Employee Confronts Intolerant Boss: Confidence or Conformity? - Essay Sample

Introduction

Situation: An employee who does her work as she sees best, even when it goes against her superiors' advise, is about to start working for her condescending and intolerant boss in her new role and has been approached to do a new task that may disorient her entire workday.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The scenario above puts the self - the overly confident employee - in a position where the manner in which she works may be questioned as well as her willingness to listen to external opinions. She may decide to become meek and non-threatening to the employer and get positive feedback in the process. The boss will consider her typically loyal and likely to follow instructions. Alternatively, she may declare her confidence in her skills from the start by only referring to her knowledge and ignoring her advice, which also includes her arranging her workday as she sees fit. The boss may challenge this employee's sense of self by protesting against what she may term as being insubordinate.

Following workplace instructions and culture has its fair share of advantages. For instance, company policy defines the purpose of the organization, as well as the plans in place to achieve those goals. Managerial staff is more accountable to such goals than the subordinate staff, which the new employee is. Also, a sense of uniformity suffices in establishing organizational culture. Both the employer and the employee are engaged in typification. According to Hewitt and Stokes (1975, 3), individuals construct their opinions of others with specific anticipation of their responses and reaction. In the employer's case, for instance, he expects his employees to follow the instructions he sets for the organization due to an unspoken understanding of the importance of doing so. If the employee decides to blatantly disregard a piece of advice because she does not think it is the best way to handle a particular situation, the boss may accuse her of being dismissive and of "despising his position." She may say, "I'm not despising your position, sir. I'm just doing what feels right from an expert's point of view." By following her instincts, she maintains a positive self-image.

If the employee opts to counteract the boss's opinion, she may use a variety of disclaimers to handle the issue without offending her employer. The first one is hedging, where she begins her statements with belief, or the lack of it thereof (Hewitt & Stokes, 1975, 4). For instance, if her boss has told her to begin her workday with a specific set of tasks, to which she is opposed, she may respond by saying "I may not have as much foresight as you do, but I really feel I should start my work with this other work before I can get to that." In this case, she implicitly declares that her boss has superior foresight and understands the overall objective better than she does. The employee may alternatively choose credentialing. Hewitt & Stokes, (1975, 4) argues that credentialing helps to avoid typification that would lead to an undesired reactionary circumstance. The employee may thus state, "My working experience has shown me that if I have a plan in place at the start of the day, I'd rather follow it to avoid disorienting myself."

The sense of self is negotiated and always changing. According to Baumeister (1986, 60), the search for personal identity had existed since the advent of Romanticism in the 1800s, when societal attention shifted from Christianity to the self as the source of personal fulfillment. More likely than not, the employee considers her job as a source of satisfaction. The boss's unwelcome intervention may appear as interference with her efforts towards finding such accomplishment. In defining types of accounts, Scott & Lyman (1968, 47) posit that excuses and justifications often suffice as a means to relieve oneself of the responsibility of what may be interpreted as wrongdoing. A significant category of reasons is to appeal to defeasibility, which incorporates mental capacity or ability (Scott & Lyman, 1968, 48). The employee may claim that she was not fully informed of company policy, which guided her refusal to acknowledge the boss's instructions. She might buttress this point by stating that the information about employee expected behavior was not availed to her in time. Consequently, she may escape the responsibility of her actions and subsequently work towards following instructions more than she historically has. Doing so not only removes the liability from her but shifts the blame to the boss, who must now establish why the company policy was not openly displayed or accessible. Additionally, it will affirm her positive self-perception.

Since the rise of Romanticism in the 1800s, the sense of self has grown become central to human existence. Therefore, its essential nature cannot be underscored. Ensuring such a view is maintained requires the defending of one's perspectives of certain situations or matters and tackling conflicting opinions on the same. Expecting these views not to be challenged is difficult because cognitive dissonance or miscommunication between two or more parties may occur. In this respect, one should learn to apply skills like appropriate excuses, hedging, credentialing, and others. One needs to have a predictable approach towards self-perception vis-a-vis its definition and understanding. Only by so doing can working through such a challenging scenario as the one described above can it be possible to create and maintain lasting relationships.

References

Baumeister, R. F. (1986). Identity: cultural change and the struggle for self. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hewitt, J. P., & Stokes, R. (1975). Disclaimers. American Sociological Review, 40(1), 1. doi:10.2307/2094442

Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46. doi:10.2307/2092239