If 50% of the workforce is stressed out, it would not be an unfair question to ask each person what they mean by stress. It’s one of those words like ‘depression’ or ‘boredom’. People use it to mean different things.

In ‘How to Lose Friends and Infuriate Your Boss’, the first chapter touches on the topic of stress, wherein I say:

KILLER DISEASES

Collectively, we entered the twenty-first century carrying a doctor’s certificate. It said, ‘Suffering from stress. Light duties prescribed.’ What does it mean to be ‘stressed out’? What causes us to feel pressured, overworked, and underpaid? Every ten years or so, we learn about a new wave of occupational hazards. Most recently, public liability has become so expensive that community events have had to be cancelled and small businesses have had to be closed. Exorbitant insurance premiums have been fuelled by our litigious society, whose members no longer take responsibility for their own actions — even when walking across a field. Back in the 1990s, employers discovered how costly it could be to handle grievances and ‘emotional damage’ in relation to sexual harassment and unfair dismissal. In the 1980s, employers refused to believe that ‘repetitive strain injury’ was a serious ailment; not until the courts awarded astronomical payouts to victims of soft-tissue injury. All of a sudden, ‘ergonomics’ entered the vernacular. In the 1970s, employers and insurers were learning about back-pain and whiplash. For private investigators, business boomed as they spied on unethical workers for whom ‘compensation’ was another word for ‘get-rich-quick’. Lawyers convinced victims to try their luck, promising ‘no win, no fees’. Despite employers’ best efforts to appease unions, to placate environmentalists, and to satisfy insurance companies, it seems that our places of work are more dangerous than ever. Stress is the new killer that affects workers’ mental and physical health. It destroys both productivity and profitability.

Is it conceivable that, despite earnest attempts to improve occupational health and safety, we have entered an era in which the greatest threat to our workforce is an ill-defined intangible disease that emanates from work itself? Could it be that workers are more inclined to suffer from stress because they are uncertain about their future and because they are not passionate about their work?

Although we can point to many factors that fuel stress, we must find out what triggers it. In my search to understand the essence of stress, I have come to disagree with popular medical definitions. I define occupational stress as a condition resulting from our inability to reconcile our capability with our authority. This means that stress is ignited when we can see a solution to a major problem, and we know that we are capable of fixing that problem, but we have no authority to do so. We are shackled by bureaucracy.

Stress leads to frustration, which in turn leads to a debilitating disease called ‘depression’. I define depression as a condition resulting from our inability to reconcile our inadequacy with our responsibility. This means that depression consumes us when we realise that we are unable to do anything about our own problems. As a result, we believe that our problems will never go away.

STRESS TEST

I have devised a stress test called the ‘elasticity of command’. It enables me to determine an individual’s propensity to suffer from occupational stress. I draw on the analogy of giving employees a piece of elastic to measure the distance between them and the nearest colleague who can obstruct a project unnecessarily. Employees are then asked to compare that by measuring the distance between them and their commander (the boss) — whose responsibility it would be to facilitate a smooth transition for the project.

If the boss is reachable and responsive, the stress level is said to be minimal. If the boss is unreachable and unresponsive, the stress level is said to be extreme. Stress becomes ‘frustration’ when those who can obstruct us are more powerful than our boss. In industries where everything is processed in real-time, we must be given the tools to make decisions in real-time. Using ‘elasticity of command’, we can see that the person who is ultimately responsible for work-related stress is none other than the boss (whether it be our own boss, or someone further up the ladder). Bosses, too, can suffer from stress if their superiors are unreachable and unresponsive.

It would be convenient to blame ‘globalisation’ or ‘politics’ or a myriad of external factors for today’s stressful work environments. Ultimately, it all boils down to the boss. If you are the boss, or aspire to become the boss, it is important to equip yourself with the skills that will be demanded of you in the future. Otherwise, you could perpetuate this problem into the next decade.

Once upon a time, I required a marketing communications manager. I advertised the position and received eighty expressions of interest. I had specifically asked applicants not to send their resume to me. Instead, I sent a package to each respondent. The packaged outlined everything I could share with them. I tried to sell them on the job, before they had to sell me on their skills. In the package were instructions on how to apply. Essentially, I said that I do not want a traditional resume. I preferred something creative. I wanted candidates to think creatively. Of the eighty who expressed interest, only eight or fewer responded as per my instructions. That sorted the serious folk from the time-wasters.

I often warn head-hunters and candidates not to mention anything in the resume that is not real. For example, if someone says that they enjoy golf or theatre etc, I would expect that they would be completely immersed in golf or theatre. I would not take kindly to someone just writing about general hobbies that are nothing more than a passing fancy.

When the candidate comes for an interview, I would have someone watch how well they can park. How often must they move the car backwards and forwards to position the vehicle correctly? If they cannot park a car, and they have been driving for years, it would say a lot about their state of mind and their tolerance for imperfection. What are they doing about personal development?

It is not unusual for me to ask other members of staff, or trusted friends, to meet with my candidates, at odd times, in strange places. I have invited candidates to bowling alleys and amusement arcades, along with some of their prospective work-mates. How people interact outside the formal meeting room, can be revealing. How they eat, how they play, how they conduct themselves when they are off guard and off duty, will reveal more to me than whether or not someone has a degree from Harvard.

Suppose that you spied on your candidate (via legal means only) and you found the following, how would that colour your opinion about a person? To me, I take a person’s conduct seriously. If someone cannot park properly, it says to me that they do not care to improve. If they litter when no-one is looking, I wonder what else they would do around the office when no-one is watching. Here are some photos that can make you think twice about candidates. I am not even touching on their social networking sites, which can be more than enlightening.

Here is a candidate who parks the car very close to the kerb. Not a big deal. But not wise. He then hits the car in front. Perhaps he was in a tight spot. Not so. The third photo shows the distance at the rear. A sign of sloppy thinking. By all means, people can do what they like, but when they are custodians of your brand, you have to wonder how sloppy they might be with your assets.

If a candidate has no respect for the law of the land, and speaks on a mobile phone while driving, how costly would it be for the company if the executive loses his licence and can no longer drive. Or if the exective has an accident as a result of mobile phone distractions, and ends up on the front page of a newspaper?

I often warn staff about drinking within a work environment. Here is a young woman on the ground. How could she expect a promotion after this incident? In her new post, she would be expected to travel the world and entertain clients. What kind of a liability and an embarrassment would she be?

What kind of risk could a person be if they have a gambling problem? Today I heard on the news that a man tried to sue Crown Casino because he gambled away $1000 million (one billion) dollars. He expected the casino to have stopped him. I guess an employer might also be expected to stop a candidate, but everyone says that we should mind our own business. Then they want to sue when they reach the end of the line. I wonder if the gambler would have sued if he had won $3 billion. Would he have complained about that outcome? Unethical, undisciplined drip sticks.

This candidate was young, fit, and healthy. He belonged to an up-market gym. All sounds sporting. Except for his manner in the change rooms. He gets on the mobile phone and has no regard for people around him. He is a loud foul-mouth, cursing and laughing. He spits in the shower. He does not pick up his towels. Keeps the locker doors open. He opens a bag of shopping and rips off the tags from his new clothes, and litters the floor with them, when the exclusive club is otherwise clean, and the rubbish bin is within arms length. What a spoilt brat. No thanks. Can't work with that kind of attitude.

Here is an excerpt from one of the chapters in my book, ‘How to Lose Friends and Infuriate Your Boss’ wherein I speak about integrity:

‘You speak volumes by what you do not say. You expose your integrity by what you refuse to accept. You highlight your conviction by what you refuse to believe. Astute people will determine your fibre by observing what you deem insignificant. They will construe your essence by what you overlook. They will interpret your actions by what you neglect. They will assess your grandeur by how low you stoop. They will examine your honour by what you hide. Shrewd people will scrutinise your nature by giving you whatever you ask for. They will examine your morality by tantalising your pleasures. They will probe your ethics by sponsoring your indulgences. They will unveil your principles by extending your authority. They will know your limits by replenishing your power so that you will be able to reach your destination. Leaders do not mind clumsy people, but they worry about polished yobs. They do not mind the uneducated, but they loathe the ignorant. They can see value in a rough diamond, but not in fool’s gold. The tiniest detail exposes impostors. Vulgarity seizes glamour. Rudeness usurps style. Indiscretion smothers elegance. Insensitivity extinguishes romance. Selfishness destroys love.’

Born in England in 1774, Flinders joined the navy when he was fifteen years old. At seventeen, he sailed with Captain Bligh.

By about his 25th birthday, Flinders sailed to Australia. With him was George Bass. Together, they sailed around Tasmania, just to make sure that it was an island. Flinders named that passage ‘Bass Strait’. Another island was named Flinders Island. In fact, Flinders went about naming lots of places which today roll off our tongue, with no reverence to the steep history.

Starting at the age of twenty-seven, from his ship ‘Investigator’, Flinders went about fulfilling his brief to survey Australia’s coastline. Thanks to him, we have place-names such as Kangaroo Island, and Port Lincoln which was named after his home-town of Lincolnshire. Flinders had many men under his command. He had a good reputation, despite several of his comrades dying for one reason or another.

He passed away aged forty, poor fellow. With such a rich life, and many adventures and achievements, why did the sculptor depict Flinders on a ship, in full uniform, while his servant sailors toil below?

What baffles me about this sculpture is why he stands aloof, with management report in hand, while one man PUSHES and one man PULLS. Is he neglecting his subordinates? Can he assume that they have misunderstood his instructions? How frustrating it must be for these poor sailors who are trying their best, to no avail. If tugging in opposing directions, we can assume that the ship would not be moving. So much for the notion of ‘all pushing in the same direction’. Imagine the dozens of clichés that this sculpture conjures about management and leadership, including, ‘The left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing’, or ‘All shoulders to the wheel’, or ‘Leading from the front’.

Could it be that this manoeuvre is well known in nautical circles? If so, would someone enlighten us, please. It just struck me that this statue symbolises management in this day and age. Not to cast doubt about Captain Flinders’ capabilities, I see this statue as an interesting observation about the captains of modern industry who think that they can steer their ship towards profit and prosperity, while staff and customers are battling with (and amongst) each other, not knowing which way to go. Older text books referred to the Titanic as a metaphor, warning about hidden icebergs under the surface. In the good old days, management reflected a polished, even glittery, front, while daemons were out of sight and scrutiny, lurking beneath the surface. Yet, this statue is more like the current disease of mismanagement, where nothing is hidden. It is plain and bleeding obvious. Everyone can see the disharmony and they disarray. Notwithstanding, the CEO stands proud, ambivalent and unaware of the trauma underfoot.

These days, management consultants are those whose unpleasant duty it is to point out the jolly obvious to proud people who just cannot see the evident. I can imagine a meeting wherein a CEO in this predicament will stand, chest expanded, in the likeness of dear Matthew Flinders, denying all problems and difficulties. The consultant (I am imagining myself in this picture, having been in these situations all too often) says, ‘Just come down from your high horse for a second and take a look. The problems are obvious, and the solution is simple.’ To which the CEO will respond, ‘From where I’m standing, I think you are imagining things. If you feel strongly about it, write a report.’