Sad Gits Who Shout At The Telly

Step into any house when the news is on the TV and you will meet people who have pungent, passionate views about what is wrong with the country, politics, transport, and life in general.  They have simple, dynamic solutions that would sort things out. These same people often don’t vote, and rarely engage in the political process, ‘because its not worth it’.

On a typical course we sometimes meet the corporate equivalent of the sad git, but never in our best customers! These people are very quick to share their views around what is wrong with their organisation. This type of complainant communicates (transmits would be a better description) in three ways:

1. The incoherent rant. This is always delivered from a totally negative perspective and often demonstrates more about the person’s own problems than the organisation's. A lot of heat but not much light.
   
2. The forensic analysis. This is more interesting because the person obviously does a lot of thinking about the issues and has applied some kind of framework to explain why the current state exists. There is sometimes real insight as well. The problem is the exposition is long on problem explanation and short of solutions.
   
3. The ‘if only’ position. This person speaks more in sorrow than anger. They give a detailed history lesson, with lots of rationale for why the current situation exists but little idea or appetite for how things should be changed.

Sometimes all of these behaviours can be seen in the same person.

What all three of these behaviours have in common is:

• They are looking more backwards than forwards. Their model for viewing the work world they inhabit is historical rather than future focused.
  
• They have accepted the status quo (current situation) as fixed, what is happening to them now is rooted in what has happened before, and won’t (can’t) change.
  
• A lot of their current behaviour has become ‘grooved’, they are in a behavioural rut, replaying the same arguments through entrenched perspectives.
  
• Their behaviour is a form of coping strategy. The arguments they replay are a kind of comfort blanket that protects them from taking mental risks, feeling anxious about things that might change, and generally trying to avoid thinking about a different kind of future.

What connects our sofa pundit with the organisational version is disengagement. They have come to a personal position where the role they have adopted (whether consciously or unconsciously is another issue!) is one of criticising from a safe distance (especially emotional distance), rather than place themselves as part of the situation they are describing.

A common example of this is when they refer negatively to the organisation’s culture.  This bad culture is in the same organisation they hold a managerial position in and often have worked in for many years. Cause and effect doesn’t occur to them!

What we find fascinating in our work is the absolute relationship between people who demonstrate behaviours that are the opposite of ones we have described. Behaviours that are engaged, future-focused, solution-minded and generally positive. And it’s this way of behaving that creates much more meaning and satisfaction for individuals, and as a consequence, more motivation and happiness in their work. While the opinionated naysayers stay on the sidelines pushing their views with anybody who will listen, or even better at something that doesn’t shout back.   

For further information please contact:

Claudine McClean
T:  01789 734300
E:  claudinem@structuredtraining.com