Training in an (internal) training center where the common area between training rooms had snacks and such. Off to the side were some coffee containers with a big sign on them that said: “Coffee is for the XYZ class only.” Since my class wasn’t the XYZ class, there were bunches of offhand comments and a lot of grumbling. Since all the students worked for the same company, I had to wonder the purpose of such a restriction.Regardless of the purpose, I witnessed first-hand the effect of such behavior, namely, one group felt ostracized while another felt catered to. It choose to believe it was a classic case of good intentions with unintended effects. I got up the nerve to ask the instructor of the chosen ones what the deal was, while alerting him to the grumbling I had overheard, thinking he might care that there was a schism being created in his organization.His response indicated that one group budgeted for the java while the others did not, and their rationale was that the chosen group was working really hard at the class (I peeked in — it didn’t look THAT productive!) and that helped them expedite their return to class (they didn’t have to walk down the hall to get the common coffee). Even that response indicated that there were internal have’s and have-not’s in the organization. I shudder to think what will happen if the have-not’s are requested to assist the have’s. I think I can already predict the response.Rationally, it shouldn’t matter. But I see this with my kids. I can rationally figure out that I want reward kid A for working hard on a chore but kid B will never understand why she didn’t get a treat as well. Adults have the same mentality.
Be careful in singling out any group with special treatment.
Powered by ScribeFire.