Monday, October 16, 2006
Games in the Workplace: Losing Big Time
Regular contributor Joan Lloyd explains in her latest article on our site explains why a "nice" workplace - one where the overall atmosphere is relaxed and congenial, where workers don't appear to be complaining about each other or their superiors, where the bosses appear to be tolerant and easily satisfied - could be, in reality, not nice at all but rather downright nasty.
When a manager, for example, keeps telling subordinates, regardless of actual performance, "your work is just fine, keep it up!", it demotivates high achievers who want to be challenged and be told the truth about where they did well.
Or, if supervisors (or fellow workers) don't want to hurt feelings by giving direct feedback, they talk with colleagues about the failings of the worker concerned. Everybody gets the message that in order to stay on the good side of the boss, or peer group, you must talk about others behind their backs.
In other words, while on the surface, everything seems to be hokey-dorey at such places of work, people are really just playing games. In these scenarios, the games are a convenient mechanism for avoiding the unpleasantness of facing problems head on or the discomfort of embarrassing encounters. Other types of games can be more dangerous.
And sometimes, you can play a game and win hands-down. At least, you win in the short term. But although you've won the game, you have lost in life - big time.
Management consultant and columnist Nan Russell writes about a particularly insidious game in the latest issue of her provocative newsletter, Winning at Working.
Jon, a fellow manager who, like Nan, was involved in policy implementation in their organization, asked to meet with her over lunch a day or two prior to an important company meeting. A far-reaching proposal would be coming up for discussion at that meeting, which, if adopted, would lead to major changes within the company. Since both Jon's and Nan's departments would apparently be impacted in similar ways by this decision, Jon thought it might be prudent to sit down with Nan and see if they could adopt a united front at the upcoming debate.
Over lunch, Jon and Nan analyzed the proposal and discovered that they indeed felt the same way - that the proposed changes would be harmful to the interests of the organization as a whole. They decided to work together to eliminate the motion from consideration.
So it happened that Nan arrived at the big meeting armed with all kinds of data, statistics and arguments in support of their viewpoint. Jon whispered in her ear as they entered the boardroom that he now felt more strongly about the matter than ever, and he hoped Nan would keep to their agreement to speak with one voice.
But as the meeting progressed, Nan was taken by surprise as Jon began to debate her and argue furiously in favor of the proposal - adopting the very position he had professed to deplore. Three weeks later he was promoted to be the Project Leader.
Looking back at what happened, Nan realized that Jon had quickly adjusted his course once he had read the tea leaves. Nan's only concern had been to offer sound input, considering only the best interests of the organization. But Jon had been thinking about something else. Jon was out for Jon. He saw an opportunity and took it; whether or not he agreed with the position he was aligning himself with was now quite irrelevant.
But that's not the end of the story. Two promotions and our years later, Jon was fired.
As Nan puts it, people like Jon may win in the short term, but they're playing the wrong game. For people like them, the goal is a personal win. But if that's your goal, you lose in the end.
Twenty years in management, says Nan, have taught her that "people who are winning at working know that work is not a single player game...You see, people who are winning at working view work as a life canvas, not a game."
Surely, similar sentiments could be expressed about any area of life. What serious individual who was been through the mill in this world could disagree?
When a manager, for example, keeps telling subordinates, regardless of actual performance, "your work is just fine, keep it up!", it demotivates high achievers who want to be challenged and be told the truth about where they did well.
Or, if supervisors (or fellow workers) don't want to hurt feelings by giving direct feedback, they talk with colleagues about the failings of the worker concerned. Everybody gets the message that in order to stay on the good side of the boss, or peer group, you must talk about others behind their backs.
In other words, while on the surface, everything seems to be hokey-dorey at such places of work, people are really just playing games. In these scenarios, the games are a convenient mechanism for avoiding the unpleasantness of facing problems head on or the discomfort of embarrassing encounters. Other types of games can be more dangerous.
And sometimes, you can play a game and win hands-down. At least, you win in the short term. But although you've won the game, you have lost in life - big time.
Management consultant and columnist Nan Russell writes about a particularly insidious game in the latest issue of her provocative newsletter, Winning at Working.
Jon, a fellow manager who, like Nan, was involved in policy implementation in their organization, asked to meet with her over lunch a day or two prior to an important company meeting. A far-reaching proposal would be coming up for discussion at that meeting, which, if adopted, would lead to major changes within the company. Since both Jon's and Nan's departments would apparently be impacted in similar ways by this decision, Jon thought it might be prudent to sit down with Nan and see if they could adopt a united front at the upcoming debate.
Over lunch, Jon and Nan analyzed the proposal and discovered that they indeed felt the same way - that the proposed changes would be harmful to the interests of the organization as a whole. They decided to work together to eliminate the motion from consideration.
So it happened that Nan arrived at the big meeting armed with all kinds of data, statistics and arguments in support of their viewpoint. Jon whispered in her ear as they entered the boardroom that he now felt more strongly about the matter than ever, and he hoped Nan would keep to their agreement to speak with one voice.
But as the meeting progressed, Nan was taken by surprise as Jon began to debate her and argue furiously in favor of the proposal - adopting the very position he had professed to deplore. Three weeks later he was promoted to be the Project Leader.
Looking back at what happened, Nan realized that Jon had quickly adjusted his course once he had read the tea leaves. Nan's only concern had been to offer sound input, considering only the best interests of the organization. But Jon had been thinking about something else. Jon was out for Jon. He saw an opportunity and took it; whether or not he agreed with the position he was aligning himself with was now quite irrelevant.
But that's not the end of the story. Two promotions and our years later, Jon was fired.
As Nan puts it, people like Jon may win in the short term, but they're playing the wrong game. For people like them, the goal is a personal win. But if that's your goal, you lose in the end.
Twenty years in management, says Nan, have taught her that "people who are winning at working know that work is not a single player game...You see, people who are winning at working view work as a life canvas, not a game."
Surely, similar sentiments could be expressed about any area of life. What serious individual who was been through the mill in this world could disagree?
Labels: business ethics, the workplace
Stumble It!
