Hazing: Uncovering One of the Best-Kept Secrets in the Workplace

Learning the ropes, paying your dues, passing muster, earning your stripes—all terms we use to refer to the rites of passage from outsider to insider.

Practical jokes, intentionally meaningless or humiliating tasks, and unnecessary assignments are all forms of hazing, and newcomers are hazed to test them for potential membership. Will they fit in, be loyal to the group, be reliable, have a sense of humor? The tests for compatibility are varied: a new counter clerk at McDonald’s is told to inventory pickle slices, a hospital orderly is asked to look for the fallopian tube, a bank teller has her keys hidden, an engineer is given cleaning jobs, and a new lawyer gets the most boring cases.

Hazing accomplishes a number of goals for a group: it gives senior members a way of establishing their seniority and dominance; it ensures that formal work rules will be respected, and that unwritten practices will be followed; it ensures continuity of the existing ways of relating and working; and it makes membership something to be valued.

Group membership is valued more if becoming a member is a privilege that must be earned. The group will temporarily keep the newcomer on the outside because the longer he or she stays there, the more appealing membership becomes.

In order to prevent newcomers from rocking the boat by participating too soon, group members will often try to put them in their place—at the bottom of the ladder. Like most animals, we align ourselves in a definite pecking order. It is always the dominant male lion who gets to eat from the carcass first and the same cow that leads the others to pasture.

Acceptance is usually not marked by a specific event but by the person’s inclusion in informal get-togethers after work, casual sharing of information and gossip, and implicit assumptions that the new member will take part in the hazing of other newcomers.

As long as hazing is done more or less equally to all newcomers, has an end, and the goal is membership, then it is not harassment. The objective of hazing is inclusion, whereas the goal of harassment is exclusion.

Primitive tribes, medieval guilds, fraternities and sororities, and corporate offices all have rites of passage for new members. And the transition from outsider to member is surprisingly similar, whether in the African bush or on Wall Street. Often the only difference is that the tests in primitive tribes are public. The terms and conditions are clearly spelled out: the initiates know more or less what to expect; the rules of behavior are understood; and, above all, initiates know that the rite is common practice, that they are not the first or the only ones subjected to the ordeal, and that the reward for the humiliation is membership and acceptance.

This may no be so for employees entering a new organization today. Here the initiation rites are covert, criteria for membership are unknown, tests are unpredictable, and correct behavior is not spelled out.

Initiation rites must be considered not as isolated events, but as a function of the human need to maintain social order. They are thus a necessary practice that eases the transition from newcomer to group member. Putting hazing in this context may help reduce the stress it evokes.

The unpleasantness and the duration of hazing depend on three factors: the cohesiveness of the group, the individual’s fit into the group, and the newcomer’s response to hazing. My research has shown that the tighter the group, the more difficult it is for new members to be accepted. The looser the group, the less resistance they encounter. When coworkers are not a group but rather an agglomeration of individuals who happen to work in the same place, then membership is not an issue and hazing does not occur.

There are many creative ways to deal with hazing and to gain acceptance into the desired group. The keys seem to be patience and tolerance. Keeping a cool head while seeing this whole experience in perspective, maintaining a sense of humor, and generally being low key are all successful outward responses to hazing.

Hazing in fraternity houses that has gone out of control with several fatalities has been in the news recently. These are adolescents testing their powers. As we know the frontal cortex is not yet fully developed until the early twenties and the rational part of the brain that controls impulses is not activated, thus the hazing goes further than originally intended. Universities are now attempting to curtail the culture of extreme hazing.

When the hazing is harmless, the manager should explain to the newcomer that it is typical, that he or she is not being singled out, that it can be endured, and that membership will eventually follow. Being forewarned will make the hazing bearable, perhaps even fun.

Copyright © 2012. Natasha Josefowitz. All rights reserved.

Unnecessary Equivocation

We have become afraid to speak honestly and directly. We don’t want to upset, offend, or step on someone’s toes. We fear being seen as aggressive, pushy, opinionated, demanding, or critical so intensely that we often pussyfoot around and avoid what really needs to be said. And while I applaud our new-found sensitivity to other people’s feelings, effective communication is often needlessly sacrificed.

We start our sentences with qualifications (“I may be wrong, but...” or “You may disagree, but....”) and end our statements with questions (“Right?” “Yes?” “Okay?”). If we’re so unsure of what we’re about to say, why should anyone else listen? People often use a lot of unnecessary words such as: “whatever,” “it’s like,” or “I mean,” and that takes away from the strength of the message. This ineffective manner of expression is far too prevalent.

There are times when we do feel genuinely tentative, but this kind of “waffling” is indicative not of the uncertainty of our words but of the fear of being judged negatively. No one can tell what it is we know for sure and what we don’t. Sentences starting with “Isn’t it true that...” or “You must agree with...” are often strong opinions or accepted facts, but they are misleading when couched in this tentative a form. “Could you have this done by Thursday?” may be a genuine question, but it is often a demand disguised as a request, the more honest statement would be: “I need this by Thursday, if it’s a problem, please let me know.”

Responding with slippery statements such as “Great” or “Interesting” does not let the person know what we really think. Ambiguous or insubstantial responses are not helpful. Only specific revelations about what we liked and disliked and the reasons why will allow people to improve performance.

One of the biggest difficulties most of us have is clearly saying, “No,” “I won’t,” “I can’t,” “It won’t work,” “I disagree,” etc. Instead, we say “Not now, maybe later,” “I’d love to but…,” or “I wish I could.” This, of course, makes people believe that you will do what they ask next time; and so, the game continues until either they give up in disgust or you do it out of guilt.

This sort of dodging comes from our fear of speaking honestly. Newcomers to a group or anyone outside the dominant culture will often use tentative language until they feel accepted. If we’re unclear, then we can’t be pinned down to an opinion or decision. If we’re uncommitted in our language, then we can’t be blamed if anything goes wrong. Communication is watered down to ineffectual levels. When people protect themselves by not speaking out, not asking important questions, not making suggestions, or not disagreeing when necessary, they rob their organizations, families, and relationships of a valuable resource—their minds. To people of older generations, having been raised to use “courtesy language” and never disagree, speaking directly feels like confrontation and is uncomfortable.

So for people to become communication risktakers, the group or organization must recognize and value forthright comments even when the advice does not turn out as well as expected. If only positive results are allowed, then nothing new, original, or creative will be attempted. Some organizations value harmony and agreement at any cost. If going along with the boss or the prevalent opinion is rewarded, then no one will take a chance on expressing a contrary opinion or suggest a different way of dealing with an issue. Soliciting different points of view and insisting on straightforward, direct communication are essential to success when working with others. It encourages productive communication between peers, friends, and family members. The most fruitful conversations are those that include a variety of divergent opinions. It may feel good to have everyone in agreement, but nothing new will be learned.

Language is a “power tool.” Learning to use it is one of our most important life skills. The way we express ourselves tells others not only how confident we feel about what we are saying, but how acceptable we believe our message will be to others. Communication is indeed a two-way street. It expresses both who we are and the culture that can accept us as we are.

Copyright © 2012. Natasha Josefowitz. All rights reserved.

Changing Directions

Why do some people who have always worked at a secure and steady job suddenly pack up the family and move to a ranch in Montana? Why does the farmer’s son leave his patrimony and move to the city for a factory job? Why does someone start a new business on his or her own with all the risks involved? Why these changes of direction?

I know women who have always worked but decided to “drop out” for awhile, and others who have been community volunteers all their lives apply for a paying job. Devoted wives and mothers become career women, while career women quit to spend more time with their families.

Changing directions gives one an opportunity to live a new life. It is as if we have a second chance to become someone else. Divorce and singleness or re-marriage can give us that opportunity. We can renew ourselves in different relationships or different environments. On the one hand, we always remain the same core person, but on the other hand, we also adapt to our circumstances. So if we have a hostile spouse or boss, we become cautious or defensive; but if we have supportive people around us, we can allow ourselves to be trusting and grow—expanding our horizons.

We should not need the proverbial mid-life crisis in order to take a sharp departure. When daily life is beginning to lose its luster, when we wake up in the morning and sigh with discouragement at the day ahead—and this happens week after week, month after month—then it’s time to take a look at what’s missing and what does sound appealing. The grass may indeed only look greener on the other side of the fence, but it’s important to check on that color, maybe it is more to your liking.

Which of your friends or acquaintances do you envy? Whose life do you wish you had? What steps do you need to take to live that life? Are there new work- or relationship-related skills to acquire or spruce up? Are there risks to be taken, friends or professionals to consult?

I have changed directions several times in my life and have always felt that it gave me opportunities to live several lives: as wife and mother, as middle-aged student, as clinical social worker, as university professor, as author, to live in Europe with one husband and in the United States with another.

These life changes allowed me to not only move in totally different environments but to respond to these environments as a new person—learning and testing new skills and behaving in ways unfamiliar to me. In other words, one’s repertoire gets enlarged and one becomes richer in life experiences. Travel can do this too, but it’s more limited in time and scope, unless of course, one lives for a period of time in a different culture.

Surprisingly, knowledge and skills are translated from one type of work to another. Who we are, what we know, and how we think are useful no matter what we do; and the more we know and experience—the more we bring to the table next time around. Now this sounds like I’m advocating change for change’s sake. I’m not. What I’m advocating is fearlessness. If one’s situation is not satisfying, whether at home or work, and everything has been tried to ameliorate this situation—it is an option to look for something better.

Yes, there is risk involved. You may leave a lousy mate or job but not find anything better. And yes, staying in a bad situation does afford you the comfort (and discomfort) of the experience of a familiar situation and familiar pain. Obviously embarking on a new adventure has no guarantees. But even so, meeting the unknown head on is a challenge that may help uncover new resources within yourself.

Most people regret what they have not done, what they have missed, the road not taken, the risk avoided. Very few people are sorry that they tried something new, even if they didn’t succeed the way they expected to.

As a people, we seem to strive for competence in whatever we do. And once a high level of competence is achieved, we look for new opportunities to grow and learn. It’s OK to stay put if satisfied, and OK to move on if not.

So try your wings and fly away to unknown destinations, meeting new challenges that will need new skill and solutions, but more importantly, can bring new delights.

Copyright © 2012. Natasha Josefowitz. All rights reserved.