Bullshit management practices (FED) Forum

[Anonymous User]

Wait I'm genuinely confused- to all those saying I didn't handle it well, what would have been the right way to handle it?

And also what was wrong with what I did? (I didn't go over anyone's head, or complain about anyone, I just spoke to the person in charge at that time to ask what to do)

[jchiles]

It doesn't matter if you were right or wrong if it pisses off your supervisor. I think she was wrong to call you "unethical" but my opinion counts for literally nothing in a dispute between you and your employer.

[Danger Zone]

You overreacted and you did so in an email. Phone calls or face to face are always better for difficult conversations (like those relating to your performance). And then you pushed the matter again with your supervisor in an attempt to convince her you were right. It shows immaturity and a lack of self awareness.

[mjb447]

I don't know what agency you're at, and it sounds like you were in a bad situation where it may not have been possible to keep your job regardless of what you did, but you probably made things worse for yourself (may have accelerated the process of being fired, burned bridges, etc.). You're a very new employee who may be underperforming - you're not in a position to win a fight with your supervisor, even if she says the sky is green.

[Anonymous User]

You overreacted and you did so in an email. Phone calls or face to face are always better for difficult conversations (like those relating to your performance). And then you pushed the matter again with your supervisor in an attempt to convince her you were right. It shows immaturity and a lack of self awareness.

How is it an overreaction? If I'm in danger of not meeting the production requirement isn't that serious? What would have been the appropriate reaction?

This is a genuine question, I want to understand.

[Danger Zone]

I'm not trying to be a dick, but you need to take the L and move on. You can't just keep arguing that what you did was the right move.

[Anonymous User]

I'm not trying to be a dick, but you need to take the L and move on. You can't just keep arguing that what you did was the right move.

I wasn't challenging your opinion I was trying to understand it. The whole reason I posted on this forum was to get some perspective. You're not obligated to explain but it would've been helpful.

[Rowinguy2009]

It sounds like you were in a rock and a hard place type situation - I think people are perhaps piling on you a little bit more than is fair given that we don't know the specifics of what was in your email and how you handled yourself with your supervisor. Based on what we know, maybe you handled it great and your supervisor is a completely unreasonable ass. Maybe you handled it awfully and got what was coming to you. Maybe things were somewhere in between those two extremes. It seems like your reaction made a shitty situation even worse, which is why people are criticizing you.

Either way it happened and TLS opinions don't matter. Learn what you can from this situation (about both this specific office and office politics in general) and move on. If your current office, and standing within that office, is really destroyed then make finding a new job a priority. If you think this is salvageable (and you want to salvage it) then try to make things work. I think right now the "put your head down and do good work" approach is 100% the right one. Maybe, maaaybe if the timing becomes right you can apologize to your supervisor for what happened (whether you think you were in the wrong or not, you are on the low end of the totem pole so you should be the one to apologize) and express that you want to do better and would like to improve everything going forward.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Phone calls or face to face are always better for difficult conversations (like those relating to your performance).

For going forward, I agree with this.

[jess]

.

[rpupkin]

Phone calls or face to face are always better for difficult conversations (like those relating to your performance).

For going forward, I agree with this.

I agree as well. Also, OP, this is concerning:

I went into the conversation determined for this not to happen. I knew she would try to be evasive and I told myself to STICK to my points and make sure she doesn't divert. I planned to corner her. But in the end she won and I feel like a failure. I failed at this conversation.

You did fail at the conversation, but not for the reasons you think.

You entered the conversation with the goal of making points and winning arguments. That's an appropriate attitude for an adversarial court hearing, but it's a terrible approach for dealing with a supervisor (or any co-worker, for that matter). There's nothing wrong with telling your supervisor about your concerns, but, if your supervisor doesn't respond how you hoped, the right play is to do your best to understand your supervisor's perspective, making sure to conclude the conversation on a conciliatory, non-confrontational note.

As someone else said, treat this as a learning experience. If you can't figure out the above, you'll struggle in every professional environment.

Good luck.

[encore1101]

Phone calls or face to face are always better for difficult conversations (like those relating to your performance).

For going forward, I agree with this.

I agree as well. Also, OP, this is concerning:

I went into the conversation determined for this not to happen. I knew she would try to be evasive and I told myself to STICK to my points and make sure she doesn't divert. I planned to corner her. But in the end she won and I feel like a failure. I failed at this conversation.

You did fail at the conversation, but not for the reasons you think.

You entered the conversation with the goal of making points and winning arguments. That's an appropriate attitude for an adversarial court hearing, but it's a terrible approach for dealing with a supervisor (or any co-worker, for that matter). There's nothing wrong with telling your supervisor about your concerns, but, if your supervisor doesn't respond how you hoped, the right play is to do your best to understand your supervisor's perspective, making sure to conclude the conversation on a conciliatory, non-confrontational note.

As someone else said, treat this as a learning experience. If you can't figure out the above, you'll struggle in every professional environment.

Good luck.

Damn, mic drop.

What you should do next time:

a) everything rpupkin said.

b) Next time you're notified that your work, which must be reviewed by someone else, is lower than required for any defined time period, coordinate with that reviewer. You should have let that person know that you plan on submitting more work than usual in September to make numbers. You guys could have coordinated something or worked something out.

c) Relatedly, follow the chain of command. You should have spoke to your senior counsel first, then your supervisor only if SC didn't address your concerns. You shouldn't have addressed a personnel person to a temp person, UNLESS that temp person was your supervisor's supervisor. Otherwise, that temp person probably did not have the authority to act in your supervisor's stead as to your concern.

d) You say that you didn't intend to question SC, but you implicitly did. He's probably been at the agency for years. Even if you didn't know he was going on vacation and didn't tell him beforehand (but you should have [see b]), I'm sure he's taken a long vacation and came home to a desk covered in assignments before. You should have explained the situation to him then.

I don't know how strict the probationary period is, but I'm guessing they could have looked past that you didn't meet your numbers by a little bit, or keep you on probation a few months longer. Fitness with the office would not be looked over, though.

[Anonymous User]

Err... I see what you guys are saying and some of you make good points. But on the other side, I'm pretty surprised that none of you think anything that happened was unfair, including a policy that penalizes person A for what person B does.

[foregetaboutdre]

Err... I see what you guys are saying and some of you make good points. But on the other side, I'm pretty surprised that none of you think anything that happened was unfair, including a policy that penalizes person A for what person B does.

It is (most likely) unfair. BUT, in reality, in any job your supervisor is correct ALL OF THE TIME even if they're completely wrong (barring them making you do something unethical etc...) It is simply not worth it to argue about why they are wrong or put a strenuous effort in teaching your supervisor why they are wrong (unless you are a more senior employee, are 100% going to get fired for your decision, or if the supervisor's conclusion will severely hurt the organization etc...)As a new employee, just roll with the punches, come to work with a smile, and try to meet deadlines.

It is not super intuitive to some people, but trust me taking this approach to any job (and almost especially government where there are tons of irrational rules/practices) will help you out in the long run.

[encore1101]

Err... I see what you guys are saying and some of you make good points. But on the other side, I'm pretty surprised that none of you think anything that happened was unfair, including a policy that penalizes person A for what person B does.

Oh its super unfair and the fairness of the situation might have come into play if you were a unionized employee. Unfortunately, you are/were a probationary employee. Whether it was fair or not, unfortunately won't undo what happened.

Trust me, this won't be the last time you encounter an unfair situation or get punished for a supervisor fuck-up. I practice appellate law and I get reamed by judges because of stuff the trial attorney did. You just gotta take it.

To quote my favorite professional wrestling chairman, sometimes you have to learn to love the taste of a shit sandwich.

[mjb447]

Trust me, this won't be the last time you encounter an unfair situation or get punished for a supervisor fuck-up. I practice appellate law and I get reamed by judges because of stuff the trial attorney did. You just gotta take it.

To quote my favorite professional wrestling chairman, sometimes you have to learn to love the taste of a shit sandwich.

Yeah, if your problem is mostly with policies that "penalize[] person A for what person B does," you'd better figure out how to deal with it, because they basically define professional life. "Sorry I didn't get my work done by the deadline; it's because my supervisor/employee/client didn't do X" isn't often going to work as an excuse, even if it's a fair characterization. (Of course, if you were correct about the consequences of this particular rule, it does seem to be on the "less fair" side of the spectrum.)

[A. Nony Mouse]

I guess I have a hard time believing that there isn't also a requirement that the person submitting to the senior counsel manage their time/production such that absence of the senior counsel isn't going make you miss the requirement. Not that the federal government isn't capable of being completely dysfunctional and inefficient, of course.

[Danger Zone]

TLS