I had a kid in my unit who was a machine gunner. Such labels are useful in books, but useless (and possibly deleterious) in the real world management of teams. Ask yourself if it was a hiring mistake, an on-boarding mistake or if the individual behavior is a symptom of a broader cultural issue simmering in the team.But don’t create labels. Have the individual address the behavior, or address the individual by having them leave. This applies at the other end as well – a label like “Champion”.This behaviour that has been described in the blog post is better characterized as toxic or malignant to an organisation. And, once somebody in a org acquires a label, they acquire baggage that comes with that label and it is very difficult for them to turn that perception around. So, your point about not using labels as a way around hard questions is super-important.
The bigger point is that when you create labels (noun), people start to label (verb). I think words matter and I don’t think “heretic” is the right word to characterize this behaviour at all, but already said that below, and Fred says that he likes it.I don’t want to go there. What is needed is to question more, not less. This is very difficult to do.I do believe the bigger issue in organisations is people who don’t question, than people who do.Over the last few years I have come to believe that Wilful Blindness is a highly under-recognized and under-addressed issue in the high-tech space (both companies and investors). The trick for a leader is to let somebody like this go while encouraging the independent thought in the team. That can work sometimes.If not, they need to go.
There is a way to question and to disagree without being negative.If they don’t see their negative impact, its worth investigating if there is insecurity /lack of appreciation behind their behavior that can be addressed through positive reinforcement. The more successful a company, the worse this gets.When such people come from a position of what is good for the org, and questioning that which doesn’t make sense, they also realise that destroying a company’s morale does not make sense. A company stifles people’s ability to question and speak truth to power. People who question and think independently in a company are invaluable and should be preserved in cotton wool. Using an inappropriate and confusing label muddies the conversation. It doesn’t seem like the person being described is a “heretic,” but rather a grumbler, a gossiper, a sower of discontent, etc. You can see from the comments here that folks are pushing back on the idea that people who disagree (and say so publicly) should be let go, which doesn’t seem to be the author’s intention. This terminology brings to mind Joan of Arc, Martin Luther, and the like – people who are widely considered to have contributed positively, despite being “heretical.”Using a term to mean something different than people expect it to mean (and without thinking of historical context) isn’t really “semantics” – it’s just being confusing.
Using “heretic” in this context (to denote a problematic personality that’s actively undermining progress) is not aligned with the connotations of the word used elsewhere (to denote a person who stands against (generally false) orthodoxy, challenges the status quo, is usually “progressive,” and is (unfairly) punished for it). As painful as parting can be, and it can be incredibly painful depending on the circumstances, letting this behavior stand is worse. The worst way is to let this behavior go on unchecked.
I agree with this advice and I have seen this play out in many ways. You have to find a way out of the heretic mess. My friend states in his book that you have to part ways with heretics in your company, regardless of how talented they are, how connected they are, and even if they are protected in some way. But for some reason the heretic prefers to stay and be miserable than to move on and find another place to work that is more to their liking. This kind of employee, and we have all seen this up close, is negative about the Company and disses the management, coworkers, the board, the strategy, the workplace, and everything else under the sun. I am reading a friend’s book which is still in proofs and so I’m not going to talk about it yet.īut there is one part of the book that really rang true for me and that is when he talks about certain kinds of problematic employees, particularly one he calls The Heretic.
0 kommentar(er)
