Current case : no one wins . Supervisor sees a snake in the grass going around validating with colleagues. Someone pulling against them. Not agreeing .
In this case, the checking-in with colleagues (they were in a team meeting at the time of the incident) is part of the fair process approach that the supervisor has introduced and encouraged. The colleague did what was expected of them in this scenario, to check their position and apologise if necessary.
Scenario 2 rarely happens. As I was saying to a third ex-colleague the other day, the trouble is that the supervisors get to defend themselves directly, whilst their subordinates don't. In this current case, the company is going through "structural changes" and the supervisor is part of the leadership team making decisions.
It is actually interesting, as though a third-party and only hearing one side of this current case, I have seen it play out directly several times before. What was strange in this case (not mentioned above) is that it wasn't actually a thing the ex-colleague did, it was that they said they didn't know the answer to something in a team meeting. In a 1-1, they were then told that it would have resulted to a written warning if they had been in Finland. This is not true - written warnings are very rare and reserved for things like turning up to work sloshed.
You say they are probably more right than wrong most of the time which is the key .
Yes it is, especially for money-making activities. The role however isn't one of those - it is about relationship building and over the last couple years, a person who had built a lot of "relationship capital" has spent it all to the point that even friends are distancing. There is obviously something else going on in the background.
When it comes to intelligence, the supervisor is very good at some parts of planning, very poor at others. It is a bit like having someone who is autistic managing people. They are hyper-reactive to their own emotions, without reading the emotions of others well.
I like having your insight here, especially since it is based on only a little bit of information as I can't put the full conversation and details in.
Do what the bosses says and you will go far .
In most cases I would agree, but I also have my own personal boundaries and ethics, and an aversion to authority. Going far doesn't get the stank of brown off the nose. For some, going far might be all that matters.
When it comes to organisational changes though and when people pushback against "their job changing", I remind them that it is not their job, they are filling a role as an employee and if they were just coming into the organisation that had just changed, it would be accepted. Do what is instructed and move on, or don't and move on and out.
the supervisors get to defend themselves directly, whilst their subordinates don't Exactly my point , so better for the staff to be rowing in the right direction which is more of a reason to do what is asked whether right or wrong. Now this is all under a I presumption that it is above board morally and professionally
an aversion to authority …….. and that my friend is the crux of the matter here. I have morals and standards too and luckily nobody asked me to do anything dodgy but there is a point where you just have to go with the flow and learn when to keep the mouth shut for the good of your career. There are many stupid decisions made by bosses the world over . The key is not to get burnt by them . Best to say nothing in my opinion and sometimes silence is powerful. Leave someone else take the fall.
There’s a lot to be said about brown nosing . It has a certain stigma which I find amusing . A colleague of mine once told me that brown nosing was the ultimate show of emotional intelligence. And I tend to agree. What’s the fastest way to more money and your mortgage paid off ? Butter up that guy or girl . Sign me up. It’s only a job . Your goal is money and that’s it.
Great post by the way. Love the discussion . Just coming at it from an employer angle. I have arguments with my wife about things so I get your points. 😂
The problem in this case (and my own direct past observations) is that it was nothing to do with not doing what was asked, it was just a comment in a team meeting that triggered it. The colleague feels they are being setup for failure, which I agree with. Which means that following the set process on how to handle it is the way to go. They are doing what the supervisor wants by going to the colleagues.
My aversion to authority definitely played a role in me leaving the company. However, the far bigger issue was my perceived health. Assumptions were made that were far from correct, but I was never able to speak for myself. I was in the midst of changing roles and would have had a different supervisor who had a clear understanding of the situation and things would have been far better. Having said that, the company is now having "change negotiations" and the department that is up for the most change, is that of my ex-supervisor. It looks like they will keep their role, but unsure how many of the team will be left.
For my consultancy (where me asshole boss [me] gets to make all the decisions), I spend a lot of time with companies planning different changes and dealing with employees. There are definitely better and worse ways and my advice to the majority of employees is, to go along with the changes, as it is just a job. There are limits though, and there are also differences if the person is looking to advance in the organization, because that can require more strategy. In the current climate here with 11% unemployment, just do the job, whatever it is.