Resentment in the Workplace

It is not a matter of caring too little

We are coming up on the 25th anniversary of the cult classic movie, Office Space. Who among us has not had a “Peter Gibbons” day where we wanted to tell our work nemesis (insert your own image of a swarmy, braces-wearing Bill Lumbergh-type supervisor) where to shove his T.P.S. reports? Spend enough time working for an organization, and one is bound to encounter poor leadership, warped vision statements and high-priced know-nothing pseudo-consultants. The best thing to do about such encounters is to observe their behavior and endeavor to act in an opposition fashion when called to leadership. But this is the healthy approach, and it is nearly impossible to preform if an unhealthy interaction with one of the above invokes resentment.

In the movie Office Space, Peter explains his motivation to the Bobs, "it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care." It is precisely Peter's lack of caring that frees him of his resentment. Caring got him into a mess in the first place. Now I am sure he didn't care about Lumbergh, or Initech's corporate mission, but he did care about something. He cared about his resume, his paycheck, his friendship and his future.

My experience has taught me that every time I run into a challenge with leadership that foments resentment, it has never come from a place where I cared too little. Quite the opposite, it has always been because I cared too much. And like with all relationships, not having one's caring reciprocated causes resentment. For if one truly doesn't give a f*** about their boss, the company, or its mission, it is hard to resent their external behaviors. A point Peter proved in the movie.

Resentments, whether work-related or personal, place us on a rocky ledge. Stray too far off the resolution path and resentment will blow up into the two logical "R's" that follow, retaliation and then regret. I for one have been there. I let a resentments percolate until I lashed out at supervisors. Once, early in my career, I Johnny Paycheck'ed  <Audio Reference Here> myself out of a good job because of an unchecked unhealthy resentment. The few times in my career when resentment got the best of me, two things inevitably followed. First, my manager was completely clueless about my resentment and my retaliatory response appeared to him to have come completely out of left field. (BTW, that reaction only exacerbated my resentment) Secondly, I regretted my harsh retaliation. More times than not, in both my personal and professional life, retaliations out of pent-up resentments became a land of no return. Either because of the damage I inflicted upon a relationship with my unchecked tongue, or my ego simply would not allow contrition.

I fear that too many modern organizations are still Hierarchical cultures that feed into distrust. They follow a yes sir, no sir military style of command whereby the job is strictly task oriented and managed for the benefit of the organization. But in studying organizations that are doing great things, a different structure emerged. Setting up open avenues of dialog, going beyond the mere task of running an operation to managing the whole of the organization which includes customers, vendors, employees, and the mission. However, one must be careful when looking at “new age” management structures for adoption.

The true motivation behind the organization adopting such “new” management structure must be scrutinized. From the top down, BlackRock, Vanguard and Fidelity manage funds along with the world's biggest banks are pushing ESG upon businesses they invest with. This is forcing companies to adapt their internal missions to meet nebulous ESG rating systems. One can imagine an entirely new industry of “Bobs” coming into institutions to help them align their cultures with Larry Fink’s that brand of communism. Those efforts will be as genuine as an alcoholic promising he will quit drinking tomorrow. But there are sincere attempts at creating better corporate cultures. Instead of looking to LinkedIn to discover the assistance required to change a corporate culture, I'm looking a little farther back, mid 300s BC back. I believe Aristotle will be of assistance in my quest.

Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, discussed the three levels of friendship. In studying his insights on friendships, I believe we can establish the backbone for creating purposeful business environments.

Aristotle identified three types of friendships in his philosophical work intended to be a moral guide for his son, Nicomachus. These types are based on the motives and characteristics underlying each friendship. Here are Aristotle's three types of friendships:

1.     Friendships of Utility: This type of friendship is based on mutual benefit or usefulness. People in friendships of utility come together because they find something beneficial or advantageous in their association. For example, business partners or colleagues who collaborate for professional gains might have friendships of utility. These friendships tend to be more superficial and are primarily focused on the benefits derived from the relationship.

2.     Friendships of Pleasure: Friendships of pleasure are formed based on shared enjoyment, interests, or activities. People in this type of friendship derive pleasure and satisfaction from spending time together or engaging in shared hobbies, sports, or entertainment. These friendships are often seen among friends who participate in recreational activities, clubs, or social gatherings together. While they can be enjoyable, they may lack deeper emotional connection and may not endure if the shared pleasure fades.

3.     Friendships of Virtue: Aristotle considered friendships of virtue as the highest form of friendship. These friendships are based on mutual admiration, respect, and shared values. People in friendships of virtue appreciate each other's character and virtues. They recognize the goodness and moral qualities in one another and support each other's growth and well-being. These friendships are characterized by trust, loyalty, and a deep sense of companionship. Aristotle believed that friendships of virtue are long-lasting and contribute to personal and moral development.

According to Aristotle, friendships of virtue are considered the most fulfilling and valuable because they involve the genuine appreciation of another person's chara

cter and contribute to the overall flourishing of both individuals involved.

Let's apply Aristotle’s notions of friendship to the workplace. At a minimum, all employees of a company must maintain friendships of utility as every employee has a role to play that mutually benefits their coworkers. This is when I get a little nervous about companies “hiring for culture.” If they're not hiring for a culture that mutually respects the individuals in the company and whereby all employees are mutually benefited, what kind of culture is it?

In the restaurant business, that's an important question to ask. When we are hiring A new sous chef and we asked the question about whether or not they'll fit the culture, are we asking if the candidate has the capacity to learn our systems and respect coworkers, or are we inquiring as to whether or not he can deal with our “Gordon Ramsay - type” prima donna executive chef? Usually when I hear HR talk about hiring for culture, I assume the business has a toxic culture environment. One of the worst things a company can do is to tolerate toxic employees. No matter what kind of rainmaker he or she may be, toxic people never outperform they're their toxicity.

Next, successful businesses must foster friendships of pleasure. Most certainly, this pertains to the relationship between a business and its customers. In the marketing world, we call this loyalty, and if it is genuine, it can have a lasting effect. People love their Apple products and both company and customer benefit from that mutual adoration. Friendships of pleasure require a certain amount of trust that the value that each brings to the relationship be mutually beneficial. Recent events at both Anheuser-Busch and Target have shown what happens when a change in company mission severs trust in shared values.

Friendships of pleasure go beyond the company - customer relationships. These types of friendships must also be maintained between companies and vendors, companies and financial institutions, as well as companies and the communities they serve. For all parties that the organization interacts with must derive mutual benefit. In my world, this is the beauty of pure capitalism. For if there is no mutual benefit, the laws of nature naturally diminish the negative party out of existance. This is why I criticize the political levers of control that emanate from governments and gigantic financial institutions that are pushing ESG standards. Because in those relationships, there is no mutual benefit in the relationship, it is merely a boot on throat arrangement, one that historically precedes the barrel of a gun.

Finally, we have friendships of virtue. For a business, this is the most challenging friendship to develop and maintain. Most leaders die on the hill of friendships of virtue. I believe the greatest misconception about leadership in business is that leaders direct the mission. To be an effective leader, one must develop the type of loyalty and trust in their coworker whereby they truly wish their well-being equally with their own. The mission naturally flows out of shared company values.

History gives us great insight into leaders that fostered this type of respect. Julius Caesars’ legions loved him and followed him quite literally to the ends of the earth. It is reported that Napoleon often said, “one bad general is worth two good ones and one good general is worth 40,000 men.” And, in our modern era, General George Patton develop the mutual adoration among his 3rd Army that when called upon to relieve embattled allied troops at Bastogne during the battle of the bulge in December of 1944, his men March through the wintry night to provide relief.

Now let's bring this back full circle to resentments. As I stated earlier, resentments do not come from an area of mutual disinterest. Quite the opposite, resentments brew from a breakdown in mutual trust. Trust is a two-way street between supervisor and employee. If an employee shirks their duties, constantly shows up late and puts in the performance of someone in “quiet quitting” mode, it is sure to create a resentment directed from his or her manager. Conversely, when a manager oversteps boundaries or worse yet, does not respect and acknowledge Individual employee’s efforts, resentment most certainly is directed towards the manager. 

Corporate board rooms are grappling with how to create better cultures. Be wary of their motivations. If an organization does not first incorporate Aristotle’s three kinds of friendship into their culture, it is not developing a purpose-driven model but merely adopting “new-age” jingoism to conceal age-old “cream raises to the top and shit rolls downhill” business mentality. It is either that, or the board is trying to align their mission with crazy ESG standards. The latter are much easier to spot as they make incomprehensible business decisions that violate all three of Aristotle’s friendship types. The recent inexplicable moves by Anheuser-Busch and Target violated trust and fomented resentment among employees, customers, vendors, and the communities they serve. The only parties lifting a glass to Anheuser-Busch and Target are the Lord Nefarious spawned demons at the top of ESG enforcing financial institutions. They are reaping the rewards for being “good and faithful servants” to he, whom all those with unresolved resentments are most graciously welcomed into his realm.