Annoyances and Disagreements
This career story is interesting for its zigs and zags from initial job aspirations to the eventual career path. More important, it illustrates the challenges involved with deciding when and how to work through job annoyances and express disagreement with an employer.
Diplomacy in dealing with others is a learned skill, not a born talent.
JK was born in Pennsylvania, one of three siblings.
PARENTAL INFLUENCE
His father was a salesman who enjoyed his work, always dressing as a “gentleman” much appreciated for his integrity and prompt service. Though JK’s father had to deal with some employment challenges (losing his job during a national economic recession and being threatened with unlawful mandatory retirement), he always bounced back from problems and retained a positive attitude.
JK’s mother was a homemaker who decided to add income to the family, so she obtained a job as a secretary, rising to office manager.
Neither parent had a college degree, but they set an example for their children: hard work and coping with job challenges can result in steady employment and job satisfaction.
EARLY CAREER GOALS – AN ACCURATE FORECAST?
JK’s first career goals, developed as he entered high school but later modified before high school graduation, were initially to become a member of the clergy, which he later revised toward working for the Federal Government.
COLLEGE CHOICE FACTORS
Based on his above average high school academic record, JK had the opportunity to choose a college from among several acceptances. The cost to his parents for tuition, room and board was important along with location: he wanted to attend a college (or university) located far enough from his high school area, where he could meet new friends instead of being surrounded by classmates from his high school.
COLLEGE COURSE SELECTIONS
JK thought that his goal of a career with the government would best be promoted by majoring in history and political science to prepare himself for law school.
CAREER PLANS ZIG ZAG
After graduating from college and law school, JK applied to the federal government for employment but was not offered a job within his preferred agency, so he commenced a series of attorney jobs until he finally found one which matched his interests and skills constituting a successful career:
(1) attorney within a new law firm – initially seemed to offer an opportunity to work with an experienced lawyer but career prospects ultimately proved to be nonexistent; JK stayed for a year, including several months after his mentor had realized the new law firm’s declining prospects and departed for steadier employment (
Editor’s note: If possible, avoid leaving a job within the first 12 months or be prepared to offer a persuasive explanation to counter the next prospective employer’s perception that departing a job within a year indicates the job switcher lacks the maturity to deal with job challenges.
(2) attorney within state government – offered the opportunity to get into the courtroom and match wits with experienced adversaries but after 4 years, the pay was modest and there were no prospects for advancement or career development;
(3) attorney within a large, established corporation – enjoyed working with highly talented, motivated fellow attorneys and professional staff; pay was reasonable but advancement was non-existent and extensive business travel was tiring;
(4) attorney within a private law firm – less travel and could concentrate his tasks within a limited area of the law with which he was comfortable; however, co-worker camaraderie was missing and office politics (competition among fellow attorneys for clients and compensation) were significantly distracting and stressful so rather than bothering with disagreeing with the law firm’s management committee toward trying to change office culture, JK elected to return to his most recent experience as attorney for a large corporation – if he would be re-hired by his former employer
(5) attorney within a large, established corporation (again) – JK was welcomed back by his prior employment group, bringing his broad experience from earlier legal work with corporations, state government and a private law firm. As with all his prior employments, JK worked hard every day to deliver the best of himself while holding co-workers and outside vendors to the same high standards of job performance.
JOB SATISFACTION MAY DIMINISH OVER TIME
JK’s prior experience within the in-house corporate law department served him well as a positive reference for his updated resume plus he was comfortable handling the daily tasks assigned to be resolved. JK eventually succeeded his mentor as General Counsel for the corporation’s U.S. operations after the mentor retired. Six years later, the corporation’s Global General Counsel restructured JK’s department and created a separate group that would have responsibility for managing contract and other claims and disputes against all the parent company’s subsidiaries worldwide. He made JK General Counsel of the new group. JK welcomed the change, largely because litigation, arbitration and mediation were his passions. The new position involved worldwide travel and hands-on involvement in litigation and mediations with attorneys in the U.K., the Netherlands, Germany, Canada, Australia, China and elsewhere. JK enjoyed the work and his senior position immensely.
But over time, management of any business (unless you are the sole owner) has the right to alter your daily tasks and with whom you work – sometimes abruptly. That happened to JK. Two years after his new position was created, the Global General Counsel informed JK – without any prior warnings or inkling of any kind that he was eliminating the disputes group and JK’s position, but he wanted JK to stay on and work under the General Counsel for U.S. operations – the very person JK had hired for his staff when JK held that position.
Editor’s note: Involuntary changes to an employee’s work culture can result in an employee feeling negative or positive to his or her job. If mostly negative, the employee (rookie or with long experience) has options which fall into several general categories (not listed below in order of recommended preference, which must be decided by each employee):
A. promptly quit the job in favor of employment elsewhere; OR
B. speak out (publicly or privately) about your problem with the goal of changing the work conditions (which might lead to changes in the working conditions or changes in the employee’s behavior or involuntary termination); OR
C. let annoyance grow into anger, leading to an emotional outburst; OR
D. cope with the annoyance(s) by considering alternative employment and then deciding to accept the negatives while accentuating the positives; this is sometimes referred to as “preferring the devil you know rather than the devil (different employment) you don’t know”
Returning to JK’s career story:
JK now confesses to a career crossroads event. He seethed over losing his position as General Counsel and the way it was done. Within several months, his annoyance and frustration led to an angry outburst which was public because it occurred in the presence of other people during JK’s end of the conversation within a large airport. JK was provoked to challenge his manager when he learned, while traveling on a business trip, that his manager decided to settle litigation being handled by JK without first consulting JK to seek JK’s advice.
After listening to JK’s loud, public tirade, the manager told JK firmly that the discussion was over and the two would talk when JK returned to the office several days later.
It took JK several hours to cool off and the days away from the office gave him time to reflect not just on the conversation but what was really at the root of his anger: the loss of his job position and the feeling that his daily hard work and judgment were not valued. He realized that his anger and resentment had gotten the best of him and would destroy his career if he didn’t bring his emotions under control. He also knew that his behavior during the call with his manager was inexcusable and justified his manager immediately terminating JK for insubordination.
When JK returned to the office, he immediately met with his manger and apologized for his conduct. JK’s manager accepted his apology and the two talked it out. JK retained his job, with a new perspective: JK promised to himself to think more positively about his entire job tasks and all his co-worker relationships.
Editor’s note: JK was correct to offer an immediate apology. With availability of texting and email, JK might have offered it even earlier than waiting for the eventual meeting with his manager, promptly and briefly stating that he apologized and looked forward to discussing the issue from the employer’s perspective. It is likely that the manager accepted JK’s apology as sincere and agreed to continue working with JK because the concern JK had expressed about the manager’s decision probably had some merit and at least demonstrated JK’s knowledge and care about the company’s goals.
ALL INTERACTIONS WITH JOB MANAGERS HAVE CONSEQUENCES
An employee who consistently works hard, trying to improve job performance with little or no drama, will likely be rewarded with at least recognition and probably increased compensation plus a promotion. Such are positive consequences of good job performance.
Conversely, there are negative consequences of either (a) poor job performance or (b) good job performance by the employee who – at the same time – reacts inappropriately to his employer over the employee’s job annoyances and/or disagreements.
JK’s career story continues:
Having learned to control the extremes of his emotions (e.g., any loud outburst, whether in public or private), JK went about his business which involved good relationships among those he worked with daily. However, on one important occasion, JK’s emotions, while now tempered, led him to make a respectful but public statement which could have threatened his job security. The occasion was a general “town hall” meeting of all local office employees hosted by the head of the international company (CEO), who had flown in from his foreign headquarters to terminate the President of the local office and then address the entire group of local employees to announce that the local President had “resigned.” During his speech, the CEO told the local staff that they weren’t working hard enough and within their ranks, he determined none were thereby sufficiently qualified to be appointed to lead the local office of the international company.
The CEO’s speech included an invitation to offer any comments. JK disagreed with this public reprimand of everyone within his local office. JK debated within himself: should he speak his mind publicly now or maintain disciplined silence? What to do? JK decided he that he must immediately – but respectfully – defend his co-workers. He rose to speak:
“Sir, I’ve been with this company for over 35 years. I know the people here well. I know what motivates them and I know how hard they work every day, despite recent organizational changes that have made their jobs more difficult and – frankly – put them in a position making it difficult to succeed. Sir, I have heard many comments over my years with the company, but never, ever, have I been as insulted as I was today by your comments. Every person in this room works hard for this company. No one shirks his or her duty. All pull together and work together as a team against odds that they have not created. Yet you stand before us and tell us we are not working hard enough, which is something that I and likely the rest of us will never understand. What you said was unwarranted and an insult to all who are here. We deserve better.
Sir, I believe that surely one of the company’s employees in this office – not me, I’m just a humble lawyer within the legal department – should be considered for leadership; in fact, there are many I work with who I would consider excellent leadership material. I hope you would get to know them better and then you would change your mind, as we all want only the best for the company to succeed.”
The CEO made no response and no one else dared to comment. The meeting quickly adjourned. An hour later, luck would find JK and the CEO face to face, unscheduled, in the company kitchen, each seeking water or soda following the town hall meeting. JK apologized for “coming across too harshly.” The CEO said “That’s OK. At least you had the guts to tell me what you think.” However, JK later learned from his manager that after returning overseas to the company’s global headquarters, the CEO was furious with JK for his comments and intended to terminate JK’s employment until the CEO spoke with the new Global General Counsel (who knew and had worked with JK from her first days in the Legal Department) who praised JK’s excellent job performance within the corporation’s law department and reminded the CEO that he had indeed asked for honest comments during his speech. She advised the CEO that he would be sending a horrible message to the employees if JK was fired only because he disagreed publicly with the CEO.
Net result: JK’s apology to the CEO probably bought some time for the CEO to calm his anger but most important, JK had earlier earned the respect of an influential co-worker who was willing and able to support JK and persuade the CEO to change his mind.
ANNOYANCES AND DISAGREEMENTS AT YOUR JOB – CONSIDERATIONS FOR RESOLUTION
Editor’s note: Considerations regarding when and how to “speak truth to power” can be analyzed by some critical thinking – i.e., questions to ask yourself before proceeding:
(1) Is this the right time? Have I earned the right to speak due to enough experience to form my own opinion and understand management’s viewpoint? Could I promptly find other employment if I choose to quit or if I am involuntarily terminated?
(2) What is the best approach? Should I air my position in front of others or should I request a private meeting to avoid embarrassing my employer with an apparent confrontation?
(3) How can I retain my personal credibility by speaking the truth, yet at the same time, avoid burning the bridge to continuing employment?
(4) Does the issue involve a perceived illegal or immoral activity which should or must be reported to higher management or to law enforcement?
(5) When is the appropriate time to raise your concern? How dire is the situation? Do you have the time – and financial ability – to consult an attorney? If not, is there a mentor inside or outside your employment with whom you could consult for a different perspective before you proceed?)
(6) Have you considered the possibility that the “problem(s)” you perceive may only be your perception? To deal with this possibility, consider consulting confidentially with a few friends who would agree to keep your concern(s) private.
(7) Would it be “best” (i.e., less stressful) to avoid any confrontation and either ignore the problem and continue with your current employment or move on toward other employment, leaving your concerns for others to deal with since you will be exiting the problem(s) situation?
There are no easy answers! Use your critical thinking!
Epilogue for JK’s career story: JK’s courageous response to the CEO earned him wide respect and deep appreciation from his co-workers. JK had earned the right to speak (especially when invited to do so) and had earned the support of an important co-worker who was able to calm down and persuade the CEO that retaining JK as an employee was in the best interest of the corporation.
Whether or not JK paused to think of potential negative consequences before confronting – respectfully – the CEO, JK was responsible for accepting any consequences which resulted from his outspokenness.
If JK had been terminated, hopefully his words of support of his co-workers would have motivated at least one co-worker to assist JK’s search for a new employment opportunity by a positive job reference. Fortunately for JK, we’ll never know.
