PL  |  NL  |  FR  |  ES  |  PT  |  IT  |  DE  |  DK  |  NO  |  SE  |  FI  |  GR  |  JP  |  CN  |  KR  |  RU  |  AE

  Report this article

More information

Listening Relearned

Try to Do What You Love

The seven levels of deenveloping identity

How to Cop with a Stolen Wallet

Seven Ways To Connect Your Writing And Your Life

Watch Out for Confidences

Indians Shy Away from Making ''Wills''

Advice for Ex Offenders Looking for Jobs

IT IS NEVER TOO LATE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOUR LIFE

Internet Computer Addiction Among Teens

Dealing with Unearned Praise

The Blame Game

When You're Not in the Family

Explaining Reality

There are a number of popular aphorisms about timing, such as "Timing is everything," "There's a time and place for everything," and "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose." Likewise, timing is critical for success when deciding which battles are worth fighting. You have to be aware of the political realities, including who has more power, workplace alliances, and the art of compromise and taking your time for the best opportunity. On some level, every workplace situation is like a "Survivor" show microcosm. You may not be isolated in a faraway place, stuck with minimal resources, but you still find the same kind of jostling for connections and position. And if you don't play the game well, you could be voted out of the office tribe.

I thought of these issues when a reader wrote me that he thought I was advising someone to "kiss ass," when I suggested the man should seek to avoid a conflict and work things out with someone who was a "troublemaker." The reader felt that one should have the "right to speak the truth" including exposing a very difficult person who played the victim and threatened legal charges.

But should one always do this? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. As they say in law school: "It depends."

Consider Sam's situation. He worked in an office where his boss, Darryl, had brought in Hal, the son of a close friend, as a trainee to learn the ropes. From the beginning, Sam felt Hal was unqualified and repeatedly made mistakes, although Darryl seemed to want to give Hal the benefit of the doubt. So Darryl simply corrected Hal's errors, told him to try harder, and encouraged other employees to help Hal. In turn, some of the other employees did help out by not only lending support and advice but sometimes by even doing Hal's work. Meanwhile, Sam was angry because he felt his own good work was not being recognized sufficiently, now that Darryl was paying more attention to Hal. Sam was further angered that other employees were bailing out Hal, when Sam thought Hal should be terminated. So should he speak up now? Hold his peace now or maybe forever? Or what?

What Should Sam Do?

Here are some possibilities. In Sam's place, what would you do and why? And what do you think the outcomes of these different options would be?

• Point out what Darryl was doing wrong in the beginning, because nepotism is unfair and the other employees are doing Hal's work.

• Let Hal make mistakes, so Darryl will have to see that Hal is unqualified and eventually fire him. It's Darryl's problem; let him deal with it.

• Talk to Hal and tell him he isn't pulling his weight, and you and the other employees aren't willing to continue to cover for him.

• Talk to the other employees who are doing Hal's work and gain their support for a showdown to tell Hal he's got to do his work, because no one is going to continue doing it for him.

• Organize the other employees to complain to the boss about Hal as a group.

• Other?

Eventually, what Sam decided to do is this. As much as he wanted to blow the whistle on Hal, he didn't, because he recognized the political landscape. He wasn't in a position of power in the office, and for now, Hal had the support of the head of the company, Darryl, and because of that the support of other employees. Thus, even though Hal wasn't doing a very good job, his work was getting done and the office was functioning smoothly. Under the circumstances, it wasn't politically wise for Sam to go into battle against Hal just now by speaking up and saying what he was really feeling. It was smarter for him to watch and wait, just as a good military commander does in deciding whether to advance now or whether there's too much risk of encountering an ambush.

But after a few months, when Hal continued to mess up and Sam sensed that Hal was no longer as protected by Darryl or other employees, he finally shared his opinions at a meeting about how to make the office more productive. Now his opinions were well accepted. As a result, over the next few weeks, Darryl put Sam in charge of the new office reorganization, and after a time, Hal left of his own accord, feeling he wanted to work in another type of company, so the problem worked itself out. In the process, Sam gained the appreciation of others in the office for speaking out when he did, and he felt a great surge of esteem on hearing their words of praise.

Thus, in the long run, Sam benefited by simply watching and waiting until the time was right, rather than speaking up too soon and potentially getting wounded himself. In a sense, he won the battle by not having to fight it—a kind of peace through strength and silence strategy, where you choose to strike when the timing is right, but remain silent and ready until then.

So, yes, to respond to my reader's comment, there are certainly times to speak the truth. But when—and if—you should do this depends on the circumstances, including your power position in the office, your support in an alliance, and how important it is to fight this particular battle. There are times when speaking the truth can be a good idea, such as when you have gathered evidence to show wrong-doing by another employee or supervisor, and you are psychologically prepared to take on the hostile territory that comes from being a whistleblower, including being forced out of your job.

But there are many other times when it is best to accept the political realities of a situation and not fight a particular battle, such as when you need to keep your job or when you need some time to gather evidence or personal support to back you up, rather than speaking up too soon and getting canned. Likewise, there are times when it may be better to smooth things over with a difficult person in the workplace, because he or she has support from others, is doing critically needed work, or could become your worst enemy, out for revenge and sabotage. In such cases, the dangers of speaking up outweigh the benefits of trying to smooth things over and seek an improved relationship. It may appear like "kissing ass" to those unfamiliar with the situation, but in fact, hesitating to speak up may be playing smart politics, until you find the right time, place, and strategy to strike back.

• Besides choosing your battles, choose the right time for them.

• Sometimes the best way to fight and win a battle is not to fight at all.

• Every workplace environment is political; so before entering aworkplace battle, consider who has the power and whether you have the power to win.