The Tyranny of Pleasantness

The Tyranny of Pleasantness

One of the chapters in my Conflict in the Workplace: Causes and Cures is The Tyranny of Pleasantness.  The general theme of the chapter (which comes from a much longer article I wrote with Bob Finnochio) is that there is danger in “going along to get along.” 

We are so busy not hurting anyone’s feelings, being politically correct at all times, and never disagreeing with someone else’s decision that we fail to communicate what we really know and believe.  To tell someone they are wrong is a guarantee to get chastised by someone in supervision.

I was thinking about this because something reminded me of the student trip I accompanied to Europe a few years ago.  Although we visited some wonderful places, the way we were treated by the tour company *(EF Tours), the accommodations offered and a host of other things were, to be polite – sub-par.  If one of us complained to the teacher who had invited us to join her on the tour, she took it personally.  It was as though we were insulting her – but she was as fooled by the promotional hype as were the rest of us.

We’ve gotten so thin-skinned that if, for example, you tell someone they have a stain on their shirt, they react as though you were saying the shirt was hideous, therefore their taste is hideous and you think they are evil and awful.

Why have we reached a point where the slightest disagreement leads us to hateful reactions and loss of goodwill?   When did we stop being real and decide the socially appropriate way to be is to always smile and never say an unkind word about anything at any time?

My belief:  Be honest – if you have something to say, say it – without insulting the person – mention the item, or the behavior or the specific about which you are disappointed – without generalizing or attacking the individual his/her self.

If we remain euphemistic we run the serious danger of being misunderstood.  Let me remind you of one horror story that makes this point.

Many years ago there was a man who went crazy and shot out a bunch of people at ESL.  He believed that by acting as “Rambo” he would be able to get a real date with the woman he had been “courting.” (That’s in quotes on purpose – because he didn’t know how to court properly.)  She,  never wanting to hurt his feelings was too polite in telling him she wasn’t interested in him – and he, wrongly believed he had a chance with her.   

Now, I hasten to add before anyone attacks me – I am not blaming the victim.  She and the others at ESL were victims of a mind gone crazy.  

However, this and other similar tragedies might have been averted had a clear and convincing statement that she was not at all interested in dating him been communicated early in their work relationship.

We’ve gotten so bad at the way we handle disagreement that people with a different point of view as ours are considered by some as evil, dangerous, stupid and other pejorative terms – instead of a mere recognition that they hold a different point of view.  If we stopped being so thin-skinned about it, we might learn that their point of view has validity and we might learn something from them – and also, might teach them that our point of view has validity.

BUT, if we exaggerate every disagreement, because we have to be kind and euphemistic, we will never get to learn from each other.

It's the sand that creates the pearl in the oyster

To go along to get along seems to be the common practice today.  Yet, it is the irritant - the person who has another point of view - the one who challenges the status quo - that makes most needed changes in life.

It is the sand - the grain of sand that gets into the oyster that createsd the pearl.  (I don't understand how either - but it's true.)

Andy Grove talked about "Constructive Criticism" and instituted that process at Intel.  The value of it was that people could disagree with the norm.  Look at the creativity of Intel through the years.

Old, staid, stable companies are losing market share.

Old, staid, stable organizations - associations - are not only losing members, but younger more vibrant members of the community don't wish to join these organizations.

The smaller Rotary clubs need to change their ways in order to survive.  They don't have the advantages the big clubs do - of the best speakers - the most prominent members of the community, etc.  So, what do they have as a quid pro quo for being a part of them.

As I visit the smaller clubs, I encourage them to find time to discuss new and creative ways to survive.  Yet, so many of their members say "this is the way we will do it because this is the way we've always done it and this is the way Rotary International wants us to do it."

too bad

Cosntructive Confrontation

This is a phrase Andy Grove used at Intel. Coming from an East European Jewish background, it comes from the manner in which Torah and Talmud are studied. It allows for the Jewish student to question, argue, offer divergent points of view. The belief is that not only does this style of learning teach you to think for yourself, it also allows for new perspectives.

We seem to be able to disagree with out political leaders - we are especially good at taking on our Presidents, but are chastised when we disagree with friends, relatives or neighbors. In our zeal to "go along to get along" we agree with decisions that are just plain wrong.

We even agree with decisions that hurt us - decrease our property values, increase our utilities bills, etc. And, those of us who dare - yes, dare - to question, are called malcontents who don't recognize how much our board are doing for us. Guess you realize by now, I'm having a disagreement with the board of my townhouse complex.

What have you learned about disagreement? Can you respectfully do it without losing the relationships? I hope so. I really hope so.