The Problem with Coercion at Work
“Pete, on Monday I need you to inform Scott and Carol that they are being separated from the company as part of our reduction in force,” said my boss to me one Friday afternoon.
“But Jack, our business unit exceeded all the goals!” I exclaimed, referring to the fiscal year just ended.
“Look, this isn’t my choice, I’m just doing what Frank said we have to do,” replied Jack.
“And why Scott and Carol? They are solid, long-time members of this team!” I was losing my cool.
“That was HR’s decision. And you’d better settle down.” There was an implied threat in Jack’s voice.
“Settle down? This is wrong. I’m not OK with it!” I blurted out.
Then threat became clear. “Listen, if you can’t do this, I’ll find somebody who can. Do you want to continue as manager of this business unit?”
To coerce is to achieve by force or threat; to compel to an act or choice; to dominate by force. How often have you felt coerced in your job? And I’ll bet it was almost always by your manager, or your manager’s manager.
My story is a fairly extreme one, from early in my career, with names changed to protect, well, everybody. But I offer this as an example of the many ways, both subtle and overt, we are coerced by the one person who holds complete authority over the content of our work, our title, and our compensation.
So what is the problem with this arrangement? I’d say there are at least three, and they cascade one from another. Add your own in the comments below.
- Coercion undermines happiness at work. Self-determination theory (made popular in this talk by Dan Pink) says that we have innate psychological needs for competence (or mastery), relatedness (or connection or community), and autonomy. This last one is key — autonomy means freedom to decide and to act. Our sense of autonomy is deeply undermined when the things we do and say at work must conform to the expectations of someone who directly controls our continued employment and our income. It’s close to impossible to be completely happy when this key psychological need isn’t being met. Which leads to…
- Low engagement. We show up every day, we (kind of) do our best, but our hearts just aren’t in it. Which means our organizations don’t always get our best efforts, our most innovative ideas, or the kind of enthusiasm that wows customers. We’re not 100% committed. Which leads to…
- We quit. Sometimes because something better comes along, sometimes with nothing lined up — we are just fed up and won’t take it any more. It is said that people don’t leave companies, they leave managers, and coercion may be the crux of this assertion. And the organization suffers for it. Everyone suffers for it.
Unfortunately, often you land in a new job that has the same inherent defect: the coercive manager-employee relationship.
Let me be clear — it’s not the managers who are the problem here. Not all managers wield their authority in clumsy ways; fewer still are bullies. Most have good intentions, and don’t think of themselves as coercive at all. The problem is the system. It is the organizational design based on hierarchy, that grants authority by rank, that sets up the coercion.
There are organizational designs that alleviate this problem. They aren’t widely utilized yet, but more and more companies and nonprofits are adopting self-management, teal, or responsive practices. These approaches shift responsibility for hiring and firing, and setting compensation, from individuals to teams. They bring greater transparency to these processes, which means you are no longer at the mercy of one person who maybe just doesn’t like the cut of your jib. Each person’s sense of autonomy is enhanced by clear roles and accountabilities, social contracts and well-defined decision-making processes, all of which are generated, and frequently updated, collectively.
So, if the coercion problem has reared its ugly head in your work environment, maybe it’s time to consider a new way of working.
