The expression, “More Catholic than the Pope,” means that a person is an exceedingly firm defender of a specific value or principle.
In the context of management, this expression refers to employees who constantly complain that they want to do the work, but management won’t allow them, disagrees with them, and so on.
During trainings or consultations, I have often heard phrases from disappointed people who have ideas, want to implement innovations in the company, the HR says they want to implement a Performance Management system but couldn’t convince management, or the Head of Sales says they want to change the compensation system, but management disagrees, etc. In short, the conversation is about an employee wanting to do something but failing to get approval.
How should we act in this situation?
To give you my own example, in 1994, I worked in the IT department at the National Bank, and I wanted to implement all the new technologies, but in reality, the bank had completely different challenges, was at a different level, and a different stage of development.
First and foremost, we must ask the question: Who is right in this situation? The employee who wants to introduce innovations into the company and acts unilaterally, or the organization that follows its own course of development and does not allow a motivated employee to do what they want?
To continue with the questions: Who is the client, and who is the executor? Who pays whom and for what?
Of course, the client/company pays the money, and it is the client/company that determines what you, as an employee, should do. It turns out that I should not do the work as I want, but as the client wants and needs. As soon as you imagine yourself in the client’s place or find yourself on their side, the answer becomes very clear. The employee who, despite all this, still does or tries to do what they want and what interests them is the one who is “more Catholic than the Pope”.
This is, of course, not correct. Imagine you are at a restaurant and you want to order a song, you paid the musicians, but your desired order does not suit the musicians’ taste, and they unilaterally decide to perform a “higher quality” song. Of course, you will be dissatisfied, and you would be right. It is possible that the musicians could have offered a different song, and you might have agreed to have it performed later, but they should not unilaterally deviate from your wishes.
Let’s return to the work environment. You perform the company’s work, and the company performs the client’s work. Also, consider: Who is more interested in this work? Do you think the founder is more interested in the work moving forward, or you, as a hired employee?
On the one hand, people in trainings admit that the founder cares about their business; on the other hand, they say that managers/founders don’t know what is needed and what is better. You, as a professional, can explain what is right and better to the management, but the final word and the decision-making cannot be your prerogative.
Despite the fact that the work must ultimately be done as management decides, your duty as an employee is to explain and substantiate your position. Ultimately, they may agree with you or not, but you must try to state your opinion and view. I have often heard people say that if this is the case, then I won’t bother with showing initiative and will just do exactly what I am assigned. This is the other extreme, and you are not paid for this either. You are obligated to have ideas and initiatives and to always try to convince the management.
Of course, a third option exists: if you can’t convince the leadership of anything, if you can’t persuade them to take new, innovative, and correct steps, you can always leave the job. That is why it is important, before you start working in an organization, to meet with management, to the extent possible, share your ideas and visions, and see how receptive they are. It might become clear later that they won’t agree to anything, but just as there is arrival, there is departure from the job.
In the end, there are four paths. One is to do the work unilaterally, and this path usually does not end well. The second extreme is to do nothing at all and just follow what you are told; this is also destructive because your professionalism is of no use to the company. The third path is to offer innovations and try to substantiate them, resulting in either agreement or disagreement—this is probably the only correct path—and finally, if they cannot agree on anything, then you should take the path of leaving.
If you have to leave, that is not the management’s fault either. If you, as a hired employee, couldn’t adapt to their wishes, it means you didn’t understand each other well. You have an obligation to improve the company’s situation. Of course, a successful manager finds and trusts the right people, but 100% trust is not implied. The best manager you ever had would offer very serious counter-arguments to your ideas and would agree with you only when they were convinced of the ideas’ correctness. Over time, as you prove the correctness of your ideas and your professionalism, trust also increases accordingly, but the time when you can do whatever you want will never come.
Irina Mamulaishvili
Aleksandre Jejelava
