Most people desire to get ahead in their career, and, a vast majority of people would prefer to be considered a success by others. There are many factors that go into how much a person can attain in their career and numerous difficult decisions affect the level of success a person realizes. People that do not have personal aspirations and a sense of aggression about their career will often get left out in the cold, stepped on by others, and left waiting a promotion time. As we move forward in our careers, though, it is as important to know how much carnage we’ve piled up behind us as it is to see how far we’ve gotten. It isn’t just accomplishments that are considered whenever someone looks at the sum total of a career; there are other aspects to consider as well.
How can we determine the right thing and the wrong thing when it comes to office interactions and our ability to get what we want or need done? Just like any ethical dilemma, it will depend on personal values. Obviously, the laws of our land are a guide and the policies of the company are a guide, but there is so much more to it than that. Which is more right, for you to receive personal benefit or for your organization to benefit? When these things are at conflict, it is a difficult question to answer for most, and it should be. After all, we are in a society and a time where if you don’t look out for yourself, you will be hard pressed to find anyone else that will. The tenured and loyal employees get laid off just like anyone else. Companies with all the “success” in the world are failing overnight due to ethical blunders. So, it is difficult to say that a person should give 100 percent, all the time, to the company they work for, but it is true. Without that company, there would be no paycheck and no opportunities to reach the individual goals ambitious people set for themselves. It becomes a risk that every employee should be willing to make as long as they choose to be with an organization.
The bottom line is that if you’ve chosen a life within an organization with people, you will experience politics, and the rule of thumb is that while we are employed by an organization, what is good for the organization is good for us. Therefore, if we make decisions based on negative politics and personal gain (or personal avoidance of conflict) instead of making the decision based on doing the right thing, we are creating carnage in our wake. We may get in good with the right people or garner the right person’s attention at a timely moment, but the damage we leave behind stands as a testament of how we operate. Certain people may believe that the negative results of our actions go unnoticed, but they do not. In most cases there is someone who sees it and there are definitely people that care.
Here are a couple of examples of scenarios that help put all of this into perspective.
1) Policy Violations/Discipline:
Frank is the assistant to a vice president with whom you feel you need to have a good relationship in order to be successful in your job. The VP has said on many occasions that Frank is one-of-a-kind and invaluable to him. A female employee in your department has come to you, hesitantly, to report that Frank has been sexually harassing her over the past couple of weeks. She is uncomfortable with the situation, but “doesn’t want to cause any waves.” As a manager, you know that the VP might not favor you as much if you pursue this, but you have an obligation to your employee, right?
In this case, there is clear benefit for you, the manager of the department, to play the political angle. The ease in which you are able to get things done, to succeed with this VP, is at stake. If this were a real-life scenario for any of us, it would be a difficult position to be in. Playing out the example though, not taking formal action in this situation may enable you to avoid being in the political doghouse with this particular VP, but it can have devastating effects on the company and you. Because, in this example, you are a member of management, you are a representative of the company and can be held responsible for your actions, or inaction, in a court of law along side your company. Going with the political decision here can cost the company hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars as well as possible court ordered company policies detrimental to the long-term success of the organization. Clearly, the carnage left in the wake of a decision made on political criteria is detrimental to the organization, is seen by others, and can have a negative affect on the ability for you to achieve your personal goals in the future. Nobody wins.
2) Promotions/Hiring/Firing
You are a supervisor in your company’s customer relations department. You are good at both leading other people and at taking care of the company’s valued customers—especially when they are upset. Over the past year you have been asking to hire another employee because your department, working hard the entire time, has fallen two months behind on answering correspondence, averages a hold time on the telephones of over three minutes, and works almost eight hours of overtime per person a week. You know you really need two or three new employees, but you’ve finally been given the budget and go-ahead to hire one new person. You have been interviewing and believe that you have found a person with that hard-to-find mix of talent and attitude to be a long-term success in the company and on your team. Before you can make an offer to that person, the CEO, inserts a new candidate into the equation. This new candidate is someone that is the daughter of a friend of the CEO and she went to the same college as the CEO. She clearly lacks the work experience of the candidate you’d like to hire and her degree is in a completely different field. She could possibly get the job done, but you are sure the leading candidate can do the job better. If you do not hire her, you may have to answer to the CEO and if you do hire her, the CEO should be very happy with you. What is the right thing to do?
Here too, there is a benefit to be considered by hiring the person the CEO recommended. By hiring the person the CEO put into the process, you could win some favor for you and your department and avoid tough questions and scrutiny in the future. The negative aspect of making that decision, however, has to do with what is best for the department and the company. By not hiring the best available person for the job, attitude and skills, you are risking losing the employees on the team that have gone above and beyond for a year. If the new hire doesn’t alleviate some of the workload on them, they will either leave for a different job or they will physically stay and mentally depart. When that happens, you will likely face some tough questions anyway. Nobody wins.
Without a doubt, there are many more scenarios that could be brought up. Situations with vendors, circumstances of gender, race, or sexual orientation, and decisions on how we spend our time are all examples of this. Playing office politics has repercussions that affect more than just the people involved. By being about the right thing, being honest, having a clear understanding of our own personal ethics and values, and developing the skills to handle conflict productively win-win situations are created for the company and for ourselves. Most of all, in the end, we will be respected, not just liked. There is a huge difference.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment