‘Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm, but the harm [that they cause] does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.' T.S. Eliot.

The harm that Eliot writes come from his 1949 dark satirical play, The Cocktail Party, that examines the psychological impact of one person on another.

Some 68 years later the impact of human relations is highly pertinent to not just personal life today but more significantly to our workplaces where:

• 9 out of 10 of those who work for someone else describe themselves as ‘stressed to some extent’[1];

• 2 in 5 employees say they have taken time off work or reduced their responsibilities due to their health;

• 1 in 3 UK workers currently have a health, wellbeing, or mental health issue[2];

• Nationally on average some 23.5 days of productive time being lost per employee per year[3].

Many organisations’ response is to set up ‘wellbeing initiatives’ such as resilience training, mindfulness, and nutrition programmes etc., but here they are hopeful of curing the problem whilst failing to understand the cause.

Scott Taylor, associate Professor from Babson College, reported in the McKinsey Quarterly article on ‘Wellness at Work: The Promise and the Pitfalls’ points his finger directly at the causation in saying that emerging research shows that: ‘up to 75% of people say that the most stressful part of their job is their immediate supervisor.’[4]

Taylor goes on to say that: ‘I don’t know any managers who wake up and say, I want to make life miserable for my people. Even so, we treat people at work in ways that we’d never treat our family and friends.’

Leadership, or more significantly a failure of it, is the wellbeing issue.

Eliot is prescient for he highlights the modern human need to 'feel important' and 'think well of themselves' - key characteristics of the ‘Busyness Bubbles’ in which too many leaders and employees live their lives today (see September, 2017, blog). These people appear 'busy' but actually do not personally achieve much having unconsciously fallen into a trap where they are essentially meeting the ever changing needs and whims of others whilst losing control of their life by not maintaining healthy personal psychological boundaries.

A psychological boundary is a guideline, set of rules, or limits that a person creates that comprise of a mixture of beliefs, attitudes, social learning, and past experience. The American psychologist, Nina Brown, proposes four boundary types.[5]

A person with a ‘soft’ boundary easily merges with another person’s boundary and will effortlessly be influenced by them, unconsciously absorbing beliefs, rules etc., of another person and/or those of the organisational culture – ‘the ways of doing things’ - for whom they work. These people easily comply.

An individual with a ‘spongy’ boundary is similar to one with a ‘soft’ boundary in that they will unconsciously merge with much of another’s boundaries, as well as organisational cultural aspects. However, they will have brief moments when they are unsure of what they have ‘let in’ but 'busyness' unfortunately prevents them stepping back and doing anything about it.

These first two boundary types are characterised by at best moderate levels of self-belief, esteem, self-control, direction, discipline, and resilience primarily through an average level of self-awareness. These people feel busy and important, an illusion for which they will one day pay a price as they have been 'harmed'.

They will also unconsciously cause harm on others through the ‘Busyness Bubbles’ in which they now live in and model. This may not interest them as they are unconsciously too concerned with being important and wanted - and who does not want to be both of these?

Most people do not intentionally want to fall into the 'busyness' trap but it just happens. They will continue to feel well of themselves until the 'bubble bursts' and become one of the numbers in the statistics. They need help to change and put in place sound boundaries to improve their wellbeing and in turn, that of others. That help should come from their leader/s at work but it doesn't otherwise we would not have the problem we have today.

The third type, those with a ‘rigid’ boundary are closed or ‘walled off’ that few if any can get close to physically or psychologically. Most with this boundary type are different for they live in a ‘bubble’ of their own making, for this is about supporting their need for self- importance and control. Crucially these people lack an understanding of other’s feelings. They cause harm through their personality often at the serious end of the spectrum; are unlikely to change, should not be leaders, and make difficult employees.

The fourth type is comprised of people with ‘flexible’ boundaries. These are individuals who possess good self-awareness and healthy self-esteem supported by high self-belief, self-control, self-discipline, direction, expectancy, and resilience. These people decide what or not to ‘let in’ and do not allow themselves to be exploited. They manage their life, not others, knowing when to say ‘no’ to what they will and will not accept. These people make ideal leaders and employees, causing no harm but more importantly they model healthy living.

If organisations are to do less harm to their people and improve employee wellbeing it will be through developing and practicing ‘good’ leadership at ever level: leaders who are highly self-aware with the self-knowledge required to develop their personal capabilities (see blog ‘Know Thyself’, June 2017).

The ‘Beliefs and Attitudes Mindset Questionnaire’ has been created to help people understand and develop themselves through feedback on the key eight dimensions of self-awareness; self-belief; self-esteem; self-control; self-direction; self-expectancy; self-disciple; and self-resilience.

'Being busy does not always mean real work… Seeming to do is not doing.' Thomas Edison, founder of the General Electric Company.

[1] AXA Health 2017 ’Stress Index Survey’, July 2017

[2] PwC research conducted across 2,000 workers nationally representative of UK workers in February 2017

[3] HR Today, April 2016.

[4] Scott Taylor reported in McKinsey Quarterly, October 2017, that reports on the Consortium for Advancing Adult Learning & Development 2017 Annual Conference.

[5] Brown, Nina W., (2006). ‘Coping with Infuriating, Mean, Critical People – The Destructive Narcissistic Pattern’, Praeger Publishers: Santa Barbara, CA.