- vis a vis nothing in particular:
I have worked in several institutions, Christian and secular, and none it seems to me have been free of what we call 'office politics' - of which I have sometimes been an active participant, I confess. Which is to say, office politics are fairly ubiquitous feature of working life - and are often experienced with a high degree of unpleasantness and frustration. Especially, this is difficult when it occurs in a workplace which is explicitly Christian, because the expectation of a different set of working relationships can be set much higher, and thus the crash much greater. In addition, Christians have, I am afraid, a tendency to justify the office-political means by the spiritual ends.
Now, in one sense I think office politics are just a necessary feature of working with other people and needn't be always a bad thing per se. There is a strain in Christian piety which condemns politics of all kinds - but this seems to me rather gnostic, a denial of the body politic.
But, as a pastoral and spiritual issue: what can be said to and by Christian workers about office politics? Here are some further questions:
- To what extent is loyalty to the boss an absolute requirement of workplace virtue? over against, say, loyalty to the values and history of the organisation?
- Why are Christians so blind to workplace bullying in their own organisations? How can we change this? How can we be self-aware about our own personal tendencies to manipulative behaviour at work?
- How can we address the souring of workplace relationships, and prevent it?
Testimonies welcome.
15 comments:
Here's a "hypothetical" account of a Christian who was abused in a Christian school.
To what extent is loyalty to the boss an absolute requirement of workplace virtue? over against, say, loyalty to the values and history of the organisation?
There is a saying (I don't know its provenance) along the lines that a good organisation asks you to have integrity, and that a bad one asks you to show loyalty.
well, yes. Though, I am always puzzled by integrity as a virtue: sounds like modern individualism to me - being 'true to one's self' and all that. What does this actually mean?
[Re-entering this post: Blogger seems to be having a bad-hair day.]
If we were talking about sincerity or authenticity, then I'd tend to agree with your response. (I have not managed to do any more than skim Trilling's book on the subject, BTW, although I do keep meaning to read it.)
I find it much harder to be sceptical about integrity as a virtue. Adherence to standards, avoidance of arbitrary or inconsistent actions (including statements), and reluctance to compromise would all appear to be parts of the core meaning. These are all front-line matters in office politics, which is why I take it the saying exists: at least part of the idea is that a worthy organisation will understand when its members witness to a higher standard than the group is manifesting at present.
We agree with these things ... yes?
Regarding your original questions briefly:
I agree that rejecting politics out of hand is gnostic (at least as an insult, if not in the strict sense).
As to the souring of workplace relations, this may not be very profound, but in my limited experience prevention is far better than cure. Some things can get broken, that cannot be fixed ...
I think loyalty is a good thing to show and should go hand in hand with integrity.
I have been a boss and an employee and have at times been quite bad at both but hopefully good as well (my 360 degree reviews seemed to show that people were happy)
disloyalty as in the church can undermine a team. There should be an element of submission there. I think the "bad workplaces command loyalty" attack is part of the "We don't do submission" syndrome.
I am asked to work for a person and providing their goals are not contrary to God's rule then why should I not be loyal to them. Loyalty to a history etc replaces that engagement with human beings to a nice safe abstract constuct. If my boss is acting wrongly, against the interests of the company then it is not its history/ethos that suffers but its shareholders. So the issue then is I have a higher loyalty -to my boss's boss who also is my boss-and al the way up to the Boss of Bosses.
Loyalty to "values" and "history" is often a coded way of saying "We don't want to change." And actually can be harmful to the needs of the people in the organisation.
Sorry -a long musing
Dave perhaps it would help if I explained that I speak as an academic, and that in the first place I have in mind collegial and/or professional enterprises where there are external or higher standards, and where goals are to some extent collectively defined. (Clearly the situation is somewhat different in a classic company-that-makes-stuff, although the extent and nature of the difference would be a discussion in itself.) In scientific work I think an appeal to integrity before loyalty is unexceptionable; there are surely educational and professional settings where the priority is similarly clear.
As to loyalty is a good thing to show and should go hand in hand with integrity, I am all in favour of loyalty. (You are welcome to take a straw poll of my acquaintance if you feel this is uncertain.) My point, and I believe also the point of the saying, is that loyalty is to some extent earned, whereas integrity by its nature is unconditioned. Asking whether an organisation recognises this is therefore a useful heuristic. This is not meant to imply that loyalty is a bad thing, or not something to be expected to some extent --- it is not in the nature of such sayings (any more than proverbs) to be all-sufficient.
You wrote that Loyalty to "values" and "history" is often a coded way of saying "We don't want to change." And actually can be harmful to the needs of the people in the organisation.
It's clear that appeal to such things can be made in bad faith, or in a spirit of reaction and scepticism. But this cuts both ways. If reaction and scepticism are bad for the goose, then they are bad for the gander.
Michael - ran across your post. As a consultant and author (who, consequentially, happens to be a practicing Christian), I found the post and the ensuing discussion rather interesting.
I've recently published a book on Office politics (you can find info on it by linking to my site if you so choose; I won't turn this into a sales pitch).
The point is that one doesn't need to go too far into the Bible to find numerous examples of office politics being played effectively (although, given the time period, I suppose "camel politics" or "tent politics" would be more appropriate).
Read the generational stories from Abraham down through Joseph in Genesis (especially the set-up of Jacob's 12 sons)... organizational politics!!! Moses vs. Pharaoh? A power play if there ever was one. The books of Esther and Nehemiah... excellent examples of shrewed office politicians.
Those who say that Christians have no room for office politics may as well say that Christians shouldn't breathe.
Hmm - is Jacob for example a model for our playing of domestic politics? His battles with Esau and Laban are a fascinating human drama, but surely not a model for the rest of us!
What Esther does which I DO think is worth emulating is that she plays the hand she is dealt. She 'manages up' we might say. So does Daniel... respecting authority, behaving with a loyalty which is best expressed through loyalty to God as the prior authority.
Re Jacob et al: one does get the strong feeling, at various points in the Pentateuch, that the authorial (or editorial) eyebrow is firmly raised. If this is his attitude, how much more should it be ours? And moving as far as Judges, this attitude becomes rather explicit.
The same could be said for many other books in the histories. I have in mind especially the books of Samuel, which I especially love of all of all that section: I read them as a critical study in political behaviour, rather than a list of examples on which to model oneself.
I tend to agree with Michael's comments on Esther and Daniel.
Bruce,
Thanks -it is helpful to know where you come from. I guess loyalty should be an innate quality in that I should naturally be loyal -but I don't just attach my loyalty to anyone. However is loyalty given until it is un-earnt only given when earnt?
As for my comments about loyalty to values and history -I can only comment on what I have experienced and that tends to almost be without exception as I describe
As for science -yes there are some things that call for a higher loyalty than your boss -but I'm still tempted to place it in the context of what does the boss of bosses say.
I do think Jacob provides many great examples of office politics, both positively and negatively (remember: nobody is completely worthless; they can always serve as a bad example).
Think about the wrangling of Esau's birthright over a bowl of soup. You have to remember that Rebekah already knew the prophecy that was foretold while she was still pregnant: the older would serve the younger. One has to assume that she let Jacob in on this, but probably not Isaac nor Esau. Office politics sometimes involves seeing the bigger picture. While the actions may be called into question at the time, both did their part to ensure the prophecy came true.
But (and this is a very, very BIG BUT), Jacob learned quickly that when you choose to play politics, what goes around comes around. Laban took him for a ride. His wives and their servants played him like a fiddle. When he played favorites with his children, they taught the "old man" a good lesson as well. The dynamics of Jacobs children are a perfect example of organizational competition and vying for scarce resouces.
Great points!! It's been fun reading this thread of discussion. In my new book, I actually took the reader on a brief biblical history to prove a point (or at least support the evidence) about the morality of office politics.
Hmm... I am always somewhat alarmed when I hear the OT figures being used as examples for our behaviour in this way I have to say. Especially when the stories don't appear to be teaching us in this way I would have thought...
Actually, the NT has better examples of squabbling between Christians - so, Paul and Barnabas, and Paul and the Jerusalem apostles and Peter, and so on...
Michael - that's why our own compass and values have to come into play. Many can read scripture and say, "ooooo, they did that in the Bible... it must be OK."
Agree with your assessment of NT characters. The book of Acts is a great case study of office politics.
Per your earlier comment about Esther, her example is so much more than just "managing up" - she is a great example of the use of timing in playing politics. She could have just blurted out that Haman was a creep; instead, she used her relationship and the value of time to create a compelling value proposition. She WAITED until she had won her husband over BEFORE she revealed Haman's plan. Too many people rush into office politics without taking the time to think through the issues. Esther, when resolved to do the right thing, made some very intelligent choices.
On a broader scale of office politics, I prefer the OT because it's a fun game of cat-and-mouse between God and Satan over preserving the Messianic line. When you look at the OT as a great game of strategy over this one issue, it sets the whole thing in a new light.
Again - awesome thread of conversation. Wish you weren't an ocean away... have a feeling we could have a really fun discussion.
On a broader scale of office politics, I prefer the OT because it's a fun game of cat-and-mouse between God and Satan over preserving the Messianic line.
This is at once lurid, and trivialising. It is also Manichaean.
Returning to the earlier discussion, dave williams asked whether loyalty should be given until it is un-earnt only given when earnt? But I don't think that loyalty (or decision-making) works quite like that. Different values can compete, and to some extent one gives them varying weights depending on circumstance. Suppose loyalty to a superior would push you towards acting "against your better judgement", or cut seriously into domestic time, or compete with another project to which you were already committed. Such decisions must be made case-by-case. But most people would (and should) give loyalty a higher weight within an established relationship of trust, than within one not yet so-established, or one where trust has been betrayed.
Re loyalty to values and history being a stalking-horse for mere resistance to change, and the statement I can only comment on what I have experienced and that tends to almost be without exception as I describe, then I am sorry for your workplaces. But I do not see that this discredits a whole realm of moral language.
The idea of doing damage to the culture of an organisation (or risking such damage, or seeking to avoid it, etc.) is useful and refers to discernable cases that are hard to describe in other language. Likewise a history can be betrayed, standards can rise or fall, a workplace can be happy, or there can be a climate of fear. Trying to reduce these and other phenomena all down to pairwise relationships of individuals, and calling it all by the name "loyalty", is Procrustean.
As for placing it in the context of what does the boss of bosses say, then (setting aside the language --- for God is not Don Corleone) by all means. But if I were a doctor in a hospital, in an internal dispute over the operation of a clinic, I would be arguing in terms of techniques, procedures, standards of care, resources, research, and professional experience. A Bible study might make you better-fitted to do that, but it will not substitute for the discussion itself.
Bruce - I'm sorry that you have trouble accepting others' views of scripture without dogmatic name calling.
Post a Comment