The sound of silence: Measuring suffering at work

Abstract

International audienceWhat realities do questionnaires and surveys, designed to measure stress and sufferingat work, bring to light? What realities do they conceal? In this research, we considerself-assessment scales and questionnaires as techniques of visibility that contribute tothe construction of knowledge on the ‘suffering subject’ at work. We conducted aqualitative analysis of the questionnaire and survey report conducted by the consultingfirm Technologia for France Telecom Orange, after a spate of suicides in 2008–2009.The results show that: (1) the questionnaire used to measure suffering at work viewsthe subject as someone reflective yet rather passive, and their suffering as resultingfrom an unbalanced relationship with the work environment, (2) the report furtherrestricts this understanding of suffering to the administrative position of the individual,(3) as a consequence, the political, strategic, ideological dimensions and the economicpower struggles affecting work are silenced.Relying on Foucault’s approach to knowledge (savoir), we interpret this narrowconcept of the subject and their surroundings as resulting from an assemblage betweenscientific discourses and visibility techniques; a compromise that conceals debates onthe strategic orientation of the firm

Why Suffering Matters!

“…Although there are instances of organizational researchers finding suffering when they look for it (e.g., Allard-Poesi & Hollet-Haudebert, 2017; Gill, 2019), they do not look for it very often. Explanations for this include suffering’s enigmatic and nebulous nature, which makes it difficult to pin down and measure (see VanderWeele, 2019), and the prevailing expectation that people should check their emotions and personal problems at the door when going to work (e.g., Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006).…”

International differences in employee silence motives: Scale validation, prevalence, and relationships with culture characteristics across 33 countries

“…In many countries, media reports and research emphasize that inefficacies, unethical practices, errors, and safety issues endure because employees withhold their views, questions, ideas, and concerns (e.g., Allard-Poesi & Hollet-Haudebert, 2017;Barry, 2007;Gibson & Singh, 2003;Joshi, 2016;Maree, 2016;Sheriff, 2000). Highly visible cases include fraud in the automotive industry, harassment in the entertainment industry, the military, and sports teams, misconduct in law enforcement, abuse of children and older people in educational, caring, and religious institutions, and bullying in health services (e.g., Derr et al, 2017;Ewing & Bowley, 2015;NHS, 2017;Prasad, 2018;United Nations, 2014;WHO, 2002).…”

Sounds of Silence: The Reflexivity, Self-decentralization, and Transformation Dimensions of Silence at Work

“…Studies have illustrated that organizational silence is both a cause and a consequence of the climate of silence at work that results from “a widely shared perception among employees that speaking up about problems or issues is futile and/or dangerous” (Morrison & Milliken, 2000, p. 708; see also Milliken et al, 2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Such a climate can further contribute to “silent lies” (Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003, p. 1559) that lead to decision making failures (e.g., Allard-Poesi & Hollet-Haudebert, 2017; Charan, 2001). However, in our study, some practices of silence were employed to facilitate a more constructive and supportive environment through fostering self-decentralization that moves away from egoistic self-awareness.…”