SPONSORED BY:

MIND MATTERS

Wray Herbert

photo illustration: newsweek.com; image: Archive Holdings Inc. / Stone-Getty Images

Sucker or Saint?

The surprising ways we shore up our self-esteem when we feel foolish for not being able to say no.

Think about this workplace scenario: You're a skilled professional, well regarded in your organization. One day your boss swings by your desk and asks if you'd mind putting aside your work for a couple hours. He'd like you to help the clerical staff collate some documents. It's an unorthodox request, and not a job you'd enjoy  doing. You pause, but you're a team player, so sure.

A couple of weeks pass. You're working at your desk and you overhear your boss talking to a co-worker sitting nearby. Would she mind pitching in on an unpleasant but necessary office task for a while? With a snort, your colleague replies: "Sorry, boss. Not in my job description." End of discussion.

How do you feel at that moment?

Unless you're a Zen master, you probably feel like a schmuck. What were you thinking? Why didn't you assert yourself? Have you jeopardized your standing in the company, your career or—worst of all—your very belief in who you are?

And what do you do now?

Psychologists are very interested in these questions. Situations like this occur every day, not just in the office, but in relationships, politics and other realms. How do we move forward when we have disappointed ourselves by our weakness, failed to stand up for what we believe? How do we shore up our self-esteem when we have failed to act as free thinkers?

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: PTH1987 @ 01/04/2009 11:16:47 AM

    I think people need to consider whether it's their superior who is sincerely asking them a favor, or it's just one of their coworkers who thinks they have the right to pawn off work on others. Sometimes coworkers see someone who they think is not doing anything and think that means it's their right to give that person something to do. This is wrong. In this case, I would prefer to see the person asked to do such work say that it's not in their job description (or something a little more harsh), because this would show an ability to stand up for oneself, which is more important to me than a yes man.
    Also, obviously if there's a serious time or resource constraint, it might be appropriate to ask others for help. However, a worker should take serious consideration of the tone in which they do this. If I see someone who's condescending/ talking down to their coworkers, I would assume this is the way they would talk to clients. Considering my clients are intelligent people with high expectations, and that they like to stand up for themselves also, I would be very concerned with someone who acts superior to someone when they're actually not.

    The bottom line is that if you want to become a go to guy, go above and beyond your job description, but you only have to do this for your boss and sincere coworkers, and not necessarily by saying yes to every little task someone asks you to do.

  • Posted By: fsilber @ 08/11/2008 10:42:58 AM

    This explains the weak, helpless, cowardly people who cannot imagine responding to muggers and burglars with anything other than abject submission -- who then shore up their self-esteem by congratulating themselves on their nonviolent, pacifist, moral superiority.

    This is despite the fact that Gandhi's doctrine of passive resistance required followers to _refuse_ to submit to oppression. Gandhi described three ways of dealing with violent oppression: #1 Cowardly submission, #2 resistance via counter-violence, and #3 passive resistance in which you refuse to obey under the theory that the oprressor cannot kill _everyone_. He wrote his son that passive resistance was the most noble and virtuous, but admitted that if one were not courageous enough to do this, the use of counter-violence in resistance is preferable to cowardly submission.

    That such a "nonviolent" person would dial 911 in a moment of danger, summoning a gun-armed cop to his aid, only confirms his contemptible hypocracy.

  • Posted By: John Luma @ 08/11/2008 1:11:58 AM

    I think this "either-or" choice doesn't frame the real issue at all. It just makes it seem controversial.

    What I've found in my own career is that "doing it all" -- the details as well as the major strategic thinking, and everything in between -- is what catapults you into becoming the go-to person. The one who sets the standard for teamwork and performance. Basically, all workers are either problem solvers, or they're part of the problem. Anyone who would ever tell me "it's not my job" I would consider not a team player and a short timer at best. Not someone you reward, not someone you want leading others.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now