In many workplaces across the United States, the concept of collaboration seems to begin with one person drafting the work and another person offering assistance in improving or polishing the work. At first glance, this seems like a collaborative and beneficial practice; however, the end result sometimes leaves the original contributor feeling unappreciated or even overlooked.
The concept of one person assisting another person with polishing the work and then receiving more recognition than the original contributor is not a practice that is openly addressed; however, it is a common practice within the workplace environment, especially when recognition plays a significant role in career advancement.
According to a study published in Frontiers in Psychology, the practice is common in collaborative environments where the contributions of each person cannot be measured clearly.
Why credit becomes complicated
The act of refining another’s work is not inherently bad, as refinement is an important part of any team’s work process, but the problem comes in if the refined work becomes more important or replaces the original work in the view of managers or decision makers. In many instances, the individual who is responsible for the final product is seen as more important than the individual who was responsible for the original work.
As mentioned in the Frontiers in Psychology study, organizations that rely heavily on collaborative work often have difficulties with giving credit for work done within the team, especially if there were multiple people working on the project at different stages.
This creates an environment where the individual who is more visible or vocal is seen as more important than the individual who was responsible for the original work.
The motivations behind taking credit
There are a number of reasons why a person may seek to, or appear to, claim credit for something that is not entirely their own, and many of these reasons are related to career advancement. Employees may feel the need to prove their competence and value in a competitive environment, which could result in the exaggeration of their involvement.
Research discussed in the Frontiers in Psychology article indicates that credit claiming is a means for a person to increase their reputation and social status in the workplace, especially in a work environment where this is a means for advancement.
Personality traits are also a potential contributor to credit claiming, as studies published by Springer indicate that individuals who have a higher level of narcissism are more likely to take action to increase their own recognition, including diminishing the contributions of others.
This does not necessarily mean that the individual is doing this for ill intentions, but rather provides a means for understanding why this is a common occurrence.
How does it affect the original contributor?
For the employee who feels that their work has been taken over or misrepresented, the emotional effect can be substantial. Feelings of frustration, anger, and disappointment can arise as a result of the situation.
The study done by Frontiers in Psychology indicates that an employee who feels that their credit has been stolen can experience a reduction in job satisfaction and motivation. This is because they will start questioning whether their work will be recognized in the future.
As a result of these feelings, an employee may disengage from the work or the organization. Disengagement is when an employee becomes detached from actively participating or becomes less effective at work because they do not feel valued.
In some instances, an employee may even consider quitting their job as a result of the repeated experience of unfair recognition.
The role of fairness in workplace culture
The role of perceptions of fairness cannot be overemphasized in such situations, as recognition is largely related to employees’ perceptions of their environment.
When there is a lack of transparent allocation of credit, it shows employees that there may not be a sense of fairness in the system.
As stated in Frontiers in Psychology, a lack of transparent allocation of credit may result in higher levels of dissatisfaction between employees, as they compete for recognition with their colleagues. This may result in a breakdown in teamwork, as there may be a sense of mistrust in the environment.
Power dynamics behind the scenes
The power dynamics within an organization may make this problem even more complicated because the people with a higher status or a stronger relationship with the person in charge may have a greater influence on the perception of the work and the credit for it.
This could allow some people to achieve recognition more easily, even when the work is not original but rather a refinement of one.
The same research states that the hierarchical nature of the organization could even make this problem more common because the people with a lesser status within the company may not want to “speak out” against the credit for the work.
What this pattern reveals about work today
The above work-related situation illustrates a larger issue with the work culture of the modern workplace, where teamwork is encouraged, but the recognition system is not yet fully adjusted to account for the contributions made by each person.
The disconnect between the work put in and the recognition received can sometimes lead to conflicts, even in a group that seems to work well together on the surface level.
By analyzing the above situation through the lens of the above-mentioned theory, one can understand the reasons behind the occurrence of the above situation and the personal nature of the conflict that stems from it, touching on the basic human need for recognition and self-identification in the workplace.
Even though the above-mentioned coping mechanisms may help the person cope with the situation on a personal level, the overall solution is still dependent on the development of a recognition system that accurately measures the contributions made by each person in the workplace.
The above situation, which may seem like a minor difference between drafting and editing, is actually indicative of a larger conflict with the work culture and the recognition system of the modern workplace.