When It’s Time to Leave Your Lousy Job

Standard

reprinted from thehrdifference.com

freeimage-4125358

There are generally two kinds of people who inhabit organizations: those that are there to earn a paycheck and those that are there to make a difference.

This post is targeted to those who want to make a difference, because they have the hardest time leaving an organization behind. Ironically, the reason why they find it hard to leave has to do with their greatest strength: a strong sense of responsibility to the organization. These people made a commitment to make a difference and it’s very hard for them to admit defeat.

Still, it’s better to admit that the organization is making it impossible for you to make a difference instead of burning yourself out by becoming a martyr to the cause. You haven’t been defeated and you’re not a failure. Sometimes organizations become so dysfunctional and stupid that they refuse to listen to any input that doesn’t validate the self-destructive course they’ve chosen to follow. Here’s how to tell when an organization is on that course so you can take your valuable talents elsewhere, to a place that will appreciate what you have to offer:

  1. It’s impossible to get a straight answer from anyone. Top leadership becomes secretive and starts speaking in unintelligible code. Your colleagues think carefully about what they’re going to say before they say it, and what comes out is full of hints, suggestions and innuendos because everyone’s afraid that telling the truth will get them into hot water. Conversations are conducted in whispers and occur behind closed doors. Resistance cells form, but instead of challenging the process publicly, they live a meager existence sharing rumors and speculation with trusted dissidents. People are terrified of making a mistake, so there’s extensive cover-up activity and finger-pointing to divert people away from the truth.
  2. You feel that you’re fighting more frequently for things that should be obvious to anyone. No one has told you that things have changed, so you keep generating ideas to make things better. Now, however, your ideas are met with surprising resistance from colleagues who used to be open-minded but whose fear has led them to play it safe. What’s happened is that your colleagues have correctly perceived that the environment is becoming more political and exclusive while you’re still working under the assumption that the environment is apolitical and inclusive. The final stage of this sad transition is when you hear that people are labeling you a troublemaker or a “pain in the ass.” If you hear someone telling you that you’re not a team player, what they probably mean is that you’re not cut out to be an obedient, compliant team member, which makes you a “problem child.”
  3. You think you’re right and everyone else is wrong. One possibility is that the organization is simply moving in a different direction and you either don’t perceive that or are in denial about it because you were happy with the way things were. Whatever the cause, if you find yourself constantly arguing for what was, you really need to consider the possibility that the problem is you simply don’t want to play under the new rules and it’s time to go somewhere more compatible with your values.
  4. You’re excluded from certain groups and people stop coming to you for input on matters that involve your area of expertise. If you find yourself frequently surprised by decisions that have been made without your involvement, what is likely happening is that people have chosen to work around you rather than with you. It could be because they don’t have the courage to give you honest feedback; it could be that they know that you won’t like the idea and don’t want to deal with opposition; or it could be that they’re hoping you’ll get the hint and move on. For whatever reason, the people in power have decided that you are not part of the future, and either don’t have the courage to tell you or they feel your functional job talents are useful but don’t value your ideas.
  5. The organization is operating more out of fear than intent. All of these signals indicate an organization that is likely running on fear rather than intelligent strategy. Leadership doesn’t know what it’s doing but can’t admit it for fear of losing face. Instead, they begin suppressing the truth and begin classifying people into two camps: those who are willing to maintain the conspiracy of silence and those who can’t be trusted to keep the cover-up going. When the organization starts acting more like a victim of its environment and stops experimenting with new ideas, it creates a very difficult environment for a person who wants to make a difference.

As a great philosopher once said, “You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away, know when to run.” Often when faced with these circumstances, we blame ourselves and our self-confidence withers. Rid yourself of such nonsensical thinking. Strong organizations encourage diverse thinking and face reality. If you’re truly trying to make a difference in the world, you deserve to work for an organization with enlightened leadership that isn’t afraid of either new ideas or the truth.

Go find one and be happy!

 

Advertisements

Time to Split Up the USA

Standard

The primary lesson I learned from the presidential election is that the United States is no longer a valid construct. We are not united and will never be united again.

If there is one truism in life, it’s that you can’t resolve a value conflict. The best you can hope for in a value conflict is to respect the other person’s values and agree to leave each other alone.

That’s not possible in the political climate of the United States of America and it’s not going to change. There are two distinct sides and both are trying to convince the other that their values are right and the other’s values are wrong. That doesn’t work. Just ask the Arabs and the Israelis.

The cause of the division is simple: the introduction of religion into politics. Although most people will blame Reagan for this, it was Jimmy Carter who first made religion a campaign issue with his “born again” proclamation.

Since that time the Religious Right has become more and more extreme, coloring every issue with their paranoia about sex and contradictory beliefs about the sanctity of life (contradictory because it only applies to babies, not adults). In 2012, they expanded their opposition to abortion to opposition to contraception, a move that revealed what was really behind the “pro-life” movement. They’re terrified of sex and believe that all women bear Eve’s curse: the instinct to manipulate and seduce men. Therefore, women must be controlled and their sexual behavior limited to pleasureless reproduction.

If this sounds like something out of A Handmaid’s Tale, it is.

As recently as 1960, the separation of church and state was apparently an accepted truism. John F. Kennedy had to defend himself against charges that he would take orders from Rome. What happened to change things was the cultural revolution of the 1960’s. The Pill gave women more sexual freedom. The changes in civil rights law began the process of bringing minorities into the mainstream. The combination of free women and vocal minorities scared the hell out of the more conservative white people, whose fear turned into a cause when the Supreme Court, bringing the separation of church and state to the local level, banned school prayer.

Jimmy Carter then legitimized the combination of religion and politics, and Reagan and the conservatives exploited the hell out of it. We began to hear people tell us that America is a Christian nation and that we should have policies based more on religious principles than democratic principles. Ironically, the conservatives tried to sell themselves as defenders of The Constitution, a document that states very clearly that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….” and specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Groups like The Christian Coalition violated that restriction in every campaign cycle, endorsing only those candidates who met their standards of Christianity.

Despite Romney’s adherence to the Mormon faith, his shape-shifting abilities made him acceptable to the right, if not particularly desirable. He then sealed the deal by nominating the religious extremist Paul Ryan, whose alleged intellectual credentials (extraordinarily biased towards an inflexible economic dogma) gave some comfort to the economic conservatives. The right-leaning electorate, terrified by the very existence of an African-American president who many believed was neither Christian nor American, put all their fear-driven hopes into this odd couple.

The ironic truth is that Barack Obama was the only Protestant among the four major candidates.

The reaction of the right to Obama’s surprisingly clear victory has been to proclaim the decision a disaster, to scream incoherently that the country is going to hell and to buy more guns. They believe they are still right; the rest of the country, who they believe consists largely of people who want handouts from the government and irresponsible sex, has gone mad. They have no interest in letting bygones be bygones or compromising. The concept of uniting behind the President once a campaign is over makes no sense to them. The battle must continue.

In 1964, the conservative Barry Goldwater scolded a crowd at a campaign rally for booing his opponent, President Johnson. He told them that whatever their beliefs, the office demanded respect. That concept seems as dated as Leave It to Beaver. The hard right has never respected anyone who disagrees with them, much less an African-American with an un-American name.

The majority of people on the right believe they are on a religious crusade to save America from sin and deficits. The keyword here is “crusade,” a word that George Bush let slip when describing the war on terror. Religion has been the most common cause of war since time began, for a very simple reason: you can’t resolve a value conflict. Those who are evil must be destroyed, despite the evidence of history that one side has never been fully able to eradicate the other (Rome came closest in Carthage, but people must have slipped out of town before the place was leveled). You can’t reason with anyone who is certain that they hold the truth.

Interestingly enough, most liberals would love to limit government spending if you could find a way to do without hurting those who cannot help themselves. Americans love money and they want to keep as much as they can. With genuine dialogue and compromise, we could fix the deficit, Social Security, Medicare and all these seemingly insurmountable problems in a few months. The problem is that the issues have been contaminated with Puritan values of the virtues of thrift, hard work and obedience to God, and that turns every disagreement into a jihad.

I am more concerned that if we do not divide the country according to shared values, we will make no progress on our problems and that violence will become an even more legitimate option for resolving our differences. The increase in gun sales after the election was an astonishing and frightening response to the outcome.

How would you split the place up? Start with the electoral map. The South, The Great Plains and The Mountain States form one nation; the Northeast, Upper Midwest and West Coast form another (or two). You would have to make some adjustments to state boundaries (combine Northern Virginia with the District of Columbia) or split some states into smaller chunks. For states that are odd fits with the surrounding geography (Arizona) or just plain odd (Florida), let the people decide.

The first reaction of many Americans to this idea is likely to be selfish, particularly if they find themselves in a new nation whose political leanings are not to their liking. “Hey, I’ve lived here all my life. Why should I have to move somewhere else?”

The answer is simple. Why would you want to live in a place that tramples on your values?

Photo Credit: © Yarko12 | Stock Free Images &Dreamstime Stock Photos