Working in the Gray Zone

Using company resources to work on personal projects, especially on company time, is a no-no for employees in most organizations. But supervisors often operate in what I call a gray zone, turning a blind eye to such officially forbidden behavior. They realize that stamping it out may do more harm than good, because many employees have a deep-seated need to engage in it. My three-year study of an aeronautic manufacturing plant with 4,000 workers gave me insight into why gray zones persist in work settings. Employees produced personal artifacts such as kitchen utensils, toys for their kids, and window frames, using company time and materials. Managers overlooked all this, because they could count on people when official work needed to be cranked out. Consider the similar case of a competent, productive junior editor at a newspaper who works on her novel at the office. Despite company policies prohibiting this, her boss winks at the habit. By tolerating the editor’s behavior, the supervisor holds on to a loyal, self-motivated, and engaged worker. Why do otherwise good employees have the urge to break the rules in the first place? My study revealed that they need to enact their “occupational identities.” An occupational identity is the self-image that a person trained in a specific vocation develops as a member of that profession. The expected behaviors of the occupation become deeply embedded in the individual’s identity, which is quite separate from that person’s job or title. A job may be “just” a job; what really matters is how fellow occupational members would assess one’s professional standing. The junior editor works on her novel on company time since doing so allows her to “be” a writer in the eyes of her literary peers. Many senior executives have trouble understanding the need for an occupational identity (and thus take a dim view of gray zones), perhaps because they themselves may lack one. As Harvard Business School professor Rakesh Khurana has noted, managers often see themselves as pursuing individual challenges. Especially when they are brought into an organization from the outside, they aren’t attuned to employees’ occupational identities. The head of a fashion house, for instance, may not be a designer and so may underestimate the designer’s need to be recognized by his peers. Instead of perceiving gray zones as a cause for alarm, top executives should try to understand why they exist. This doesn’t necessarily mean wholly accepting or excusing all gray zones—certainly, some are unhealthy, as when an editor spends most of her work time on her novel. Rather, top management should make the effort to patrol gray zones for serious abuses of time and resources—but with the awareness that, more often than not, gray zones signal a higher aspiration among employees that immediate supervisors deem worthy of pursuit. Paradoxically, gray zones can also provide a measure of professionalism or engagement. Though senior executives might not see gray-zone activity right away, direct supervisors are quick to notice it. If your company’s supervisors aren’t observing it and haven’t offered people a chance to openly express their identities in authorized work, look for a possible corresponding drop in employee professionalism or morale. When “illegal” blogging, for instance, disappears at a newspaper, it may be because people do not feel respected for what they do or because the paper has already lost employees with strong occupational identities. It’s worth thinking about bringing gray zones out into the open by finding official ways for employees to engage their occupational identities. Let’s go back to the case of the editor: Could the newspaper use her talent as a writer to mentor a foreign correspondent less proficient in English writing skills? Finding a perfect official match might not always be possible, but employees will be more engaged and productive when their true skills are recognized by their employers.

Working in the Gray Zone

Summary.

Partner Center