing a clear strategy, adopting an organisation structure that allows for the proper distribution of responsibilities, and fostering a strong culture. A clear performance measurement and reward system can also help.

Even as they build the broader context that shapes decisions across the organisation, CEOs cannot step away from decision-making entirely. Indeed, they must choose where and how they personally engage in decision-making.

The decision-making landscape in any organisation is vast. A useful map is to think of categories of decisions on one axis (e.g., strategy, structure, culture, people, products, investments, etc.) and the organisational level at which decisions need to be made on the other axis (e.g., corporate, business unit, region, function, subsidiary, plant, office, etc.). CEOs must choose how to personally engage to shape decisions across this entire landscape. This involves, at each intersection of category and level, determining the extent to which they are involved in designing the decision-making process, choosing when to participate directly, monitoring the work, and creating clarity around when and by whom a decision will be made. This framework is based on the 25 years I have spent alongside colleagues teaching CEO workshops at Harvard Business School, as well as my own experience leading organisations and advising CEOs as a board member and advisor.

Designing the Process

CEOs can influence any decision by thoughtfully designing the decision-making process. This involves setting parameters such as who is to be involved, what questions to answer, what kinds of information to gather, what guardrails to keep in mind, how many meetings to have, the structure of the discussions, and what gets decided when and by whom. The CEO may play a major role in designing some decision-making processes and a lighter role in others.

For example, a CEO we studied was heavily involved in designing the process for making key portfolio choices, such as keeping, divesting, and acquiring businesses. Working with his direct reports and a small group of high-potential managers, he defined the metrics against which to evaluate each business, chose a set of rivals to benchmark performance against, set a time frame of three months to complete the analysis, and established weekly three-hour meetings during which the team reviewed progress and agreed on next steps.

The same CEO delegated to his CFO and CHRO the task of preparing recommendations for structural changes that would result in cost-reduction goals in shared services such as HR, IT, and finance. Other than specifying that he wanted the two to work together to identify cost savings exceeding 15%, he gave them full leeway to design a process to generate these recommendations.

These two examples illustrate the intentionality CEOs must bring to these design choices. Depending on the specific matter they want to influence, they must choose the various parameters (e.g., who to task, what goals/metrics to set, what time frame to establish, and what expectations to create), and identify which issues they want to personally be involved in, and which others they are happy to delegate and trust others to make.

Participating in the Process

CEOs must then choose how much they want to participate at various stages of the decision-making process. The CEO may be active at every step, check in from time to time, or get engaged at a specific point, such as the beginning, middle, or end.

CEOs’ choices about when and how to personally step into decision-making situations often reflects their desire to make their teams active participants in the decision, as a way to increase buy-in. If you watch CEOs in these settings, what’s striking is how many of their actions are aimed at guiding others toward a decision, instead of overtly influencing the decision in a way that may feel heavy-handed. They provide this guidance by challenging the process, raising the bar, asking tough questions, and demanding better answers. Even though the CEOs are involved, they are careful to leave actual decision-making to their colleagues.

For example, the CEO who designed the strategic portfolio review process attended five of the 12 meetings. He attended the first two to set the right tone and direction. He then allowed the team to do its homework. He did one check-in in the middle of the process to ensure things were on track. Finally, he re-engaged by attending the last two meetings when the group presented its recommendations.

In contrast, on the cost-cutting workstream, he attended no meetings and instead asked the CFO and CHRO to brief him on their progress and to seek his input whenever they felt it would be helpful.

The level of personal participation CEOs choose in situations such as these reflect how tightly they want to manage each process, the importance they attach to the decision, the level of confidence they have in the leaders involved in each case, and how costly they feel it would be to intervene and change course as the process unfolds.

Monitoring the Work

CEOs must also choose how much they want to be personally engaged in monitoring the work. Providing feedback as any decision-making process unfolds is a vital element of the CEO’s role. In the case of periodic reviews, CEOs describe themselves as monitors who must check to ensure things are on track and that the organisation is executing as planned. Sometimes, CEOs describe their role as a coach, educating people, providing constructive feedback, and helping improve performance while doing little to actually influence the final decision under discussion.

By monitoring decision-making processes personally, CEOs set standards, encourage alignment, and enable course correction. In some cases, the CEO may meet regularly with the team to monitor progress. In others, they may only check in occasionally to ensure things are on track.

A key choice while monitoring decision-making processes is the altitude, or level of granularity, at which the CEO wants to engage. CEOs can choose to engage at a high level or dig deeply into the details. Some CEOs set these altitude expectations in advance; others choose them strategically in real time to keep the team alert and prepared to engage with them at any altitude they choose. Although the team may experience this as inconsistency or unpredictability, imagine yourself in this position: Might you prepare more thoroughly for a series of meetings if you know the CEO might ask questions that range from the big picture to the most nitty-gritty details?

Making the Decision

For some matters, such as setting the overall performance targets of the company, the CEO may be the principal decision-maker, choosing to make the final call after a set of recommendations have been presented. In other situations, the CEO may choose to consult with a small group of key executives and board members, as in the case of M&A deals, or while selecting top management team members. In other situations, such as formulating a business unit’s strategy, the CEO may let others, such as the business unit heads, make decisions, and then endorse them. In yet other circumstances, such as deciding which R&D projects the company should pursue, although the CEO may participate at some stage to better understand the choices under consideration, the CEO may delegate the final decision to a senior manager such as the head of R&D, because the CEO may lack the technical expertise to weigh in.

Factors to Consider in Choosing How Much to be Engaged

CEOs often use various criteria to determine the level of personal involvement they have across the decision-making landscape. These include the decision’s strategic importance: Does it matter for the CEO’s key priorities and have long-term implications for the company’s direction, vision, or mission? High-level strategy decisions almost always warrant the CEO’s direct engagement. Other factors that may influence the CEO’s involvement include the decision’s impact on the company’s financial health, either in terms of revenue, costs, or profitability; or the risk associated with the decision, either in terms of potential loss, legal implications, or harm to the company’s reputation. If a decision involves the allocation or reallocation of significant resources — like capital investments or human resources — it may warrant CEO oversight.

CEOs may also factor the extent to which the decision impacts the company’s core values and ethics. Any decision that could challenge or redefine these values require greater CEO involvement. Decisions that set a precedent for future company actions or policies often also require CEO engagement.

If a decision spans across multiple segments of the organisation or has the potential to lead to significant internal disagreement or conflict, the CEO should get more involved and consider making the final call. Decisions that will notably impact key stakeholders — including shareholders, major customers, regulators — might also draw the CEO’s attention. Urgent decisions, especially those that must be made rapidly to address immediate challenges or capitalise on opportunities, may warrant the CEO’s prompt attention.

Although CEOs tend to focus on these more significant decisions, some CEOs wisely note that they find benefit from periodically involving themselves directly in decision-making on smaller issues or at lower levels in the organisation. For example, the CEO may engage with some decisions far removed from the top, such as the strategy for a fledgling business unit or the design of an executive development program, because they want to signal its importance to the company. These symbolic opportunities for engagement can be just as important as the more substantive matters that warrant the CEO’s involvement.

Decision-making isn’t the only activity in which a CEO must make conscious choices about the right level of personal involvement. CEOs must be strategic about when to personally engage with customers, investors, regulators, the media, and other stakeholders. They must decide which senior roles require an interview with the CEO as part of the hiring process. They must decide when and how often to engage with individual directors in one-on-one conversations between full board meetings. Making the right choices about the level of personal involvement is key to a CEO’s overall effectiveness.

In conclusion, the role of the CEO is not about making every decision, but rather about creating an environment in which decisions are made effectively. By shaping decisions rather than making them, CEOs empower their teams, foster agility, and drive the organisation toward success. The CEO is more of a conductor, orchestrating the many parts to produce harmonious results, than a dictator issuing commands. It’s a shift in perspective that is required when leaders assume this pinnacle position and can be transformative for many leaders and organisations alike.

CURIOUS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF OUR UNBIASED HR SOLUTIONS?

  Take the first step towards transforming your remote work culture by requesting a free demo assessment from Great People Inside.        

Our team of experts will guide you through the assessment process, showcasing the effectiveness and value of our tailored solutions for your organization.        

During the demo, you will have the opportunity to explore the comprehensive features and functionalities of our psychometric assessments, experiencing firsthand how they can empower your HR strategies and drive positive outcomes. From personality assessments to cognitive abilities and team dynamics evaluations, our assessments provide valuable insights to enhance talent management and foster inclusive remote work environments.        

Don’t miss out on this opportunity to test the power of unbiased HR solutions. Request your free demo assessment from Great People Inside today and embark on a journey of fair and effective talent management in the remote work era.        

Together, we can unlock the true potential of your remote teams and achieve remarkable success. Request a Free Demo Assessment.        

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is B_txt_01.png

Sources:

https://aaronhall.com/insights/debunking-ceo-myths-a-successful-start-sets-the-tone/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markmurphy/2023/04/18/this-ceo-has-a-better-rule-for-making-faster-decisions/
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20170803-busting-the-myths-of-successful-ceos

When Should You Discuss A Problem With HR?

/in /by

Working in a toxic environment can rapidly erode your feelings about your job. Just dragging yourself to the office every day can fill you with dread. And evaluating whether to speak up to HR about the toxicity — How much should you say? — can be incredibly intimidating.

We know this from firsthand experience. A few years ago, we were asked to analyse and assess what seemed like an edgy, dynamic startup. After three weeks we realised we had unwittingly joined a team trying to navigate a destructive workplace culture. The team was led by an impossible-to-please micromanager with an explosive temper. The office environment was fraught and tensions were always running high. The organisation didn’t have an HR leader, or any other senior leaders, so people didn’t know where to turn for help. It took us 18 months to start changing mentalities and toxic work habits.

To this day, we help professionals solve workplace challenges that can feel insurmountable. Toxic norms and cultures are among the hardest issues to deal with, and can make people question their values and competence, and even wonder if quitting is their only option. If you’re feeling similarly, you aren’t alone — study after study shows that these kinds of cultures drive attrition. Other people make or break our experiences at work.

Toxic Versus Irritating

For someone to be considered “toxic,” they can’t just be annoying or unpleasant. We’ve all had colleagues or bosses who we found irritating or didn’t get along with, but that doesn’t necessarily make them toxic. To be toxic, a person or situation must be outside the bounds of normal workplace behaviour. A colleague whose work style and preferences regularly conflict with your own isn’t necessarily toxic. A boss who actively undermines your career progression or a leadership team that encourages cutthroat competition between departments, on the other hand, could qualify as toxic.

This distinction is important because if you go to HR about an issue that is more annoying than toxic, they may be happy to serve as a sounding board or to offer advice — but they’ll approach it far differently than they would something truly toxic. From an HR perspective, disagreements, irritations, or isolated incidents rarely warrant escalation. If there is ongoing friction due to conflicting work styles and personalities, HR will probably advise that you and your coworker find a way to discuss and resolve the challenges. You may receive support from HR on how to have the conversation, with an emphasis on working together to find a solution. For personal support, however, I encourage you to talk to someone you trust outside of your organisation. A mentor, former boss, therapist, or career coach can be a sounding board and an objective partner to help you clarify your next steps.

You may be considering going to HR about a toxic situation at your job. If possible, you should discuss the situation with your manager first to get their input and counsel. HR will most likely ask if you’ve gone to your boss for help, so it’s a good idea to do that first. However, if your manager is contributing to the toxic environment, you should talk to a senior leader you trust to receive an objective perspective and guidance. And if you are experiencing a situation that goes against company policy or could have legal implications, HR should be your first stop.

You may worry that going to HR about a certain person or situation could backfire. Maybe you fear that the toxic person will find out you said something and take action against you. Or maybe you’re nervous that going to HR about a toxic norm in company culture could hurt your career if senior leaders hear about it. These are normal fears, and before you do anything, it’s worth thinking carefully about what you want to do and make sure you understand the possible outcomes.

What to Consider Before Going to HR

As you weigh the pros and cons of speaking to HR, here are three questions to help assess your options.

1. Have I documented what happened?

If you plan to report toxicity to HR, you will need detailed records to clearly outline your claims. Make sure to document the following:

  • What was said or done
  • The date and time of the incidents
  • If there were any witnesses

For example, your record may state: “On Tuesday, July 11, at approximately 12:30 p.m. ET, I heard [insert name] use the following language [insert exact words] within our weekly Webex team meeting. The following people were present: [insert names].”

In addition to documenting any verbal exchanges or physical interactions, it’s important to also have available text messages, emails, photographs, or any other relevant evidence of what happened. Employment lawyers recommend keeping your records at home, not at work or on your company devices. If your employment status changes in the future, you will lose access to your work computer and the emails or records may be deleted.

Documenting the details in advance allows you to provide a full account to HR and specific feedback when needed. A detailed record will also give you the opportunity to cross-reference what you’ve documented against company policies. Finally, since many toxic situations can bring up strong emotions, especially while they’re happening, documenting what occurred will ensure you have a clear, fact-based record to refer to later.

2. What’s my objective?

By the time you decide you need to talk to HR, the toxic situation may feel like it’s becoming untenable. I encourage you to identify your overarching objective in speaking up.

In other words, be clear on what you hope to accomplish. It could be that you need HR to help resolve the issue. For example, the person who is instigating a toxic situation may need professional development training or coaching to address their behaviour. You may also be hoping to bring some accountability to their actions. Or, if there’s an ongoing issue and previous interventions have failed, HR may work with the relevant supervisors to create a performance improvement plan. Clarifying your overarching objective before you act allows you to consider the implications of the potential outcomes, ranging from the best possible response to a dismissive reaction.

Remember, too, that it’s important to acknowledge the remit of the HR team, which is to serve the best interest of the employer. As an employee, any expectations that an HR person will become your primary advocate are unrealistic. This is not personal; it’s just the nature of how organisations operate.

3. Is what I’m experiencing illegal?

Finally, before going to HR, consider whether the toxic behaviour you’re experiencing is illegal.

Dealing with toxic behaviour at work — whether it’s related to harassment, discrimination, ethical concerns, safety infringements, or retaliation — can be deeply distressing. HR departments have a responsibility to ensure that companies adhere to employment laws and regulations. An employer also has a legal obligation to investigate any good-faith complaint of harassment; discrimination based on race, sex, religion, disability, or other protected status; or retaliation for reporting an issue.

If you are unsure if what you are experiencing is illegal, seek out professional counsel. An employment lawyer can answer your questions based on the applicable laws and regulations, assess the evidence, and determine the merits of your claim. If you do have a case against your employer, an attorney can explain the legal process and advise you on how to navigate your interactions with HR.

On the other hand, if what you’re experiencing isn’t illegal but is toxic, I encourage you to explore all the potential options you can pursue that align with the objective you identified. To do this, start by considering whether additional stakeholders might be able to assist. Questions to consider include: Is anyone else impacted by the toxic behaviour? Is my supervisor already aware of it? Are other contingent factors contributing to what I’m experiencing? You may be able to seek counsel from additional stakeholders before instigating a conversation with HR.

CURIOUS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF OUR UNBIASED HR SOLUTIONS?

Take the first step towards transforming your remote work culture by requesting a free demo assessment from Great People Inside.

Our team of experts will guide you through the assessment process, showcasing the effectiveness and value of our tailored solutions for your organization.

During the demo, you will have the opportunity to explore the comprehensive features and functionalities of our psychometric assessments, experiencing firsthand how they can empower your HR strategies and drive positive outcomes. From personality assessments to cognitive abilities and team dynamics evaluations, our assessments provide valuable insights to enhance talent management and foster inclusive remote work environments.

Don’t miss out on this opportunity to test the power of unbiased HR solutions. Request your free demo assessment from Great People Inside today and embark on a journey of fair and effective talent management in the remote work era.

Together, we can unlock the true potential of your remote teams and achieve remarkable success.Request a Free Demo Assessment.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is B_txt_01.png

Sources:

https://www.wework.com/ideas/professional-development/creativity-culture/when-to-go-to-hr-for-a-problem
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-your-hr-department-is-your-friend/
https://fairygodboss.com/career-topics/when-to-go-to-hr

Positive Work Culture Can Be More Productive: Here’s How

/in /by

Too many companies bet on having a cut-throat, high-pressure, take-no-prisoners culture to drive their financial success.

But a large and growing body of research on positive organisational psychology demonstrates that not only is a cut-throat environment harmful to productivity over time, but that a positive environment will lead to dramatic benefits for employers, employees, and the bottom line.

Although there’s an assumption that stress and pressure push employees to perform more, better, and faster, what cutthroat organisations fail to recognise is the hidden costs incurred.

First, health care expenditures at high-pressure companies are nearly 50% greater than at other organisations. The American Psychological Association estimates that more than $500 billion is siphoned off from the U.S. economy because of workplace stress, and 550 million workdays are lost each year due to stress on the job. Sixty percent to 80% of workplace accidents are attributed to stress, and it’s estimated that more than 80% of doctor visits are due to stress. Workplace stress has been linked to health problems ranging from metabolic syndrome to cardiovascular disease and mortality.

The stress of belonging to hierarchies itself is linked to disease and death. One study showed that, the lower someone’s rank in a hierarchy, the higher their chances of cardiovascular disease and death from heart attacks. In a large-scale study of over 3,000 employees conducted by Anna Nyberg at the Karolinska Institute, results showed a strong link between leadership behaviour and heart disease in employees. Stress-producing bosses are literally bad for the heart.

Second is the cost of disengagement. While a cut-throat environment and a culture of fear can ensure engagement (and sometimes even excitement) for some time, research suggests that the inevitable stress it creates will likely lead to disengagement over the long term. Engagement in work — which is associated with feeling valued, secure, supported, and respected — is generally negatively associated with a high-stress, cut-throat culture.

And disengagement is costly. In studies by the Queens School of Business and by the Gallup Organisation, disengaged workers had 37% higher absenteeism, 49% more accidents, and 60% more errors and defects. In organisations with low employee engagement scores, they experienced 18% lower productivity, 16% lower profitability, 37% lower job growth, and 65% lower share price over time. Importantly, businesses with highly engaged employees enjoyed 100% more job applications.

Lack of loyalty is a third cost. Research shows that workplace stress leads to an increase of almost 50% in voluntary turnover. People go on the job market, decline promotions, or resign. And the turnover costs associated with recruiting, training, lowered productivity, lost expertise, and so forth, are significant. The Center for American Progress estimates that replacing a single employee costs approximately 20% of that employee’s salary.

For these reasons, many companies have established a wide variety of perks from working from home to office gyms. However, these companies still fail to take into account the research. A Gallup poll showed that, even when workplaces offered benefits such as flextime and work-from-home opportunities, engagement predicted wellbeing above and beyond anything else. Employees prefer workplace wellbeing to material benefits.

A POSITIVE CULTURE fosters Wellbeing

Creating a positive and healthy culture for your team rests on a few major principles. Our own research (see here and here) on the qualities of a positive workplace culture boils down to six essential characteristics:

  • Caring for, being interested in, and maintaining responsibility for colleagues as friends.
  • Providing support for one another, including offering kindness and compassion when others are struggling.
  • Avoiding blame and forgive mistakes.
  • Inspiring one another at work.
  • Emphasizing the meaningfulness of the work.
  • Treating one another with respect, gratitude, trust, and integrity.

As a boss, how can you foster these principles? The research points to four steps to try:

1. Foster social connections

A large number of empirical studies confirm that positive social connections at work produce highly desirable results. For example, people get sick less often, recover twice as fast from surgery, experience less depression, learn faster and remember longer, tolerate pain and discomfort better, display more mental acuity, and perform better on the job. Conversely, research by Sarah Pressman at the University of California, Irvine, found that the probability of dying early is 20% higher for obese people, 30% higher for excessive drinkers, 50% higher for smokers, but a whopping 70% higher for people with poor social relationships. Toxic, stress-filled workplaces affect social relationships and, consequently, life expectancy.

2. Show empathy

As a boss, you have a huge impact on how your employees feel. A telling brain-imaging study found that, when employees recalled a boss that had been unkind or un-empathic, they showed increased activation in areas of the brain associated with avoidance and negative emotion while the opposite was true when they recalled an empathic boss. Moreover, Jane Dutton and her colleagues in the CompassionLab at the University of Michigan suggest that leaders who demonstrate compassion toward employees foster individual and collective resilience in challenging times.

3. Go out of your way to help

Ever had a manager or mentor who took a lot of trouble to help you when he or she did not have to? Chances are you have remained loyal to that person to this day.  Jonathan Haidt at New York University’s Stern School of Business shows in his research that when leaders are not just fair but self-sacrificing, their employees are actually moved and inspired to become more loyal and committed themselves. As a consequence, they are more likely to go out of their way to be helpful and friendly to other employees, thus creating a self-reinforcing cycle. Daan Van Knippenberg of Rotterdam School of Management shows that employees of self-sacrificing leaders are more cooperative because they trust their leaders more. They are also more productive and see their leaders as more effective and charismatic.

4. Encourage people to talk to you

Especially about their problems. Not surprisingly, trusting that the leader has your best interests at heart improves employee performance. Employees feel safe rather than fearful and, as research by Amy Edmondson of Harvard demonstrates in her work on psychological safety, a culture of safety i.e. in which leaders are inclusive, humble, and encourage their staff to speak up or ask for help, leads to better learning and performance outcomes. Rather than creating a culture of fear of negative consequences, feeling safe in the workplace helps encourage the spirit of experimentation so critical for innovation. Kamal Birdi of Sheffield University has shown that empowerment, when coupled with good training and teamwork, leads to superior performance outcomes whereas a range of efficient manufacturing and operations practices do not.

When you know a leader is committed to operating from a set of values based on interpersonal kindness, he or she sets the tone for the entire organisation. In Give and Take, Wharton professor Adam Grant demonstrates that leader kindness and generosity are strong predictors of team and organisational effectiveness. Whereas harsh work climates are linked to poorer employee health, the opposite is true of positive work climates where employees tend to have lower heart rates and blood pressure as well as a stronger immune systems. A positive work climate also leads to a positive workplace culture which, again, boosts commitment, engagement, and performance. Happier employees make for not only a more congenial workplace but for improved customer service. As a consequence, a happy and caring culture at work not only improves employee well-being and productivity but also improved client health outcomes and satisfaction.

In sum, a positive workplace is more successful over time because it increases positive emotions and well-being. This, in turn, improves people’s relationships with each other and amplifies their abilities and their creativity. It buffers against negative experiences such as stress, thus improving employees’ ability to bounce back from challenges and difficulties while bolstering their health. And, it attracts employees, making them more loyal to the leader and to the organisation as well as bringing out their best strengths. When organisations develop positive, virtuous cultures they achieve significantly higher levels of organisational effectiveness — including financial performance, customer satisfaction, productivity, and employee engagement.

CURIOUS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF OUR UNBIASED HR SOLUTIONS?

Take the first step towards transforming your remote work culture by requesting a free demo assessment from Great People Inside.

Our team of experts will guide you through the assessment process, showcasing the effectiveness and value of our tailored solutions for your organization.

During the demo, you will have the opportunity to explore the comprehensive features and functionalities of our psychometric assessments, experiencing firsthand how they can empower your HR strategies and drive positive outcomes. From personality assessments to cognitive abilities and team dynamics evaluations, our assessments provide valuable insights to enhance talent management and foster inclusive remote work environments.

Don’t miss out on this opportunity to test the power of unbiased HR solutions. Request your free demo assessment from Great People Inside today and embark on a journey of fair and effective talent management in the remote work era.

Together, we can unlock the true potential of your remote teams and achieve remarkable success.Request a Free Demo Assessment.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is B_txt_01.png

Sources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamcraig/2017/07/25/3-reasons-why-positive-work-cultures-are-more-productive/
https://www.lollydaskal.com/leadership/heres-the-proof-that-positive-work-cultures-are-more-productive/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/positive-work-cultures-more-productive-scott-maurer/