For those wondering what the original was all about – this post was sort of an April fool’s joke. I’m returning to it today because back in March I started writing that newsletter with a serious intention that I discarded for the sake of my (nonsensical) final product. What happened? I just saw the possibility of a joke and I couldn't resist, you know? I’m not ready to give up on my original premise, however, so let’s take a look at it today.
My main idea at the time involved the way I’ve allowed myself to become a target of mockery in the workplace (though considering that I give as well as I take, I suppose calling it ‘healthy banter’ would be a better description). I consider this an important part of my successes over the past few years – it demonstrates that I’m easygoing, that I get along with others, that I can take a joke, and so on. In any event, my point is that I’ve always encouraged a joke (or ten) at my expense, and I think it’s an important part of what I’ve done at work.
This struck me as slightly odd behavior so I thought a little more about it. As I rolled back the years and considered how this thought manifested at various stages of my career, I realized that it wasn’t universally true. The times when I was a target tended to go along with the times I was superior to my peers in some obvious way – skills, responsibilities, or even just experience. In a sense, I encouraged this whenever I sensed the possibility of inequality emerging between my peers and me. By presenting myself as a willing target, I think I kept us all on the same level even while the underlying trend was constantly pulling us apart.
Although I wouldn’t go back in time and do anything differently, I don’t automatically recommend this approach. Encouraging banter in the workplace is a tricky business (even before we consider what I’ll call ‘the HR stuff’). I think my approach worked for me because I have thick skin, a quick sense of humor, and a very intuitive feeling for where The Line is at all times. However, I do recommend the underlying idea of acknowledging an emerging inequality within a peer relationship. Otherwise, when the relationship inevitably changes beyond the point of no return, you’ll have little control over the final transformation.
The most important thing to remember is that inequality breeds intimidation. I feel that this is an especially important consideration in an evolving working relationship. And to be clear, working relationships wage a constant battle against intimidation via inequality because any workplace that has organizational goals will naturally create inequality based on each employee’s ability to contribute to those goals. Equal relationships are, in short, technically impossible whenever there is a goal because everyone’s contribution to the goal has varying value. This doesn’t prevent organizations from promoting a sense of equality across certain measures - a peer group, a salary grade, a job title – but the reality of an overall goal means this equality is under constant pressure as contribution reveals underlying inequality within these measures.
This brings me back to my earlier point about the various signals of superiority across a peer group – skills, responsibilities, or experience. No matter anyone’s good intentions, such signals are often the source of an unavoidable workplace intimidation. Good intentions are important (colleagues shouldn’t intimidate peers, superiors shouldn’t leverage intimidation as a management tool, and so on) but often not enough to prevent the fleeting manifestations of imbalance that I think are inevitable in any workplace. They key isn’t to worry about stamping out inequalities because those are always going to exist whenever there is a larger goal in mind – the key is to remain approachable so that those with lesser skills, responsibilities, or experience come to you for help.
For me, being a target of banter was always a good way to keep myself approachable. This method need not apply to anyone else but everyone should be aware of two things. First, everyone should understand how their superior abilities could intimidate others. Second, everyone should constantly work on ways to become more approachable. Ultimately, a lack of approachability means it becomes impossible to consolidate those raw qualities – skills, responsibilities, experience – into an ongoing contribution towards the overall goal. If new hires and subordinates are coming to you for help, that’s good – if peers are coming to you, that’s great. You’ll be doing your absolute best if you realize colleagues are coming to you for help ahead of those with more skills, responsibilities, or experience. This means your approachability makes you a more valuable help source than an otherwise more qualified colleague and ensures that the first hints of your superiority – your raw qualities – are being translated into a meaningful, lasting, and deserved superiority – an outsized contribution to your organization’s goals.
