On Human Sustainability, Superhero Leaders and Parents, Hope, and the Stoics

This conversation with journalist Pija Kapitanovič ran in the Slovenian daily Delo (https://www.delo.si/sobotna-priloga/zgreseno-je-iskati-ljubezen-in-obcutek-izpopolnitve-pri-delu/.) This is an annotated English adaptation.

You write and speak about human sustainability in the modern workplace. How did your family background influence your research?

A combination of genetics, good luck, and tragedy. My parents come from very different backgrounds; my French mother is from a Catholic, highly educated, well-off family, while my German Protestant father is from a simple rural environment. I grew up in Cambodia and the Ivory Coast, feeling I didn’t truly belong. In France, I was seen as German; in Germany, I wasn’t one of their own. Because of this, I developed greater empathy and the ability and interest to look at every issue from different perspectives.

When exposed to the case method in my MBA, I fell in love with the learning approach and became a Harvard Business School case studies writer. The key to the method is that people see the same facts in different ways and perspectives. Through discussion, they learn from each other.

Then when two close relatives of mine took their own lives due to toxic work relationships, I committed to shedding light on how managers could better support employees and not do damage. (On hyenas, ostriches, and managerial responses to struggling employees).

Since then, I have focused on studying the dynamics of work environments, and I have worked hard to find solutions to improve the practices of building relationships with work, each other, and the environment. (On being a case writer, empathy, and people in the middle).

What’s wrong with the relationship that people commonly have with their work that we so often discuss toxic environments?

While the topic of mental health at work, burnout, and low employee engagement have finally become a topic of focused leadership and management attention, they are not new, and leaders and managers have been wasting human capital for decades. We have exploited employees with physical and mental health damage. Some people overwork to gain approval that might not come.

For example, only a third of employees in the US have reported being fully engaged, and 16–18 % actively disengaged since 2001. Then came the focus on the great resignation, but in the US, 4 million people left the workplace every month even before COVID-19, so it just went up a bit. The good news is that it allows us to discuss what might be going on openly. (On presenteeism, cognitive slowdown, and the overdone Great Resignation).

The hallmarks of a sustaining environment are collaboration, caring, celebration, and communication. Managers who are empowered by their leaders to provide as much autonomy and agency to their teams and are not pressured too much by inaccessible goals nor forced to enforce compliance. This has become harder and harder in what feels like an increasingly chaotic, rapidly changing world. Toxic environments focus on compliance, punishment, relentless demands, and low recognition. In the U.S., people are leaving healthcare in droves. No one is asking why these things are really happening. (On canaries in the healthcare coalmine).

At the same time, employees are both bringing stress to work and expecting more from work. They want empathy from exhausted leaders. Managers are shock absorbers, and they are worn out.

In the era of freelancers and the gig economy, personal promotion and online presence are essential. How can individuals navigate the challenges of selling themselves on platforms, avoid narcissistic behavior, and maintain authenticity and healthy self-perception?

Today, to some extent, we are all selling ourselves — even little children on social media. In this way, young people are learning to present themselves in the way they think society wants to see them before knowing who they really are. We are all now falling into that trap, whether on LinkedIn or dating apps. We display ourselves in self-promotional ways that can remind us of people with narcissistic tendencies. (On branding and open talent).

In the case of freelancers, they must sell and advertise themselves very intensively for professional reasons. To be successful at this, they need to position themselves according to the needs and demands of the market. Because if you want to address the market’s needs, you have to constantly adapt, as the nature of the market requires change. It’s almost impossible for these demands always to reflect reality. The world responds to the presented reality, not the real one. This can be a heavy burden on a person and their mental state. (On burnout in the passion economy).

In addition, in this so-called gig economy, people have no support. While regular employees have paid days off and access to psychologists, freelancers do not. This places them under unique psychological pressure on top of the already present financial pressure and constant competition for clients. This competition for clients means they are always looking for what attracts them. However, the problem also lies in what attracts people today: the more dramatic, big words, fear, and negativity.

We encounter narcissism in various places. How important is it for individuals in the workplace to recognize and comprehend narcissistic behavior? And how can individuals protect themselves from such behavior to maintain a healthy and productive work environment?

Individuals with traits we attribute to narcissism tend to be over-represented in business, politics, law, and medicine. They are good at self-promotion and aggrandization, which helps them get jobs and clients. Sometimes these behaviors actually come from a need for validation because the individuals themselves are insecure or overly sensitive to rejection. And people with narcissistic behavior tend to hire narcissists who, in turn, might contribute to the toxic environment and poor human outcomes you asked about earlier in our conversation. (On narcissism and delusion of grandeur).

Why do they succeed? People with narcissistic behaviors can be charming. They praise us, flatter us, and make us feel like they are interested in us. That’s why we are drawn to such people. But they can quickly stab us in the back when we turn around. Some of us are more inclined to be attracted to such people, while others are less so, depending on attachment theory. If you had healthy attachments as a child, you are more likely to recognize narcissistic and manipulative people quickly, but if you didn’t, you may be more drawn to them. (On attachment styles, stress, and strain response).

It’s normal for all of us to enjoy praise, but if you know within yourself that you are good, then you might be less dependent on others for praise and be less willing to compromise in exchange for it.

Often in the workplace, we see a pattern of praise from a narcissistic and manipulative boss or colleague who plays with our emotions to manipulate us. “Wow, you did this so well. Can you please do it next time?” Even though it’s work, they should be doing it themselves. On the other hand, employees often demand that their superiors immediately solve all problems but may not be able to offer a solution themselves when the superior needs one.

However, it’s important to be cautious in this discourse. The role of a superior is to delegate work and provide praise, so we must be careful when diagnosing such situations. Nowadays, people are quick to diagnose each other with various things, even using terms like “narcissist.” Only clinicians should be diagnosing others. What we can do, however, is observe behaviors and ask others how they are doing, but how often do we ask our superiors how they are feeling?

One of your well-known quotes is that innovation happens when people disagree. The challenge for leaders is not just to choose the best ideas but to combine different ideas into something new. Why is this so difficult to implement in practice?

Right, so this builds nicely to our efforts around how we collaborate and innovate to make better decisions in business and society. One place to start is how we choose friends and, at work, candidates or people for teams? The easiest way is to choose those who are similar to us. The more homogeneity, the harder it becomes to voice alternative voices because the cost is too great. For example, we sometimes see glaring mistakes in their advertising campaigns, and we wonder why no team member warned them that it was a bad idea.

Of course, we may not want to work with people who constantly oppose us. No, you need to create safety mechanisms so that you have people around you who are capable of criticism. People who are willing to say that something is not a good idea. Sometimes you have to do this consciously and use tactics such as Red Teams or Devil’s Advocates, whose task is to make counterarguments.

Unfortunately, too often, we oppose an idea because of personal matters. But it is in human nature to gravitate towards like-minded beliefs. And toxic workplaces go against psychological safety by limiting people’s ability to express who they are and enforcing group identity. (On diversity, discord, and task vs person conflicts).

This is why the case method is a great leadership development tool — it encourages discussion, requires active listening, and trains us to separate ideas from the individuals who defend them.

There are many different theories and approaches to recruiting. Which one do you think is the best?

The best recruiting approach starts way before recruiting, with what the job to be done actually is and what competencies and skills the candidate needs. Most of the time, we recycle job descriptions and focus on degrees and years of experience, and then go into interviews trying to check off lists of »must haves«. At the same time, a lot of recruiting has been and continues to be random. People have emotional responses to candidates. The first and last candidates of the day don’t tend to progress to the next rounds, etc. So tests such as MBTI were designed to find better matches and we see many organizations trying to automate this process with GenAI.

Now, anyone who talks and works with leaders and studies leadership might also note that there is a lot of random data about what could predict success. For example, Capricorns are most represented among CEOs of Fortune 500 by a wide margin. CEOs used to be taller than average because we still see height as a proxy for power. Very successful female traders on Wall Street seem to have more testosterone than average. Individuals with exposure to toxoplasmosis infections are more likely to get into business and succeed as entrepreneurs…

But because we cannot choose our birthday or hormones, we can try to agree on traits. And, after a lot of work behind me, I can say that a good leader can be anyone, regardless of their astrological sign because it all comes down to qualities, with critical thinking being the key, and these qualities can be developed. Critical thinking, tolerance, and ethics are crucial. The ability to create a culture of diverse people who trust each other. Without that, it won’t work. We must trust that when someone tells us something is not good, we take it as information, not an attack. And an interest in brain science and all the advancements is also helpful. Finally, a certain optimism and hope.

I expected you to tell me more about pro-social leadership, which you seem to advocate for, at least based on your published articles.

I’m not sure what I advocate for. I think I advocate for the idea that we are all just humans, and humans are fundamentally fluid. To collaborate better, and to better understand phenomena, we should support leaders who display prosocial traits and support the well-being of humanity. This would be an extension of Theory Y, that people are inherently interested in growth and will do well when people give them hope and perspectives. When people feel good, they give their best.

We can turn to Adam Grant’s research here which suggests that people who can see the benefit of their work for customers feel motivated to do even more. The workplace is important to our mental health, it brings structure and esteem, and a pro-social leader needs to actively demonstrate compassion and a desire to help others. And in doing so, help themselves. (On listening to and for others).

What are the most critical roles that schools should fulfill in today’s world?

I think schools and all other institutions should think more about how our society doesn’t lose hope. Because wherever we look, we only see problems: global warming, animal extinction, peer violence among children, elder abuse — society is turning into something very terrible. Institutions need to find a way to become more sustainable, to slow down, as both companies and individuals, so we don’t constantly push ourselves and our environment to unsustainable limits. Capitalism, of course, doesn’t like that because it requires growth.

Schools, especially professional schools, can also help students get a better sense of what it takes to be successful and what to do when the going gets tough. What damage can success impose on them and their loved ones and society? We’re like hamsters in school and then at work; we know we need to slow down, but it’s hard to do. We often present high achievers as robots making purely rational decisions, but everyone struggles at some point. (On leaders still pretending to be okay).

Finally, schools should also train future citizens and employees to get the mediation and data skills, historical context, and humility to tackle difficult issues like racism and inequality so that we can have robust conversations and make informed choices, and have a positive impact.

Unfortunately, there is too much aggression in society, and this hinders the benefits of collaboration. This is something that greatly concerns me in society. Especially with smartphones and social media, we have become accustomed to reacting quickly and seeking immediate resolution. Imagine Galileo in today’s times, giving him the time to develop an opposing idea to the prevailing one.

It’s difficult to raise your hands and say, “Whatever will be, will be” when you have to, if we shift to the individual sphere, take care of children and also elderly parents.

I myself cared for two sets of elderly parents, and I’m a single mother. My daughter’s father left when she was 18 months old, I tend to work a fair bit. A few years later, my mother’s neurological disease left her paralyzed within a few years, and we took care of her at home. You need to realize that you’re not all-powerful, that you can’t do everything because you can’t.

A major difference here, if I may come back to employee/employer relations, is the ability for an employee to talk to a manager and get resources or accommodations. Many caregivers want to continue to work, but many cannot. I was so lucky at Harvard Business School. (On being a caregiver and supporting them as employees).

But let’s chat a bit about parenting. This dramatization of parenthood is excessive. As a parent, you can’t be there for your child all the time, you can’t attend every game, every performance. Now we’re in a time, at least in the U.S., where if you don’t do these things, you’re not considered a good parent. Employers need to provide flexibility to people, and on the other hand, people need to entrust the care of their parents to professionals because you can’t do it all. You’re not even qualified. In the end, you’re left feeling like you’re not a good parent, child, or worker. Look at the billions of people who have been in such situations before us.

I don’t think that’s true. In the past, people lived in larger communities, and later, 2 or 3 generations lived in the same house.

That is totally right, and families used to be larger. Kids used to go out to play for hours with little supervision. Nowadays, kids find community online but more loneliness in smaller homes and most distant friends. But we also we constantly hover over our children in a way prior generations didn’t. We burden ourselves too much. This brings a lot of stress at home. Now kids text to tell you they forgot lunch, missed the bus, or someone was mean to them. It becomes your problem to solve while you are in a meeting or trying to make a deadline. The child does not learn to deal.

A point of view might be that regardless of what you do, especially as a mother, you’ll be blamed for your child’s situation at some point. I tell every parent in my community to do what they think is best for themselves. A child wants to have happy parents, not superheroes who work all the time. Leaders also pretend to be superheroes, but superheroes have no flaws. If you don’t have flaws, you can’t be empathetic because you don’t understand mortal problems. We also pretend to be superheroes in parenthood, but that doesn’t help them. We are human, as parents, we cannot and will not always be there for our children. And we don’t teach them enough about consequences. We do everything for them. We need to tell them more often that if they don’t do something, there are consequences. We need to slow down in everything a little so that we don’t wear out our superhero capes!

But it’s difficult to slow down in the global context, where we need solutions for so many things, from geopolitical issues to climate and food. It seems like we have to do more than before.

There, too, there is only that much you can control. We can do a lot at our own level but being paralyzed by fear and concern is not good for us and for our children. The topic of the IEDC Bled conference that is bringing us together is appropriately entitled »From Doomsday to New Optimism« — what are actions that leaders and individuals can take to create hope? Humanity produces GDP with a limited number of resources, both human and natural. Now we are putting pressure on a few resources, and we are not even fully using our brains. 80% of our brains are occupied with something else, mainly anxiety and stress. I think we need to unlock the potential of our brains because we are wasting a lot of capital this way. We are focused on environmental climate change but can also talk about emotional climate change. How can we reduce or change how we deal with stress to free up our brains and human capital to tackle these issues? (On the stress-strain curve and burnout).

How can this be achieved at the organizational level?

Companies are at the center of this effort. We have seen more companies offering psychological help to employees in the form of free counselors or mental health apps. Promoting more time off, which is, of course great, unless you have even more work when you get back. The focus should be upstream on how to prevent distress. And a lot of the things we talked about, how to incorporate different voices, be explicit in job design, think about how to assign people in teams, and offer mediation training for faster and better conflict resolution. At the top leadership level, more willingness to be vulnerable or open. For employees to stay with an organization, not just in body but also mind and soul, employees need to feel that leadership has also been through difficult times.

Anything else?

Perhaps here we can turn to what Stoics and Buddhists might say. Their teachings attracted attention during the pandemic, not a coincidence.

The Stoics talk about freedom from attachment, and a central Buddhist and Sufi tenet is that what we seek we already have in ourselves: we should not look for any other sanctuaries but ourselves. A job used to be just a job in the past. That should have been enough. Nowadays, a job must have some special meaning. People keep asking themselves if it’s right for them, if they should change careers, etc. There are things that a job cannot satisfy, and I don’t think the feeling of fulfillment is one of them. They find a higher purpose in other things — love, community, spirituality, children. Work fulfills us as well, but seeking love in the workplace is misguided.

If you put these two together, perhaps we can focus on doing more locally, being caring colleagues and companions. We seem to start showing empathy and cooperation towards a shared goal around 11 months — then life and systems get in the way. We cannot all be, like Patagonia, in »business to save our home planet.« But we can be in business to make many positive differences by being generous and considerate closer to home, which will have ripple effects. The process and intention can help us find inside the firm and our hearts what we might be seeking beyond them. (On creating caring companies).

The thoughts reflect those of millions of people before us. To me, the very special ones among them are my thought companions, Bahia El Oddi, Susanna Sjoberg, Antonio Sadaric, Ph.D., Sylvie Maury, David Evan "Daven" Morrison MD, and Michael Stanley, MD.

Pija’s questions prompted us to write about the fine line between passion and pathos at work and how the definition of mental health might set up challenging expectations.