 |
     |
|
|
I have a friend who's become a little cynical recently. She's just recently begun to see the inner workings of large organizations and her naivity is being rubbed away rapidly. These are the things they don't teach at business school. Over the next little while, I'm going to periodically serialize our discussions and here discoveries about the realities of the organization that has taken her in so she can fulfill her dreams and ambitions.
A bit of background. The company that she works for is large and well established. It has thousands of people and multiple divisions, which would create a bit of a traffic jam if the organization weren't rigorously structured and didn't have a religion around established method. She's told me that some of the published methods and processes carry the same weight as Scripture. Although it makes perfect Smithian sense, I know that it can be frustrating in the extreme -- to me anyway. But the degree of faith in self-regulation that would be required to not default to standards to keep the business under control just hasn't made its way to the executive suite yet.
She is relatively low positioned but ambitious. Graduated well in her class and has always been considered a "comer" in everything she tried. She has -- until now -- sailed through everything she's tried. But this seems to be different: there are just so many people. While they seem to be intelligent and capable, they are generally different than she. And she feels it. My friend is not shy nor is she retiring. One might generously call her "direct" and open. More about this at another time when we get to more back story.
Today what she found out was that her future has little to do with how well she performs. Through a conversation with a longer-tenured colleague she learned that her future and the fulfillment of her ambitions is firmly held by the fraternity of executives who perform communal review and rating. Gathering annually like the College of Cardinals, the top several layers of management review the personnel in the layers beneath them. Cloistered for several days, they emerge with . . . binders. Binders that contain the fate of everyone for the next year. A 3-ring thumbs-up or thumbs-down. Just like the papal election by the cardinals, no evidence is left behind.
Well, if it's good enough for the Catholic church . . . On the surface, there is again perfect sense to the process. Determining the next generation of leaders is an important task, best not left to the whim of any one person -- or HR. Ironically, the consistency with the papal election continues as these erstwhile corporate cardinals damn more than they elevate.
What she found out was that during the judgment days of the commercial bishopric, she and others would be ranked and rated, and that one nay vote could capsize her career boat for the year. Like Freemasons, one black ball does it all. "How is that fair," she wondered aloud to me. I don't really think it is, but that's neither here nor there. What's important is: that's how it is. So what does it mean and how does that affect her?
Critical point one: organizations are, not unlike biological bodies, self-perpetuating machines. The drive of all things alive is to stay alive and to perpetuate its species. The goal of the collective mind in an organization is to preserve itself. So, as you can expect, the first mandate of a group in selecting potential replacements is to make them in their own image. The implication is, of course, that to become one be like one. That's not so bad if the executives are smart, fast, nimble, honorable, and so forth because that could be something to aspire to. If, for whatever reason, there is reason to not respect that group then it might be less than ideal.
Critical point two: in a situation where a few negative reactions could be damaging then it is critical to not have any negative reaction potential. How do you do that? Well, first and foremost, don't give anybody any reason to have anything negative -- or positive -- to think about you. Huh? That's right. Be beige. In such a circumstance you can't afford a single enemy to rally a very few others against you. The only way that could happen is if you stand out say by having done something. On the other hand, nobody will vote against you if they have no idea about you or what you may have done or not done. So, all you need is a supporter or two because there is no resistance. Which leads to . . .
Critical point three: it is much harder to get any support in a closed group like that if you have to be fought for. It's the politics of the situation and the pressure on the participants. Face it, nobody is going to gain by supporting you for a promotion, but they could suffer a little bit by it. If there's opposition you go right back to points one and two. Its a no-win situation in the room and you fall off the table. So, don't be difficult. There should be no reason for anyone to oppose you for any reason. Good luck
Posted by Grayson at December 13, 2005 10:00 PM