Challenge for HR specialists
You were hired by a company in which cannibalism is part of the corporate culture.
They didn’t tell about it when they were hired, and so you come on the first day for lunch, and you see that someone is already being eaten. What will you do?
- Option 1. As a professional and a person with strong moral foundations, you will firmly say “What the hell is this! From Monday only fish and chicken!”
- Option 2. Adapt, you will not break away from the team – you will also start eating colleagues. At the same time, you may unobtrusively preach humanism (without much hope of success).
- Option 3. Quit your job immediately.
- Option 4. Keep to yourself your opinion about the unacceptability of cannibalism in working with staff, if possible, you will avoid joint meals with colleagues.
About the right decision
I think you guessed it isn’t there. Heroes choose option 1.
This is one of the reasons for the high turnover among HR professionals.
They are ruined by a sincere belief in the need to make fair and logical management decisions and a willingness to selflessly preach a reasonable attitude towards employees.
Although it is quite possible to choose compromise options for yourself, realizing the motives and consequences of the decision.
About illusions
When changing jobs, HR specialists dream of working for a company whose leaders make exceptionally wise and intelligent decisions, guided by the norms of the law, business ethics, and morality.
Alas, in real life there is no black and white, many actions and decisions are inexplicable, but this does not cancel them, and well does not always triumph over evil.
And even if good wins, the question remains – whether the end justifies the means. The cases listed below are real-life situations told me by a colleague who has worked as a security chief for a long time.
Imagine yourself as a participant in these events, think about what you would do if you could change something. And then think about your job – maybe it suits you perfectly.
Case 1
It all happened in the commercial department of the representative office of a well-known Western company – a manufacturer of perfumery and cosmetic products.
The Security Service conducted an internal investigation into the theft of a large batch of promotional products.
It turned out that it got to customers in significantly smaller volumes than originally planned.
Operational-search measures were carried out, the stolen was found in the personal garage of the middle manager.
Security officers informed the head of the mission that they were ready to hand the thief to the police.
Do you think “the stolen was seized, and the suspect was detained”? On the contrary. The perpetrator of the theft was promoted to head one of the company’s branches in the northwest region.
The director of the representative office explained his decision very simply – it is more profitable to hide the fact of theft than to explain the reasons for the incident to the higher management.
The decision to promote an employee to another region ensures that the story of theft never comes up.
Case 2
Expensive equipment was stolen from production. He was loaded into a loader bucket and taken out of the plant.
CCTV footage showed how the forklift drove up to the fence, in which a hole had been made in advance, and then returned with an empty bucket.
The very moment of removing the stolen from the bucket was not recorded, since it was at this point that the surveillance cameras covered the container with waste
The forklift driver denied his guilt, behaved aggressively, threatened to contact the police and the court with complaints about the pressure exerted on him.
There was no direct evidence of guilt, the employee was released. The management demanded to find the stolen immediately.
The very next day at the end of the work, the suspect in theft was detained at the checkpoint. A wallet with a large sum of money belonging to his colleague was found in his locker with work clothes.
The locker room cameras were turned off, but three witnesses were ready to confirm that they saw the suspect taking other people’s money.
The police were not called, the equipment was stolen the day before was returned to the company within two hours, the employee was immediately dismissed by agreement of the parties.
Case 3
The scene is a large manufacturing enterprise with several regional divisions. An internal auditor discovers a shortage of funds in one of the regional divisions during an on-site audit.
The shortfall is about one and a half million dollars.
The head of the division and the financial controller declare that they have nothing to do with the shortage, but are ready to cover it from their own funds.
The next day the gap was filled. By order of the General Director, the audit was terminated, the auditor was recalled to the office of the management company. The CEO did not explain the reasons for the decision.
Case 4
The lawyer worked for a well-known company for several years. It was absolutely loyal and successful. Not a single check with fines, not a single lost court.
Was a confidant of the owner of the company. But one day the owner of the company decided to fire him one day.
The motives were not discussed – the lawyer who fell into disfavor should not only not receive any compensation upon dismissal, but also become a defendant in the case of causing damage to the enterprise on far-fetched grounds. A law firm was invited to conduct a demonstrative “special operation”.
Proposals from security and personnel management, offering to negotiate with a qualified professional in possession of confidential information, were rejected.
An indicative dismissal followed by the prosecution did not take place – the dismissed lawyer made an offer to the employer, which was impossible to refuse. The former employee refused to bargain on principle, compensation was paid in the number of 6 months’ wages.
Case 5
The head of the production unit was convicted of embezzling part of the sums of money intended for payments to employees.
The decision is obvious – to fire. But the dismissal did not take place.
The verdict of the owner of the enterprise was as follows: “Let it work. Firstly, a loyal person has been working for a long time, and secondly, he brings benefits to the enterprise for a greater amount than steals.”
It’s easy to guess that no one tried to challenge the logic of this decision or convince the business owner of the opposite.
