This blog post examines the reality of companies forcing positive attitudes on employees and the underlying issues. Let’s consider together whether forced positivity is truly effective.
In our daily lives, we often encounter situations where store clerks or phone representatives smile constantly and treat customers with excessive politeness. Is it truly desirable that we easily accept and take for granted this positive attitude toward customers? Furthermore, is it right for companies to demand that employees always work with a positive attitude? Within the things we take for granted, significant absurdities may be entrenched in our lives. Of course, this isn’t to say we should live negatively, but I believe our system that forces this positive attitude is flawed. Forced positivity is no longer positivity.
In her book Bright-sided, author Barbara Ehrenreich argues that large American corporations claim they lose an average of $3 billion annually because employees with negative attitudes are less efficient and make mistakes. For this reason, companies consider it crucial for employees to view everything positively. They enforce a positive image, even requiring employees to read books like *Positive Thinking* or inviting lecturers for training sessions. They obsess over positivity because they believe employee motivation directly translates to company profits. However, once this demand began and motivation became a whip, positive thinking became a certificate of quality for compliant employees. In fact, as companies profited from downsizing after the 1980s and employment conditions worsened, they increasingly forced the word “positivity” upon employees. It’s as if employees are being turned into machines, into company parts, forced to feel a certain way.
But before explaining this point, I want to define the positivity I’m talking about versus the positivity Barbara Ehrenreich mentioned. The positivity here is not the genuine positivity people typically think of. It is a forced positivity that masks corporate profits, positions, grievances, and hypocrisy. I want to make clear that this is not pure positivity, but a positivity mixed with various elements.
First, regarding companies demanding positive attitudes from employees, I want to criticize the very idea that forcing employees to act positively increases work efficiency and reduces mistakes. Do the effects companies desire actually materialize when people think positively? Working with a positive mindset can indeed yield positive outcomes. Numerous studies and experiments support this, such as the placebo effect observed during World War II when relief medicine was scarce. However, there is a significant difference between working with genuine positivity and merely pretending to be positive. The positivity demanded by companies or organizations is emotionally taxing labor that prevents people from expressing their true thoughts, which can become a heavy burden for employees. As this demand persists, Aron-Lich mentions in her book that self-esteem can decline, potentially leading to negative internal changes. Furthermore, since the 1980s, as companies implemented downsizing, they imposed an unspoken pressure on employees: failing to maintain a positive attitude could lead to dismissal. In practice, companies forced this mindset by making employees think positively while laying them off. “Your dismissal is your fault! Don’t blame the system, don’t criticize your boss—just work harder and pray harder!”
Examples justifying this corporate behavior can be found in the book. Here too, they justify their own interests under the banner of the previously mentioned “positivity.” Is it truly desirable for companies to solve everything with the positivity they preach? Is it right for companies to exploit employees and casually accept demands that disregard their personal feelings?
Rather than forcing employees to think positively, companies should create conditions that naturally foster positive thinking or guide employees towards it. The primary reason is that if employees don’t genuinely feel positive, the company cannot expect the desired effect. True positivity is experienced when one takes pride in their work, finds happiness in it, and feels a sense of fulfillment. Although customers have long taken forced positivity from employees for granted, and employees themselves have accepted it, it’s time to reconsider.
Furthermore, related to this issue, the emergence of ‘Smile Mask Syndrome,’ also known as ‘masked depression,’ is rapidly increasing among modern office workers and is easily observable. This syndrome primarily manifests in service industries where employees must hide their emotions while interacting with people. It stems from suppressing feelings of injustice or anger without venting them. These unresolved emotions accumulate as stress. Imagine a part-time bakery worker smiling while handling payments or wrapping items, all while hiding a pained expression behind the counter – it sends chills down your spine. This leads people to experience feelings of self-blame, loss of motivation, and withdrawal—the exact opposite of the attitude companies desire. The greatest irony lies in the fact that the very entities causing this syndrome are the companies themselves. The existence of this syndrome demonstrates just how painful and dangerous the disconnect between inner feelings and outward behavior can be.
However, it’s also necessary to view Smile Mask Syndrome from the perspective of professional ethics. One counterargument might be that service-oriented professions inherently involve emotional labor. It could be argued that those in such roles must accept emotional strain as part of the job. There is undeniable truth to this point. However, my focus is not on all service industries, but specifically on the egregious practices of certain companies. Therefore, labor that induces severe depression or despair is something individuals have the right to refuse.
Furthermore, the problem lies in how demanding a packaged positive attitude can make people compliant. What is the most crucial element when a company undertakes a project or generates ideas? It is likely that everyone, regardless of position, contributes their ideas, exchanges feedback, discusses the pros and cons, and adopts the best solution. Companies should grow within this kind of atmosphere. The era where the boss made all decisions and others followed is over. The more people critically examine and offer advice on every matter, the more diverse methods and better results emerge. But does the positive attitude companies demand actually help this process? Demanding that people always greet others with a smile and accept everything positively is misguided. Such demands only hinder the critical thinking companies actually seek. Critical thinking is difficult for those constantly required to maintain a positive attitude. Even if critical thoughts exist internally, expressing them outwardly becomes challenging. For instance, even if a junior employee discovers an error in a project the department head worked on all night with the team, they would likely find it hard to point it out. The term “positive” can act as a framework that stifles creative thinking, potentially causing long-term disadvantages for the company as well.
Having a job is hard and challenging in many ways, not just emotionally. Yet people often say managing emotions is the hardest labor of all. Emotions can torment us, and they can make us happy. Emotions might just be the greatest gift God gave us. These days, people suppress their own feelings and express them falsely. My point is not that employees should never smile at work, nor that companies should always adopt a negative, critical attitude toward everything. It’s about not forcing yourself to pretend to be positive and suppress your emotions. Emotions aren’t something to be stifled and suppressed; they need to be expressed and resolved appropriately. What workers truly desire is an environment where they can work happily, and I believe it’s desirable to provide and foster such an environment.
