Analyzing My Working Environment

This week’s readings have caused me to think a great deal about the working environment I currently inhabit, and the positive and negative aspects of it.

Being that my current position is the beginning of my career in communications, I understood when I took the job that I would be starting at the bottom of the totem poll in regards to salary and stature.   The Athletic Department in which I work is a classic case of Weber’s ‘ideal bureaucracy’:  Each person is responsible for a maximum of two specific areas, there is a set managerial hierarchy (employees, Assistant Athletic Directors, and ultimately Athletic Director) and all employees are hired through what he describes as ‘formal selection’.  There is a set of rules and guidelines for the entire department to follow, and they are enforced impersonally.

There are numerous positives to this type of working environment, especially as a young employee.  If I have a question or problem I do not feel is urgent, I can bring it to one of my superiors (an Assistant Athletic Director) and they can either provide a course of action or direct me to the head of the department.  This allows me to gain insight as to what the appropriate course of action should be, and can be a great learning experience. 

There is a definitive scalar chain within the department, which allows everyone to know his or her role and determines your level of authority within the workplace.  Also, the division of labor allows the department to really run on its own, without micro-managing from the Athletic Director.  As an employee, it is nice not to have someone constantly looking over your shoulder to make sure you are doing all that is required. 

Here, though, is where the positives of this type of working environment end for a young worker like myself. 

Being the lowest-paid member of a department is never the goal that an employee sets out to achieve.  As young, ambitious workers filled with initiative, the managerial hierarchy becomes a significant obstacle on your path to achieving your personal goals.  While it is helpful to have an experienced superior as a resource, what happens when you begin to outperform that person and display more initiative, and are not rewarded for it?  Because the superior is entrenched in the position, and simply does what is required, they are immovable objects: As long as they stay in the organization, you are essentially blocked from advancing within the department. 

I do not agree with Foyel’s ‘subordination of individual interests to the general interest’ principle, because he classifies ‘ambition’ as a negative quality.  When used correctly, ambition can yield tremendous gains within an organization, and can take a company to new heights.  Ambition that is rewarded also yields employees who genuinely care about the organization, and who do not become disenchanted when their outstanding performance goes unnoticed.

That is why I feel my working environment should heed the advice of Mr. Frederick Taylor and ‘pay the man, not the position’.  A first-class worker, regardless of age, experience or title, should be compensated accordingly, and be able to receive the position of someone above them if they are worthy.  As the department I work in is currently constructed, there is no possible way this can happen.  And as the low man in the group, this can become disheartening, when you see your performance not being rewarded with even a small monetary bonus. 

I do not intend to paint my place of work in an extremely negative light by any means.  I have thoroughly enjoyed my time there, and it has been a tremendous experience for me as someone just starting out in my career.  With that being said, however, every organization can improve.  I feel that if you want to keep your top talent, you must reward them for what they bring to the table, and not ‘pay the position’.  If these things were to change, an already enjoyable place to work would become that much better.