both of these individuals, have good reputations at work. although they are in the same roof, conflicts of interests tends to favor the opinionator, as he always try to politicize the workforce within his area of responsibility. can this ploy of trying to politicize a working group be regarded as a healthy work environs? or could be a bad precedent for the result oriented people! honest opinion please...
2006-08-28 02:07:31 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Business & Finance ➔ Careers & Employment
in my work environment the O person compensates for their lack of skill/knowledge by using politics, usually at the expense of their co-workers...
...conversly, the R person doesn't always get credit for their work because they aren't as politically adroit.
I think it's better to coach the results person to be more savvy than to depend on a politician.
2006-08-28 02:16:20 · answer #1 · answered by R J 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I think it's bad to "be" one way or the other. It's hard to get results when you have no people skills. And it's hard to be popular if you don't have your goals clearly designated. A good blend of both would be the optimal situation.
If it's a question of who to work with, it's best to be honest and observant of your own personality. However, in the work environment, no matter how the little day to day situations stack up, it's always about the bottom line. The last place you would want to be is tethered to someone that in the long run would be considered "dead weight".
2006-08-28 09:44:45 · answer #2 · answered by Hacksaw 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A person of results, naturally.
2006-08-28 09:11:37 · answer #3 · answered by RACQUEL 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
results
2006-09-01 07:18:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋