At the core, emotional intelligence and culture programs are about people. They’re about understanding how people think, feel, and behave. They’re about creating an environment where people can thrive. And they’re about building relationships between people that are based on trust, respect, and mutual understanding. Allegedly…
In practice, do they measure up to the hype? Depends. People like what is familiar, and that usually means people like themselves. Are you part of a minority group? Have an invisible disability? Are seen as a threat to others who want to maintain the status quo? You may be at risk of one of these programs being used against you if your workplace does not have structures in place to prevent abuse.
In part 1, I covered some common myths about these types of programs. In this next part, I discuss how these programs can be bastardized and who often suffers the negative impacts from these programs.
What could possibly be wrong with these programs?
There is often an assumption that these programs are positive with no negative consequences. However, this is not always the case. These programs can sometimes have negative consequences, and you may never hear about them unless you look closely or fall victim to them yourself.
We’re all the same on the inside
A common theme of emotional intelligence programs is providing techniques to improve relationships with co-workers and coping mechanisms to regulate emotional responses. It is hypothesized that teaching people how to effectively manage their emotions will reduce the negative consequences of out-of-control emotions. It is hypothesized that practicing the presented communication techniques will improve your relationship with your loved ones and co-workers. It is hypothesized that by providing training programs and interventions for emotional intelligence and cultural norms, the playing field can be leveled. Everyone can start swimming instead of sinking if they have the desire, drive, and determination to give it their all. So, let’s give them lessons. If you want to reduce drownings, teach them how to swim.
At a surface level, it seems logical, but here is the fatal flaw—Universal training assumes that most of your problems are from a lack of skills and resources. It does not consider historical oppression, neurodivergence, or personal context. What if you are a tortoise among a sea of turtles? Swim lessons will not prevent drowning if you cannot swim no matter what you do.
It is assumed that because most can easily complete these tasks and behavior modifications, anyone who fails isn’t trying hard enough or doesn’t want to change.
The ableist mindset is strong with these programs. It is assumed that because most can easily complete these tasks and behavior modifications, anyone who fails isn’t trying hard enough or doesn’t want to change. Then they are labeled as “not a cultural fit” or otherwise have their career projection demolished.
So, no. Everyone is not the same—even on the inside. Assuming everyone can leverage the lessons taught in these programs and should want to is setting up the workplace for “othering.” The message is, “We believe the way you think, act, and behave is wrong, and this is the only correct way to act.” Who gets to decide what goes into these programs anyway?
These objectives are what’s best for all!
There are many factors over time that have decided what makes these programs. The short answer is—the majority usually gets to decide. But if history has taught us anything, the majority is not known to be right. The majority find things and people who contradict what they deem normal as less-than and undesirable, and being forced to acknowledge the uncommon causes great discomfort.
Why do minorities make the majority uncomfortable? Is it because they are different, or is it something else? Perhaps it’s because the majority is used to being in control, and minorities challenge that. Why should they change? After all, doesn’t it make sense to just make a few people change to become normal instead?
Whatever the reason, it’s clear that minorities don’t fit into the majority’s idea of what is normal. And that makes the majority uncomfortable.
Autistic people commonly mask their true feelings and emotions. For many, it becomes second nature. It can be a way of coping with the challenges of everyday life and social interaction. Masking can be exhausting, and it is harmful for individuals to go against their natural inclinations and adopt behaviors that are contrary to their nature. Trying to be something you’re not is a recipe for disaster.
If you are not like us, you better start acting like us to be successful in your career and at this company.
These programs are based on letting people know, “If you are not like us, you better start acting like us to be successful in your career and at this company.”
You can’t sit with us
So, being different isn’t allowed if it makes the majority uncomfortable and the minority change how they act, look, and behave contrary to their nature to make the majority comfortable.
I’m not going into the details about how masking harms individuals because I would be writing all night. Please read Autistic Masking Goes Much Deeper Than Adjusting Your Behaviour by Jae L for a great description. But in short—it sucks.
Are these programs actually asking people to change the core of who they are so that the majority doesn’t have to question their perceptions? So, they don’t have to assume positive intent? So, they don’t have to consider a perspective because they haven’t before?
What’s next?
In part 1, I discussed how these programs could be weaponized to filter out those that are different. In part 3, I will discuss how to recognize problematic programs and what can be done to help. This assumes that there is a desire to cater to everyone instead of just the majority. Unfortunately, the people usually responsible for creating these programs are the same ones who make the unconscious bias training programs. Is there any chance if they can’t even get it right?
I believe there is. That is why I’m writing this article. I don’t believe program developers spend their days purposely trying to harm others, but forgiving intent doesn’t stop it from happening. Awareness does. (See this medium post by Angela Parker, unintentional ableism is still ableism) I’m not the first to notice these trends, and I won’t be the last. But hopefully, the more people that bring awareness to these problems, the less they will occur.
