Proceed Until Apprehended

As I leave my latest role in the provincial government, I think perhaps I can be more plain about my experience.  It’s said that one of the biggest challenges with recruiting is the tendency for the employer to employ the “bait and switch,” whereby they talk a game that isn’t the one they practice. One kind of employment experience is presented, another is on offer.

I think I’ve seen that first-hand. The first reason I give as to why I think it happened would be my own “grass is greener” lense, whereby I overlook the reality of the situation for its prospects, then kick myself for not being critical enough of the opportunity before signing on the dotted line. There are also circumstances that change the role once you get there. Government is especially vicious at redefining roles without the slightest consultation.

There’s also the question of whether the big stuff works as described. There’s the philosophy of how decisions get made, or the level of trust inherently given to an employee. There’s the vision for the organization and whether daily actions are aligned with this vision or pay it lip service.

I think it’s really easy for a hiring manager or an employer to have a real intellectual commitment to a higher purpose sort of role. All the buzzwords and catch-phrases are there. All the i’s are dotted and t’s crossed on the mission and vision statements. However, cashing those cheques is a lot different than writing them, and the employees you’re hiring will immediately experience dissonance if word and deed are not congruent.

This is costly. An unhappy employee that feels they’ve been misled under-performs. Well, I did, anyway.

So, this is called the “bait and switch,” except I think “bait and switch” implies a level of forethought and control that is often nonexistent in the formation of the employer/employee relationship. A better, less catchy title would be “deluded perception and inability to control reality,” as in, “I was excited about my first day, but then they made it clear that the job was more about keeping up appearances. They got me with the old ‘deluded perception and inability to control reality’.”

This doesn’t just go for hiring, of course. If word and deed aren’t aligned in any relationship, it’s a source of frustration and contention. If you’ve got drama in your life, it’s probably worth doing a gut-check. Are you pulling the “deluded perception and inability to control reality” ploy?

On the first day in my previous job, I brought my bike right into my office.

“Oh,” my supervisor said, “they’re going to want you to put your bike in the outdoor cage.”

The cage is like a bike rack with police tape around it. “Hey,” it announces, “these bikes might be worth taking a look at.” It offered slightly better security than police tape, of course. If you were using really thick police tape. well, that would be a different story.

I kept my bike in my office.

On day three, an email came from Corporate Services:

Government Services has advised me that bikes are not allowed in the building and have asked me to pass along that message to you.  There is a locked cage/compound off the alley that has been designated for employees to secure their bikes if they are not comfortable locking them in the [non-cage - ed] bike racks.  If you would like me to show you the compound please come see me.

Thanks for your co-operation.

My response:

Is this a written policy? I’d like to know if I can satisfy this policy without removing my bike. I’m concerned that my bike may not be as secure outside. Does the policy specify any liability the employer assumes for damage or theft? Thanks for offering to show the compound. I am aware of its location and the combination lock.

I kept my bike in my office.

There was no response to my email. There’s some funny things about bureaucracy. One of them is that if you practice civil disobedience you can sometimes get your way.

My theory… actually, the theory of civil disobedience… is that if you have a fairly reasonable justification for not following the rules, you might be able to make the powers-that-be engage in a dialogue about the policy. Ghandi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” I’d hoped someone would come and speak to me plainly about their interests and I could express my needs as an employee. We could negotiate and find a shared solution. Not so. I was ignored.

The week before I left, a full-fledged written policy on everything related to our use of the office space came out.  If it has to do with offices, it was in there. The author appeared to have been given a clear assignment: Whatever it is, offload all responsibility onto the individual employee. The only convenience to be considered is our own.

The section on bicycles says no bikes are to be in any government building. All liability resides with the owner of the bike. I’m disappointed with this policy, of course. It is completely organization-centric and has nothing to do with the interests, needs or engagement of public service employees. A sort of a black mark, I’d say, against an organization pursuing a brand of “employer of choice.”

Perhaps, if I was still there, my bike would still be in my office. Maybe I’d have gotten a “fight.” I think I would have enjoyed that.

I’m one week complete in my new role with iQmetrix. It was intense, but also really great. I’ve got enough work and opportunity that it’s easy to get lost in the avalanche, but I’m not overwhelmed.

Overwhelmed is a choice.

Starting a new job, I had some of the expected upheaval: New computer, new policies to learn, new procedures, new names and faces, products, acronyms that don’t mean anything, work assignments, papers to sign, planning meetings about responsibilities I’ve just received, a litany of background documents that will orient me to the organization and my role… and I was invited on my first day to prepare and facilitate a session with our Leadership Development Program participants 24 hours later, before I had a desk or a phone.

At home, the dishwasher and the sink both decided to sprout leaks.

And I was asked to speak at the kid’s school open house last minute.

And the neurologist’s office called and I have to call them back between 10 and 12 or 1 and 4. (If I can find a phone.)

And Passport Canada requires me to call and confirm a friend’s passport application as soon as possible.

In the middle of all this, on Wednesday morning, I started a blank document on my computer and wrote at the top, “Stop. Clear your head. What’s important right now?”

Then I answered the question. It took some real effort to quiet all the “noise” that was going on, but I knew I needed to find some space to determine what direction was right for me, for the organization, for my mission… not just to respond to the invitations the environment presented.

My answers didn’t contain anything about plowing through the reports or becoming familiar with the phone system or organizing my desk or finding the supply cabinet and getting a pen. It said “learn about your co-workers.” It said “get a sense of the culture.”

I wrote these items down, and I’m pleased with myself for having the perceptiveness to do that, but I’m most proud of the fact that I then went and did those things. Standing up from the urgent items at my desk was scary, but identifying and pursuing the most important things I could do feels deeply satisfying at the end of the week.

One of the most fun and energizing weeks I’ve had in quite a while.

If you prompted some people I’ve worked with, they’d say I have two glaring weaknesses – I’m stubborn and I’m impatient.

Yet another group might say I have two clear strengths – I’m persistent and I bring a sense of urgency to my work.

They’re both right, of course. It seems to depend on the context of the situation, and also the paradigm of the person you ask.  One thing’s for sure, though. A big part of my story is my tenaciousness and how hard and fast I push… for better or for worse.

I feel like my acknowledgment of this component of my character is helping me mature as a leader. In the past couple weeks, I’ve been invited to participate in a couple of committees. My answer? Well, I thanked them, first. Then I said, “I’ve never met a committee I didn’t disagree with,” explaining that I’ve learned that I’m not always at my best when I need to coordinate an opinion and an action with a group. Sure, I share their desire for outcomes and positive change, I’ll even work with them, but joining the committee? I’m not sure that helps anyone.

That’s not to say I can’t work with others, but committees put a lot of agendas in a room. To come out of it with agreement there often needs to be compromise. For some problems, a reconciliation of diverse agendas isn’t the answer we need. Sometimes, it just prolongs the time until we can get to the heart of the matter.

I think there’s hubris in that statement, but I’d also like to think there’s also an unwillingness to compromise a vision for the security of a team approach.

I wrote just a little while ago about “Beware the Invitation.” Sometimes, committees are a big, distracting invitation. They offer a venue for you to roll up your sleeves and to “see and be seen” working the issue. If your passion and knowledge of an issue drives you to act, it will likely also generate these invitations to align yourself with others. I’d suggest you need to ask if it is going to help you or hinder you in pursuing your original reason for action.

Sorry committees. I didn’t mean to rail on you. I think I’ve just realized that you’re not always a fit for me and it’s OK to say no.