5 ms·

The point being made is that you are not "narcing to the cops before talking to the other party". The other party is a cop. You are at a massive disadvantage.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The option to escalate up doesn't go away simply because you've tried to right things privately. If someone with power over you wrongs you you should still make a good faith effort to reconcile it with them directly, they might not even know they've done so(!). I fail to see how the other party having power over you has any bearing on how the situation (beyond setting the norms of how you'd approach them about it or potentially limiting your communication channels to them, which would apply to any topic you approach them about regardless of if you've been wronged).
- user-the-name 5y ago
  It might be instructive for you to try to think of some situations where not making that effort might justified for yourself.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Such as? You clearly have something in mind. The only way I can see justifying the "narc first, negotiate later" approach is if I don't expect the "negotiate later" part to ever happen and am simply seeking to be a vindictive jerk and want to cause problems for them.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      No, I am asking you to engage with the argument in good faith, and making some token effort to understand what the argument actually is. And it should be obvious, to you, if you do engage in good faith, that the "simply seeking to be a vindictive jerk" is not the reason anyone would have to make this argument.
- enominezerum 5y ago
  The option to escalate can severely get compromised if you give your superior the opportunity to approach their superior first. Not only have you given your boss a chance to compromise your position but you won't have the rapport with their boss that they do. You are just a complaint and until there is a trend of these complaints they most likely will be handwaved away. Maybe you haven't been through the circlejerk enough but the politics of a place totally shoot down your argument. Oh, you know throwaway0a5e, they are a troublemaker. I have been trying to deal with some of their performance issues off the book to keep their record clean but you know don't like that and are now calling me out for whatever. You trust me, right boss?
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    If that boss is of the opinion that you unnecessarily escalated the situation, you can easily get the troublemaker label completely on your own, plus get some bad faith from the accused party if said boss talks to them. In my opinion, this depends a lot on the severity of the issue anyway. If we're talking about workload assignment or some comments, talking directly will be the best solution. If the issue is serious (sexual harassment, academic fraud etc), directly escalating is warranted.
phkahler 5y ago
The ability to appropriately negotiate/challenge/confront/reject authority is critical. It takes practice, you'll screw up, there will be consequences. But if you don't practice and learn this skill the hard way you'll be a victim your whole life.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

The option to escalate up doesn't go away simply because you've tried to right things privately. If someone with power over you wrongs you you should still make a good faith effort to reconcile it with them directly, they might not even know they've done so(!). I fail to see how the other party having power over you has any bearing on how the situation (beyond setting the norms of how you'd approach them about it or potentially limiting your communication channels to them, which would apply to any topic you approach them about regardless of if you've been wronged).

user-the-name 5y ago
It might be instructive for you to try to think of some situations where not making that effort might justified for yourself.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Such as? You clearly have something in mind. The only way I can see justifying the "narc first, negotiate later" approach is if I don't expect the "negotiate later" part to ever happen and am simply seeking to be a vindictive jerk and want to cause problems for them.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    No, I am asking you to engage with the argument in good faith, and making some token effort to understand what the argument actually is. And it should be obvious, to you, if you do engage in good faith, that the "simply seeking to be a vindictive jerk" is not the reason anyone would have to make this argument.
enominezerum 5y ago
The option to escalate can severely get compromised if you give your superior the opportunity to approach their superior first. Not only have you given your boss a chance to compromise your position but you won't have the rapport with their boss that they do. You are just a complaint and until there is a trend of these complaints they most likely will be handwaved away. Maybe you haven't been through the circlejerk enough but the politics of a place totally shoot down your argument. Oh, you know throwaway0a5e, they are a troublemaker. I have been trying to deal with some of their performance issues off the book to keep their record clean but you know don't like that and are now calling me out for whatever. You trust me, right boss?
- Sebb767 5y ago
  If that boss is of the opinion that you unnecessarily escalated the situation, you can easily get the troublemaker label completely on your own, plus get some bad faith from the accused party if said boss talks to them. In my opinion, this depends a lot on the severity of the issue anyway. If we're talking about workload assignment or some comments, talking directly will be the best solution. If the issue is serious (sexual harassment, academic fraud etc), directly escalating is warranted.

phkahler 5y ago

The ability to appropriately negotiate/challenge/confront/reject authority is critical. It takes practice, you'll screw up, there will be consequences. But if you don't practice and learn this skill the hard way you'll be a victim your whole life.