2 ms·

> You might want to tell yourself that your immediate boss who calls you every 30 minutes you are away from work is just ineffective, but if he was not deliveri

> You might want to tell yourself that your immediate boss who calls you every 30 minutes you are away from work is just ineffective, but if he was not delivering on what his boss wanted from him, he would be gone. Except in cases where: - That boss's boss is related to the CEO and is coasting / not at the wheel - That boss's boss is already looking for ways to let go of them - That boss's boss needs that boss in place for a while longer, due to other factors, but is still annoyed by the micromanagement - That boss's boss is intimidated by their underling and feels something bad might happen if they take action against the unwanted behavior I've seen all of the above and consulted management on a few of those as well. There are a million little ways in which the "system" (dynamic between a group of people at work) has achieved a form of control which is out of the grasp of the individual and in contravention of the ultimate boss's way of doing business. Specific interventions can completely change the dynamic, but the tendency is to blame the problem on individuals rather than emergent effects, which IMO makes individuals feel even more helpless. Usually something can be done.

subhobroto 6y ago
I don't get the "Except in cases where" because it feels like we are on the same page. Let me explain. > - That boss's boss is related to the CEO and is coasting / not at the wheel i.e. the boss is paying for the behavior they want to see. > - That boss's boss is already looking for ways to let go of him then it's a solved problem - unless the boss's boss continues to look for ways to let go for months on end, in which case really, again, the boss is paying for the behavior they want to see > - That boss's boss needs him in place for a while longer, due to other factors, but is still annoyed by the micromanagement i.e. the boss is paying for the behavior they want to see "annoyed"? It seems like the value is "needs him in place for a while longer" and all the "annoyance" does is affect that somewhat. Can we measure the effect of the "annoyance" on the decision? Let's see: If I have a racist employee and their racism "annoys" me, I still am supporting racism with my dollars. Otherwise, real action is: ask them to move on. If I have a noisy neighbor and their noise "annoys" me, I still am supporting their behavior with my dollars. The real action would be: I move/ I ask them to move, or take them to court while getting an stay order to ensure the noise is constrained while the matter is settled. At a previous apartment, there was a stay at home mom above mine who would begin her aggressive yoga and home gymnastics at 5AM and end at 9AM. Constant pounding. I spoke with her first and she felt the gym in the complex was too crowded for her. I recorded her activities from below in my room, sent it to the office, yelp, facebook for the complex, broke my lease and moved. Life is too short for nonsense. > - That boss's boss is intimidated by his underling and feels something bad might happen if he takes action against the unwanted behavior i.e. the boss is paying for the behavior they want to see I feel there's some sympathy for the boss, almost as if they were misguided children. Adults are not children. If your boss behaves like a child it's time to have a conversation. Depending on your specific situation that conversation might very well be with a new company.

subhobroto 6y ago

I don't get the "Except in cases where" because it feels like we are on the same page. Let me explain. > - That boss's boss is related to the CEO and is coasting / not at the wheel i.e. the boss is paying for the behavior they want to see. > - That boss's boss is already looking for ways to let go of him then it's a solved problem - unless the boss's boss continues to look for ways to let go for months on end, in which case really, again, the boss is paying for the behavior they want to see > - That boss's boss needs him in place for a while longer, due to other factors, but is still annoyed by the micromanagement i.e. the boss is paying for the behavior they want to see "annoyed"? It seems like the value is "needs him in place for a while longer" and all the "annoyance" does is affect that somewhat. Can we measure the effect of the "annoyance" on the decision? Let's see: If I have a racist employee and their racism "annoys" me, I still am supporting racism with my dollars. Otherwise, real action is: ask them to move on. If I have a noisy neighbor and their noise "annoys" me, I still am supporting their behavior with my dollars. The real action would be: I move/ I ask them to move, or take them to court while getting an stay order to ensure the noise is constrained while the matter is settled. At a previous apartment, there was a stay at home mom above mine who would begin her aggressive yoga and home gymnastics at 5AM and end at 9AM. Constant pounding. I spoke with her first and she felt the gym in the complex was too crowded for her. I recorded her activities from below in my room, sent it to the office, yelp, facebook for the complex, broke my lease and moved. Life is too short for nonsense. > - That boss's boss is intimidated by his underling and feels something bad might happen if he takes action against the unwanted behavior i.e. the boss is paying for the behavior they want to see I feel there's some sympathy for the boss, almost as if they were misguided children. Adults are not children. If your boss behaves like a child it's time to have a conversation. Depending on your specific situation that conversation might very well be with a new company.