What To Do?
People face tough decisions every day in a wide array of scenarios. It may relate to health, business, relationships or money. Should the aggressive cancer treatment be undertaken despite the risks? How many people should be trimmed now the business has been taken over? Do we send in troops against the enemy on foreign soil? Do I give her another chance despite her infidelity? Does this blue or pink shirt look better? President Obama explained that by the time a matter was referred to him for an outcome there was no easy decision.
This is because people are troubled by conscience. A conscience is that thing which causes you to frame your own decisions as if someone was watching what you are doing or thinking, even though you are alone. People make decisions tougher than they need be because they are worried how people will react, how it will make that person look in front of others, how it will impact on other people and whether they will be damned if they do and damned if they don’t. These considerations do not trouble my kind and me.
My kind and me receive a lot of bad press about the things we say and do. Of course you will not be holding your breath in the expectation of some kind of apology because that is just not going to happen. I do know however that you are a reasonable person who looks at matters in a balanced and fair-minded fashion (it is just that I tell everyone else that you are crazy harpy who is out of control). With that in mind, you really ought to give thanks for people like me because we can be relied on to make the tough decisions that have to be made.
For example, imagine there is a redundancy situation in your department and in one particular team four people are at risk of losing their jobs. Two positions have to go and one of your friends is in this pool of individuals at risk. How would you go about deciding who is selected for redundancy and who is not? That part of you that is dedicated to fairness and the correct way of doing things would decide that a prescribed selection criteria should be applied to all four who are at risk. You would apply scores for each person to the criteria and the two lowest would be then selected for redundancy. The empath in you knows however your friend will face serious financial consequences if he lost his job now, notwithstanding the redundancy package. You also fear you will lose your friendship if he is made redundant. You agonise over what you should do. Should you apply the scores fairly and then be beyond reproach in the event of a legal challenge to the decision but risk losing your friend and causing him severe problems? Alternatively, should you massage the scores bumping up a couple of his and reducing a couple of someone else’s? Who would know if it is just a few points difference? What about speaking to the head of the department and trying to save one of the jobs so there is only one casualty? In such a scenario you know your friend will be safe as one of the candidates is poor at his job and is nailed on to be chosen. I know that you would face quite a dilemma in trying to make this decision and ultimately you would probably pass it on to someone else citing a conflict of interest.
What about me? What would I do? Would I apply the criteria and the poorest two lose out? After all, surely we want the best employees and if there is dead wood it needs to be cut out irrespective of any friendship that may exist? Would I instead apply my own criteria of who will provide me with the best fuel in this office dynamic and allow that to influence the supposed objective scoring? Would I make the decision that suits me the best and then reverse engineer the situation to give it the veneer of legitimacy? I should imagine that you will be inclined to think that I would do the latter. If so, you would be wrong.
I would fire all four. Their work would be distributed to other people in the department on the basis that they would receive a small bonus if they achieve certain targets. The business makes a greater saving by losing the foursome and four other employees become very grateful to me, thus giving me plenty of fuel, as a consequence of this incentive. I then contact two of the four and explain that if they bide their time I will ensure they can be re-hired in a few months’ time, before the pay-off has been depleted and thus they will actually find themselves in a better position. I will recruit those two in the new financial year so the previous year’s savings remain good. The re-hired individuals will be eternally grateful to me, ensuring loyalty and further fuel, plus I shall ensure they become my lieutenants as repayment for me looking out for them. The hold I have over my higher-up will ensure the recruitments go through without incident and are done outside of the time allowed for the two who remain out in the cold to bring a tribunal claim.
What about the friend in all of this? Who cares? He should have fuelled me more and he might have been saved. As it is, I have found some new friends who are ever so grateful for my largesse and who are perfectly content to propagate my explanation that the friend was released as a consequence of some behaviour that cannot be expanded on but let us say is outside the range of normative behaviours of decent people in society. When the friend comes calling to vent his spleen at me, well his anger and insults are all good fuel aren’t they?
The way you are wired causes you to make decisions tough.
We, by contrast, make the tough decisions.
You really ought to thank us.
13 thoughts on “What To Do?”
Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Wow
My conscience bothers me. If I didn’t have it, I could get ahead more easily. I find myself withholding opinions out of worry that I will hurt another’s feelings.
Which comes off as insincere and I dislike myself for it. Because truth and understanding matter. I shouldn’t feel the need to hold back! And I also hate being misunderstood so I just end up not saying it but thinking it. I will voice to some select few, however.
The narcs were always able to handle the harsh opinions, however (as long as said opinions were not directed at them). One of the reasons I bonded with them was due to my darker, cynical side that loathes Hallmark cards and those God-awful Thomas Kinkade puke paintings and anything endorsed by Oprah.
Obama was too much of a pleaser. He had no balls. Not that I disliked him, but I wish he could have voiced more. (But then again, look what I just said about myself.)
Bibi, that’s why I think that Obama is a Mid-Ranger. He’s not worried about hurting the feelings of anybody as long as it’s the right political opponent or social group that he upsets. He was very worried about how he will be seen.
Dear Mr Tudor,
I was my own boss and worked independently and happily was never in that position (I have actually turned down leadership positions in the past because most people hate their bosses) …. I never wanted that
I finally ended up working with Mr Bubbles and he had the gall to make me redundant when he retired … 🤣
Luv Bubbles xx 😘
With the ones on the blog that know me from my comments this is going to sound like an entirely different person! I took my job very seriously, I expected my employees to do the same. I didn’t mind if they had fun while doing it, as long as the work was done. They knew what I expected from them and they also knew I would not ask them to do something I would not do myself. I didn’t threaten or bully them but they knew if I said they would be written up for not doing something job related, they would be written up. After they reached the highest level of write ups they could receive, I would terminate them! I wasn’t there to be there friend or parent, although if they needed help I would absolutely do my best to help them, but I would not be taken advantage of or manipulated by anyone.
That is good—I really struggled at times. Process improvements and such were much easier for me.
Claire
I didn’t enjoy doing it, I would always work with them on improvements and hopefully after the first write they would understand what was expected of them and wouldn’t have any other issues. If not and the behavior continued I had no problem or guilt in terminating them.
I understand. There were two social workers I had and it was upsetting they were so unsettled by me—I “did it”—write ups but I hated/dreaded it. I just like doing orders (ordering work ups) and managing flow. It is easier and mindless mostly.
Obama didn’t know how to make an executive presidential decision – was afraid and didn’t have much experience. The guy was selected for political reasons by the elite. When you have a beta male leader people won’t approach him immediately. They have no confidence in him and delay referring matters to him.
Mommy Pino has suggested Obama was essentially a cowardly and I believe she slayed it by giving examples.
. . . and they get things done without his input or knowledge.
I was very popular with my staff in the unit I opened because I was like a mother but I had other areas that were already in existence that I adopted as well. (In my last job) I was at times ineffective firing people who needed it in many instances because it was horrible to do. Now, not all the time—some cases were ridiculous but when it came to drinking problems/mental health issues I was quite permissive of nonsense more often than ideal. It was not a favorite task—disciplining etc. It’s just not my favorite thing overall. I’d rather not be a ball crusher.
I don’t disagree with this decision, after all your job is to benefit the company and it is not your fault that two posts have to be terminated. But I would have kept my friend as one of the two I would later re-hire, and I would have probably tried to share this info with her/him to save her/him some sleepless nights and anxiety. I try to take care of the people that work for me, but also, I like to work with people I already know and get along with. It’s probably less effective in terms of fuel, but it is more effective in terms of empathy.