Management Taboos — dealing with symptoms vs managing the problem
By Dr. Reg Butterfield with editorial notes added by Dr. Ross Wirth (2022).
Management Pain — shifting to Work from Home is bringing unexpected challenges
First, thanks to the increasing number of readers who tell me that they are finding my excursions into different yet arguably connected areas of work-life interesting and relative to their own experiences at work. Importantly, they agree that there is a need to gain a fuller understanding of workplace behaviours before looking at alternative forms of organisation and management design.
A current stereotype that emerges from the media, particularly social media, is that organisations are too stressful today and must change if they want to encourage people to work for them and stay. The rhetoric around the Big Quit is the latest vehicle used to send out this message. However, as I demonstrated last week the situation is not quite what some people want us to believe. I argued that people moving on from one job to another is not new and outlined the reasons, which are known and have remained fairly constant for a long time.
I then went on to explore the different age groups of workers and the general stereotypical view of their workplace needs and behaviour, which I linked to their social media use to some degree. Yes, not everybody fits these stereotypes. Yet, they are helpful in gaining a bigger overview of the issues facing management when employing a spread of several generations. It is crucial to understand the emerging workforce as we consider the future of work and organisations.
As with any form of stereotype, they are already at home in our brain curtesy of the media and other experiences, personal or anecdotal. The key is to acknowledge the stereotype and not let it impact our decisions and behaviour — make conscious judgments of what is before us in the specific context. Our context in Management Minefields is moving towards developing an organisational form that can work effectively in the environment of unprecedented speed of technology development and associated worker relationships, many of which are new. In doing so, move from a world of episodic change to one where the organisation is built for constant change and is a great place to work. You can see the progress that my colleague Ross and I have made in this respect at www.futocracy.network.
Today, I will explore the management minefield that is seldom discussed, that of substance abuse. Substance abuse can be considered as “a maladaptive pattern of substance use manifested by recurrent and significant adverse consequences related to the repeated use of substances.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
What is the reason for such a discussion and what has it to do with organisational design and management? The answer is quite simple.
It is important to recognise that substance use, misuse, abuse, and coping strategies can have a significant impact on mental health at work. Addictions and mental health conditions are often coupled. This is called a concurrent disorder. “Concurrent disorder: An individual who is experiencing both a mental illness and a substance abuse problem.” (Centre for addiction and mental health, 2007).
When researching the subjects of substance misuse and employee behaviour there are many similarities in the exhibited behaviour patterns compared with those discussed in earlier newsletters around the topics of Big Quit, employee generational behaviours, and associated lack of engagement.
The welfare of the workforce is a management minefield with increased legal responsibilities and liabilities of employers and management. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the subject of substance use and abuse also when making decisions about the future of work and management.
The common solutions advocated in management literature, blogs, training, and by many management gurus seem to look at the symptoms from a more managerial perspective than the root cause. On the face of things, this may appear to be the correct way to go and yet such an approach is at risk of making things worse for both the organisation and the individuals concerned. In fairness, managers are not medical doctors, and their task is to ensure that the organisation meets its goals and targets. It is not their role to delve into the complexity of behavioural cause and effect between the individual, society, and organisation. Yet, management is increasingly vulnerable to the consequences of erroneous decisions and actions in respect of their workforce. It is now time to raise these situations above the waterline and into everyday management discussions.
It is not my purpose here to criticise any particular view or expertise. However, it is important to raise challenging debate around issues that may or do impact on the future of work, even though they can seem controversial. In examining this important subject it was plain for me to see that there is a real and difficult situation evolving as people increasingly discuss moving to ‘remote working’. In most cases this move to remote working is taking place in some form of hybrid version of the current industrial age hierarchical bureaucratic organisational structure and management paradigm.
Before moving on, it is important to make some sense and have some common understanding of the subject of substance abuse and the difficulties for management when trying to make sense of situations and find appropriate courses of action.
Substance abuse is a complex subject and includes four categories: stimulants (e.g. cocaine), depressants (e.g. alcohol), opium-related painkillers (e.g. heroin), and hallucinogens (e.g. LSD).
According to the 2020 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Report, global drug use is rising. Cannabis was the most used substance in 2018, with an estimated 192 million people using it worldwide. Opioids, however, remain the most harmful, as over the past decade, the total number of deaths due to opioid use disorders went up 71 per cent, with a 92 per cent increase among women compared with 63 per cent among men.
Contrary to the images of drug abusers often portrayed in the media such as news reports and films, the largest group are employed in a wide range of jobs (e.g., 70% of US drug abusers are employed). In the UK, the middle class consumes more drugs and alcohol than the poorest of the population. The preferred recreational drug for middle class managers in the UK is cocaine. In the USA it is the increasing use of heroin by white non-Hispanic middle-aged men and women that is becoming an issue.
An important study in the case of heroin use in the USA indicates a relationship between the “…decline of tasks that were historically performed by the middle class and the associated decline in socio-economic status increases the share of mentally distressed middle class workers. Mentally distressed workers can mitigate their hardships by the intake of illicit drugs or by consuming health goods.” (Grossman V. & Strulik H., 2021)
The warning signs exhibited by employees who may be struggling with substance abuse (Johnson, 2000) and the signs generally associated with employee disengagement are shown in the following figure 1. The similarities are arguably too strong to ignore and represent a challenge for management. However, some signs of substance abuse are also similar to those caused by increased stress, lack of sleep and physical or mental illness. It is important to not assume that an employee has a substance abuse problem; however, ignoring warning signs will only exacerbate the problem if someone is indeed struggling.
The common advice to management in relation to employee disengagement is aimed at re-engaging the person using many processes that appear to focus on assisting the person and yet are directly related to achieving business objectives; after all, that is the role of management. The following are examples taken at random from the Internet — be honest, make time for them, re-align their goals, set short and long-term expectations, foster mentoring relationships, recognise good performance, incentivise improvement, and redefine flexibility. The last point, flexibility, is increasingly seen as encouraging working from home (WFH) or some form of hybrid employment.
As discussed in a previous newsletter, The Big Quit, there is ample evidence to show that WFH is more stressful than working at the office for many people. As such, WFH is probably not the best solution for people who may be suffering from substance misuse or work-related stress. At the same time, current management trends and flatter organisational designs were already decreasing the frequency of managers coming into real personal face-to-face contact with their workforce. WFH and hybrid approaches are just exacerbating the situation as physical contact with colleagues is also less often or missing completely. We have yet to understand what this means in the context of the complex relationships between stress, substance abuse, mental health and the design of organisations and work. What we do understand is that encouraging people to work where they have easier access to the substances at the root of their difficulties is not to be supported.
Currently the debate around organisational design and work processes tends to focus on the rights of workers to choose their own approach to work on the one hand, and the need for organisations to benefit financially in some way from the arrangement on the other hand.
Given the similarities between the symptoms of work-related stress, substance abuse, mental health issues associated with isolation, and that WFH is not immune to their causes or from their impact, I argue that the emphasis on hybrid working by many people and organisations may prove to lead to more problems than it resolves. The ‘safety net’ offered by face-to-face contact at work may not always be the best, yet it is there for those who need it.
I suggest that before moving into a world of hybrid working as a default solution it is important to examine each case at an individual level. This is to ensure that the arrangement is for the benefit of all and, importantly, is not used as an escape mechanism to avoid dealing with a situation that is more complex than most understand currently.
Painless Management — building relationships with people is essential to identify emerging issues before they become critical.
Coming soon — exploring the management minefields that need to be identified and negotiated in our journey towards new ways of working and organising to future-proof organisations. Continue the discussion at www.Futocracy.Network
