Deciding What to Do When Your Workplace Convictions are Tested
Identifying one's "red line" and what can be pushed back on and what is dangerous
There are experiences in workplace environments that test a person’s values.
One professional eventually came to the conclusion that she needed to ask herself two questions, ones that may feel familiar to many people.
“What is my personal red line? How much can I push back before I pay the price?’”
At the root of it are dissent, power, fear of consequences and moral courage.
Cecilia Vega, a now-former correspondent at “60 Minutes” expressed her thoughts above and said that she wasn’t the only one in the organization who struggled with it.
This feature, however, is not about government, politics or journalism. It is a general examination of the people in the workplace facing doubts and what they experience as ethical, professional and personal dilemmas.
Clearly defining a dividing line of what is acceptable and what is not and holding oneself accountable to that difference, can be challenging.
People “become conscious of a personal red line as the group's agreement with assumptions, goals and actions that they do not share, diverges to the point where they foresee negative consequences,” says Michael Taylor, co-founder and the CEO at SchellingPoint, an applied research company for group decision-making (GDM).
“When that occurs, they assess how strongly they are committed to the red line and how safe they believe it will be to express their concern to the people involved.”
He adds that not all perceived lines in the sand stand up to the pressure and stress.
“Some theoretical, hypothetical red lines fade away when challenged,” Taylor adds. “Others stand firm. When it’s the latter, their action depends upon personal safety:
“Can they predict a positive outcome?
“Or will defending their red line cause them or others harm?”
Accurately calculating and managing the associated risks with having a red line and the potential costs of pushing back may be a simple or complex task.
“The 'speak up or stay silent' cost-benefit analysis occurs instinctively,” Taylor says.
“Some compute the immediate, tangible pros and cons. Others compute the pros and cons out to and over the horizon, the tangible and the intangible.”
It becomes a risk management evaluation and decision.
“The point is that it is a cost-benefit calculation, the total cost of speaking up and defending the red line is compared with the projected total cost of the value that can be captured or damage avoided,” Taylor explains.
“There are many alternatives to speaking with stakeholders and when we explore these options and their consequences, we’re able to push back on our red line in many ways, even when investigating a surprising change around us that is more costly than we first expected, says Cornelia Choe, a leadership expert, keynote speaker and the founder and CEO at The Leaders Alliance.
She elaborates:
“Panoramic leaders examine a wider landscape of alternatives: ‘Could I discuss the issue with peers, other related people or intermediaries first?’ ‘Could we communicate the concern together?’ ‘Could we reframe the message in a way that is easier to hear?’ ‘Could we gather more information before acting,’” Choe explains.
“In the case that we truly can’t speak with stakeholders, we can speak with people who are familiar with them or in some cases, read about them.”
Identifying the balancing point between a person’s values, red line, the push back point and desired self preservation, may seem like a mathematical equation.
“Many people see only two options: speaking up or staying silent,” Choe says. “Unless our safety or the safety of other employees are at risk, we have a much wider margin to ‘push back’ on surprising changes in our lives that trigger our red lines.”
“We have many more options than we may originally believe,” she reiterates.
“In addition, we can use something I call ‘optimistic fear’ and extend our balancing point much further.”
She explains it.
“Optimistic fear is recognizing the risk present, yet allowing ourselves to push back our fear of the unknown and get closer to learn more, giving us a clearer picture — and very often, helping us see many more options available to us.
“This helps leaders push their balancing points out to reach solutions.”
It’s helpful to notice frequency of personal breaches, Taylor suggests.
“One indicator of how much our red lines are crossed and remain crossed is the amount of post-event private discussion, complaining, where a person discusses with safe contacts, what they wish they could have said or done,” he says.
“If that is regular, they may be part of the wrong community or lack the tools to defend their red lines.”
Frustration or anger may, at times, reveal more than dissatisfaction in response to a colleague or leadership decision. It could signal an uneasy, increasing gap between one’s values and the environment in which a person operates.
Is that one issue or a incompatible misalignment that has a short shelf life?
Subscribe for free (or paid)
Communication Intelligence is a newsletter of interviews, analysis, insights and recommendations, as well contributor’s Insights & Advisory.
This next week, the newsletter will debut both the Intelligence Brief and the CI Column, as new features, for paid subscribers.
In addition to the newsletter, Communication Intelligence is offering something I hope will be practical and valuable: Executive Editorial Services.
These items are to help communicate in a more personalized, bold, effective manner. The deliverables are from a human with professional judgment and nuance, not AI.
You can learn more at this link within the newsletter.
