An Appropriate Response?
A while back I attended the wash up post recurrent ground school. The usual and predictable issues were being raised with the usual various groups’ approach to these.
1. One group was encouraging all to say nothing in order to return home as soon as possible, their view being that any input is likely to be ignored and any serious discussion avoided by those conducting the wash up as they simply were not in a position to comment. I contend they are wrong and in fact unprofessional if they do nothing to at least raise concerns that affect anyone in this professional group.
2. Another group was encouraging all to say nothing but more out of silent protest than a desire to get out early. Akin to sulking - Have the bottle to speak up. Enough voices of concern do eventually reach the top.
3. There were a few who had issues they wanted to raise as no forum had presented itself since the last ground school washup (that was not on a weekend when apparently no one bothers to pitch up). Their issues were generic so no phone call to HQ could supply anything but unhelpful answers or referrals elsewhere. They were hoping to bring larger issues forward for debate and to some extent put the people on the spot in public in the hope of eliciting a more committed, informative reply. I suppose the thinking is that it’s more difficult to brush people off face to face, in front of an audience than on the phone or by email. There is truth in this but tact and firm but polite insistence is a must.
One genuine individual raised a number of issues that were familiar but sensitive. He raised them in a polite non-confrontational way. His arguments held much water and indeed pointed to some embarrassing history.
No one was prepared to debate the points other than to say they were “company policy” or lament about the size of the company implying management was not possible. There was no offer to take forward the issues, and so our self elected representative soldiered on and tried to point out the obvious inadequacies or injustices of the policies themselves.
There was a growing level of impatience from those tasked to answer the questions which finally culminated in the old favorite of “if you don’t like it, you are always free to leave” or words to that effect.
It’s been said before and gets trotted out occasionally. It’s not the first time I’ve heard it and anecdotally it a fairly regular occurrence in many corporations with today’s job market.
What does strike me is the unsuitability of this response. Allegedly we are all valuable “resources” that the company has invested time and money in. Why would or should anyone be so flippant about throwing them away? I imagine that if such an approach was taken to any other company resource of similar value, the individual should be taken to task. After all we save certain sealed and untouched, low cost items on meal trays.
Perhaps we are not that valuable. I think the numbers invested would say otherwise. I can only imagine what would happen if someone actually said. “You know what, I don’t like it. I think I will go. Consider this my resignation. I will mention that you suggested it in the letter”. It could result in serious consequences for the person suggesting that this was a solution to a legitimate concern.
Perhaps then this is simply an intimidation tactic. Anyone knows it simply is not that easy to get up and leave, particularly in this market. The implication then is that you cannot leave so you better lap up whatever is dished out, however out of order it may be. That leaves a bad taste in the mouth as anyone who has heard this flippant riposte well knows. It is perhaps one of the most demeaning, dehumanizing answers that any manager can give, and the suggestion that this is a freedom is ironic in the extreme. I wonder if plantation owners told slaves they were free to stop working anytime they got tired, comfortable in the implied savage beating that would follow.
Intimidation is not the way to deal with things. Can one imagine a captain who said to a genuinely concerned FO that if he didn’t like the way things were being conducted then he could get off the plane. I doubt the company would see the lighter side such CRM.
Why then the duplicity? Are we not a company that promotes attributes like “Problem Solving” and “Leadership, Teamwork and Support”? Do we not teach the cabin crew techniques to handle disgruntled passengers and drum it in with acronyms? Do we not promote “Mutual Respect”? Surely these attributes should be led strongest from the top.
I have little respect for answers of this nature. Genuine queries or concerns should get genuine measured replies without threat or impatience. If the managers are not empowered to give answers then send someone who is, otherwise provide a feedback loop until explanation or satisfaction is achieved. Difficult discussions are a feature of anyone working at the coal face. And even more so when away from the coalface much is necessarily relied upon from the company. Employees have a right to informative answers. Some of our leaders should get with the program, consider their station and lead by example.
Personally next time I hear a response of this nature, I will be encouraged to say nothing more and leave the meeting at the earliest opportunity, if not simply walk out. The discussion has broken down, the insult has been given, and the individual has simply demonstrated his lack of interpersonal and management skills. Why waste further time with anyone of this caliber?