By Jesper Lindgaard Christensen, Associate Professor, AAU Business School and union representative for academic staff in Djøf. Translated by LeeAnn Iovanni, AAU Communication and Public Affairs

The title of this short article contains a paradox – shouldn't the workplace characterized by consensus indicate that all is well, that individual well-being is top-notch and that the organization is 'at peace'?

Not long ago, AAU carried out the staff well-being survey (applause to everyone who responded), and the results are currently being processed in the units, the Main Joint Consultation Committee, Main Occupational Health and Safety Committee, Main Working Environment Committee, and other committees (applause to everyone engaged in the debate and the committees), and hopefully the discussions will also be translated into action.

However, there are some important steps and prerequisites for achieving that goal. It is often said that in such talks you should put on the 'yes hat'. That you have to find the constructive angle. To a large extent, that is true. But there also needs to be a balance. Action and development can be hampered if there is no room for involvement, criticism and other opinions. Not only is this the core of democracy in general, but discussion that allows space for exploring all sides is itself an indicator of well-being. Criticism is an expression that you care and want to help improve the workplace. And in this context, it is crucial to understand that criticism can contribute to important learning, but learning does not happen if everyone has their guard up. A staff member’s criticism is often perceived by management as an attack, even though getting involved and taking a critical stance are actually a commitment to doing things better.

I said 'management', but there are two parties here – a recipient and a sender, and it is crucial of course that criticism is also conveyed in a proper manner. If criticism comes across as personal, you cannot be surprised when it is met with a defensive stance. But if criticism is not accepted, senders can become apathetic and commitment decreases. This is the condition I refer to as 'dangerous'. By this I mean that decisions have the best chance of being implemented and successful if those who actually have to carry them through see them as legitimate. Conversely, lack of influence, declining motivation and no responsiveness risk leading to poor well-being and stress.

Fortunately, cooperation and involvement work very well in many places, but with 15 years as union representative for academics in Djøf, I can also say fairly firmly that there are other places where it does not. Openness to disagreement is not the norm everywhere, to put it in North Jutland understated terms. In some cases, even sickness absence review meetings are viewed as a negotiation, and in several places the consultation committee works at cross-purposes.

So what can we do about this?

In particular, there is probably a need for a real cultural change towards creating an acceptance that 'criticism is love'.  However, culture and attitude changes can be incredibly difficult. It is a long haul and there are often no clear mechanisms. But there is almost no way around it. A couple of examples: Even where there is good will towards openness, union representatives often find that managers perceive it as a form of conflict escalation if a staff member wants a union rep to take part in discussions. We need to get away from that kind of thinking. The image of the angry trade unionist is probably outdated (a little, at least). Another example is that it is important for the culture of debate to combat 'echo chambers'. By that I mean forums where the same opinions come together. Instead, seek out disagreement and value those who challenge opinions.

The message here is that confronting opinions not only helps create development, but that staff member engagement in their work and workplace is also an indicator of the organization's well-being. However, stimulating a healthy culture of debate requires that everyone have an open mind.