Fear is an insidious phenomenon; it often starts out with a real and valid threat to the individual, group or organisation in events such as a major change in production requirements, a prolonged period of restructuring, or more currently, the country’s sovereign debt downgrade by Fitch and S&P to junk status. What is perplexing is that, even when the disruptive period of change or danger had been survived and has becomes part of the organisational history, fear often seems to linger on. It tends to take root, and to become entrenched in the company’s culture and the manner in which leadership as well as rank-and- file employees go about their daily business.
Interdependence is a basic characteristic of large systems; one team is dependent on another to be successful, managers are dependent on subordinates, and team members are dependent on one another to fulfull their resepective roles with success.
Fear tends to endanger this requirement vital for organisational success and survival, primarily because experiencing a real (or imagined) threat tends to prioritise self interest, rather than the more generative big-picture interest of the collective. This tendency is irrational and contradictory because survival hinges on the quality of interdependent cooperation. Yet, this is the nature of the beast called Fear, which has everything to do with instinct, and very little with reason.
An overload of fear is operative when supporting or undermining interdependence becomes a trump card, or a mechanism with which to broker power, or, to shift blame. This is evident when
- Conversations about problems are a little like the children’s game of rotten egg, where the singular focus of the game is to ensure not to be caught out , with no other objective on the agenda. In such a process, blame is shifted upwards, downwards or horizontally, ultimately with the effect of ‘playing the man, not the ball’.
- Employees withhold initiative, either passive-aggresively or because the accompanying accountability feels dangerous. A general lack of clarity and work alignment is but one symptom of such withholding.
- At the same time, there is often an inordenate competition amongst members of work and management teams to be seen as being the best in order to ensure survival and access to perceived scarce resources. This dynamic leads to creative cooperation being witheld, as well as important information being hoarded and witheld. In leadership teams, competing for acknowledgment holds a real danger of the team losing a clear sense of vision and purpose, thereby paradoxically putting self and company at risk.
- Numbers and statistics rule indiscriminately for example in production companies where a one dimensional focus will be on whether the ‘ticket’ is made, with little accounting for the waste and overtime required in order to make this ticket.
- Transparency and trust expires. Pre-meetings become the norm and communication flow becomes blocked, with a corresponding rise of corridor talk. A peculiar symptom of the lack of trust is the practice of copying emails to all and sundry in order to cover one’s back. Everyone is irritated by this, and may even acknowledge the viscious cycle it creates, yet continue to do so for fear of their own safety.
Regardless of environmental threats, ultimately fear in itself becomes a threat to the organization’s ability to survive and flourish. In the presence of fear, innovative and creative processes required to respond successfully to challenges shrivel up and die, whilst counterproducitve processes flourishes. The above symptoms will alert leaders to the levels of fear and anxiety at play in their organization. Fear dynamics cannot be ignored away. Rather, if ignored, it will flourish with destructive consequence. A process of enquiry into employees’ fears, interrogating the sources of fear and its relevance, is a very good starting point to attend to the destructive effects of fear.
A next letter will continue with more thoughts on dealing with fear proactively.
Warmest regards,
Hanna Kotze