Dispelling the Myth of Family in the Workplace

by Stacey D. Mitchell

So often, I hear individuals, usually those who hold positional power in organizations refer to their organization or company as a family. Or they make comparisons between family and their workplaces. When I hear these references, I usually cringe. I cringe because it creates unrealistic expectations for employees and for the employers. I cringe because it feels exploitative. And most importantly, I cringe because it’s just not true.

Before diving into the reasons why I cringe at this comparison, it feels important to spend time exploring the concept of family. Family can be defined so very broadly. It might include a person’s mother, father and siblings. It might include extended family, such as grandparents, aunties and uncles. It could also include a person’s spouse and children. But family can also be made of a complex network of relationships that include biological relatives as well as chosen family. And the relationships among those who make up the family can vary just as widely. Some have strong, trusting, healthy relationships with their core family members. Others do not. 

~~~~~

“And this is where I think the unrealistic expectations come in. I have observed that the impetus to refer to workplace relationships as familial stems from a lethargic attempt to promote inclusiveness.”

~~~~~

In other words, the message is, You belong here. Making this reference attempts to skip past the work, triumph and failure that families face to establish the places they hold within a family.

Additionally these comparisons can be based on the assumption that family means a strong, unwavering human connection. When, in practice, the assumption that family relationships are strong and unshakeable is faulty. Many hail from families riddled with dysfunction where members of it are accustomed to abandonment, degradation, selfishness and instability. 

So, in the minds of employers, making this comparison conjures affinity for the workplace among employees. It assumes that there is an affinity for their family or at least an unwavering connection to it that will be applied to the workplace. But it might more likely place a heavy burden on the employer to a.) establish family-like relationships that are impossible to replicate or b.) to prove that the employer is not like the absent mother or relentlessly critical father. So, out the gate, these comparisons lose their thunder because the assumptions do not hold in our world. These assumptions about family dynamics might stem from a time and place where communities were more insular with more similar values and ways of being, which throughout history was likely limited by economics, geography and the prevailing ideology of a given society. 

~~~~~

“And the least charitable analysis of this comparison might suggest that employers seek to normalize or justify dysfunction by comparing the workplace to a family.”

~~~~~

After all, regardless of Uncle Eddie’s political views, religious practices, miserliness, orneriness, poor taste in style and sub par hygiene, he is your uncle.

Further, comparing the workplace to a family can be exploitative. In a family, the commonly accepted expectation is that, driven by love and fidelity, you will go above what is expected to help your relative when they need it. In sum, it is often a given that this is one of the factors that distinguishes family–chosen or biological– from all other humans with whom we share the earth. 

But comparing work and family can create the expectation that there is more to the employee-employer relationship than providing effective service for a fair wage. It creates the illusion that, if needed, the employee should do more than what their job requires of them or that, if needed, the employer should provide more compensation than what was agreed to up front. When pay is fair and employees put in a hard day’s work, they are even at the end of the day. No one owes the other anything. Comparing family and work calls this balance into question.

And finally, the claim that workers are family is just not true. While it is true that family members are often paid to perform services by other members of the family to support the family (e.g. to babysit, or to hitch a ride from point A to point B), you are unlikely to be removed from the family if you do not perform these services.  

Though coworkers can build incredible bonds through doing hard and important work together, they are not family. Though coworkers can disagree heatedly and make up and disagree and make up again, they are not family. And though some decisions will adversely affect individuals in a family, a CEO of a company must protect the entity above any one individual, including that very CEO. Therefore, by strategic design, they are not a family. 

So I urge all in the workplace to consider the impact of referring to the relationships in that workplace as a family. Instead, I would encourage employers to set a vision for a diverse and inclusive workplace where staff members of all backgrounds can thrive and feel as though they belong. I would encourage employers to implement priorities and strategies to realize that vision for an inclusive culture. I would encourage employers to monitor how the strategies are working and the extent to which they are achieving the outcomes that will get them toward their vision. And then, all of us can be whole and well for our actual families.  

Need helping building culture on your team or in your company? Contact us at www.sageliconsulting.com/connect

Stacey D. Mitchell is the Founder and Principal Consultant at SAGEli Consulting.