To be right conscious is an easy task, for no boundaries or lines are defined that would differentiate what could be a right conscious decision, action, thought or what could form the basis of being unethical at the workplace. To pick up one and place him under the white cloud of appreciation is difficult as much as it is to place one under the black cloud of reprimand. These issues arise because an individual seems to show streaks of all personalities and behaviour, so much so that they can be physically viewed simultaneously in minutes of separation.
One such conflicting behaviour is exhibited by many individuals who realise the problems of the organization from an eagle’s point of view. Not only are they sharp eyed, they can also critically examine all the dimensions leading to the growth and failure of the organization’s strategies and policies. If given a chance they have scores of opinions and suggestions to sound to a willing ear. They even have self made strategies in place which if given a direction may result to better outcomes. They are those individuals who are high performers in the jobs bestowed upon them and have earned quite a reputation for being blatant. And the top management likes them too.
However they sport a bad body language when it comes to interacting with new people, specially the one’s appointed in powerful positions. The new head honchos bring new policies that are framed within a matter of time, where a feedback is necessary to begin with. Here is the place where these high performers start behaving unexpectedly in a split second. They may give go ahead nods to the directives or plans, and tow in to the idea but frequently disregarding the hierarchy of the opponent and challenging the effects of the implementation do not go unnoticed. They even indulge in ganging up for soft mockery of ideas and brushing off new methodologies from the ones long established by numerous trial and error techniques. For once that can be counted as defensive mechanism to the already existing policies; however in the long run they show high levels of instability and insecurity. They may be once ruling the roost but a change brings about a reshuffle in the structure and the processes. So despite being a high performer the constant fear of being redundant aligns them towards a behaviour that is counted negative. Upon being questioned as to why they have ideas that do not reach day light, they believe in blaming the system for the inefficiency all over. And the dullness and lackadaisical environment that doesn’t provide opportunities for initiatives. Any new thought is welcomed by a ‘not possible’ or ‘cannot be done’ or ‘you’ll have to do it all by yourself’ attitude. These people on the other hand do not stop being ethical at their work, however end up being the cribbing geese of the coop, who believe in preaching every moment; yet shift no bones to develop a dying idea or improve a situation that has no direct dealing with them.
Are organizations to be blamed for such people being bred within themselves? Is the top management brass to be blamed for not being able to reach out to those at the lowest or middle level branches of the tree? Is change the root cause of all insecurity developing of getting redundant? Or is it human nature not to welcome great ideas from relatively new people who’ve just taken baby steps and not grown along with the organization? Or is it just about being vocally right conscious?
No comments:
Post a Comment