Survive or Thrive? Dealing with Insanity in the Workplace
Have you ever been intensely frustrated with a work team that doesn’t seem to get it? It may be that the roles are ill-defined, the processes are haphazard and inefficient or there is simply no purpose to align efforts. Forget about “systems thinking,” these teams are organized for knee-jerk reactions. When an issue comes up, watch the thrashing that ensues. Ultimately, the team isn’t getting to any results.
If you’re seeing this, what’s the right response? If we look around us, it’s clear that one of the most common responses is to wait it out for a bit and see if things get better.
Seriously, have any of these things ever gotten better on their own?
More likely – actually, always – this results in a continued ineffective organization. The problems remain undefined, the potential solutions go unexamined and those that are propagating the problems continue their path unabated.
Wishfully thinking the mess will resolve itself is not a realistic strategy. It’s a defense mechanism that keeps you from taking emotional risk. It keeps you safe on the sidelines, smug in your knowledge that it sucks.
But that’s OK. Fair enough. If you don’t want to get in the fray, I think that’s your right. However, this strategy should not be accompanied with your continued frustration with the situation. You don’t get that right. If you are choosing to quietly wait for someone else to lead the way out, you’re making a decision to also endure it until it gets better. You’ve gotta pay that price. By the way, it’s your burden, and yours alone. You don’t need to unload it on an unsuspecting confidant so you can temporarily feel better. Sit with it. Stew on it. Maybe, if it becomes uncomfortable enough, you’ll realize you shouldn’t just wait it out.
If only the wishful thinker would propose a solution, the benefits are tremendous.
- You focus a conversation on a problem that others haven’t seen, or at least have been afraid to acknowledge. Groupthink can drive a wedge between a committee and reality. Diverse perspectives can bring a committee back.
- You introduce an alternative path. This often defines the parameters of future conversations. Everybody gets busy supporting or fighting your plan… others aren’t even considered.
- You make a statement about what kind of participant you are. You are one that bring solutions, not problems. That puts you in a special, rare category.
The cost for all this? Well, as Ghandi said, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” On the first attempt, in all likelihood, they ignore you. Perhaps you’ll be so fortunate as to get some eye-rolls or scoffs. They at least heard your point. If you keep it up, you’ll have the success of your audience sitting up ramrod straight and telling you all the reasons it can’t be done. That’s when you’ve got them right where you want them. With persistence, I believe you can make a difference.
More plainly, the cost is how it makes you feel. It’s not particularly comfortable in the moment. It’s just right. That’s integrity, and it has the ability to make you feel unsettled and at peace in the same moment.
I’m in a pretty timid organization, a bureaucracy where having eye-to-eye conversations about real issues is to be avoided at all costs. I would LOVE to have more ridicule and more fighting of my ideas. As it stands, I’m pretty sure I could propose the purchase of a beaver to sharpen our pencils and I wouldn’t get a response. You know what, though? I feel a lot better pushing for what’s right and getting nowhere than remaining silent and by default becoming a supporter of what’s wrong.

I like this post. I have to tell you I still find it a struggle to determine whether presence is as much consent as silence, especially when it falls on deaf ears. Maybe I haven’t gotten far enough on the persistence side of things yet