According to Monica C. Worline, assistant professor of organization and management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School, many might assume that there generally isn’t a need for courage in the contemporary workplace that is focused on knowledge work or service delivery. However, she says managers should encourage forthright and constructive criticism of the organization, whether it is in reaction to day-to-day-projects gone awry or a response to even more serious ethical breaches. In her groundbreaking research with front line employees and middle managers in high technology workplaces around the world, Worline investigates how courageous behavior can serve to benefit companies. She defines courage as the ability to act on a perceived good for the organization, even in the face of fear or reprisal. In a recent Q&A with Knowledge@Emory, Worline discusses the implications for managing with courageous behavior in mind.

Knowledge@Emory: You note that the definition of courage and most of our thoughts on this notion come from a more psychoanalytical or philosophical bent. As well, you admit that there are many recognized definitions of “courage.” Considering this starting point, how did you come to believe that courage could be a useful attribute in the workplace?

Worline: I was initially interested in how organizations that push people to work at their highest capacity can motivate their employees—from looking at the example of those out in Silicon Valley at the beginning of the tech and Internet boom and how they were advancing into areas that they didn’t even know were possible. As a former entrepreneur, I was interested in what it takes to make a place really good to work at, and to get people to produce at their highest levels also means that these individuals will be placed in difficult situations. This interest led me a step further to research courage, and I chose to look at the way people in everyday circumstances are trying to do the best that they can do under certain stressful situations.

Knowledge@Emory: What is the benefit to the organization in having employees act in a courageous manner? And, if there is an apparent benefit, why aren’t more managers encouraging this behavior?

Worline: The benefits of courage in an organization are many—for instance, the atmosphere can become more open so that when something needs to be said, it is immediately clear. Information is provided. Managers need to create a climate where difficult things can be said and there won’t be a fear of what happens in the future. I call courage in the workplace constructive opposition—when someone is standing against a flow of events that are naturally going to occur in order to safeguard their work or their project.

Knowledge@Emory: Interestingly, you note that there is a role for emotion in the workplace, which goes against decades of business management education. How can something like emotion—what we are told to keep out of the workplace—be helpful in a courageous circumstance?

Worline: Courageous activity is linked to emotional response. There is this discontent that we’re taught that emotion shouldn’t ever enter into the workplace. Instinct often tells us when things are wrong. But we throw emotion out the window. Now we see this is really one of the myths that better organizational scholars are trying to erase, in order to show the role that emotions can play in the workplace that can be positive, as well as negative. What managers can do to foster courage is to acknowledge that when people express opinions that differ from the mainstream on a product or project that emotions will surface in the group—frustration, anger, defensiveness. The way the manager handles that situation will determine if this courageous person or others will speak up again. Managers need to see that there will be anger and frustration in the workplace and that there needs to be a constructive way to voice opinions and to have people act on their intuition. There is pride that most people want to take in their work, and if you let them voice their opinions you can tap into this. Pride and connectedness to the workplace also play into courageous action.

Knowledge@Emory: You indicate that there is a need for routine and order in a workplace, but that this order and status quo can also undermine one’s ability to speak up against a bad business decision or an ethical misstep. This likely makes it difficult for people to go against the bureaucracy or what has come before. Why does this occur, and how can managers break out of this rut?

Worline: First of all, we need to create routines in the workplace—to ensure order. There’s a reason for it. But certainly it does also make it difficult to break from a pattern. A part of what I am talking about as far as courage doesn’t necessarily mean something grandiose. A routine activity, given the right circumstance, could end up becoming a very difficult situation. If you only look at grand events, large breaches, then you miss a lot of what’s going on around you. There has also been a sense, until recently, that people should do whatever it takes to keep a job. That kind of thinking—that the whole livelihood is at risk—is a kind of persistent fear that has come into organizations and has been reinforced by waves of downsizing. Managers need to address this. Fear is another emotion that is much more prevalent in the workplace than we have acknowledged in the past, and it can be a hindrance to people doing what they think is right.

Knowledge@Emory: So, do you think most employees and managers are not reacting to or speaking up in difficult and vexing situations because they are truly in fear of losing their jobs?

Worline: There are a lot of mechanisms today that make people feel as if they are challenged on the job. Many do think that they face retribution when the next downsizing announcement gets made. If you think of a company or a system designed to reinforce the status quo and add in the fear of losing a job, then that’s how you end up with a ton of conscientious people in an organization who don’t speak up. My research shows, however, that speaking up in a difficult situation is often successful at creating change–and that it inspires others to do the same.

Knowledge@Emory:  But how can you differentiate between someone who is truly acting in a courageous manner and challenging what may be an ill conceived business edict vs. someone bent on merely causing conflict or contention in the organization?

Worline: In the process of my research the most interesting thing I discovered is that culturally we have this view of the courageous individual as a solo figure out on a limb. But what I hear time and time again, and one thing that distinguishes something as courageous vs. self-aggrandizing, is that the courageous person internalizes the mission and purpose of the organization. They act in the way that they do because they believe they are working in the best interests of the company. As human beings, we can easily see this distinction. Managers can do subtle things to reinforce the mission and purpose—to make people clear on why they do the work they do. It will increase the likelihood that people will defend something they believe. If we can work to have a generation of mangers that understand we can’t leave emotions at the door and that these emotions will factor into the judgments and actions people take in an organization, then that helps people be more aware of the needed dimensions in an organization.

Knowledge@Emory: You and other researchers cite whistle blowing as the most extreme form of courage in the workplace. With the recent scandals in corporate America, whistle blowing has become a big issue for the individuals who stood up in the WorldCom and Enron incidents. In 2002, the editors at Time Magazine even selected former WorldCom vice president Cynthia Cooper, FBI agent Coleen Rowley, and former Enron vice president Sherron Watkins as their Time Magazine “Persons of the Year.” Considering all happen to be women, has there been any link established between the propensity for courageousness in the workplace and any particular trait, gender, ethnicity or background?

Worline: I think these women stand out simply because they are women in very high profile positions involved in very high profile situations. The words Enron and WorldCom have become synonymous with scandal, and the fact that reporters were able to uncover a few people in the organizations in very high places who were at least somewhat outspoken gave the press an opportunity for a media event. There were others in these companies in lower ranking positions who objected as well, by the way. This isn’t to downplay what Rowley and the others did. Unfortunately, whistle blowing hasn’t been widely investigated. But so far, there doesn’t appear to be any link established between the propensity for whistle blowing or any sex, race, age or position that makes one person more likely than another to whistle blow.

Knowledge@Emory:  But your research does seem to indicate that courageous reactions do come from those better equipped with strong critical thinking abilities. You say these individuals exhibit a tolerance for ambiguity, are able to assess risk, and are also given to reflection and “socially worthy aims.” They also have an ability to question what is accepted in the organization. Are there any lessons to be learned from Enron as far as courageous behavior and the many that chose not to question or critically assess the situation at hand?

Worline: Certainly. You get more courageous behavior in organizations that allow questioning behavior. If you have an organization like Enron where what a lot of the company does is a mystery, then you are setting up a system that doesn’t allow people to act courageously. Questioning isn’t a part of the company culture. So in the wake of Enron, many companies are emphasizing critical thinking skills as a part of the training for their employees. Part of critical thinking is the ability to ask thoughtful questions and to challenge the assumptions around you—all for the better of the organization.

Knowledge@Emory: There is a thought that individuals who rise to leadership are more often those willing to be courageous and take risks. Is this an idealized notion or is there some truth to it?

Worline:  Certainly, there is a lot of writing about leadership that links it with courageous behavior. However, what you are talking about is a romanticized view of leadership that often falls into what author Joseph Campbell calls the hero’s myth. It’s the image we have in Western culture of fighting the demons and returning home triumphant and successful. Think of the Greek story of Odysseus, which has become a sort of archetype of courage in Western culture. The solo adventurer is an implicit image of leadership, and that is why there is some hint of courageousness that underlies it. But after talking to many real people in real organizations, I’ve come to realize that courageousness doesn’t necessarily help someone become a leader in today’s organizations. I’ve discovered that it’s just as easy for the leader to be the impediment to courageous behavior as much as being the courageous one. I certainly believe that we need to cultivate more courageous leaders—but at the same time we need to teach managers how to listen and watch and promote for courage among their employees.