“Psychological safety” has been a popular phrase in management parlance of recent years. Psychological safety is the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. In teams, it refers to team members believing that they can take risks without being shamed by other team members. In psychologically safe teams, team members feel accepted and respected.
I think there's a third way, between either supining oneself to those in power or operating from a place of psychological safety/F-u. And that is engagement. Purpose-driven, engaged employess will operate from a place of commitment to do the best that they possibly can and always strive to do the right thing, regardless of power dynamics or feelings of safety. This is why companies have been so fixated on employee engagement for the last few decades and more recently, at least among some of the more enlightened ones, have been seeking ways to become more purpose driven.
My original article is very simplistic but I’m not sure I buy your 3rd category. Organisational execs claim in public that their businesses are purpose driven but seem mostly focused on profit (tax minimization, support for dictatorships, layoffs, terrible customer service). Employee engagement has been a focus because it is believed that engaged employees give more discretionary effort and are easier to manage. Very few organizations truly want employees who are committed to doing the best possible thing for the world. They want people who will do the best thing for their managers and the bottom line. But any employee’s primary loyalty should always be to themselves. Because no one else’s is. (Commitment to a community is another topic)
I think there's a third way, between either supining oneself to those in power or operating from a place of psychological safety/F-u. And that is engagement. Purpose-driven, engaged employess will operate from a place of commitment to do the best that they possibly can and always strive to do the right thing, regardless of power dynamics or feelings of safety. This is why companies have been so fixated on employee engagement for the last few decades and more recently, at least among some of the more enlightened ones, have been seeking ways to become more purpose driven.
My original article is very simplistic but I’m not sure I buy your 3rd category. Organisational execs claim in public that their businesses are purpose driven but seem mostly focused on profit (tax minimization, support for dictatorships, layoffs, terrible customer service). Employee engagement has been a focus because it is believed that engaged employees give more discretionary effort and are easier to manage. Very few organizations truly want employees who are committed to doing the best possible thing for the world. They want people who will do the best thing for their managers and the bottom line. But any employee’s primary loyalty should always be to themselves. Because no one else’s is. (Commitment to a community is another topic)