Tuesday, September 18, 2001
14:45 by FoxTwo No, this will not be a piece to talk about the recent attacks on USA. This topic has been talked to death, in my opinion, and does not need to be repeated here. Instead, today I'll go on and rant about a specific detrimental behaviourial trait, especially in the office environment.
This trait shall be termed as "To Hear But Not To Listen". Yeah you know, some people, you keep telling them something, they don't listen. They just want to do it their way. They then turn around and tell the person who keeps telling them that they are "nagging" (like the joke goes - "I think my wife said I don't listen to her... or something like that").
In a corporate environment, this can and will definitely lead to conflicts. In most cases, the guy not listening is usually the boss. The people who keep warning him, are usually his subordinates. Naturally, they strike the pose of "who are you to tell me what to do?". Conflicts arise when the boss tells his people to do this and that etc etc even knowing (or disregarding) whatever current load they have.
Unlike most people, I do not fear bosses. I have always treated them like a person, hence, "reasonable". That is, until a few weeks ago. This new hire that just joined my company as a Purchasing Manager, was all gung-ho and ready to go. Good and bad. Good that he is full of enthusiasm. Bad that he does NOT listen.
Pretty soon after he came in, he decided to initiate a project to make a "website" on the company intranet for the canteen. Well, it's a strange project to say the least, but since he wanted it, not a problem. If he pulls it off, more power to him. Naturally I'd have thought he'd approach the internal IT Dept for advice and consultation, but NOOOOOOOooooo he did not. He went ahead and called a few meetings with his own troops, trashed everything out and all he said to IT Dept was "Hey guys now we want web training so that we can make a canteen website. Please get your webmaster down to train us on Tuesday".
As you can imagine, the whole IT Dept went "Huh? What?" Did we know what this guy had planned? Nope. All his guys ever asked was "Is it possible to make web pages with FrontPage?". What would our answer be? Of course it's a "Yes", that's what FrontPage is for, to make web pages. Did we know they intended to make a canteen website? Kind of. We just heard rumours, but there were no meetings called with IT Dept to discuss this.We were left completely out of the loop. We had no idea what transpired in their own internal project meetings. I mean, for one thing, how do they expect to upload their pages up to the server if we don't give them security rights in the first place? At the time the rumours started, some people in IT Dept were wondering just how they expect to put up a canteen website if they don't seek IT Dept's participation and help in the project. Mostly the attitude of the IT guys were "Oh well, we can wait for them to approach us". I mean, any sane, logical person would have approached IT Dept right? I guess we were all wrong.
So when it came to me (I'm the webmaster in case you didn't know), naturally I did a double take too. What training? Why? What was the scope of the training? Do they need to know Java? Do they need to know Macromedia Flash? Was RealMedia streaming required? So many questions... no answers...
So naturally I wrote back, wanted a meeting. They kept postponing the meeting until 3 weeks after the proposed training date. In fact one of the guys wanted to know why a meeting was necessary, after all they just needed web training (DUH!!).
During the meeting, I specifically asked them for the parameters of their proposed "website". Some of the things could easily be done. Some others had to be scrapped (we don't install ASP extensions for instance). All in all, I kept telling them that making a webpage is not a 10 minute job, especially for people untrained in web technologies. It'll probably take them 1 full day to do a page, and accompanied by lots of frustrations grappling with the web authoring software. The people he picked are those that I know for a fact are fully loaded with everyday work - Human Resource Execs, Purchasing Assistants, etc. You know, these are the people with the highest workload, and he is expecting them to take time out to spend 1 full day to make 1 page? And this project is not a one-time thing either - it's an on-going thing, for as long as he's around in the company I guess. Besides, I said, a system was already in place to submit web page contents up for posting on the Intranet. "No" he said. He flat out insisted they want to do it another way, bypassing the system. He hears, but he doesn't listen.
So against my better judgement I agreed to teach his people the basic stuff, since he kept insisting on it. Again I stressed to him, to pick people with less workload. He hears, but he doesn't listen.
When confirmation of attendees came to me, guess what? I realised he was making 3 websites, not just one. Again IT Dept did a double take - where in the world again was it mentioned he wanted to do 3 sites at one go? Are his people able to handle it? They are not IT savvy people, mind you. They are those kind of laymen that are afraid to touch the computer when a virus warning pops up, and they will call us to ask what they should do even though the only buttons on the screen were "Delete, Clean or Continue".
Throughout the meeting we had, he had ample opportunities to tell me he was planning 3 sites, not just one. At no time did he make any hints of other sites. At no time was I even aware of other sites. I was the one looking around the table, knowing the workload of each individual there. I knew he had made a bad choice to pick these people. Out of the 8 there, only 2 were somewhat web savvy. 1 was a student on attachment, the other does his own homepage. Everyone else was wet behind the ears, plus they have huge daily workloads. He hears but he does not listen. No changes were made to the web training attendance list.
By now I was also pretty pissed off that IT is always left out of the loop especially at the newest development of having 3 sites up instead of one. The feeling is almost the same as that you have been lied to.
After a few heated exchanges of email, where I kept asking him why he did not consult IT Dept, he finally called me an immature gook that does not understand "today's business environment" and signed off the childish way - "I'm not going to talk to you!". Yeah, and he's calling me immature? Hah! Yeah I admit, I do NOT understand *HIS* business environment, where he just wants YES men to say YES to him, and he does things without consulting the right department. As the email exchanges went on, his personality showed - this project was his baby and he wants it done THIS WAY, regardless of whether his people can cope, regardless of whether they have to stay back and do it, and he was not expecting anybody to say NO. Well, when it comes to me, I call them as I see them. If I see something wrong I voice out, I don't keep it with me. He probably is not accustomed to such "insubordinate" behaviour, where subordinates do not question his "authority". I truly pity the people under his charge, because most of them are women and they do not dare to say NO to him. One even complained that she had so much work already, yet he wants her to be part of the project.
I have a good mind not to turn up to train his guys, but I'm not going to impede their project just because their project leader is a jerk. I'm going to see *HIS* Manager and see if he can sort this guy out.
Man, I wish they'd invent a "Jerk-O-Meter" so that the HR can use this and filter out all the jerks way before they even joined the company.
From now on, I'm going to treat every new manager that joins my company as a jerk first, then when they have proven themselves to be able to "get with the program" will I change my view of them. Otherwise, they remain as "jerks" in my books.
14:45 by FoxTwo No, this will not be a piece to talk about the recent attacks on USA. This topic has been talked to death, in my opinion, and does not need to be repeated here. Instead, today I'll go on and rant about a specific detrimental behaviourial trait, especially in the office environment.
This trait shall be termed as "To Hear But Not To Listen". Yeah you know, some people, you keep telling them something, they don't listen. They just want to do it their way. They then turn around and tell the person who keeps telling them that they are "nagging" (like the joke goes - "I think my wife said I don't listen to her... or something like that").
In a corporate environment, this can and will definitely lead to conflicts. In most cases, the guy not listening is usually the boss. The people who keep warning him, are usually his subordinates. Naturally, they strike the pose of "who are you to tell me what to do?". Conflicts arise when the boss tells his people to do this and that etc etc even knowing (or disregarding) whatever current load they have.
Unlike most people, I do not fear bosses. I have always treated them like a person, hence, "reasonable". That is, until a few weeks ago. This new hire that just joined my company as a Purchasing Manager, was all gung-ho and ready to go. Good and bad. Good that he is full of enthusiasm. Bad that he does NOT listen.
Pretty soon after he came in, he decided to initiate a project to make a "website" on the company intranet for the canteen. Well, it's a strange project to say the least, but since he wanted it, not a problem. If he pulls it off, more power to him. Naturally I'd have thought he'd approach the internal IT Dept for advice and consultation, but NOOOOOOOooooo he did not. He went ahead and called a few meetings with his own troops, trashed everything out and all he said to IT Dept was "Hey guys now we want web training so that we can make a canteen website. Please get your webmaster down to train us on Tuesday".
As you can imagine, the whole IT Dept went "Huh? What?" Did we know what this guy had planned? Nope. All his guys ever asked was "Is it possible to make web pages with FrontPage?". What would our answer be? Of course it's a "Yes", that's what FrontPage is for, to make web pages. Did we know they intended to make a canteen website? Kind of. We just heard rumours, but there were no meetings called with IT Dept to discuss this.We were left completely out of the loop. We had no idea what transpired in their own internal project meetings. I mean, for one thing, how do they expect to upload their pages up to the server if we don't give them security rights in the first place? At the time the rumours started, some people in IT Dept were wondering just how they expect to put up a canteen website if they don't seek IT Dept's participation and help in the project. Mostly the attitude of the IT guys were "Oh well, we can wait for them to approach us". I mean, any sane, logical person would have approached IT Dept right? I guess we were all wrong.
So when it came to me (I'm the webmaster in case you didn't know), naturally I did a double take too. What training? Why? What was the scope of the training? Do they need to know Java? Do they need to know Macromedia Flash? Was RealMedia streaming required? So many questions... no answers...
So naturally I wrote back, wanted a meeting. They kept postponing the meeting until 3 weeks after the proposed training date. In fact one of the guys wanted to know why a meeting was necessary, after all they just needed web training (DUH!!).
During the meeting, I specifically asked them for the parameters of their proposed "website". Some of the things could easily be done. Some others had to be scrapped (we don't install ASP extensions for instance). All in all, I kept telling them that making a webpage is not a 10 minute job, especially for people untrained in web technologies. It'll probably take them 1 full day to do a page, and accompanied by lots of frustrations grappling with the web authoring software. The people he picked are those that I know for a fact are fully loaded with everyday work - Human Resource Execs, Purchasing Assistants, etc. You know, these are the people with the highest workload, and he is expecting them to take time out to spend 1 full day to make 1 page? And this project is not a one-time thing either - it's an on-going thing, for as long as he's around in the company I guess. Besides, I said, a system was already in place to submit web page contents up for posting on the Intranet. "No" he said. He flat out insisted they want to do it another way, bypassing the system. He hears, but he doesn't listen.
So against my better judgement I agreed to teach his people the basic stuff, since he kept insisting on it. Again I stressed to him, to pick people with less workload. He hears, but he doesn't listen.
When confirmation of attendees came to me, guess what? I realised he was making 3 websites, not just one. Again IT Dept did a double take - where in the world again was it mentioned he wanted to do 3 sites at one go? Are his people able to handle it? They are not IT savvy people, mind you. They are those kind of laymen that are afraid to touch the computer when a virus warning pops up, and they will call us to ask what they should do even though the only buttons on the screen were "Delete, Clean or Continue".
Throughout the meeting we had, he had ample opportunities to tell me he was planning 3 sites, not just one. At no time did he make any hints of other sites. At no time was I even aware of other sites. I was the one looking around the table, knowing the workload of each individual there. I knew he had made a bad choice to pick these people. Out of the 8 there, only 2 were somewhat web savvy. 1 was a student on attachment, the other does his own homepage. Everyone else was wet behind the ears, plus they have huge daily workloads. He hears but he does not listen. No changes were made to the web training attendance list.
By now I was also pretty pissed off that IT is always left out of the loop especially at the newest development of having 3 sites up instead of one. The feeling is almost the same as that you have been lied to.
After a few heated exchanges of email, where I kept asking him why he did not consult IT Dept, he finally called me an immature gook that does not understand "today's business environment" and signed off the childish way - "I'm not going to talk to you!". Yeah, and he's calling me immature? Hah! Yeah I admit, I do NOT understand *HIS* business environment, where he just wants YES men to say YES to him, and he does things without consulting the right department. As the email exchanges went on, his personality showed - this project was his baby and he wants it done THIS WAY, regardless of whether his people can cope, regardless of whether they have to stay back and do it, and he was not expecting anybody to say NO. Well, when it comes to me, I call them as I see them. If I see something wrong I voice out, I don't keep it with me. He probably is not accustomed to such "insubordinate" behaviour, where subordinates do not question his "authority". I truly pity the people under his charge, because most of them are women and they do not dare to say NO to him. One even complained that she had so much work already, yet he wants her to be part of the project.
I have a good mind not to turn up to train his guys, but I'm not going to impede their project just because their project leader is a jerk. I'm going to see *HIS* Manager and see if he can sort this guy out.
Man, I wish they'd invent a "Jerk-O-Meter" so that the HR can use this and filter out all the jerks way before they even joined the company.
From now on, I'm going to treat every new manager that joins my company as a jerk first, then when they have proven themselves to be able to "get with the program" will I change my view of them. Otherwise, they remain as "jerks" in my books.
