6 ms·

You could call it transparency. It's vastly better to have someone make you aware of what's up than blindside you or gaslight you by giving contradictory inform

You could call it transparency. It's vastly better to have someone make you aware of what's up than blindside you or gaslight you by giving contradictory information/demands.

Grimm1 6y ago
Or you know, have a meeting where your manager directly discusses the issue with you like an adult.
- throwanem 6y ago
  Yeah, exactly. It's pretty wild to see "transparency" invoked in the context of literally talking behind someone's back.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    Yeah I did a double take there. I personally believe that someone with that management methodology is entirely unfit for their position.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    "Literally" talking behind someone's back, as you put it, is not talking behind someone's back, in the normal sense. So what's wild about calling it transparent?
    - throwanem 6y ago
      The wild part is the part where somebody plays high-school head games, instead of acting like a competent adult does and being forthright about whatever issue there is at hand. I mean, I don't know what your interpersonal relationships in life have given you to consider a normal and healthy way for people to interact for one another. But I can absolutely tell you that what we're talking about here is neither of those.
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        I haven't experienced the OP's described behavior that I recall. I was trying to make a clear contrast with behavior that is much worse, which I have experienced a lot. If you're having such a hostile reaction, should I suspect you think the "much worse" behavior is normal and healthy?
        throwanem 6y ago
        Not at all. You're right that there are much worse behaviors than the one under discussion, but there's still a vast qualitative difference between "not as bad as it might be" and good.
jlj 6y ago
> You could call it transparency Nope. 100% passive aggressive, toxic behavior.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  It matters a great deal whether someone is doing something to deceive or confuse. So whether it's toxic behavior depends on context. If someone is reliable and trustworthy in their communication, then calling them "toxic" because you don't like the style is just wrong. Conversely, someone can tell you all day every day how honest and straightforward they are, but if they aren't consistent or trustworthy, then their communication style is irrelevant.
  - jlj 6y ago
    The behavior is toxic. It doesn't matter the intent or context. It is passive aggressive, period. At best, it is someone who is scared to have difficult conversations. At worst, who knows.. I've slowly learned not to try and rationalize what makes people like that tick. It's their issue, not mine.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    The point is that there's nothing reliable or trustworthy about passing veiled, pointed comments behind someone's back and expecting them to read your meaning out of context and circumstance, rather than just stating your concerns directly. Such behavior fails to offer the report a fair chance to know what's expected of them and, presumably, how they're not meeting those expectations. It has much more in common with the kind of dysfunctional communication you see in unhappy marriages, than with anything I require of a manager - or, should I eventually join management myself, with anything I'll provide my own reports. That's what "toxic" is a shorthand for. Yeah, I'll grant it might be consistent. But to be consistently bad isn't, you know, not bad. Being able to predict the bullshit that is going to happen doesn't make the bullshit not happen. It just means you can see it coming. I'll concede there may be reasons to tolerate it, if the benefits of the job outweigh the bullshit. But that doesn't make it not bullshit. (And, as a side note, anyone who talks about how honest or straightforward they are - that's a big yikes from me, chief. People who are legitimately honest and straightforward don't need to talk about having those traits, because their behavior reflects them. People who do need to talk about having those traits are, in my experience, very likely to be trying to cover their lack.)
joncrane 6y ago
It's still gaslighting if you are threatening to fire people but not actually firing anyone.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  My point was that the form of communication doesn't matter so much as the context. I agree that you can assume a context that implies it was bad.

You could call it transparency. It's vastly better to have someone make you aware of what's up than blindside you or gaslight you by giving contradictory information/demands.

Grimm1 6y ago

Or you know, have a meeting where your manager directly discusses the issue with you like an adult.

throwanem 6y ago
Yeah, exactly. It's pretty wild to see "transparency" invoked in the context of literally talking behind someone's back.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  Yeah I did a double take there. I personally believe that someone with that management methodology is entirely unfit for their position.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  "Literally" talking behind someone's back, as you put it, is not talking behind someone's back, in the normal sense. So what's wild about calling it transparent?
  - throwanem 6y ago
    The wild part is the part where somebody plays high-school head games, instead of acting like a competent adult does and being forthright about whatever issue there is at hand. I mean, I don't know what your interpersonal relationships in life have given you to consider a normal and healthy way for people to interact for one another. But I can absolutely tell you that what we're talking about here is neither of those.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      I haven't experienced the OP's described behavior that I recall. I was trying to make a clear contrast with behavior that is much worse, which I have experienced a lot. If you're having such a hostile reaction, should I suspect you think the "much worse" behavior is normal and healthy?
      - throwanem 6y ago
        Not at all. You're right that there are much worse behaviors than the one under discussion, but there's still a vast qualitative difference between "not as bad as it might be" and good.

jlj 6y ago

> You could call it transparency Nope. 100% passive aggressive, toxic behavior.

perl4ever 6y ago
It matters a great deal whether someone is doing something to deceive or confuse. So whether it's toxic behavior depends on context. If someone is reliable and trustworthy in their communication, then calling them "toxic" because you don't like the style is just wrong. Conversely, someone can tell you all day every day how honest and straightforward they are, but if they aren't consistent or trustworthy, then their communication style is irrelevant.
- jlj 6y ago
  The behavior is toxic. It doesn't matter the intent or context. It is passive aggressive, period. At best, it is someone who is scared to have difficult conversations. At worst, who knows.. I've slowly learned not to try and rationalize what makes people like that tick. It's their issue, not mine.
- throwanem 6y ago
  The point is that there's nothing reliable or trustworthy about passing veiled, pointed comments behind someone's back and expecting them to read your meaning out of context and circumstance, rather than just stating your concerns directly. Such behavior fails to offer the report a fair chance to know what's expected of them and, presumably, how they're not meeting those expectations. It has much more in common with the kind of dysfunctional communication you see in unhappy marriages, than with anything I require of a manager - or, should I eventually join management myself, with anything I'll provide my own reports. That's what "toxic" is a shorthand for. Yeah, I'll grant it might be consistent. But to be consistently bad isn't, you know, not bad. Being able to predict the bullshit that is going to happen doesn't make the bullshit not happen. It just means you can see it coming. I'll concede there may be reasons to tolerate it, if the benefits of the job outweigh the bullshit. But that doesn't make it not bullshit. (And, as a side note, anyone who talks about how honest or straightforward they are - that's a big yikes from me, chief. People who are legitimately honest and straightforward don't need to talk about having those traits, because their behavior reflects them. People who do need to talk about having those traits are, in my experience, very likely to be trying to cover their lack.)

joncrane 6y ago

It's still gaslighting if you are threatening to fire people but not actually firing anyone.

perl4ever 6y ago
My point was that the form of communication doesn't matter so much as the context. I agree that you can assume a context that implies it was bad.