being frank

There are myriad articles and studies out in the world pertaining to stress and its effects on our physical and mental well-being. I encourage you to settle down one morning in front of your computer with a nice cup of whatever-you-wish and take a virtual tour through the vast amounts of information and statistics out there. Invariably, you will find one or more nuggets of insight that will resonate with your experiences. But the issue I’m constantly flummoxed by is why there still is so much stress in the workplace. I mean, if the average work environment is comprised of people working for or with other people, and we all want to avoid stress as much as possible (OK, maybe not all people, but decidedly most), why does it present itself like a wound that never truly heals?

The reason for this essay stems from a call I had regarding a possible consulting gig. Although the meeting was meant to be a discussion about the project itself, the conversation centered around the conditions under which the work was being done. Long hours, impossible deadlines, disconnected clients, unreasonable management expectations – you get the picture. In a few short minutes, the conversation became a classic rendition for any top-ten laundry list of the main causes of stress in the workplace. Despite our desire to move the needle forward on the projects we work on, stress is the shadow that is never far behind.

So I thought I’d take a few moments to list a few key stressors in the workplace (in-person or virtual) that I have seen or experienced first-hand time and again. And despite best efforts to the contrary by people, organizations, or teams dedicated to ameliorating such conditions well, let’s just say that their actions have usually been more akin to throwing gas on an open flame.

The Inability to Say No. Despite some opinions to the contrary, people are generally hired to provide a service using multi-leveled competencies and insights that the prospective client or company may not possess in necessary quantities to get a job done. That includes the person’s industry savvy as well as their subject-matter expertise. Guidance is a big part of that support equation and one that must be skillfully applied, especially in scenarios where you’re dealing with management hierarchies, egos, or a deeply seeded Rube Goldberg mentality when it comes to project planning. Learning how to say no to clients or senior leadership is not a hot tip from Sun Tzu; it’s the first step toward alleviating unnecessary stress. Clients or your direct leadership do not have all the answers (often at their insistence to the contrary), and it’s part of your job to provide solutions from your vantage point, provided you’re not operating under some implied gag order by your leadership (and that is a whole other article in and of itself.) Chances are that in an appropriately managed environment (i.e., where egos and power plays are not part of someone’s job description), your ideas or insight will resonate over the cookie cutter mentality being used to manage the current project you’ve been assigned to support. Combining a no answer with an alternate constructive solution provides positive avenues for change and helps bring the stress levels down a notch or two. An added benefit is that your client will appreciate the initiative, and the fact that you’re invested in the project.

Mission Impossible. I cannot think of a company, entity, school or government agency that does not have a Mission Statement. You know; the one that promulgates an entity’s function or its personnel as being forthright, ethical, supportive, enthusiastic and caring individuals driven to be the best, working for the best, and being managed by the best. Some organizations create lofty and grandiose contracts between management and personnel to show their commitment in support of their teammates. But the reality is that the only true support a person receives at work comes through the auspices of state or federal laws protecting the individual, unions or dedicated human beings who believe in the true spirit of camaraderie, fairness and collaboration. The rest of the time they’re watching over their shoulder (or cubicle wall) to see from what direction the next stressor-laced dagger will come from. Despite all the lofty rhetoric, companies are in business to make money. Employees are there to help them make it. In the vast majority of cases, they do their best to compensate the employees financially for the hard work and competencies they bring to the table. But these remunerations come at a price beyond their given compensatory rate, and it’s one that is rarely – if ever – documented. The levels of stress they will be subjected to in reality are almost never commensurate to the avoidance of stress purported by a mission statement. And beyond the inherent stress coming from demanding or unreasonable clients, much of the stress they’ll be subjected to is usually at the hands of managers tasked with running projects. Bottom line? Less focus on mission statements or catchy slogans. Instead, focus on the fact that projects or missions are not managed; it’s the people tasked with fulfilling project requirements that undertake the successful completion of a project or task. Managers, on the other hand, are responsible for overseeing the environment and conditions under which personnel may succeed at shouldering projects in a fair, collaborative and healthy (i.e., less stressful) environment.

Boxing Rings. Personality tests are de rigueur in many organizations. As such, it’s a quick way to identify personality traits for assessing everything from measuring outcomes pertaining to project support to fostering collaborative work environments. But when used improperly or with the intent of segregating people by personality characteristics to better manipulate them under certain performance conditions, stress becomes a major counterintuitive factor. Invariably, these ratings become similar to the mythical sword of Damocles; a reminder to the individual about the consequences of failing to perform under the guidelines or expectations of their personality test results. People change; situations change; projects change. Managers need to put less weight and time on these tests and instead assess people by who they demonstrate to be on a daily basis; under optimal or unfavorable conditions. This is where the mettle of a person’s personality characteristics shines without added stress, concerns or subliminal coercion. To borrow from Marlo Thomas’ children’s album, Free to be, You and Me.

Bottom Line: The work environment is for, by, and about people. As such, individuals or groups should be given the latitude to control or manage the amounts of stress they have to deal with on a daily basis. After all, this is where the essence of project management comes into play; understanding how to manage the conditions (not people) under which projects are administered. No matter how in tune a manager or overall leadership may be, it’s the folks dealing with the day-by-day aspects of product development that understand (and are most subject to) the stress emanating from a project. Management’s job is to pave the way for individuals or groups to work in positive environments, free from the aggregate causes or conditions that foster stress in the workplace. In this humble writer’s opinion, anything else is just an impediment to success.