For our first posting we’ve taken the example of a contributor’s dilemma from a few years ago. Please let us know your thoughts, and do send in questions of your own that you’d like to hear views on.
My boss was a respected and highly successful board member, responsible for generating high levels of new business. I enjoyed working with him enormously. The company benefited from his input and management style. Since joining his team, my own profile benefited directly as a consequence of the consistent growth of my boss’s responsibilities.
He was a charming extrovert and relished the prospect of entertaining clients. Clearly he thrived in this type of setting. This was in no small measure a recipe for his success. Unfortunately there was an unpleasant downside to his general bonhomie at the lunch table. Most afternoons were greeted with a disturbing change in his attitude. His manner became aggressive, almost to the point of borderline bullying. The people most subjected to his verbal abuse were junior members of staff or those of a more introverted nature. I had my suspicions that his afternoon mood changes were as a direct result of his consumption of a fair amount of alcohol during lunchtime sessions.
- Should I have expressed my concerns directly with my boss?
- Was this a matter for HR?
- Was it appropriate for me to do anything at all?
- What was the appropriate course of action to take especially considering that I had conflicting loyalties, not only because I liked and admired the man, but because any action on my part could have resulted in career-limiting consequences?
Although this occurred in the past, I sometimes reflect on my lack of action and wonder how I’d deal with a similar situation if it arose again. I would welcome other people’s views.
4 responses so far ↓
I believe in this instance you should have gone directly to HR as this is then out of your hands – is handled in a confidential manner and does not affect your relationship with him/her.
Meg |13 Feb 2008 at 14:28
I would agree with the previous respondent, Meg, in that HR is the best bet. This assumes of course that your HR department is likely to take up the issue effectively and sensitively. I cannot imagine approaching my HR department, as firstly I might not trust that it would not get out that it was me who reported them and secondly am not sure that they would be effective in doing anything about it. It would at least have got it off your conscience so that it would not still be an issue for you. Although of course you were effectively benefiting from having this chap around, which it looks like was more important to you at the time. If you had approached HR I would first try and quantify what the negative impact is on the company’s goals, not just on the individuals. If HR was not an option for you, then I would have waited for an appropriate moment to speak your mind, if you think you could have done this in a non confrontational way. Someone has to speak out in these situations.
William |15 Feb 2008 at 16:35
If I were in that situation I would talk it over with a mentor, (if the company had such a scheme, and / or go and see HR as you might not be the only one whom has observed situations, ultimatly the agression must stop, and lunchtime drinking needs to be reined in, nobody minds a beer, Just make it after work, – there may be reasons he is going OTT and the excessive drinking is a cry for help.
Jon |11 Apr 2008 at 13:51
This is a difficult problem that had me thinking for quite a bit. Its all very well coming across with altruistic arguments when there is nothing at stake. It’s altogether a different scenario if your career and earning potential are at risk should you make the “wrong” move.
• Should I have expressed my concerns directly with my boss?
This all depends on what type of a boss he was. If he was approachable in the mornings in his sober state then I would have advised that this was a definite course of action. I certainly would have liked to have bounced my concerns off him in a direct approach if my relationship was strong enough to endure a bit of mano~a~mano. I have a feeling that this may have paid dividends. Most people are open to constructive criticism if it is done with subtlety and tact. It depends on his character sans booze and your ability to tread carefully and decisively.
• Was this a matter for HR?
The military approach is always to work through the chain of command. So step I is to approach the boss. Step II would be to approach his direct superior and so work your way up the ladder until you achieve satisfaction. HR would be Step III as far as I’m concerned. It may have yielded good results if his direct superior was approached in a subtle manner with your concerns. He may have had the same concerns, and would appreciate a chance to solve it before some young gun in HR spilled the beans.
• Was it appropriate for me to do anything at all?
Appropriate …………definitely yes. Difficult as the situation is, it is most probably important to do something. Ignoring a problem is not the answer in the long term. I feel that it is important to act, but one should act with subtlety and sensitivity.
• What was the appropriate course of action to take especially considering that I had conflicting loyalties, not only because I liked and admired the man, but because any action on my part could have resulted in career-limiting consequences?
I think that you should have approached him when his mood was a little more receptive. Timing is very important. I would have complimented him on his abilities, and his success, and I would have told him about the aspects for which you admired him. I would then have told him that despite all the admiration there was an area of serious concern. I think that would have been the correct approach. If he was not receptive to that approach, then it may have been time to take it to the next level at HR or his immediate superior.
David Katz |30 Apr 2008 at 15:46
Leave a Comment
By proceeding you agree to abide by our Forum Guidelines, viewable by
clicking here