Is emotion dependable at work?

Two recent conversations with well-placed founder-friends left me with one question. Is two-way boss-subordinate emotional dependency healthy in today’s professional world?

She had just sold the three-decade-old company that she had built from scratch. It was a good sale. Yet her tears conveyed regret. She was sad how the new bosses were treating her erstwhile loyal colleagues.

As she put it, some of “my people” had moved out when the sale process was on and didn’t have to “suffer”. Apparently, the new owners did not find the loyal ones up to scratch and were trying to beat them into the shape they wanted.

Should she have simply disconnected after the sale?

The other founder had recently celebrated his birthday at an informal gathering that included most of his employees. They jostled to get hold of the microphone to sing his praise. The words differed but the tune was the same: “we are here just because you are”.

He was obviously thrilled but modest in his response. Was all the adulation just an attempt to sweeten his mood before the next appraisal?  Other leaders of the organization were present, but he alone mattered.

The day he decides to put his feet up (not too far given his age and health) would the decades-old organisation simply crumble?

Was it positive two-way loyalty on display in both cases? Or self-destructive emotional dependency?
​
What happens when bonding becomes an inseparable emotional crutch the boss or the subordinate can’t do without?

The crutch need is personal

A desperate need for a crutch at the workplace is probably a sign of emotional disturbance, opines Lovaii Navlakhi (MD and CEO, International Money Matters). Lovaii describes both sides of workplace love. “A manager may want to be liked or even loved. But a true leader would want to become redundant. On the other side, if you have been a loyal employee for long, the question you ought to ask yourself is do you want to be a boss one day or be a perpetual follower?”

The equation is very situational. Is emotional dependency a tradition? Does the environment allow dependency? Regardless of what the emotional ecosystem is like, it boils down to the maturity of the individual employee. Are you aware of and alert to a world outside your workplace? Are you confident enough to accept a new challenge and move with the times?
​
As for the entrepreneur who let go of the company but not her emotional attachment, Lovaii feels she ought to focus on why she made the sale in the first place. What is it that you would like to do with your experience, skillset and life now? 

All in the family?

​It continues to be in vogue to describe the workplace as “family”. Possibly an expression HR would like to use with a view to retain and attract the talent they need.

But some owners are wary of the terminology. As long it suggests common values and goals, and, more importantly, civil relations, it is fine. The problem starts when some employees begin to take the organization for granted because the “family” will take care of them regardless of what they do or don’t.

It is up to the owners to discourage toxic emotional dependency. More often than not, HR steps after the toxicity has done serious damage.

Sunil Wariar (independent HR consultant; was head of HR at Future Generali India Insurance) believes that the “family” is the right description, provided the organization is “a collection of people with common shared goals where every member is respected for their contribution with pride and conviction to support and succeed the leader.”

It is not uncommon for a leader (or owner) to slave-drive the team, drawing comfort from obeisance, without bothering to share where the team is, where they are headed, and what is expected of them to reach where they ought to be. “When this doesn’t work,” Sunil says, “the leader brings in the concepts of emotional connect and loyalty as remedial measures, without bothering about the root of the problem.”
​
He is all for emotions in the organization, which is after all made of people. However, “it has to be such that it brings in passion, innovation, discussions and disagreements out in the open to get the best from the team. Blind loyalty and subservience with no regard for truth or original thinking cannot sustain an organization.”

Role of HR

Mehernosh Mehta (VP, HR, CG Power and Industrial Solutions) thinks emotional dependency at the workplace is very normal and common. While the entrepreneur who is unable to detach herself from the members of her old team even after she sold the company might be a rarity in current times, Mehernosh thinks it boils down to trust.

“For the juniors, the connection offers a sense of dependency and security,” Mehernosh observes. “Things can get very difficult at work, and one is always on the lookout for a benefactor or guide. It brings comfort and encourages loyalty. For the leaders, who are often lonely at the top, it helps to stay connected.”

It is a “healthy psychological transaction”, a give and take. But closeness can cut both ways. One can get way with the corporate version of blue murder, simply by being “close” to the boss.

Mehernosh points out, “HR cannot stop people from forming relationships. But those relationships should not turn into power centres that adversely affect the organisation. There is a difference between being aligned to the powerful and being loyal to the organisation at large. When the need arises, HR should stand up for the organisation and those who are for it, without being drawn into power tussles. We cannot have one coterie dispensing justice, taking decisions and bypassing other functions. Such unhealthy relationships must be discouraged.”

Once upon a time, it was common for a person to spend their entire working life with the same organization. Even their obituary would name the organization they used to work with. Today, things have changed drastically.
​
“While there are always exceptions,” Mehernosh says, “loyalty has become a misnomer.” In today’s startup culture, the owners are focused on recovering their investment. On the other hand, the employees are game to quickly jump to wherever the grass looks greener. 

Competency before emotion

Mohan Joshi (Strategic Advisor and Master Coach; ex-President, SCHOTT Glass India) believes “emotions do play a role but within limits.” Regardless of how long one has worked for an organisation, that work was rewarded.

“Today you are required to solve tomorrow’s problems. Owners are looking for those competent to navigate this period,” Mohan adds.
​
He believes, “Emotional bonds may have limited value; competencies matter more. And if you have moved on, prioritize your action plan, not past loyalties. Only competencies can guarantee survival.”

Human we remain

Human beings are emotional by default, though we may rationalize otherwise. Emotion is a good foundation to build trust on and that can become a solid structure of commitment.
​   
There will be departures of employees and changes in ownership. Both can bruise less if the transitions are planned well. As long as it does not lead to conflicts and confusion, the entrepreneur who sold her company is perhaps justified in guiding her old colleagues for their betterment.

No one can truly judge a new employer until you have been in there long enough. In the long run (which tends to be rather short these days), what truly matters is the kind of work you do and how your boss values your contribution.

Whether you are looking for a new job or a new enterprise what is important is to learn from the experience. You may remain true to your emotional nature but you must be dispassionate about assessing your own strength and goals.

Today when shallow engagement and quick likes matter more than deep connection and identification with an organization’s professed values, it does not matter whether the organization is called a family or not—as long as both employee and owners feel at home.

​Emotion has nothing to do with it. Or has it?