Goofus and Gallant go to work.
Framed on a wall at work. When I noticed it today, I had to grab a scrap piece of paper and jot it down.
Leaders and Followers
When a Leader makes a mistake, they say, “I was wrong.”
When a Follower makes a mistake, they say, “It wasn’t my fault.”
A Leader works harder than a Follower and has more time.
A Follower is always “too busy” to do what’s necessary.
A Leader makes and keeps promises.
A Follower makes and forgets promises.
A Leader says, “I’m good, but not as good as I ought to be.”
A Follower says, “I’m not as bad as a lot of other people.”
Leaders listen.
Followers just wait until it’s their turn to talk.
Leaders respect those who are superior to them and try to learn something from them.
Followers resent those who are superior to them and try to find chinks in their armor.
Leaders feel responsible for more than their job.
Followers say, “I only work here.”
A Leader says, “There ought to be a better way to do this.”
Followers say, “That’s the way it’s always been done here.”
The major problem with this piece of corporate propaganda is that it seems to conflate the good employee/bad employee duo with a leader/follower dynamic, suggesting that to be a follower is a bad thing. The thinking here seems to be that every employee should be a leader. Surely they don’t want everyone to actually be in charge, because that would be like some sort of democracy, which does not fly in the business world. The closest you can get is some kind of late Roman republic, complete with the corrupt representatives and backstabbing.
No, they definitely want the majority of their employees to be subservient. The problem is actually a communicative one; “good employee” and “bad employee” are weak terms in this sort of statement, so someone in management decided, after not very much thought, to change it to “Leader” and “Follower” because those are stronger (and were probably used in a few inane team-building exercises). What they didn’t consider was the cognitive dissonance here; to the reader, who is not thinking exactly like the manager, this little poster means something different than was probably intended. For one, it makes the reader ask, "What, if anything, do these qualities have to do with the concept of leadership?"
This is one of the biggest problems with working with people who are poor communicators, particularly if they are your superiors. These are people who feel that they are listening when they are most certainly just waiting for their turn to talk. The problem stems not just from a failure to consider how others will interpret your words, but from the assumption that everyone thinks the way you do, which obviates the need for consideration. People will get what you’re saying and if they don’t, it’s their fault.
Every manager I have ever had, without exception, hewed to this philosophy. I’ve met managers my age, people who’ve recently gone through the training, and they do not think the way their friends do. Most of them weren't like this going in, even. The corporate world selects for this sort of mind, to a certain degree, but mostly this has been trained into them. Our businesses are build to prevent proper communication in the interest of maintaining a desired power structure. This statement can be extended as far upward as you like, I’m afraid, and remain true.
Leaders and Followers
When a Leader makes a mistake, they say, “I was wrong.”
When a Follower makes a mistake, they say, “It wasn’t my fault.”
A Leader works harder than a Follower and has more time.
A Follower is always “too busy” to do what’s necessary.
A Leader makes and keeps promises.
A Follower makes and forgets promises.
A Leader says, “I’m good, but not as good as I ought to be.”
A Follower says, “I’m not as bad as a lot of other people.”
Leaders listen.
Followers just wait until it’s their turn to talk.
Leaders respect those who are superior to them and try to learn something from them.
Followers resent those who are superior to them and try to find chinks in their armor.
Leaders feel responsible for more than their job.
Followers say, “I only work here.”
A Leader says, “There ought to be a better way to do this.”
Followers say, “That’s the way it’s always been done here.”
The major problem with this piece of corporate propaganda is that it seems to conflate the good employee/bad employee duo with a leader/follower dynamic, suggesting that to be a follower is a bad thing. The thinking here seems to be that every employee should be a leader. Surely they don’t want everyone to actually be in charge, because that would be like some sort of democracy, which does not fly in the business world. The closest you can get is some kind of late Roman republic, complete with the corrupt representatives and backstabbing.
No, they definitely want the majority of their employees to be subservient. The problem is actually a communicative one; “good employee” and “bad employee” are weak terms in this sort of statement, so someone in management decided, after not very much thought, to change it to “Leader” and “Follower” because those are stronger (and were probably used in a few inane team-building exercises). What they didn’t consider was the cognitive dissonance here; to the reader, who is not thinking exactly like the manager, this little poster means something different than was probably intended. For one, it makes the reader ask, "What, if anything, do these qualities have to do with the concept of leadership?"
This is one of the biggest problems with working with people who are poor communicators, particularly if they are your superiors. These are people who feel that they are listening when they are most certainly just waiting for their turn to talk. The problem stems not just from a failure to consider how others will interpret your words, but from the assumption that everyone thinks the way you do, which obviates the need for consideration. People will get what you’re saying and if they don’t, it’s their fault.
Every manager I have ever had, without exception, hewed to this philosophy. I’ve met managers my age, people who’ve recently gone through the training, and they do not think the way their friends do. Most of them weren't like this going in, even. The corporate world selects for this sort of mind, to a certain degree, but mostly this has been trained into them. Our businesses are build to prevent proper communication in the interest of maintaining a desired power structure. This statement can be extended as far upward as you like, I’m afraid, and remain true.