TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Jim Purcell wrote:
>
>
> I find this very hard to believe--not that there are some managers like
> this, but that they are typical in any but the most ossified
> organizations. What managers may believe is that when somebody is
> noticeably intense and vocally uninterested in office politics, the
> expressed wish for excellence and sheer enjoyment may manifest itself as
> being temperamental and uninterested in group editorial standards. It's
> a case of inwardly-motivated people not understanding the requirements
> of organizations. It is not always the case, of course, but it is at
> least as common as the manager who embraces mediocrity and is threatened
> by quality employees.
You're taking a couple of giant leaps here. I never said anything
about voicing a disinterest in office politics, nor about not being
a team player. I find it interesting that you associate "intense"
with "tempermental," but the connection is by no means inevitable.
Why do you automatically assume that the single person has caused
the problem?
Obvious, office problems can be caused by anyone. But which is more
likely: that a single person in a subordinate position causes the
problem, or the office culture and those in authority? Given where
the balance of power lies, the single person isn't likely to be the
problem in most situations. Quite simply, one person's influence is
rarely that strong. It's the majority and those in authority who
have the power of defining the situation - and of assigning blame.
A responsible manager will see the sort of conflict you've assumed
as a problem in which behaviour needs to be changed on all sides.
However, often managers have only their own sense of decency to
encourage this approach. It's easier and quicker to scapegoat,
assigning the blame to a single individual, especially one that's
new to the group. If the managers feel the least threatened, then
this approach is even more tempting.
I've had to deal with several difficult subordinates. At least once,
I couldn't solve the situation, and the person was fired. But I put
a good part of the blame where it belongs: on me, on the group, and
the apparent lack of imagination that kept me from finding a
solution. I don't beat myself up about the situation (at least, not
too often), but I don't shirk from the responsibility, either.
--
Bruce Byfield 604.421.7177 bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com
"It takes dry wood to kindle,
Time for the smoke to start,
Any fool can break a branch
That's greenwood at the heart."
-Oysterband, "On the Edge"
IPCC 01, the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference,
October 24-27, 2001 at historic La Fonda in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.
CALL FOR PAPERS OPEN UNTIL MARCH 15. http://ieeepcs.org/2001/
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
