Change

I am not the kind of person who loves change. If I am happy where I am then I am satisfied to continue improving, but I don’t see the need for an actual large scale change. Eventually I may get bored, and I may hit the point where improvement just isn’t enough any more, but when I think of change I tend to think of the unwanted kind, the kind that happens and you have to adapt to. The idea of change being the end result of a transition makes the idea  a little more bearable. The idea that change is slow and for the better is comforting, and some change is. However, there are the changes that happen suddenly. Like someone dying. Or, in a work sense, you get the news that your company has gone bankrupt and is closing its doors, by the way your retirement no longer exists. These are both instances of change, and I wouldn’t say that sudden change has anything to do with a transition. If anything, the transition comes after the change.

Reading back on this I feel I have a pretty grim outlook on change, but it happens to be how I feel. However, in the spirit of change, I will review the changes in my life. A week from today will be my last day working at a job that I really love and I have worked at for several years now. I am quitting because I have gotten to the point in my education that I can’t focus on a full time career and all the responsibilities it entails while at the same time focusing my energy on my classes. I am making the transition to a full time student with the end result of a change in my career. Quitting my job seems like a huge change to me now, but in the long run, when I graduate and start my new career, I am sure I will look back and think of it all as the transition that Mr. Campbell described. While I may not like change, I am very practical about it. Change will happen whether you want it to or not and while change borne of necessity may be just as painful as involuntary change, both must be adapted to because there is really no alternative.

 

HR

Garrett’s video did a pretty good job talking up a position as an HR employee at Intuit. The very fact that she made  a web cast to tell about the position tells me that their HR department is a little in front of the curve on creativity and hiring, at least more so than the standard newspaper or CraigsList ad. Still despite the wide range of opportunities that seem to be available to HR employees at Intuit, I don’t think it is a job that I would be interested in. I’m not entirely sure why, she mentioned a lot of buzzwords that appeal to me. I think it is partially because I have always pictured myself as part of the “teams” that she talks about assisting, like the marketing and sales team, or in my case the accounting and financial teams. I think that part of the problem that HR has to deal with is the fact that they are part of the teams, but they are also considered outsiders by the group. When I think of HR I think of the people that step in to tell you to change things or give ideas for productivity when they are not the ones that are having to actually work in the environment that they are attempting to change. In fact, I almost think of them in a mediator or counselor position. It is easy to give advice when it isn’t you that has to follow it. This may just be because I have had bad experiences with HR in the past, because Garrett did a pretty good job of selling the position, but I still do not think I would apply for a job like that anytime soon. Furthermore, I think that HR is a good tool for managers to go to for help with particular issue, but it would be difficult to have them around all the time to critique your every move.

Insight into Corporate Culture

The video hasn’t broached anything new. The same ideas have been pounded into by head since kindergarten. If you sit by idly and do nothing you are partially responsible for what happens. This held true back in the day of bullies on the playground and it holds true now in the eyes of the law. Just because you don’t steal a sweater but you watch your friend stick it under their jacket and walk out the door with it doesn’t mean you’re innocent. In a more serious situation than shoplifting you might just by convicted as your friend’s accomplice. In a less dramatic sense, in  a corporate situation that supports unprofessional practices, whether they are unethical or just detrimental to company productivity, it is the duty of the employees to do their best to better their company. In corporations this can be a problem because, with an organizational structure or not, it can be very difficult for one person to instigate a large scale change. As a manager the best thing to do is lead by example. Training employees properly from the start and providing continued motivation goes a long way in supporting a positive corporate culture. Having had some fantastic managers and some that should have been hired in the first place, I have found that I look to my manager for clues on appropriate behavior. In my first few jobs I had terrible managers with little or no post high school education, and for the most part they slacked off and I did too. My attitude towards work has since changed, but it remains true that a manager must be the one to support a positive corporate culture if the employees have any hope of following their lead.

Organizational Structure

One of the issues with being young is the lack of experience in a “real” work environment. I have been working since I was 15 and it wasn’t until my current job that I feel I have had any sense of individual responsibility and some type of framework to deal with. I wouldn’t even consider my past (primarily minimum wage paying) jobs to be decentralized, there was simply a manager who set the schedule and then I just had to show up. My first job was working at a movie theater that was owned by much larger investment corporation, the type that focuses its efforts on its construction and hotels, etc.  The slew of high school kids that worked with me at this run down theater had no structure whatsoever, and the managers were not exactly executive material. At one point I found it necessary to go to HR and I didn’t even know where to go or how to go about contacting them with my issues, because we were that far of the main structure of the larger company. In fact, when I called HR initially, I had to repeat myself several times to the receptionist, because she didn’t even know we were owned by the same company. Case in point, it seems to me that low paying jobs with a high turnover rate need the most structure and centralization so new people are always sure of their place in the company. After my first experience in the work force I thought that maybe a corporation or franchise would be different, but all of my low paying jobs have been the same– the managers don’t seem to care and the employees care even less for an organized business structure.

I don’t plan on ever owning my own business, it just isn’t for me. I would be happy in a management or an executive position where I still have someone to report to and some sense of a greater organizational structure. There are many merits to working for a small company, such as the one I work for now, but I like the idea of being in a corporation at a level where the quality of work is worth spending the time to improve the overall organization of the company. In this sense large corporations also need a sense of centralization. It seems to be the small companies where most employees are codependent and are considered long term that there is a possibility for decentralization to be beneficial.

Ethical Negotiation

Negotiation is practically an art in that both sides manipulate and fib and outright deceive the opposition into an agreement. While I don’t think it is quite ethical, I don’t think that lawyers are especially ethical either. That is why I am not a negotiator or a lawyer. Part of negotiating is knowing when your opposition is lying while your opponent tries to figure out when you are stretching the truth. I would say the boundary is probably at an actual lie, like saying a product is safe when it is not. Many negotiation tactics are certainly unethical but illegal tactics are pushing the limit. While negotiation tactics may seem crooked many would argue that they are necessary and even expected. I think that there is a place for honesty in negotiations, but to tell the entire truth when it is not demanded is a little naive. Ordinarily I think that honesty is a good policy, but negotiation does seem to be in a class if its own. That isn’t to say that negotiators have carte blanch to lie and manipulate, but that they may get away with more gray areas than most.

Mimicry

The mimicry that the text describes seems to be mostly unconscious movements. I touch my hair or cross my legs without really thinking about it. Because I don’t generally notice myself making these gestures I wouldn’t say that I have noticed a situation with a stranger where mimicry was a part of my initial impression of them. I do not think that there is an ethical problem in mimicking a person to create an advantageous bond, and I am in fact interested to try it for myself. Initial impressions are often nerve wrecking, especially in a professional environment simple movements that make the first meeting easier on both parties seems beneficial. As long as the mimicry is subtle I think it is a useful social tool and I look forward to experimenting with it.

Insider Blogging

After reading about the Rahodeb blogging debacle I would agree with the FTC’s conclusion that Mackey’s actions were not ethical. He used insider information in an inappropriate manner and posed as someone other than himself  for the purpose of furthering his own business interests. While I have no background on the legalities of this situation it seems deceitful. Although Mackey’s actions are personally reprehensible, if I were an employee I do not think that I would quit or take any other kind of action against him or the company. Employees are unlikely to agree with everything that their employer does, and while there is a deciding line somewhere (embezzling 401k’s, perhaps), it is the difference between being an employer and an employee. You can only control your own actions and while Mackey was dishonest I do not think his actions should reflect poorly on the company as a whole, although I may still be a little ashamed to work underneath him.

To Surf or Not to Surf?

I would like to preface this blog by saying that I realize no one is perfect, myself especially. However, when it comes to work I think it is fairly safe to say that if you have to ask yourself what would happen if you get caught, you probably shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.

As a general rule I do not think it is ethical to attend to personal business on company time. Shopping, checking the football game score, perusing Match.com, or surfing adult websites are pretty obviously unethical. There is the occasional gray area– checking for an urgent personal email (for example an update on a seriously ill family member) seems to be reasonable, providing it is not happening excessively. My morals are a little unclear when is comes to using company equipment and services (when it costs the company nothing) while not on the clock. For example, it doesn’t seem like a big deal to use your company phone that has an unlimited plan to call a friend after work, or to use the company laptop to check your email at home when you’re finished with the work you took home with you. I don’t see anything wrong with these last two examples, although I’m sure some companies would disagree. Although neither of these apply to me particularly, I think that a good rule of thumb would be “what would my manager say?” I might get a little shady ethically speaking if I were certain that I wouldn’t get caught, but that is why it important for companies to have clear cut rules about such usage so there is no grey area for employees.

Forced into Teamwork

It is often difficult to work with people that you don’t feel bring anything to the table. Shirkers are extremely demoralizing, but sometimes is is just as frustrating to work with a group member that tries hard, they just aren’t good. In Zach’s case I can understand his concerns about working in a group that he feels is beneath him, but it is damaging to everyone involved for Zach to begin his new assignment with the attitude that he is too good for the group. The point of a group is to play off other peoples’ strengths, and a star employee can certainly help less motivated coworkers. A similar situation has yet to arise for me in the workplace, but it is something that is fairly common in a classroom setting. Putting an employee in a group to motivate and mentor his or her peers is a very reasonable decision for a manager to make. It is a good learning experience for Zach’s peers, but also a good experience for Zach to expand his skills in group work. The employer was not out of line in organizing groups, and as a manager it is logical to form groups with a diverse skill set. As an employee, I can understand the frustration, but I think it is unrealistic to refuse to work in a group situation and I think Zach should decide to make the most of it. As a manager it would be useful to observe the group and keep a close eye on who works and who sits back and does nothing. The manager can then reward the employees in a manner that fits with their contributions to the group- whether it be a rise or just a “good job”.

Dealing with Shirkers

Shirkers are an inevitable part of group work. If you work in enough groups with enough different people eventually you will be stuck with a freeloader. Even at a university level where students are presumably present to learn there is still a strong likelihood that eventually you will be doing more than your fair share of work on a group project. The question is what to do about . In my experience there are two ways that shirkers become a problem. Of course there is the standard “if I do a bad job someone else will do it for me” group. I admit that I would rather just do the work properly myself that have a group member do a poor job on their portion. In this case I tend to let the shirkers shirk and I will (unhappily) pick up the slack. However, shirkers also result from poor initial planning. When there is not a clear goal or distribution of responsibilities it is easy to assume that someone else will take care of it. This can include the individual who takes charge and decides that it is “easier all around” if they take on important components themselves and don’t spread the responsibility evenly among their group. I feel that the best way to deal with shirking is a solid distribution of responsibility from the beginning of a project. It has been my experience that people (including myself) are less likely to shirk their portion of the work load when there is a set goal to meet by a specific deadline in order for all group members to be held accountable. It is the place of the manager or group leader to plan the allocation of the work load in a manner that each group member has a manageable portion. If there is a group member that is likely to not complete their assigned task in a timely manner it is important for the manager to plan for an alternative, even if it means disciplinary action for the shirking employee.