Workplace culture

Every so often, when I meet friends for dinner, we inevitably end up talking about work and workplaces in general. Nearly every person I know who is around my age has a story or two to tell about unpleasant occurrences that they've experienced in their respective workplaces. That includes me too. We don't focus on just them--most of us also have good memories of our work projects/results as researchers, but the less than pleasant occurrences are used to illustrate some of the more negative aspects of Norwegian workplace culture, which I am not a huge fan of in general.

Academic research settings in the public sector, where most of my colleagues/friends and I have worked for the past thirty or more years, are strange work environments in which to find oneself, for Norwegians and non-Norwegians alike. I've always assumed that my Norwegian friends understood 'the rules' better than I did; I'm finding out that this is not the case, and that they were not necessarily treated any better (or worse) than I was when I was working. As always, how one was treated came down to politics--who you knew was more important than what you knew--at least if you wanted to get ahead. The Norwegians talk a good game about all employees being treated equally (the same) and that the same opportunities exist for all, but it's not true. Most academic research settings at present are quite hierarchical with many levels of leadership; this was not the case during the 1990s when I started working at my university hospital. At that time the organizational structure was flatter, with fewer levels of leadership. The disadvantages of a flat structure are that there are fewer possibilities to rise in the system (fewer management positions) and that the managers have a more intense workload compared to hierarchical organizations. The advantages of a flat structure (in my opinion) are that each employee has more autonomy and more freedom to be creative, to speak out, and to be heard. Nowadays there is too much micromanagement, too much administration, too much reporting to managers, too much detail-oriented nonsense. It's smothering, claustrophobic and ultimately fatal for innovation and creativity. There were more of the latter during the 1990s in my humble opinion. No matter. Organizational structures became very hierarchical during the early 2000s; in some departments at present, it is not unusual to be confronted with five or more levels of leadership. Dealing with your own leader/manager is one thing, but then he or she must deal with his or her manager who must deal with his or her manager above them in the system, and so forth. Suffice it to say that it is a cumbersome organizational structure with which to deal. I don't like it and didn't like it when I was working. Middle managers have little or no power to decide how something should go, and many of them become frustrated with such a system. Thus, the focus for many of them becomes micromanagement of their employees, many of whom are trying their best to do their best in a system that is not designed to reward them. Because even though one can 'aspire' to a higher position in a hierarchical organization, in practice there is little to no chance of being promoted or being considered for promotion based on your expertise, because it mostly comes down to 'who you know, not what you know'. Neither flat nor hierarchical organizational structures really reward their employees, at least not in huge public sector workplaces. It's stifling to work in them and to work for managers who can do little to help the departments they lead because they must always 'check' with the managers above them before they do anything. Who would want those positions? Apparently, there are those who do want them, because they are well-paid jobs. But what then happens is that a lot of money that could have been appropriated for solving the real problems that exist goes to pay the salaries of (in my opinion again) useless managers. Thus, the system is loaded with powerless managers with bloated salaries. 

If employees don't like this type of work environment, and most of my colleagues/friends and I do (did) not, employees have a real problem. Because their attempts at independent thinking, innovative thinking, critical thinking, creativity, and not wanting to work in team settings will be met with resistance from managers who expect compliance. Employees should not 'buck the system', should not butt heads (however respectfully) with managers, should not criticize, should not attempt to 'go rogue (be a loner)'. The strange thing is that some people do manage to navigate this system that is designed to keep employees down; some probably get ahead because they are well-liked even though they are resistant to the system. Others are given a helping hand by friends in high places (politics). Neither of these occurrences happens to most employees. Most employees who are competent and have a lot of expertise end up having to comply and to swallow rules they don't agree with in order to have a tolerable work environment within which to work. Those who are not compliant suffer the consequences, which boil down to being frozen out, ignored, overlooked for interesting projects, or criticized. Since employees can rarely be fired from a public sector workplace, managers hope that by creating an unpleasant work environment for resistant employees, that it will force them to seek work other places. For smart and competent employees who love their work but not the organizational system, this creates anxiety and problems with self-confidence. Which in turn leads to poorer production and lack of motivation/enthusiasm. This has happened to more people I know than I care to count, both non-Norwegian and Norwegian. 

Who benefits from such a system? Those at the top who enjoy perks and salaries that are largely unjustifiable, and those who have always been lazy, who have always not wanted to expend any more energy at work than they have to. The latter are true drains on the system. And unfortunately, many have learned to manipulate the system, especially when it comes to the aspect of not being able to fire them. These employees invest little energy in their jobs (and in many cases don't show up to work), and if they are criticized by their managers for not doing a good job or for not doing the job they were hired to do, they are allowed by the system to accuse those managers of harassment. The stigma of being unfairly accused of harassment sticks to a manager. Work environments are small enough so that word gets around that this or that person has been accused of harassing an employee. Unpleasant. What then follows is that the 'harassed' employee generally gets a new manager to report to, who has heard the story of what happened to the previous manager and decides that he or she will not make the same mistake as the previous manager. He or she leaves the 'harassed' employee alone to do what he or she wants; in that way, such an employee, often quite lazy and incompetent, remains on the payroll doing little to nothing in the way of work, because no one dares to cross such an employee. If you could fire such an employee from a public sector workplace, it would be a good thing. But it will never happen here. And from what I've seen of the system that does exist, such employees have a lot of power, whereas those who are truly harassed by their managers don't choose that route--to claim being harassed--because they would rather do their jobs well and not be a bother. Competent and hard-working employees often end up doing more than their share of work to compensate for the lack of work done by the lazy and incompetent employees. Unfortunately, a good number of managers leave the incompetent employees alone and instead focus on making life miserable for the competent and hard-working employees. Go figure. 

So again, I ask. What is there to miss about such workplaces? Just during the past two weeks, I've listened to colleagues/friends tell me about their experiences in their workplaces. Overall, they are leaving their jobs with their heads held high; they know they've done good jobs and are satisfied, even if they rarely hear that from their managers. They know they've done the best they could do and have invested a lot of time and energy in their jobs. They may have been treated poorly at times, but they've let those experiences go. Probably best for all concerned. But nonetheless, they do talk about the unpleasant times when we are together because they were hurt by them, as I was. They were blindsided by them. It's understandable. No one expects to be treated poorly when one does a good or excellent job, invests a lot of time and energy in interesting projects, shares ideas and demonstrates independent thinking. But that's exactly what happened to some of them, while they watched the lazy incompetent employees be treated fairly, and in some cases 'promoted'. It makes no sense. But in some way, perhaps it does. Lazy, incompetent employees are no real threat to management. They don't challenge their authority, they are compliant, they do what they are told. But they don't do the work required of them, and management can't do a thing about it, at least in public sector workplaces. Private sector workplaces are another story. Such employees eventually drain the life out of a department. The rest of the staff pick up the slack and will never be rewarded for it. That's how workplaces function here, at least in my experience during the last twenty years. When good employees reach the point where they understand that they could have invested half the amount of time and energy compared to what they actually invested for the same (or no) result, that's when they understand that it's time to leave their workplaces and a workplace culture that is mostly illogical. 

Losing and regaining workplace motivation

There are many reasons why employees lose their motivation for doing their jobs well. Burnout as a result of a poor work-life balance may be one reason, lack of feedback or recognition from management may be another. Unclear and constantly-shifting goals and strategies will also destroy employee motivation gradually over time, which is understandable. It’s hard to aim at a constantly-moving target. It’s not possible to continually start over, reorganize and restructure, working toward yet a new goal that management has suddenly decided to prioritize, and retain motivation. Change is fine and necessary in workplaces, just not continual change. Harassment and bullying in the workplace also contribute to loss of employee motivation, especially if they are allowed to continue once reported. All of these are important reasons for why many employees simply give up and stop trying or stop caring. Many of these employees should probably quit and find other jobs, but if you’ve been treated poorly over the course of many years, your self-confidence may not be at an optimal level, so there’s no guarantee that you’ll do well in an interview for a new job. Additionally, many employees need their jobs for economic reasons and cannot just quit.

When employees are treated poorly by management or ignored by management, employees will lose their motivation. They will slow down, be less effective, produce less, and complain more. If they don’t complain, they will find other ways to undermine what they perceive to be a system that is completely indifferent to them or that rarely listens to them. They will say that ‘they could care less’, but in truth, they do care, and wise leaders will recognize this and do something about it.

Leaders make all the difference, and they should remember that. In all my years in the workforce, I have yet to meet employees who are motivated solely by money. Most employees are inspired by leaders who know what they want and know how to impart that message to their employees. Most employees want to know that their work counts and that it is important to the company. They want to hear that they’ve done a good job when they’ve done a good job; they want to be seen and they want their hard work to be acknowledged. Many leaders seem unable to do this. They have difficulty praising employees for a job well-done. They have difficulty offering constructive criticism, whereas most employees understand the need for constructive criticism when necessary. It’s how you learn, grow, and progress professionally.

It’s possible to regain motivation for one’s work, even after many years of minimal motivation. A change of leadership may do the trick. A wise leader takes over for one who was clueless, ineffective, or unprofessional in tone and behavior. A wise leader meets with his or her employees, takes the time to talk to them about their work and how they feel about their jobs, discovers the strengths in his or her employees, and builds on those strengths. When employees feel that they’ve been listened to and then given new tasks that match their strengths and abilities, they regain their motivation. It may be a slow process, but what’s important is that those employees are once again effective and productive employees.

Bullying in the workplace

If you have never observed or personally experienced bullying in the workplace, you can count yourself among the lucky people here in this life. I have known several people (men and women) who have been the recipients of behavior from their bosses that was suggestive of bullying. It was more subtle than aggressive, perhaps in keeping with the Scandinavian mindset as opposed to the more aggressive American one, but I would call it bullying nonetheless.

The reason I was reminded of this topic is because I read about it recently in the coursework for an online mini-MBA program that I am currently enrolled in. This particular mini-MBA program, offered by Probana Business School, has six modules, all of which focus on different aspects of leadership. The current one, Module 4, has Value-based Leadership as its focus. The chapters in this module deal with cultural leadership, the ethics of leadership, Corporate Social Responsibility, stress management, and the workplace environment, among others.

I found the chapter on the workplace environment (physical and psychosocial) to be excellent from all standpoints. Not only is it well-written, but it is timely and important. The topic of bullying in the workplace was introduced and discussed extensively; it is apparently a large problem in many modern workplaces. Bullying can result from conflicts that become exacerbated, where it is difficult to identify a bully or a victim; the other type of bullying is termed predatory bullying—in this case there is no difficulty in identifying the bully and the victim. Predatory bullying seems to be most prevalent in workplaces. Bosses can bully their employees, and employees can bully each other. It does not have to be physical bullying; it can also be psychological bullying, which is often far more subtle and insidious. This type of bullying has only one goal, and that is to reduce the victim to a pile of rubble. You might wonder why some bosses go to the trouble of targeting certain employees for destruction. The answer is that they can; some evil-minded bosses can exploit the weaknesses they see in their employees. They exploit the imbalance of power because they can. They might bully those employees who are perceived to be more intelligent than they are, or who are not easy to control. Creative intelligent people tend to prefer to think for themselves; you’d think that would be attractive for most bosses, but sometimes it’s not. Many bosses prefer employees they can control, and it is often those employees who get promoted at the expense of the ones who are much less ‘manageable’.

I have mostly been witness to psychological bullying in the workplace—the type of bullying that can be subtle and insidious. It can take the form of joking about an employee in a meeting in front of others; the intent is to humiliate that person, while the boss comes off smelling like roses—how can you fault him or her for having a sense of humor? Surely employees can take a joke. Sometimes the information that is given to employees about the job at hand is incorrect or incomplete, such that they cannot do their job correctly. Some employees are routinely overlooked when it comes time for promotions or raises; this can be due to gender discrimination, age discrimination, or personal dislike on the part of management. Some employees are ‘frozen out’ by management--ignored or bypassed when it comes to new projects, denied specific opportunities for advancement, denied project leadership, etc. Still others are the recipients of vague, unclear communication on a continual basis, such that they are never really sure where they stand. Others are the victims of backbiting and gossip, which can often be quite cruel. All of it is designed to weaken and eventually annihilate the victim.

Regardless of who is doing the bullying, the cost to the workplace can be substantial, due to reduced productivity, loss of morale, and a negative and destructive workplace environment. Bullied employees experience fear, shock, hopelessness, serious psychological problems, stress disorders, and eventually go out on sick leave or quit. Management can simply not afford to ignore this problem, and if management is the problem, if some members of management are doing the bullying, then the bullies involved should be forced to resign, and then replaced by leaders with more emotional intelligence. 

Figuring out the Norwegian workplace

The job section of this past Sunday’s Aftenposten had an interesting article about Norwegian workplace culture entitled ‘How does the Norwegian boss think’? Foreigners who work in Norway often find themselves at a loss when it comes to figuring out how their bosses think and how to interpret what they say to you—what do they really mean by their comments and remarks, and have you understood the context of what was said? The importance of understanding your workplace and the signals given you by your bosses and colleagues cannot be overemphasized, especially where career advancement and salary are concerned. The article interviewed three Norwegian company directors/leaders who are Norwegian and who had worked internationally; they were asked to comment on what makes Norwegian workplaces different from workplaces in the rest of the world, since Norway’s workplace culture is quite unique (of course, why is this not surprising to me). Here are their thoughts:

• Leader #1 meant that Norwegian workplaces are ‘process-oriented’, not ‘solution-oriented’, and that a problem or an issue could be discussed ad nauseum before a decision is made
• Leader #2 had a similar opinion to leader #1, stating that many foreigners are simply not used to having the entire organization get involved before a decision can be made about a particular issue
• Leader #3 meant that Norwegian workplaces are relatively ‘flat structures’ where each individual employee has a high degree of authority to make his or her own decisions without having to consult a boss

Whenever I read such articles, they trigger some interesting feelings and thoughts, so that I ‘feel a blog post coming on’. I can relate to the first two leader comments; specific issues are discussed over and over in multiple meetings over many months, perhaps years, before decisions are reached. Frustrating? Yes. My question is why this has to be the norm. However, and this is the crux of the matter, someone ultimately has to make the final decision. Whether it is a committee at the top of an organization, or one person, someone has to take the ultimate responsibility. An organization of several hundred individuals is not responsible for a final decision; some of them may come with input and advice toward a decision, but the responsibility lies ultimately with company leaders. Who makes the ultimate decision can often be a mystery, and whether or not employees are informed about a final decision rests with those who are responsible for communicating it. Information flow downwards can be a true exercise in frustration. There is no transparency at the top of huge public sector workplaces, in any case. And I disagree entirely with the third leader; it has not been my experience in my public sector workplace that each individual employee has a say concerning a decision to be made that will affect them. Simply not true. The third leader has simply not visited my workplace recently; the six or more levels of (administrative) leadership between the individual employee and the top echelons ensure that you as an individual employee have little to no authority to make decisions that affect your daily work life. You can individually be the most ‘solution-oriented’ employee in the world; it won’t matter. You are forced to deal with the top-heavy administrative levels above you. Take ordering a lab reagent or small piece of equipment, for example; before a necessary item can be ordered, at least six to eight people need to be involved in the process of ordering—the person who needs the product and who informs the relevant department person who then registers the order and passes it along in the system to the person (or persons) who actually order the product on the computer. But we’re not done yet. They may order or they may pass the order along to yet another office that will do the ordering. It all depends, on what I’m not sure. Project funds have to be checked to make sure there is enough money to order the product; that can involve the accounting department. And if the item is actually ordered, it is shipped to a central receiving department that then delivers the item to the person who registered the order, not to the person who needed the item. This means that the secretarial consultants who register the orders receive on average ten packages a day. They must check their files to find out who needed the product ordered and then chase down the relevant person who requested the item. The actual invoice goes to an unknown place; no one is really sure where it ends up or how it gets paid. If this was truly my call (if I had any real authority), I'd call, fax, or email the company myself with my order, cutting out the multiple middlemen, and have the item delivered directly to me. The current ordering process reminds me of the excellent film Brazil, about the tentacles of bureaucracy and how when they find you, they can destroy your life and peace of mind. My question is—why do we need all these people involved? This was not my decision, to make it so complicated. And perhaps more importantly—is there any one person who understands the system well enough to explain it to others? No one seems to have thought of that. 

My conclusion is that these three leaders espouse a politically-correct rhetoric. It makes employees feel good to read that they have some autonomy and can influence the decision process; in truth they have little autonomy and little influence, at least in the public sector. We may have had more of both back in the 1990s, but no more. 

According to the article, a number of companies have started to offer courses about understanding Norwegian workplace culture, to employees who come from other countries/cultures with a different way of doing things. Such courses, along with formal career guidance, were non-existent when I arrived in Norway. I don’t know if they would have helped or not, since I work in the public, not the private sector, and most of these newspaper job articles seem to deal with the private sector. But one thing is certain; communication with bosses in the public or private sector can be muddled, messages from them unclear, ditto for job tasks and definitions. How can you know for sure if your recent efforts on a particular project are praiseworthy or not? Are you being considered for advancement in your organization? Should you actively seek out career advancement, mentors and advocates? Will you be considered too aggressive if you do, or will it be considered appropriately professional to do so? No one really tells you what to do or how to behave, at least not directly to your face. You have to figure out most of these kinds of things on your own, because communication is often very indirect, and suggestions to employees as to how to go about doing things may be presented in a rather offhand informal manner. This is the art of thinking like a Norwegian in your workplace—figuring it all out for yourself, except that if you are Norwegian, you have understood this from the get-go. As a foreigner, you will miss the signals that tell you that what you’ve just been told is important, you will make a fair amount of mistakes before you understand how to respond or react, how to deal with your bosses, and how to understand their dealings and communication with you, and you will waste a fair amount of time trying to understand a system that cannot be understood (my impression). In that sense, I miss the directness and assertiveness of American workplaces; communication between boss and employee is often much clearer and easier to understand, perhaps more formal and professional, yes, but I prefer that to ambiguity and vague promises and suggestions.