Challenging Decisions
Less than a year into my first management role, I was faced with the unpleasant task of reducing the size of my team. This was a new experience for me, and I received little guidance from management. I was directed to “figure it out on my own and get it done quickly!” Some of my decisions were relatively easy, but others were less so. One decision was particularly challenging because there was no clear choice.
On the one hand, there was Arthur. Arthur was an excellent programmer, finished his projects on time, and did not make many errors. He learned new tools quickly and could figure out, with little guidance, how to apply them in creative ways. But… Arthur did what he was asked to do, but nothing more, and he was rarely receptive to feedback. He often arrived at work late, left exactly on time, if not a bit early, and was, more often than not, surly. He wasn’t a team player, would not jump in to help others when the need arose, and he never participated in team social events. Honestly, he could not have cared less about his co-workers or the company for which he worked. To be sure, Arthur was all about Arthur.
On the other hand, there was Michael. Michael’s programming skills could have been better. But he was an eager learner, even if his desire sometimes exceeded his abilities, and it often took him longer than was optimal to apply his new skills. Michael would do whatever was asked of him, even if it required coming in early, staying late, or working on projects that were not part of his normal job responsibilities. Michael always had a smile on his face, engaged with his co-workers and, clearly, saw the importance of being part of a team. Michael was the kind of person you wanted to have around, in spite of his technical challenges.
When viewed solely from a work perspective, retaining Arthur was the better choice. But, in the end, that wasn’t the choice I made. Arthur did not embrace the values of the organization, he did not care about his fellow employees, and he believed that all that mattered were the things that were important to him. And I knew that an employee like Arthur would, eventually, do more harm than good. So I chose to keep Michael.
Yes, Michael’s co-workers sometimes had to pick up the slack because of his skills. But they didn’t mind because of all the other things he contributed to the workplace. Before I made my decision, some of them, understanding the challenge I faced, quietly encouraged me to keep Michael. After the fact, the others assured me that I had done the right thing. They all were more than willing to make some personal sacrifices in service of the greater good.
This year’s presidential experience reminds me of that experience. There are two candidates who, to some, are qualified for the job. Some voters will enthusiastically choose their preferred candidate and willingly accept the consequences of that decision. I must say that the idea that both candidates are (equally) qualified is patently absurd, but, at the same time, I accept the fact that people are entitled to their own opinions. But that isn’t the important part of the story.
There are a significant number of other voters who seem to agree with the policies of one of the candidates, but have questions about other aspects of his candidacy. They worry about his fitness for office — his age and mental acuity, and his inability to deliver a coherent message. They are concerned about his enthusiastic embrace of authoritarians and his willingness to regularly, and enthusiastically, tell lies and spread knowingly false rumors. They are worried about his values and question whether he truly cares about them, or if he is just looking out for himself, his family and his friends. And in the quiet moments, when no one else is listening, they ask themselves the most important question: Does he care to or is he even capable of adopting and promoting the unique characteristics and values that, for hundreds of years, have made America the greatest country on earth?
The dilemma these voters face is simple — do they vote for the person whose policies they prefer, even though they may have grave concerns about everything else. Or do they reject the candidate whose presidency might be better for them personally because, deep in their hearts and minds, they know that he will not be better for the country?
When faced with a similar, but far less significant, dilemma, Arthur’s co-workers knew the right answer. I hope the same is true this November.