Are there two of us, or am I on my own?

Let's start with a little experiment. Let’s ask ourselves, who is the person that gives the following description of himself (for real! facts only): I love my family; family is important to me and I prove that every day; I do homework with my children; in the evenings, after work, I talk to my wife about the events of the day; I remember about my parents and despite the distance I stay in touch with them; I support financially even the extended family; I have a circle of good friends with whom we support each other; I have passions outside of work, music being one of them, and with a group of friends we even play some classics in the evening; obviously, we’re just amateurs, but it gives us great pleasure to be together surrounded by art...

How would you characterize this person? In just a few words, if you may.

And now let’s ask this person one last question: what do you do professionally? The answer: I’m a commander of a concentration camp... Shocking?! Not by the slightest bit. Criminals used to be people of culture, who loved their children, cared for the family, played classical music etc. I’m writing this not by accident; each of us is a mini-camp commander deep inside. We rationalize it to ourselves saying it has to be that way.

One of the common statements I hear from managers (especially when working on self-reflection) is the declaration "Dariusz, at work I am a completely different person than at home..." It is generally perceived to be such an obvious thing that it needs no explanation. That is just the nature of things, and my interlocutor is often surprised that I go on and elaborate on that. What's more, we immediately assume that this is the real ME at home (I love children, I am a sensitive person), and this person at work simply MUST be the way he is (it comes with the job; I am a camp commander, after all...).

Already at this point it’s easy to disagree with this theory. Firstly, why should the true self be the one at home and at work we’re wearing a mask? You’d need a truly wise man to prove it. Countless philosophers have debated on that subject for thousands of years and tend to arrive at almost opposite conclusions. We choose our jobs; we decide how we behave there, so we are ourselves at work as well. Myself, I’m willing to agree with those philosophers. After all, you don’t know what goes on in my head; you’re not inside of it. Why would you even care? What’s important to you is my behavior and based on that you determine "Who is Dariusz?". So, if we meet in a business situation, then your real Dariusz can for example be a camp commander. All that talk about how much he loves his children is worthless. Moreover, even statistically you are right! At work we encounter much more people than in our family. At work we spend more time than with our family (sleep doesn’t count). So ask yourself again. Why should the real me be the one at home (less people to experience that and less time to act in such a way)? And why at work it’s the false-me, who "has to" put on the outfit and behavior of the camp commander? Well, once again – do you really have to? Do we really have to put ourselves in the roles we then distance ourselves from?

It’s true that context does influence our behavior. Depending on the context we put on different clothes (a suit, a pair of jeans, uniforms, sandals, etc.), we use slightly different language (whether professional, formal, or just of a very different level of freedom), we assume different roles in a group (at work a boss, at home a quiet performer, on the pitch a dedicated midfielder, or vice versa). How big is the gap between the above-mentioned behavior at work and at home? Is it worth pretending to be someone else - at home or at work? Is it worth spending so much time wearing a mask?

Why should we put on uniforms every morning and do "what commanders should," “what the organization expects from them"? Based on assumptions, of course, because it almost never happens that a company tells you to "drive people into the ground to obtain results," right? On the wall in the office you’re more likely to see values such as "People Come First" (sometimes we even meet those people, when the CEO or the owner drops by :-). And in the evening, pat the kid on the head, because the family comes first (our family; people we rule at work have no families...), discuss daily matters with spouses, like buying furniture or a new car, kids’ problems at school etc. Sometimes we simply wonder why others do not see our true self, with all its obvious complexity and depth, but only describe and treat us as camp commanders. It's not fair! Well, I'm afraid that they actually do see our true self.

Is it an exaggerated metaphor? Well, that’s its role. Even more so, because mentally we are in a comfort zone; after all, we do not murder people at work. We only contribute to better results of the company. So this is how we rationalize it, "the company and the circumstances expect it from us." How much of an exaggeration is the metaphor? Oh, here is a room for discussion. If someone still used a simple defense mechanism saying the example is too far-fetching, I encourage you to read a book by Professor Philip Zimbardo "The Lucifer Effect", or anything about his well-known prison experiment, even in Wikipedia. This, of course, is extreme behavior, which most of us are still far from in everyday ordinary circumstances of life and work (well, really so far?). The thing is that we enter such behavior path very early and without noticing simply by assuming that it is obvious to wear different masks every day and that we have to alter our behavior quite much in different contexts. The deeper we go in these behaviors, the more effort it costs us and the greater stress it causes.

As long as we are young, such a model of different masks "home vs. work" works quite well in our minds. Both areas change dynamically, and we develop in both. To put it simply, we could say that new things are happening constantly and our status is growing. This rate of change effectively clouds the duality of behavior, because everything is new and plenty. Especially if we do not have behavior patterns around us (e.g. a mentor) and we mindlessly accept the standards imposed by the environment.

Sobriety and doubts may come only after several years. Both work and home are much more stable by then, the frequency of change is lower, the processes become longer and we start thinking about the future and perception of our person by the environment. Why so late then? Only now it’s a waste of time, by then some things cannot be undone.

So what is this all about? Well, our lives are much easier and happier if the gap between what we think, say and do is as small as possible, regardless of place and circumstances. As long as there is no war, no global economic turmoil, you only have to do what you tell yourself to. Each of us makes our own choice whether to be Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde or... whether to switch between these roles, depending on what is convenient at the moment...

I can also recommend my other post on this subject: "Career Planning, part 1, or scenes from the life of a lion tamer".

PS The title of the post is an excerpt from a Polish song "Dla jednego wariata, co za mn? lata," [To a nut, who goes after me] by the poet Jan Wolek. Note - the hero of the song is a patient of a psychiatric hospital... The identification of the graphics illustrating the post I shall leave for the persistent readers. It is significant, but ... that puzzle is simple :-)