Since in
the recent days I have focused most on getting by and struggling not to lag
behind with piling-up stuff to handle at work, today I’m sharing some odd,
unstructured concepts from a workshop on improving workplace relationships I
attended a few days ago.
It does
not take a psychologist to notice that sets of traits specific people display
pre-destine them to take up different jobs. A salesman who has to solicit new
clients should be sociable, extraverted, determined, but does not necessarily
need to have an eye for detail and might acceptably be chaotic while chasing
several opportunities at the same time. An analyst in turn is rather
introverted, has stronger analytical than social skills, is well-organised and
keeps stuff in good order. Those two types of personalities need to interact
with one another to move a corporation forward, yet because their perceptions
of how work should be done vary by a long shot, salesmen and analysts tend to
clash.
Workings
of a corporation indispensably brings to mind the ever-up-to-date question,
namely, if things go wrong, is the system or are the people to blame? Consider
a situation in which a salesman’s goal is to acquire new clients, while an
analyst has to evaluate whether taking on new clients is profitable, monitors
and reviews portfolio of current clients. An analyst needs inputs from salesmen
to prepare applications submitted to decision makers and to compile review
papers for clients within allotted deadlines. An analyst then relies on inputs
from salesmen to meet their own goals, yet delivering inputs to analysts is
quite low on a list of salesmen’s priorities. Because goals of the two groups
are not aligned, analysts keep chasing up salesmen to get their inputs, while
salesmen do not give a damn and focus on their priorities. If additionally
senior managers leniently treat salesmen who fail to deliver what analysts need
to get on with their work, the system is to blame. If misconduct is tolerated
by executives, salesmen get the message that it is acceptable and carry on not
giving a damn.
The
coach who delivered the training wanted to prove us the stick and carrot
approach would not work in the hands of analysts attempting to motivate
salesmen to co-operate in a proper manner. He pointed out punishments meted out
by analysts (truth be told, they must not be severe) would not induce salesmen
to deliver high-quality inputs to analysts timely. Because of analysts’ role in
the organisation, they actually are not permitted to use the stick, so they
should be beware and double-think not to harm themselves. The carrot, i.e.
rewarding salesmen for professional behaviour also would not work, since no
matter what they do, analysts need to do their job anyway – hence analysts,
having higher comfort at work, are the main beneficiaries of giving out
carrots, not salesmen, who at the end of the day are indifferent.
Another
concept dwelled upon during the workshop was dealing with individuals claiming
to be morally superior. As one theory states, the more morally superior one
feels, they more they believe hurting others is justified and the less remorse
they have over causing pain to others. The typical example is a husband who
bullies his wife (because the soup was too salty) and because he believes his
wife is a bad wife, while he is a good husband, he has the right to mistreat
his wife (another example workshop participants instantly pointed at is
Jarosław Kaczyński, who also claims to be morally superior)… In earnest,
working (not to mention living) with such people is difficult, since if they
abuse you, they feel they are empowered to do so and treat such situation as
natural.
How much
empathy should one demonstrate to one’s colleagues only seemingly is a simple
question. Stepping into someone else’s shoes, understanding their standpoint,
motivations and goals is a vital step towards improving workplace relationships,
yet the issue is more intricate. Goals of individuals do not necessarily line
up with those of a corporation. The most vivid example is applying work-life
balance in practice. A corporation demands that a task is completed in
unreasonably short time (which in practice requires staying overtime), while an
employee wants to go home to look after their children. Human empathy tells you
to let a worker go home, while interests of the corporation are at odds with
human feelings are induce to motivate your colleague to stay in the office.
Manipulation as a method of attaining one’s goals brings out negative
associations. This first impression, as the coach argued, and I hold the same
view, is misleading. It all depends on goals and means one resorts t in order
to meet them. As long as no crime, misconduct, violation of procedures nor
other immoral deeds are involved, manipulation boils down to a set of actions
aimed to steering others behaviours so that they help you reach your goals.
Besides, if you feel your colleagues try to manipulate you crassly, the
response in similar manner is a sign to them you are aware of their techniques
and are armed with the same weapons.
Corpo-reality is not a bed of roses, in
order to survive you need thick skin and have to conform to the rules of that
wicked game (to the extent your conscience lets you, if you approach a
boundary, the only option might be to quit).
