by Conor McCauley
Earlier this fall, my professor, Dr. Joan Miller, assigned my class a brief reflective essay to write about one of the readings we had covered in our seminar values course, “Good Work: A Focus on Excellence, Ethics, Engagement and the Development of Five Minds for the Future.” I chose to reflect on Dr. Howard Gardner’s 2005 article entitled “Compromised Work,” because I felt it readily applied to my area of study and I have always felt that examples of what not to do can be just as powerful as guidance toward desired behavior (in this case, GoodWork). We were asked to think critically about the reading we selected, apply it to ourselves and address issues it raised for us as learners and developing professionals. My thoughts are as follows.
Howard Gardner’s 2005 article “Compromised Work” raises many issues pertinent to the business domain (and management in particular) through its illumination of behavior that is contrary to the concept of good work. The article begins with an explanation of the idea of compromised work; that is, work that is “not necessarily illegal but that compromises the ethical integrity of its domain or profession.” Gardner explains that it is important to examine cases of compromised work if only to learn from the consequences of misalignment and a lack of mentors in different professional environments.
All three cases of compromised work Gardner details resulted in serious or destructive consequences. However, the management of the three institutions involved (The New York Times, Hill and Barlow, and Enron) was partially or completely to blame for the compromised work that took place within each. In each case, management either failed to act ethically, did not respond appropriately to environmental or market factors, or was directly responsible for the compromised work through their tolerance or their creation of a culture in which it was expected. Instead of acting as mentors for their employees, they feigned alignment in their organizations when there was none. It is absolutely imperative that I, as a future manager, take the lessons of these cases to heart. In essence, I must set the pursuit of good work above all else, despite what pressures I may come to face, or I will suffer dire consequences.
Too often managers in all fields of business succumb to real or perceived pressures and compromise the work of their institutions to achieve certain bottom-line goals, whether they are financial or otherwise. I have seen this first hand in even my most recent place of employment, a prestigious hotel. Multiple managers there let blatant (albeit minor) violations of departmental standards slide for no other reason than to maintain the status quo and the current culture of “good enough.” They cited “bigger fish to fry” as their reason for ignoring these issues, such as unsatisfactory employee appearance or abuse of the break system, as long as no serious problems resulted from them. Although their intentions may not have been malicious or apathetic, quality and honesty standards suffered as a result of management only addressing problems they deemed as truly important to the hotel (or in other words, those problems that directly impeded guest service and interaction).
These compromised standards applied most often to the line employees in my department, for whose supervision I was responsible. Managerial tolerance of compromised work fostered the idea among many employees that just showing up and doing what was required was sufficient work. An intrinsic desire to excel and pursue good work was rare, as most individuals were concerned simply with performing their duties only as well as they needed to. Compromised work from management also allowed other employees to get away with compromised, and often low-quality, work themselves. They were allowed to remain at the hotel as long as they did not cause any serious problems with guests or coworkers largely because management wanted to avoid the hassle of trying to remove them. Although I could step in at times and make my case for different parties to take a better approach to their work or their attitudes, my level of authority did not allow me to circumvent the actions and decisions (or in this case, inaction and indecision) of senior management. The line employees I supervised would only listen to my suggestions if they genuinely wanted to or if it made sense to them. As in most cases, the decision to actively pursue good work remained with the individual. Gardner acknowledged that isolated cases of compromised work are unavoidable, and the business environment at the hotel was no exception. To let these repeated violations go unattended, however, is to create a culture where compromised work becomes the norm.
Professional development means that I must develop to be a professional, that I must pursue my career to the absolute best of my ability and ensure my work is excellent, engaging, and ethical. Maintaining the integrity of my domain means that I must pass the mirror tests each day, and if preventing compromised work entails even simple, unpleasant tasks like more rigid enforcement of standards, that is what I must do. Two of the most important aspects of management involve being an effective leader and learning to adapt without damaging the integrity or stability of the institution. GoodWork in the business domain, by definition, would require me to do both as well.