The Work Chasm We Always Ignore

I had an acquaintance back in the day who, if his friends complained to him about work and lack of advancement, he’d say “Not every company is a bank. They cannot just make you a VP.” That’s true. I think he’s right in that not enough people realize that simple fact.

Consultants, Virtue Bombing

At the same time, I stumbled upon this HBR article yesterday while bored and semi-depressed, and this stood out:

Charlie isn’t alone in his struggle. As consultants and executive coaches to high-performing executives, we see this frequently. It’s not uncommon for talented leaders to find collaboration unnatural. After all, rugged individualism set them apart and propelled their careers. And for many, that same focus on distinguishing themselves later becomes their demise.

There are a couple of notable things to pop out from that paragraph:

• “As consultants and executive coaches to high-performing executives…” That virtue-signal right there is like blood dripping from the walls at a crime scene. It’s just so intense and in your face.
• “Find collaboration unnatural:” A lot of (especially) American executives deeply believe in this idea of “rugged individualism” or “just doing it yourself, the way you want.” That’s also why so many workplaces are utterly plagued by micromanagement at every turn.
• “Rugged individualism:” Ah, there it is.
• “Becomes their demise:” It often doesn’t, but this paragraph needed a “consequence” to make people keep reading.

Briefly Understand The Fragility Of Many Leaders

Now, the important thing here is that a lot of (especially) men who claim to showcase “rugged individualism” in their work are, in fact, propped up by about 19 different people, including their three admins, their core team, all their lieutenants, etc. A lot of white-collar work is about placating top levels and giving them “tools” to make their jobs and decision-making easier, when in fact many ignore those “tools” and operate according to gut feel, thus rendering the jobs of those who worked on the “tools” essentially meaningless. But, therein I digress.

The “individual” vs. “collaboration” chasm at work is very real, and I’ve hit it a few times. Here’s a good look at it.

The Chasm Of “Individual” Versus “Collaborative”

From almost the moment I started in “knowledge work,” one thing that always confused me was this bouncing ball:

• 10 people come together for a project.
• The project is deemed a success by someone above it.
• 2 of those 10 people get promoted to a raise slightly above inflation.
• The other 8 go back into “gen pop.”
• Those 8 get put onto other projects.
• Rinse and repeat.

As core needs like housing and food get more expensive, eventually some of those people get frustrated with “collaborating.” They want more for themselves. (Not everyone, but most people.) You can usually get 3–5% extra job-hopping, if you play the game right and your timing is good. You cannot always get that “collaborating” internally on different projects.

So, of course turnover is going to be logical.

That’s kinda Tier 1 of the discussion.

Tier 2 is that the “individualism vs. collaborative” chasm creates a huge managerial 18-car pileup. Executives primarily don’t know how work gets done, so they advanced people who seem successful on obvious metrics, many of whom are extroverts similar in nature and background to those doing the promotions. (Not always true, and obviously in government and higher education work, sometimes people just get 4–5% raises, even if they’ve sucked their thumb under their desk all year.)

So now you have a skilled individual contributor, who is probably an extrovert and can sell/ship well with some relationship-building, as a team lead. That guy is not necessarily a good fit to be that team lead, but he was promoted based on obvious, observable metrics and not deeper discussions within the different teams that created successful project outcomes that year. Now you get bad management, resentment, and more turnover.

So yes, this is the chasm. We claim to care about “collaboration” but we promote and advance those who seem driven to individual success. A lot of problems flow downhill from that.

What Is The Solution?

A few options:

• Downplay the focus on collaboration and let people work as they want, collaborating on projects when necessary. If they can hit targets in their own box/swim lane, so be it.
• When advancing people, talk to the various teammates they’ve had about whether they’d be good at managing the workflow of others and reacting to the emotional and psychological parts of work. If they clearly wouldn’t be good at that, find a way to pay them more as individual contributors, but keep them away from management.
• Be more honest with your employees about what matters in the company, in employee advancement, and year-over-year goals-wise. A lot of how companies discuss goals, progress, and personal advancement possibilities is shrouded in buzzwords and asinine things no one can decipher, and that makes all these discussions more complicated.
• Less “open” floor plans, as those don’t help with collaboration or individual work.
• Just be a human and talk to people about their needs, desires, and goals from the professional side of their existence.

Takes?