One of the most disturbing differences that exists in society and within organizations is the one between two groups identified by cultural scholar Fons Trompenaars: The universalists believe that the same rules should be applied to everyone. The particularists believe that different treatment is allowed and even desirable for certain relationships such as family members, business associates, and friends.
You can see this in the political arena. Some politicians will stick to certain standards and criticize allies and supporters who deviate from those standards. Other politicians will tolerate and even defend behavior by friends and allies that they would have loudly condemned if the same conduct was by an adversary.
The universalists may be too rigid on occasion but the particularists face a greater danger. Their practices destroy credibility in the short term and character in the long.
4 comments:
Universalists will always win arguments but particularists will forever be part of their plans.
As a manager I knew some of my subordinates routinely enjoyed a couple of beers in the parking lot with lunch and had been doing so for years, a practice strictly against company policy. But I never intervened or made an issue of it.
I was aware that at the executive level there is plenty of drinking during lunch, usually paid for by a corporate expense account. And this contradiction of values is part of most big companies.
I stand with my credibility shot, having contributed to character destruction in the long run. But I'm sure that a cadre of universalists would not have had me do otherwise. Why? Because before they joined that club they ran their respective operations in exactly the same manner.
John,
I think that an example closer to Trompenaar's view would have been if you had permitted the employees who were your friends or relatives to drink in the parking lot but had enforced the ban against others.
Michael
Thanks. I guess I feel somewhat vindicated.
I'm reminded of the old lawyer's saw that if your client is innocent, argue the facts. But if your client is guilty then argue the law.
John,
And the third part of the saying is: If you have neither the facts nor the law, pound on the table!
Michael
Post a Comment