Catastrophising and how culture influences whether we do it

In my experience, there are two kinds of people : people who think every work situation (and honestly every other situation) is a disaster, and people who think no work situation is a disaster. I think we can start with a healthy supposition that both are wrong - some situations are disasters, some grow into disasters, some look bad but aren't, and some aren't a problem at all unless we make them into one. (Also - where are all the people with a measured sense of disaster and response? It genuinely feels sometimes that there are few and far in between.)

The phenomenon of seeing things far worse than they are is called catastrophising. It's more than just an expression of how we see the world, but a psychological state as well - and, notably, those who have experienced negative human behaviours are primed to catastrophise, because they have learned that jumping to the worst possible conclusion first may be a necessary survival strategy, and because many of their experiences were negative, often very negative, too. How and how bad the impact can be is debatable, and still being studied; one very interesting study in the last decade found a clear connection between childhood experience and how we experience pain.

But catastrophising can be a part of social and cultural makeup too. It's how we are taught to respond to things to achieve a desired position or response in our society - it's not so much about what we should feel, but what we should signal. (That said, we tend to internalise such messages, so ultimately, they become how we feel too.)

Here's a few examples.

1. Catastrophising about Other. When a society leans towards rigid identity of self, that is, when you have to be just this way to be acceptable (which can also be a matter of safety in more than one way, from actual safety from violence to being able to thrive), those who represent Other certainly learn to catastrophise about their identity, visible (eg colour, race) or invisible (eg religious affiliation, sexual orientation). More interestingly, catastrophising of sorts is definitely present among the majority population too - it shows in exaggerated responses to anything that could be Other within an environment, ruminating and preoccupation with Otherness and its impact on them and society and world in general, predisposed thinking that Otherness is far more present and influential than it is, and thinking that Other is responsible for all the bad in their world or the world in general.
2. Catastrophising to show devotion. I would categorise this type of catastrophising as a form of excessive, neurotic appeasement. In rigid and rigid leaning situations especially, but also otherwise, for instance with people who "inherited" rigid leaning behaviours within an otherwise fairly fluid society from their predecessors (simplified : when you watch you parents and grandparents and teachers behave, you pick up how to react to various stimuli, which impacts how you see the world and how you interact with it), individuals and sometimes small groups will catastrophise to show they care about that which is deemed important in ways that are considered accepted responses. In those situations, we catastrophise because catastrophising shows that we belong to a group, and that we share its behavioural traits.
3. Catastrophising to show attentiveness. Overreaction can be rewarded differently than underreaction. While overreaction often works poorly when it comes to actually responding to our environment, and we know it can lead to clashes, underreaction is often perceived as lack of attention to detail or seriousness about one's work, life, and so forth. At work, especially, this relationship to events can be rewarded out of proportion : a calm person who quietly solves a very serious problem may be perceived as less attentive and less capable than a person who shows clear overreaction to a far smaller problem. That is because we often value dynamic, overt expressions of certain emotions and of active disposition (ie we want extroverts who fit the pattern of what an interested problem solving person looks like), and in contrast perceive anything less as obviously uninterested and lazy.
4. Catastrophising to show power. The "classic" boss of the early to mid twentieth century was typically a catastrophiser. Not only was everything a problem seemingly beyond control, the only solution was in overreacting and actively forcing others to do so too. This was likely less about perception of problems (although I suspect there would be some actual catastrophising hidden in there too), and more about show of power : if everything is a problem, and everything essentially results in a tantrum that others cannot work against, this behaviour not only sets down that the boss determines what a problem is (therefore completely messing up realistic assessments of problems), it is also not within anyone's power but the boss' to control the extra consequences that are a tantrum and perhaps even violence that are to be expected when someone is allowed to overreact this way. The real "problem" therefore becomes, once again, appeasement, actively taking away from solution seeking, as well as recognising of severity of any situation. You're not really trying to figure out what happened to a shipment of whatever it is you need, or why there has been a delay. You're actively trying to figure out how to manage an overling's explosion, which will be the same whether the problem is actually something serious or when someone made coffee five minutes later than expected.
5. Catastrophising to show respect. In societies where stratification of some kind is of deep importance, catastrophising can be expressed to show deference. In that case (also a form of appeasement, one could say), the underling will catastrophise an event to show that they have utmost respect for the overling - an elder, a person with some kind of social or cultural significance, etc.. The overling may be accustomed to this and will expect it, thus confirming the "need" to catastrophise.

All these are ultimately cultural and social behaviours that we internalise the way we internalise all social messages...they are the fabric of "how things are done" and where we fit and how we should behave in our world. Thus, they can become seemingly unavoidable, which is a problem : when we treat everything as a disaster, or nothing as a disaster if it doesn't fit a proscribed patterns of what disaster should look like (eg if we deem social behaviour more problematic than, say, a great big storm heading our way), we fail to discern between the times when we really do need to act, and act quickly and intelligently, and the times when all that is needed is to take a deep breath and calm down. We may also develop poor coping strategies for actual catastrophes (panic instead of trying to keep a clear head), and a really bad interpersonal relationship with others who are often crucial to solving a bad problem (eg the blame game at the office vs working together).

Who catastrophises?

Sometimes, everyone. In highly strung societies, where catastrophising has a deep meaning, where identity is rigid, catastrophising can be far more present than elsewhere. It is, also, that much harder to shift; it's less just a situation and more a state of being. Elsewhere, minorities may catastrophise more, because they have observed, in those like themselves, or directly experienced negative different treatment; or, of course, their own cultural background may use catastrophising, which already primes them for doing so, and makes any negative experiences that much worse. But what about majority members?

Men are often taught to catastrophise very quickly. The gender expectation of being a man or boy tends to come with expectations of certain socio-cultural performance : for instance, you are likely to be expected to be athletically inclined, successful, aggressive in getting to goals. Failure is not an option - your identity as a man or boy depends on it. Very early on, boys who do not "act like boys", who may be introverted or have interests that differ from this expected behaviour, will be punished in some way for their supposedly atypical gender behaviour. As men, they have internalised this, and may either try to do anything to avoid the stigma of failed masculinity, or will continue to quietly plod along. In both scenarios, catastrophising is hiding in there somewhere : either with men who will do anything to avoid being seen as a failure, or with men who are used to being a failure and who may therefore think the worst of any scenario, because the worst is what they have learned to expect.

With women, catastrophising can be down to similar reasons. Being perceived as a gender behaviour outlier, performing tasks and jobs that are not "typical" for women and having career aspirations (which can be seen as atypical or may lead to steps that are seen as atypical), can be a punishable offence in social and cultural environment; therefore, women may catastrophise because they are either used to things going wrong, or because they are afraid they might. They may also be aware of being taken less seriously than their male counterparts. That may mean that they may try to both act tough and dismissive of problems and/or see problems before they arise just so that they aren't taken to be "too emotional and shy" or "not attentive enough", whichever happens to be the case (and yes, it can be both).

I think we can round up this discussion by recognising that catastrophising can and does impact our work. Challenges will definitely happen, and they may range from tiny to immense, hiccups on the scale of "how bad things got at work" to true disasters. But to plan for the latter and to learn to work through all of them, we need to understand our behaviour. What makes a situation a true disaster? Are we catastrophising the rest? What about how we are approaching a situation can be better?

It is hard to "see" within the patterns of a culture. Ten years into my consulting work, I am well aware of just how hard. But it isn't impossible. While culture and society, as well as personal experience, shape our expectations, perceptions and behaviour, these aren't cast in stone. All it takes is some introspection...and perhaps a little professional help to start it off.