A new year is already in full
swing and many of us are looking at how we will realise our goals. We know there
will be obstacles along the way. Sometimes these may just be challenges in the environment.
But, as you find so often in corporate life, these obstacles may be created by
those who dislike your individuality, are jealous of your progress, or even threatened
by it. We live in a world where some define their existence only by the narrow
spaces they occupy, whether it is positions of authority, or some kind of managerial
responsibility. The history of organisations is writ large with individuals who
take it upon themselves to destroy or limit the progress of talented and promising
individuals.
This past month I have had to
confront this when dealing with two individuals who came to have career
conversations. One is quite senior in his organisation, and has the kind of experience,
qualifications and character that you would expect to be highly valued. The
other is an upcoming manager who has made investments in her own development,
whilst being a model and performing employee. I found it interesting that these
individuals, who do not know each other, and are on different career paths, had
on the same week called to discuss similar problems.
They both found colleagues and
managers who were actively seeking to destroy their credibility. Both were
prepared to quit their jobs as they were finding the environment so
demoralising. They were hurt and angry. At the same time I noticed in both of
them a great yearning for a solution in their current environment; an
opportunity to disprove those they saw as derailing their progress by succeeding
against the odds that were being stacked against them; and by not depending on
the benevolence of those who, whilst having been placed in a position where
they could assist them, were actively seeking to destroy their careers. Both of
them were posing a similar challenge: how do you deal with a situation like
this?
The first thing I resolved to do
was to disprove the notion that all was lost. Yes the challenges seemed
complex, but I thought that both had the solution, they just did not know they
did. And the framework I used in helping them find a way to deal with this is a
simple six-step process that I have found useful through experience.
The first step is self-reflection.
It is always important to ask whether one has done everything possible to
prevent the situation being what it is. Paradoxically, when we own up to any
mistake or fault, it tends to disarm others and minimises conflict. It was this
process of self-reflection that also made both of them realise the resolve they
had to deal with the matters before them. At this point, the individuals were also
able to deal with the demons of fear and self-hatred. Honest self-reflection is
the first step I use in these processes.
The second step is the importance
of understanding
the opposition. This is important for two reasons: the first is based
on the classic saying that, in order to be understood, you must first seek to
understand. Maybe by understanding the motivation, fear and interests of those
who were seeking to derail their progress, they could use this to their advantage,
and make the opposition less threatened by them. Idealistic, yes, but it
provides an avenue for a solution. The second, to ensure that, if ever they
have to confront them, they should know the kind of people they are dealing
with, as well as their network. And I emphasised this to them, that a lot of
people make mistakes by underestimating those they may be in conflict or
disagreement with. And that often happens because we never sought to understand
them in the first place.
The third step is to ensure they
have a sense of their own value. This value would be as seen by the
organisation they work for, and not necessarily the individuals who were
creating problems for them. How many times have we seen a company’s management
act in interests that were not the same as those of its shareholders? Thus, I
told them, there was a possibility that the actions of these individuals would
not necessarily be seen, by a different arbiter, to be in the interest of their
organisations. Who in the organisations would be concerned by what was happening
to them, and would provide support that was unexpected but would be of assistance?
Through this process, they could identify potential allies as well as weaken
the position of their opposition.
The fourth step was to tap into a
trusted
and value network. I emphasised that they should only see me as the
first of that network, and that tapping onto it with focused conversations
would enable them to build allies, as they were dealing with seemingly connected
individuals in their organisations. They would also get the benefit of
different perspectives and wise counsel before they move into action, where
real conflict would arise.
The fifth step they would go to
is confrontation.
This is less about fighting than bringing up the issues to what they have
determined is the relevant forum or individual. This is to ensure that the
individuals who are causing the problem for them are now forced to deal with
the reality of being questioned by a different authority. In this instance,
there will be defensiveness, and some vindictiveness. But I emphasised that
they should remember that their ultimate goal was to get the situation to be
better than the one they found themselves in. When they reached this stage,
they would have lost all sense of fear.
The last, and no less important,
was that they should seek to own the solution. This did not mean
that the solution was theirs alone. It is only that, through the preceding
steps, they would have ensured that the organisation feels an obligation for a
solution that is credible to them as the concerned parties. In the
conversation, I was focused on the steps in the process rather than the tools. The
tools could be a complaint, a discussion or a facilitated session. Whatever it
would be, it would need to be seen to be acceptable to them. And the important
thing is that by the time they reached the solution stage, through the previous
steps, they would have had the benefit of a wider perspective to the problem.
Even after they did this, it is
possible that the individuals could still decide that the current environment
would not be better for them. The only difference from quitting without trying
to do anything would be that they would have allowed individuals to destroy their
careers, and not confront the organisation in which those individuals are also
employed. In a subtle way, they would have reasserted an organisation’s
principles over the actions of a few individuals who may abuse power. And
through this, they would have ensured that no individual would have thought
they had power over them. They would have overcome the fear and anger with
which they started, and become masters of their destiny.
I kept repeating to each of them,
separately, that they should not allow any individual to think they had the
power to destroy them, no matter what position and authority they had. And they
both have come to believe this to be the case.
I am sure they will find a
solution that is good for their careers and lives.
