Boundary Bind
Picture this:
You are a teacher in a department that is divided. One group prides itself on working hard for the sake of the kids, going the extra mile — chaperoning that field trip, staying after school for that extra meeting, saying “yes” to that extra task because it will help a student, the department, the school. For this group, not going the extra mile amounts to not caring, and that is unconscionable.
The other group in this divided department prides itself on looking out for Number One. Members of this group do NOT take on extra work. They are comfortable saying, “No.” They do their jobs effectively and go home at 3:30. When they pass a colleague from the other group toiling away after school, they say, “Go home! You’re making the rest of us look bad!”
Who is the bad guy here?
My answer? It depends.
It depends on the frame you use to interpret the data.
Through the frame of the Puritan work ethic, the Looking Out for Number One group is the bad guy.
Through the frame of the unions, the Going the Extra Mile (Without Extra Pay) group is the bad guy.
Through the frame of boundaries…..ah. Here we encounter the bind.
Because one person’s picket fence is another person’s stone wall.
One person’s good guy is another person’s bad guy.
That is, if boundaries are the walls that protect our gardens, then those walls have different characters depending on our personal needs and values, our individual realities.
If I value going the extra mile, if doing more for others’ sake fertilizes my garden, then that is the right thing for me to do. My garden wall, as I see it, is more permeable, like a picket fence.
If I value limits, if a sense of autonomy over my time and attention fertilizes my garden, then respecting my limits is the right thing for me to do. My garden wall, as I see it, is made of stone.
It’s when members of one group judge the members of another group — “You don’t care! You’re making the rest of us look bad!” or “Go home! You’re making the rest of us look bad!” — that inter-personal problems can arise.
The problems, as I see them, stem from a dichotomous viewpoint, a rigid, binary, either-or basis for judgment that keeps colleagues from
finding the middle ground.
Finding the middle ground between porous garden walls — that can lead to resentment and burnout — and impenetrable garden walls — that can lead to self-righteousness and isolation — could benefit both groups in a divided department. I’m not saying where that middle ground might be, because I don’t know. But surely both sides can learn from one another and get creative.