A Blog about Sensory Processing Sensitivity from the Worldview of a High Sensing Male
 
I worked in a corporate environment for most of my career. I lasted for about 30 years until I finally ran into my professional Waterloo in 2010. It was a merger of two megabanks, the inevitable marriage of two disparate cultures brought about by the 2008 mortgage collapse. I don't know if that inspired the toxic environment of that merger, but the two cultures did not blend well. One a Southern and Eastern banking giant and the other a Midwestern and Western bank – a merger of equals on paper. The toxicity began early and lasted for me until I could not take it anymore. It was a cutthroat and uncivil merger with a backstabbing and dog-eating dog mentality and absolutely toxic for this HSP.

I knew then that I was done. My health suffered under the weight of persistent stress, unrealistic deadlines, and ambiguous goals. I knew I had to get away, and I had to leave everything I knew, the comfort of the familiar, a steady paycheck, and old colleagues I had worked with for years.

It was the smartest thing I've done in my life. And, perhaps, the bravest.

Toxic environments, which often produce staff's toxic productivity expectations, are more common than ever today. Work-life balance is touted from mahogany row halls but rarely translates into reality for the workers far below. Squeezing the last hour out of every employee is a norm that is killing us all, but it is kryptonite for HSPs.

What is toxic productivity?
Toxic productivity, by definition, is an obsessive need always to be productive, regardless of the cost to personal health, relationships, and life.  It is a bias toward "doing" instead of being, appearing to be busy, thus extolling the virtues of productivity. Toxic productivity has been around for a long time but is reflective of the workaholism of 2022. It is an "always on" mentality that values every hour of every day as an opportunity to produce. There is no room for downtime, no time for self or self-reflection, and no time for rest. A toxic corporate energy mindset focuses on consuming production to facilitate profit.

It is symptomatic of modern-day Capitalism, exploiting the worker and creating the toxic work environments we see more and more of. And yes, I'm going after Capitalism. Any economic system that is out of balance risks going off the rails, and if not to benefit the many, what benefit does it have for society? Toxic workplaces condone and elicit toxic productivity. The worker must keep at productivity to keep up, sacrificing more of their lives to keep the wheel spinning.

What is the cause? It easily profits the corporate owners, but the reason the workers continue to accept this is the long-held and almost sacred Puritan work ethic that was foundational for this country. Although supported by Catholics before the Reformation, this work ethic founded in Protestant Christian theology emphasizes diligence, discipline, and frugality.  A premium is placed on not being idle, which of course, is the Devil's workshop according to the old adage. Anyone not pulling their weight is considered a person of low respect. Merging this "all work no play" philosophy with the emergence of Capitalism was a natural marriage. This concession of millions of workers can largely be attributed to guilt and shame for not meeting the expectations of this outdated work ethic.

Yet, studies have shown that 80% of work productivity issues are directly related to the environment in which these employees work. Toxic workplaces have many components, including issues around ostracism, narcissism, bullying, incivility, aggressiveness, and harassment. Toxic bosses, long the drivers of toxic productivity, can lead employees to job burnout and contribute to employee mental and physical health issues, depression, anxiety, work overload, and sleeping problems.  

Toxic workers, who may become emboldened by a toxic work environment, are prone to creating more toxicity amongst their coworkers. Therefore, toxic bosses, often defined by their overconfidence and tendency towards exploitation, can model toxic productivity as an unstated but assumed requirement for success at the company. This toxicity is bad for the employees and directly affects productivity for the company, defeating the purpose of getting more from employees. It has been shown that 8% of workers' health-related costs can be attributed to bad management.

Talk about screwing your cha-cha here. Yet, somehow, this must be overlooked in M.B.A. programs.

What's a toxic work environment look like for HSPs?
If these environments are toxic for the masses, then HSPs will likely never thrive here. Anything with a prerequisite of toxic productivity will suck the life out of most HSPs. I'm not saying we are not stoic or willing to take one for the team, but really, we should be very wary of a work environment that has any of the following characteristics:

• Wrong setting – beware if the environment is too competitive, aggressive, or ruthless, stressing an edginess that might encourage dog eat dog tactics. If the climate is too confining or being too open, loud or noisy, bright or dark, it would pay to avoid them. The key is to find an environment that fits your sensibilities. A perfect fit doesn't always exist unless you can create it but remember to stack the numbers in your favor. Pay attention to the pace of the work. Too demanding, too fast, or too ambiguous may flow contrary to your deliberate and contemplative thinking style.
• Wrong Manager – be on the lookout for toxic managers. Watch out for Type A or narcissists that will throw you under the bus in a heartbeat. You should feel some compatibility with the manager, knowing you have each other's backs. People leave companies because of their managers, not necessarily because of the company. This is a key element.
• Wrong Teammates – having a few good coworkers can make a huge difference in your success in the work environment. Studies have shown that having a good friend at work enhances your engagement. Watch out for those teammates that are ultra-competitive, back-stabbers, catty, or loud and intrusive. Just remember some types of work, draw certain kinds of people.
• Wrong career path/ field: if you are just starting out, pay close attention and spend some time selecting careers that match your high sensitivity needs. If you get this right in the beginning, your work life will be much less toxic and probably lead to a lifelong engagement. On the other hand, it's never too late to change if you are in mid-career. The logistics may be trickier, but it can be done with some astute planning.
• Does not employ your strengths: Match your core HSP strengths (creativity, depth of processing, intuition, empathy, etc.) and your individual talents to a job that incorporates or will employ most if not all of these values and or talents. Jobs that undervalue you or exploit you without edifying you will not work well for long.
• Does not challenge you in the right ways: Don't run away from challenges, but work environments that challenge you in manageable chunks are better than those that throw you into the deep end of the pool. HSPs are more thoughtful and appear to process more slowly than others, but in reality, we are processing more and are likely to produce better overall results if given the time. Manageable challenges invite a flow state and have their own rewards.
• Work that crushes your soul: Soul-crushing work is felt deeply within. When there is no pleasure in work, there is only dread. This is toxic in my mind. Toxic productivity in this type of environment sounds like a recipe for a heart attack. I avoided one by leaving. Run from this.

If you are in a toxic environment, how do you combat it?
One work-life coach advises that we exercise a sense of professional detachment to work. Too much work and too little life are not good. This means learning to say no. In today's work climate, more and more people are letting their feet do the talking if an environment no longer meets their expectations. This concept of work as an extension of who we are instead of the dreaded state of being a "job" seems to align with what younger workers demand. I hope that employers are taking notice. Workers are now more mobile and selective.

If the work environment feels toxic for you, it probably is, and you should take notice. Not fitting in is a feeling many HSPs experience. The point is – to find the right fit for you. Work can be a source of great achievement and feelings of accomplishment. Meaningful and purposeful work can bring you great satisfaction and joy. Truly, there are many elements to the right work, but only you are the one that will know for sure if it is the right fit for you. There is no shame in continually striving and looking for that fit. Remember the orchid metaphor that you will not thrive and grow in the wrong environment. You are the orchid.

If you can't find the right fit, consider creating your perfect environment. More and more HSPs are becoming solo entrepreneurs, whether baking bread, coaching fellow HSPs, becoming counselors or therapists, or finding some extremely creative and novel way of bringing a business to life. When you are in charge, the environment you create will be good for you, and likely, others you hire will see it as a dream job to work with you and the harmonious environment you create.
​
This is very important to all HSPs. The environment is everything to us. Work consumes much of everyone's day, and why shouldn't you have a great work environment that will aid in your thriving and growing? We must treat this as a priority in our lives. Take stock of yourself and craft the world in which you can live your best life with your abundant creative energy. Toxic productivity, workplaces, and bosses are things you don't have to tolerate.
 
Please comment with your thoughts.  

A Blog about Sensory Processing Sensitivity from the Worldview of a High Sensing Male
 
When I was an undergrad in Psychology in the 70s, I was drawn to Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology. These movements that predated my attendance at school were schools of thought that I could easily wrap my head around. As a young HSP psychology student, it made perfect sense to focus on how one could achieve the best from oneself. These two thought platforms of Psychology seemed to do that nicely and reflected my personal beliefs about the growth of the individual.

Led by Abraham Maslow and later Carl Rogers, Maslow felt that a study of human motivation and subsequent behavior should be based on what could be called aspirational needs and foundational needs represented by a hierarchical structure. This emphasized personal growth and not psychopathology as its cornerstone. This revolutionary idea reflected the sixties' mood towards the individual as an expression of creativity and personal development.

Maslow developed a structure that became the basis for the hierarchy of needs (HON). It focused on two sets of major category needs, deficiency needs, and growth or being needs. The deficiency needs were needs that, when unmet, created a deficit in the individual's life and formed a driver to meeting those needs. For example, food, shelter, and safety were deficiency needs. The growth needs were largely aspirational needs that expanded the individual's growth horizon. These needs lay largely outside of the necessary needs that kept the individual alive.

Maslow developed this theory largely to counter the psychoanalytic theories of Freud, which focused on psychopathology, and the automaton-like theories of the strict Behaviorists, such as Skinner, which saw behavior as a simple animalistic stimulus-response.   Humanistic Psychology was what Maslow termed the third force in psychology and accounted for a holistic approach to motivation emphasizing creativity, free will, and human potential.

The gist of this movement was to highlight that when fundamental survival needs are met, humans naturally seek higher growth goals to be all they can be. The existential goal was to pursue a state of self-actualization, where individuals found and experienced meaning and purpose in life that was unique to them. This was not a static, permanent state but a state of becoming, where one could experience wonder, joy, and euphoria in one's life endeavors via peak experiences. Of course, this was all very enticing to me, a young and idealistic man seeking meaning and purpose in my life.

But, Is there really a hierarchy of needs for humans?
Legend has it that Maslow found inspiration in a study he did of the Blackfoot Native Americans in Minnesota. When he studied the Blackfoot society, he found an enormous emphasis on cooperation, purposeful elimination of inequality, sharing, giving, and a great degree of self-esteem in the Blackfoot culture. The perplexing thing to Maslow was that the Blackfoot Nation was about raising the tide for all, where success meant all succeeded. His theory of self-actualization was not supported as a top-of-the-chart aspiration by Blackfoot society. Rather this notion of self-actualization was taught as a foundational human right, introduced to the young from the beginning of life.

The next need/goal for the Blackfoot society was community actualization, supporting the whole community – where all benefit from the emphasis on community needs over the individual need. And at the top was the sense of cultural perpetuity, that passing on of cultural heritage, the looking back to the lessons of seven generations back and being responsible for seven generations into the future.

This notion so astutely put by Native Peoples puts some doubt on the idea that human motivation is solely about the needs of the individual, but rather with the focus on the community, the needs of the group matter as much or more than the aspirations of one single person. Western culture has evolved to emphasize individual responsibility, behavior, and reward over the centuries.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs was indeed a useful framework and a product of the times. It was a softer, less cynical approach to human motivation than pure psychopathology and less mechanical and soulless than the Behaviorists. The original model proposed five stages ranging from 1) Physiological needs basic to human survival (i.e., food, clothing, shelter, sleep, etc.) 2) Safety needs, security and safety needs, 3) Love and belongingness needs – human emotional and relational needs, 4) Esteem needs, respect, self-esteem and accomplishment and 5) Self Actualization needs – personal potential, personal growth, peak experiences. These basic five have been added to over the years.

Maslow's HON was adopted by educators and had implications for business and corporate environments. A simple hierarchical formula for motivation was seized upon by those looking to motivate students and employees. If there is practical application, I suppose that gives credence to a theory. The problem is that Maslow's theory has not been universally supported by evidence-based research, which becomes the validation point for all things scientific. In addition, cultural studies have shown that the placement of priority needs varies between cultures and even between age groups.

Kaufman's modern reinterpretation of this model.
Later in his life, he began to rethink much of what he had earlier articulated. Scott Barry Kaufman, a leading cognitive psychologist and scholar of humanistic psychology, has helped reinterpret some of this model via Maslow's later in life letters and papers.  

Kaufman, in his book Transcend, takes much of what Maslow has stated and offers support for many of his ideas via more recent research. He has used his own metaphor (a sailboat) and eschews the whole triangle/ pyramid schematic for something more functional in lieu of today's research. As do many now, Kaufman states that the idea of a stepped approach to growth should not be rigid, and various needs can be aspired to at once. He describes self-actualization in terms of three main requirements: exploration, love, and purpose. At the lower levels of needs, he describes security as comprised of self-esteem, connection, and safety. Above his model is the need for transcendence, that sense of growth as an individual and with unity and harmony in the larger world. I believe Kaufman's updates are perfect for our times.

So, does Maslow HON still hold water for our times? I think so as a framework. What's still good about it? The identification of fundamental needs may indeed be universal. As humans, the requirement for physiological needs fulfillment is key to survival. The need for safety, security, and acceptance is pretty important, as we are indeed social animals. But above and beyond that, it gets very fuzzy. As we move up the list, the importance of needs or even defining critical needs becomes more and more difficult as you move through cultures, age groups, and perhaps even gender. Maybe the more complicated the society you live in reflects the complexity that might come about as needs you reach for outside of the fundamentals becomes apparent. Perhaps, we should think about circles and clouds instead of a stair-stepping pyramid.

Can we make a practice of the hierarchy of needs for HSPs?
As far as the usefulness of this model for HSPs, I still think there is validity here. HSPs tend to be purpose and meaning-driven individuals. We could almost live or aspire to be in the top section of self-actualization and be pretty damn happy about that. However, once we've met our fundamentals, I think the sky could be the limit for HSPs looking for a working framework to chart their lives. Perhaps, an Ikigai like Venn Diagram would be more useful. What matters is that we recognize what our own individual needs are. What constitutes success in a well-lived life will most likely vary from individual to individual. But what could this framework mean to us – a checklist, a plan, a needs assessment, or just an aspirational model, a vague roadmap with lots of scenic stop-offs and vista points? Not to be flippant, but all of the above might apply.

Looking forward with the hierarchy of needs.
Maslow explored and theorized about human motivation. This was probably a good thing during the heyday of Industrial/Organizational Psychology. We know now that HON is not a simple staircase to climb one level at a time. The model suggested progression but was not as dynamic as I think the newer models offer. Instead of levels of needs, perhaps, what we need is various points along a field where needs arise and subside as we go through a meaningful life. We deal with them as they arise, a problem to be solved and reckoned with, only to spawn another need. Then again, maybe we need to go back to a simpler model.
 
Please comment with your thoughts.