Hitching Your Wagon To a Star Has Payoffs But Can Be Perilous
The four years that J.C. Higgins worked for his mentor at a lawn-care company in the 1970s were the best of his career. He was the right-hand man to an executive who was very powerful and who gave him opportunities, a ready ear and protection. If Mr. Higgins ruffled a few feathers among his colleagues, "I'd scurry back into his shadow when they tried to do something to me," recalls the consultant, who is now 71 years old. "It sounds corny, but I still dream about him."
Mr. Higgins left the company briefly, then returned. A short while later, though, his mentor left to head up another company, and Mr. Higgins's situation changed dramatically.
"Without his shadow, I was running naked in the park," Mr. Higgins says. Whereas he had once been in the thick of things, he was now relegated to the mundane. He would take the notes at operating committee meetings but no longer had any idea what was really going on. And, worse than just being an outsider, he had become a target. "I spent 90% of my time looking over my shoulder wondering where the knife was going to come from and the other 10% doing my job," he says.
The benefits of hitching your wagon to an office star are pretty clear: As your manager ascends the corporate hierarchy, he or she can pull you along as well. In the face of often plodding upward mobility at many companies, that can amount to a shortcut replete with substantial rewards, including money and power.
But there are also perils. Once a patron moves, departs or fades, that executive's favorites can become sitting ducks. Arguably, those employees may have been promoted beyond their competence. Blaming them avoids placing the blame where it belongs: on the kingpin responsible for their rise.
The fact is it's a jungle out there, and the players at most offices aren't that far removed from our distant relatives in the animal kingdom. "When a new lion takes over the pride, he kills all the babies sired by the previous male so he can sire new young," says retired environmental health specialist Don Vandervelde. "The same is true for chimpanzees and other primates."
"It's primitive, and we're never going to get away from it," says Larry Hirschhorn, a principal at the Center for Applied Research. He argues that animalistic aggression in the workplace isn't all bad, because some of these tendencies are the very traits that propel companies forward. "Those things that derive from ambition, hunger and fantasy are essential to the future of any company in a high-risk environment," he says. But, he also counsels that "it's leadership's role to contain the primitivity enough so it isn't destructive."
Every company basically organizes itself along two parallel lines. One is the conventional corporate hierarchy. The other is an informal network of shared political ties that create coalitions or clans.
The dangers of the latter became strikingly clear to Scott Olsen when he worked for an investment bank. After the firm's founder had a falling out with the board and departed, a recent business-school graduate he had just hired didn't stand a chance at the company. "They told the new hire that even though he might have a contract, his career there was over," Mr. Olsen recalls. But no one considered whether the young man might have become a real asset to the firm. "He was of the wrong tribe even though he could have been a great associate," says Mr. Olsen. "He didn't even have a day to prove himself."
That happens, says David Thomas, professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, because managers are "not sure they can trust these people." Their approach may be justified, or it may not, he says. But it offers a useful lesson for other employees about the need to build a broad network of alliances. And it can present a credibility problem for management if the replacements aren't perceived as good: "The people below think that everything that happened is arbitrary," he says.
Sometimes colleagues respond by bailing out themselves. A decade ago, when Dave Jensen worked as a securities analyst for a financial-services company, the manager who had hired him decided to leave the company because he couldn't stand the bureaucracy. That left Mr. Jensen feeling very exposed. So when he met with his former boss, he did so secretly, and though he had long resisted becoming a workaholic, he started working on weekends "to try to be above reproach."
Two months went by before his performance review, which had in the past gone very well. "Instead of getting a bonus, they said, 'We'd like you to leave,' " Mr. Jensen recalls. "I really didn't see that one coming." Ultimately, a half-dozen people left the small office.
Still, that may be the exception. Frequently, few people question the housecleaning because they have come to expect it. "It becomes acceptable because everybody's doing it," says David Schlosser, a manager at a high-tech firm who has seen a variety of permutations of the dynamic at various jobs. Despite that, he adds, "it's behavior that you would be ashamed of if your mother found out about it."
背靠大树果真好乘凉吗？
在一家草坪护理公司为师傅效力的四年是希金斯(J.C. Higgins)职业生涯中最美好的时光。那时还是七十年代。他是一位高级管理人员的左右手，而后者不但在公司里权力非凡、常常给希金斯机会、善于倾听，还勇于保护下属。如果在同事中间惹了麻烦，“他们要唯我是问的时候，我就会赶紧跑到他翅膀底下，”已经71岁的希金斯回忆道，“这句话听起来有点酸，不过我仍然会梦到他。”
希金斯一度离开那家草坪护理公司，但很快又回来了。不过，没过多久，他的师傅也离开公司自己创业去了，希金斯的情况就发生了很大变化。
“没了他的掩护，我就像暴露在光天化日一样，”希金斯说。现在，参加运营委员会会议时，希金斯会做点笔记，但再也没有真正让人动心的点子冒出来。而且，比作局外人更糟糕的是，他成了靶子。“90%的时间我都非常警惕，猜测刀子会从哪儿捅过来，剩下10%才用来工作。”
背靠大树的好处显而易见：紧紧跟著你的经理，他在往上爬的时候也会带著你。在很多公司都司空见惯的蜗牛爬一样的升迁道路上，这不失为一条捷径，还顺带收获了大把好处：包括金钱和权力。
但这么做也有危险。一旦上司换人了、走了或者淡出公司了，他最看中的人就成了靶子。当然这里也值得探讨，这些员工可能是被提拔到了超出自己能力的职位上了。不过，冤有头债有主：该负责的是那些提拔他们的上司。
大部分办公室的确都是盘根错节的丛林，很多职员的行为与我们在动物王国的远亲相比并没有多大差异。“狮王新立的时候，都会杀死前一任狮王的所有后代，以便繁衍自己的后代，”已经退休的环境健康专家唐?范德维尔德(Don Vandervelde)说，“大猩猩和其他灵长类动物也是一样。”
“这很原始很野蛮，但我们永远也摆脱不了，”应用研究中心(Center for Applied Research)的主管拉里?赫希霍恩(Larry Hirschhorn)说。但他认为，工作场所的动物性进攻也并不都是坏事，因为有些做法是推动公司向前发展的重要特性。“这些东西来源于野心、贪婪和狂想，是这个危险重重的环境里决定公司未来的重要因素，”他说。但他也表示，合理控制这种趋势，让它不至于毁坏公司前程，就是身为领导的责任。
基本上每家公司的组织机构都有两条平行线：一条是传统的公司级别； 另一条是非正式的人情网络，众人共享政治关系，拉帮结派。
后者的危险在司各特?奥尔森(Scott Olsen)为一家投资银行工作时表露无遗。公司创始人与董事会冲突败阵，黯然退出。他刚刚招来的一位商学院毕业生根本就没有立足的机会。“他们告诉这位新人，即使有合同，他在这家公司的事业也彻底完了，”奥尔森回忆道。没人去想这个年轻人可能会成为公司真正宝贵的资产。“虽然他有可能成长为一名出色的银行家，但是他身处的阵营不对，他连证明自己的机会都没有。”
哈佛商学院(Harvard Business School)商业管理教授戴维?托马斯(David Thomas)说，的确有这种事。因为经理们“拿不准能不能信任这些人”。他们的做法对错难论。但其他同事却应该从中吸取一条教训：应该建立更广泛的联盟网络。另外，如果任命的接替人选不像当初料想的那么好，这些经理们也会遇到信任问题：“下属们会认为（经理做）什么事情都武断专横，”他说。
一些人开始自我解救。十年前，戴维?延森(Dave Jensen)在一家金融服务公司作证券分析师。招他来公司的经理后来决定离开，因为受不了那套繁文缛节。这让延森深感孤单。然后，他拜会前上司总是在私下进行。虽然自己一直不愿意当个工作狂，但还是开始在周末加班，“以免被上司斥责”。
两个月后，就是工作测评的时间了。以前业绩评估都很顺利，但这次，“非但没有奖金，他们还说，‘我们建议你离开公司，’”延森回忆著当时的情况。“我根本毫无防备。”最终，一共有六、七位职员离开了这间小小的办公室。
不过，凡事都有例外。通常情况下，很少有人质疑这种大清洗的行为，因为人人都料得到。“大家都这么做，也就变得可以接受了，”戴维?施罗塞尔(David Schlosser)说。他是一家高科技公司的经理，经历了多次公司震荡。尽管如此，他补充说，“这种行为还是会让人内心不安。”
