Search This Blog

Monday, 27 October 2014

I think I just blew my chances of getting a good reference.

In the aftermath of the resignation of Johann Lamont it would seem that there is one thing that those sitting on the sidelines watching can all agree on.

And that would be that there is certainly no honour in politics.

The knives are most certainly out, and as the politicians sniff the blood in the water and gleefully line up to stick them in the backs of those who were their esteemed colleagues a matter of weeks ago, the public are once again losing more faith in not just the Labour party, but the political system in itself.

While much of the focus in the press has been on allegations made by Johann that she had little say in any decisions made, that she was ignored when she did speak up, and over the bedroom tax that she was actively told to keep her mouth shut, the public consensus seems to be that in general she was not allowed to make a cup of tea without Ed giving her the nod.

Yet with that being taken on board there is one question that few are looking to ask.

That being how did Johann Lamont manage to reach this level in her political career?

She admits herself that she had little impact on reforms and that Scottish Labour is treated like a branch office by Westminster.
It is something that most knew, and yet she took the job.

So while we are told that we should look to get the best of the best into political office, that leadership qualities are sought after, and so much more, it would seem that in reality - just like many others who climb the career ladder - that their success has little to do with any noble ideals, professional abilities or those leadership qualities mentioned, but instead are rooted in being able to do what they are told without questioning it and in addition an ability to shaft others without their conscience being bothered.  

My personal impression of Johann was that she was an ineffectual communicator, rather socially inept, and a game player who was out of her depth in the position she held, but at the same time I also have to consider that maybe that was exactly what those above her wanted.

Simply a puppet that would act as a mouthpiece for those pulling the strings, and one that could carry the can for any pr disasters that may come from their decisions.

Does that sound vaguely familiar when we frame it in the context of our working lives though?

Considered as the bigger picture how often do we all see this playing out in workplaces all over the country?

There are two colleagues going for a managerial position.
One has a good relationship with their colleagues, a solid work ethic and very often is running things in all but name.
Meanwhile the other is a sleekit untrustworthy manipulative snake who has made appearing to work while doing nothing of note an art form.
How often is it the latter that is successful in the pursuit of the position?

And why is this?

Well to answer my own question I think that it is a reflection of a catch 22 situation that operates.
Every single time a business promotes such an individual then they provide them with a degree of power, and as they rise in the organization they participate in the promotion of the person who fills the vacuum they leave behind them.
So at this point they could break the chain of ineptitude and advocate putting the best person for the job into the position, but then if they did then the underling would highlight how crap they were at theirs.
End result is that more of the same gets a toehold on the bottom rung as it is more advantageous to just promote yet another sleekit untrustworthy manipulative snake who has made appearing to work while doing nothing of note an art form, but one that is actually just a bit less intelligent.

Meanwhile the noise of the starting pistol that is the catalyst for the race to the bottom to begin rings ever louder in our ears.

Is it possible that this workplace issue is one that is reflected in the political world?
The touted replacement that is Jim Murphy could lend weight to the argument that it is.

Is Johann really just an example of a social problem that is rarely challenged?

Something to think about isn't it? And if that is an accurate overview then maybe we should ask ourselves where it is all going to lead us?

No comments:

Post a Comment