Familiarity breeds contempt...

There is an old saying that has been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years: "Familiarity breeds contempt."  The earliest known source that I can find is from the sixth century BCE in one of Aesop's Fables, "The Lion and the Fox".  A fox happens to meet a lion in the forest one day and is shy and afraid, because the fox had never encountered a lion before.  The fox runs away and hides.  The next day, the fox runs into the same lion a second time, but instead of running away, the fox stands behind a tree and watches the lion carefully and closely.  The fox encounters the lion for a third time later, but this time stands proudly in front of the lion and asks, "What's going on?"  We are led to believe that the fox becomes too comfortable with the lion and ends up getting eaten as a result.  Familiarity, in this case, caused the fox to let his guard down, when he definitely should have been more careful around the "King of the Jungle".

The question I would ask is whether this ancient proverb is, in fact, true.  As we get to know a complete stranger, are we more apt to like the individual more or less?  Conventional wisdom would suggest the former.  Nicholas Carr, who is becoming one of my favorite authors as of late, writes about this very subject in his most recent book, Superbloom: How Technologies of Connection Tear Us Apart (based partly on an article he wrote for The Boston Globe in 2017, "How tech created a global village - and put us at each other's throats").  Carr starts with the premise that since the invention of the telegraph in the 19th century, there's been an attitude that advances in communication technology would promote social harmony.  In other words, the more we know each other, the better connected we become as a society.  

For example, a New York Times columnist celebrated the laying of transatlantic Western Union cables in 1899 by writing, "Nothing so fosters and promotes a mutual understanding and a community sentiment and interests as cheap, speedy, and convenient communication."  Guglielmo Marconi wrote in 1912 that his invention of the radio would "make war impossible, because it will make war ridiculous."  Later, John J. Carty, an engineer at AT&T said in a 1923 interview that the telephone would "join all the peoples of the earth in one brotherhood."  The Canadian writer and philosopher Marshall McLuhan, perhaps most famous for coining the phrase "the medium is the message" as well as predicting the World Wide Web nearly 30 years before it was invented, suggested in his book The Gutenberg Galaxy that the new era of communication would create a "global village", bringing us all closer together as one society.  Finally, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg suggested in 2012 that Facebook was more than a business, it was on a social mission to make the world a better place, writing, "People sharing more creates a more open culture and leads to a better understanding of the lives and perspectives of others."

As Carr points out in the Boston Globe article, if greater communication brings people together more, then we should be seeing greater harmony (in Carr's words, "a planetary outbreak of peace, love, and understanding"), not less.  It's fairly obvious who Carr blames for the current state of affairs.  Social media, rather than bringing us closer together as Zuckerberg hoped for in 2012, has only pushed us further apart.  

Carr refers to social media in Superbloom by stating, "As a machine for harvesting attention, its productivity is unmatched.  As a machine for bending the will, it is a triumph of efficiency.  In engineering what we pay attention to, it also engineers much else about us - how we talk, how we see other people, how we experience the world."  And more often than what was previously the case, our society spends more time communicating in the virtual world via social media than they do in the real world.  He suggests that "a full fifteen years before the arrival of COVID-19, people were already choosing lockdown."  

The abundance of research also tells us that greater communication doesn't lead to greater social harmony.  The evidence tells us that (1) people are more willing to share information on social media that they wouldn't share in person or in other modes of communication (called the online disinhibition effect); (2) the more we know about someone, the less we like them (see Michael Norton's article, "Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt" as one example of many similar studies).  A group of British researchers labeled this "digital crowding", stating "With the advent of social media, it is inevitable that we will end up knowing more about people, and also more likely that we end up disliking them because of it."  We have become like the fox in Aesop's Fable.  We would do well to remember that things didn't go to well with the fox in the end. 

The Death of Command and Control

If you've ever read up on the research on human motivation, you've probably encountered Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs or Herzberg's Two Factor Model.  There's also a good chance that you've heard about the work by Douglas McGregor in the 1950's and 1960's on Theory X and Theory Y.  As it turns out, McGregor was actually a student of Abraham Maslow, who was actually a contemporary of Frederick Herzberg.  McGregor developed and introduced his model in his book, The Human Side of Enterprise, first published in 1960.  Notably, leadership expert Warren Bennis once said of McGregor, "Just as every economist, knowingly or not, pays his dues to Keynes, we are all, one way or another, disciples of McGregor."

What's important to know about McGregor's theory is this - while Theory X generally has a negative view of workers, Theory Y generally has a positive one.  Theory X believes that the typical worker or employee has little ambition, avoids responsibility, and is focused primarily on achieving their own personal goals and interests.  Theory Y, in contrast, believes that the typical worker or employees is internally motivated, enjoys their job, and works hard to better themselves without a direct reward in return.  

Leaders and managers who subscribe to the Theory X viewpoint, then, will rely upon a more authoritative, top-down/hierarchical approach.  They will use punishment and rewards to motivate their workers or employees.  They will develop and enforce (again through punishment and/or rewards) strict policies and procedures that are to be followed as routine.  Conversely, leaders and managers who subscribe to the Theory Y viewpoint are more democratic in their approach.  They believe that in a positive workplace culture that emphasizes autonomy (with accountability), responsibility, and "deference to expertise".

It's important to realize that McGregor saw both Theory X and Theory Y as two ends along a continuum.  Consistent with situational leadership theory developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard or contingent leadership theory developed by Fred Fiedler, the most effective leaders would at times use both methods, depending on the specific needs or context of the situation.  It's also not too hard to figure out which theory the most prevalent leadership approach used today is based upon - there was actually an article ("Beyond Theory Y") published in 1970 in the Harvard Business Review that again emphasizes that both approaches can and likely should be used, depending on the specific needs of the situation at hand or the problem to be solved.

So why then are their articles touting the "death" of Command and Control (see for example, "Command and Control is Dead" or "Command and Control Leadership is Dead" or "The Death of Command and Control: Why Old-School Leadership is Killing Your Team's Potential")?  Command and Control (C2) refers to a leadership and management approach traditionally used in the military, but it has also been used in non-military organizations as well.  The "Command" part of C2 refers to the process of directing, issuing orders, and providing leadership for a particular group, project, or operation.  The "Control" part of C2 refers to the process of monitoring compliance with policies and procedures (and enforcing them) and ensuring the proper execution of orders and tasks.  As you can probably guess, C2 is more top-down, hierarchical, and authoritarian/autocratic and definitely leans more toward the Theory X approach.

Kathy Miller Perkins wrote an excellent article for Forbes magazine ("Shift Your Leadership Style: Guidelines for Agile Leadership"), in which she outlines the exact approach that McGregor recommended all those years ago.  She writes, "Steering through the complex waters of modern leadership requires more than a single, go-to approach.  It demands the skill to adapt swiftly, changing your leadership style on the fly to tackle constantly shifting conditions and challenges."  In short, the leader's in today's VUCA (or BANI) world need to be agile, and agile leadership, consistent with both situational leadership theory and contingent leadership theory, includes "Command and Control".  

Perkins lists a number of situations where a more autocratic or C2 approach may be preferred:

1. Agile leadership during a crisis: "When navigating through treacherous waters with reefs and storms, you may need a crew that follows your orders as an experienced leader."

2. Agile leadership in highly predictable environments: A C2 approach can be most effective with work that is highly predictable, well-defined, and repetitive in nature.  Perkins gives the example of a manager at a fast-food restaurant, where setting clear expectations and ensuring compliance with standard operating procedures, rules, and regulations can drive efficiency and high performance.

3. Agile leadership in regulated environments: Again, with tight regulatory environments, a C2 approach may be preferred over other approaches, particularly when variation from standards can result in significant problems for the organization.

Perkins concludes her article by stating, "Leadership in this century is not about clinging to a single, comfortable style but about developing the situation awareness and flexibility to switch between approaches as the context demands."  Rather than being dead, "Command and Control" leadership is here to stay, even if used relatively sparingly and for specific situations or contexts.

Go ahead and fall asleep in math class...

There's a scene from the 1997 movie Good Will Hunting where Matt Damon's character ("Will Hunting"), a genius working as a janitor at MIT, solves a difficult math problem that was left by one of the math professors on a dry erase board as a challenge to his graduate students.  Will solves the problem anonymously, and when no one "fesses up" to having solved it, the professor leaves an even more difficult problem to solve.  He later catches Will working on the problem, and the rest of the movie focuses on how Will goes on to greater things.

Matt Damon and Ben Affleck wrote the screenplay to the movie (and won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay that year at the 70th Academy Awards), and the real life mathematician George Dantzig apparently served as inspiration for the scene discussed above (see also the video clip here).  Dantzig was an American mathematician who made significant contributions during his lifetime to industrial engineering, operations research, computer science, statistics, and a sub-branch of mathematics known as linear programming.  Apparently, when Dantzig was a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, his professor Jerzy Neyman posted two problems on the blackboard at the beginning of his class in 1939.  Dantzig arrived late and assumed (wrongly, as it turns out) that the problems were the homework assignment for the day.  Dantzig thought that the problems "seemed to be a little harder than usual" and handed in completed solutions for both a few days later.  Six weeks later, Professor Neyman told Dantzig that the "homework problems" were actually two of the most famous unsolved problems in statistics.  They submitted one of the problems for publication.  Dantzig recalled much later in a 1986 interview, "A year later, when I began to worry about a thesis topic, Neyman just shrugged and told me to wrap the two problems in a binder and he would accept them as my thesis."

Over the years, the story has been further embellished and has become an urban legend.  I recently saw a social media post telling a very similar story, though in this case, it's about a student at Columbia University who fell asleep during mathematics class.  As the story goes, when the student woke up at the end of class, he noticed the lecturer had written two problems on the whiteboard.  He thought that these were homework assignments, so he copied them down and went back to his dormitory.  He spent hours in the library researching the problems and trying to solve them both.  Eventually, he was able to solve one of the problems, even though it was very challenging.  It was only after asking if his professor was ever going to collect the homework assignment that he found out that they were two famous unsolved problems.  Together, the student and professor submitted four papers based upon the solution to one of the problems, and they are still displayed at the university today as evidence that we shouldn't listen to people who say that something is impossible and that we shouldn't be afraid to fail.  The story is further supposed to illustrate the power of positive thinking.

I am reminded of Audrey Hepburn's famous quote, "Nothing is impossible, the word itself says I'm possible."  Or Nelson Mandela, who said, "It always seems impossible until it's done."  Or Mary McLeod Bethune, who said, "Without faith, nothing is possible. With it, nothing is impossible."  Or dare I add (much to my mathematics teacher wife's chagrin), "Go ahead and fall asleep in math class...you never know what may come out of it."

Hope is not a strategy...or is it?

One of my mentors used to tell me that "Hope is not a strategy."  The line always made logical sense to me, and it has stuck with me for years.  What I am starting to appreciate, however, is that he wasn't completely correct.  Hope can be a strategy.  Let me explain.

What my mentor was really referring to was the simple fact that "not having a strategy" wasn't a strategy.  In other words, we shouldn't just go through our personal and professional lives without a plan.  We shouldn't just "hope for the best" and see how everything plays out.

As I've mentioned several times in the last couple of months, I've been paying a lot more attention recently to the Harvard Business School professor Arthur C. Brooks, who studies happiness and how it applies to leadership.  His tagline says it all, "Blending cutting-edge research in behavioral science and neuroscience with philosophy and wisdom traditions, Dr. Arthur Brooks teaches people from all walks of life how to live a better, happier life."  I've been reading his articles (and a book he recently co-authored with Oprah Winfrey, Build the Life You Want) and listening to his podcasts.  One of the things he emphasizes is that hope and optimism are two different things.  It's even the subject of one of his articles in The Atlantic magazine, "The Difference Between Hope and Optimism".    Dr. Brooks emphasizes that hope is active, while optimism is more passive.  "Hope" involves personal agency - not only are we going to take an optimistic viewpoint, but also we are going to do the necessary things to make things better.  Optimism is a vision, while hope is a strategy.

Jamil Zaki, professor of psychology at Stanford University, wrote an article for the Harvard Business Review entitled "The Strategic Power of Hope".  He says that we are evolutionarily wired to be pessimistic.  Early humans had to anticipate all of the bad things that could happen to them - if they didn't, they could end up as lunch for some ancient predator.  Dr. Zaki suggests that even organizations are hard-wired to focus on what could go wrong - it's even one of the foundational principles of so-called High Reliability Organizations ("Preoccupation with Failure").

Dr. Zaki also says that there are important differences between optimism and hope.  He explains, "Optimists tend to be happy but complacent, waiting patiently for a bright tomorrow.  Hopeful people, on the other hand, believe that things might turn out well - but they also believe that in that context of uncertainty, actions matter.  Being hopeful doesn't just involve imaging positive outcomes...it also involves willpower (a desire to bring about hoped for outcomes) and waypower (the charting of a clear path to achieve them)."

Similarly, Deborah Mills-Scofield, a strategy and innovation consultant, wrote an article for the Harvard Business Review entitled "Hope is a strategy (well, sort of)".  She would respond to my mentor's comment ("Hope is not a strategy") by saying, "It isn't, especially when based on illusion, delusion, fiction, or false assumptions."  She defines hope as "the belief that something is possible and probable" but again she emphasizes that hope is action-oriented, while optimism is not.

So how can we leverage hope as a strategy?  Dr. Brooks suggests that we take three important steps:

1. Imagine a better future, and detail what makes it so.

2. Envision yourself taking action.

3. Act.

Dr. Zaki adds that leaders need to find ways to empower the individuals on their teams, writing, "Hope blooms only when people feel agency over their future. That's something that you can help them with - for example, by delegating important tasks and loosening the managerial reins."  He also suggests that we celebrate progress, writing, "Focusing people on their wins, and how they have managed to take control of their work lives, makes them more likely to feel agency in the future."

Dr. Zaki ends his article by stating, "There will be storms ahead, but it's the hopeful leaders who can best chart a course through them. If you anchor their strategies in hope - not naïve optimism but a deliberate belief in shared goals and action - you can steer your organization toward growth, connection, and creativity. Hope doesn't just imagine a better future; it helps you build one." 

The Glass Cage

During my morning commute the other day, I heard a news update on a recent study that showed that our increasing reliance on artificial intelligence is making us all less intelligent.  It's not the first time I've heard that claim.  For example, I've been reading several articles and books by the writer Nicholas Carr, including a book called The Glass Cage, in which Carr explores how automation and technology have significantly changed how we work.  Carr argues that while automation has certainly improved efficiency, it has also diminished our skills, creativity, and sense of agency.  He uses the metaphor of a "glass cage" to suggest that rather than truly enhancing our potential, technology and automation place significant limitations on our growth and freedom.

Carr starts the book by talking about the Luddites, a term now used to describe anyone who is resistant to new technology, though they were originally a group of 19th century British weavers and textile workers who staged a revolution, of sorts, against the increasing use of mechanized looms during the Industrial Revolution.  The term Luddite came from their patron, one Ned Ludd (who likely never existed) who supposedly smashed two stocking frames (a mechanized knitting machine) and whose name was often used as a pseudonym in threatening letters that weavers and textile workers sent to textile mill owners and government officials.  What's important to realize, however, is that the Luddites weren't necessarily against technology per se, but rather they were against what technology could potentially mean for their prospects at employment, which would then necessarily impact their livelihoods and their families.  Carr's brief discussion of the Luddites seems poignant, given all of the concerns about the potential impact of automation and technology on people's livelihoods today.

I want to go back to the suggestion that technology is making us less intelligent.  Carr mentions the following short passage from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations: 

"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become." 

Here, Smith was referencing the potential adverse impact of the division of labor and specialization of work (think: assembly lines on the factory floor), but I like the comparison to what is potentially happening today with automation.  The American writer and philosopher Matthew Crawford suggests in his book, Shop Class as Soulcraft, "To really know shoelaces, you have to tie shoes."  He explains further that, "If thinking is bound up with action, then the task of getting an adequate grasp on the world, intellectually, depends on our doing stuff in it."  In other words, when we do less work because machines are doing that work for us, something is lost - knowledge and skills.  The science and technology historian George Dyson asked, "What if the cost of machines that think is people don't?"  

While all of these points are certainly concerning, what is discussed less frequently is the implication that automation and artificial intelligence is making our systems less safe.  The human factors psychologist Raja Parasuraman, who studied automation and human performance prior to his death in 2015, referenced the significant impact of technology on the number of commercial airline accidents over the last several decades.  Of course, there have been other interventions that have helped to decrease aviation accidents as well (e.g., crew resource management), but there is no question that technological advances, particularly in the realm of automation, have also had an impact.  Parasuraman argues that there is more at play here, stating "The overall decline in the number of plane crashes masks the recent arrival of a spectacularly new type of accident."  Carr explains, "When onboard computer systems fail to work as intended or other unexpected problems arise during a flight, pilots are forced to take manual control of the plane.  Thrust abruptly into a new rare role, they too often make mistakes."  There are other examples of so-called automation-induced errors outside of commercial aviation (see for example the grounding of the cruise ship Royal Majesty).  To a similar extent, these automation-induced errors have been observed in the health care industry (see a systematic review published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association).

I don't want to be called a Luddite (I don't think Nicholas Carr does either).  However, what's clear to me (and should be clear to all of us) is that there are likely some adverse and unintended consequences to both automation and artificial intelligence.  We cannot simply ignore the problems that will come with all of the potential benefits of technology, especially when there are so many examples in just about every industry.  The Glass Cage is a great and an important read, and it's an even better metaphor for what we are seeing with the interface between technology and human performance today.

The Five Pillars of Happiness

I first learned about the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung after listening to the 1983 rock album Synchronicity by The Police.  I wrote about Jung and his concept of "synchronicity" in a previous post a few years ago.  Jung was an associate of the equally famous (perhaps more so) Austrian neurologist, Sigmund Freud. Believe it or not, you probably know more about Jung than you know about Freud.  Have you ever used the term complex (e.g., guilt complex), to describe how you or someone else is feeling?  Jung was the first to describe and use that term.  Would you describe yourself as an extrovert or an introvert?  Again, Jung coined those terms too.  What he is less commonly known for and what I want to focus on today is what he called the five pillars of happiness (see Gretchen Rubin's article in Forbes and Arthur Brooks' article in The Atlantic).  

Jung wrote, "Happiness is such a remarkable reality that there is nobody who does not long for it.  And yet there is not a single objective criterion which would prove beyond all doubt that this condition necessarily exists."  Let's not misunderstand his point here - Jung wasn't saying that happiness as an emotional construct doesn't exist, but rather that happiness likely exists along a continuum of emotions.  More importantly, happiness as a positive emotion exists along one continuum, while unhappiness as a negative emotion exists along a completely separate one (see my post, "Are you happy?" for more on this point).  With this in mind, Jung said, "Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the word happy would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness. It is far better to take things as they come along with patience and equanimity."

Towards the end of his life, Jung shared his own personal strategy for achieving happiness in life, based upon five key pillars:

1. Good physical and mental health:  There have been a number of studies that consistently show that both physical and mental fitness are clearly linked with happiness.  For example, the longest currently running study of happiness - the Harvard Study of Adult Development - showed that four of the most important predictors of a senior citizen's wellbeing are not smoking, drinking alcohol in moderation (or not at all), maintaining a healthy body weight, and exercising regularly.  Arthur C. Brooks, one of the most important authorities on the science of happiness, would argue that good health practices don't necessarily increase one's level of happiness per se, but instead they lower one's level of unhappiness.  I've certainly found that to be the case - there's nothing better after a stressful day at work than a good, hard workout!  And as I reflect back on my own life, the times that I've experienced the most happiness were when I felt like I was in the best healthy shape.

2.  Good personal and intimate relations, such as those of marriage, family, friendships: Again, I am impressed by the number of studies that provide convincing evidence that fostering and maintaining close personal relationships through marriage, family, and friendships is one of the most important drivers of happiness.  Again, the Harvard Study of Adult Development provides important evidence on this point.  Robert Waldinger, who has led the study for over two decades, states, "The surprising finding is that our relationships and how happy we are in our relationships has a powerful influence on our health.  Taking care of your body is important, but tending to your relationships is a form of self-care too. That, I think, is the revelation."  Relationships matter even more than one's heredity (see the article "Good genes are nice, but joy is better" in the Harvard Gazette or Waldinger's TED talk "What makes a good life" for more).  The psychiatrist George Vaillant led the study from 1972 until 2004.  He said, "When the study began, nobody cared about empathy or attachment.  But the key to healthy aging is relationships, relationships, relationships."

3.  Seeing beauty in art and in nature: I have to confess that of all Jung's five pillars, this is the one that most surprised me.  Jung believed that cultivating an appreciation for the beauty in the world was just as important to happiness as physical and mental health and personal relationships.  While both art and nature can be beautiful, nature's beauty is inherent and exists independently of our perception.  The beauty of art, on the other hand, results from human creation and reflect the artist's creativity, emotions, and personal concept of what is meant by beauty.  Artistic beauty is more subjective and open to interpretation.  Natural beauty is more objective.  Regardless, an appreciation for both is a key driver of happiness.  Whether you are the individual creating the art or merely observing and appreciating someone else's creation, the aesthetic experience will help improve our overall degree of happiness.  In regards to nature's beauty, the architect Frank Lloyd Wright said, "Study nature, love nature, stay close to nature. It will never fail you.  In regards to artistic beauty, the philosopher Thomas Merton said, "Art enables us to find ourselves and lose ourselves at the same time."

4.  A reasonable standard of living and satisfactory work: Arthur C. Brooks again emphasizes that steady and satisfactory work (to use Jung's term) that brings an income conducive to an acceptable standard of living likely decreases unhappiness more than it increases the degree of happiness.  However, when work crosses the threshold from being merely satisfactory to become meaningful, there will be an impact on happiness AND unhappiness.  Brooks defines meaningful work as work that yields both earned success, which he defines as a sense of accomplishing something valuable and work that involves service to others.  Importantly, as I've previously discussed in several posts in the past (see "Money can't buy me love, but can it buy me happiness?", "The mathematics of happiness", and "Money, love, and happiness"), the relationship between money and happiness is not as straightforward as one would believe.  The current research suggests that there is indeed a positive association between subjective wellbeing (i.e. happiness) and income, though that relationship peaks at a certain level of income (which depends on the particular study).  In other words, above a certain income threshold, more money isn't necessarily going to make you happier.  The key point is that individuals have an income sufficient for maintaining an "acceptable" standard of living, which Brooks defines as "having the money to pay for experiences with loved ones, to free up time to spend on meaningful activities, and to support good causes."

5.  A philosophical or religious outlook that fosters resilience: I've talked about the need to focus on physical, mental, and spiritual health in the past (see "The Three Dimensions of a Complete Life").  While Jung was a devout Christian, what he defined as a "religious outlook" didn't have to be any specific religious faith.  Actually, it didn't even have to be religious in nature at all.  As Brooks suggests, "everyone should have some sense of transcendent belief or higher purpose", whether religious or purely philosophical in nature.  Brooks further notes, "Religious belief has been noted as strongly predictive of finding meaning in life, and spirituality is positively correlated with better mental health...Secular philosophies can provide this benefit as well."

In The Atlantic article, Brooks states that Jung's five pillars stand up very well alongside modern research findings.  He summarized these findings with the following seven points on how we can best live our best, happiest life:

1. Do not fall prey to seeking pure happiness - instead, seek lifelong progress towards happierness (a word coined by Oprah Winfrey, who co-authored the book, Build the Life You Want with Brooks).

2. Manage as best you can the main sources of misery in your life by attending to your physical and mental health, maintaining employment, and ensuring an adequate income.

3. If you're earning enough to take care of your principal needs, remember that happiness at work comes from not chasing higher income but from pursuing a sense of accomplishment and service to others.

4.  Cultivate deep relationships through marriage, family, and real friendships.  Remember that happiness is love.

5.  If you have discretionary income left over, use it to invest in your relationships with family and friends.

6.  Spend time in nature, surround yourself with beauty that uplifts you, and consume the art and music that nourish your spirit.

7.  Find a path of transcendence - one that explains the big picture in life and helps you comprehend suffering and the purpose of your existence.

I will leave this post with one final quote from Carl Jung, whose five key pillars we discussed.  In regards to our journey towards happierness, he said, "Perhaps this sounds very simple, but simple things are always the most difficult. In actual life it requires the greatest discipline to be simple, and the acceptance of oneself is the essence of the moral problem and the epitome of a whole outlook upon life."

Gen Z and Middle Managers

I came across an interesting article ("Gen Z has turned against taking middle management roles") in the online version of the Financial Times earlier this week (a related article appeared in Forbes magazine).  The article is based upon an unpublished study conducted by the talent solutions firm Robert Walters, which is available on their website.  The firm surveyed more than 2,000 white-collar workers, 800 of whom were Gen Zers (generally defined as individuals born between 1997 and 2012).  They found that over half of Gen-Z professionals don't want to take on a middle management role in their career.  Nearly three-fourths of the Gen-Z professionals stated that they would choose an individual route to career progression and promotion over managing others.

When asked about the reasons for their reluctance (even refusal) to accept a middle management role, Gen-Z professionals stated that these roles were too high stress with too little reward.  They've observed the trend towards flatter, less hierarchical organizational structures (and 30% of them think that's the correct approach compared to only 14% who still believe the traditional hierarchical structure is the right one), and coupled with the high rates of burnout in this group, likely feel that these careers are just not worth the effort and stress. 

Lucy Bisset, Director of Robert Walters North, suggested that "Gen-Z are known for their entrepreneurial mindset - preferring to bring their 'whole self' to projects and spend time cultivating their own brand and approach, rather than spending time managing others."  Bisset also suggests that "More senior professionals have usually committed years to one company, working their way through more traditional levels of management and as such have developed a greater respect for mid-level managers.  Younger professionals, having entered the workforce in a largely remote or hybrid capacity with a huge focus on digital capabilities are less inclined towards complete company loyalty."

My concern is that this reluctance to move into middle management roles will only further stress the individuals who are currently working in middle management.  As the pipeline of middle managers dries up, there will be fewer individuals managing larger teams of employees.  As I mentioned in a previous post ("Layers upon layers of managers managing other managers..."), "...at a time when employee engagement seems to be at an all-time low across the board, do we really want to do something that could decrease the amount of time that employees spend with their direct supervisor?" (at least one person commented on this point).   

Bisset goes on to say that "It's clear that middle management remains a lynchpin of any organization, and to keep these roles filled employers need to innovate their strategies to make them more attractive - from providing more autonomy, to regular workload assessments and clear upskilling opportunities."  She further suggests that "Embracing an 'unbossed culture' could be key in transforming the role from just being seen as an 'unnecessary layer' of management to a 'facilitator' who empowers their team to take their own initiative."  Whether we continue to flatten the hierarchy and remove excess layers of management or embrace an 'unbossed culture' as Bisset suggests, it's clear that organizations will need to double-down on High Reliability Organization principles and develop "Networks of Competence".