It is a challenging time for many. The last several years have brought us a pandemic, hurricanes, wildfires, and more. There is a general sense of angst I experience periodically among those with whom I converse. The invasion of Ukraine has been a topic so often, and it is difficult to fathom that we now approach a two-year anniversary of that fateful February 2022 date. There is a consensus that our present is challenging, hurtful, and anxiety-ridden.
In a different age, Billy Joel recorded We Didn't Start the Fire (Columbia 1989). See, it is easy today to think that the world is in a general state of higgledy-piggledy. People are no doubt anxious, confused, and even angry. There is some tendency to long for the "good old days." Well, folks, let's face it the world has been challenging for as long as I can remember. And based on what the old folks told me when I was young, it was challenging long before that.
Was there really a time when people lived in iron lungs? Was there a miracle vaccine that people lined up to obtain? Was there a fateful war in Vietnam? Were there entertainment figures dying senselessly from drug use? Was there a nuclear threat from the Soviet Union? Were there debates over books? Was communism a threat to freedom? Were there various powers exerting influence outside their own borders? The fact is, the world has not always been at peace. That 1989 recording notes all of the above, and also references "Lebanon."
There are those who hear nothing in Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire except confusion and disconnection. But others hear a litany of challenges and reminders.
We live today in a world of conflict. That is not new. We live in a world of challenges. That is not new. We live in a world of misconception and confusion. That is not new. We live in a day when trust in the media is at record low. A poll recently concluded:
"Only 7% of adults have a ‘great deal’ of trust in news media, a new Gallup poll found. 38% say they have none at all."
Was the media ever trustworthy? Or were us old folks simply too naive to notice indiscretions and inaccuracies? Are today's critics smarter than we were back in the day, or are they just armed with the benefit and miracle of social media and near-instantaneous communication? Were the "good old days" really "all that good?" Billy Joel, Keeping the Faith, Columbia, 1984).
Amazingly, in a world of creativity and "new," a band called Fall Out Boy did a remake of We Didn't Start the Fire (Elektra 2023). It is a reboot, an update, a recitation of "newsworthy items from 1989-2023," according to the band and as reported in the LA Times. Some will view it as flattery. Some will demonize its unoriginality. There will be fans and haters.
Well, you may be able to settle into each successive "new normal." You may or may not be "Instagram Famous." Neither of my followers thinks I am (thanks Mom!). That there are successive "new normals" seemingly daily is not a recent development. We have all had to face a myriad of challenges in our world. They can tear at us, intellectually, emotionally, and viscerally.
I wrote last summer about the impact of social media and our differences. See The Buck Stops (July 2023). I got some angst in response to that one. One critic assured me that after multiple trips through that post the reader was reassured that the message was of accountability. The unwritten criticism was more to point that I did not take a stand of some kind on the emotional topics in the beer dispute discussed. Over the years, I have learned that usually people who think I should take a stand on difficult or controversial issues only think I should so long as I agree with their views.
Let that one sink in. Is that true in your audience, circle, or similar?
By the long route (I know, that just the way I write), I reach today's topic, the Middle East. It may be that whatever words I might use would inflame or disgust someone. See, there is angst about "that" we do or do not say something. Similarly, there is likely to be criticism of "what" we might say. This is dissected down to word choice, timing, and even the perceived enthusiasm of the message.
The Associated Press reports this week that there is fallout regarding the when and what of people's reactions to the Middle East. Companies are vocal or not. Their expressions were prompt or not. Their thoughts and sentiments were clear or not. The examples listed are interesting. I have followed the many news stories in recent days, and this AP story is a reasonably thorough catalog. The piece is well worth the read. But be prepared to find something in it you will not like. And be prepared to disagree with my assessment that it is worth reading, that it is a news story, or anything else you read here, hoped to read here, inferred, etc. etc.
Think about that one for a minute. You are not entitled to find agreement and harmony with your own thoughts in all that you read.
A couple of thoughts from the AP bear amplification. Some are "fearful of the possible consequences" of sharing their feelings about the Middle East. They are perceiving that they "risk" careers and more by speaking out. Newsflash, that is always true. That has always been true. That can often be regarding import and at times even of minutia. I knew a fellow once who lost a job for wearing the wrong football jersey on the Friday before a particular game. You decide if that is important or minutia. (Hint, it likely depends on you).
Consider that it is a choice. To speak or not to speak is choice. To hold a sign, add a bumper sticker, or write a social media post is choice. And to decline is also a choice - Freewill (Rush, 1980).
Recognize that around the world, the country, the community, people are making that choice. And that is impacting the workplace and people's relationships with it. This blog is about workers' compensation and thus the workplace. The AP story supports that the Middle East is impacting the workplace. The thoughts expressed by individuals is impacting hiring, sales, worker retention, and more. The effects on the workplace are in the news.
The effects on the workplace are potentially broader. There was news last week of violence. A boy was stabbed according to CNN. More recently, the president of a synagogue was found stabbed, according to the Detroit News. These were not workplace violence. They were clearly violence. What is clear is that various people have deep feelings about the world, their perceptions, and therefore each other. It is challenging to work through the melange, to sort through the various messaging in the news and social media. All employers should be focused on the challenge of keeping the workplace safe with the potentials that exist for emotions, reactions, and violence.
But, critically, that is nothing new. The workplace is always going to involve differences and dissent. The threat of workplace violence is always going to persist. The success of business will be inexorably tied to public perceptions, of the product or service, of the company leadership, of the company personality, and of the company character (actual or perceived). Action and inaction will always matter. Those are difficult choices. But workplace safety is not a choice. It is an imperative.
What will not ever change is that people will be different. They will disagree and at times their disagreements will variably be principled, emotional, logical, calm, or even unhinged. In the end, it is impractical to expect that individual conclusions will change or be assuaged. Try to explain to a _______ fan why their perceptions of their team are misguided. Good luck. Thus, there will be anguish, grief, and backlash. How is this workplace tightrope to be walked?
In the end, the real point is that the world around us is in fact in disarray. It has been historically and it is today. We can rest assured that it will be tomorrow. There is no easy path, no universal consensus, and no safe spaces (I hear troubling things constantly). But, the truth is that there never has been and nonetheless we are here today. We have survived thus far. We have disagreed, been disgusted, and been hurt. But the workplace can survive. It is possible to choose those with whom you associate. It is possible to admit that you cannot please everyone, or change their minds. Is it really that hard to get over the adamant expressions of others?
Nonetheless, perhaps it remains possible that even in our chaotic and challenging world there are still both "right" and "wrong." We may have perspectives, and we can each believe in these. We can wish those opinions were universal. They are not. But we owe it to ourselves to keep the workplace safe from violence and injury. This is among the challenges for management and ownership and should receive its share of the consideration and concern.
In the end, the critics will address this post. "why didn't you . . . ." And so in the end let me just say this about that: I believe . . . ..
