“Recently, my organisation engaged the services of a workspace strategist, a professional specialising in optimising office spaces to support business objectives and employee needs. One of her key deliverables was redesigning and optimising our office spaces. So, one afternoon, she called my boss because she needed to know the size of our office space. Knowing how daunting it would be to get the floor measurement with tape, considering the existing layout with heavy furniture and immovable fixtures, I recommended using the ceiling dimension. It was a lightbulb moment for the entire team as the ceiling had all the boards in squares already, so it would be as easy as counting the boards and doing the math. To my shock, my boss vehemently rejected the suggestion that seemed very smart, quick, and faultless. She insisted that my team figure out other ways to get the space dimension before the end of business that day.
While still pondering her reason for shooting the idea down, I realised she’s been trying so hard to put up this tough boss persona ever since we started working in the same office location. Before working together in this location, I had been reporting to her remotely for about six months, and she was the sweetest female boss I ever had. When asked to review her leadership style, it was all positive from me. So, what could have gone wrong?”
The above is a serious workplace scenario experienced by Ms. Timilehin, who needed help understanding her boss’s leadership style. Additional background information here is that Mrs. Oman, the boss, was most likely using reaction formation as a defence mechanism in the office. In simpler terms, reaction formation is when a person behaves in a way that is the opposite of their true feelings or desires. Mrs. Oman, a foreigner, had just been transferred to the Nigeria Office of her organisation. Before her relocation, she worked cordially with her Nigerian subordinates for months. While she was in the acting head role, appraisals were requested from her direct reports, and they were all great and so impressive that the board approved her becoming the head almost immediately. So, what changed?
The positive appraisal from her direct reports came with mixed reactions, suggesting that Nigerians could see her as weak and a pushover. So, when she got here, she felt the need to toughen up, make things unnecessarily cumbersome, and was always reluctant to take suggestions. This new development illustrates reaction formation in three significant ways: reversal of sentiment, Mrs. Oman’s reaction was the opposite of the original feedback, thereby shifting from “nice” and “cordial” to “tough.” Also, Mrs. Oman reacted with toughness to deflect any potential perception of weakness or vulnerability as a defence. Lastly, she masked her true feelings, which should have been appreciation for her subordinates’ feedback. Instead, Mrs. Oman’s behaviour suggested she might be uncomfortable being seen as vulnerable or weak, especially if she becomes warm and friendly with her subordinates. Hence, this leads her to adopt a tougher persona to hide her true feelings.
Read also: Group advocates safe, nurturing workspace for employees’ well-being
The danger of such a coping mechanism is that it breeds toxicity in the form of fear, confusion, and lack of transparency in the work environment. Team members will become very confused due to Mrs Oman’s change of behaviour, making it challenging to understand her expectations and approach. This lack of transparency can lead to a decrease in engagement and creativity. Moreover, her toughness might lead to defensiveness amongst the team members, creating a more rigid and less collaborative work environment. Missed opportunities are bound to follow as Mrs Oman’s tough stance might make her overlook valuable feedback opportunities for growth, focussing instead on maintaining a tough image. This attitude can blind leaders from seeing the truth, especially if they have sycophants as advisors. Such leaders get so far flung from their employees and reality in no time, and the implications are best imagined. The implications of Mrs Oman’s behaviour are serious and must be addressed for the team’s wellbeing and the organisation’s success.
To address this situation, having an open conversation with Mrs Oman is not just essential but crucial. There is a need to discuss the feedback and her reaction while exploring to authenticate the underlying concerns and worries. This open dialogue is key to understanding and addressing the issues at hand. Secondly, there is a need to reframe vulnerability as a strength for her. This will help her understand that being open, empathetic, and vulnerable can be strengths, not weaknesses, in leadership. Lastly, there is a need to foster a culture of authenticity in that workplace. This would encourage the boss and many others to be themselves without needing a tough persona to compensate for perceived vulnerabilities.
Call to action
Interestingly, no subordinate can handle all the steps required to improve things within the workforce, particularly Timilehin’s team. Also, a third party can only come into the office to have this discussion with Mrs Oman with approval or formal engagement by the organisation. How best can this issue be taken care of? Your thoughts and input are invaluable in this process. Kindly email your thoughts to [email protected]. Just so you know, the storyline, names, location, and more have been completely adapted for confidentiality.
Olayinka Opaleye is a Wellbeing Specialist and Corporate Wellness Strategist. She can also be reached via Tel: 09091131150 or by clicking on www.linkedin.com/in/olayinkaopaleye.
