If there is something severely wrong with a system of work, would a person affected 'step up' to the challenge? I have heard of management telling employees that if they didn't think something worked, they had an option to continue working for change and improvement, instead of resigning.
Perhaps for management, if the employee cared enough about what happens to the organisation, then they should stay and fix it. On the employee's plate, it's whether the management valued him/her enough to take them seriously and render the appropriate support.
Most times, when people stay to tie up the loose ends, they indirectly subject themselves to office gossip. It's never as clear cut. Someone has to leave and someone has to stay - who is whom?
The best solution is to look at the situation and put weight on what's important to the individual. Not many are keen to lead by default, on the same salary but with increased responsibility. BUT if everyone is to wait for someone to react, then we may never solve the problem. Someone is going be arrowed, and as long as the arrow hits on the best person for the job, there will be hope yet.
We all do not like change.
We all have this little voice inside of us, that wants to believe we are the arrow's target - if anything, it's recognition.
Those not near the arrow's path should give full support and not gripe, because at the end of the day, it's always the bottom line.
For a ship to get to it's destination, she would not only require a captain, but a captain with the correct map.
No comments:
Post a Comment