Cultures of Toxic Positivity Explained
It might sound like an oxymoron, “toxic positivity”. How can positivity really be toxic?
There is a social psychological process called “cognitive consistency”, which describes our innate human need to seek consistency in our thoughts and feelings and avoid inconsistency. On the flipside, cognitive inconsistency is a reflection of when our thoughts and feelings are torn and conflicted.
Cognitive inconsistency can sometimes present as ambivalence – when we have a mix of positive and negative thoughts or feelings about something.
Feelings of ambivalence are actually known to cause an increase in blood pressure, depression, and an overall weakened immune defense. So ambivalence, when not checked, can be detrimental to our health.
So what does this mean for culture?
Scenario: It is year-end and your CEO is giving an all-company “state of the union” address on how the year went and how things are going. There is energy, and positivity, maybe even some swag. On the outside, everything looks and sounds great. The overall message is that things are going well.
But, the message lacks depth. She/he/they didn’t really share financials. We don’t really get a sense of how well the company is performing on objectives. Nobody knows if there will be bonuses or raises. Most of the conversation is positioned on the future and all of the exciting things you all have to look forward to in the year ahead.
Alarms go off in your head… bzzzzzzz! Something’s afoot! This sounded good, but it didn’t really feel good. Because you care about your organization and your impact and want to really know how things are going. You now feel ambivalence, due to the cognitive inconsistency taking place.
Most people are wired to seek honesty and authenticity. When we don’t get that, it really is uncomfortable. Ambivalence leaves you in a state of limbo, where you are left to your own devices to grapple and wrestle the inconsistency of your own conflicting thoughts and feelings.
In cultures that push positivity, someone feeling ambivalent now feels guilty, confused, and alone.
In a lot of ways, this is actually worse than just feeling negative. In fact, in a study revealed by Harvard Business Review, employees that were ambivalent (specifically about their manager) actually performed worse in their job than employees who were just honest about not liking their manager.
People unite through a shared sense of reality. “This is great!” and “this sucks!” can be equally powerful in bringing people together. When things suck, or when they aren’t perfectly positive, you cannot hide that. Employees are already feeling and experiencing the affects of that in their job.
I challenge you: think of a scenario where something negative was happening, and it was so isolated and contained that no one felt its affects. Most business challenges have trickle down effects that even when employees are in the dark, they feel them. It impacts their day somehow.
Bottomline: Cultures of positivity are not bad when they can truly be authentic. They become toxic when positivity is a veil of deceit, or when it is used to silence or stifle negativity. In healthy cultures there is room for both positive and negative feedback and experiences, because when people can share freely and are open to learning and growing, everyone has a more authentic connection.
Dimensions of culture that combat ambivalence?
1. Openness
A culture of openness is one that embraces and relies on healthy communication in all directions. Leaders have to create an environment that feels safe for feedback. Having an ear to the ground and asking for feedback regularly is the first step in having a realistic sense of the environment.
2. Security
Once feedback is shared, employees need to feel like they can trust leaders to process that feedback professionally. Check your ego at the door, this is a chance to grow. People also want to trust that they are going to receive feedback, so they can do everything they can to perform at their best. We cannot fix what we do not know. No hidden landmines.
3. Collaboration
A side effect of ambivalence is often the isolation that comes with feeling conflicted. A lack of authenticity lends itself to a lack of trust. Cultures that promote collaboration tend to be more transparent about challenges, because they embrace a team-approach to solving problems. When people feel supported, when they have a tribe, they feel more grounded which can help sort through those inconsistent thoughts and feelings.
Cultures of Autonomy
As we find ourselves at the beginning of a talent draught, it is more important than ever to start rethinking the role of a manager.
We cannot control the number of qualified and interested candidates in the job market right now. But what we can control, as managers, is the experience we provide and how that experience will help drive engagement, wellness, retention and ultimately productivity at our organizations.
There is a lot of debate around the demand to work-from-home. Employees want the option to partially or exclusively work-from-home. Many employers are resisting or refusing. Why?
On the surface, working-from-home is a solution to a problem that existed well before the pandemic. For decades researchers have been exploring the impact of autonomy and flexibility on job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
When varying degrees of “job control” and “schedule control” exist, satisfaction and commitment increase. Additionally, individual well-being improves, along with improvements in work-family related conflict.
Is the desire to work-from-home being conflated with the growing need for autonomy and flexibility in the workplace?
When Covid hit and employees were sent home, an unintended benefit was more autonomy and flexibility. Managers lost visibility and control. Employees gained several degrees of freedom.
But are we confusing thirst for hunger? Is working-from-home simply a short-term solution that provides the instant gratification of autonomy, because managers haven't yet figured out how to regain that control?
As technology races to keep up with trends, surely we will start to see products that allow companies to transcend the virtual workplace, and put eyes and ears on people at their home office. For the companies that HAD a culture of visibility, and control and supervision, they will find a way to maintain that culture.
On the flip side, companies that can prioritize flexibility for employees in creative ways should be able to lure people back to the office. More importantly, whether in the office, hybrid, or remote, companies that embrace flexibility will have stronger retention and production rates.
How can managers create more flexible and autonomous cultures?
In the past, managing truly meant managing. To manage someone, you need to be able to see them in order to monitor their effort and output and maintain your own accountability to the business. When managers lose that visibility, they lose control.
In a work-from-home setting, or more importantly in an autonomous and flexible setting, managers can no longer manage, they must lead. This is a critical point and a critical evolution that needs to take place – managers of people becoming leaders of people.
Leading people means understanding them as individuals. Knowing what motivates them, what gives them energy, what their strengths are, how to help them succeed and what might make things more difficult for them.
Cultural Dimensions That Promote Autonomy
1. Clarity
Leading people in a culture of autonomy and flexibility means being very clear and intentional about how you communicate goals, expectations, and value propositions. Properly describing the impact one can have on a project is creating a call to action (people innately want to answer the call). Setting guidelines and conveying potential landmines help to train someone for their journey. The goal is to be able to give them a map and a destination, but to let them choose how they get there.
2. Structure
Flexibility cannot exist without trust, and trust is a two-way street. Leaders need to be able to trust that employees have the tools and the ability to get the job done without rigid oversight. And employees need to trust that they are being set up for success. All of this is supported by the structure of an organization or a team, and relies on that structure being efficient and functional. This is somewhat of a dichotomy, as there is a yin and yang to the opposing forces of flexibility and structure that help create balance.
3. Respect
Respecting others and having respect for the task at-hand helps to promote accountability. When you respect someone, you don’t want to let them down. You respect the collective efforts of a team and the goal being pursued. Similar to structure, flexibility must be anchored by accountability, which is fueled by mutual and self-respect.
4. Openness
Openness further reinforces trust, as it promotes an environment where it is safe to provide feedback and safe to receive feedback. Feedback is constructive, not punitive. And employees have the freedom to fail, because without failure, we miss opportunities to learn and grow and develop. Being open to growth, or having a growth mind-set, is critical to sustaining a healthy, flexible state.