Let's talk about partiality:
Yes, it still exists. It is the killer of leadership and morale. Leaders naturally like people who work with others, but this can never be a reason to consistently apply special privilege or failure. When such highly sensitive employee issues exist in culture, they must be resolved and eliminated.
Unfairness is often not recognized by managers or misunderstood by employees. For example, differences in job functions require policy differences. The sales team's lifestyle differs from the production team's expectations and strategies. Although inequality and identity are not synonymous, even in these circumstances, the understanding of injustice comes from the same underlying cause - unequal distribution of freedom.
When people go to work, they give up some freedom and generally accept the complaint without accepting it. If they want to walk around or visit with friends, eat lunch, listen to music when they want to eat, or if they want to attend their children's school activities, etc., they cannot leave their workstations. These freedoms were abandoned as part of a living. However, if someone is asked to abandon the liberty of others within the same scope of work, then people will revolt, and if management allows it, it will be considered favoritism.
In a recent training, it was felt that unfair problems had arisen because office workers could start work after normal start time without differentiation, but production workers were held responsible for being late. We first determine the different job functions and receive the appropriate support for this policy difference. A leader expressed frustration with his production staff's expressed concern and excitement. He said, "What is the most important? If someone comes in after a few minutes, let's let go. Why are all these shows?" A leader, of course he does not intend to play the clock, so he has not experienced his production staff, so this is a sensitive topic for them - the freedom to pursue time irresponsibly.
Legal differences in policy may be considered unfair, creating the same unease that there is no reasonable commercial reason to provide and repeat true unfair treatment. In this case, the resolution is to allow the leader to explain to the staff the reasons behind the differences caused by the job function, and all employees have the right to expect that the staff in similar areas of work will be equally responsible for supporting work in that area.
Sometimes leaders do not acknowledge unfair behavior when allowing them, and they are surprised to hear his employees accuse him of favoring him. In one example, smokers allow more rest time than non-smokers to take care of their physical desires. This is indeed unfair, but managers have the qualifications to allow smokers to take more rest time to smoke because they think this is a partial favor and his non-smokers do so reasonably. Therefore, he felt dissatisfied and unresponsive about the number of times that smokers received more rest than other people's complaints, and considered that their unease was minor. Favor ism is not obvious to us, but it dazzles those who have experienced it.
Then there is a manager who does have more favorable offers than others. This can be based on relationships developed prior to promotion to leadership positions or as special friendships that grow as leaders. This may also lead leaders to avoid dealing with an employee who is terrorizing those behaviors that he can't tolerate, and these behaviors are more comfortable for him. In any case, I think it is very rare that intentional unfair treatment is unfair to unfair employees.
When hemiplegia does occur, I suggest that employees need to establish communication channels to jump out of the command chain and be able to talk to the human resources department or their boss's boss. Their identities must be kept confidential by alleged managers, but they must be willing to identify themselves in their complaints so that the leadership can manage the use of this communication channel because there may be false accusations. Leaders must carefully investigate these reports. If the evidence confirms favoritism, they must set clear expectations of the ethical leadership behavior of the manager, then follow up with the manager and report the employee to ensure continuous change. Of course, they must do their best to protect the whistleblower from any quarter.
Even if they do not want, leaders can even be. If the manager of the manager is the villain of a roaring storybook, we can easily find that plowing land, giving rich gifts on his favorite gift, while breaking the hearts and wills of others, this will be much easier. We must all pay more attention to observing whether our behavior is unfair, because we believe that reasonable practices in this regard may be unfair to others. Let us ensure that lack of awareness does not allow partial favor, and we will never give it to our employees.
Exercises: Seeking feedback from trusted employees, they are intimate and close to you. Ask their leadership experience, and in this case, any signs of favoritism. Do not immediately respond to their comments or explain any of your actions. Whatever they say, accept, curiosity, delve into issues to fully understand, take notes, and thank them. Give yourself some time to digest their words and think about their authenticity, which may not be immediately apparent. Then report to them to determine the areas of change that your feedback has caused. Be brave, what you can learn through this humility will be the backbone of your integrity.
Copyright 2008 Rick Piraino
Orignal From: Leadership and Preference
No comments:
Post a Comment