#73: Codependence

100 Posts in 100 Days

The last 2 posts have been about interdependence and independence. Today, I’m continuing to think along this continuum of “dependence” and digging into codependence.

Codependence is the state of having excessive reliance on a partner.

I’m no expert on the various forms of dependency I have been writing about. Just a curious person trying to learn more and lead better.  Thinking about codependence through the lenses of teams and systems is proving to be a bit tricky. Mainly because codependence is often referred to in terms of individual relationships or in reference to an individual and how he/she/they behave. 

That said, here are some things I am noticing about codependence and how it has played out in some of my experiences:

Bureaucracy and hierarchy potentially reinforce codependent ways of being.  I’m a proponent of structure and clear systems.  I wrote about Atomic Habits and clear systems in my second post.   I love it when processes and teams can be self-managing (independent). But, I also think that some systems can create unnecessary barriers.  Here is composite example, meaning that I have taken some elements from multiple schools where I was principal to bring them to this vignette.  Even as a composite, this is a true example.

I was principal in a school where the main office & work room were on the opposite side of the building than the storage room, where supplies like pencils, construction paper, tape, glue, scissors, and so on were kept. The supply room was kept locked. 

Any teacher wanting supplies from the supply room needed to fill out a request form in the office 24 hours in advance and the office staff would “fill” and deliver the order.

The office staff had a clear rationale for this system.  One reason was budget management. If the room was left unlocked, then there might be a “run” on supplies. Teachers would take more than they needed and hide materials in their classrooms.  Constant re-stocking would quickly drain the public school budget.  Another reason was time management. The office staff had multiple roles as attendance secretary, health room aide, recess supervisors, lunch room supervisors, and receptionists. They had tight schedules that impacted others and they needed to manage their time effectively.  It would be impossible for them to fill requests “on demand”.   A third reason was keeping the storage room organized and stocked.  Teachers would be in a hurry and they would leave things behind or unkempt.  Supplies would run low and without a way to manage inventory, may not be replenished.   The current system allowed for inventory management and organization.  

Teachers were frustrated. They felt that their access to materials that students needed was being limited.  Even worse, they felt that they weren’t trusted.  The system was forcing them to be codependent on the office staff for garnering materials for their students. 

The system was working for those who were managing it, but not working for those who were actually using it.  It took a lot of discussion and work to come up with something that was more mutually beneficial; closer to a state of interdependence.  Both “sides” (as if there should be “sides” in this scenario) needed to share information and gain understanding.  The office manager and I shared the actual budget numbers and potential costs if there was a “run” on materials (this was very surprising for the teachers).  The teachers agreed to be more diligent about organization and assigning the responsibility of keeping the storage area neat to specific teachers.  The space was near the faculty lounge area and it wouldn’t be too much trouble to share the responsibility for checking the room periodically (think “duty schedule”).  It was worth it in order to have access.  

In both systems, teachers were able to get supplies.  In the first, though, they were reliant on the office staff to do so.  In the second, individuals were working together for the common outcome in a way that created less demand on the office staff and greater access for teachers.  

 

Micromanagement and control tendencies can create codependent relationships.  Just this morning, I was telling my wife that I’m at that moment (it happens every new school year!) when my mind turns to onboarding new school faculty and I can’t shut it off. Lists run through my head constantly.  I want to get everything checked off.  We were driving in the car and I said, “I know there are things that aren’t done yet that other people are fully capable of doing.  And responsible for.  But, I will be back at school before them. I am resisting the urge to just get them done.”  

It’s hard for me. I know I will feel more settled as “the things” start to get done, which feels good in the short term. I also know that it is a trade off for the real goal of interdependent teams with the skill, knowledge, and experience to successfully lead the onboarding process every year, not just this year. So, I will do my best to resist the urge, knowing that distributing the work can be step toward the interdependent state I would like to cultivate.  (By the way, my wife’s response was essentially, “Good luck” with a little laugh.)  

 

Efficacy and confidence, of individuals and teams, may be an antidote for codependency.  Unclear boundaries and a poor sense of self can feed codependence.  Having a clear vision, shared understanding, and specific roles might help. Clarity and communication come up strongly in several previous posts:  yesterday’s post “Independence”, my earlier post “Decisions, Decisions” and a post I wrote back in March 2019 “Empowerment:  Moving Beyond Delegation and Establishing Great Teams” are just a few examples.  Which leads me to tomorrow’s post, “Easier said than done”, so come back tomorrow for more.