The Misalignment of ‘Proactivity’: John Cutler on Why Good Intentions Can Go Unrecognized

In a recent LinkedIn post, John Cutler delves into a common workplace pitfall: the divergence between an individual’s definition of proactivity and their colleagues’ or leaders’ understanding of it. Cutler highlights how this misalignment can lead to valuable contributions being misunderstood or even penalized, as experienced by a VP in an operations role at a prominent tech company.

The ‘Process Theater’ Paradox

Cutler shares an anecdote from a VP who dedicated six months to a project they believed was strategically vital. However, within the company culture, this initiative was dismissed as “process theater,” and those involved were labeled “process people.” This created a disconnect where the VP saw deep strategic value and a catalyst for necessary conversations, while leadership perceived it as mere performative effort.

“I spent six months pouring my heart and soul into something at a company whose leaders deemed that thing ‘process theater’. The more time you spent on it, the more you were deemed a ‘process person’. In fact, leaders actively bad-mouthed the thing as a badge for being performatively strategic.”

As John Cutler points out, the core issue wasn’t a lack of effort or belief from the individual, but a fundamental difference in perception and definition of what constitutes valuable strategic work. The VP’s belief system, shared by a few others, was that their work was a path towards being “deeply strategic and being a catalyst for the conversations that needed to happen.” This highlights a critical gap between individual conviction and organizational recognition.

When Work-Arounds Trump Genuine Effort

The situation escalated when the company faced pressure to “get less bureaucratic” and for leaders to “get into the details.” According to Cutler’s account, instead of recognizing the genuine efforts made by the VP and their team, the individuals who had mastered “work-arounds” were protected. These work-arounds, Cutler implies, were favored by the leadership, who had already established their own methods of navigating the system, often at the expense of those trying to genuinely improve processes.

“The most highly regarded leaders had already worked out a work-around, and they believed that other people were to blame for the problem. So when the time came to ‘get less bureaucratic’ and for leaders to ‘get into the details’ guess the people who took the hit? It wasn’t the political players who had mastered the work arounds.”

John Cutler uses this example to underscore his initial point: individual definitions of proactivity and care can starkly contrast with organizational norms. In this scenario, the VP’s diligent, heartfelt work was miscategorized, while those who found shortcuts or political advantages were insulated from negative consequences. Cutler argues that this dynamic can be demoralizing and lead to talented individuals feeling undervalued.

Understanding Divergent Definitions of Success

Cutler’s post serves as a cautionary tale for both employees and leaders. For employees, it emphasizes the importance of understanding the prevailing definitions of success and proactivity within their organization. “Your version of proactivity, care, and intention might not equal [some other person’s] version of proactivity, care, and intention,” Cutler writes, suggesting that explicit communication and alignment are crucial.

For leaders, Cutler implies a need for greater awareness and a willingness to look beyond established work-arounds or political maneuvering. Recognizing and valuing genuine effort, even if it doesn’t fit a pre-defined mold, is essential for fostering a productive and equitable work environment. As John Cutler concludes, without this understanding, valuable intentions can be misinterpreted, leading to frustration and the penalization of those who are genuinely trying to make a difference.