Authority and Career Progression
Or the other way, the society in general would consider a person with authoritative job successful. The question here is : Is Career Progression defined by authoritative jobs? Does Authority in any space or domain mean progress of a particular career?
On one side we have skill or talent progression where an individual in his career tends to become more skillful in what they do, this however happens only when he/she has continued doing the same thing for a longer period of time. However it is only considered rewarding when an individual working in a particular space gets a better "position" which in turn translates into "managerial" position as progression. Is this social view always necessary?
Which also lets us deduce that we believe that managerial position or higher authority is the only way ideal decision making would happen. So in turn it deduces that its the hierarchy that always remains in place irrespective of how much we may call the organization as a flat one.
One understanding is true that in any organizational space there is a need for decision maker for the organization, who in turn becomes the powerful entity of that organization. So going by the traditional anarchical tendency, the king will be most powerful and we all want to become the king in the end.
Now my question here is that in the modern career bar graph, is the king in control? If not then why are we still stuck on the traditional way of thinking towards considering authoritative job as the final epitome of career progression? If we want to make our organizations flat, we have to think otherwise.
And if you say that authoritative is the only way, then how would u define the success of individuals like cricketer sachin tendulkar, who may not be heading the indian team, but surely no one can say that he is not progressed in his career. Leadership is required, but it need not be always in authoritative fashion, there can be thought leadership, or skill leadership. At times what it seems to be is that managerial or authoritative jobs may be an easy way out to some to display a progression in their career, while the very job category is completely essential to any organization, however it should not be seen as an easy escape to putting the efforts to obtain better skills.
The argument can also be made on the otherside by saying that there can be people skillful in managerial domain, and hence their career progression towards authoritative leadership can be seen as a valid progression. However I would still say that managerial progression need not be equated to authoritative positions. To manage need not mean to rule or be the most powerful, in that case we are going back to anarchy. If it is truly a flat way of thinking about organizations the thought leaders as well as the skill leaders would also be equally important.
So in short we all need to rethink over our inner desires to be authoritative over the situations and hence see it as our final career goals. Some do think otherwise and those tend to change the world, while others remain in the illusion of pseudo career progressions.
I think its more about ageing and the process of older people are more capable to take ownership and responsibilities and hence decision while young still need to learn and reach there....which again is very contextual in our fast moving world of innovations and newer thoughts around us. So by believing in authoritative careers as career progression we also tend to believe that older we get the more we are capable to take authority...which may not be true always...
Note: These are just rumblings of my thoughts and do not mean to hamper any authorities and their thoughts out there :)
Comments