News: IT'S THE 2ND ANNUAL GUATEMALA LIBRARY PROJECT BOOK DRIVE!    LOOKING FOR DONATIONS OF SCIENCE BOOKS THIS YEAR.    Check it out in the "Extending the Hand of Kindness" folder or here: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=139832.msg3372084#msg3372084   

  • November 20, 2017, 08:56:01 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 3707826 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

nutraxfornerves

  • Member
  • Posts: 1676
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3705 on: May 22, 2013, 10:45:15 PM »


Nutrax
The plural of anecdote is not data

WolfWay

  • They burnt down my house... They ate my tailor!
  • Member
  • Posts: 2789
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3706 on: May 23, 2013, 12:08:22 AM »
Mr 16 Years has now stopped talking to the Project Manager (in project meetings! He just sort of chirps out a short answer and then later complains to Boss about Project Manager. :o ). And he's gone back to ignoring the Senior Analyst. I've gotten one more sucking-lemons unavoidable hello out of him.

The only person even remotely related to the project he's still talking to is our senior solutions architect, whom Project Manager has taken to dragging into project meetings just so some sort of discussion will take place. I suspect the second he makes a critical remark, he's also going onto the silent ignore list. Next week I get to try participate in the meetings as well to get some kind of idea of how this solution is going to be designed. <sigh> This is gonna be a fuuuuuuuuuuuun project.  :P

And the saga drags on.

My direct manager pointed out to me that he himself has noticed that any feedback coming from a female is badly received by Mr 16 Years. It doesn't matter how I phrase the suggestion, it's like he has a hundred toes and I'm stepping on every single one of them everytime I open my mouth. I've tried to be as polite and gentle as possible when suggesting improvements, but they all get a snippy response (or silence like I never spoke at all), so I went to our direct manager and said "How do I handle this? How do I phrase things? How can I make suggestions without making him angry?". Direct manager said "I don't want to you change a single iota of how you usually do things. Make your suggestions exactly as you would to any other coworker, and if he gets upset about it and escelates to me, I'll deal with it. These are his issues and his problems and he needs to learn to handle them. Also, email the suggestions and CC me in all the email comms and let's see how it goes." I did mention the "I've been doing it this way for 16 years" comment to direct manager as an example of the kinds of responses a previous suggestion could result in, and he looked shocked.

I suggested (for the good of the project) that maybe they should hand the project over to another (male) developer if it would make things flow more smoothly with Mr 16 Years. Direct manager immediately shot that down and said "Carry on doing what you would do with any other coworker, and don't worry, he's going to be moved off this and onto other projects soon. Hang in there, do your usual good job and just ignore his attitude problems".

I finally figured out that it's not a personal thing per se (it's not that he dislikes me for being me specifically), it that he feels threatened by any self-confident woman who dares criticise his work at not being perfect. He takes any criticism from anyone hard, but it's goes nuclear when it comes from a strong woman. Mr 16 Years is fine with the couple of women in the office who are shyer and less self-confident and who make deferential suggestions in a tone that suggests "Silly me, what do I know", but if you're female and you come right out and say plainly "There's a better way to do this, why don't you try XYZ?" you get put on his own personal naughty list. I've just noticed that the women in the office he isn't talking to are all similar personalities (self-confident, outspoken, blunt, and not afraid to voice an opinion, even if it's wrong and happy to debate why that opinion is wrong).

Funnily enough, it's easier to deal with when I know he's annoying my bosses as well with his attitude and it's not just me personally being oversensitive to nonexistant subtleties of attitude.

Things are going to get tense though, because they're rearranging the office and Big Boss in his infinite wisdom has plonked Mr 16 Years three feet to my left at the same desk cluster, and I sit back to back with the other two main women on his naughty list. I don't see happy times ahead in my square footage of the office.
<3

jedikaiti

  • Swiss Army Nerd
  • Member
  • Posts: 2790
  • A pie in the hand is worth two in the mail.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3707 on: May 23, 2013, 12:11:03 AM »
How the heck does he still have a job?
What part of v_e = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}} don't you understand? It's only rocket science!

"The problem with re-examining your brilliant ideas is that more often than not, you discover they are the intellectual equivalent of saying, 'Hold my beer and watch this!'" - Cindy Couture

WolfWay

  • They burnt down my house... They ate my tailor!
  • Member
  • Posts: 2789
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3708 on: May 23, 2013, 12:27:58 AM »
How the heck does he still have a job?
Because firing someone for anything that isn't a direct provable violation of company rules (or the law) requires more jumping through hoops than a three dolphin show at Sea World Aquarium.


<3

BB-VA

  • Member
  • Posts: 847
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3709 on: May 23, 2013, 07:54:10 AM »
Depending if the anonymous survey is really anonymous or not 

My department was supposed to fill out an anonymous survey. The catch was, only 2 people actually did. After the barnyard excretory product hit the oscillating air-distribution device, it was quickly determined which 2 did because those who didn't admitted to it. There goes the confidentiality of the survey.

I think that in the future, I will never again believe in the confidentiality of small-sample workplace surveys.  ::)

My husband got one of those once.  It was supposedly anonymous, but it did have a serial number.  He kind of put it aside to get more important things done, and later he got a message from HR saying they had not yet received his survey.

So...maybe there was no name on it, but they defintely were tracked.
"The Universe puts us in places where we can learn. They are never easy places, but they are right. Wherever we are, it's the right place and the right time. Pain that sometimes comes is part of the process of constantly being born."
- Delenn to Sheridan: "Babylon 5 - Distant Star"

Hillia

  • Member
  • Posts: 3360
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3710 on: May 23, 2013, 08:46:35 AM »
Depending if the anonymous survey is really anonymous or not 

My department was supposed to fill out an anonymous survey. The catch was, only 2 people actually did. After the barnyard excretory product hit the oscillating air-distribution device, it was quickly determined which 2 did because those who didn't admitted to it. There goes the confidentiality of the survey.

I think that in the future, I will never again believe in the confidentiality of small-sample workplace surveys.  ::)

My husband got one of those once.  It was supposedly anonymous, but it did have a serial number.  He kind of put it aside to get more important things done, and later he got a message from HR saying they had not yet received his survey.

So...maybe there was no name on it, but they defintely were tracked.

At one former workplace, morale was in the basement due to high-stress jobs and unpleasant management.  An anonymous survey went out, people answered it honestly...and then we were all called in to a company meeting where the message was 'If you don't like working here, you can leave.  Your job will be filled before you're in the parking lot'.  Morale improved immediately   ::)

rose red

  • Member
  • Posts: 9545
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3711 on: May 23, 2013, 08:52:42 AM »
This is why I never click anything less than "average" and even those are rarely.  No way do I believe work surveys are anonymous.

Piratelvr1121

  • Member
  • Posts: 9123
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3712 on: May 23, 2013, 10:29:09 AM »
I'm... I'm going to watch this episode.... and maybe, if I get scared enough, cry into a pillow.

I watched it. Oh I feel so bad for Chef Ramsay!

After reading all of this, I just knew I had to go find it on On Demand and watch it.  Wow, it's so much worse then even I'd imagined!!!   Amy is bat-poo crazy!  Both she and her husband are firmly planted in the Land of Denial!   Ramsey lasted much longer than I gave him credit for. 
This show is going to go down in history, I bet.

Yeah I subjected myself to the train wreck too and am just now able to get my jaw off the floor...
Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars.  You have a right to be here. Be cheerful, strive to be happy. -Desiderata

ladyknight1

  • Member
  • Posts: 11904
  • Not all those who wander are lost
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3713 on: May 23, 2013, 10:39:26 AM »
Apparently the PR firm they hired has discontinued their relationship with Amy's Baking Co over differences.
ďAll that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost."
-J.R.R Tolkien

Ms_Cellany

  • The Queen of Squee
  • Member
  • Posts: 6001
  • Big white goggie? No. Hasn't seen him.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3714 on: May 23, 2013, 10:40:01 AM »
Apparently the PR firm they hired has discontinued their relationship with Amy's Baking Co over differences.

Gosh. Imagine that.
Bingle bongle dingle dangle yickity-do yickity-dah ping-pong lippy-toppy too tah.

Wulfie

  • Member
  • Posts: 2118
  • I'm so pretty! Oh so pretty! - Morgan the Cat
    • Unique Weddings for Unique Couples
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3715 on: May 23, 2013, 10:43:27 AM »
Thier big reopening was a dud.  http://www.king5.com/entertainment/208447911.html
Quote
In Arizona, Amy and Samy Bouzaglo had planned a grand reopening ceremony and news conference for Tuesday, but the news conference was canceled late Monday after legal threats from Fox.

Fewer than a dozen people were waiting when the restaurant reopened Tuesday. Four guards blocked the door and turned reporters away. Inside, a smiling Samy Bouzaglo posed for pictures and told customers that the tension captured in the episode was staged. That was a disappointment for some.

"I wanted it to be dramatic and people yelling," said Ricky Potts, a 29-year-old blogger who ate at the restaurant for the first time Tuesday only to declare the food good and the service routine. "Basically, I wanted it to be the circus that the TV episode was."


ica171

  • Member
  • Posts: 566
    • Must Add Fabric Softener
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3716 on: May 23, 2013, 11:02:54 AM »
I like that people believe him that the tension was staged, when in fact former employees have said it was all real.

poundcake

  • Member
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3717 on: May 23, 2013, 11:15:30 AM »
Thier big reopening was a dud.  http://www.king5.com/entertainment/208447911.html
Quote
In Arizona, Amy and Samy Bouzaglo had planned a grand reopening ceremony and news conference for Tuesday, but the news conference was canceled late Monday after legal threats from Fox.

Fewer than a dozen people were waiting when the restaurant reopened Tuesday. Four guards blocked the door and turned reporters away. Inside, a smiling Samy Bouzaglo posed for pictures and told customers that the tension captured in the episode was staged. That was a disappointment for some.

"I wanted it to be dramatic and people yelling," said Ricky Potts, a 29-year-old blogger who ate at the restaurant for the first time Tuesday only to declare the food good and the service routine. "Basically, I wanted it to be the circus that the TV episode was."


I'm surprised anyone thought that it would be anything OTHER than routine and boring. They "reopened" under very controlled circumstances, and were sure to be on their best behavior. Give them two weeks and check again!

Carotte

  • Member
  • Posts: 1744
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3718 on: May 23, 2013, 11:49:18 AM »
I like that people believe him that the tension was staged, when in fact former employees have said it was all real.

I like that the only reason Ricky Potts (and I bet many others) was there was to get a front row seat to the disaster parade.
Either 1) through magic they stop being so bad at their job that service and food gets to be ok, but not enough, and bad reputation kills them anyway or 2) this 'new us' facade last about 1 week and they're back to square 1 (actually square minus a lot).

Restaurants helped by Gordon often go under in less than a year, even when they start back on track with the best intentions, I give this one no more than 6 months (2 for the business to really taper out, 4 for them to never realize it's their fault and fall in too much debt to even pretend they are running a business).

MariaE

  • Member
  • Posts: 5055
  • So many books, so little time
 
Dane by birth, Kiwi by choice