Have you ever been accused of being angry because you’re not smiling? Maybe they think you’re mad when really you’re just focused or concentrating. Is it your emotional intelligence or the accuser’s that is the problem? Resting bitch face is relatable to many and triggers a bunch of emotions like:
Confusion—I’m not mad at all. How could they assume that?
Frustration—Do they expect me to have a smile on my face 24/7?
Understanding—I understand how they could think that I’m mad. They don’t know I only got 2 hours of sleep last night.
And much more…
If you are not part of a marginalized population, you may rarely experience or get called out on this type of misunderstanding. But people of color, autistic people, LGBTQ, females, and other historically oppressed individuals experience this more often. Imagine experiencing this type of misunderstanding daily? What if your demeanor, emotions, empathy, etc. were constantly being misunderstood or interpreted through a biased lens?
You may try to overcome this misconception by smiling more the next time you interact with this person or implement some other type of fix to repair the relationship with this person. Having to remember to school your face, engage in unwanted small talk, and remember to do other tasks just to minimize these misunderstandings can be exhausting. This is often referred to as “masking”.
Masking becomes a part of daily life for these individuals. It is hard to keep up with and difficult to maintain. When their mask slips or is discarded, you will find these oppressed persons being labeled as “aggressive” or “not a good fit” for the company’s culture. And these types of situations are when a troublesome emotional intelligence in the workplace or company culture training or growth plan becomes the most egregious.
So, how can you tell if your programs are problematic, and what can you do about it?
In part 1, I discussed common myths about emotional intelligence and company culture programs. In part 2, I discussed who suffers the most from these programs and how the programs can go wrong. Now, I’m going to help you figure out if your program is problematic and what you can do about it.
Does your program have a problem?
Some symptoms can alert you to troublesome programs. I’m going to go over some of the ways to spot problems that occur when you try developing emotional intelligence.
Start with the numbers
Anyone who knows me knows that I love numbers. They don’t lie. (Although they could be used inappropriately—but that’s another discussion for another day.) So, take a look at the stats that are not impeachable.
If your program is not mandatory for all, you can look at the demographics of those assigned to participate in these programs. How do those demographics compare to the demographics of the organization as a whole?
For example, if your organization is 70% white and 30% non-white, but those assigned to the program are 20% white and 80% non-white, you have a big problem.
Those assigned to these programs should be close to the organization’s demographics as a whole.
Those assigned to these programs should be close to the organization’s demographics as a whole. You should investigate if there is an obvious divergence to see if unconscious or conscious bias may be the cause.
Some of the demographics you can investigate are race, gender, job level, age, disclosed disabilities, and other data points not based on perception. Also, keep in mind that some of these data points, like disability, are not mandatory for a person to disclose. So, you may still have a problem in one of these areas even if there isn’t an obvious link in the data points. Your data can also be unreliable if your organization is small or you don’t have a big enough sample size of a person’s identifiable demographics.
Look at the program’s objectives and outcomes
Okay, so this may seem like an instructional designer thing, but every program—even those programs not training-focused—must have measurable goals based on non-subjective outcomes. If your program goals are subjective, you will never know if your program is actually accomplishing anything.
Take a look if your program is actually accomplishing the defined goals or if it is simply the last stop to check off a box to justify an employee’s termination or transfer.
You need to be able to prove that your program is accomplishing what it says it will. How many program participants complete your program? How many of those participants are then rehabilitated and are no longer deficient in the behaviors that resulted in their participation to develop emotional intelligence?
Take a look if your program is actually accomplishing the defined goals or if it is simply the last stop to check off a box to justify an employee’s termination or transfer.
Looks for needs vs. wants
Look at the program’s objectives, defined problem space, and recommendations for evidence of preferences being framed as a requirement for job success.
For example, welcoming a customer when they enter a store may be required of a retail business trying to attract and maintain customers. But should an employee greeting their manager with “Good morning!” be a requirement? The manager may prefer to be greeted and may consider it rude for an employee not to do this, but forcing an employee to participate in the ritual will not result in the employee being able to better perform the duties of their position. It may result in the manager liking the employee more, but is that necessary?
As mentioned before, masking can be exhausting. If an autistic employee already has to engage in masking to complete their retail job well, requiring them to maintain that mask for every interaction will cause real harm. If this is the justification, you are asking a person to go against their nature, comfort, and mental health to make another employee happier. The focus should be on training the manager to understand that not everyone who reports to them needs to kiss their ass to do their job well. Is the program needed if the employee is performing well in their job functions? Will changing this behavior result in better job performance?
In reality, it may have the opposite effect. A person only has so much energy. If they have to expend their energy on making the manager happy, they may not have enough to make customers feel welcome. Now, this could harm their job performance.
Solving problematic programs
If you have found that your program is problematic, what can you do? Well, let’s go through some tangible actions that can be taken to hopefully make things better.
Start at intake
Look at how people get assigned to participate in your emotional intelligence or company culture program. Is there an opportunity for bias to play a part? How subjective are the criteria for inclusion in your program?
If a manager or co-worker refers someone to the program, that referral should be questioned. Implement a process of questioning and justification before the assignment becomes set in stone. The referring party needs to be able to prove how the offending behavior results in the employee being unable to perform the requirements of their job and how fixing this behavior would result in this job requirement being met.
It is important that each of these behaviors is connected to an actual problem that directly correlates to a job task or function not being met. Not something that a daisy chain effect could justify.
For example, if someone comes to you saying that a person’s aloof demeanor results in co-workers not wanting to partner with them on a project, then that is not enough. The blocker is the co-worker’s preference to work with someone friendlier or personable. Neither of which is required for a project to get done. However, if a person’s behavior results in losing a client, that does impact their job and reflects poorly on the company, as maintaining cordial relationships with the client is mandatory for positions requiring that interaction.
Just because no one is complaining doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem.
Don’t assume there isn’t a problem
Just because no one is complaining doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem. Usually, the people assigned to such a program may not feel in a position to complain because their job is already in jeopardy. You may be able to help by just taking a look at the program with fresh eyes. Don’t be fooled. Choosing not to evaluate the program is a decision in itself.
You should get feedback from people often oppressed by these types of programs. Ask for feedback from people of different backgrounds, races, disabilities, and genders before they are assigned such programs. Asking after will give you unreliable results. Again, getting accurate feedback from someone fearing losing their job is hard. So, get diverse feedback early and often.
Become an advocate
Stand up against those who think it isn’t a problem or that it isn’t a big enough problem to require a solution. Speak against those who would prefer to keep their heads in the sand by drawing a line in the sand. Doing what is right isn’t always the easiest, but it is a worthy side to hang your hat.
Start with a program audit. Does the program address real problems that directly prevent a person from completing their job functions, or does it address the person not acting in a “normal” way that is expected? If it is the latter, your program needs to be fixed. If your content is focused on making a person act more neurotypical, caucasian, or in contrast to a person’s cultural upbringing, change it. A person should be valued on skills related to the job’s needs, not the person’s ability to conform to the majority’s preferences.
Speak against those who would prefer to keep their heads in the sand by drawing a line in the sand.
Keep receipts
When you find stats that show the bias of a program, publish it. Share it with others, not just with the decision-maker. It’s easier to disregard an issue if the pressure isn’t turned on. So, CC your supervisor and others you share the info with.
If you get pushback on fixing identified issues, follow up with an email confirming the dismissal of your concerns. Send out an email to summarize the interaction, the information you presented, the persons informed by name, and their justification for non-action. Also, provide a date for revisiting the concern if you get a “not now” kind of dismissal. Sometimes when people know that their name is attached to a decision will result in better consideration of the issue you are presenting.
Taking some action now is better than no action at all
Don’t wait until you have time to completely overhaul a program before making any changes. You would be surprised at the positive effect of utilizing Socratic questioning for program referrals. Simply asking a person to define how the person isn’t completing their job function can be a great catalyst for change.
You may not be able to make a problematic program perfect tomorrow, but you can make it better than it was.
So, if you see a problem, do something! After all, you want these programs to make the workplace better for all instead of them being used as a tool to remove workers with the most need for protection due to a misunderstanding or outright bias.
