A senior benefits analyst in Deerfield, Illinois, who had to educate 2,000 (often disgruntled) employees about any benefits changes, accepted that challenge without question. Since her company was in a cost-cutting mode, most changes were ones that would naturally elicit grumbling. Knowing this, the benefits analyst made it her goal to communicate any changes honestly and openly to employees, even though management was more inclined to dodge the slings and arrows with secrecy.
The analyst didn't always agree with the changes she was expected to execute, yet she was on the firing line day after day as the "implementer" of those changes. Still, she didn't see her job as a thankless one.
Do you find that hard to believe? After all, she was taking the heat for policies she didn't like, either. The key was in her attitude. She was very customer focused. To her, it was important that her customers (in this case, the company's employees) really understood the benefits changes, even if it meant they got mad and called her names (which sometimes happened).
By finding a larger purpose (service) in her role, she could still feel good about herself and her work at a time when company morale was at an all-time low. Because she was able to take herself, her job and her customers seriously, she found satisfaction and purpose in what others might consider a disagreeable role.
She could have reacted differently. But she wanted more from her job than a weekly paycheck. And she didn't want to view her salary as combat pay received for surviving another week in the trenches. Quality customer service wasn't only her motto; it was the key to her integrity.
Her situation poses an interesting career-development question, though. While her goal has been to serve as an open and compassionate arm of her management team, she may soon tire of being the messenger that everyone wants to shoot - especially since she doesn't even agree with the changes she's enforcing. Perhaps her next career step should be into a management position that includes more strategic planning and thinking.
A story (with a parallel dilemma) was once told to me by an engineer who was determined to upgrade both her career and her life.
As a child, this well-spoken woman had taken turns playing all the Shakespearean roles with her younger sister. No particular problems arose in distributing the roles equitably until they came to Richard II. Neither child wanted to play Richard because he was "too much of a wimp" who "let everyone push him around."
The older sister felt obliged to take the unappealing part to appease her younger sibling. After that, she really grappled with how to be what she calls "a self-respecting Richard II." Al though she couldn't change his words or actions (just as the benefits analyst couldn't change management dictates), she tried her best to play him with class. She gave him a proud demeanor, an upright carriage and a stronger voice.
Still, it was an imperfect solution. She couldn't compensate for what he lacked in substance with a simple change of style. To become a truly effective leader, Richard II needed to grow into a new leadership role that was more consistent with what the times (and his kingdom) required.
What Richard needed most was more backbone, better values and greater strength of character. Without these qualities, he was destined to fail.
