At the heart of every role within an organization lies the notion that every subordinate is, fundamentally, a learner. Recognizing this essential truth is key to advancing in the workplace. The largest misstep a subordinate can make is to think that learning is optional or that youthful confidence, diplomas, or personal pride can substitute for essential experience.
In reality, an organization cannot grow without a willingness to learn, and when subordinates refuse to accept guidance from those more experienced, failure is likely to follow. This idea is emphasized by Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, which states, “Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do.” Wisdom and professional growth are not automatically acquired; they are passed down through experience.
Moreover, in various organizations both public and private, many subordinates enter with potential, but eventually falter due to arrogance, unproductive comparisons, or an unwillingness to adhere to established protocols. This is particularly alarming, as organizational strategies and procedures embody the collective experiences and lessons learned by current and former leaders.
When a subordinate prematurely critiques these systems without fully understanding the context, they display not valour or creativity, but rather a lack of maturity and preparation for leadership. Peter Drucker aptly observes, “The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence; it is to act with yesterday’s logic.” Hence, when subordinates disregard unexamined systems, their approach reveals immaturity instead of intelligence.
Additionally, many subordinates exhibit the troubling tendency to measure themselves against their supervisors whether by age, qualifications, or perceived abilities. They may question: Why should someone older or younger teach me? Or why should my peer with the same qualifications lead?
Such inquiries stem from a misunderstanding of the essence of leadership, which relies on accrued, reflective experience rather than merely age or academic accomplishments. John C. Maxwell effectively expresses this concept: “Experience is not the best teacher; evaluated experience is.” A supervisor might share a qualification with a subordinate yet hold years of experience in navigating institutional intricacies, resolving conflicts, implementing changes, and adapting to evolving demands.
Therefore, comparing oneself with a leader based on superficial attributes like: certificates, age, or enthusiasm is misguided. As the saying goes, possessing tools does not equate to mastery.
Furthermore, the mentor-apprentice dynamic has always been crucial for professional development, a truth that remains relevant today. Isaac Newton famously stated, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” This suggests that subordinates who refuse to leverage the insights of their leaders irrespective of their personal opinions about these figures limit themselves to the restricted viewpoint of their own experiences. Indeed, mastery cannot be attained by disregarding the guidance of those designated to educate.
Equally critical is the acknowledgment that arrogance stands as a significant barrier to workplace advancement. Some subordinates disguise their arrogance as assertiveness or independence. However, such attitudes stifle open-mindedness, hinder learning, and cultivate a damaging sense of entitlement.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s insight resonates profoundly: “Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive than the arrogance of those without merit.” Therefore, even talented subordinates can become insufferable when they lack humility. The workplace ought to be viewed as a developmental arena, not an arena for egos. A subordinate unwilling to accept constructive feedback will ultimately struggle to lead. True leadership necessitates humility before authority; one must first learn to follow before aspiring to guide.
When subordinates halt their learning and instead critique institutional processes, the repercussions extend well beyond individual shortcomings. They disrupt team cohesion, misinterpret decisions, misguide newer members, and distort factual information. Strategies within organizations emerge from years of lessons learned, mechanisms of accountability, and pragmatic reasoning.
Therefore, attacking these structures without sufficient knowledge is neither progressive nor constructive; it is reckless. Kofi Annan wisely stated, “Knowledge is power. Information is liberating.” Subordinates who seek to comprehend organizational systems become empowered contributors, while those who attack without understanding become liabilities.
Moreover, toxic behaviours often arise from a refusal to learn. Rather than seeking guidance, some may resort to complaints, gossip, resistance to correction, and actions that undermine team unity. Daniel Goleman warns in his work on emotional intelligence that “toxic emotions have the power to spread like wildfire.”
This means a single destructive subordinate can compromise the effectiveness of an entire department, lower morale, breed division, and diminish productivity. Even more concerning, such behaviour prevents individuals from gaining the valuable experiences that contribute to career progress. Consequently, feelings of frustration intensify, perpetuating a cycle of self-sabotage.
Ultimately, the pivotal question remains: Can one achieve mastery while disregarding the insights of their mentors due to arrogance? The clear answer is no. History shows that individuals whether in teaching, healthcare, engineering, leadership, or craftsmanshipattain mastery only through humility, guidance, and a commitment to ongoing learning. Thus, rejecting the learning process is not simply defiance; it is a conscious choice to stagnate.
Going forward, subordinates must adopt a new mind-set. They need to embrace humility, emotional intelligence, and an eagerness to learn. Practically, this entails listening rather than critiquing, seeking understanding before questioning, and aligning with institutional standards before attempting to effect policy changes. Learning from supervisors does not equate to blind obedience; rather, it serves as strategic personal development. Heeding the advice of more experienced individuals does not strip one of their individuality; it fortifies their foundation.
In conclusion, organizations thrive when their subordinates embrace a teachable attitude, and subordinates thrive when they respect the learning process. An African proverb aptly states, “The child who washes their hands will eat with the elders.” Similarly, the subordinate who commits to learning evolves into a leader, while one who refuses to engage remains stagnant.
Ultimately, every subordinate faces a choice: to embody an apprentice mind-set and succeed, or to reject it and remain frustrated. The path to leadership commences with a commitment to learning, humility, and respect for the systems and mentors designed to foster growth.
WRITTEN BY:
Wisdom KoudjoKlu,
Education Expert/Columnist,
Greater Accra Region.
wisdomklu@gmail.com
