Say the word hazing and we immediately think of college fraternities and high school locker rooms. The idea that if you want to be “one of us” there is a price of admission – sometimes embarrassing, sometimes requiring great sacrifices, sometimes acts of daring, and sometimes outright danger or death.
It’s not called hazing at work. It’s called things like, “just the way we do things here,” or “our culture,” or “orientation”. None the less, many organizations have strange (and less than helpful) rituals designed to test new members before they become a part of the group.
These grueling initiation processes often are detrimental. Not only to the person experiencing them, but to customers, peers and the organization itself. Medical school is a prime example. Status quo in med school rotations require 30 hour shifts and 80 hour work weeks. This is in spite of conclusive proof that sleep deprivation diminishes judgment and performance dramatically. And so this form of workplace hazing puts professionals with the least amount of experience and knowledge AND with diminished capacity for clear thinking in positions that can literally have life and death consequences. All this in a field that has studied and knows the effect of sleep deprivation on judgment, mental functioning and physical health.
And it’s not just medical school. Here are a few instances I’ve seen:
- A mid-sized consumer goods company who was desperately in need of fresh thinking and quick action. Their product was besieged by a fast new start-up and the red ink was both alarming and unsustainable. A long line of new leaders at multiple levels in the organization were brought in – selected for fresh thinking, fast action and the ability to get results, the very traits so needed. And one by one, these folks were ostracized and marginalized. And soon they would leave – discouraged at their inability to be accepted and/or make a positive difference. The herd was being “thinned,” even though those being thinned were those most needed.
- A professional firm that developed leadership talent via a series of two year rotations with sporadic and minimal transition planning. You either sank or swam – and that determined your ability to survive and to advance. It may indeed find the most resourceful folks – but begs the question of what might be the outcome of focusing that resourcefulness on a NEW problem or opportunity – rather than spending six to eight months desperately trying to determine what needed done in this job – that those who had gone before had already ascertained?
- A manufacturing company who had an informal, but widely-used, selection criteria of walking fast during the job interview tour. The belief was that walking pace was a strong indicator of things like drive, speed and stamina. Never mind that most jobs were stationary. Never mind that there are some folks like me who go slower in new situations to absorb what is happening. None the less – only the fast walkers survived.
I’d suggest as new members are being vetted for fit into our groups, that we take a few moments and ask what really matters. If I’m a Marine, it is in everyone’s best interest to ensure that those joining are up to exceptionally demanding physical challenges. If I’m in aviation, I want to know that pilots practice handing emergency situations. If we need resourcefulness, are we providing newcomers with challenges that allow this to be tested on something that matters? If we need stamina, are we measuring that in indirect ways that don’t jeopardize customer outcomes? If we need new thinking, can we recognize that receiving those new ideas falls to us?
So I’m curious… have you seen (or does your group) test new members in some way? If so, did it test something that mattered? Or is it just a form of workplace hazing?
