Transitioning from one career field to another can be a daunting task. Apparently, specific work place political issues should be understood to ensure that everything works out smoothly. In my situation, I was transitioning from the medical field to the corporate niche of business in the US. Clearly, the change involved in such a situation brought about some conflicts that strained the laid down power structures in my new place of work. In this paper, I will be analyzing the way the situation occurred, the political structures and frameworks that were overstretched during its occurrence and the strategies that I applied to ensure that things did not get out of hand.
Assuming my duties in my new career field in the American corporate world was not an easy task. I had assumed a human resource coordinating role, which was different from what I used to do in my career in the medical field. In my former career field, I undertook practical tasks, an aspect that was different in my new field of work. Undertaking a role as a human resource coordinator entails assigning duties to those under my leadership. Besides, serving as a human resource coordinating role is at the center of the political structures in the workplace. As I came to understand, being a human resource coordinator entails understanding those who work under my authority and having my tactics resonate with those of the people above me in the power structure of the organization.
Every organization has a power structure that controls the political framework at the work place. The politics of the workplace influence the way work place issues are solved (Dai & Wade-Benzoni, 2013). I came to understand that in the corporate world, one needs to play his role in their team as effectively as the laid down procedures state. By so doing, it is possible to avoid the conflicts that could derail decision making at the work place. I also learned that effective communication can go a long way in solving issues that could possibly inhibit the attainment of goals and aspirations at the work place. Every individual involved in accomplishing a task should be notified of any progress to ensure that a sustainable balance in the political framework and workplace power structure is maintained. The involvement of all individuals in the decision making process enhances the democratic principles that have been observed to enhance success at the workplace. Apparently, democratic leadership styles in a human resource coordinating role are among the most effective in addressing leadership challenges that could derail the attainment of set objectives at the workplace.
In my case, I was involved in dealing with delegating tasks to the junior staff in the demand I was hired to work for in my new place of work. Due to some communication hitches, not all the junior staff had been notified of my hiring and taking over of my role at the department. I was also not used to this kind of environment as it was my first time to ever work in a field outside the medical field in which I am fully qualified and accredited. For the first few days, the daily results failed to meet the expected levels of productivity. The reason for this was the apparent lack of coordination that arose with the lack of being introduced to the workforce at the department. Apparently, workers get influenced to deliver their daily tasks by the authority that the leaders hold over them (Krivis, 2006). The sense of legitimate authority enhances the ability of employees to respect their seniors and work towards attaining set targets. The failure to be properly introduced to the workforce led to the failures that were identified in the early days on my new work position.
It was clear that urgent measures were necessary to revert the situation and return to normalcy. Significantly, the senior management team ought to play the largest role in ensuring that various changes in an organization are accepted by the lower rank employees. In my case, I had to seek the help of my seniors to ensure that my colleagues respected the authority that defined my position. It was important to seek the help of the senior staff because they rank higher in the chain of command of the institution that I worked for as I transitioned to the American corporate world. The political framework of institutions entails that highly ranked staff hold more power than lowly ranked workers. Therefore, by involving the higher ranked staff in the institution meant that I could effectively restore my legitimate authority over the group that I was assigned to take care of at the institution. As a new employee, my priority was to ensure that my team adopted my style of doing things as I had explained it to the managers who accepted that it was the right way to go in attaining the objectives of the activities that I was leading. After my capacity at the helm of the team was explained to the team that I was leading, significant changes were realized and the levels of productivity started to improve. After some time, the team members in my group understood my style of work and positive results became consistent, an aspect that led to my promotion within a short duration into my transitioning to this new career field. I had to maintain the relationship I had established with my team, as I believed that it was the best way to maintain the positive results.
The alternative course of action that I could have taken was to force my way into the position that I had been assigned. I could have adopted a dictatorial approach to my position and forced the team members I was leading to perform. Although such a course of action could have yielded productivity, its sustainability is always never possible to attain. A dictatorial approach tends to lose legitimacy with time, an aspect that could derail the steps that could have been taken in developing and attaining the objectives of the activity I was to head (Mikkelsen, 2012). Therefore, considering the apparent failures of this strategy, it was better to take a considerate and pragmatic approach so that I deliver on the duties of my task. The dictatorial approach could kill the morale of the other team member, an aspect that could affect the productivity of the institution for a long period into the future. As such, I had to take a democratic approach in which both the senior leaders of the institution and the junior staff members that I was leading were involved in the decision making process.
In conclusion, power structures and political influence at the workplace have the ability to make or break the success of an institution. Additionally, initiating a change without properly adjusting the spheres of influence at the workplace could be a futile exercise. As described in the case above, transitioning from the medical field to the corporate niche in the America has significant challenges and barriers that threaten a successful career in the new field. However, knowing the way to utilize the available power and political avenues at the new position could prove to be the key to a successful career. In this context, the current paper appreciates the fact that political frameworks and power structures hold the key to influencing legitimacy and order at the workplace, aspects that are necessary for the general success of the involved institution and the individual involved in overseeing the tasks undertaken by the rest of the employees.
References
Dai, H. & Wade-Benzoni, K. (2013). Solving want/should conflicts in the workplace. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2013(1), 10458-10458. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2013.10458symposium
Krivis, J. (2006). Can we call a truce? Ten tips for negotiating workplace conflicts. Employ. Relat. Today, 33(3), 31-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ert.20115
Mikkelsen, E. (2012). Exploring how conflict management training changes workplace conflicts: a qualitative case study. Journ. of Confl., 3(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.7238/joc.v3i1.1357
