Morale is a group thing. Humans are a social animal. Low morale implies that there is either something wrong with the group or something wrong with me. Either would be an existential threat in the ancestral environment.
If there’s something wrong with me then low morale should incentivise me to change just as pain incentivises me to stop doing whatever I am are doing that causes me pain.
If there’s something wrong with the group then, in the ancestral environment, I’m in deep s**t and there’s not much I can do about it apart from leave the group and set out on my own, which is almost certainly fatal. This may well be the cause of people sinking into low morale apathy—the equivalent of a sick animal wandering off to die.
I felt this article conveyed over-simplified Rand-ian leanings as a basis for defining morale: Working Hard = High Morale, Receiving Charity = Low Morale. I can’t disagree more. I think NickH hit on what I was thinking as I read the article, which is much more situational and nuanced.
I agree that morale is primarily a group mechanism, and while it can be experienced separately (and differently) by a single member of a group, it affects the culture and cohesion of a team in a contagious fashion. Good team morale boosts everyone—even the low-performers (or those with personally lower morale, to a lesser degree) -- while bad team morale can bring down even the cheeriest of cheery team members.
Additionally, I believe morale is more a gauge of personal perception of equity than simply the results of “hard work”, especially since the definition of the “hard work” is incredibly subjective. Two different people can put in “hard work” and achieve very different levels of productivity. Additionally, both people can experience very different feelings of “accomplishment” independent of actual output. However, if they are both being compensated the same for the same task, feelings of inequity breed poor morale.
In group dynamics that include differing levels of authority or power, such as the standard workplace, it’s lack of proper recognition of results and improper compensation that breeds poor morale, even though the final product for both workers may ultimately yield the same results, but in different timeframes.
-----
Lastly, the crux of the current decline in American morale involves these statements:
- You can do one better if you reward active sabotage. - There should be a hack for societal morale, though, and it’s economic growth.
I would argue that lack of true accountability for active sabotage, once discovered, is far more damaging to morale than the sabotage itself, and is in itself a type of reward for the saboteur. As for economic growth being a hack for societal morale, when general economic growth is being generated by the same untouchable saboteurs, does it really fix morale? I would say it does not, especially since the growth is so often lopsided in its distribution.
Morale is a group thing. Humans are a social animal. Low morale implies that there is either something wrong with the group or something wrong with me. Either would be an existential threat in the ancestral environment. If there’s something wrong with me then low morale should incentivise me to change just as pain incentivises me to stop doing whatever I am are doing that causes me pain. If there’s something wrong with the group then, in the ancestral environment, I’m in deep s**t and there’s not much I can do about it apart from leave the group and set out on my own, which is almost certainly fatal. This may well be the cause of people sinking into low morale apathy—the equivalent of a sick animal wandering off to die.
I felt this article conveyed over-simplified Rand-ian leanings as a basis for defining morale: Working Hard = High Morale, Receiving Charity = Low Morale. I can’t disagree more. I think NickH hit on what I was thinking as I read the article, which is much more situational and nuanced.
I agree that morale is primarily a group mechanism, and while it can be experienced separately (and differently) by a single member of a group, it affects the culture and cohesion of a team in a contagious fashion. Good team morale boosts everyone—even the low-performers (or those with personally lower morale, to a lesser degree) -- while bad team morale can bring down even the cheeriest of cheery team members.
Additionally, I believe morale is more a gauge of personal perception of equity than simply the results of “hard work”, especially since the definition of the “hard work” is incredibly subjective. Two different people can put in “hard work” and achieve very different levels of productivity. Additionally, both people can experience very different feelings of “accomplishment” independent of actual output. However, if they are both being compensated the same for the same task, feelings of inequity breed poor morale.
In group dynamics that include differing levels of authority or power, such as the standard workplace, it’s lack of proper recognition of results and improper compensation that breeds poor morale, even though the final product for both workers may ultimately yield the same results, but in different timeframes.
-----
Lastly, the crux of the current decline in American morale involves these statements:
- You can do one better if you reward active sabotage.
- There should be a hack for societal morale, though, and it’s economic growth.
I would argue that lack of true accountability for active sabotage, once discovered, is far more damaging to morale than the sabotage itself, and is in itself a type of reward for the saboteur. As for economic growth being a hack for societal morale, when general economic growth is being generated by the same untouchable saboteurs, does it really fix morale? I would say it does not, especially since the growth is so often lopsided in its distribution.