Why the problems of Wall Street are only symptoms
I’m sure, like me, you’re drowning in reports, debates, opinions, treatises, articles and sound bites about recent events on Wall Street.
While most of these have focused on issues of financial credit, commercial paper, stocks, mortgages, the housing crisis, executive greed and the like, what shouts out at me is a deeper issue—an erosion of trust leading to a systemic breakdown in relationships.
There was a time when a loan or mortgage was processed between two individuals, a banker and a borrower. It resulted in a long-term working relationship demanding trust, transparency and honesty. Today, this lending relationship—along with most others—has morphed into a fragmented process: what was once a meeting of individuals has become a soulless transaction involving numerous players, each of whom exercises their function for a brief period, then moves on; and none of whom have the time or inclination to treat any of the others as real, flesh-and-blood human beings.
As Joan Borysenko writes: “We cannot serve at a distance. We can only serve that to which we are profoundly connected, that which we are willing to touch.” Without relationships, little is left that can serve as the basis for on-going trust.
From Wall Street to Main Street
What has been happening on Wall Street is also happening on Main Street. The dynamic we have come to know as ‘relationship’ is disintegrating, replaced by a connection or transaction, most often based on superficial, fleeting contacts characterized by distance and impersonal channels. Whether that contact comes through e-mail, cellphone, Blackberry, Twitter, social networking sites or texting, this electronic connection is devoid of direct, personal contact. There’s no face-to-face interaction, so emotional connection is lost.
With that loss, trust erodes. You no longer have to face the person you’re dealing with; look in his or her eyes and become aware of human contact at an emotional level. And as relationships shift into impersonal modes, untrustworthy behavior gets easier. Telling a bare-faced lie over the telephone or via e-mail is far simpler and more tempting than trying to carry it off in a face-to-face meeting.
Relationships that produce openness and trust can only be cultivated when all parties experience an emotional ‘safe zone’. That’s why, when relationships are replaced by “electronic” interactions and transactions, emotional connection—the human factor that creates true relationships—goes missing; along with feelings of warmth and friendship towards the other person: what marriage researcher John Gottman says is the definitive foundational element that determines the sustainability of relationships. When there is no emotional connection, there is no friendship. No friendship, no trust. No trust, no honesty, no transparency, no truth-telling.
Emotional connection is blocked by transmission through the ether
The ether through which electronic connections are made—whether with banks, other businesses, our loved ones or friends and colleagues—cannot transmit this ‘safe zone’ or generate feelings of trustworthiness. The major unintended consequence of all our ‘separation by electronics’ is the erosion of genuine human contact. Without it, so-called relationships become mere temporary linkings of convenience, as easily broken off as established.
Within an electronic, transactional world, more and more people may be connecting, but fewer and fewer folks are relating. We may live in an increasingly inter-connected world, but we are experiencing a far less inter-related one. Thanks to the fragmentation of relationships—one major consequence of living in such a culture—human contact is more likely to be limited to a phone call, an e-mail, or a quick “cu” text message. This is a poor substitute for real conversation and authentic dealings with another human being. It’s questionable whether it represents actual contact at all.
The disintegrating relationships on Wall Street and Main Street are symptomatic of a greater threat and challenge—one based on living in a world where all this superficial inter-connecting is replacing deeper inter-relating. Even as it becomes easier than ever to stay ‘in touch’, our capacity actually to touch one another—physically or emotionally—is slipping away. No wonder the willingness to trust is failing as well.
Here are some questions for self-reflection:
- How many people do you deal with personally after the initial contact. Do you ‘hand them off’ to others? Are you available to them personally if they want to contact you later on?
- Do you establish actual relationships with colleagues, co-workers and clients? How about your children? Do you ever view direct contact with others as an irritant or a distraction? Do you prefer to connect with people at arm’s length?
- What is your preferred mode of communicating at work—in person or by electronic device (even when in-person is very do-able)?
- How would you describe the nature of your relationships at work: ‘connecting’ or ‘relating’? What would others say about you?
- How many chairs in your home actually face one another? How often do you have face-to-face conversations with each other as opposed to ’snippets’ sitting side by side while watching TV, reading the paper or handling some business document? When you and your family sit down for meals, is the cell phone also a required utensil?
- When you are with others, do they spend more time looking at some electronic device than they do engaged in meaningful conversation with you and each other? What about you? Is your cell phone or BlackBerry with you at every moment?
Technorati Tags: relationships, communication, human contact, trust, being face-to-face, establishing trust, listening, being available
October 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 am
Peter, you raise very relevant points about the way our society is evolving towards transactions versus relations. You are also right that it is much more difficult to build trust in an online, interconnected world of email, blogs, twitter, text messages and blackberry.
I would argue though, that by acting with integrity, you can build trust even when there is ‘separation by electronics’. I’m researching the applicability of leadership in online communities, and so far I have identified that the same rules of authenticity, value-orientation and integrity are valid for the online leaders just as they are for they traditional counterparts.
Good examples of trusted, online environments are open source projects, charity social networks such as kiva.org, Wikipedia.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Hi, Darek.
Thanks for your comment and pointing to your research. I’ve not done any research into (leadership in) online communities as you have; all I have are anecdotal, primary-source, stories of clients, colleagues, friends, others, (and secondary-source-type “Wall-Street-type) that point to the breakdown and disintegration of relationships.
In my experiences, folks speak about how one senses a lack of real intimacy, their own and others’; they point to sensing an unreliability when depending on others in real-time or in cyberspace, and how one more often finds themself questioning another’s credibility which, to me, point to the trust issue, the foundation of real, true and safe relationships, due to not having experienced a true and real “human” connection with others.
Many say their “relationships” are more superficial and give-and-take is more desultory, staccato, and uncomfortable even when they do meet up in person, and many say they feel more challenged by just not really knowing how to “relate” on a deeper, human level…having spent so much time connecting electronically.
I’m sure there are opposite anecdotes and data that point to trusted and trusting relationships in an electronic world. I’m simply sharing my expriences and perspecvtive. There are others.
FWIW, I have read of folks not trusting the validity of some of the references on Wikipedia and questioning the credibility of some of its “editors.”
I appreciate your stopping by.
October 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
It is difficult for most to commit the unacceptable in full public glare as most people like to have a good acceptance level in the society. It is far easy to transcend the line when one work from behind a facade. May be that encourages the crime when relationship is replaced by transaction or impersonal connection.
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Hi, Sambit,
Many folks prefer to “hide” (emotionally or othwise) from direct contact, as you suggest. Emails, cell phones, and the like provide their “cover”, keeping them “safe” from honest, sincere direct contact and the self-responsibility of showing up authentically.
Thanks for commenting.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Peter,
This is a wonderful post, and echoes my own experience and work with isolated leaders. How sad that so many are truly lonely and yet don’t make the effort necessary to reach out and have direct contact with others. This can be undone. If a leader is suffering from lack of contact, they will find that they get back what they model. Getting out of the office, listening to employees and asking great relationships can produce results. Sometimes the simple solutions are hardest - but most effective.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Hi Mary, Jo,
Many isolated leaders, like isolated managers, isolated IT folks, project managers, assistant VPs, etc., often want to make the effort and just don’t know how…lacking the skills, knowledge or willingness. Others just refuse to do so.
As you say, such folks get back what they give out…and often don’t understand why folks “can’t or won’t connect with me.”
Management (relating) by walking around, by asking questions, by engaging others is a sure-fire way of creating effective, win-win relationships. Simple, but not easy, for some folks.
Thanks for stopping by.
October 4th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I fully agree with you that the financial market crisis is only the top of the iceberg and only symptoms are visible.
But I do not see the human distance as such an important reason - although clearly an issue. More important reasons for the financial crisis you wrote in the other post: http://www.slowleadership.org/blog/2008/09/facing-up-to-todays-crisis/
October 4th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Hi, Martin,
What you suggest is primary. However, for me, it’s “people” and how they see or don’t see reality and people who operate or not on the supeficial level…and the question underneath both is “why?” For me, that’s a people issue; it’s the “people” factor in the equation that determines outcomes and consequences and how they relate, or don’t relate to one another. But, that’s just me.
Thanks for your comments.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:21 am
I am probably as guilty as anyone of cultivating electronic “connections.” Although I’m a Gen Xer and didn’t grow up in a predominantly digital world (I didn’t have my first e-mail address until I was 24), I do appreciate some of the tools we have via the Web and evolving technology.
I am an editor and a writer, and my profession is especially suited to remote connectivity. Collaborating on an assignment for a magazine or other deliverable is easy to do remotely. Even in the pre-Internet era, writers tended to stay in the proverbial garret, waiting for mail (the snail kind) from the editor on the fate of their story idea.
Still, I see the wisdom in what you are saying. A favorite mentor of mine, a former teacher, works remotely from her home in northeastern Kansas. She said that she prefers to meet with a colleague, team member or client in person first, then she is able to form a meaningful relationship with them and the “connecting” via phone or e-mail after that is more productive and satisfying.
I do not think the world is going to disavow the technology we have now. However, your post and many like it remind us to focus on, and actually practice (!), building a relationship with the other person(s), whether that person is across the dinner table from us or on another continent. Thank you for such a thought-provoking entry.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Hi, Liz,
Thanks very much for your thoughts.
I agree that the world will not be disavowing electronics and technology very soon. And, I don’t think that the question of technology and healthy relationships has to be an “either/or” issue. I feel, for “conscious” folks, it can be a “both/and” equation.
My major concern is the lack of human connection, that when folks at work, at home and at play sit across from one another, face to face, eye to eye, toe to toe, there is often a (growing?) chasm in the space between them, a “coldness”, an emotional and human disconnection and this chasm is exacberated and perpetuated by the ever-increasing reliance on connecting electronically, which makes a real, human connection more and more impossible, and uncomfortable for many. And this growing chasm affects intimacy, trust, and safety issues when folks to meet face to face….at work, at home and at play.
There are numerous accounts of folks at work who feel estranged at work and have no real “friends” at work, and feel distant and disconnected and one of the reasons is that much communication takes place electronically.
Outside of work: I just read a new book by Gary Neuman, The Truth About Cheating, on why men cheat…where he says” “The majority said it was an emotional disconnection…from by their spouse/partner.
My take is that increasingly connecting and being distant by remote, and by electronics is one reason emotional connection erodes and when emotional connection erodes so does trust…so it’s no surprise, to me, that cheatiung is a way of life for many of these “disconnected” folks.
Electronics, bit by bit, in baby steps, bring folks to drift away from emotional/human connection, and like the process of erosion, one day the connection is there and then one day it’s gone. A quick “CU” and “LUV U” cannot substitute for the heart…and only serves to remove the heart from the connection…from the relationship…until it’s two ships passing in the night.
I appreciate your stopping by and your sharing.
October 10th, 2008 at 4:19 am
You make an excellent point about communication here - I too think the quality of many relationships suffers from electronic atrophy. It’s just too easy and too automatic these days. While automaticity enables multitasking like walking while chewing gum, driving while singing, and typing while talking, it guts the intentional nature of action. But I think this relationship vs. connection issue may be the tip of a larger iceberg. We’re connecting more often to more people, doing more in less time, and missing out on the meaningfulness of all of it. To add to the irony, we spend more time than ever crafting our public (and personal) identities, but we’re further from “finding ourselves” than ever. You can read my thoughts on social networking at http://www.leadingmama.com/2008/08/are-you-linked-in.html Perhaps our “more is more” culture is at fault here. We need to slow down and live better — at work and at home. Less really can be so much more.
October 10th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Hi, Heidi, the notion of “more and more” “friends”, as you suggest, seems to be the operating mantra in social circles, both online and off, these days. Surface relationships, superficiality, and “packaging” seem to be today’s substitute for deeper commitment, truly relating and “knowing” one another. More folks are “linked in” by their electronic leashes, but less and less through their heart. No wonder feelings of sadness, depression, aloneness and loneliness are on the rise.
I appreciate your stopping by and sharing.
October 21st, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Dear Peter,
I was moved by your piece, too. Integrity in our relationships is a hard call in my profession. I remember building email systems in the 90’s for Minnesota state government agencies and having a ring side seat as people drifted into using email to “talk” to people sitting next to them and watching the culture of the organizations shift from human connection to distance and asynchronous relating. While I took, and take, great pride in my accomplishments building back end systems I have always been a little haunted by the loss of human connection my work produced.
On the other hand, one of the great delights of managing email, for me, was putting my hand on a box that was humming with people sharing thoughts and ideas with others who would have been out of their reach were it not for email. Like you and the others who contribute to this site. The intellectual company and the forum to expose my thoughts to the “test of publicity” are one upside of the change.
Helen
October 21st, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Hi, Helen,
I agree that when moving to technology that it’s not necessarily an “either/or” connection. When folks are conscious about creating and cultivating their relationships, it can be “both/and”. There are upsides and downsides, as you suggest; the wisdom is in discerning the difference. Thank you for sharing your story at work and for stopping by.