opinion POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
www.thehrdirector.com
ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS
Across the globe we are seeing ruptures that few foretold and many thought inconceivable: financial meltdowns, atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion, the emergence of new world powers, the rise of nationalism and secessionism, the dismantling of international structures, a resurgence of racist behaviour, political turmoil. We need to take up the challenge that we will not accept the way things are.
ARTICLE BY MICHAEL JENKINS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE – ROFFEY PARK INSTITUTE
In both social media and traditional print media, the boundaries of what we might call common decency are being transgressed in a way that suggests the emotional numbing of human beings. Images of suffering and horror find their way into our everyday lives. And in the workplace we find people toiling in environments that vary widely in terms of how human-friendly they are - at one end of a broad spectrum we see progressive organisations experimenting with different ways of working and being - and at the other, vicious and exploitative machines where compassionate leadership cannot live, let alone thrive. More and more people have been asking about compassion in an organisational context because they are curious about it. If compassion is something core to meaningful human interaction - and if we accept that warm interactions at work are desirable - then people reason that there must be something there that we can try to understand better - and even nurture. We are not doing enough to foster better workplaces and we need to wake up and pay attention to self-compassion, compassion, and organisational compassion. In turning our attentions to these aspects of compassion, it may be useful to start out by considering the work of John Bowlby in the 1960s who first posited an idea which later became known as “attachment theory”. Studies in the post-war years suggested that babies and young children who were brought up in sterile environments without an identified care-giver suffered higher rates of mortality than those infants who were brought up in less sterile environments - but who had an identified care- giver (usually a parent). I believe that compassion - which in the workplace context we can define as “being moved by and caring about another person’s difficulties/problems and taking action to alleviate the pain felt by that person” - has a vital role to play in the development of the “secure base”. So what we are really looking for is a good balance between self-
WE NEED LEADERS WHO ARE ABLE TO WITHSTAND FIERCE CHALLENGE; IN FACT THEY SHOULD BE RESILIENT ENOUGH TO HANDLE THIS BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, HUBRIS CAN KICK IN WITH POTENTIALLY DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES
compassion (compassion directed by a person towards her- or himself) and compassion (directed at others). When these are in balance one can arguably state that this is where strong, warm leaders are found. They are the secure base for their people. Conversely, where compassion is high but self- compassion low, you will find people with a “martyr” complex: eager to help others but lacking a true secure base themselves which in turn can create a sense of a lack of authenticity and true “solidity”. Still more problematic are those people in the workplace who have low or very low self- compassion and low or very low compassion: here we find people (at the extreme) with what we might describe as an almost nihilistic outlook on life. And then there are the narcissists: people with low compassion but high self- compassion, where self-compassion has morphed into a kind of total self-absorption. Things are completely out of kilter. What this means is that compassion in its self-directed and outwardly-directed forms can significantly affect the development (or not) of a secure base. This is important because a human being with a secure base - whether as a parent or a manager - is the perfect rock for children and adults alike. In children it fosters independence, curiosity and adventurousness: in adults it fosters creativity and (positive) risk-taking. We know from bitter experience that a boss who punishes mistakes in a merciless fashion is going to create a climate of fear where people are not able to try out new ways of working or radical solutions to intractable problems because they are anxious and afraid of what might happen to them if things go wrong. People will keep their head down and choose the path of least potential hassle. This cannot be good for organisations, public or private. We need leaders who are able to withstand fierce challenge: in fact they should be resilient enough to handle this because without it, hubris can kick in with potentially devastating consequences.
FOR FURTHER INFO
WWW.ROFFEYPARK.COM/CWI
30 thehrdirector SEPTEMBER 2016
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
