'You don't toe the party line'

[sootspritez]

How would you feel if you were rejected for promotion for this reason?

Background - work for a third sector org, am (if I do say so myself) very good at my job which was acknowledged in feedback. Was told that I answered all questions proficiently but that 'they didn't feel I believed in my answers when it came to toeing the party line'.

Is this basically saying I'm a shit liar?

They actually asked you about “toeing the line”? What an odd interview question.

@Hercule I know, it's bizarre right?

Do they mean as in sticking to their policy positions on the organisation's work? Or as in the management side of things? I used to work for an organisation a bit prone to groupthink at times - do they mean you question things more than they'd like?

Not great feedback anyway, if you can't interpret it!

So they could actually be saying;

"if something goes wrong or a colleagues actions/behaviour are called into question we don't think we can rely on you to cover up if you think they are wrong/made mistake/behaved inappropriately. We think you might whistle-blow and we cannot risk that."

You don't work for a children's charity do you?

We have people like this in my organisation and they will never become managers. We are at the behest of the government (pubic sector) and whilst we might disagree with policy changes etc we early have to make the best of it for our service users, some people are still complaining about why things aren't the same as they were ten years ago. That attitude isn't motivational or helpful if you manage a team

Public not pubic!!!!

Yes I wonder if it’s more the situation. Zippy describes rather than anything sinister. As a snr manager you often have to implement strategy whether you personally agree with it or not

I would assume they mean here that where say a policy decision has been made that you don’t agree with, you won’t accept the decision and implement it in the way you would be expected to. And I don’t mean here anything dangerous, safeguarding, unlawful etc.

People who won’t implement executive decisions in a supportive manner generally don’t get promoted.

Whether that is you of course I have no idea.

Not super helpful I realise - but I always thought it was towing the party line as in pulling it along!!
.... just off to google it!

Did you ask them what they meant by that?

Well thanks Mumsnet, something else I have learnt here!
Now I’m just desperately thinking whether I have used this in any work emails and looked foolish....

No, it's definitely toe.

"Toe the line is an idiomatic expression meaning either to conform to a rule or standard, or to stand poised at the starting line in a footrace. Other phrases which were once used in the early 1800s and have the same meaning were toe the mark and toe the plan"

I would assume they mean here that where say a policy decision has been made that you don’t agree with, you won’t accept the decision and implement it in the way you would be expected to.

That would also be my interpretation, although whether that's fair I have no idea.

I think the only response to that can be but why would you always want yes people, surely that doesn't deliver the best outcome for our client base. Challenge can be healthy, it has to be managed sure, but without it we can be taken in a direction which isn't healthy for the organisation or the client base.

From a fellow "not toeing the line" third sector worker until I left

It means for whatever reason they don't quite trust you imho, I could be wrong, to follow their procedures / policies etc which is essentially what you are hired to do regardless of your personal opinions surrounding these said policies and procedures.

Are you a non-conformist? Maverick? Do you put what you believe is right above doing what you’re told?
If so, good for you - but maybe a different organisation would suit you better?

Do you sometimes speak up when you feel the wrong decision has been made, the wrong plan approved, or an employee has been treated unfairly? It'll be that, they want yes-men once you get to a certain level.

My initial thought was whether you were considered a maverick/ non conformist at work.

ZippyBungleandGeorge

Your post reminded me of my immediate junior. Our Chief Exec is very well connected at a government level with what is going on in our industry - we're informed well ahead of the curve, and can give the right messages to our customers accordingly.

But this guy just never gets his head past the publicly available information, or really gets on board with our company policy. He can just about non-noncommittally repeat our decisions and messages, but he really can't put a 'face' on understanding and believing them. That translates into all areas of his work.

Could this apply to you, OP? Life isn't ideal, and sometimes you have to 'fake it until you make it' with strategy. Someone who has a lot of belief that a policy or strategy will work is more likely to contribute well to work than someone who sees it as something you just have to pay lip service to whilst doing the job 'well' according to the old criteria.

I actually think it's pretty useful feedback if you are interested in progressing further at your current organisation.

At a certain level you have to be trusted to represent the organisation and its interests publicly to clients etc. and to stand behind policies and decisions even if you may have personal qualms.

I know what it means, by the way, I just think it’s a bizarre way to put it.

I think as it's not fully clear, you should ask for more specific feedback. It might be useful feedback, but not until you have clarity about what they really mean.

I think I'd see it as a compliment, frankly.

Some really interesting perspectives here! I'm stuck between the two ideas of how I'm.being perceived - either as a potential whistleblower or as a dragging my heels type.

It's interesting because I don't particularly see myself as either. I'm a younger and newer staff member than most and work remotely so I don't get the opportunity to moan as such, however I am vocal if I think something goes against the mission statement or morals of the charity.

I asked for clarification and made the ecavr same point about yes-men-echo-chamber working being dangerous and the only response I got was that it was seen that I couldn't be genuine in my enthusiasm if I lacked belief in strategic move - which is unfair, given that the only structure change I've not backed 100% has been because it has had specific implemental and moral issues which have affected only me (can't say more as outing) and even then I try to approach things with the intention of improvement rather than just stalling progress for moanings' sake. Hmmm...