We are sitting in a circle in the blue saloon. The next point is one of Kulcsi's many topics: a new project on the horizon.
I've often paid attention to how he introduces different leads. Usually, you can feel what's his attitude towards the given opportunity. If he is uncertain regarding the customer, you can hear the strain in his voice. When he is positive, he is more persuasive and often explains in detail the advantages of the project, the excitement is visible.
Now I feel some uncertainty.
A preliminary survey shows that many are interested in this project, but because of its political implication, some people explicitly refuse it. It is not the first time in the company history that a request gets rejected because it is not compatible with our principles; we have had such examples before. In some instances, we did not even apply, and in other cases, we did not win the tender, so the problem was solved.
But sometimes the situation is not that obvious. What should we do if half of the company would be happy to work with this customer, and we are the winners of the tender? Moreover, the cooperation would bring further advantages: good references, relationships, and opportunities in a new market segment. How can this be treated without pressure?
If someone would like to be away, that doesn't cause any disruption, as we usually arrange ourselves in teams voluntarily around each project. From a company point of view, it also brings the optimized profit, when we all participate in projects that motivate us, and it is not required at all that the same venture should motivate everyone.
As I'm following the development of the topic, I'm listening to the massive manifestations. A bunch of questions comes up in my head. May we start a project if just one single person is against it? Is it relevant, who that person is? Do the CO's preferences count in the final decision?
I answered this question to myself immediately: I remember once Kulcsi said that the given case did not thrill him, but if there is an enthusiastic team, then let's go for it. The team was ready to start, and the result speaks for itself.
However, the questions keep rolling in my head. May a company portfolio show political views? Is there a price for which we put aside the company's principles and the idea of value creation? Where is the limit? What fits above and below the line when we undertake a project? Can we survive if we refuse every political connection?
In the next hour, we heard a couple of answers and opinions, but in the end, Kulcsi said something we all could agree with: in the future, we will continue to make decisions based on values and not on political parties. Adding values is our commitment, a part of our corporate identity; this is what we all can take ownership of, and what guides us through such kind of questions.
Share with your friends!
