Elizabeth's Comment

I've been thinking about Elizabeth's comment (post) for the last couple of days. Even though she wasn't exactly stating this, I think it's fair to reconsider the source of my frustration because she makes a valid point, that the inability for an organization to change is not necessarily wrong. Is my frustration because of me or my employer?

My impression after the interviews was that the organization was hiring to make necessary changes. I suppose it was naive of me to think this meant that they were *ready* to implement changes. Of course my recommendations required explanation, and I did provide with relevance, but the initial inability of this company to accept any change, no matter how necessary, was surprising.

Soon after starting I was told I was in a "privileged position" (post). This reinforced my notion that the company wanted change, however, the notion was so far out of the scope of reality. I should not have been so ready to accept that line because it really meant my boss did not want me to look at the books. Which brings me to another point...

The dot-com and my last non-profit allowed me to develop my skills in relative autonomy. Here I walked into a distrustful, hostile environment. Among many things I was informed I had to do things my boss's way and that I would be evaluated on how well I did that. This is the path to failure and there was no reason to hire me. If I do things only his way, despite my better judgment, and fail, the failure would be mine. If I don't do things his way and yet succeed, I actually fail. The only option is to work as hard as possible to make his way work and I'm not one to waste my time like that.

I appreciate the comment, Elizabeth. It started me thinking about where to focus my frustration and also how better to handle the circumstance. I've decided not to directly confront him on the issue because no good would come of it. Once I figure out what to do I'll make sure I blog on it.