I’ve seen this at so many companies now, I’ve just got to say the quiet part out loud.
Are we simply expecting directors to be overworked?
I understand that as one moves up their career ladder they are compensated more because they add greater value. The total of their experiences and skills make them able to take on greater responsibility. Their decisions carry greater impact. You, as a director, will be routinely answering questions and solving problems of greater importance.
I get it.
But what I’m failing to understand is why, if such a person is regularly addressing such weighty issues, does their company just assume that they should de rigueur be trending towards burnout?
“Now that you’re a director, you will of course be working more hours and will be more responsive to after hours communication. All the time.”
So you want someone who’s constantly doing more important things to be impaired by stress and lack of downtime to care for their mental and physical health? Or is there an implicit assumption that promotion to this level is tied to some kind of weeding out process that naturally selects only those who defy human physiology?
“You wouldn’t have made it to Director if you weren’t capable of maintaining 100% mental acuity in the face of debilitating stress.” Is that really what we think is happening?
By definition, normal is just what most companies do. That’s what bell curves tell us. So is this corporate behavior normal? Empirically, yes. Does normal automatically make it healthy or wise or devoid of long term negative impact?
No.
As a team member, I don’t think we’re selling these roles well. “You should stay at the company long enough to be promoted to a role that accelerates your path to burnout,” is, I think, not the pinnacle of marketing.
And why would we want that as a company? Why would we recognize a team member has tremendous value to offer and then specifically put them in a position designed to impair their mental faculties? If someone is so valuable, wouldn’t you work even harder to protect their well-being? Or do we only trot out the “we value your work/life balance” line for folks who are earlier in their career?
I’m trying not to be cynical here. I just don’t see the counter argument. If you have one, please share it with me. I’ll do my best to be open minded.
image courtesy of Park Dasol via unsplash