There Are Those Who Make Things Happen, Those to Whom Things Happen, and Those Who Say, “What Happened?”

            Which one are you? Most people are a combination of these, but sometimes one tendency dominates to the point of dysfunction.

The people who like to make things happen are outer-directed. They like to be in charge, when they see that something needs to be done they don’t wait for it to somehow get done, they go ahead and do it. They run organizations and head committees, they want to improve the world, the working conditions of the labor force, or see to it that the soda machine finally gets fixed. Outer-directed people speak up at meetings; their voices are heard and their opinions respected.

The downside to this way of interacting with the world is that they may become poor listeners, too sure of always knowing what’s best. They may steamroll over the opinions and ideas of the more soft-spoken and miss out on important information, expertise, or assistance. The tendency to take control of every situation means they are often overly busy and over-committed.

If you are running around with back-to-back meetings and going to events with no time to reflect on why you are busier than your comfort dictates, you need to stop, take a break, and decide if this is the direction you wish to take or if you are being driven by unconscious forces that propel you. The questions may be: “What am I running from?” “What am I avoiding?” and “Why do I always need to be in charge, to be center stage?”

The people to whom things happen are inner-directed, they are the thinkers, the writers, the quiet people who are happy to be on the sidelines, observing from the shadows, or fading into the woodwork. They have a rich inner life and are interested in self-exploration. They can take advantage of circumstances, but they rarely initiate change. In general they do not want to control anyone or anything.

The downside for people who don’t speak up is that their ideas don’t have a forum, and therefore they are lost as a resource for their communities and organizations. They may endure unhappiness or discomfort needlessly because they miss out on opportunities to improve their situations.

If you are inner-directed and happy with it—happy to take the time to read, walk, go to a movie, have friends you see, do some volunteer work—and that seems enough, so be it, continue as you are.

The people who ask, “What happened?” are undirected. They float through life without much of a purpose. They live in a grey area, not sure of who they are nor what they should be doing. It can be an uncomfortable feeling so they often try to escape into alcohol abuse or drug addiction. Some undirected people find direction in joining far-out political or religious sects with blind devotion to a charismatic leader—anything which directs their energies without any thoughts of their own. While it is useful sometimes to let go of control, if it extends beyond the normal stress-reduction of a vacation, it will keep them from growing into productive and happy members of society.

If you feel undirected with not enough to occupy your time, if you are bored, listless, and spend a lot of time just ruminating, you need to make an effort to get yourself out of your chair, out of the house, and into the community. There are places where people gather for all types of activities: conversation, music, lectures, sports, trips. Learn about volunteer opportunities. Be somewhere and do something with other people.

We all need the three ways of being at different times in our lives. We all begin life as undirected, then as adolescents we become inner-directed with identity seeking in the teen years, trying on the roles of leader, observer, and follower along the way. As adults, we then choose a way of functioning that provides both satisfaction and comfort.

In our later years, we become more inner-directed, more reflective, quieter, happy to retire from the hurly burly of having to earn a living. Yet many who have been doers over a lifetime continue to re-invent themselves: learning new things, wrangling with new technology, and contributing to their communities.

So identify whether you make things happen, let things happen, or ask about what happened and decide whether you are satisfied with your direction. If yes, congratulations for being happy with who you are. If no, you know there are other choices and so try them out, you may surprise yourself.

Copyright © 2012. Natasha Josefowitz. All rights reserved.

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.