Office politics are very common in the business world. It will occur where people of different goals, or rather conflicting goals work together; and also with power hungry people.
Before entering university, I was working part time in a small medium enterprise. I was posted to the HR department as an admin clerk. The HR manager, Susan, whom now is in her mid 40s, has been working since 18 years old in the same company. She knows the flow of the company at her fingertips, as she has started from the bottom, and worked her way up to the manager position.
Recently, the Production Department hired a new manager, John, whom is in his mid 40s. He has worked in a number of big companies and has been taking courses to constantly upgrade himself. Since the first day John stepped into office, he has been thinking of ways to make profit for the company. After his 3 months probation, he started to restructure his department with the permission of the boss. He wants to change their old and laidback working standard, to a more skilled and competent level. Within a short period of 6 months, 2 workers were fired as expectation was not met and they refuse to change. The news was quickly spread to the other departments.
Soon after, John came to Susan and suggested that she should also think about restructuring her department, in order for the company to be competitive and efficient. Susan has been adapted to the old working culture after working in the company for 20 over years. Most of her staffs are also in their 40s and been working for quite a while in the company. Since then, Susan has been trying to evade the topic and avoid talks with John. She felt that she can improve her department without using John’s strategy. What seem to be a friendly confrontation, has evolved into an office conflicts
This is a case where 2 managers have different goals in mind. John, whom is very competitive, power-hungry, will think of profiting the company; Susan, whom is very knowledgeable and prefer to slowly improve her department. One who is not afraid to sack the workers as bonds have not been developed yet, while the other who will think twice before sacking her staffs.
I feel that for this case, John should not confront Susan and suggest to her what to do. He should know that Susan has been working in the traditional culture for a long period and it will take some time for her to adapt to the competitive culture. However, Susan should not avoid John but rather discuss with him small steps in the restructuring. In order to get things done, she should engage actively in the office politics. What do you think?
(paiseh for the long intro)
Hey Jun Wen
ReplyDeleteYes I definitely agree that in the business world, it holds a "dog eats dog" kind of mentality. This ultimately also leads to the creation of office politics in which everyone has a different view of how to progress the company and oneself.
Regarding the conflict between John and Susan, I do agree with you that John should not have confronted Susan. Perhaps a suggestion and a discussion would have yielded better results. Indeed, Susan has been with the company a long time and she knows the in and outs of the operations. John on the other hand has the experience in transforming the company in line with the new age thinking. In order to get things going, Susan should not be too closed minded about change, and John should respect the experience Susan has in operations. If the two had discussed it at length and tried to understand each other’s point of view, I believe they would have been able to come up with changes that would benefit everyone.
Hi Junwen! Tough situation you have here!
ReplyDeleteI think Susan would definitely benefit more from communicating with John than running away. However, I can understand why she would prefer to run away, just in case John suggests to fire one of the staff working under her. She could perhaps ask him out for lunch together with the office staff and bring up the contributions that each staff has made to the company and how they are crucial components. And furthermore, just because he fired 2 staff does not mean he would go around firing everyone. Susan should not let this biased thought set in, making her want to run.
On the other hand, John could work together with Susan since she has been around for so long, to get a better understanding of how the company works. And perhaps review the plans that he had for the company to make it better. :)
The corporate world does not revolves around work alone. It is one where you build trusting relationship with people you work with. I think in this case, Susan has very close relationship with all her workers and it may not be very nice to start sacking people who she is close with. I believe she has considered the age of her staff as they are in their 40s and it would be tough for them to look for jobs again.
ReplyDeleteI feel that John, on the other hand, should have thought more about the current situation that Susan was facing before he started confronting her about the situation. I think a more tactful method would be to get a feel of the ground of Susan's before suggesting a change to her department. It is not wrong to have plans to restructure for the better of the company, but it should be rolled out slowly and check to see what are the responses from Susan side first.
Pretty tense situation you've got there man!
ReplyDeleteBoth are right in their own methods. Susan should not adopt John's method if she can improve her department in her own ways. Likewise, John should just take care of his own department. However, if Susan's method prove to be ineffective, she should be open to other advice. Afterall, John's experience may be of significant help. For John, though he may be able to increase profit and efficiency of the company, he should still respect Susan in her position. There are many ways to tell convey what he might want to say and he should do it in a more subtle way. Afterall, if he put it outright to Susan that she did not run her department well, it will strain relationship. With internal strife, the company will suffer. So I guess both sides have to face this matter tactfully.