Reflections on Tyranny of Intimacy

Judith Malveaux COMM 614 judithamalveaux@aol.com

In Communication Ethics Theory, the authors discuss the work of Richard Sennett (108) and his notion of tyranny of intimacy, which speaks of imposed private life in the public domain. It asserts that when people become too close, there is no space for privacy or freedom of movement. I found this information troubling but familiar in my experience in todays workplace. I found it troubling because it can result in poor decision making and planning as well as limiting the public communication necessary for a functional and healthy work environment. I admit that it is natural that coworkers develop friendships during years of working together, witnessing each other experience tragedies and celebrations, and gaining a deeper understanding of one another. It is also common that people with like interests would gravitate to one another and develop relationships that extend beyond the nine-to-five workday grind. This type of relationship is neither atypical nor improper. Issues can arise from these relationships, however, when others in the workplace are forced or coerced into moving facets of their private life into the public domain or when those who have chosen to blur public and private see benefits unavailable to those who value the division between the two areas. One example is when a worker in an organization exercises flawed decision making to promote the people with whom he shares private relationships instead of the people who would best serve the interests of the organization as a whole. The two dont have to be mutually exclusive, but when they are, the person who does this may be sacrificing productivity and excellence. They may also be limiting the ability of others with whom they do not have a private relationship to succeed and thrive. I have witnessed this situation when two coworkers became friends and one went on to become a manager. That manager began assigning projects to her

friend because she knew her interests and ambitions. The manager did not look at the strengths and skills of all members of the staff and determine who would do the best job. In this instance, the overall perception of the department suffered as work was produced that could have been stronger and divisions within the department developed as people perceived preferential treatment was given to those with friendships as opposed to equal access to both resources and opportunity. Another detriment that can arise from the tyranny of intimacy is that members of an organization may have trouble voicing any criticism or concerns about a colleague or decisions made because they fear doing so will result in negative repercussions because of the friendships that exist among coworkers. This compromises performance and negatively affects the public communication that is necessary to strengthen an organization. Also, if someone is introverted or a naturally shy person, working in a climate where employees are expected or perhaps encouraged to drag areas of their private life into the public arena could be difficult and stressful. Such a person might feel they have to go beyond their job scope and engage in activities that they are uncomfortable with in order to be successful. While workplace friendships may not be for everyone, they do have their place. Its when those with such friendships use them to advance their own agenda or stymie the ability of others to contribute and be successful that they become a problem.