Hell is Other People

Hell is other people” is a famous line from Jean Paul Sartre’s play No Exit which he wrote in Paris in 1944 whilst it and he were both under Nazi occupation.

In summary No Exit is about three damned souls, Joseph, Inèz and Estelle who are sent to hell.

?They had all expected torture devices to punish them for eternity, but instead, are brought to the same room furnished in the style of the French 'Second Empire' (if that means anything to you) and are locked inside by a mysterious valet.

?At first, none of them will admit the reason for their damnation. Joseph says that he was executed for being an outspoken pacifist, while Estelle insists that a mistake has been made. Inèz, however, is the only one to demand that they all stop lying to themselves and confess to their moral crimes.

?Inez refuses to believe that they have all ended up in the room by accident and soon realizes that they have been placed together to make each other miserable. She deduces that they are to be one another's torturers.

?After arguing, they decide to confess to their crimes so they know what to expect from each other.

?Joseph cheated on and mistreated his wife, and was executed by firing squad for desertion.

?Inèz is a manipulative sadist who seduced her cousin's wife, Florence, while living with them and convinced her to leave her husband—the cousin was later hit and killed by a tram and Florence asphyxiated herself and Inèz by flooding the room with gas while they slept.

?And Estelle had an affair and then killed the resulting child, prompting the child's father to commit suicide.

?Despite their revelations, they continued to get on each other's nerves.

?Joseph finally begins giving in to Estelle's escalating attempts to seduce him, which drives Inèz crazy.

?Joseph is constantly interrupted by his own guilt, however, and begs Estelle to tell him that he is not a coward for attempting to flee his country during wartime. While she complies, Inèz mockingly tells him that Estelle is just feigning attraction to him so that she can be with a man—any man.

?This causes Joseph to abruptly attempt an escape. After him trying to open the door repeatedly, it inexplicably and suddenly opens, but he is unable to bring himself to leave, and the others remain as well.

?He says that he will not be saved until he can convince Inèz that he is not cowardly. She refuses, saying that he is obviously a coward, and promises to make him miserable forever.

Joseph concludes that rather than torture devices or physical punishment, "hell is other people."

Sartre claimed for the rest of his life that his statement “hell is other people” had been commonly misunderstood. In his own words he said:

“It has been thought that what I meant by that was that our relations with other people are always poisoned, that they are invariably hellish relations. But what I really mean is something totally different. I mean that if relations with someone else are twisted, corrupted then that other person can only be hell.”

?In other words, according to Sartre, the statement “hell is other people” is implicitly conditional. Other people are hell for us if our relationships with them are bad.

?In a 1971 interview, when asked once again about his statement that “hell is other people,” he replied:

But that’s only that side of the coin. The other side, which no one seems to mention, is also “Heaven is each other.”

Hell is separateness, uncommunicability, self-centeredness. Heaven, on the other hand, is very simple - and very hard: caring about your fellow beings.

Hell is Other People but Heaven is Each Other.

?But what is the difference between Other People which can be Hell and Each Other which can be Heaven?

?I think the difference is mind set.

?The mind set for other people is I am ok, the people I identify with are ok, the problem is other people.

·???????Why can’t they just turn up to work on time?

·???????Why can’t they just do their job?

·???????Why do they always complain and argue?

·???????Why can’t they think for themselves?

?Why can’t they be just like everyone else or just like so and so, or just stop being so bloody difficult?

?They are making my life a living hell!

?I don’t know about you, but I can certainly relate to that.

?But in doing so, I have laboured under the common misunderstanding that Satre was referring to. They did not make my life hell. It was the relationship I had with them that was hell.

?Each other is the recognition that we are all in this together and we are who we are because of other people. That is what makes us each other.

We are all in this together.

And we are who we are because of other people.

?I could explain this to you but I am sure you would rather hear it from the words of Desmond Tutu instead.

?“A person is a person through other persons. We need other human beings for us to learn how to be human, for none of us comes fully formed into the world. We would not know how to talk, to walk, to think, to eat as human beings unless we learned how to do these things from other human beings. The solitary human being is a contradiction in terms.

My humanity is caught up and bound up inextricably with yours. I need other human beings in order to be human. The completely self-sufficient human being is subhuman. I can be me only if you are fully you. I am because we are, for we are made for togetherness. We are made for complementarity. We are created for a delicate network of relationships, of interdependence with our fellow human beings.

I have gifts that you don’t have, and you have gifts that I don’t have. We are different in order to know our need of each other. To be human is to be dependent.”

?An excellent every day example of this are schools. Every single human being in a school is dependent on others. Every person is being shaped whilst also shaping others.

?We are all in this together and we are who we are because of other people. That is what makes us each other.

?As Satre said Heaven, is very simple and very hard - caring about your fellow beings

?In the context of work heaven, the definition of caring I am going with is “a commitment in thought, word and action to the betterment of others so that the organisation can succeed”

Before developing this any further, I just want to point out that there is nothing contradictory in deciding that it is to the betterment of an individual that they should leave the organisation. Just as there nothing contradictory in deciding that it is to the betterment of the individual that they should not join in the first place.

?A commitment in thought, word and action to the betterment of others so that the organisation can succeed will lead, but not be limited to, the following 6 outcomes:

·???????People are supported and empowered to succeed.

·???????Performance Management is used to build, develop and promote people

·???????People come together to raise and address issues to achieve better outcomes.

·???????People positively identify with the purpose and goals of the organisation.

·???????People feel that their contribution to the organisation is important and valued.

·???????People feel seen, heard and respected for who they are and so feel safe to be themselves.

It is as hard to do as it is easy to say.

A book I recently read was called Irresistible – The Seven Secrets of the World’s Most Enduring, Employee-Focused Organisations by Josh Bersin.

In his introduction he stated that in his studies of more than 5,000 companies across the world under 10% were actually irresistible.

So, the chances are, we are not in work heaven and it is more likely than not that we will never be.

?Nevertheless, I would argue that the context schools work in promotes an “other people” rather than an “each other” mindset which facilitates bad relationships.

?The context I refer to is determined by both external factors and organisational structure.

?In broad terms external factors are entities, conditions and events beyond the school’s control which influences the choices the school can make and how it operates.

?Some examples of this are that schools:

·???????Are regulated by statutory guidance

·???????Are subject to Inspection to meet government set standards.

·???????Have their income determined by the DfE

·???????And have to abide by national terms and conditions of service for their employees

Organisational structure can be sub divided into three headings:

Command and Control

Firstly, command and control. Command and control is by the degree to which decisions are made from top-down. The more top-down the decision making, especially for the small decisions, the more concentrated power is among the higher levels.

One subtle example of command and control in schools is the use of the word staff to describe colleagues, employees, groups and teams.

I say this because the origins of staff finds its history in the military - who are not famous for their bottom up approach to decision making. In the military staff is a group of people (officers) that a leader (General) can rely on to carry out their orders.

Apart from the fact that historically schools have always been command and control, it does makes sense in that schools are highly regulated.

A command and control structure is an effective model to organise the resources made available to the school and to be responsible for interpreting and meeting statutory requirements.

Formalisation

The second heading is formalisation and formalisation is the extent to which the work of schools is documented in a permanent and accessible way. The more commonly standardised processes are used, the greater the shared understanding of formal rules. And the stricter the sanctions for those who do not follow the rules, the more formalised they are.

To ensure consistency and compliance, formalisation does go hand in hand with command and control and for schools to satisfy regulatory and inspection requirements a relatively high level of formalisation is essential.

Complexity of Working Relationships

And finally, we move to complexity of working relationships. This is the relative ease that people get to connect with each other. In schools this is made difficult due to contractual working hours, where the majority of the time for most employees is spent either working on their own, or with another or in a small team.

To add to this mix, schools are divided by jobs, groups and locations. The larger the school, the more difficult it is for school leaders to find the time to invest in working relationships, which in turn leads to formalisation and command and control.

Impact on Working Relationships

Taking all this context into account it is inevitable that schools will have a culture that leans towards being both prescriptive and directive with a focus on meeting prescribed outcomes.

With lack of time, pressure to deliver results, expectations of conformity, individuals with their individual issues can easily be seen by the manager as ?

·???????Why can’t they just turn up to work on time?

·???????Why can’t they just do their job?

·???????Why do they always complain and argue?

·???????Why can’t they think for themselves?

?Why can’t they be just like everyone else or just like so and so, or just stop being so bloody difficult?

The individual with the issues, in turn is feeling that their own needs and circumstances are either being ignored or not met.

And both are thinking “Hell is Other People”!